Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, Volume 62 (2024)
Author: Daniel C. Peterson et al
Date: 2025-07-08T06:00:00+00:00
Keywords: The Interpreter Foundation; apologetics; Book of Mormon; Pearl of Great Price; Bible; Doctrine and Covenants; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; LDS; Mormonism
Description: This is volume 62 of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship published by The Interpreter Foundation. It contains articles on a variety of topics.

Interpreter

A Journal of Latter-day Saint

Faith and Scholarship

Volume 62

The Interpreter Foundation

Board of Directors

Daniel C. Peterson, President

Steven T. Densley Jr., Executive Vice President

Allen Wyatt, Vice President of Operations

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Vice President of Special Projects

Larry K. Ainsworth

Matthew L. Bowen

Kristine Wardle Frederickson

James R. Graham

Jeffrey Dean Lindsay

Shirley Smith Ricks

Management

Kent Flack, Assistant Treasurer

Deborah Peterson, Secretary/Treasurer

Communications Advisor

Newell D. Wright

Board of Advisors

Kevin Christensen

Louis C. Midgley

Gregory L. Smith

Ed Snow

Ted Vaggalis

Contributing Editors

Robert S. Boylan

Jennifer C. Lane

David J. Larsen

Ugo A. Perego

Kyler Rasmussen

Stephen D. Ricks

Lynne Hilton Wilson

Mark Alan Wright

Board of Editors

David M. Calabro

Craig L. Foster

Taylor Halverson

Benjamin L. McGuire

Martin S. Tanner

Bryan J. Thomas

A. Keith Thompson

John S. Thompson

Typesetting

Emily Rogers

Media and Technology

Tyler R. Moulton

Kyler Rasmussen

Russell D. Richins

Alan Sikes

Kimberley Sorenson

Interpreter Advisory Committee

Larry K. Ainsworth, Chairman

Legal Advisor

K. Paul MacArthur

The Interpreter Foundation

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship

Editorial Management

Daniel C. Peterson, Editor

Allen Wyatt, Managing Editor

Jeffrey Dean Lindsay, Executive Editor

Godfrey Ellis, Executive Editor

Tanya Spackman, Editorial Services Manager

Source Checking

Eden Buchert

Deidre Marlowe

Elizabeth Wyatt

Copy Editing

Verlanne Johnson

Julie Russell

Kaitlin Cooper Swift

Audio Production

Richard Flygare

Victor Worth

Interpreter Radio

Martin S. Tanner, Producer

Robert Boylan

Don Bradley

Kevin Christensen

Steven T. Densley Jr.

Kristine Wardle Frederickson

John Gee

Terry Hutchinson

Mark Johnson

Spencer Kraus

Daniel C. Peterson

Brent Schmidt

Stephen Smoot

S. Hales Swift

John S. Thompson

Bruce Webster

© 2024 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 creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

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

It Helps to Have a Village

Daniel C. Peterson vii

“I Shall Gather In”: The Name Joseph, Iterative Divine Action, and the Latter-day Harvest Ingathering of Israel as Themes in 3 Nephi

Matthew L. Bowen 1

Nameless: Mormon’s Dramatic Use of Omission in Helaman 2

Nathan J. Arp 39

LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?

Blake T. Ostler 65

The Anomaly: Elliott West’s Continental Reckoning and its Latter-day Saints

Robert Swanson 97

Uncanonized Revelations

Kent P. Jackson 103

Nurture and Harvest: A Continued Conversation with The Annotated Book of Mormon

Kevin Christensen 109

Did Korihor Usurp the Words of Zeniff?

Elliott Jolley 211

Insights into the Story of Korihor Based on Intertextual Comparisons

Noel Hudson 223

“That They May Know That They Are Not Cast Off Forever”: Jewish Lectionary Elements in the Book of Mormon

Bradley J. Kramer 243

Restoring Melchizedek Priesthood

John S. Thompson 263

The Man with No Name: The Story of the Brother of Jared as an Anti-Babel Polemic

Walker Wright 319

Aftermath of the Martyrdom: Aspirants to the Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Smith

R. Jean Addams 335

A Model for Looking Deeply and Deeply Looking

Godfrey J. Ellis 403

More Evidence for Alma as a Semitic Name

Neal Rappleye and Allen Hansen 415

Accessing Nephi’s Bountiful: A New Proposal for Reaching Irreantum

Warren P. Aston 429

The Pathophysiology of the Death of Jesus the Christ

C. Thomas Black 439

It Helps to Have a Village

Daniel C. Peterson

Abstract: In preparing the next generation, it really is helpful when parents don’t stand alone and they have the help of others outside the family. This is one of the reasons why the seemingly growing gulf between gospel values and the values of the societies around us is such a cause for concern: “The truths and values we embrace are mocked on ev’ry hand.”1 All of us have benefited from innumerable influences—from teachers in and out of the Church, from writers, from youth leaders, from coaches, from role models of all kinds. We may even have forgotten many of those influences, and, no doubt, many of those who have influenced us are unaware of the impact that they’ve had. We should be trying as hard as we can to see that we pass on the gifts that we’ve been given, to do for others what has been done for us. Indeed, we should try to multiply those gifts. “Pay it forward,” goes the currently fashionable (and very admirable) slogan. “Freely ye have received,” commands the Savior, “freely give” (Matthew 10:8).

Occasionally, I fall into a reminiscent mood. It’s probably part of my advancing age and a precursor of my approaching, inevitable demise. Barring some unforeseen and unprecedented medical miracle, much more of my life—much more, even, of my adult life—is behind me than lies before me. Many of the people who most formed my life and who (for good or ill) most shaped my personality and character have now moved on. This thought really sobers me.

I was born and raised in southern California, the youngest in a religiously tepid and denominationally divided home. I had one half-brother (though I, at least, never thought of him as a half-brother) who was ten years older than I. My mother had grown up in southern Utah, in St. George, in a marginally Latter-day Saint family (with an often-absentee father whose somewhat migratory principal occupation was sheep-shearing). My father was a non-practicing Lutheran who had grown up on a farm in rural North Dakota.2

They were children of the Depression who then lived through World War II. My mother had left St. George soon after her high school graduation, seeking work in Los Angeles. My father had also come to Los Angeles, following in the footsteps of an older brother who found work in the booming construction industry of southern California. My parents met several years after his service on the European continent as a non-commissioned officer in the Eleventh Armored Division of General George S. Patton’s Third Army. By the time of their meeting, my father and one of his younger brothers had started their own paving and grading company, which was a significant element of the environment in which I grew up. (For several years, I knew the company’s mechanic as “Uncle Warren,” and I believed that I had other uncles named Joe, Frank, Hank, Charley, and Tino. Happily, I never entirely outgrew the feeling that we were family.)

Both of my parents were highly intelligent; neither could be remotely considered an intellectual. They hadn’t been raised to be such and, although they probably enjoyed reading more than most in their circles, their lives afforded them little opportunity to indulge in “bookishness.” Books were for your spare time, if you ever had any. By strange contrast, from my earliest memory, books were as essential for me as breathing. I devoted scores and scores of hours to poring over articles in the World Book Encyclopedia that my mother purchased from a traveling salesman.

After some time spent quite out of harmony with the Church, my brother transferred to Brigham Young University for his final undergraduate year. He then went on to earn a night-school law degree while working in the family construction business, of which he eventually assumed control after the death of my uncle and the retirement of my father. For some reason, nobody ever seriously considered the possibility of my permanently joining the business. I suppose it was plainly obvious that I wasn’t cut out to be a paving and grading contractor. Instead, I’ve become the kind of “doctor” for whom nobody ever desperately cries out when there’s an emergency. I once threatened my department chairman, warning him that, unless I received a substantial salary increase, I intended to leave the university and open a lucrative consulting business on eleventh-century Arabic Neoplatonic philosophy. He laughed without any trace of concern, and I was given no additional salary boost.

My parents were, however, surprisingly supportive of my life as what, at first, seemed a perpetual student and, later, as an academic. Still, while my college-educated brother endorsed my choice of career, I’m not sure that my family ever really understood it. Nor did several in my extended family: A blunt-spoken maternal uncle, a farmer, citing the venerable adage that “those who can, do, while those who can’t, teach,” urged me on one occasion to take up welding, which, he explained, is a real skill, and a useful one. My parents called me one night after I had been teaching at Brigham Young University for a couple of years to tell me—I think this was my mother’s idea, rather than my father’s—that, if I ever decided to go to law school, they would be more than willing to pay my expenses.

And, frankly, I had always been intrigued by the law. But I quickly realized that, if I went the “legal route,” it would be to go into the academic side of it all, not the really lucrative side. Constitutional law interested me. So, too, did the philosophy of law, or jurisprudence. Tax law, though? Or corporate law? Not at all. In other words, I would have become a law professor. I think my mother would have remained perplexed—gently and lovingly and mostly silently disappointed, but disappointed nonetheless.3

It was obvious to even the most casual observer that I had heard the siren call of a quite different career. One summer, when I was about thirteen or fourteen years of age, it occurred to a kindly couple in my home ward in San Gabriel, California—Tom and Mary Simmons—that I might enjoy BYU Education Week. (I had never so much as heard of BYU Education Week, but they were more right than they could have known.) So they invited me to come with them when Education Week was being held not far away, in either—I don’t recall which—Covina or West Covina.4 On the roster that summer, for the program that I attended, were such lights as Hugh Nibley, Truman Madsen, Daniel Ludlow, and—believe it or not—Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who was still a member of what was then called the First Council of the Seventy. At that point, from having heard him speak in General Conference, Elder McConkie was the only speaker with whom I was to any degree familiar; I may already have been vaguely aware of Hugh Nibley, but I’m not quite sure.

I cannot overstate the impact that my experience at that Education Week had on me; it changed the direction of my life. Thinking of it now, in fact, I can’t help but think of a very famous poem (“On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer”) written by John Keats, then only twenty years old. He composed it immediately after being introduced to the translations of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey done two centuries earlier by the Elizabethan poet George Chapman. Of their effect upon him, Keats wrote:

Much have I travell’d in the realms of gold,
And many goodly states and kingdoms seen;
Round many western islands have I been
Which bards in fealty to Apollo hold.
Oft of one wide expanse had I been told
That deep-brow’d Homer ruled as his demesne;
Yet did I never breathe its pure serene
Till I heard Chapman speak out loud and bold:
Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken;
Or like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes
He star’d at the Pacific—and all his men
Look’d at each other with a wild surmise—
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.5

Before that Education Week, I never had any real glimpse of the inexhaustible depth and intellectual fascination of the restored gospel; I had only recently become really interested in the claims of the Church. As I said, I had grown up with a non-member father and a marginally active mother who, I think, mostly attended Church, when she did, because she enjoyed the people and partly because it gave her social contacts with fellow émigrés (including some relatives) from Utah. I can’t recall ever having had Family Home Evening or family prayer or scripture reading or even discussions of the gospel in our home during my childhood. And, although I had a wide circle of friends in elementary school and high school, very few if any of them were Latter-day Saints.

Truman Madsen gave four nightly lectures. I blundered into the first lecture but, thereafter, made absolutely sure to attend the next three. Two were on “Existentialism” and “Logical Positivism.” I don’t recall the other pair of titles; “Marxism” might have been one of them. I sat spellbound. Hugh Nibley also spoke four times, and I was mesmerized. I don’t even recall his topics; I think that I remember his talking about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Specific details of that Education Week are lost to me, but the effect remains. This was a rich intellectual and spiritual feast quite unlike my weekly experiences in sacrament meeting, Sunday school, and priesthood quorum lessons. It opened a whole new world to me. Truman Madsen and Hugh Nibley were enormous formative influences on me from then on. Their impact came into my life at a time when I was ready to receive such influences. Moreover, my interests today still reflect the continuing legacy of those early formative experiences. My forays into philosophy and the history of philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion, echo my early exposure to Truman Madsen. (It is, I readily admit, a pallid echo.) My excursions into antiquity and the medieval world, and particularly into the pre-modern Middle East, are a direct result of the influence of Hugh Nibley. I subscribed to BYU Studies right there at Education Week as an early teen, and I eagerly devoured each issue as it arrived. I still subscribe today.

I’m grateful to say that Truman Madsen and his wife, Ann, ultimately became friends and, to a somewhat lesser degree of familiarity, so did Hugh and Phyllis Nibley. They never disappointed me. In everything I saw of them, they were wholly committed believers, dedicated intellectually and spiritually and in every other way to the restored gospel.

While I’m at it, a funny story: During my first freshman semester at BYU, I was enrolled in one of Truman Madsen’s classes. I was still star-struck, but I went once to his office to ask him a question that I no longer recall. As I was waiting to speak to him—he was talking about something fairly substantial to somebody else—he suddenly realized that he had parked his car in a spot where it would become illegal within just a minute or so. He turned to me: “Could you please move my car?” Surprised, I nodded that, yes, I could. He reached into his pocket and tossed me the keys, telling me where his car was and what it looked like. Thrilled to be of service to someone whom I so admired, I trotted outside, opened his car, and discovered that it had a manual transmission. I had turned seventeen not all that long before and, at that time, had never driven a car with a “stick shift.” However, I managed to move it to a better parking place nearby, though not without a few jerks and stalls that probably amused anyone looking on. I then returned his keys to him, and he was very gracious in talking with a lowly first-semester freshman groupie. It was my first direct personal contact with the great man. I’ve never forgotten it; I like to think that he did, though. (It’s amazing to me, by the way, to realize that he was much, much younger that day than I am now.)

Why do I relate these experiences? The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard is often credited with the insight that “life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards.”6 Anyway, had it not been for that invitation to Education Week—thank you, Tom and Mary, wherever you are!—I might not have bothered applying, a few years later, to Brigham Young University. I certainly had never thought of any such thing prior to then. And the rest, as they say, is history. My entire career of vicious character assassination, mercenary lying, shameless pseudo-scholarship, and mean-spirited rage (as some of my critics like to describe it) might never have occurred.

Now, it’s true that I’ve oversimplified the origin of my own life-path here. There are other factors that I might have mentioned, there are spiritual influences that I’ve chosen not to mention, and there are undoubtedly many other elements that I can’t even quite remember. My lifetime enthusiasm for C. S. Lewis began at about the same period in my life; he has certainly affected me. My brother returned from his year in Provo as an absolutely converted fan of Brigham Young University, and he lost no time in trying to convert me.

Another influence was a then-recent reading of Nephi Anderson’s 1898 novel Added Upon, a copy of which we had inherited from my maternal grandmother.7 I picked it up one day when I was home from school, sick and very bored. For all of its serious limitations and flaws—I’ve tried to re-read it since, but have been unable to get past the opening pages—Added Upon provided me with my first real appreciation for the plan of salvation, a glimpse that proved transformative, firing my imagination and casting the world in a whole new light that has never altogether faded. Added Upon was a precursor, in a very real sense, of the 1973 Latter-day Saint musical Saturday’s Warrior—which, curiously, I’ve never seen. I was on my mission when it first appeared, and, in a way, perhaps I no longer needed it.

Of course, nobody else’s testimony or path is identical to mine, and nobody’s story follows my particular pattern. Each of us is unique. But I’m grateful for those who intervened in my life, knowingly or unknowingly, and who made it possible for me to find the path that I’ve found.

Years ago now, Hillary Clinton published a book bearing the title It Takes a Village.8 She received a great deal of criticism for that title, which she apparently took from an African proverb: “It takes a village to raise a child.”9 To the extent that she may have been suggesting that the state should assume the role of parents in raising children—if that is indeed what she was suggesting (I never read the book)—she deserved the criticism. But it really does, ideally, take a village to raise a child. Or, at a minimum, it is exceedingly fortunate when parents have a village—a neighborhood, a ward, Primary teachers, priesthood advisors, youth leaders, grandparents, role models, and others—behind them to reinforce (and not to contradict) their teachings and their examples. And passing values and wholesome practices from one generation to the next is absolutely vital. As Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has said, “This Church is always only one generation away from extinction.”10

I was fortunate in this regard, as I did have a village—several villages, in fact. I hope and pray that many of us can serve similar roles in the lives of those who will succeed us. Perhaps, for at least a few odd ducks such as myself, The Interpreter Foundation, with its articles and books and films and conferences and, most importantly, its people, can function in such a way. We never know whether something we say, something we write, or something we bring to others will have an impact like the one I experienced in that Education Week so many decades ago. I hope we can keep our eyes open, our minds keen, and our spirits alert so that we can recognize opportunities to have a life-long impact for good.

At this point, as is customary, I want to thank all of those, very much including the authors and the donors, who made possible this sixty-second volume of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. In particular, I thank Allen Wyatt, Jeff Lindsay, and Godfrey Ellis. With this issue, Jeff steps down as one of the journal’s executive editors, although he remains a member of the Foundation’s board of directors. He has devoted enormous time and effort to his editorial work, and we will miss him in that regard. We are, however, very pleased to welcome Brant S. Gardner and Rebecca Reynolds Lambert as new members of our editorial team. The members of the village may change from time to time, but I openly recognize that without such devoted volunteers in the village, Interpreter simply couldn’t exist.

Daniel C. Peterson (PhD, University of California at Los Angeles) is a professor emeritus of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University, where he founded the University’s Middle Eastern Texts Initiative. He has published and spoken extensively on both Islamic and Latter-day Saint 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’ān and on Islamic philosophical theology. He is the author, among other things, of a biography entitled Muhammad: Prophet of God (Eerdmans, 2007). With his wife, he is executive producer of the films Witnesses (2021), Undaunted: Witnesses of the Book of Mormon (2022), and Six Days in August (2024).

1. 1 . “As Zions Youth in Latter Days,” Hymns, no. 256.

2. 2 . I was privileged to baptize my father on the night I was set apart as a missionary. My brother confirmed him.

3. 3 . I like to think that my parents came to recognize that I was actually fairly successful, in my own way, when they were able to attend a dinner and reception in Beverly Hills in honor of the Islamic Translation Series, which I had founded at Brigham Young University. The event was attended by representatives of most of the Arab and Islamic nations that had consulates in the Los Angeles area. BYU’s president, Elder Merrill J. Bateman, conducted the meeting. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Council of the Twelve was the principal speaker.

4. 4 . Back in those days of yore, there wasn’t just the one huge Education Week at BYU. In fact, for all I know, that hadn’t even begun yet, but there were four-day regional Education Weeks in various locations where relatively large numbers of Latter-day Saints resided. Such was the case in the southern California of my youth.

5. 5 . John Keats, “On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer,” Poetry Foundation (website), poetryfoundation.org/poems/44481/on-first-looking-into-chapmans
-homer. In his excitement—he evidently composed the sonnet in a sudden burst of inspiration—Keats mistakenly wrote the name of Cortez instead of Balboa. Somewhere, presumably, he had read about Cortez’s conquest of Mexico and Balboa’s discovery of the Pacific Ocean during an expedition in Darien, an old name for part of Central America, and he conflated the two.

6. 6 . The statement is a paraphrase of a point that Kierkegaard makes in his journals. Further information can be found at Jack Maden, “Kierkegaard: Life Can Only Be Understood Backwards, But It Must Be Lived Forwards,” Philosophy Break (website), October 2023, philosophybreak.com/articles/kierkegaard
-life-can-only-be-understood-backwards-but-must-be-lived-forwards/.

7. 7 . Copies of the novel are available from a variety of sources. Having long been available in the public domain, though, Added Upon can also be found at Project Gutenberg, gutenberg.org/ebooks/17249.

8. 8 . Hillary Clinton, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996).

9. 9 . Efforts to pinpoint the source of the proverb have, to date, been unfruitful. See “It Takes a Village,” Wikipedia, last modified 17 March 2024, en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/It_takes_a_village.

10. 10 . Jeffrey R. Holland, “That Our Children May Know,” (devotional speech, Brigham Young University, 25 August 1981), speeches.byu.edu/talks/jeffrey-r
-holland/children-may-know/.

“I Shall Gather In”: The Name Joseph, Iterative Divine Action, and the
Latter-day Harvest Ingathering of
Israel as Themes in 3 Nephi

Matthew L. Bowen

Abstract: The identity of “the people of Nephi who were spared, and also those who had been called Lamanites, who had been spared” (3 Nephi 10:18) as “a remnant of the seed of Joseph” (3 Nephi 5:23; 10:17; compare Alma 46:23–27; Ether 13:6–10) or “a remnant of the house of Joseph” (3 Nephi 15:12) is key to understanding Jesus’s Isaiah-based teaching at the temple in Bountiful in 3 Nephi. That teaching emphasizes iterative divine action (implied in the name Joseph [yôsēp], compare yôsîp) to restore and gather Israel and Judah. Like Mormon’s prophecies in 3 Nephi 5:23–26 and 26:8, Jesus’s sermon frequently describes the gathering of Israel in language that recalls Isaiah 11:11–12, especially the verbs yôsîp, ʾāsap, and qibbēṣ. The name Joseph is etiologized in terms of the Hebrew verbs ʾāsap (“take away,” “gather in”) and yāsap (“add,” “do again”), and the verbs ʾāsap (“gather in”) and qibbēṣ (“gather together”) are elsewhere used in harvest contexts, suggesting that ancient prophets and the Lord himself conceived of the gathering of Israel as a harvest ingathering.

I begin with an analysis of the name Joseph in terms of its distribution throughout the Book of Mormon text. The name Joseph occurs forty-two times total. It occurs six times in the first book of Nephi, the first four instances of these in connection with Lehi and Nephi learning from the brass plates that the family could trace their genealogy directly back to Joseph in Egypt (see 1 Nephi 5:14 [bis], 16; 6:2). The last two instances name Joseph as Nephi’s youngest brother who experienced the consequences of Laman’s and Lemuel’s fraternal abuse of Nephi (see 1 Nephi 18:7, 19). Joseph occurs most commonly in the second book of Nephi, sixteen times in total. Appropriately, most of these (thirteen) occur in Lehi’s words to his son Joseph in which he quotes the words of Joseph in Egypt (see 2 Nephi 3:1, 3–7 [6 x], 14, 16, 22, 25; 4:1, 3), including words about a latter-day father-son pair who would be named Joseph, that son being a “seer” like the patriarch Joseph (2 Nephi 3:15–16; compare Genesis 50:33 JST). Nephi mentions his brother Joseph as one of those who went with him when he fled from his brothers. Joseph occurs twice in the Book of Jacob, once in reference to Jacob’s younger brother, and the other in the prophetic oracle, “Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph” (Jacob 2:25).

The name Joseph does not occur again until the Book of Alma where it occurs seven times, once in reference to Joseph the son of Lehi, once in Amulek’s important identification of Lehi as a descendant of Joseph through Manasseh, and five times in Moroni’s covenant speech to the Nephites as “a remnant of the seed of Joseph” echoing an extracanonical prophecy by Jacob the patriarch regarding the “remainder of the seed of Joseph” and the “remnant of garment” (see Alma 46:23–27) and making a functional use of Isaiah 11:11–12.1 Finally, the name occurs five times in the book of 3 Nephi,2 where the focus is on the Lehites as the remnant of the seed or house of Joseph, and seven times in Moroni’s typological reading of the Joseph story as a prophecy of the restoration of the house of Joseph and the building of the New Jerusalem in Ether 13.

In this study, I will endeavor to show how Mormon highlights the importance of the name Joseph in his abridged “Book of Nephi, the son of Nephi, who was the son of Helaman”—i.e., 3 Nephi—in terms of the Hebrew concepts of iterative action (yāsap) and harvest “gathering” (ʾāsap, “to gather” also means “to take away”), the two verbs with which the name Joseph is etiologized in Genesis 30:23–24 and two of the key terms in Isaiah’s prophecy of the gathering of Israel in Isaiah 11:11–12. Mormon’s inclusions of Jesus’s extensive quotations and interpretations of Isaiah 52 in his teachings to the Lamanites and Nephites at the temple in Bountiful have an explicit orientation toward the “remnant of the seed of Joseph.” In his prophetic use and interpretation of Isaiah, Jesus repeatedly invokes the yāsap-related concept of iterative action—especially the iterative divine action implied in the name Joseph (“may He [God] add,” “may he do [something] again”). He also frequently makes use of the ʾāsap-related concept of harvest gathering or ingathering. He appeals to these concepts in order to foretell the divine actions that would restore and gather the house of Israel to the “land[s] of their inheritance” (theirs by covenant) and would bring about the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the building of the New Jerusalem in the western hemisphere.

“And Surely Shall He Again Bring a Remnant of the
Seed of Joseph to the Knowledge of the Lord Their God”: Mormon’s Oath (3 Nephi 5:23–26)

The first two of the five mentions of the name Joseph in 3 Nephi occur in 3 Nephi 5, both in connection with an Isaiah-derived prophecy by Mormon that the Lord would “again bring a remnant of the seed of Joseph to the knowledge of the Lord their God” (3 Nephi 5:23).

The name Joseph (“may he [God] add”) constitutes a verbal name that implies iterative action with God as the subject. The first mention of the name Joseph in the book of 3 Nephi occurs in 3 Nephi 5 in the context of iterative divine action often expressed in the Hebrew Bible and the book of Isaiah with the verb yāsap/yôsîp: “Surely he hath blessed the house of Jacob, and hath been merciful unto the seed of Joseph. And insomuch as the children of Lehi have kept his commandments he hath blessed them and prospered them according to his word. Yea, and surely shall he again [compare yôsîp] bring a remnant of the seed of Joseph [yôsēp] to the knowledge of the Lord their God” (3 Nephi 5:21–23). The use of the verbal expression rendered “shall he again” between the twofold mention of the name Joseph suggests deliberate wordplay on Joseph in terms of the Hebrew verb yôsîp (to “add,” “do again”).

The collocation “remnant of the seed of Joseph” not only recalls Mormon’s earlier inclusion of the title- or standard-of-liberty pericope, but also its mention of the remnant of the coat of Joseph, and the symbolism pertaining to the “remnant of the seed of Joseph” that both items invoked. Moreover, Mormon employs the language of Isaiah 11:11–12: “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. . . . And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble [wĕʾāsap, “gather in”] the outcasts of Israel, and gather together [yĕqabbēṣ] the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” Isaiah’s prophecy alludes to the name of Isaiah’s son Shear-jashub (“a remnant shall return”),3 as do the many Book of Mormon passages that mention the gathering of this remnant.

Mormon’s emphasis on “assembling” (“gathering in”) or “gathering together” Israel and Judah in Isaiah 11:12 receives further exposition in his chiastically-structured prophetic oath. Framed on both ends with a hebraistic solemn oath formula, Mormon defines precisely how the Lord “shall . . . again bring” this “remnant of the seed of Joseph”:

A And as surely as the Lord liveth,

B will he gather in [yeʾĕsōp] from the four quarters of the earth all the remnant of the seed of Jacob, who are scattered abroad upon all the face of the earth.

C And as he hath covenanted with all the house of Jacob,

D even so shall the covenant wherewith he hath covenanted

E with the house of Jacob be fulfilled in his own due time,

E' unto the restoring all the house of Jacob unto the knowledge

D' of the covenant that he hath covenanted with them.

C' And then shall they know their Redeemer, who is Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

B' and then shall they be gathered in [yēʾāsĕpû] from the four quarters of the earth unto their own lands, from whence they have been dispersed;

A' yea, as the Lord liveth so shall it be. Amen. (3 Nephi 5:24–26; formatting and emphasis altered)4

Mormon’s prophetic oath in 3 Nephi 5:23–26 also exhibits textual dependency on at least two other prophecies on the small plates of Nephi that also quote or allude to Isaiah. Nephi records that his brother Jacob, in his seminal sermon on the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ, prophetically alluded to Isaiah 11:11–12 when he prophesied, “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” (2 Nephi 10:8).5 Later in his record, Nephi similarly prophesied, “And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one” (2 Nephi 29:14). The “gather[ing] home” of the house of Israel together with the “gather[ing] in one” of his word constitutes a variation of the theme articulated in 2 Nephi 25:17 where Nephi juxtaposes paraphrased quotes of Isaiah 11:11 and 29:14 (“The Lord will set his hand again [yôsîp] the second time to restore his people from their lost and fallen state” [Isaiah 11:11]. “Wherefore, he will proceed [yôsīp] to do a marvelous work and a wonder among the children of men” [Isaiah 29:14]),6 namely the concomitant gathering of Israel and the coming forth of additional scripture from the “seed” of “Joseph [yôsēp]” (see 2 Nephi 25:21).

“Are Not We a Remnant of the Seed of Joseph?”:
A Joseph Contextualization of Jesus’s Isaiah-based Restoration Prophecies in 3 Nephi 15–21

The third and fourth mentions of the name Joseph help contextualize and frame Jesus’s ministry among the Lamanites and Nephites, as Mormon records it, in 3 Nephi 11–28. Mormon leads into what now constitutes 3 Nephi 11 with its account of Jesus’s appearance at the temple in Bountiful with a statement that recalls his earlier prophetic oath in 3 Nephi 5:23–26. This statement also looks forward on the content of Jesus’s sermons at the temple and his use of Isaiah’s prophecies and language to detail iterative divine action that would result in the gathering of Israel and “Joseph”: “Behold, our father Jacob also testified concerning a remnant of the seed of Joseph. And behold, are not we a remnant of the seed of Joseph? And these things which testify of us, are they not written upon the plates of brass which our father Lehi brought out of Jerusalem?” (3 Nephi 10:17).

After concluding his account of Jesus’s two-day sermon at the temple in Bountiful (3 Nephi 11–25), including the Isaiah-heavy second-day sermon (3 Nephi 19–25), Mormon makes the following declaration: “And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again [wayyôsîpû] unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken” (3 Nephi 26:8). In making this declaration, Mormon gives a verbal signal of how this account will come forth to a remnant of Joseph: by means of a latter-day “Joseph” and the descendants of the patriarch Joseph among the Gentiles.

“And Then Will I Gather Them In”: The End of
Joseph’s (and the Lost Tribes’) Separation

The fifth and final mention of the name Joseph, and the one that Mormon’s previous iterations of the name Joseph anticipate, occurs in an additional statement that Jesus’s makes to his Nephite/Lamanite disciples, as recorded in 3 Nephi 15:12. Jesus’s mention of the name Joseph in this statement confirms that the house of Joseph and the seed of Joseph constitutes a hermeneutical focus for much of the content of the prophecies not only in 3 Nephi 15–16, but especially in 3 Nephi 20–22. He states, “Ye are my disciples; and ye are a light unto this people, who are a remnant of the house of Joseph” (3 Nephi 15:12). Jesus here designates his audience at the Temple in Bountiful, comprised of “the people of Nephi who were spared, and also those who had been called Lamanites, who had been spared” (3 Nephi 10:18) as “the remnant of the house of Joseph.” We recall Mormon’s identifying as Lamanites and Nephites those present at the temple in Bountiful who “had great favors shown unto them, and great blessings poured out upon their heads” and experienced the risen Christ “showing his body unto them, and ministering unto them” (3 Nephi 10:18–19). Mormon does this immediately in the context of his averring: “Behold, our father Jacob also testified concerning a remnant of the seed of Joseph. And behold, are not we a remnant of the seed of Joseph?” (3 Nephi 10:17).7 In other words, those “great favors” came to the Lamanites and Nephites expressly because they were the “remnant of the seed of Joseph”:

And it came to pass that in the ending of the thirty and fourth year, behold, I will show unto you that the people of Nephi who were spared, and also those who had been called Lamanites, who had been spared, did have great favors shown unto them, and great blessings poured out upon their heads, insomuch that soon after the ascension of Christ into heaven he did truly manifest himself unto them—showing his body unto them, and ministering unto them; and an account of his ministry shall be given hereafter. Therefore for this time I make an end of my sayings. (3 Nephi 10:18–19)

Mormon may have intended this statement to signal a fulfillment of Amos 5:15: “the Lord God of hosts will be gracious [yeḥĕnan] unto the remnant of Joseph [šĕʾērît yôsēp].” Both Mormon’s and Jesus’s designation of the audience as “Joseph” is crucial for understanding everything else in Mormon’s presentation of what Jesus teaches in 3 Nephi 15–25.

Jesus pointedly declares that these Josephites had been “separated” from the main body of Israelites, “because of their iniquity” past and present: “But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you. And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know not of them” (3 Nephi 15:19–20). What Jesus teaches here is consistent with what the prophet Ezekiel articulated in parable about the southern kingdom of Judah being less righteous, at least in some respects, than the northern kingdom (see the parable of Yahweh’s two “wives” in Ezekiel 23; see especially v. 11).

It is noteworthy that, at least in this instance, Jesus does not use the language of scattering (scattered, lost, dispersed, etc.) in describing this Lamanite-Nephite audience as “a remnant of the house of Joseph” who had been “separated” from their Old World “brethren” (3 Nephi 15:12–13, 19–20). In so saying, Jesus may have had reference to two significant and related Pentateuchal texts: Jacob’s blessing upon his sons (Genesis 49) and Moses’s blessing upon the tribes (Deuteronomy 33). When Jacob blessed his sons prior to his death and when Moses blessed the tribes of Israel before his presumed “death,” they both described Joseph as “him that was separate[d] from his brethren” (see table 1).

Table 1. A portion of the tribal blessings of Joseph compared.

Genesis 49:26 (Jacob’s Blessing on Joseph)

Deuteronomy 33:16 (Moses’s Blessing on the Tribe of Joseph)

KJV: The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph and on the crown of the head of him that was separate [nĕzîr] from his brethren.

KJV: And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated [nĕzîr] from his brethren.

NRSVUE:8 The blessings of your father are stronger than the blessings of the eternal mountains, the bounties of the everlasting hills; may they be on the head of Joseph, on the brow of him who was set apart [nĕzîr] from his brothers.

NRSVUE: . . . with the choice gifts of the earth and its fullness and the favor of the one who dwells on Sinai. Let these come on the head of Joseph, on the brow of the prince [nĕzîr] among his brothers.

The original meaning of the verbal root nzr was something approximating “to withdraw from common practices, to behave differently”9 and thus “to dedicate, consecrate, . . . [or] separate, in [a] relig[ious] and ceremonial sense” (emphasis added).10 The adjective nĕzîr thus meant to “separate” in a sacred sense, thus “devoted, consecrated, devotee.”11 The extended meaning “prince”12 used in some translations derives from or relates to the nezer, the “crown, diadem, [or] headband made of precious metal and bound on through apertures, as a sign of being consecrated,”13 though Genesis 49:26 is sometimes the sole passage cited in support of this meaning. The adjectival form as a substantive noun also denotes a “Nazarite,”14 a lay-person who participated for a limited time in priestly holiness (see Numbers 6:1–21). Jacob’s blessing implies that Joseph’s “separation” from his brothers in Egypt was a “consecrated” separation. Some modern translations render nĕzîr as “prince” in Genesis 49:26 and Deuteronomy 33:16; the NRSVUE renders it alternatively “set apart” and “the prince.” The idea of Joseph as “separated,” “set apart” or “prince” suggests the firstborn status of “the tribe of Joseph over the others.”15 Indeed, the basic idea is that Joseph’s being “set apart” or “separated” from his brothers was a consecrated “separation” that elevated his status. It is also intriguing to consider that Lehi may have had reference to Genesis 49:26 and Deuteronomy 33:16, when he declared that the Lord had “consecrated” the lands in the western hemisphere to him and his posterity (as Josephites): “Yea, the Lord hath consecrated this land unto me and to my children forever” (2 Nephi 1:5, Original Text);16 “Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring” (2 Nephi 1:7); “the Lord hath consecrated this land for the security of thy seed with the seed of my son” (2 Nephi 1:32).17 The concept of “consecrated” as “separated” works well in these passages, especially in view of how Jesus uses “separated” with reference to Lehi’s descendants (3 Nephi 15:19–20) as the “remnant of the house of Joseph” who have had New World lands given to them by the Father as “the land of [their] inheritance” (3 Nephi 15:12–13).

The Lord’s latter-day prophetic blessing upon Israel as revealed through Joseph Smith and recorded as Doctrine and Covenants 133 seems to have reference to all of the foregoing. That prophecy includes the following promises regarding the efforts of children of Joseph to gather Israel and administer the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ to all its tribes: “And they shall bring forth their rich treasures unto the children of Ephraim, my servants. And the boundaries of the everlasting hills shall tremble at their presence. And there shall they fall down and be crowned with glory, even in Zion, by the hands of the servants of the Lord, even the children of Ephraim. And they shall be filled with songs of everlasting joy. Behold, this is the blessing of the everlasting God upon the tribes of Israel, and the richer blessing upon the head of Ephraim and his fellows” (Doctrine and Covenants 133:30–34). The descendants of Joseph are given the “richer blessing” only for the broader purpose of the Lord’s gathering and saving the other tribes Israel, even as Joseph “gathered” and saved the family in Egypt.

Harvest imagery was also associated with nĕzîr, which also had reference to “what has been left to grow freely and the ungathered grapes in the sabbath year, the free growing crop.”18 Leviticus 25:5 and 11 direct that this was initially not to be reaped or gathered, because it was to provide food during the Jubilee year (every fifty years), which was a “sabbath of sabbaths” (i.e., an “absolute sabbath”: “That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land” (Leviticus 25:5); “A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed” (Leviticus 25:11).

The biblical text ties the origin and meaning of the name Joseph to two similar-sounding verbs: ʾāsap (to “take away” or “gather in”) and yāsap (to “add”): “And she conceived, and bare a son; and said, God hath taken away [literally, gathered in, ʾāsap] my reproach: and she called his name Joseph [yôsēp]; and said, The Lord shall add [yōsēp] to me another son” (Genesis 30:23–24). From a “scientific” etymological perspective,19 the name Joseph actually derives from a jussive form of the verb yāsap: yôsēp means “May he [God] add.”20

Perhaps not coincidently, Isaiah deploys both of these verbs in his prophecy of the latter-day gathering of Israel:

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again [yôsîp] the second time 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 [or, gather in, wĕʾāsap] the outcasts of Israel, and gather together [yĕqabbēṣ] the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:11–12; compare Micah 2:12)21

Isaiah’s use of the verbs yāsap (“add,” “continue to do” [“proceed to do”]; “increase,” “do [something] again, more”)22 and ʾāsap (“gather in,” “bring in” [> “take away”], “assemble”)23 recalls the double-etiology for the name Joseph offered in Genesis 30:23–24. Isaiah’s use of both verbs in the context of the gathering of “Israel”—for which “Joseph” or “house of Joseph” was a frequent metonymy—additionally suggests an intentional wordplay on (or echoing of) the name Joseph.

Technically speaking, the name Joseph or yôsēp derives from the same verbal stem as the auxiliary verb yôsîp. Isaiah converts this word into “gathering” terminology with the addition of the infinitive liqnôt (“gain,” “buy,” “acquire,” “create” < qny/qnh).24 In other words, the Lord will “add” to acquire or gather the remnant of his people. Isaiah reiterates this idea with the synonymic use of ʾāsap and qibbēṣ: he will “assemble [wĕʾāsap, gather in] the outcasts of Israel, and gather together [yĕqabbēṣ] the dispersed of Judah from the four quarters of the earth” (Isaiah 11:12), in order to bless all the nations/Gentiles in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Nephi explained this to his family in 1 Nephi 22:6, 8–12, where he also plays on the name Joseph.25 Nephi interpreted Isaiah 48–49 for his family, chapters wherein Isaiah plainly adumbrates the same prophetic idea: “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, [Ketiv: lōʾ yēʾāsēp; Qere: lô yēʾāsēp that Israel might be gathered to him26], 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 [yĕšûʿātî] unto the end of the earth” (Isaiah 49:5–6). In other words, as God gathers Jacob again, they extend salvation to all the nations/Gentiles.27 Collectively, the Lord’s “servant” is his people Israel (see Isaiah 49:3), more narrowly the servant can be understood to be his prophets (including Isaiah or Joseph Smith). In the narrowest sense, the Servant is Jesus Christ himself (compare yēšûaʿ as divine yĕšûʿâ, “salvation”) who, in turn, used Joseph Smith as his servant to commence the process of restoring, gathering, and ultimately saving Israel in the latter days.

The verbs ʾāsap and qābaṣ in Isaiah 11:12 both have strong associations with harvest gathering. The verb qābaṣ means to “gather” or “gather together” and is used in Genesis 41:48 to describe Joseph’s gathering of harvested grain over seven years against the coming seven years of famine: “And he [Joseph] gathered up [wayyiqbōṣ] all the food of the seven years, which were in the land of Egypt.” The synonymous verb ʾāsap more precisely means to “gather in” as in the harvest (see especially Leviticus 25:3, 20; Exodus 23:10; Deuteronomy 11:14, see further below). Thus, it may be the latter verb to which Jesus has reference when he promises: “And then will I gather them in from the four quarters of the earth; and then will I fulfil the covenant which the Father hath made unto all the people of the house of Israel” (3 Nephi 16:5).

“Then Shall the Remnants . . . Be Gathered In” (3 Nephi 20:13): The Ingathering Harvest of Latter-day Israel

One of the most significant and interesting aspects of Jesus’s second-day sermon in 3 Nephi 19–25 is his exegetical use of Isaiah and his repetitious use of Isaiah 52 in particular. Jesus’s use of Isaiah 52 begins with his quotation of Isaiah 52:8–10 (3 Nephi 16:17–20). After Jesus quotes this scripture to the Nephites and Lamanites gathered to the temple in Bountiful, he perceives that the members of his audience are “weak”—i.e., “weakened” or overwhelmed by what they had thus far experienced with him—to such a degree they “cannot understand all [his] words” (3 Nephi 17:2).

Accordingly, he breaks off his sermon in order to allow the people to “ponder upon the things which [he] . . . said and ask of the Father, in [his, Jesus’s] name, that ye may understand, and prepare your minds for the morrow” when he would “come . . . again” and finish the sermon (3 Nephi 17:3). Before Jesus departs, however, he “tarries” with them, healing and blessing the people and their children in one of the most beautiful and emotive scenes ever described in scripture (3 Nephi 17:5–25). After doing this, he institutes the sacrament among the Nephites and Lamanites before ascending to the Father (3 Nephi 18).

Upon his return the next day and following a sequence of events that included instruction, temple prayer, his newly-selected disciples undergoing baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost, and Jesus’s own temple prayer (3 Nephi 19:1–20:1),28 Jesus administers the sacrament a second time (3 Nephi 20:3–9). He then states his intention to resume teaching from the prophecies of Isaiah: “Behold now I finish the commandment which the Father hath commanded me concerning this people, who are a remnant of the house of Israel. Ye remember that I spake unto you, and said that when the words of Isaiah should be fulfilled—behold they are written, ye have them before you, therefore search them” (3 Nephi 20:10–11). He avers that “when they [i.e., the words of Isaiah] shall be fulfilled then is the fulfilling of the covenant which the Father hath made unto his people, O house of Israel” (3 Nephi 20:12). In other words, the fulfillment of the words of Isaiah will be the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.

In prefacing his resumption of teaching from Isaiah 52, the Lord specifically draws on the terminology and substance of Isaiah 11:12: “And then shall the remnants, which shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth, be gathered in [compare yēʾāsĕpû || yiqqābĕṣû] from the east and from the west, and from the south and from the north; and they shall be brought to the knowledge of the Lord their God, who hath redeemed them” (3 Nephi 20:13). In this verse, Brant Gardner hears echoes of Psalm 107:2–3: “Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy; and gathered them [qibbĕṣû] out of the lands, from the east, and from the west, from the north, and from the south.”29 The key term here is the verb qibbēṣ, the key term in parallel with ʾāsap in Isaiah 11:12, which describes the gathering of Israel from “the four corners of the earth.” Gardner adds, “Despite the language of this passage, the verse may not specifically allude to Psalm 107 because references to the four cardinal directions are quite common. Naturally, Israel would be gathered from the whole world, for which the four directions are a metaphor.”30

Unlike Psalm 107:2–3, the promises of Israel’s ingathering are expressed as a passivum divinum (divine passive).31 The divine passive implies that the Lord himself will orchestrate this ingathering but leave room for human instrumentality. 3 Nephi 20:13 also echoes the etiological explanation of the name Joseph in terms of ʾāsap (“gather in”). The name Joseph is echoed by Mormon in 3 Nephi 5:23–26. Mormon may have, in part, had this prophecy in mind when he formulated his own prophetic oath (“And as surely as the Lord liveth, will he gather in from the four quarters of the earth all the remnant of the seed of Jacob, who are scattered abroad upon all the face of the earth” 3 Nephi 5:24). In any case, he would have considered it a sure basis for such an oath.

Jesus then quotes Micah 5:8 and 4:12–13 in 3 Nephi 20:16–19. The language of Micah 4:11–12 in 3 Nephi 20:18 brings in harvest imagery: “Now also many nations [gôyim rabbîm] are gathered [neʾespû] against thee . . . for he shall gather them [qibbĕṣām] as the sheaves into the floor [gōrĕnâ, literally, threshing-floor]” (Micah 4:11–12); “And I will gather my people together as a man gathereth his sheaves into the floor” (3 Nephi 20:18). Notably, Jesus makes his covenant people, rather than the nations/Gentiles themselves, the object of gathering, consistent with his covenant people theme.32 Ironically, his people also do the threshing (see 3 Nephi 20:19; compare Micah 4:13). The verb qibbēṣ, a key term in Isaiah 11:12, may have motived Jesus’s inclusion of Micah 4:12 with its harvest imagery.

“I Have Covenanted . . . That I Would Gather Them
Together” (3 Nephi 20:29): Remembering and
Fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant

In invoking “gathering” language, Jesus alludes to a specific covenant that the Lord had made with Israel’s ancestors, that he himself would gather Israel:

And I will remember the covenant which I have made with my people; and I have covenanted with them that I would gather them together [compare ʾeʾĕsōp < ʾāsap / ʾăqabbēṣ < qibbēṣ] in mine own due time, that I would give unto them again [compare ʾôsîp] the land of their fathers for their inheritance, which is the land of Jerusalem, which is the promised land unto them forever, saith the Father. (3 Nephi 20:29)

Here again we see the possible presence of the verbs ʾāsap and yāsap from Genesis 30:23-24 and Isaiah 11:11-12. The specific “covenant” Jesus mentions is the Abrahamic covenant, later reiterated with Isaac and Jacob. However, it also appears to allude to promises that the Lord made to the patriarch Joseph in Egypt regarding a “Moses” and in the latter-days, one like unto Moses. One version of the promise is preserved in Genesis 50:34 JST: “And the Lord sware unto Joseph [yôsēp] that he would preserve his seed forever, saying, I will raise up Moses, and a rod shall be in his hand, and he shall gather together my people, and he shall lead them as a flock, and he shall smite the waters of the Red Sea with his rod.”33 To this promise, the Lord adds: “And it shall be done unto thee in the last days also, even as I have sworn. Therefore, Joseph said unto his brethren, God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land, unto the land which he sware unto Abraham, and unto Isaac, and to Jacob.”

The initial part of the promise was fulfilled when Moses “gathered” Israel, beginning with its elders in Exodus: “Go, and gather the elders of Israel together [wĕʾāsaptā], and say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt” (Exodus 3:16). The Lord’s command is subsequently fulfilled in Exodus 4. Again, the Joseph-connected verb ʾāsap is used: “And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together [wayyaʾaspû] all the elders of the children of Israel: and Aaron spake all the words which the Lord had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people” (Exodus 4:29). The “Blessing of Moses” (Deuteronomy 33) uses similar language: “Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. And he was king in Jeshurun [or, there was a king in Jeshurun],34 when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together [bĕhitʾassēp]” (Deuteronomy 33:4–5). Isaiah’s prophecy of the Lord “assembl[ing]” [“gathering in,” wĕʾāsap] the “outcasts of Israel” employs the same verb (Isaiah 11:12).

“Then Will the Father Gather Them Together Again” (3 Nephi 20:30–33): The Latter-day
Gathering of Judah to Jerusalem

In 3 Nephi 23:30–33, Jesus returns to Isaiah 52:10, the point at which he broke-off his sermon at the end of his first day at the temple in Bountiful. He uses this text as a departure point for an extended prophecy regarding the restoration and gathering of Israel, in which the language of iterative divine action and harvest ingathering from Isaiah 11:11–12 is prevalent:

And it shall come to pass that the time cometh, when the fulness of my gospel shall be preached unto them; and they shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name. Then shall their watchmen lift up their voice, and with the voice together shall they sing; for they shall see eye to eye. Then will the Father gather them together again [“will . . . again,” compare yôsip] and give unto them Jerusalem for the land of their inheritance. (3 Nephi 20:30–33)

Jesus begins his citation of Isaiah 52, in 3 Nephi 20:32, predicting the fulfillment of the former. His statement “their watchman [shall] lift up their voice, and with the voice together shall they sing; for they shall see eye to eye,” previously cited in 3 Nephi 16:18, constitutes a quotation of Isaiah 52:8, a text familiar to the Nephites from the plates of brass and from Abinadi’s exchange with the priests of King Noah.35 Jesus aborts his quotation of this text before the end. Instead of completing the thought as in Isaiah (“when the Lord shall bring again [or return to] Zion”) and elsewhere, Jesus ends the quote at “eye to eye.” This perhaps suggests the sentence that follows stands in place of or explains the meaning of the temporal clause “when the Lord shall bring again Zion”: “Then will the Father gather them together again.”

Jesus’s discourse thus momentarily breaks from direct quotations of Isaiah. In stating that “[t]hen will the Father gather them together again,” Jesus’s use of a verb rendered “gather . . . together” strongly hints at the underlying use of the verb ʾāsap or qibbēṣ from Isaiah 11:12 and elsewhere (or their Nephite scribal equivalents), evoking a connection to Isaiah 11:11–12. His use of language rendered “[he] shall . . . again” plausibly represents the Hebrew yāsap + verbal component idiom as found in Isaiah 11:11 and elsewhere. The language of “gathering” and iterative divine action (“he shall . . . again”) recall the etiological associations ascribed to the name Joseph in Genesis 30:23–24: divine taking away—or “gathering in”— and divine adding.

“Awake, Awake Again”/ “There Shall No More Come into Thee . . .” (3 Nephi 20:36): Zion’s Latter-day Resurrection

Jesus next describes the latter-day fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant in terms of the fulfillment of Isaiah 52:10:

Then shall they break forth into joy—Sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Father hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem. The Father hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation [yĕšûʿat] of the Father; and the Father and I are one. (3 Nephi 20:34–35)

The mention of yĕšûʿat (< yĕšûʿâ = “salvation”) becomes a kind of onomastic reference to or wordplay on Jesus’s own name—yēšûaʿ (“Jehovah is salvation”). Isaiah 52:9–10 appears to quote or allude to one of the hymns of the Jerusalem temple, Psalm 98:1–3, where forms and cognates of yĕšûʿâ abound:

O sing unto the Lord a new song; for he hath done marvellous things: his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory [hôšîʿâ-lô]. The Lord hath made known his salvation [yĕšûʿātô]: his righteousness hath he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen [nations, haggôyim]. He hath remembered his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God [yĕšûʿat ʾĕlōhênû]. (Psalm 98:1–3)

The meaning of Jesus’s substitution of the title “Father” for the divine name “Yhwh” and divine title ʾĕlōhênû (“our God”) is adumbrated in the declaration: “the Father and I are one.” The “oneness” of the Father and the Son serves as a model for Israel’s vertical “oneness” with God and Christ, as well as horizontal, communal “oneness.” That at-one-ment can only be achieved through divine “gathering.” The Lamanites and Nephites in the years after Jesus’s post-resurrection theophany and ministry attained to this ideal:

And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God. There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. (4 Nephi 1:16–17)

Jesus then states that the latter-day fulfillment of Isaiah 52:10 will eventuate in the fulfillment of Isaiah 52:1 (see table 2).

Table 2. Jesus’s quotation of Isaiah 52:1.

3 Nephi 20:36

Isaiah 52:1

And then shall be brought to pass that which is written: Awake, awake again [ʿôd], and put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city, for henceforth there shall no more [lōʾ yôsîp . . . ʿôd] come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. (3 Nephi 20:36)

Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more [lōʾ yôsîp . . . ʿôd] come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. (Isaiah 52:1)

Jesus’s statement evidently preserves the use of the lōʾ yôsîp [+ verbal component] + ʿôd from Isaiah’s text, which here in the context of the gathering of the house of Israel (and the remnant of the seed of Joseph) can be taken as a wordplay on the name “Joseph.” However, Jesus’s words, as preserved by Mormon, also make a subtle addition: an expression rendered “again.” These changes firmly link the latter-day fulfillment of Isaiah 52:1 to the iterative divine, restorative action the Lord undertakes in the last days (compare Isaiah 11:11), work in which Zion herself becomes a participant with the Lord and Jerusalem becomes “as sacred as a temple.”36 It is thus fitting that Joseph Smith is the latter-day yôsēp through whom the concepts of temple and temple holiness have been restored as practicable elements of Judeo-Christian religion. Joseph is the one through whom Isaiah’s prophetic use of the idiom lōʾ yôsîp [+ verbal component] + ʿôd (“there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and unclean”) begins to come to final, eschatological fulfillment. Indeed, the time will come when Jesus himself will bring this temple holiness to completion in Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem, finishing the restorative work he commenced through Joseph.

Moroni’s quotation of Isaiah 52:1–2 and 54:2 at the conclusion of the Book of Mormon reveals very lucidly how Isaiah 52:1 can be read as both a resurrection text and as fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant: “And awake, and arise from the dust, O Jerusalem; yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever, that thou mayest no more be confounded, that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled” (Moroni 10:31). Zion’s “resurrection” as an ever-expanding tabernacle-temple in the last days would be no less a miracle than the resurrection of Jesus Christ or any human being. Indeed, Jesus himself quoting Isaiah 52:1 as a resurrected being “in a white robe,” helped those who saw and heard him quote that passage visualize the fulfillment of that prophecy in terms of resurrection and temple imagery.

Zion’s resurrection would also be Zion’s enthronement: “Shake thyself from the dust; arise, sit down, O Jerusalem; loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion. For thus saith the Lord: Ye have sold yourselves for naught, and ye shall be redeemed without money. Verily, verily, I say unto you, that my people shall know my name; yea, in that day they shall know that I am he [ʾănî hûʾ] that doth speak [hamĕdabbēr]” (3 Nephi 20:37–39). In quoting the expression ʾănî hûʾ, an expression with which Jehovah declares himself as the God of Israel in Deuteronomy 32:39, Isaiah 41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 46:4; 48:12; 51:12, and climactically in 52:6,37 Jesus definitively identifies himself as Jehovah—the God who spoke that prophecy anciently, the God who was physically present and speaking to them in the present, and the God who would bring (and even speak) that prophecy into eschatological fulfillment.

Rearward I: “The God of Israel Shall Be Your Rearward”: The Protected Latter-Day Gathering of Israel to Zion

In the context of identifying himself as the divine Redeemer of Isaiah 52:5 and the divine Speaker of Isaiah 52:6, Jesus then quotes Isaiah 52:7:

And then shall they say: How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings unto them, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings unto them of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion: Thy God reigneth! (3 Nephi 20:40)

Gardner notes that “in this context, this verse becomes a Messianic self-declaration” with “Jesus identify[ing] himself as the messenger who publishes peace and brings these good tidings.”38 This declaration is consistent with Abinadi’s inclusive interpretation of Isaiah 52:7–10, which included prophets and other preachers of the gospel, but also Jesus Christ himself: “And behold, I say unto you, this is not all. For O how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that is the founder of peace, yea, even the Lord, who has redeemed his people; yea, him who has granted salvation unto his people” (Mosiah 15:18). Jesus’s arrival at the temple in Bountiful not only fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecies, but the most significant Isaiah-derived prophecies of Nephite prophets.

Jesus then shifts again in his reordered use of Isaiah 52 to quote verses 11–12 (see table 3).

Table 3. Jesus’s quotation of Isaiah 52:11-12.

3 Nephi 20:41–42

Isaiah 52:11–12

And then shall a cry go forth: Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch not that which is unclean; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord. For ye shall not go out with haste nor go by flight; for the Lord will go before you, and the God of Israel shall be your rearward.

Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord. For ye shall not go out with haste nor go by flight: for the Lord will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rearward [mĕʾassipĕkem].

The middle or durative (Piel) stem of the Hebrew verb ʾāsap had the specialized sense of “to form the rearguard,”39 which as a substantivized noun becomes “rearguard”40 or “rearward”41 (see, e.g., mĕʾassēp in Joshua 6:9, 13). The Piel verb form also occurs with the sense of “gathering” in the context of an agricultural harvest: “The Lord hath sworn by his right hand, and by the arm of his strength, Surely I will no more give thy corn [grain] to be meat [food] for thine enemies; and the sons of the stranger shall not drink thy wine, for the which thou hast laboured: But they that have gathered it [mĕʾaspâw42] shall eat it, and praise the Lord; and they that have brought it together [ûmĕqabbĕṣâw43] shall drink it in the courts of my holiness” (Isaiah 62:8–9). Like Isaiah 11:12 (“And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble [wĕʾāsap, gather in] the outcasts of Israel, and gather together [yĕqabbēṣ] the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth”), Isaiah 62:8–9 uses the verbs as poetically matched pair (or in parallel). The harvest context of Isaiah 62:8–9 suggests that Isaiah 11:11–12 carries similar intonations.

The participial form mĕʾassēp is also used in Judges 19:15, 18 in the sense of “take” or “gather” someone into a house. The same later occurs in Jeremiah 9:22 in the sense of “gathering” in harvest: (“Even the carcases of men shall fall as dung upon the open field, and as the handful after the harvestman, and none shall gather [mĕʾassēp] them.” The idea seems to be “one who follows in the rear and gathers up” what lingers behind whether to glean as in the harvest, to protect straggling human beings, or even gather up human bodies. Thus, in 3 Nephi 20:40–41 the ideas of a harvest “gatherer” of his people and a “rearguard” coalesce. Jesus Christ—Jehovah, the God of Israel—is at once Israel’s captain, harvest gatherer, and protector, gleaning the stragglers and those who would otherwise be left behind.

“Then Shall Jerusalem Be Inhabited Again”: The Atoning and Gathering “Servants,” the Coming Forth of the
Book of Mormon, and Judah’s Return to Jerusalem

Jesus then quotes the servant song of Isaiah 52:13–15, which in the context of the foregoing continues to have messianic overtones: “Behold, my servant shall deal prudently; he shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. As many were astonished at thee—his visage was so marred, more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men—so shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider” (3 Nephi 20:43–45).

Margaret Barker has noted the significance of the verb yazzeh (< nāzâ) in this prophecy: “yazzeh, the apparently untranslatable verb, means ‘sprinkle’ in the atonement ritual (Lev. 16:19).”44 This verb, frequently rendered “sprinkle,” describes the performance of the rite of atonement in Exodus 29:21; Leviticus 4:6, 17; 5:9; 8:11, 30; 14:7, 16, 27; 16:14–15, 19; and Numbers 19:4, 18–22. Leviticus 16:14 and 18–19 instruct this atonement rite as a part of the Day of Atonement ritual to be carried out in the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place by the high priest in the tabernacle-temple:

And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle [wĕhizzâ] it with his finger upon the mercy seat [hakkappōret, “place of atonement”] eastward; and before the mercy seat [hakkappōret] shall he sprinkle [yazzeh] of the blood with his finger seven times. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it [wĕhizzâ] upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat. (v. 14–15)

. . .

And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement [wĕkipper] for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. And he shall sprinkle [wĕhizzâ] of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel. (v. 18–19)

The Joseph Smith Translation renders the phrase “so shall he sprinkle many nations” as “so shall he gather many nations,” which captures the function of the Atonement of Jesus Christ: namely, to “draw all” unto him (John 12:32; 3 Nephi 27:14–15).45 Recalling that the atoning servant would “be exalted and extolled and be very high,” we can see Jesus using the language of Isaiah to teach the meaning of his Atonement in 3 Nephi 27:14. Jesus does this by emphasizing the “drawing” or “gathering” dimension of his Atonement while playing on multiple senses of “lifted up”: “And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works.”46

Whether rendered “so shall he sprinkle [i.e., atone] many nations” or “so shall he gather many nations,” the phrase “many nations” (gôyim rabbîm), echoes the concept of “many nations” (hamôn gôyim; literally, a “multitude of nations”) from Genesis 17, when Abraham received the covenant promise that he would be “a father of many nations” (ʾab hamôn gôyim). This suggests that the “sprinkling” or “gathering” will all be done in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The messianic context preceding Jesus’s quotation of Isaiah 52:13–15 suggests that he would be the servant who would “sprinkle” or atone. Nevertheless, the subsequent context of Jesus’s words suggests that he also had other “servant(s)” who would “gather” Israel and Judah in fulfillment of divine covenant.

Indeed, all of the foregoing would be in fulfillment of the “covenant of the Father” (3 Nephi 21:4)47 that the latter had “covenanted” with Israel and a prelude to Jerusalem again being inhabited on a massive scale48 by the tribe of Judah and members of the house of Israel: ”Verily, verily, I say unto you, all these things shall surely come, even as the Father hath commanded me. Then shall this covenant which the Father hath covenanted with his people be fulfilled; and then shall Jerusalem be inhabited again with my people, and it shall be the land of their inheritance” (3 Nephi 20:46).

The expression “then shall . . . be inhabited again” could represent the old Hebrew yāsap + verbal component idiom for iterative action “do [something] again, more.” It is equally possible that Jesus is alluding to Zechariah 12:6, a postexilic text otherwise unfamiliar to the Nephites and Lamanites (“and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again [ʿôd] in her own place, even in Jerusalem”).

3 Nephi 20:46 appears to be one of the texts that Moroni has in mind when he interprets Ether’s prophecy in Ether 13:5–8:

And he spake also concerning the house of Israel, and the Jerusalem from whence Lehi should come—after it should be destroyed it should be built up again [yôsîp], a holy city unto the Lord; wherefore, it could not be a new Jerusalem for it had been in a time of old; but it should be built up again [yôsîp], and become a holy city of the Lord; and it should be built unto the house of Israel. And that a New Jerusalem should be built up upon this land, unto the remnant of the seed of Joseph [yôsēp] for which things there has been a type. For as Joseph brought his father down into the land of Egypt, even so he died there; wherefore, the Lord brought a remnant of the seed of Joseph out of the land of Jerusalem, that he might be merciful unto the seed of Joseph that they should perish not, even as he was merciful unto the father of Joseph that he should perish not. Wherefore, the remnant of the house of Joseph [yôsēp] shall be built upon this land; and it shall be a land of their inheritance; and they shall build up a holy city unto the Lord, like unto the Jerusalem of old; and they shall no more [wĕlōʾ yôsîpû] be confounded, until the end come when the earth shall pass away.

The iterative language of yôsip (“do [something] again”), (“and they shall no more”) echoes the name Joseph as the name of the patriarch, but also hinting at the prophetic agent through whom much of the divine restorative action would be accomplished.49 We note here the prominence in Moroni’s prophecy of the divine passive constructions: “it should be built up again” (2x); “should be up built upon”; “shall be built upon,” “they shall no more be confounded.” This divine passive language echoes the passive from 3 Nephi 20:46, “then shall Jerusalem be inhabited again.” The human role in accomplishing divine actions and purposes is nicely captured by Moroni’s statement: “and they shall build up a holy city unto the Lord . . . and they shall no more be confounded.” Both Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem will have temple-level sanctity.

“I Shall Gather In . . . and Shall Establish Again
Among Them My Zion” (3 Nephi 21:1)

Jesus again pairs language of “gathering in” (ʾāsap, qibbēṣ) with iterative divine action in describing “a sign” of when the foregoing will transpire: “And verily I say unto you, I give unto you a sign, that ye may know the time when these things shall be about to take place—that I shall gather in, from their long dispersion, my people, O house of Israel, and shall establish again among them my Zion” (3 Nephi 21:1). The Savior’s use of the verbal expressions “I shall gather in” and “and shall . . . again” recall the language of Isaiah 11:11–12 and the use of yôsîp (“do again”) and wĕʾāsap (“assemble,” i.e., gather in) in that prophecy.

Jesus then prophesies that the coming forth of the very words that he was delivering at that time to the Lamanites and Nephites to the Gentiles would itself constitute the “sign” of the gathering of Israel of which Isaiah had formerly spoken and of which Jesus was then speaking:

And behold, this is the thing which I will give unto you for a sign—for verily I say unto you that when these things which I declare unto you, and which I shall declare unto you hereafter of myself, and by the power of the Holy Ghost which shall be given unto you of the Father, shall be made known unto the Gentiles that they may know concerning this people who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, and concerning this my people who shall be scattered by them; Verily, verily, I say unto you, when these things shall be made known unto them of the Father, and shall come forth of the Father, from them unto you . . . (3 Nephi 21:2–4)

“In other words,” writes Gardner, “the Book of Mormon’s coming forth is a necessary prelude to the final gathering.”50 The “Gentiles” or “nations” (gôyim) of Isaiah 11:12 and 49:22–23 would learn the relationship of the people they were in the very process of scattering to the house of Israel and the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with whom the Father had covenanted. Those nations/Gentiles and their kings would then have the choice of believing in this sign and assisting the gathering in fulfillment of Isaiah 11:11–12; 49:22–23 or resisting the inevitable. All would be astonished at this sign and work, and some would vainly try to oppose it:

And when these things come to pass that thy seed shall begin to know these things—it shall be a sign unto them, that they may know that the work of the Father hath already commenced unto the fulfilling of the covenant which he hath made unto the people who are of the house of Israel. And when that day shall come, it shall come to pass that kings shall shut their mouths; for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. For in that day, for my sake shall the Father work a work [pōʿal pōʿēl], which shall be a great and a marvelous work [hapĕlēʾ] among them; and there shall be among them those who will not believe it [compare lōʾ yaʾămînû], although a man shall declare it unto them. But behold, the life of my servant shall be in my hand; therefore they shall not hurt him, although he shall be marred because of them. Yet I will heal him, for I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil. (3 Nephi 21:7–10)

Jesus here blends the two thematically-similar prophecies of Habakkuk 1:5 (“Behold ye among the heathen [Gentiles, baggôyim], and regard, and wonder marvelously [wĕhittammĕhû tĕmāhû] for I will work a work [pōʿal pōʿēl] in your days, which ye will not believe [lōʾ taʾămînû], though it be told you”) and Isaiah 29:14: “Therefore, behold, I will proceed [yôsip51] to do a marvellous work [lĕhapĕlîʾ] among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder [hapĕlēʾ wāpeleʾ]: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.” This is similar, though not identical, to what Nephi does in his interpretive quotation of Isaiah 11:11 and 29:14 in 2 Nephi 25:17; 29:1.52 It is also similar to Jacob’s interpretation of Zenos’s allegory of the olive tree, especially Jacob 5:61–64, in terms of Isaiah 11:11 and yosîp (“set [do] . . . again”) in Jacob 6:2.53 Mormon elsewhere points out that the Josephite prophets Zenos and Zenoch54 [Zenock] “testified particularly concerning us, who are the remnant of their seed” (3 Nephi 10:16). This would help explain the iterative divine action of the Lord of the Vineyard in the allegory as an extension of the idea of “Joseph” (see the language of “[do] . . . again” in Jacob 5:29, 33, 58–68, 73–75).55 It would also help explain why Nephi, Jacob, Mormon, Moroni, and even the Savior himself connected Isaiah 11:11–12 with the idea of “Joseph” (divine doing again/gathering) and why Nephi and the Lord specifically connected Isaiah 29:14 with “Joseph” and the Nephite record as the means of gathering the seed of Joseph in fulfillment of covenant promises to Joseph in Egypt (see, e.g., 2 Nephi 25:21).

It should also be noted that the Hebrew texts of Habakkuk 1:5 and Isaiah 29:14 make similar use of polyptoton, the rhetorical repetition of cognate terms, usually for emphasis: wĕhittammĕhû tĕmāhû, pōʿal pōʿēl, lĕhaplîʾ/haplēʾ wāpeleʾ. In Habbakuk 1:5 and Isaiah 29:14, polyptoton emphasizes the miraculous, wondrous, and the divine origin and nature of Yahweh’s work. Here that work is clearly stated to be the gathering of Israel (3 Nephi 21:1) in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (3 Nephi 21:7). The use of polyptoton also carries over into Jesus’s quotation of Habakkuk 1:5 and is echoed in his allusion to Isaiah 29:14.

Jesus makes clear that this divine gathering will be achieved through the instrumentality of his “servant.” As noted above, Jesus first quoted the “servant song” of Isaiah 52:13–15 messianically in 3 Nephi 20:43–46 and he returns to it in 3 Nephi 21:8 and 10 to further explain its latter-day fulfillment. Clearly, we can read Isaiah 52:13–15 christologically with the “marred” servant being Jesus, as Jesus himself does. Given the emphasis and movement of Jesus’s sermon toward the latter-day gathering of Israel, we can also understand the “marred” servant of 3 Nephi 20:43–46 and the “marred” and “healed” servant of 3 Nephi 21:10 as Joseph Smith, which becomes an even more poignant reading when we consider Jesus’s allusion to Isaiah 29:14 (with its use of yôsip/yôsīp).

What’s more, as Gaye Strathearn and Jacob Moody have demonstrated, this “servant” who has been “marred” then “healed” can also be understood as Mormon’s record—the Book of Mormon—itself.56 The Isaiah 29:14 sealed-book context of 3 Nephi 21:9 suggests this as does the strong intertextual connection between 3 Nephi 21:10 and Doctrine and Covenants 10:43, suggested in footnote b to 3 Nephi 21:10 in the 1980 and 2013 Latter-day Saint English editions of the Book . Like Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon was humanly “marred” and divinely “healed.” It was “marred” with Martin Harris’s loss of the manuscript pages and providentially “healed” with Nephi’s creation, his successors’ keeping, and Mormon’s incorporation of the small plates of Nephi.

“That They May Be Gathered In . . . unto the New Jerusalem”: The Latter-day Ingathering

Consistent with the prophecy of Isaiah 49:22–23, the Lord declares that the Gentiles will be instrumental in “gathering in” his people “in unto the New Jerusalem”: “And then shall they assist my people that they may be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land, in unto the New Jerusalem. And then shall the power[s] of heaven come down among them; and I also will be in the midst” (3 Nephi 21:24–25). This declaration resumes thoughts expressed in his discourse: “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). 3 Nephi 20:22 again makes clear that all this will be done in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant as reiterated to Jacob. Regarding the Gentiles that will assist in Israel’s gathering, Gardner notes, “These converted Gentiles will help gather Israel to the New Jerusalem. No doubt for many it will be a physical gathering. However, no single city can hold the assembled faithful even today; how much less likely in the future! Much of the gathering will be spiritual with the New Jerusalem as the new headquarters of God’s government on earth.”57

The underlying verb here translated “that they may be gathered in” is plausibly the Hebrew verb ʾāsap, which is closely associated with the harvest ingathering. Whenever the collocation “gather in”/“gathered in” occurs in the KJV, the underlying verb is ʾāsap.58

The Hebrew lexeme ʾāsap and the harvest ingathering prominently figure into the cultic legislation governing the autumn festival complex. Exodus 23:16 stipulates the commemoration of “the feast of ingathering [wĕḥag hāʾāsip], which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in [bĕʾospĕkā] thy labours out of the field.” The “feast of ingathering” (ḥag hāʾāsip) was the last of three pilgrimage festivals that required Israelite males to “appear before the Lord” at the central sanctuary (i.e., the tabernacle or, later, the temple): “The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep”; “And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end” (Exodus 34:18, 22; compare 3 Nephi 10:18, “in the ending of the thirty and fourth year”). The feast of ingathering constituted a part of the Feast of Tabernacles or Sukkot (“Booths”):

Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in [bĕʾospĕkem] the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord seven days: on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath. And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days. And ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month. Ye shall dwell in booths [bassukōt] seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths [bassukōt]: that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths [bassukōt], when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 23:39–43)

Deuteronomy also attests an iteration of this directive: “Thou shalt observe the feast of tabernacles [ḥag sukkōt] seven days, after that thou hast gathered [bĕʾospĕkā] in thy corn and thy wine” (Deuteronomy 16:13). The Feast of Ingathering (Feast of Tabernacles) in the “seventh month” corresponds to the old Canaanite month(s) of ʾsp, as attested in the tenth century BCE Gezer Calendar (see figure 1): “his (two) months of gathering” (yrḥw ʾsp).

Figure 1. The Gezer Calendar (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gezer_calendar#/media/File:Gezer_calendar_close_up.jpg).

Recalling that the Feast of Ingathering or Sukkot, was to be celebrated “when thou hast gathered in [bĕʾospĕkā] thy labours out of the field,” we can more fully appreciate Jesus’s use of the harvest labor as a metaphor for preaching the gospel, missionary work, or “gathering” Israel.59 We can also better appreciate Ammon’s harvest metaphor as describing missionary work among the Lamanites as a “gathering” of a “remnant of Joseph”:

Behold, the field was ripe, and blessed are ye, for ye did thrust in the sickle, and did reap with your might, yea, all the day long did ye labor; and behold the number of your sheaves! And they shall be gathered [compare wĕʾāsĕpû] into the garners, that they are not wasted. Yea, they shall not be beaten down by the storm at the last day; yea, neither shall they be harrowed up by the whirlwinds; but when the storm cometh they shall be gathered together [yiqqābĕṣû60] in their place, that the storm cannot penetrate to them; yea, neither shall they be driven with fierce winds whithersoever the enemy listeth to carry them. But behold, they are in the hands of the Lord of the harvest, and they are his; and he will raise them up at the last day. (Alma 26:5–7).

Ammon’s prophetic metaphor echoes the story of the patriarch Joseph:

And Joseph [yôsēp] dreamed a dream, and he told it his brethren: and they hated him yet the more [wayyôsipû ʿôd]. And he said unto them . . . For, behold, we were binding sheaves [mĕʾallĕmîm ʾălummîm] in the field, and, lo, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright; and, behold, your sheaves stood round about, and made obeisance to my sheaf. (Genesis 37:5–7)

The result was that “they hated him yet the more [wayyôsipû ʿôd] for his dreams, and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). Yet it was Joseph, the brother who was hated and sold, that “gathered up [wayyiqbōṣ] all the food of the seven years, which were in the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:48), a harvest (as in his dream) that saved the family (“house”) of Israel. Just as Joseph becomes the means of “gathering” into Egypt (“And he put them all together [wayyeʾĕsōp] into ward three days,” Genesis 42:17) and saving the very brothers who hated him, Ammon and his brothers become the means of saving the very brothers who had so long hated them (i.e., the Lamanites): “For if we had not come up out of the land of Zarahemla, these our dearly beloved brethren, who have so dearly beloved us, would still have been racked with hatred against us, yea, and they would also have been strangers to God” (Alma 26:9); “But behold, my beloved brethren, we came into the wilderness not with the intent to destroy our brethren, but with the intent that perhaps we might save some few of their souls” (Alma 26:26). Ammon’s ancestor, Nephi, had also compared his life to that of Joseph and the “added” fraternal hatred that Joseph endured,61 especially when the latter implored his own soul, “Do not anger again [cf. ʾal-tôsîp, do not add to be angry] because of mine enemies” (2 Nephi 4:29). Nevertheless, he later lamented that his brothers’ “anger did increase [cf. yāsap or hôsîp] against me, insomuch that they did seek to take away my life” (2 Nephi 5:1–2).62 Ammon, however, rather than experiencing an increase of what had become generational fraternal hatred, witnessed what he seems to have recognized as another fulfillment of Joseph’s dream. Ammon, his brothers, and their missionary associates became a means of gathering, reuniting, and reconciling estranged descendants of Lehi and thus sundered branches of the house of Joseph (compare Mosiah 28:2), just as Joseph had done for the family of Israel, his father.

Rearward II: “Gathered Home” Under Divine
Protection—Closing the Isaiah Frame

The final echoes of the name Joseph in terms of “gathering” verbs in Jesus’s discourse surface in 3 Nephi 21:26–29:

And then shall the work of the Father commence at that day, even when this gospel shall be preached among the remnant of this people. Verily I say unto you, at that day shall the work of the Father commence among all the dispersed of my people, yea, even the tribes which have been lost, which the Father hath led away out of Jerusalem. Yea, the work shall commence among all the dispersed of my people, with the Father to prepare the way whereby they may come unto me, that they may call on the Father in my name. Yea, and then shall the work commence, with the Father among all nations in preparing the way whereby his people may be gathered home to the land of their inheritance. And they shall go out from all nations; and they shall not go out in haste, nor go by flight, for I will go before them, saith the Father, and I will be their rearward [*ûmĕʾassiphem or ûmĕʾassipām].

The scripture block concludes with Jesus again quoting Isaiah 52:12 and the phrase “I will be their rearward”—i.e., their mĕʾassip, the one “gathering in” the stragglers. Isaiah 58:8 offers the prophetic promise, “the glory of the Lord shall be thy rearward” [yaʾaspekā]); that is, “the glory of the Lord shall gather you in.” Gardner writes, “Jesus concludes this section about the future—about how the gathering begins after the Book of Mormon’s coming forth—by again quoting Isaiah 52:12 (v.29).”63 Thus, the reiteration of mĕʾassip—“rearward” or literally, “gatherer” is particularly poignant. Jesus could have chosen no better text or term to punctuate this prophecy than Isaiah 52:12 and mĕʾassip, especially when we consider its etiological association with the name Joseph.

The promise that the Lord will be the “rearward” of his covenant people is one that he has reiterated in modern revelation: “Behold, I will go before you and be your rearward; and I will be in your midst, and you shall not be confounded” (Doctrine and Covenants 49:27). Jesus Christ will ever be the mĕʾassip to the repentant remnant of the seed of Joseph and to all the house of Israel. Indeed, the Savior himself has been the one gathering Israel all along. The seed of Joseph among the Gentiles have been the instrument in his hand used for that purpose.

Variations on the statement “then shall the work of the Father commence,” apparently allude to the prophecy of Joseph in Egypt, as preserved in 2 Nephi 3:13: “And out of weakness he shall be made strong, in that day when my work shall commence among all my people, unto the restoring thee, O house of Israel, saith the Lord.” Nephi quotes or alludes to this prophecy at least twice: “then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel” (1 Nephi 14:17); “And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall commence his work among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, to bring about the restoration of his people upon the earth” (2 Nephi 30:8).

“That They May Come Again to the
Remnant of This People”: Epilogue

In 3 Nephi 26, Mormon explains his limited inclusion of the quotations and interpretations of Isaiah, Micah, and Malachi that he chose to include. He designates them “the lesser part” of what Jesus taught: “And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again [compare wayyôsîpû] unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken” (3 Nephi 26:8). As an echo of the name Joseph, Mormon’s statement recalls Jesus’s identification of his Lamanite-Nephite audience: “Ye are my disciples; and ye are a light unto this people, who are a remnant of the house of Joseph [yôsēp]” (3 Nephi 15:12).

Mormon’s statement also reveals how the Lord intended to do what he previously declared the Lord would do: “Yea, and surely shall he again [compare yôsîp] bring a remnant of the seed of Joseph [yôsēp] to the knowledge of the Lord their God” (3 Nephi 5:21–23). The words of Jesus, written in his record, would “be brought again” unto the Lamanite-Nephite “remnant of the seed of Joseph,” thus “again bring[ing] a remnant of the seed of Joseph to the knowledge of the Lord their God.”

Conclusion

Jesus declared to the Lamanites and Nephites at the temple in Bountiful: “ye are a light unto this people, who are a remnant of the house of Joseph” (3 Nephi 15:12). On this basis, Mormon contextualized and framed much of the content of 3 Nephi, beginning at 3 Nephi 5:21, 23–26 in terms of the name Joseph and the Joseph-related concepts of iterative, restorative divine action and gathering. Mormon included the Isaiah-based prophecies of Jesus that particularly hewed to these themes, with their echoes of harvest ingathering. Thus, Mormon used the name Joseph and its associated meanings to remind the latter-day remnant of Joseph, who would read his record, of their history and their special role in the Lord’s “set[ting] his hand again” to “gather” Israel. Mormon was saying in effect, “Remember who you are and what you are supposed to do! Just as Joseph of old ‘gathered’ Israel into Egypt and thus saved the family of Israel from death, you are to gather and save the family of Israel through Christ in the last days.” Moroni’s interpretation of Ether’s prophecy and typological interpretation of the Joseph story articulates a similar point (see Ether 13:2–12).

Mormon appears to have understood Jesus’s quotations, adaptations, and interpretations of Isaiah 52 given in his sermon at the temple in Bountiful, in terms of the fulfillment of Isaiah 11:11–12 and the additive restoration and gathering implied in the name Joseph. The two key Joseph-verbs yāsap (“do again”) and ʾāsap (“gather in”; see also qibbēṣ) from Isaiah 11:11–12 influenced his own prophecy in 3 Nephi 5:23–26, the latter being derived from the former. These prophecies with their promises of iterative divine restoration and gathering constitute an important key in understanding the message of 3 Nephi, especially 3 Nephi 11–26, and the Book of Mormon as a whole.

[Author’s Note: I would like to thank Suzy Bowen, Godfrey Ellis, Jeff Lindsay, Allen Wyatt, Victor Worth, Tanya Spackman, and Alan Sikes.]

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) and, more recently, Ancient Names in the Book of Mormon: Toward a Deeper Understanding of a Witness of Christ (Salt Lake City: Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2023). With Aaron P. Schade, he is the coauthor of The Book of Moses: From the Ancient of Days to the Latter Days (Provo, UT; Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2021). He and his wife (the former Suzanne Blattberg) are the parents of three children: Zachariah, Nathan, and Adele.

1 . See Matthew L. Bowen, “‘We Are a Remnant of the Seed of Joseph’: Moroni’s Interpretive Use of Joseph’s Coat and the Martial nēs-Imagery of Isaiah 11:11–12,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 41 (2020): 169–92, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/we-are-a-remnant-of-the-seed-of-joseph-moronis-interpretive-use-of-josephs-coat-and-the-martial-nes-imagery-of-isaiah-1111-12/.

2 . 3 Nephi 5:21, 23; 3 Nephi 10:17 (bis); 3 Nephi 15:12. See later in this study.

3 . See Matthew L. Bowen, “Ominous Onomastics: Symbolic Naming and Paronomasia in Old Testament Prophecy,” in Prophets and Prophecies of the Old Testament, ed. Aaron P. Schade, Brian M. Hauglid, and Kerry Muhlestein (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center; Brigham Young University [BYU]; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017), 24.

4 . Donald W. Parry, Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Reformatted Text (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2007), 444.

5 . 2 Nephi 10:8: “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.” Compare Isaiah 49:22.

6 . See Matthew L. Bowen, “‘He Shall Add’: Wordplay on the Name Joseph and an Early Instance of Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon,” Insights: The Newsletter of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship 30, no. 2 (2010): 2–4, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/insights/vol30/iss2/3.

7 . 3 Nephi 10:17–19: “Behold, our father Jacob also testified concerning a remnant of the seed of Joseph. And behold, are not we a remnant of the seed of Joseph? And these things which testify of us, are they not written upon the plates of brass which our father Lehi brought out of Jerusalem? And it came to pass that in the ending of the thirty and fourth year, behold, I will show unto you that the people of Nephi who were spared, and also those who had been called Lamanites, who had been spared, did have great favors shown unto them, and great blessings poured out upon their heads, insomuch that soon after the ascension of Christ into heaven he did truly manifest himself unto them—showing his body unto them, and ministering unto them; and an account of his ministry shall be given hereafter. Therefore for this time I make an end of my sayings.”

8 . New Revised Standard Updated Edition.

9 . Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden, NDL: Brill, 2001), 684. Hereafter cited as HALOT.

10 . Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 634. Hereafter cited as BDB.

11 . HALOT, 683.

12 . HALOT, 684.

13 . HALOT, 684.

14 . HALOT, 683.

15 . HALOT, 683.

16 . See Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part One: 1 Nephi 1 – 2 Nephi 10 (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS], 2014), 477.

17 . I am thankful to my friend Paul Y. Hoskisson (personal communication, 2 January 2024) for this suggestion.

18 . HALOT, 683.

19 . I.e., from a strictly linguistic perspective rather than a literary or midrashic etymological perspective. Sometimes the etiological explanations of names are more literary than they are literal. In that way, they can be vehicles for richer layers of symbolism.

20 . Martin Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (Stuttgart, DEU: Kolhammer, 1928), 212. See also HALOT, 403.

21 . Micah 2:12: “I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the sheep of Bozrah, as the flock in the midst of their fold: they shall make great noise by reason of the multitude of men.”

22 . HALOT, 418.

23 . See HALOT, 74–75.

24 . HALOT, 1111–13.

25 . On the “Joseph” and “Abraham” wordplay evident in 1 Nephi 22:6, 8–12, see Matthew L. Bowen, “‘The Lord God Will Proceed’: Nephi’s Wordplay in 1 Nephi 22:8–12 and the Abrahamic Covenant,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 50 (2022): 51–70, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-lord-god-will-proceed-nephis-wordplay-in-1-nephi-228-12-and-the-abrahamic-covenant/.

26 . Nephi may be reading this as another “Joseph” reference. See Bowen, “The Lord God Will Proceed,” 55–56. Ketiv = what is written in the Masoretic Hebrew text; Qere is what is to be read. The Qere here may preserve the more original idea.

27 . See, e.g., Joseph M. Spencer, “Lecture VII” and “Lecture VIII,” in The Vision of All: Twenty-five Lectures on Isaiah in Nephi’s Record (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford, 2016), 71–93.

28 . On the significance of the ritual sequence in 3 Nephi 19, see Matthew L. Bowen, “‘That They May Be Purified in Me’: Ritual Purification in 3 Nephi 19 and Its Implications for Divine Belonging as the Telos of Latter-day Saint Temple Ordinances and Worship,” in The Temple: Past, Present, and Future, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Series 6 (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2021), 1–30.

29 . Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 5 (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford, 2007), 526.

30 . Gardner, Second Witness, 526.

31 . The passivum divinum or divine passive is a passive verbal construction in which the implied subject of the verb is God.

32 . On the covenant people theme, see especially Victor L. Ludlow, “The Father’s Covenant People Sermon: 3 Nephi 20:10–23:5,” in Third Nephi: An Incomparable Scripture, ed. Andrew C. Skinner and Gaye Strathearn (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2012), 147–74.

33 . Matthew L. Bowen, “‘They Shall Be Scattered Again’: Some Notes on JST Genesis 50:24–25, 33–35,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 57 (2023): 107–28, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/they-shall-be-scattered-again-some-notes-on-jst-genesis-5024-25-33-35/

34 . KJV interprets Moses as “the king in Jeshurun.” NRSVUE: “There arose a king in Jeshurun, when the leaders of the people assembled, the united tribes of Israel.”

35 . See especially Mosiah 12:22 and 15:29.

36 . Gardner, Second Witness, 5:534.

37 . For the preeminent study on this subject, see Catrin H. Williams, I Am He: The Interpretation of ʾAnî Hûʾ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Tübingen, DEU: Mohr Siebeck, 2000).

38 . Gardner, Second Witness, 5:535.

39 . HALOT, 74.

40 . HALOT, 541.

41 . BDB, 68.

42 . Or, mĕʾaspāyw.

43 . Or, ûmĕqabbĕṣāyw.

44 . Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 53.

45 . Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Thy Will Be Done’: The Savior’s Use of the Divine Passive,” in The Sermon on the Mount in Latter-day Scripture, ed. Gaye Strathearn, Thomas A. Wayment, and Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 250n27, rsc.byu.edu/sermon-mount-latter-day-scripture/thy-will-be-done.

46 . Bowen, “Thy Will Be Done,” 250n17.

47 . See also Moroni 10:33. Moroni seems have borrowed this phrase from 3 Nephi 21:4.

48 . After dedicating the Holy Land and Jerusalem for the return of the Jews, Orson Hyde while still in transit reported, “I have found many Jews who listened with intense interest. The idea of the Jews being restored to Palestine is gaining ground in Europe almost every day. Jerusalem is strongly fortified with many cannon upon its walls. The wall is ten feet thick on the sides that would be most exposed, and four or five feet where the descent from the wall is almost perpendicular. The number of inhabitants within the walls is about twenty thousand. About seven thousand of this number are Jews, the balance being mostly Turks and Armenians. Many of the Jews who are old go to this place to die, and many are coming from Europe into this eastern world. The great wheel is unquestionably in motion, and the word of the Almighty has declared that it shall roll.” See B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 4 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1908), 459.

49 . On the Joseph-wordplay evident in Ether 13:5–8, see Matthew L. Bowen, “‘They Shall No More Be Confounded’: Moroni’s Wordplay on Joseph in Ether 13:1–13 and Moroni 10:31,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30 (2018): 91–104, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/they-shall-no-more-be-confounded-moronis-wordplay-on-joseph-in-ether-131-13-and-moroni-1031/.

50 . Gardner, Second Witness, 5:537.

51 . Or, yôsīp.

52 . Bowen, “He Shall Add,” 2–4.

53 . Matthew L. Bowen, “‘The Messiah Will Set Himself Again’: Jacob’s Use of Isaiah 11:11 in 2 Nephi 6:14 and Jacob 6:2,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 44 (2021): 287–306, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-messiah-will-set-himself-again-jacobs-use-of-isaiah-1111-in-2-nephi-614-and-jacob-62/.

54 . Following Royal Skousen, The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2022), 592.

55 . See further Matthew L. Bowen, “‘I Have Done According to My Will’: Reading Jacob 5 as a Temple Text,” in The Temple: Ancient and Restored, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and Donald W. Parry, Series 2 (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2016), 239–40, interpreterfoundation.org/reprint-i-have-done-according-to-my-will-reading-jacob-5-as-a-temple-text/. See also Matthew L. Bowen and Loren Blake 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, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/thou-art-the-fruit-of-my-loins-the-interrelated-symbolism-and-meanings-of-the-names-joseph-and-ephraim-in-ancient-scripture/.

56 . Gaye Strathearn and Jacob Moody, “Christ’s Interpretation of Isaiah 52’s ‘My Servant’ in 3 Nephi,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 18, no. 1 (2009): 4–15, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol18/iss1/11/. On how Judah (and the Jews) as Yahweh’s “servant” fits this typology, see Matthew L. Bowen, “‘What Thank They the Jews’? (2 Nephi 29:4): A Note on the Name ‘Judah’ and Antisemitism,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scholarship 12 (2014): 111–25, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/what-thank-they-the-jews-2-nephi-294-a-note-on-the-name-judah-and-antisemitism/; see further the live presentation based on this article, Matthew L. Bowen, “‘What Thank They the Jews?’ A Note on the Name Judah and Antisemitism; and Why We Should Thank the Jews: Nephi’s View of the Jewish Role in Human Salvation,” B’nai Shalom, Salt Lake City, 30 March 2017. Video at youtube.com/watch?v=p8YyGZJiAVo.

57 . Gardner, Second Witness 5:544–45.

58 . See Exodus 23:10, 16; Deuteronomy 11:14.

59 . Matthew 9:37–38; Mark 4:26–30; Luke 10:2; John 4:35–36; Doctrine and Covenants 4:4; 6:3–4; 11:3–4; 12:3–4; 14:3–4; 33:3, 7; 101:64; compare Matthew 13:24–30; Doctrine and Covenants 86:7.

60 . Compare, for example, Isaiah 60:4.

61 . See Alan Goff, “A Hermeneutic of Sacred Texts: Historicism, Revisionism, Positivism, and the Bible and Book of Mormon” (MA dissertation, BYU, 1989), 60, 105, 130–33, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4719; Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Their Anger Did Increase Against Me’: Nephi’s Autobiographical Permutation of a Biblical Wordplay on the Name Joseph,” Interpreter: A Journal Mormon Scholarship 23 (2017): 115–36, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/their-anger-did-increase-against-me-nephis-autobiographical-permutation-of-a-biblical-wordplay-on-the-name-joseph/.

62 . See especially Bowen, “Their Anger Did Increase Against Me,” 130–34.

63 . Gardner, Second Witness, 5:545.

Nameless: Mormon’s Dramatic Use of Omission in Helaman 2

Nathan J. Arp

Abstract: There are many reasons why a narrator may choose to provide or withhold the names of various characters. This article hypothesizes that Mormon intentionally omitted the name of a key character from the book of Helaman related to the origin of the Gaddianton robbers. While it is not possible to know exactly what information Mormon and other Nephite recordkeepers had or preserved, it is at least plausible that Mormon might have intentionally omitted the name of a clandestine operative in the first two chapters of Helaman as a specific strategy to emphasize this operative’s secrecy and allow the reader to take on his identity more easily. By using this narrative strategy, Mormon can powerfully demonstrate to the reader the importance of resisting tyranny in the defense of freedom. Moreover, Mormon thrills his readers with a tale of spy vs. spy: the Gaddianton robbers versus the nameless organization that initially defeats them. This article suggests that Mormon is a careful editor capable of the rare literary magic of revealing hidden truths that can best be said through silence.

According to the online Book of Mormon Onomasticon, there are over 330 proper names in the Book of Mormon. Over 180 are unique to this ancient American record.1 Even with so many proper names appearing in its text, many characters are referenced in the Book of Mormon without names. In addition to the possibility that these characters are unnamed due to personal biases or availability, there are literary reasons why an editor or author might not name a character in a text. For example, many studies propose the representational power the character Mary wields because the author of the Gospel of John chose not to use her name.2 In order to explore the possibility that a Book of Mormon author may have also withheld a character’s name intentionally for literary effect, we will look at the nameless servant of Helaman referenced in Helaman 2. This paper proposes that Mormon may have left this servant and his comrades unnamed to dramatize the narrative centered around the secret society formed by Gaddianton and Kishcumen.3

The backdrop of the Gaddianton robbers is an ideal context to explore the possibility that Mormon might name and withhold names of his characters for literary utility. Kimberley Matheson has noted that the Gaddianton robbers disrupt Nephite and Lamanite societies through “their invisible, networked, and diffuse approach to power.”4 Matheson has also observed that the textual structure of the book of Helaman, the section under exploration in this paper, makes it possible for “virtually every character and object within the book of Helaman [to be] related to the twin themes of visibility and invisibility.”5 Thus, when we see that the Gaddianton robbers, who intended to be invisible, are actually rendered very visible with names and the details of their activities by an unknown organization with nameless agents, it is quite possible that we are seeing authorial intent. That is to say, Mormon may be signaling the reader to the significance of this unnamed servant and his secret cadre of co-servants which are implicitly contrasted with the not-so-secret Gaddianton robbers.

In this paper, I will explore the narrative strategies that Mormon employed to describe the secret societies that infect the book of Helaman and Third Nephi. First, I will introduce Mormon’s narrative art. Second, I will present a brief history of the Gaddianton robbers and suggest Mormon strategically omitted information to accentuate the suspense created by the robbers’ secrecy and to emphasize their success or failures at being secret. Last, I will explain how Mormon exploited these omissions to subtly reveal another secret society, one even better at secrecy than the Gaddianton robbers. Here, and other places within this article, I refer to secrecy as a tradecraft, or skillset, that is separate from any purpose for which one might use secrecy. The Gaddianton robbers used secrecy to gain power through murder. This second group used secrecy to defend and protect the church and a system of government. This group is so secret, in fact, that they remain nameless, serving the chief judge and prophet in silence. They are the group that reveals the existence of the Gaddianton robbers and foils their attempts to assassinate Helaman, the chief judge and prophet. In this paper, I will refer to this group, who counter the Gaddianton robbers and protect the chief judge and prophet, as the Secret Service. I must provide a name because, as a crowning ornament to his tradecraft in silence, Mormon kept this secret society nameless, allowing the reader to enter the narrative and become a character in his story. Overall, the narratives of the Gaddianton robbers were part of a warning from Mormon and Moroni to their future readers. Mormon’s art allows readers to imaginatively enter the text and join the fight against this nefarious force.

An Introduction to Mormon’s Art

Although not always praised for its literary quality, the Book of Mormon is a “structurally sophisticated” assembly of ideological narratives.6 These narratives are set within a self-contained and self-consistent historical framework. The dimensions of this history not only frame the ideological commentary accompanying the narratives, but also display its sometimes-under-recognized art. Mormon is the primary architect behind the tome’s organization, the rhythm of its narrative sequencing, and the tenor of its ideology. Efforts to identify Mormon’s narrative techniques can reward us by opening our eyes to his art, which can easily be missed. One aspect of Mormon’s editing that we may not always recognize is his use of drama to enhance his narratives.

For example, before taking his readers through a contrasting pair of parallel narratives featuring the people who accept and those who reject Alma1’s teachings, Mormon interrupts his abridgment in Mosiah 23:23 to prepare us with this statement, “I will shew unto you . . . .” Through phrases like this, Mormon prepares the reader for upcoming dramatic scenarios and also manifests that he is aware of the drama he is providing. In a later narrative (Alma 51), Mormon joins the reader by speaking in first-person plural, as he helps the reader avoid a misconception about the antagonist Amalickiah: “But behold, we shall see that his promise which he made was rash” (v. 10). There are many more examples of Mormon explicitly foreshadowing events, which manifest his clear understanding that he was delivering drama. That artful drama is especially apparent in Helaman 1 and 2.

My approach to Mormon’s literary style assumes what many scholars have shown: that the Book of Mormon is carefully constructed. For instance, Charles Swift’s close readings reveal that the text of the Book of Mormon “frequently shows signs of having been carefully crafted.”7 Like Swift’s, my approach differs from one traditional view: that Mormon wrote during “an extremely dangerous and unstable period,”8 which rendered him incapable of anything more than a hurried narrative. Although some information in the Book of Mormon provides details on the circumstances under which Mormon abridged his record, the best evidence of its sophisticated composition is the text itself. Having carefully read the text, Grant Hardy has stated:

In light of Mormon’s artistic structuring of his account with deliberate editing, parallel narratives, and specific verbal connections, Latter-day Saints may want to rethink their long-held assumption that the circumstances of Mormon’s life forced him to write hurriedly.9

In addition to Hardy, other scholars have noted the presence of narrative art that transcends hurried, unpolished history. Kylie Turley has observed:

Mormon appears not as a moralistic editor of unsophisticated stories “and thus we see” didactic conclusions, but as a skillful author and editor who can portray himself as inexperienced while simultaneously weaving depth and nuance into his stories, rounding out flat characters, and creating silences that speak louder than words.10

While the context for Mormon’s life can help us understand how the Book of Mormon was written, the best tool for understanding the Book of Mormon is the text. Even so, when a scholar such as Noel Reynolds states that the Book of Mormon is “a work of art,”11 many readers might find this hard to believe because they have the wrong approach to understanding and appreciating this ancient work.

According to Roland Meynet, it has taken centuries for biblical readers and scholars to discover that the Bible had its own rhetoric and that the Western world had been applying the wrong paradigm, a Greco-Roman literary lens, to evaluate and interpret it.12 It has only been in the second half of the twentieth century that scholars like Robert Alter and Meier Sternberg have begun piecing together appropriate literary methodologies to reveal the Bible’s own artistry. In multiple publications, Noel Reynolds has shown how these same rhetorical tools unique to Hebrew literature are manifest in the Book of Mormon.13 Grant Hardy has, likewise, shown how applying these literary tools can improve our understanding of the Book of Mormon, a literary descendant of the Hebrew Bible. In this paper I apply a Hebrew rhetorical model to the account of the Gaddianton robbers and the hypothesized Secret Service. I propose that Mormon omitted names and other information in the account to create drama and teach the reader theology.

Gaddianton Robbers: A Brief Overview

The Gaddianton robbers14 formed in response to hotly contested elections around 52 BC. Originally formed by the assassin Kishcumen, the group quickly gained a new leader, Gaddianton, after whom the subsequent bands of robbers were named. After famine eradicated the original secret society around 17 BC, the band was reconstituted in 12 BC. This second band was destroyed by an extended, costly military campaign that lasted about thirty-three years. Over 200 years after Christ’s visit to the Nephites, the Gaddianton robbers again formed and appeared to outlive the Nephite civilization (AD 384) and their records (AD 421).

To Mormon, this group was a primary cause for the destruction of Nephite society, which included Christ’s church (see Helaman 2:12–14). Mormon explicitly casts this group in religious terms as followers of Satan (Helaman 6:26–30). According to Mormon, the rise of Satanic “secret combinations” such as the Gaddianton robbers dates back to Cain’s plot to murder his brother Abel (see Helaman 6:26–31; cf. Moses 5). He explained that such murderous secret societies existed “from the beginning of man” (Helaman 6:29). Satan was their originator, teaching man to murder and steal in secret in order to get gain and to pass down this knowledge “from generation to generation” (Helaman 6:30). Moroni also explains that a tradition of secret combinations began with Cain and “had been handed down” from him (Ether 8:15), a tradition possibly alluded to in the story of Cain’s descendant Lamech in Genesis 4:23–24 but found in much more detail in the Book of Moses (Moses 5). In fact, the intertextuality of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses suggests that much of the language of the Book of Mormon that is related to secret combinations could derive from the brass plates if a work similar to the Book of Moses were included in it.15

This tradition of secret murder was preserved in Jaredite texts and in their excessive interest in power. In their texts, the Jaredites discovered the secret combinations and formed them, murdering to gain power. Ultimately, these secret ways led to the complete destruction of the Jaredites.16 The Nephites learned from the Jaredites the danger of secret societies and of the oaths and information that led to their formation. For this reason, the Nephite recordkeepers kept access to these oaths away from the people.

Although the secret works of the Gaddianton robbers have much in common with those among the Jaredites, Mormon is explicit in stating that the Nephite secret combinations did not originate from the records of the Jaredites.17

Now behold, it is these secret oaths and covenants which Alma commanded his son should not go forth unto the world lest they should be a means of bringing down the people unto destruction. Now behold, those secret oaths and covenants did not come forth unto Gaddianton from the records which were delivered unto Helaman. (Helaman 6:25–26)

Just as Cain did not need an ancient text to conceive the idea to kill for gain, Gaddianton did not require an ancient text. In fact, according to Moroni, no one has ever needed documents to learn about secret combinations; he said, “And now I Moroni, do not write the manner of their oaths and combinations, for it hath been made known unto me that they are had among all people” (Ether 8:20). Gaddianton, like Cain, had direct access to the father of evil, Satan himself, who inspired both murderers to kill in secret and to plot with others to keep it secret, while using their secret combination for ongoing gain and power.

Mormon’s narration features an ideological argument that righteousness, not military might or some other social program, was necessary to prevent the robbers from commandeering Nephite society.18 The narration also demonstrates that, for the most part, the robbers were an existential threat that could not be merely prayed away. The Nephites and Lamanites had to actively resist the robbers, to ferret them out of their hiding spots, whether within their society or external to it, and eradicate them (see Helaman 6). The theme of resisting the robbers is part of a larger socio-political theme19—the need to actively resist tyranny in order to maintain freedom.

Mormon indicated that this problem could not be solved by individuals alone. It seems organized groups were needed to curb the robbers’ growth and eradicate them. In fact, Mormon’s commentary implies that government leadership was necessary in the struggle against the robbers. As they blended into more urban areas in the forty-ninth year of the reign of the Judges, the robbers “were not known unto those which were at the head of government; therefore they were not destroyed out of the land.” (Helaman 3:23).20 A reason that the government had to know about the robbers to eradicate them could be that only the government had the capacity to organize the necessary human resources.

I propose that, as a response to approximately thirty-five years of attempts to bring down the Nephite judge system (Alma 2–Helaman 1), the government organized a group of individuals trained to protect the chief judge. Evidence of this group and its training can be seen in the actions taken to apprehend participants in Paanchi’s insurrection in Helaman 1 and to prevent the attempt on Helaman’s life in Helaman 2. Because this government-supported entity was shrouded in secrecy (and, thus, not named) and because the group’s only identified member was described merely as “one of the servants of Helaman” (Helaman 2:6), I refer to the hypothesized group as the Nephite Secret Service. An organization that would have produced the highly skilled individual whose actions are narrated in Helaman 2 may have needed years to develop and pass on the craft of their trade from agent to agent. The expertise of the hypothesized Secret Service may have benefited from the success of military groups like the highly skilled men subordinate to the great captain Teancum.

Captain Teancum was a professional soldier. He was trained and experienced. In fact, the skills of Teancum and his men provided the Nephites with a critical advantage in battle, one that was desperately needed. Even against a much more numerous force, Teancum’s force was successful, because “every man of Teancum did exceed the Lamanites in their strength and in their skill of war” (Alma 51:31). These skills were not accidentally gained; they were trained. The Nephite generals were aware of their disadvantages in numbers, so they attempted to counter this with divine help, training (Alma 51:31), armor (Alma 44:9), fortifications (Alma 48 and 49), and stratagem (see Alma 43:28–30). This mindset of desperation may bear some similarities to that described by the chronicler of the Israeli intelligence unit, Mossad. Ronen Bergman has described this mindset this way: there was a “sense among Israel’s leaders and citizens that the country and its people [were] perpetually in danger of annihilation. . . . Because of Israel’s tiny dimensions, the attempts . . . to destroy it even before it was established, [the] continued threats to do so, and the perpetual menace of . . . terrorism, the country evolved a highly effective military and, arguably, the best intelligence community in the world.”21 The skills displayed by Teancum and his soldiers are examples of Nephite desperate innovation. This same desperation would be a fitting context to the creation of the Secret Service as well.

Another reason that government leadership was necessary to combat the robbers could be that the government was the main target of the robbers. These robbers, like the numerous political dissenters throughout Nephite history, intended to take over the government. They wanted to replace the free government, which established laws by the voice of the people, with tyranny. The Nephites were especially worried that a despot would destroy their freedom of religion. Mormon conveys this concern in his commentary accompanying the campaigns of Amlici (Alma 2:4), Zerahemnah (Alma 43:8–10), Amalickiah (Alma 46:10), and Moroni1, whose Title of Liberty was intended to rally the people against the kingmen, Amalickiah, and Ammoron (Alma 46:11–16; 51:20; and 62:1–11). The struggle between religious freedom and tyranny is a dominant theme throughout the Book of Mormon.

The Secret Service

In the events of the first two chapters of Helaman, Mormon pits the newly formed Gaddianton robbers against another secret society, the Secret Service. As previously mentioned, this service is so secret that Mormon never names them collectively or individually. Even when Mormon details an act of bravery and exemplary tradecraft by an individual from the group, the record remains silent about the agent’s name (Helaman 2:6). The namelessness of this hero and other veiled references to the group let Mormon demonstrate in the composition of the text how this Secret Service beat the newly formed Gaddianton robbers in the perilous game of clandestine conflict. Mormon narrates his account of the Secret Service so subtly that the only real way to spot them is by their absence.

In the aftermath of the hotly contested elections in the fortieth year of the reign of the judges, Paanchi, who lost the election by the voice of the people, was angry. Paanchi “was about to flatter away” his supporters into insurrection but was apprehended and “condemned unto death” (Helaman 1:7–8)—an interesting legal situation, to be sure.22 A key part of this narrative is the phrase “was about to.” It is so important that it is repeated twice, once in verse 7 and once in verse 8. The “about to” phrase describes an unfulfilled intention. Before Paanchi could fully pitch his plan and incite an insurrection, someone else knew his intention and stopped him. This “someone else” probably penetrated Paanchi’s conspiring group, which is precisely what we would expect a Secret Service to do.

Of course, there are multiple possible explanations for this episode. For instance, one of Paanchi’s followers may have had misgivings about the insurrection and divulged Paanchi’s intention to the government. Additionally, Paanchi’s anger may have been so elevated that he discussed his intention too freely. The text says that he was attempting to “flatter away those people,” i.e., “the people that were desirous that he would be their governor.” He may have been doing this in public places where representatives of the government could observe him. But alternatively, or in addition, the government may have had clandestine agents who had infiltrated his group and were watching him. The fact that Paanchi was sharing his intention only with his followers suggests this scenario, as do the subsequent clandestine actions of Helaman’s servant. All things considered, the best explanation for the full spectrum of reported events would seem to be that someone or some group, a Secret Service, clandestinely obtained Paanchi’s plans for insurrection.

Following Paanchi’s apprehension, Kishcumen’s followers “did mingle themselves among the people, in a manner that they all could not be found;” however “as many as were found were condemned unto death” (Helaman 1:12). If all the conspirators covenanted with Kishcumen to tell no one about his act of assassination, how were any of them found? Although the record does not specifically say, the government’s success in finding and executing some of Kishcumen’s followers suggests that there was an organized cadre who were also consistently “mingling . . . among the people,” including among the conspirators, looking for threats to the chief judge. To have detected the conspiracy, this group had to be active before Paanchi’s insurrection, but their actions are highlighted only after the fact, first becoming apparent in the apprehension and execution of Paanchi.

According to Robert Funk, as a general rule in narratives, the more important events are narrated in detail.23 Mormon’s choices on what to narrate or not narrate in detail thus become literarily meaningful. His choice to narrate events that almost happened, and the subsequent assassination of the newly elected chief judge, throws into relief something he did not narrate: Paanchi’s actual execution. The missing account is an oddity for Mormon, who usually meticulously describes the death of rebellious villains, e.g., Nehor, Amilici, and Amalekiah.24 In Paanchi’s case, the execution is not narrated. Instead, Mormon abruptly turns the reader’s attention to Kishcumen and his deployment against Helaman. Mormon focuses more intently on the operations and frustrations of the robbers than on the justice administered to them. This focus may be a sign of authorial intent.

Mormon’s omission of Paanchi’s death may reflect his intent to emphasize the formation of the Gaddianton robbers and of the government entity that squared off against them. The fact that Mormon closes his account of the robbers in Helaman 2 with a clash between them and an unnamed entity supports the hypothesis. As previously noted, Mormon concluded that narrative with the robbers mingling “themselves among the people in a manner that they all could not be found—but as many as were found were condemned unto death” (Helaman 1:12). Again, Mormon did not describe the executions. As in Paanchi’s case, the struggle between the robbers and the Secret Service may have superseded the executions.

After switching to a narration of Coriantumr’s invasion of the Nephite lands and his murder of the Chief Judge Pacumeni (see Helaman 1:14–34), Mormon brings the reader back to another contested election. He writes, “There began to be a contention again among the people concerning who should fill the judgment-seat” (Helaman 2:1). Mormon has prepared us for another political contest, but this time he does not directly inform us about the contestants other than Helaman. Mormon does, however, indirectly reveal who lost to Helaman and how this person planned to ultimately gain the judgment-seat. This may be a situation where the use of Biblical rhetoric frames events that follow. Unlike authors in the Graeco-Roman world, who, according to Meynet, led their readers in “a straight line . . . to a conclusion which ought to compel them to agree,” Mormon, like Biblical authors, is often “content to show the way which one wishing to understand may take.”25

Mormon implies that this second contest for the judgment-seat is between Helaman and Gaddianton. That Gaddianton was a candidate is apparent in what he proffers Kishcumen’s followers: “If they would place [Gaddianton] in the judgment-seat he would grant unto those who belonged to his band that they should be placed in power and authority among the people” (Helaman 2:5). Placing Gaddianton on the judgment-seat required the death of Helaman. In the competition between the three sons of Parhoron1,26 after the murder of Parhoron2 and the disqualification of Paanchi, Pacumeni was the obvious choice for chief judge. This may have been a precedent Gaddianton counted on. Gaddianton, Kishcumen, and their followers were confident that if Helaman were murdered, the judgment-seat would automatically fall to Gaddianton. This suggests that Gaddianton was the popular and well-known runner-up for the chief judge position. Having lost the election, he now seeks to eliminate Helaman, the one person who stands between him and the chief judgeship. But unlike his predecessors, Amlici, Zerahemnah, and Amalickiah, who sought to seize leadership through force of arms and, thus, alienated the mass of the people from themselves, Gaddianton tries to take power by the voice of the people. Doing so would provide a strong political base for his subsequent actions. But to do so, he could leave no fingerprints on the elimination of his rival. A murder committed by the secret society would allow him to remain popular with the people because no one would know he was an accomplice to the assassination.

Regardless of the actual situation, the Gaddianton robbers wanted to kill Helaman and gain power and authority over the people. In this, they fail. Although Mormon foreshadows the doom that the robbers forebode for the people of Nephi (Helaman 2:12–14), here he narrates their defeat at the hands of the Secret Service. He does this through an innovative mix of telling and showing.27 He tells the reader the robbers’ intent: they wanted to assassinate the newly elected chief judge, Helaman, and put Gaddianton on the judgment seat. He reveals that Kishcumen was the assassin, who “did lay wait to destroy Helaman” (Helaman 2:3). He uncovers much of the robbers’ tradecraft (secret skills). He tells us that when Kishcumen killed Parhoron, he was “in disguise” and therefore was able to “mingle . . . among the people” without detection after his mission (Helaman 1:12). He informs us of covenants the robbers used to cover their dark acts in secrecy and, specifically, to harbor Kishcumen after he killed Parhoron and before he killed Helaman (see Helaman 1:12 and 3:3–4). Part of their cloak of secrecy, Mormon tells us, was the use of signs to identify other covenant-makers (see Helaman 3:6–9). Through telling us all these details, Mormon equips or privileges28 the reader with information the conspirators wanted to keep private. By narrating these details, Mormon reveals that the robbers have been infiltrated. Were it not so, neither Mormon nor we would know what happened.

Mormon creates suspense by disclosing more information to the reader than the characters possess. He then reveals how we know such secret information. He introduces a Secret Service agent, identified only as “one of the servants of Helaman” (Helaman 2:6). This agent dons a disguise to infiltrate the robbers, discovers their intent to kill Helaman, intercepts Kishcumen on his way to assassinate Helaman, and then deceives him with a clandestinely obtained sign. He, thus, discovers Kishcumen’s intent and kills him without a sound (see Helaman 2:6–9).

The densely packed action ascribed to this agent contrasts with what Mormon tells us about the robbers. Mormon discloses the name of the group of robbers (the Gaddianton robbers), names their leader (Gaddianton), and names their assassin (Kishcumen). In contrast, he does not name the Secret Service or its agent or even identify it as a formal organization. Helaman is their leader, but his interactions with his agents, unlike those among the Gaddiantons, are not described, just as the name of his agent, unlike that of Kishcumen, is not disclosed. All this reporting of the robbers’ actions while withholding information about the Secret Service reveals to the reader that the Secret Service was actually secret while the robbers were not, or at least the robbers were not as secret as they hoped to be.

There may also have been a difference in difficulty and tradecraft/skills. It seems likely that the disguise of the unnamed servant was different from that of Kishcumen when he killed Parhoron. Kishcumen donned a disguise, maybe as simple as covering his face with ash, to hide who he was.29 The agent probably used a disguise to fit in with the robbers. To be sure, Helaman’s agent had to hide who he was, but he probably also needed to be a specific person. In order to infiltrate the robbers, an intrinsically exclusive group, the agent likely had to create a new persona and gain the robbers’ trust over time. Alternatively, he could have needed to impersonate someone else already known to the robbers. The robbers were a group that had to know its members in order to survive.30 Therefore, this agent would need to habitually don a persona as well as disguise his true allegiance to Helaman.

It is easy to view the non-specific time descriptor “by night” (Helaman 2:6)31 as a singular time reference, something akin to “that night.” However, it is also possible to read “at night” as a habitual time descriptor. Although this time reference is contextualized by a singular occurrence, the information gained by the Secret Service operative about Kishcumen’s attempt to kill Helaman was probably acquired over the course of many nights. It could have required a long time for this agent to blend in with the robbers and gain their trust.32 To successfully execute an operation such as the one Mormon describes, Helaman’s Secret Service would have needed to be strategically sophisticated. Also, to keep the operation effective, Alma’s family, the recordkeepers for this part of Nephite history, may have needed to be circumspect about what they said about the organization as they recorded the history of their governance.

The skills shown by Helaman’s unnamed agent are powerful evidence for the existence of an organized Secret Service security force. The skills that exist in this narrative could come only from training and, specifically, the kind of training provided in a group and practiced as a profession or trade. To support this proposition more fully, consider Brant Gardner’s argument about Nephi. He suggests that Nephi’s exceptional ability as a writer of the books of First and Second Nephi provide evidence of his training as a scribe.33 Gardner notes, “The length and complexity of Nephi’s two texts point to the work of a trained scribe. An untrained, semiliterate person would not have been sufficiently competent to attempt such a record.”34 Ascribing scribal training to Nephi presupposes a certain curriculum known to have been used in other Near Eastern cultures around Israel and years of training under a scholar in a master-disciple relationship. Similarly, the exceptional tradecraft exhibited by the unnamed servant of Helaman suggests that the servant was part of a trained profession as well.

The utility of comparing Helaman’s unnamed servant with Nephi is limited in two ways. First, there is much more information about Nephi than there is about the unnamed servant. Second, there is more information about Nephi’s scribal background than a hypothetical background for the trade proposed for the unnamed operative. Based on the available information, the unnamed servant of Helaman seems to possess skills from the trade of a warrior and a spy. For the espionage or intelligence profession, historical information is limited. Historian Christopher Andrew lamented, “it was more difficult to learn the historical lessons of intelligence than of any other profession mainly because there was so little record of most of its past experience.”35 For example, Andrews observed that “for centuries before the Second World War, educated British people knew far more about intelligence operations recorded in the Bible than they did about the role of intelligence at any moment in their own history.”36 Andrews further observed that “the first major figure in world literature to emphasize the importance of good intelligence was God,” when “God told Moses to send spies to reconnoiter ‘the land of Canaan.’”37

The activities that the narrator describes the unnamed servant performing in order to protect Helaman would have required years of training. For example, although removed by over a thousand years from the time of Moses and Lehi, in their formative years, modern Israeli intelligence organizations found that proper training was absolutely necessary for successful operations. Some sort of training would have also been necessary for Helaman’s unnamed servant. The journalist Ronen Bergman noted that for early modern Israel, “one of the critical weaknesses in th[e] early operations in the 1940’s was the poor training.” Bergman further observed that the only successful early operations “were all carried out by . . . the militia’s only well-trained and fairly well-armed corps.”38 Helaman’s servant being trained implies the existence of a supporting organization with trainers and trainees. Accordingly, when Mormon describes this unnamed servant as “one of the servants of Helaman” (Helaman 2:6), he implies that there was a cadre of servants, in other words, an organization aptly described as the Secret Service. I am not suggesting that they were like the U.S. Secret Service, part of a modern state bureaucracy. I am merely proposing that this group had some sort of structure and the purpose of protecting the Nephite judgeship, a clear need given the history of insurrections outlined previously. They would be analogous to Teancum’s advanced-skilled fighting force. And more specifically, the unnamed servant’s trained skills are analogous to those used by Teancum to assassinate Amalickiah and Ammoron.

As mentioned previously, Captain Teancum was a professional soldier. He successfully infiltrated two camps to kill two related tyrants. It is fair to assume that his use of stealth was a practiced skill. We see this especially in the operation to kill Amalickiah, where Teancum “stole privily into the tent of the king and put a javelin to his heart” (Alma 51:34). The narration of Teancum’s covert operations is sparse, so we do not know how long he had been planning his assassinations. The terseness of the narrative may make the effort seem like it was done on a whim, but within the rhetorical silence there is room to propose the likelihood of an organized effort requiring specific training. The success of this difficult operation alone is evidence that there was a background of training. This same premise is also possible for the unnamed servant. That is, the unnamed servant and his fellow servants trained their precise tradecraft.

Teancum’s covert operation to kill Amalickiah and later to kill Ammoron, could also be termed in modern parlance, a targeted killing. According to Bergman, “targeted killing” refers to “killing a specific individual in order to achieve a specific goal—saving the lives of people the target intends to kill, averting a dangerous act that he is about to perpetrate, and sometimes removing a leader in order to change the course of history.”39 Bergman further observed that “of all the means that democracies use to protect their security, there is none more fraught and controversial than ‘killing the driver’” or targeted killings. One can see this reasoning for killing, saving the lives of many at the expense of the few,40 in the narratives of the Book of Mormon and the controversial moral struggles its characters face starting in its first chapters.41 Although Mormon did not know or did not provide the actual orders the unnamed servant who killed Kishcumen had, what the unnamed servant did could be termed a targeted killing.

After their failure to kill Helaman, unfortunately, this first group of robbers learn their lesson from this experience and remained in relative secrecy afterwards. After Helaman 2, the reader transitions from having a plethora of details about the robbers to a veiled and cryptic account. In these later chapters in Helaman, Mormon maximized the drama of the reading as he continued to not only tell of the robbers’ successful infiltration of the Nephites, but also presented it through obscuring details concerning their movements.

A few decades after the assassination of Parhoron2 and the attempt on Helaman, another chief judge, Cezoram, “[is] murdered by an unknown hand as he sat upon the judgment seat” (Helaman 6:15). In that same year, the next elected chief judge, Cezoram’s unnamed son, “[is] also murdered” (Helaman 6:15). Mormon’s bare-bones narration of these events emphasized the secrecy of the robbers. Mormon’s statement that it was done by an unknown hand is intended for the reader.42 Mormon knew who did it. After giving the reader some suspense, he finally tells us that it was the Gaddianton robbers (see Helaman 6:17–19). Delaying the identity of the assassins not only creates suspense but also puts us in the place of the Nephites, who likely only learned who the assassins were after the assassination occurred.

The suspense Mormon creates in this series of pericopes reveals his awareness of a future reader and that he was providing drama for that reader. Mormon’s representation of the robbers suggests that he was carefully considering how he would present this narrative to us. It is narratives like this that justify closer readings of Mormon’s rhetoric in order to identify authorial intent and layers of possible meaning. Ultimately, these action-packed sequences, and the way they are presented, may belie a specific goal from Mormon; that is, Mormon may have been teaching us, his future readers, how to defeat secret combinations. He wanted us to root out our Gaddianton robbers before they wreaked havoc on us in the same way they did to his people.

Mormon’s Use of Silence

Mormon used silence to loudly applaud this hero’s achievements in resisting evil. Mormon’s direct and wordy praise that he applied to the great captain Moroni (Alma 48:17) is the opposite approach he used here, but possibly with a similar effect. Mormon may have wanted us to see this agent as a hero and allows us to step into his shoes to encourage us to resist tyranny. Instead of telling us how good he thought this agent was, he showed us. He convincingly presented to the reader that even though he was pitted against the very group that eventually brought the whole Nephite civilization down, this agent beat them in their own game of secrecy. He was nameless, faceless, and silent, so much so that even in killing Kishcumen, he did it in a way that Kishcumen died without a sound. It is an exciting and dramatic story made more so by this agent’s lack of a name.

Names are essential in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Playing on the meaning of these names is a common rhetorical device in both traditions. For example, Moshe Garsiel and Herbert Marks have demonstrated that Biblical puns are not merely ornamental but are designed to contribute to the substance of the dramatic tapestry that is the Bible’s conglomerate narrative.43 Amanda Colleen Brown-Mather observed that “in the endeavor to sacralize the act of scripture reading, specific details like names and their meanings can invigorate one’s understanding of the narrative and its theology.”44 Matthew Bowen has highlighted multiple occasions where Mormon creatively employs the meaning of names to enhance his ideological themes.45 I am suggesting the absence of a name for the “servant of Helaman,” who heroically protected Helaman, may have been purposeful. Further, Mormon may have just as carefully and purposefully withheld some names in his narrative to fill his stories more fully with meaning and rhetorical power.

It is possible that the Nephite recordkeepers deliberately withheld names of their Secret Service agents to reduce the risk of their names being leaked and their work being compromised. Many ancient craftsmen, including scribes, were part of elite families with skills passed from father to son, so identifying one person could undermine the secrecy of the group in subsequent generations. This scenario suggests that Mormon did not have access to the names of the Nephite Secret Service members, and that would be why they remain unnamed. Although there was always the fear that the plates could fall into the wrong hands, the recordkeepers also had promises that God would preserve their records.46 Therefore, Alma and his posterity may have been concerned about divulging some information, like the oaths from the Jaredites and the Gaddianton robbers, they did record them.47 I would assume that including the names of the hypothesized Secret Service members might be similarly handled—recorded but not further disseminated to the populace. I suggest, then, that Mormon had access to these names, but withheld them for litrary purposes.

Bowen has pointed to a very fitting example of Mormon’s artistry with names in Mormon’s placement of the name of Paanchi during the pericope of the formation of the Gaddianton robbers in Helaman 1. Bowen and John Gee have remarked that Paanchi48 is “a form of the common Egyptian name p3 ʿnḫ, most plausibly denot[ing] the living one.”49 Bowen further elucidated “that the Egyptian lexeme ʿnḫ (vb. ‘live,’ n. ‘life’) had additional derived meanings. Perhaps the most important secondary meaning of ʿnḫ as a verb was to ‘swear’ and as a noun it also meant ‘oath.’”50 It is within the context of Paanchi’s arrest and Parhoron’s assassination that Mormon narrates these first oaths that the Gaddianton robbers make: “they all entered into a covenant—yea, swearing by their everlasting Maker—that they would tell no man that Kishcumen had murdered Parhoron” (Helaman 1:11).

The importance of names in the Bible and Book of Mormon are accentuated by the namelessness of other characters like Helaman’s unnamed servant. As mentioned previously, R. Alan Culpepper notes that Mary, the mother of Jesus, “is not even named” in the gospel of John. The absence of her name does not suggest that John or Jesus did not care for her or for women in general. The narratives in John demonstrate just the opposite. Culpepper observes that this general “paucity of description has not hindered, and indeed probably has stimulated, a variety of symbolic interpretations” for Mary.51

Perhaps an even closer parallel to the nameless servant of Helaman is the servant of Abraham, who is without a name in the Genesis 24 account. Abraham has a servant Eliezar named in a previous narrative in Genesis 15, but this name is not used for the servant in Genesis 24, the vignette of finding Rebecca and bringing her to Canaan to marry Isaac. He may have been Eliezar, but this name is not used in the later account. Judith Newman has commented that this nameless nature does not make Abraham’s servant a nobody, but that “his identity is revealed only through his actions.”52 Accordingly, the namelessness of Helaman’s servant endows him with representational power. Instead of being identified by a proper name, this servant’s identity is given in his actions to protect Helaman. Because he is “one of the servants of Helaman,” his actions point back to Helaman’s position as the elected judge to protect the freedoms of the people and point back to a group, an organization like the Secret Service. Of particular interest here, the servant’s namelessness stands out in contrast to the named Gaddianton robbers, who were trying to avoid identification.

Mormon possibly removed the identity of the Secret Service and the agent so that we more readily identify with them. He deliberately left the space literarily unoccupied so it could be easier for the reader to enter that point of view. He then causes us to experience those things at the same time that the Secret Service and agent perform them. He does so to demonstrate the need for some form of direct action by righteous people and invites us to be those people. Mormon implies in Helaman 3:23 that the leaders of the government were capable and responsible for combating the threat from secret combinations. Mormon may be directing the reader to the general concept that democracy is vulnerable to the power-hungry and politically ambitious among us. The “among us” part seems especially relevant because, from the perspective of the text’s implied reader,53 the worst threat the Nephites faced was not from without, but from within. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Gaddianton, the Nephite’s greatest threat, may have even been popular to the Nephites. It seems that Mormon was warning the reader to be vigilant.

Moroni also handles the topic of secret combinations but takes a different approach, directly warning the reader about the threat they pose. Within his commentary on secret combinations in Ether 8, Moroni reveals to the reader that God had commanded him to write about them (Ether 8:26). Furthermore, Moroni uses the second-person pronoun you to extend a command from the Lord directly to the reader to be vigilant (Ether 8:24). He pleads with us to repent and to not “suffer . . . that these murderous combinations sh[ould] get above [us]” (Ether 8:23). Moroni calls on us to be vigilant, but not vigilantes—there is a distinction. It is important to point out that the nameless Secret Service agent as narrated by Mormon was not a vigilante. He was a servant of the state and of the church. He was the servant of Helaman, who was both the chief judge and prophet.

Conclusion

Mormon, who has demonstrated a propensity for making the most out of names through plays on their meanings, seems also willing to withhold them at times for thematic reasons. Without access to the full records Mormon used to compose his abridgment, we cannot be sure, but it seems possible that Mormon might intentionally have omitted a name to make a point in a similar fashion as he did by playing on a name’s etymology or repeating a name. The same recordkeepers who preserved the deeds of the agent who saved Helaman might have preserved his name, but Mormon may have deliberately withheld it as a specific strategy to emphasize his secrecy and allow the reader to take on his identity more easily. By using this narrative strategy, Mormon could powerfully teach the reader the importance of resisting tyranny and the suppression of the people’s voice. Mormon’s narrative art displayed in this thrilling episode of espionage and murder identifies Mormon as a careful editor capable of the rare literary magic of revealing hidden truths through silence.

[Author’s Note: Thank you to my brother David for his guidance and constant encouragement, to my friend Katherine for her initial guidance on this idea and subsequent reviews of my drafts, to my brother Devin and the Rozeskis for helping me acquire references, to my friend Craig Blake for his editorial suggestions, and to Godfrey Ellis and Jeff Lindsay as well as the unnamed reviewers of Interpreter. All of these individuals, named and nameless, helped improve this paper.]

Nathan J. Arp graduated from Brigham Young University with a BA in Chinese language and literature. As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Nathan has been enamored by the Church’s scriptures for decades. He has been a longtime consumer of scholarly publications about the scriptures and is grateful for this opportunity to participate in the process of production. When not in an office cubicle, he can be found laughing with his wife, wrestling with their children, or playing with words.

1 . Book of Mormon Onomasticon, s.v. “Fun Facts About Our Onomasticon,” last edited 16 October 2014, onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php?title=Fun_Facts.

2 . One of these works that has observed the representational power of leaving Mary’s character in John’s gospel without a name is R. Alan Culpepper’s Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 133.

3 . While our current Book of Mormon uses the spellings “Gadianton” and “Kishkumen,” I am following the spellings “Gaddianton” and “Kishcumen” that are recommended in Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).

4 . Kimberly M. Berkey, “Narrative Doubling and the Structure of Helaman,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 28, no. 1 (2019): 81, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol28/iss1/4/.

5 . Kimberly Matheson Berkey, Helaman: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University [BYU], 2020), 11. Matheson provides a great overview of the structure and theme of Helaman, 5–12.

6 . Matthew Scott Stenson, “‘Wherefore, for This Cause’: The Book of Mormon as Anti-type of the Brass Serpent,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021): 291–318, journal.interpreterfoundation.org
/wherefore-for-this-cause-the-book-of-mormon-as-anti-type-of-the-brass
-serpent/. Stenson uses the specific phrasing “structurally sophisticated” in footnote 13.

7 . Charles Swift, “When Less is More: The Reticent Narrator in the Story of Alma and Amulek,” Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel 13, no. 1 (2012), 89, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/re/vol13/iss1/10.

8 . Frederick W. Axelgard expressed this historical assessment of Mormon’s life, but not the fact that Mormon’s life made it impossible for him to create a careful record in his illuminating article. Frederick W. Axelgard, “More Than Meets the Eye: How Nephite Prophets Managed the Jaredite Legacy,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 26, no. 1 (2017): 149–50, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms
/vol26/iss1/6.

9 . Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 111.

10 . Kylie Turley, “Alma’s Hell: Repentance, Consequence, and the Lake of Fire and Brimstone,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 28, no. 1 (2019): 40, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol28/iss1/2/.

11 . Noel B. Reynolds, “Lehi and Nephi as Trained Manassite Scribes,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 50 (2022): 212, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/lehi-and-nephi-as-trained-manassite-scribes/.

12 . Roland Meynet, Treatise on Biblical Rhetoric, transl. Leo Arnold (Leiden, NL: Brill, 2012), 5–23.

13 . Noel B. Reynolds has written about the Book of Mormon’s use of Hebrew rhetoric on many occasions, including the following publications: Reynolds, “Chiastic Structuring of Large Texts: 2 Nephi as a Case Study,” in Chiasmus: The State of the Art, ed. John W. Welch and Donald W. Parry (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2020), 177–81, archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/chiastic
-structuring-large-texts-2-nephi-case-study. See also Reynolds, “Nephi’s Outline,” BYU Studies Quarterly 20 (Winter 1980): 131–49, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol20/iss2/2/; Reynolds, “Lehi’s Dream, Nephi’s Blueprint: How Nephi Uses the Vision of the Tree of Life as an Outline for 1 and 2 Nephi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 52 (2022): 231–78, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/lehis-dream-nephis-blueprint-how
-nephi-uses-the-vision-of-the-tree-of-life-as-an-outline-for-1-and-2-nephi/; and Reynolds, “Nephi’s Small Plates: A Rhetorical Analysis,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 50 (2022), 99–122, journal
.interpreterfoundation.org/nephis-small-plates-a-rhetorical-analysis/.

14 . Brant Gardner presents a history of the Gaddianton robbers in Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 5:11–29.

15 . The account in our Book of Moses seems to have strongly influenced the language and allusions in the Book of Mormon related to secret combinations, seeking for gain, secret works, of darkness, etc. See Noel Reynolds, “Brass Plates Version of Genesis,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 34 (2020): 63–96. journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-brass
-plates-version-of-genesis/; and Jeff Lindsay and Noel Reynolds, “Strong Like Unto Moses,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 44 (2021): 1–92. journal.interpreterfoundation.org/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 Genesis account does not seem to work as a source for the detailed information about ancient secret combinations alluded to by Mormon and others.

16 . Daniel L. Belnap counter-reads Moroni’s commentary about this ancient tradition of secret works (see Ether 8:15–19), started and perpetuated by Satan, to suggest that this ancient record that inspired the Jaredite’s secret combinations was possibly positive. Daniel L. Belnap, “‘They Are of Ancient Date’: Jaredite Traditions and the Politics of Gadianton’s Dissent” in Illuminating the Jaredite Records, ed. Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2020), 15.

17 . Alternatively, Belnap has read against the grain of Mormon’s commentary to argue that the origin of the Gaddianton robbers’ secret oaths and covenants could still have come from a possible, but undocumented, leak of the restricted portion of the Jaredite records discussing their secret oaths. Belnap points to the copying and dissemination of the Nephite records and portions of the Jaredite records in Alma 63:12–13 and Helaman 3:13, 15 as “possible” occasions “when multiple versions of the Jaredite record, including at least one with the restricted material . . . could have been accessed.” Although possible, there is no evidence in these passages that the restricted content was part of the wide dissemination to the people. In fact, one has to read against the text to propose this scenario, at least in the case of Alma 63, where Mormon explicitly comments that the restricted material was not shared. Belnap, Illuminating the Jaredite Records, 22.

18 . Helaman chapter 6 provides a telling example by contrasting how the Nephites fall into wickedness and harbor the Gaddianton robbers, while the Lamanites become righteous and eradicate the robbers from among them.

19 . As soon as the Nephite kingship is dissolved and a judge-system put in place, aspirants to the throne attempt to wrest power from the people. Some of the historical context is described in Daniel Belnap, “‘And it came to pass . . .’: The Sociopolitical Events in the Book of Mormon Leading to the Eighteenth Year of the Reign of the Judges,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 23 (2014): 101–39, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol23/iss1/7/; and Daniel Belnap, “‘And he was Anti-Christ’: The Significance of the Eighteenth Year of the Reign of the Judges, Part 2,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 28 (2019): 91–136, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol28/iss1/5/.

20 . Skousen, The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text. All quotes from the Book of Mormon in this paper come from this edition, because it is currently “the definitive scholarly version of the Book of Mormon,” as defined by Grant Hardy, introduction to Skousen, The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, xvii.

21 . Bergman, Rise and Kill First, xxiii.

22 . For a legal discussion on this event, please reference John W. Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: BYU Press and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, BYU, 2008), 311–22.

23 . Robert W. Funk, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1988), 160–61.

24 . For example, this execution is very different from that of Nehor (see Alma 1); the political dissenters in Alma 46, 51, and 62; and the execution of Zemnarihah in 3 Nephi 4. Mormon seems to be a proponent of justice and typically and unambiguously narrates executions, assassinations, and untimely deaths.

25 . “That is what makes the fundamental difference between the Greek world and the Jewish world, between Graeco-Roman rhetoric and biblical and Semitic rhetoric. This difference can be summed up in one sentence: ‘the Greek demonstrates, the Jew indicates.’ The Greek intends to convince his hearers, to lead them along a straight line, by means of logical reasoning, following a demonstration based on a whole series of proofs, to a conclusion which ought to compel them to agree. The Jew, on the contrary, is content to show the way which the one wishing to understand may take.” Meynet, Treatise on Biblical Rhetoric, 20.

26 . It is interesting to note that this particular family perpetuated, what seem to be, Egyptian names. Parhoron, Paanchi, and Pacumeni may all plausibly derive from Egyptian roots and in the case of Paanchi and Pacumeni may even derive from notable Egyptian people with those names. See discussions in Stephen D. Ricks et al., eds., Dictionary of Proper Names and Foreign Words in the Book of Mormon (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation, 2022), 271–76.

27 . Heather Hardy, “Another Testament of Jesus Christ: Mormon’s Poetics,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16, no. 2 (2007): 16–27, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol16/iss2/4/.

28 . Sternberg provides a thorough overview of reading positions in The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 153–85.

29 . See Scripture Central Staff, “Why Did Abinadi Use A Disguise?,” KnoWhy 310, 8 May 2007, 3n3, n14, knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why
-did-abinadi-use-a-disguise.

30 . The paranoia from the Gaddianton robbers can be sensed in Helaman 1:12, 2:11, and 6:22.

31 . Brant Gardner has noted that “the fact that this spy was ‘out by night’ was not accidental but a calculated attempt to collect information and thwart the band’s murderous plans.” Gardner, Second Witness, 5:54.

32 . Alternatively, this agent could have been disguised more simply, even as simple as a tree or bush, and had gained the information he needed in that same night he intercepted Kishcumen.

33 . Brant A. Gardner, “Nephi as Scribe,” Mormon Studies Review 23, no. 1 (2011): 45–55, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol23/iss1/5. For further support of Gardner’s original hypothesis, see Noel B. Reynolds, “Lehi and Nephi as Trained Manassite Scribes,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 50 (2022): 161–216, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/lehi
-and-nephi-as-trained-manassite-scribes/; and Noel B. Reynolds, “The Last Nephite Scribes,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 53 (2022): 95–138, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-last-nephite-scribes/.

34 . Gardner, “Nephi as Scribe,” 47.

35 . Christopher Andrew, The Secret World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), 1.

36 . Andrew, The Secret World, 1.

37 . Andrew, The Secret World, 13. It is also worth noting that the spies sent out by Moses were not chosen for any particular skillset; they were called as representative leaders from their respective tribes. The account of spying in the land of Canaan suggests that they were not actually interested in spying, per se. Rather, the account focuses on faith (see Numbers 13–14). Although called spies, many of the spying and spies referenced in the Bible and the Book of Mormon could more accurately be called scouts. A scout and a spy, like the unnamed servant, have differing, though compatible skills. The infiltration of the Gaddianton robbers via a disguise and the killing of someone without a sound demand a different skillset and are not activities necessary for observing the troop movements of an enemy.

38 . Ronen Bergman, Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations (New York: Penguin Random House, 2018), 23.

39 . Bergman, Rise and Kill First, xxi.

40 . Caiaphas provides a similar justification for killing Jesus in John 11:49–53.

41 . See Nephi’s killing of Laban in 1 Nephi 4. See the discussion provided in Joseph Spencer, 1st Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, BYU, 2020), 66–80.

42 . Alternatively, Mormon’s reference to an “unknown hand” may merely indicate that Mormon did not know the name of the assassin.

43 . Moshe Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Name Derivations and Puns, trans. Phyllis Hackett (Israel: Bar Ilan University, 1991); Herbert Marks, “Biblical Naming and Poetic Etymology,” Journal of Biblical Literature 114, no. 1 (Spring 1995), scholarlypublishingcollective.org/sblpress
/jbl/article-abstract/114/1/21/183990/Biblical-Naming-and-Poetic-Etymology.

44 . Amanda Colleen Brown-Mather, “Toward a Deeper Understanding: How Onomastic Wordplay Aids Understanding Scripture,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 29 (2018):247–50, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/toward-a-deeper-understanding-how-onomastic-wordplay-aids-understanding-scripture/.

45 . Here is a selection of papers by Matthew Bowen demonstrating Mormon’s specific use of nameplay: Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Most Desirable Above All Things’: Onomastic Play on Mary and Mormon in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13 (2015): 27–61, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/most-desirable-above-all-things-onomastic-play-on-mary-and-mormon-in-the-book-of-mormon/; Bowen, “Father Is a Man: The Remarkable Mention of the Name Abish in Alma 19:16 and Its Narrative Context,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14 (2015): 77–99, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/father-is-a-man-the-remarkable-mention-of-the-name-abish-in-alma-1916-and-its-narrative-context/; Bowen, “‘He Is a Good Man’: The Fulfillment of Helaman 5:6–7 in Helaman 8:7 and 11:18–19,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17 (2016), 165–70, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/he-is-a-good-man-the-fulfillment-of-helaman-56-7-in-helaman-87-and-1118-19/; Bowen, “‘They Were Moved with Compassion’ (Alma 27:4 and 53:13): Toponymic Wordplay on Zarahemla and Jerson,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 233–53, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/they-were-moved-with-compassion-alma-274-5313-toponymic-wordplay-on-zarahemla-and-jershon/; Bowen, “‘My People Are Willing’: The Mention of Aminadab in the Narrative Context of Helaman 5–6,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 83–107, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/my-people-are-willing-the-mention-of-aminadab-in-the-narrative-context-of-helaman-5-6/; Bowen, “‘See That Ye Are Not Lifted Up’: The Name of Zoram and Its Paronomastic Pejoration,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 109–43, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/see-that-ye-are-not-lifted-up-the-name-zoram-and-its-paronomastic-pejoration/; Bowen, “Alma—Young Man, Hidden Prophet,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 343–53, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/alma-young-man-hidden-prophet/; Bowen, “‘O Ye Fair Ones’—Revisited,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 20 (2016): 315–44, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/o-ye-fair-ones-revisited/; Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’” An Onomastic Tale of Two Noahs,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23 (2017): 263–98, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/this-son-shall-comfort-us-an-onomastic-tale-of-two-noahs/; Bowen, “‘He Did Go About Secretly’: Additional Thoughts on the Literary Use of Alma’s Name,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 197–212, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/he-did-go-about-secretly-additional-thoughts-on-the-literary-use-of-almas-name/; and Bowen, “He Knows My Affliction: The Hill Onidah as Narrative Counterpart to the Rameumptom,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-Day Saint Faith and Scholarship, 34 (2020): 195–220, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/he-knows-my-affliction-the-hill-onidah-as-narrative-counterpart-to-the-rameumptom/. Bowen also has published two books featuring nameplay in the Book of Mormon: Name as Key-Word: Collected Essays on Onomastic Wordplay and the Temple in Mormon Scripture (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2018) and Ancient Names in the Book of Mormon: Towards a Deeper Understanding of a Witness of Christ (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2023).

46 . Scriptures like Mormon 8:34–35 and Mormon 9:30 imply that Mormon knew that their final work would make it to our day. The verses of 2 Nephi 25:21–22 suggest that Nephi’s records (referring to the small plates for sure, but may also refer to the large plates) would be preserved by the Lord from generation to generation. Other examples include Enos 1:15, Jarom 1:2, Jacob 1:3, and Alma 37:14.

47 . Helaman 6:24–25 suggests that the oaths of the Gaddianton robbers were recorded by the Nephite recordkeepers, but it seems that Mormon left them out of the final record.

48 . See discussion in Ricks et al., Dictionary of Proper Names and Foreign Words in the Book of Mormon, 271–72.

49 . Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 159, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/swearing-by-their-everlasting-maker-some-notes-on-paanchi-and-giddianhi/.

50 . Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker,’” 160.

51 . Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 133. Culpepper further points out that “John’s . . . characters are individualized by their position in society and their interaction with Jesus. This means that they may easily become types” (145). This is seen in the nameless disciple who the gospel of John only refers to by Jesus’ affection towards him. In a work like the fourth gospel that is defining its characters by their response or closeness to Jesus, a simple name would not be as powerful a descriptor as the character’s actions or relationship to Christ (104). This representational power can also be seen in Job’s wife too. Holly Henry has noted that “Job’s wife’s identity has been limited; her lack of a proper name allows her to represent the many misinterpreted speaking women.” Holly Henry, “Job’s Wife’s Name,” College Literature 18, no. 1 (February 1991): 25–37, jstor.org/stable/25111874.

52 . Judith H. Newman, “Sermon: Anonymous Servanthood (Gen. 24:1–27; Heb. 12:3–12),” Anglican Theological Review 86, no. 4 (Fall 2004): 654. Dennis J. Packard has opined that “perhaps [Abraham’s servant] is supposed to be remembered not as a particular individual, but as a steward, or even more, as a good example for all stewards.” Similarly, Claus Westermann has also commented that “[the servant’s] name is not given because the title ‘servant’ or ‘servant of Abraham’ throughout the narrative is intended to point back to Abraham each time.” See Dennis J. Packard and Sandra Packard, Feasting upon the Word (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 66, quoted in Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Old Testament Commentary Genesis 24: A Wife for Isaac,” Interpreter Blog, 17 February 2022, interpreterfoundation.org/cfm-commentary-genesis-24/. Also see Claus Westermann, GENESIS 12–36: A Commentary (London: Augsburg Publishing, 1985), 384.

53 . Mark Allan Powell discusses the concept of an implied reader, “a reader presupposed by the narrative itself,” in What is Narrative Criticism? (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990), 19–21.

LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?

Blake T. Ostler

Review of Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman, eds., Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2024). 344 pages, $35.00 (paperback).

Abstract: Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement promises to provide new perspectives on the atonement that reflect awareness of scriptural and theological scholarship. The essays on the scriptural background are solid. The essays providing theological perspectives are uneven, at best. Indeed, the theological essays show little awareness of the major works in philosophical theology in the last sixty years—with one notable exception. Moreover, a feminist perspective that argues against seeing Christ’s blood that he shed as an appropriate basis for atonement theory receives the greatest attention. This review elucidates, explores, assesses, and critiques these approaches.

The collection of essays found in Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement1 is a welcome effort to fill the major lacunae of serious works addressing the key and central role of Christ’s atoning work in the Latter-day Saint tradition. In saying that there is a lack of serious work about the Atonement, I do not mean to imply that there is not a plethora of works that address the Atonement. However, they are not theologically or philosophically informed regarding theories and models of atonement in Christian history. This book attempts to be just that: a theologically and philosophically informed treatment of the issues related to the Atonement.

However, LDS Perspectives is also a major disappointment from the standpoint of addressing issues of Latter-day Saint philosophy and theology. Indeed, it is not an understatement to say that eleven of the dozen essays in the book address the Atonement in complete ignorance of the important and abundant work in philosophical theology in the last sixty years. Except for Benjamin Keogh’s excellent essay on relational atonement and feminist theology, these essays fail to interact with the current discussions in philosophical theology.

LDS Perspectives is divided into two major parts: (1) scriptural and historical foundations, and (2) theological explorations. The historical discussions are generally solid and informative and necessarily introductory and cursory. The theological discussion is uneven. In this review I will provide a necessarily short commentary on each of the essays in LDS Perspectives.

Atonement in the Old Testament

T. Benjamin Spackman’s essay (pp. 15–30) addresses the meaning of two words in Hebrew related to atonement, broadly considered: kippur (כִּפֻּר), meaning to expiate or atone for ritual impurity, and yasa (יָשַע), a verb meaning to save in the special sense of saving from present threats and dangers and not future salvation. He also analyzes the equivalents of “redemption” in English as they relate to kinship terms.

Spackman’s treatment is informative and competent. He claims that most Americans only know of the meaning of “redeem” from the grocery store redemption of coupons (pp. 18–19), but he ignores the legal process of redeeming property that has been lost after a foreclosure. Of course the legal process of redemption of property in Anglo-American law is a close analogue of theological redemption because it refers to redeeming or buying back the property after it has been lost through foreclosure. That is what redeem means in the scriptures—to reclaim or redeem a person after they have become lost. Spackman’s essay is informative at an introductory level.

Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament

Eric D. Huntsman addresses the concept (as opposed to the mere word) of “atonement” in the New Testament (pp. 31–67). The overview is competent, scholarly sound, and generally informative at an introductory level. Huntsman is well-versed in critical biblical scholarship and his treatment of the texts is a welcome corrective to evangelical-influenced assessments that have dominated Latter-day Saint approaches to scripture.

However, one will look in vain for more recent developments in New Testament scholarship. For instance, Stephen Burnhope’s excellent treatment of the nature of atonement2 has particular insight and meaning for Latter-day Saints, but it is not mentioned or referenced. In addition, the work of mentioning or citing the work of David Moffitt3 would have added a very needed corrective to the focus on merely the death of Jesus in atonement and expanded the discussion to Jesus’s entire ministry, death, resurrection and ascension. Such a discussion is particularly meaningful to Latter-day Saints because the Book of Mormon and the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants expand the reach of atonement in a similar way to Christ’s entire mortal ministry, death, resurrection and exaltation with the Father. Even the article by Noel Reynolds comparing the New Testament and the Book of Mormon views of atonement is ignored.4

One, of course, cannot expect a chapter-length article to address all scholarly developments that are of interest to Latter-day Saints, but completely ignoring such work is puzzling to say the least. On the other hand, it is quite understandable that the discussion is cursory and introductory, especially given space constraints. Moreover, Huntsman does provide a helpful index of New Testament “soteriological terms” at the end of his article (pp. 50-59). Huntsman’s chapter is one of the best in LDS Perspectives.

Atonement in Early Christianity and the Middle Ages

In her chapter, Ariel Bybee Laughton addresses developments regarding models and theories of atonement in early Christianity and the Middle Ages (pp. 68–93). She provides a very good introductory overview of the most notable church fathers and medieval theologians. She provides nuance and more detail of various views regarding each thinker in footnotes.

Nevertheless, she claims that both Tertullian and Justin Martyr “largely understood Jesus’s atonement as an act of penal substitution” (p. 71). That is a major mistake. Tertullian does speak in terms of satisfaction of sin; however, it is not Christ appeasing an angry God, but the repentance and contrition of the sinner that satisfies the demand of justice. Tertullian’s uses of “satisfaction” come primarily in the contexts of repentance and good works, particularly baptism and martyrdom, which allow Christians to make satisfaction to God.

This theme is expressed most clearly in De Paenitentia (“On Repentance”). For example, the individual accomplishes satisfaction in relation to the demands of the devil through repentance:

Thus he who, through repentance for sins, had begun to make satisfaction to the Lord, will, through another repentance of his repentance, make satisfaction to the devil, and will be the more hateful to God in proportion as he will be the more acceptable to His rival.5

Tertullian explains that repentance is the “price” of forgiveness:

Further, how inconsistent is it to expect pardon of sins (to be granted) to a repentance which they have not fulfilled! This is to hold out your hand for merchandise, but not produce the price. For repentance is the price at which the Lord has determined to award pardon: He proposes the redemption of release from penalty at this compensating exchange of repentance.6

He also argues that confession of sins is necessary to satisfy the demand for change necessary to turn away sin and assuages of God’s wrath:

This act, which is more usually expressed and commonly spoken of under a Greek name, is exomolo’ghsis, whereby we confess our sins to the Lord, not indeed as if He were ignorant of them, but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is settled, of confession repentance is born; by repentance God is appeased. . . . All this exomologesis (does), that it may enhance repentance; may honour God by its fear of the (incurred) danger; may, by itself pronouncing against the sinner, stand in the stead of God’s indignation, and by temporal mortification (I will not say frustrate, but) expunge eternal punishments.7

A similar argument is made in De baptismo, showing that Tertullian believed that confession of sins “make[s] satisfaction for our former sins,”8 and in De Oratione Tertullian argues that God accepts repentance (penitence) as satisfaction of what is due as a result of sin.9

There is a hint of substitution doctrine in Tertullian’s Scorpiace according to J. N. D. Kelly, it is Christ who “delivered Himself up for our sins.”10 Even so, Laughton’s blanket treatment of the early church fathers is misleading.

Similarly, Laughton misunderstands and misrepresents Justin Martyr’s thought on atonement. While Justin Martyr spoke of the curse that Jesus bore because he was hung on a “tree” (Deuteronomy 21:22–23), the curse that Jesus bore was not a uniquely atoning punishment met out by God and suffered to appease his wrath. Thus, Laughlin misunderstands the nature of this curse in Justin Martyr’s thought.

Laughton is not alone in claiming that Justin Martyr supports a penal theory of atonement. Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach claim that penal substitutionary theory stretches back to the earliest fathers of the church.11 These three authors attempt to support their interpretation of Justin and his supposed support of penal substitution by quoting from the Dialogue with Trypho:

If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? 12

Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach conclude without further assessment of passages from Justin:

In summary, Jesus took upon himself the curse of God that had rested upon ‘the whole human family.’ This explains why he was crucified even though he himself had committed no sin. It also amounts to a clear statement of penal substitution: although Christ was innocent, he bore the curse due to sinful humanity, enduring in his death the punishment due to us. Justin is a very early example of a writer who explained the doctrine on the basis of the ‘curse’ vocabulary of Galatians 3:13 and Deuteronomy 21:23.13

But such a misinterpretation distorts Justin’s thought. In response to Trypho’s objection, Justin stated that Christ was not cursed for his own sins because Christ did not sin. Justin then says that all other human beings—Jews and Gentiles—are also cursed:

For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.’ [Deuteronomy 27:26] And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes?14

Elsewhere Justin states:

For [God] sets before every race of mankind that which is always and universally just, as well as all righteousness; and every race knows that adultery, and fornication, and homicide, and such like, are sinful; and though they all commit such practices, yet they do not escape from the knowledge that they act unrighteously whenever they so do, with the exception of those who are possessed with an unclean spirit, and who have been debased by education, by wicked customs, and by sinful institutions, and who have lost, or rather quenched and put under, their natural ideas. For we may see that such persons are unwilling to submit to the same things which they inflict upon others, and reproach each other with hostile consciences for the acts which they perpetrate.15

Further, Laughlin misconstrues how Justin uses “the curse” concept. He states:

For the statement in the law, 'Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree,' Deuteronomy 21:23 confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all, and by those like to you, who do not know that this is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ. And you clearly see that this has come to pass. For you curse in your synagogues all those who are called from Him Christians; and other nations effectively carry out the curse, putting to death those who simply confess themselves to be Christians; to all of whom we say, You are our brethren; rather recognise the truth of God. And while neither they nor you are persuaded by us, but strive earnestly to cause us to deny the name of Christ, we choose rather and submit to death, in the full assurance that all the good which God has promised through Christ He will reward us with.16

The curse is not a legal-penal punishment imposed by God. The curse consists in spiritual separation from God and the corrupt conduct that results from such alienation.

Thus, in Justin’s thought, Jesus did not uniquely bear the curse for Israel or the world. Instead, he participated in the cursed condition with us though, unlike us, he did not deserve such cursing. Jesus defeated the curse on our behalf though his death and resurrection so that we could become like him just as he became like us. He therefore participated in the curse himself and participated in our condition with guilty humans. In other words, Justin understands the curse that Jesus bore as being separated from God, the same condition shared by all humans that for us results in sinful conduct. Justin says that the Jews curse Jesus and his followers in their synagogues, and that Gentiles “effectively carry out the curse [by] putting to death . . . Christians.”17 Such language demonstrates how Justin understood the Jews and Gentiles to also participate in the curse. But Justin does not suggest that Jesus took some unique punishment from God on our behalf. So, the essential elements of a penal theory are not a part of Justin’s thought, which Laughton and our three Evangelical authors simply ignore and misunderstand in their attempt to find support for penal substitution. If anything, both Justin Martyr and Tertullian support a Christus Victor view of atonement rather than a penal view.

Laughton’s discussion of Augustine’s and Thomas Aquinas’s views of atonement is a good introduction that is necessarily cursory. That probably explains why she completely fails to address the dimensions of original grace and the interplay with predestination in God’s decrees of reprobation and election of the elect. These theological ideas are not merely secondary to their thought regarding atonement, but primary and essential to understand their views of the Atonement.

At this point there is a major lacuna in LDS Perspectives—there is no discussion of the development of the models and theories of the Atonement during the Protestant Reformation. There is no discussion of John Calvin’s penal substitution theory in-depth, even though it is a focus or foil for almost every chapter in the book. There is no discussion of the development of Grotius’s governmental theory of atonement or even the Christus Victor theory.18 Such a hole in the discussion detracts from the notion that a thorough and fair overview of Christian views has been presented. This gaping hole also handicaps the attempt to give Latter-day Saint perspectives on atonement.

Atonement in the Book of Mormon

Nicholas J. Frederick discusses the atonement in the Book of Mormon (pp. 94–114). His project is to describe the use of the word “atonement” in the text without theological reflection. He wisely avoids addressing any specific theory of atonement or erroneously claiming that the Book of Mormon presents a single, unified view of atonement. He points out that Lehi and Jacob emphasize the resurrection in atonement and its role to bring persons back into the presence of God to be judged, thus overcoming physical death, spiritual death, and separation from God. This treatment screams out for the kind of discussion in recent philosophical theology regarding the Atonement consisting of far more than just the passion and death of Christ. But the chapter is completely self-contained, with no references whatsoever to works in philosophy and theology beyond cursory references to theological dictionaries and suggestions regarding the Book of Mormon borrowing penal substitution language.

Frederick points out that Abinadi and Amulek focus on two facets of the atonement: (1) it is accomplished by God himself, a fully divine being; and (2) they again emphasize that the resurrection overcomes death and separation from God. Frederick’s focus on the use of the word “atonement” in the text blurs into the background the broader context of how atonement is addressed. For example, the Israelite context of Abinadi’s speech is completely ignored even though it clearly underlies the discussion. This background is explicit in Abinadi’s references to the Law of Moses and the sacrificial lamb who is Christ (Mosiah 12:29-33; 13; 14:7; 15:6). Indeed, he goes so far as to claim that, “significantly, Abinadi does not link the ‘atonement’ with any images of the shedding of blood” (p. 103). But that is simply a myopic reading of the text without context. The slaughtering of the paschal lamb is anything but bloodless.

In contrast, Frederick points out that Amulek and numerous subsequent authors focus on the shedding of blood as an Israelite ultimate sacrifice that satisfies justice or the demands of the Law altogether. In addition, he notes that King Benjamin’s speech intensifies the focus on the bloodshed in atonement by not only the blood shed on the cross but also the mention of agony so great that blood is let from every pore (pp. 104–5). Yet Frederick does not give us anything like an assessment of why the blood is so important to the discussion.

While blood sacrifice is now seen with horror by many—and for that reason often ignored or rejected in discussion of atonement, as is evident in assessing the feminist focus later in LDS Perspectives—it is the ultimate symbol of overcoming alienation by sharing indwelling life. It is the exact opposite of what the feminist authors claim. The Old Testament’s central statement about the significance of blood sacrifice in the sacrificial system is found in Leviticus:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11)

The sprinkling of blood on the altar spreads the life inherent in the blood to the people of Israel. The blood atones because it imparts the divine life to indwell in the Israelite community. The blood of Christ that he shed for us in his atoning sacrifice is important because it signifies a sharing of Christ’s very life with us and to indwell in us.

Saving the House of Israel

Sharon J. Harris addresses the saving of the house of Israel in the Book of Mormon (pp. 115–30). Her chapter really deals with how the covenant with Israel is preserved among the Nephites. It has very little to do with the concept or application of the Atonement. In the final section she claims that the atonement is “communal”—by which she claims that salvation “looks like a family of God” (p. 129). She claims that fulfilling the covenant with Israel somehow is part of the Atonement. But unless one stretches the concept of atonement to cover anything that God does at all, the connection is tenuous at best. One wonders why this chapter was included in a book on the Atonement.

Agency, Law, Theosis, and Atonement

J. B. Haws addresses the atonement in the Doctrine and Covenants (pp. 131–60). Instead of just focusing on the word “atonement” in the text, he presents a much better-conceived approach that considers how Christ’s life, sacrifice, resurrection, and sharing of divine light accomplish reconciliation of our alienation from God and the process of sanctification leading ultimately to deification. This chapter is one of my favorites in LDS Perspectives because Haws is not afraid to engage in theological reflection. He suggests that the Doctrine and Covenants presents a new model of substitution for atonement. It is aimed at answering “the questions that drive every model of atonement that thinkers, for the past two millennia, have proposed . . . the how and why of the act” (p. 134, emphasis in original). Finally, an offering that addresses the theological issues that drive careful and thoughtful thinking about the Atonement!

What are these questions that need to be addressed? According to Haws, they are the “how” and the “why” questions of atonement: “From what peril does humanity need to be rescued? In other words, why is the atonement of Jesus Christ necessary for our salvation?” (p. 134, emphasis in original). But Haws misses the most important question: how does Christ rescue us from the peril?

Haws rejects the standard penal substitution model of atonement based on Dennis Potter’s 1999 article critiquing the notion that “the requisite amount of suffering must be borne by someone. But why?” (p. 137). Potter rejected the penal theory because it violates the “innocence principle”: It is manifestly unjust to impose punishment on a person who didn’t do anything wrong. It is also unjust to let those who do wrongs off without any consequences. In addition, the penal model does not adequately answer who or what has to be satisfied in a satisfactory way. It is God who must be appeased in the penal substitution model. But why would a loving God demand reparations or suffering of an innocent substitute? So, Haws sets out to answer two questions based on inspiration from the Doctrine and Covenants: “Why does the atonement pave the way for mercy? Why was suffering required?” (p. 137, emphasis in original).

Haws assesses the “empathy theory” proposed by Jacob Morgan.19 According to Morgan, the Atonement paves the way for Christ to infuse us with his exalting light. Haws correctly observes that this theory fails to explain why suffering was necessary to accomplish this infusion of light (p. 137). It simply doesn’t address or answer the key questions that any theory of atonement must address. Haws notes that Doctrine and Covenants 19:16–19 is emphatic that Christ must suffer what we would otherwise suffer if we do not repent. So suffering is an imperative based on the revelations to Joseph Smith. But why?

In a side note, I wonder why Haws did not mention, address, or assess the theory that I proposed: the compassion theory of atonement.20 The compassion theory directly addresses and answers what Christ rescues us from, why suffering is necessary to accomplish that rescue, and even how it is accomplished. Moreover, the compassion theory directly assesses the LDS scriptures and the teachings of Joseph Smith in so doing. The compassion theory addresses the questions that Haws so desperately seeks to answer in his essay. So why the silence or slight? Such a refusal or failure to address a work in the LDS tradition that directly responds to the questions Haws addresses seems inexcusable to me. But let’s give Haws the benefit of the doubt with a charitable view; perhaps he was merely adopting the axiom that if one doesn’t have anything nice to say, it is better to say nothing at all.

Haws adopts Terryl Givens’s approach, which he calls the “guarantor of agency” model (pp. 138–39). The answer to why there must be suffering is that humans must get what they choose. In addition, every person arrives at the station they deserve due to natural law or consequences. We enjoy a celestial glory if we live according to a celestial law. Such a view is closest to the governmental theory of atonement according to Haws and Givens.

So why is the suffering of a Savior necessary? According to the governmental theory, Christ died and suffered not to redeem a debt, but to preserve the dignity of the divine government. He promulgated a moral law. God could not permit its subversion without allowing destruction of moral order itself. When Christ died to vindicate the honor of the law, he made it possible for God to forgive sinful rebels without upsetting the moral order (p. 142).

So how does this theory avoid the charge that it is the grossest violation of some “moral order” to punish an innocent person and let those off who deserve the punishment? That seems to be a total subversion of any moral order worth considering. And just what is this “moral order?” Well, for some reason according to Givens and Haws: “What God can do—did do—instead of dispensing with consequences, is provided his Son, “‘in whose name alone salvation can be administered to the children of men’” (p. 144, citing Doctrine and Covenants 109:4). Haws adds:

Jesus—uniquely, miraculously—is able to assume these consequences . . . He alone is the means by which all consequences—which are simply there because of choice—really do obtain, such that agency can be held inviolate, and thus he alone is also the means by which repentance can still be possible for those who choose it. (p. 144, emphasis in original)

In other words, Christ must suffer not to preserve the moral order as much as to preserve the inviolate nature of human free will and consequences for choices. But isn’t that just another way of saying that the moral order demands consequences for our wrong actions freely done with knowledge that they are wrong?

Does Haws really answer the question? According to Haws, someone has to answer because some moral order demands it to protect the inviolate human choice. Really? Why cannot God just forgive in light of repentance and change of heart based on free choices without an innocent person crucified on our behalf? After all, we are able to forgive others without requiring that some other person must first suffer as a condition for our forgiveness. If we can forgive without first requiring a pound of flesh by requiring that someone else must first suffer, certainly God has such power. Further, simply forgiving based on sincere repentance would truly preserve both human agency and consequences for actions. Yet Haws gives no answer. Why doesn’t repentance fully satisfy this supposed moral order? No answer. How is the suffering of an innocent person to uphold the moral order based on free agency just and moral? No answer. Why does suffering of an innocent satisfy the demands of this impersonal moral order? No answer. How is the demand for consequences for our actions held inviolate if an innocent person takes those consequences from us? No answer.

Haws goes on to address what Jesus did to effectuate the Atonement. Here is the central claim of Haws’ theory:

Jesus was wounded with humanity’s stripes not because stripes are necessary to appease an indignant God. Jesus was wounded with our stripes because every choice we make has real consequences and some of those consequences are “stripes” that we could not bear and yet live, or at least live in God’s presence when sin disqualifies us from God’s presence (see D&C 1:31). In other words, all humans make choices that, absent the atonement of Jesus Christ, would result in condemnation. Jesus assumed the consequences of these damning choices. Humans’ choices still have consequences, but they are consequences that Jesus chose to bear in our place. (p. 146, emphasis in original)

It seems that matters have gone from non-answers to bad answers. His suggestion still violates the innocence principle—an innocent person is still suffering for the acts of the guilty. Moreover, it begs the question how and why Jesus’s suffering relieves us of the consequences of our choices. This answer also upsets any moral order worth considering because we do not suffer the consequences of our actions. Jesus does. Yet it is supposedly this moral order that demands that our agency remain inviolate so that we can suffer the consequences of our actions. But that can only occur if there are consequences for the one whose agency is involved in doing wrong.

Haws is up front about the fact that this “agency-consequences substitution” model does not answer all of the key questions:

Even as this model of the atonement is emphatic that no judge (and no God) is imposing these consequences on humans or on Jesus, Latter-day Saint proponents of this model still feel the difficulty of explaining this. Even as this model insists that these consequences are not waivable offenses—these are consequences that just happen—this still leaves believers at a loss to explain just how Jesus could step in and absorb them.” (p. 147, emphasis in original)

Indeed. But Haws, amazingly, suggests that this inability to answer questions created by the very theory he proposes is actually a virtue. Haws asserts: “This is how it should be.” Why not? Well, because, as Haws quotes Elder Dieter Uchtdorf, “the Savior’s Atonement cannot become commonplace in our teaching” (p. 147). And just what would be the harm if a theory answered the very questions it sets out to answer? Well, there is always more and proposing an answer would somehow suggest that there is nothing more to be understood according to Haws.

Is that really a satisfactory response? Is that really the best we can do? Haws’s theory not only fails to answer the very questions he sets out to address, but his theory also compounds the problems. Even so, the fact that Haws gets the questions right and attempts to addresses them is the best philosophical/theological work that is done in LDS Perspectives. It is well worth the read to witness Haws grapple with these questions and quandaries. Grappling with the issues related to atonement is like wrestling with an angel—one cannot win. But if one wrestles well, there just might be a blessing and a revelation at the end of the match.

Nineteenth-Century Women and the Atonement

In her chapter, Jennifer Reeder ostensibly addresses nineteenth-century Mormon women and the atonement (pp. 161–78). While she provides quotes from nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint women on topics of the Restoration, worship, and salvation, the quotes have little to do with atonement. Again, one wonders why this chapter is in a book on the Atonement.

Notes on Life, Grace, and Atonement

Adam Miller, in his chapter (pp. 179–93), begins the Theological Explorations section of LDS Perspectives with musings and a list of 118 propositions—a few of which are relevant to atonement. The presentation of the propositions defies any coherent description. They appear to be a stream of consciousness, loosely related thoughts and conclusions. They are Latter-day Saint musings only in the sense that they are being proposed by a Latter-day Saint. While the offering is original and creative, it is barely related to the Latter-day Saint scriptural teachings on the Atonement. It takes a good deal of longanimity to wade through these propositions. I suggest taking his musings as a form of poetry meant to spur and inspire thought and insight. It seems to me that Miller’s propositions are what Latter-day Saint thought would look like if Joseph Smith had been a Buddhist.

Atonement and Retributive Justice

The essay proffered by Fiona Givens (pp. 194–212) is an interesting argument that we ought to ignore those parts of scripture and tradition that do not deliver the correct political outcomes. She adopts a strategy common among feminist theologians to expressly call for rejecting and ignoring those scriptures that observe the violence of human existence and suggest any sense of retributive justice. The primary determiner of theological beliefs ought to be whether they align with a correct political view that rejects retributive justice in such practices as capital punishment and incarceration to punish a criminal. Rather, we should adopt a theology that fosters a carceral system based on rehabilitation.

According to Givens, the American system of justice is flawed because it accepts a sense in which criminals ought to be punished for what they did. That is why we need a new doctrine of the human condition viewing “trauma” as the cause of human wrongdoing and rejecting any sense of sin. Givens suggests that Latter-day Saints should adopt restorative justice in the place of retributive justice, but there is nothing uniquely or even characteristically LDS about such a move. Indeed, Givens doesn’t even connect her view of restorative justice with Alma’s view of the Law of Restoration as a basis of judgment (see Alma 40).

Givens admits that “teachings and scripture of the Latter-day Saint Church manifest the influence of the legalistic atonement culture” (p. 200). So what do we do with those scriptures that manifest a view that, according to Givens, espouse the wrong political outcomes? According to her, we simply reject and ignore them. She asks, “Why are American Latter-day Saints even more vulnerable to lingering modes of retributive thinking than their fellow non-evangelical Christians?” (p. 201). To Givens it is rather obvious: A full description for this malady “undoubtedly would include the unflagging devotion of the Latter-day Saint community to the Old Testament” (p. 201).

Givens moves on to suggest that “while the language of substitution is part of the Latter-day Saint canon,” there is another “conception of atonement [that] might, in turn, reshape much of Latter-day Saint religious language and, perhaps, some of its social and political commitments” (p. 201). So the problem is “language” about the doctrine of atonement found in scripture that misleads the American Latter-day Saint community, in particular, to get the wrong political outcomes.

Givens diagnoses the problem as a historical mistake that began with Tertullian and Justin Martyr to adopt Roman law regarding retributive justice. She just ignores the fact—and it is a fact—that retributive justice is clearly taught as part of the Law of Moses throughout the Old Testament. She ignores that retributive justice is also clearly taught in the New Testament. One only needs to recall that Ananias and Saphira were seemingly struck down because they withheld funds from the common property of the early Christian community (Acts 5:1–10). The narrative, whether historical or not, clearly adopts a view of retributive justice. The sense of retributive justice underlies Paul’s doctrine of justification and clearly undergirds the notion of judgment by works throughout the New Testament. Moreover, retributive justice is the norm in virtually every Near Eastern and Mediterranean culture prior to Christianity. We can hardly blame Roman law or Latin theologians for its presence in later Christian thought.

Moreover, Givens’s assertion that Tertullian and Justin Martyr are the commencement of the notion of retributive justice in the Christian tradition, making them the whipping boys of history, just gets them wrong. Earlier in this review I addressed the issue regarding the misinterpretation of their thought regarding a penal theory of atonement. It just isn’t true that they taught a penal view of atonement.

In addition, Givens adopts the now debunked view that Tertullian was a lawyer who had a thorough knowledge of Roman law (p. 197).21 In truth, it is doubtful that Tertullian was a lawyer. The view that he was a lawyer is based on the assumption that he had particular knowledge of Roman law that only a lawyer would have and a misidentification with a similarly named Roman lawyer. But he does not demonstrate any particular knowledge of Roman law that a general education would not have provided.22 In addition, his views are not so much informed by Roman law as by the Christian scriptures known at his time.

Givens relies upon the assertions of some neuroscientists to support her view that trauma, rather than sin, is the cause of human failings that need healing rather than punishment (pp. 202–5). She claims that neuroscience has begun to show that all criminal acts can be traced to some trauma, or mental illness, or brain defect. Givens concludes: “In short, the increasing advances being made in neuroscience threaten to undermine the bases for linking atonement to retributive justice, which undergird the U.S. penal system” (p. 204).

She seems not to have noticed that the assumptions made in neuroscientific studies—that all human conduct is reducible to brain activity over which a person has no control—also undermines all sense of moral agency and responsibility. What she is inveighing against is really any sense of accountability for which we could be justly punished. However, the neuroscientific methodology on which Givens relies has been often and widely critiqued and rejected.23 Givens ignores the limitations and critiques of this neuroscientific approach. She also fails to realize that teaching that all behavior is reducible to brain activity over which we have no control is essentially a denial of the most fundamental teachings of the restored gospel.

Givens proposes to provide an “alternative” theory of atonement. What she presents, though, is not a theory of atonement but an alternative view of the human condition (pp. 205–9). She does not discuss, let alone explain, how anything she proposes is related to what Christ did. She never even attempts to explain why the answer to trauma is not psychological counseling rather than something related to what Christ did. There is no discussion or assessment of Christ’s suffering, how he took upon himself the sins of the world, how his life and suffering remedy trauma, or why Jesus’s life, ministry and suffering are even related to healing trauma. The solution seems to be Zion, a society focused on universal healing and restorative justice as she sees it (pp. 208–9). What, one might reasonably ask, has any of that got to do with atonement?

Givens does not provide an alternative model of atonement that would adopt her view of restorative justice. Others, however, have attempted to do so by providing an “incarnation theory” or “participatory theory” of atonement.24 The Incarnational theory and participatory models both emphasize that salvation consists of ongoing participation in the life of God indwelling in Christ.25 I am, of course, sympathetic to such efforts because the compassion theory that I presented is a participatory model of atonement that adopts the Law of Restoration taught by Alma as the revealed view of justice. Givens, however, doesn’t consider the compassion theory.

Givens’s chapter raises questions for me. I wonder if her approach is sound. Isn’t the best way to approach the Atonement to adopt a view that best accounts for and explains the scriptural claims regarding how, why, and what Jesus did for us to restore us to God’s presence, overcome our alienation, and heal us—and provides forgiveness of sins? Is a mere alternative diagnosis of the human condition and the supposed failings the U.S. legal system a viable optic for viewing Christ’s Atonement? Is the assessment given by Givens really a Latter-day Saint approach, or more accurately described as a feminist project? Are the maladies she identifies really supported by the evidence and sound theory? How does she explain the presence and influence of notions of retributive justice found throughout the non-Christian world and cultures that existed long before the advent of Latin Christianity? Is her diagnosis of the problem accurate? Could we be justified in just rejecting and ignoring those scriptures that don’t fit our theory of the human condition? Should we reject a theory of atonement because it doesn’t fit with our desired political outcomes?

Relational Atonement

Benjamin Keogh provides a framing of a Relational Theory of atonement (pp. 213–34) based on the work of Terence Fretheim. This chapter is one of the best in LDS Perspectives and well worth contemplating and re-reading. Like others in the book, Keogh defines the human condition, but in terms more grounded in scripture. He does not pretend to provide a theory of atonement, but merely to lay the “groundwork for such an account” (p. 214). He lays this baseline understanding by focusing on the narrative of raising Lazarus in the gospel of John.

Fretheim provided commentary on Old Testament narratives from the perspective of process theology. God is only one power among many, though God is the greatest influence of all. God is also the most influenced of all. As Keogh sums up Fretheim: “The future is not all blocked out . . . the people of God are capable of shaping the future in various ways, [including] the future of God” (pp. 214, 216–17).

The human condition is viewed as God’s creation of relationships that entail a divine vulnerability. In creating, God gives up complete control and allows others to exercise power not only to shape the world and future, but to impact God’s own being entailed in the divine love:

The possibility of relationship entails the possibility of alienation, of opposition, and of conflict. This means the choice to create necessitates at least the ceding of some power, and the giving away some of the control. To take a relational stance is to accept the possibility of right and wrong relations, with their attendant consequences. (p. 222, emphasis in original)

Adam and Eve chose to trade “unity and relationship for domination and alienation” (p. 223). Further, our predicament is that “when relations are disordered, salvation is impossible” (p. 225).

Thus, Keogh’s prolegomena to a theory of atonement observes that we are incapable of right relationship (I would note in passing that this is the real meaning of Paul’s concept of “justification”) without a rebirth and reorientation. Christ brings about that rebirth and reorientation by his resurrection and ascension. He is found at the right hand of God exemplifying that humans too can have “the possibility of relational harmony” (p. 226). Christ did not just exemplify such a relationship; he embodied it. The prerequisites to resurrection and ascension are death and decent (p. 226). Thus, God must become fully human and mortal to overcome our alienation from him. Quoting William Lane, Keogh asserts that Christ’s cry from the cross that his Father has abandoned him is an “expression of the ‘unfathomable pain of real abandonment by the Father” (p. 226). Jesus is not only abandoned by his closest disciples, but he is also abandoned by the indwelling presence of the Father in him and left terribly alone—the most complete alienation a human could experience.

Yet Keogh observes that the fact that not all relations have already been righted by the Atonement requires that atonement be “a process that is ongoing and transformative in the present” and not merely an event fully accomplished in the past (p. 227). The Atonement must be “infinite” in the sense that it is not limited to a finite duration or the extent of those who can be transformed by it. Thus, Christ’s suffering brings about an end to bloodshed so that all relations can be healed (p. 228).

I acknowledge that it is likely that Keogh’s essay resonated with me because he adopts a process view of God, much like the view I have elucidated. Moreover, his ongoing relational atonement is exactly what I proposed in my compassion theory. Yet, curiously, Keogh does not mention the compassion theory. Nevertheless, as a foreground to a theory of atonement, Keogh’s chapter works well. I hazard to also suggest that the compassion theory is the natural outcome of Keogh’s preface to a theory of atonement.26

A Nonviolent Atonement

Joseph Spencer provides a close textual reading (pp. 235–50) of the sermons of King Benjamin and the prophet Abinadi. He compares and contrasts them to conclude that Abinadi provides a non-violent and non-monarchical view of Christ’s Atonement as opposed to Benjamin’s monarchical view based on the blood of Christ working the Atonement. Because the community of Alma lasted longer than King Benjamin’s community, he suggests that the Book of Mormon is giving us the very subtle hint that non-violent atonement is superior to bloody atonement and monarchical power. He concludes:

[It] turns out, where Christian atonement is wholly separated from the mechanisms of state power, the durability and transmissibility of Christian covenant are real and essentially unlimited. Those who bind themselves covenantally to Christ within Alma’s church rather than Benjamin’s kingdom become convinced—as a later Book of Mormon author writes—that “the preaching of the word had had a greater tendency to lead the people to that which was just . . . than the sword or anything else which had happened unto them” (Alma 31:5). There is good reason to believe that this is a key intentional message, discernable only at a broader level and across the several stories making up the book of Mosiah, for readers of the Book of Mormon. As laudable as Benjamin’s attempt may be to work within the machinery of power, and as beautiful as the words of the angel who visits him may be, the institution that lastingly endures in its Christian preaching in the Book of Mormon is the one that has its origins in the emphatically nonviolent atonement talk of the prophet Abinadi. (p. 245)

Joseph Spencer has done some very good works on the Book of Mormon, but this offering is not one of them. His argument is a logical non-sequitur: the mere fact that a community outlast another does not show that its teachings were morally superior. Quite apart from the fact that his argument is a non-sequitur, Spencer’s textual reading is forced and contrived. For example, the quote that Spencer proposes assesses the superiority of Abinadi’s preaching and Alma’s resulting community compared to that of King Benjamin is misrepresented. The quote is addressing the disparity between the way Alma’s community was treated by the Zoramites and his own preaching. It is not an assessment of the relative merits of monarchy and bloody atonement theory.

In addition, Spencer acknowledges that his reading of the text requires us to see the words of the angel who came to King Benjamin—who teaches him about the atoning blood of Christ—as just wrong and misleading. But we should not fret over that. Spencer gives us solace that an angel misled King Benjamin:

One might express nervousness over the possible implication, here, that the angel who comes to Benjamin somehow gets atonement theology wrong. The argument here need have no such implication, however. Through the Book of Mormon’s consistent emphasis on the humanness of its authors and contributors, one gains access to the possibility that Benjamin is supposed to have recast the angel’s words in terms he knew would speak to his own people. . . . God condescends to speak to human beings in terms they can understand, [so] it may be that Benjamin is supposed to have reported the angel’s words accurately, but the angel brought words that are tailored to the understanding and cultural assumptions of Benjamin’s people. (p. 250n33)

So, the angel didn’t so much get it wrong as mislead Benjamin because his people had cultural limits. This is a sword that cuts both ways, though. How do we know that it isn’t Abinadi who is parsing his words based on cultural limitations? Are we supposed to believe that the angel couldn’t convey a non-bloody atonement to Benjamin’s culture? That notion is shown to be false because, if we take Spencer’s analysis seriously, Abinadi was apparently able to do just that to a culture at least equally steeped in the Law of Moses and violence. What could be more violent in a supposedly non-violent narrative than burning Abinadi at the stake as a kind of alternative Mosaic sacrifice by Noah and his priests?

Further, Spencer’s eisegesis does not withstand scrutiny. He claims that Abinadi never mentions a violent suffering by Christ. However, Abinadi expressly notes that Christ shall be crucified and slain as the paschal lamb who is slaughtered (Mosiah 15:6–7). That is a violent and bloody affair if ever there was one. The focus of the narrative regarding Abinadi is anything but non-violent, ending in Abinadi’s being burned alive. In addition, Spencer claims that there is no mention of monarchical symbols in the narrative, but in a footnote he admits that: “Abinadi does not entirely avoid the language of royalty in speaking of Christ, although it seems significant that he only refers to him as king in passages where he speaks of the post-resurrection Christ: ‘the Son reigneth and hath power over the dead’ (Mos 17:10)” (p. 249n24). Just why does that seem significant to Spencer? It seems much more significant that it contradicts Spencer’s reading of the text.

The text of Mosiah gives no indication whatsoever that Benjamin’s teachings about the blood of Christ being the agent of atonement is somehow mistaken. It gives no hint that the community that lasted the longest is somehow superior or had better atonement teachings. Spencer’s reading is forced and contrived to the point that we should see him as the only person to date to get the real message of the text over against the express statements of the text. That is just a little too subtle.

Perhaps, though, it is unfair to rely on the express text to guide us to assess Spencer’s proposed reading. After all, he is urging an intertextual reading that compares texts. Neither King Benjamin nor Abinadi could assess or do the textual comparison required in what they said. In such a reading, we have to see the intent to compare a non-violent atonement with a blood-based atonement and monarchy as Mormon’s project (or perhaps Joseph Smith’s). Mormon was editing the text and the only one in a position to make such an intertextual comparison.

Yet, given the express penchant that Mormon has to explain the intertextual meaning of his narrative to us, it is not unfair to expect the text to actually state the view that Spencer urges if indeed that is what it intends to convey. After all, Mormon is not shy about telling us the conclusions that we should draw from his narrative in other places. For example, summing up the efforts of Moroni to defend his people, Mormon provides a clear indication of what we should conclude: “And thus we see how merciful and just are all the dealings of the Lord, to the fulfilling of all his words unto the children of men; yea, we can behold that his words are verified, even at this time, which he spake unto Lehi” (Alma 50:19). Summing up the experience of the Nephites after Christ came, Mormon concludes: “and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God” (4 Nephi 1:16). Mormon consistently tells us what we should conclude from the narrative he provides, but he never suggests, intimates, or even hints that we should conclude that a bloodless atonement narrative is somehow superior to one that includes the shedding of Christ’s blood and his monarchy.

Is it tenable to see Mormon as intending to deliver the intertextual reading urged by Spencer? I suggest that it manifestly is not. Mormon edited the text to give us literally hundreds of years of later prophets delivering the same message as King Benjamin. If Mormon intended to give the intertextual message that Spencer ferrets out, then there is no room for continuing to deliver the same mistaken and misleading message repeatedly. One only need to look at the numerous teachings regarding the blood of Christ shed in atonement in Nicholas Frederick’s earlier chapter in LDS Perspectives for the literally dozens of prophetic statements regarding “the importance of the shedding of blood in later [Book of Mormon] authors” (pp. 107–11).

Indeed, when the resurrected Christ appears to the Nephites, he repeats a ritual that he began before his death. He takes wine and blesses it and says: “And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you (3 Nephi 18:11). Moroni himself repeated that injunction to preserve Christianity and its proper practice (Moroni 5). Such a direction is central and essential to Christian belief and worship. It is reported in every gospel in the New Testament—drink the wine in remembrance of Christ’s blood that he would shed for us. Latter-day Saints do it every week to renew the covenant with Christ when taking the sacrament. That is why the remonstrance against and rejection of blood as essential to Christ’s atoning work is a distortion of not only the Book of Mormon text, but of his gospel. Not only is Spencer’s reading strongly counter-indicated by the entire Book of Mormon text, but it is also contrary to the central and essential rites established by Jesus. The focus on the blood of Christ in atonement is not a mistaken message—it is the message.

(For a response by Spencer to my review of his essay, see the Appendix.)

Enveloping Grace

Diedre Green’s essay (pp. 251–76) follows Joseph Spencer with another effort to avoid any sense of blood in Christ’s Atonement. She defines her project as follows:

In this essay, I offer a unique conceptualization of atonement in light of Latter-day Saint scripture and the particular needs of women as identified by feminist religious thinkers, including overcoming cultural demands to be inordinately self-giving, that neither endorses violence nor relies on the aforementioned [atonement] theories. I address the issue in terms of gender because when values and ideals are gendered, it becomes necessary to “center the experience of gender.” (p. 251)

Green states that she does not want to exclude persons of “any gender” and that she wants to avoid enforcing a “gender binary” view, even though she only addresses men and women. But Green does not do what she sets out to do—she does not develop or provide a theory or “conceptualization” of atonement. Rather, she provides her assessment of the cultural conditioning of women and how the Latter-day Saint tradition can provide theological resources to avoid being too self-giving in order to develop a robust sense of a woman’s self.

Green makes numerous, sweeping empirical claims about how women are conditioned in the present culture to be too giving and not sufficiently attentive to building a robust sense of self and boundaries to maintain distinct and independent integrity as a person. Yet she does not provide a shred of evidence to support her empirical claims. She assumes that, because she is a woman, she can speak with authority about the experience of all women. She claims that the problem is compounded in scripture because they are written by men:

Feminist theologians . . . seek to define sin in a way that is inclusive of women’s lives and that better speaks to the multiformity of sin. This is necessary because Christian scripture and its interpretation have been traditionally shaped by men and is therefore influenced by the male perspective on the world. As a result, pride, which may manifest as domination over others and selfishness, has been identified as the fundamental sin that must be remedied through self-giving love, which is exemplified and epitomized in Christ’s atonement, yet this reductive notion of sin fails to encompass all human experience. (p. 252)

But the problem isn’t just Christian scripture and viewing the Atonement as a premiere instance of Christ’s self-giving love. Green asserts that:

The means to such integrity, or wholeness, has been overshadowed within Christian theology since it has been primarily constructed to remedy the behavioral excesses of the stereotypical male. A view of sin that ignores the specific ways in which women (and any others who do not comport themselves as a stereotypical male) may stray from a life of integrity both undermines women’s selfhood and drives them deeper into sin. (p. 254, emphasis in original)

As Green sees it, the problem is that theology has focused on the sin of pride because men suffer from pride whereas women suffer from giving too much of themselves. She goes on to claim that “this consequence results from the fact that the tradition generally prescribes selflessness to overcome sin based on the assumption that pride is the underlying root of all sin” (p. 254).

It is important to note that Green does not provide a single instance in either scripture or Christian theology where pride is viewed as the only sin, despite her claims. Indeed, it would be easy to show that pride is not viewed as the only way that a person can sin in any of the scriptures, even if they are written by men. Nowhere does she provide evidence or argument that men suffer from pride while women suffer from being too selfless. She does cite a plethora of feminist theologians that express similar views, but none of them provide any empirical evidence to support their statements either. Nowhere does she provide evidence or argument that a view of self-giving atonement leads women to be too selfless. She takes it as so obvious that it needs neither evidence nor argument. But is it? It seems to me to be a far-fetched claim. These are empirical claims about the way things are; they need some support and basis other than mere assertion and anecdotal experience.

Green identifies a core problem that affects all women but not (so much) men: “The problem arises when love is reductively equated with self-negation, which in turn comes to be viewed as the remedy to all sin” (p. 255, emphasis in original). But there has been a subtle change in what is at issues that is not justified. She equates overcoming pride with self-negation. She doesn’t identify a single instance where any scripture or any writer identifies love, reductive or not, as self-negation. Is “self-negation” a synonym with meekness and humility or a condition to which they inevitably lead? How does she know that they lead to such a result? No evidence, no argument. Is “self-negation” what Jesus taught when he stated that to find ourselves, we must lose ourselves (Matthew 10:39)? Is that what he meant when he stated, “blessed are the meek” and “blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matthew 5:3, 5)? Instead of plumbing the profundity of these statements, Green equates the quest for such virtues with self-negation—and that is bad for women but not so much for men. Of course, we must remember that one of the males making statements that don’t fit women is Jesus, who addresses being meek and humble repeatedly.

One gets the sense that Green’s approach is best described as Aristotle’s ethic of the golden mean. Granted, it is unhealthy for women to be “too” giving, just as it is unhealthy for men (or any gender if we accept Green’s view that there are multiple genders) to be too meek or too humble. That should not, however, be taken as a sound argument that women don’t also generally exhibit pride or that there cannot be just the right amount of humility and meekness. Too much of anything is unwise, but is that really a sound way to approach the human condition for purposes of assessing Christ’s Atonement?

For Green, the remedy to such mis-valuation is to adopt a Friedrich Nietzche-like trans-valuation of values that applies to women. In his Der Wille zur Macht (The Will to Power), Nietzche left to us in brief his project to overcome the Christian virtues of meekness and humility as “life-negating” values. In their place, he urged, we should adopt a self-affirming, life-affirming virtue of the will to power, and replace meekness and humility as virtues with self-realization as the true morality. This work was an uncompleted part of a larger project that he called Der AntiChrist to signal that he is calling for an overhaul of the Judeo-Christian values that permeated his culture.

Green has a similar project in her essay. For women, it is harmful to focus on pride as a source of sinful conduct as Jacob, the brother of Nephi, does in his temple sermon:

And because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they. . . . And, O that ye would listen unto the word of his commands, and let not this pride of your hearts destroy your souls!” (Jacob 2:13, 16)

Green contends that these words are directed only to the gathered brethren, not to women. She implicitly asserts that women are not often lifted up in pride over their wealth or fashions. Rather, for women the source of sin is giving too much of themselves. In contrast to a message of meekness and humility, women can achieve wholeness by striving for self-realization to become goddesses like the Heavenly Mother—even though Green avers that “the concept of Heavenly Mother remains vacuous within the twenty-first century church” (p. 260). What women suffer from is “a lack of selfhood” and self-realization (p. 262).

A few questions naturally occurred to me as I read Green’s essay: how are women supposedly helped to overcome giving of themselves by a vacuous idea? What is it that suggests that Heavenly Mother (about whom we know literally nothing) achieved godhood by not giving of herself? Is it really the case that giving of one’s self is a vice rather than a virtue? Are women generally immune to “being lifted up in pride” when they wear costly clothes and the latest fashions?

The central question to my review of Green’s essay, however, is this: How is any of this related to atonement? Green suggests that “the Reformation doctrine of grace should be reversed for women so that they are first built up and held together as independent subjects prior to judgment” (p. 262). How is that done? According to Green, “God’s grace is precisely what offers a woman a skin – a divinely gifted envelope – that holds and contains her in a cohesive whole. . . . [It] allows a woman the integrity to be a self and facilitates the fulfilment of her potential through the means of divine envelopment” (p. 263). That is the center of her view of atonement. I admit that I cannot grasp what she is saying in any coherent way; it seems an exercise in parisology.

Green acknowledges that her way of framing atonement as “divinely gifted skin or an ‘envelope of grace’ may sound foreign to Latter-day Saints” (p. 263), but she contends that the scriptures have language that may be somewhat similar when they state: “I will encircle thee in my arms of my love” (Doctrine and Covenants 6:20). The Book of Mormon also speaks repeatedly of “encircling in [God’s] arms of love” (2 Nephi 1:15; Alma 26:15). Green contends that the Atonement, for women, consists of being “given a skin” of selfhood by being “encircled” in God’s love. The result of such embrace by God is to be “a self.” Green concludes: “Christ’s atonement encircles, embraces, envelops, and clasps—it allows one to be protected from divine justice in the face of sin but also from social demands that keep a woman from fully becoming who she is divinely intended to be” (p. 265).

I have a hard time seeing what Green provides as remotely a theory or “conceptualization” of atonement as she claims. The metaphors of encircling love do not explain how it is that we overcome our alienation from God (a dimension that she virtually ignores), how we receive forgiveness for our heinous acts that harm others, or just how it could possibly be related to anything uniquely done by Christ. Indeed, her conceptualization views the Atonement as being accomplished by “God encircling us in His arms” rather than anything uniquely done by Christ. It does not explain how or why Christ takes our sins upon him—and it would be impossible to do so given her re-definition of the human condition and literally no sense of sin. There is no discussion of Christ’s suffering or how Christ’s blood was shed for us, as Jesus taught his disciples to remember his blood that he shed for us. Indeed, she views even noticing such suffering as part of the Atonement as detrimental to women.

This is not a Latter-day Saint theory of atonement. Indeed, it is not a theory of atonement at all.

Concluding Thoughts

One would hope for a proficuous collection of essays to provide greater insight to the Atonement in Latter-day Saint thought. The essays in LDS Perspectives are very uneven. As I have noted, some are quite competent while others are quite disappointing.

The greatest failure of LDS Perspectives is that the authors (apart from Keogh) have ignored some really great work on the Atonement in philosophical theology in the last sixty years. Indeed, there is no sign that the authors are even aware of these developments. There is no hint of knowing about the work of Richard Swinburne,27 Mark Murphy,28 or of the plethora of articles in Oxford Readings in Philosophical Theology.29 There is no mention of the work of William Lane Craig30 or Marilyn McCord Adams.31 Most amazingly, none of the authors mention or cite Eleonore Stump’s wonderful book on the Atonement.32 The failure to at least acknowledge and interact with Stump’s theory of atonement is puzzling indeed. Her approach is based on Aquinas’s work but goes well beyond it to a theory that views indwelling union resulting in deification as the purpose of Christ’s passion. She includes numerous insights from feminist theologians along the way (something it is obvious that the editors of LDS Perspectives sought to emphasize).

One can only wonder why such works were ignored

Appendix

Shortly after writing my review, I reached out to Joseph Spencer to give him a chance to respond to my rather critical assessment of his chapter in LDS Perspectives. He responded to me via email. Rather than paraphrase or risk mischaracterizing his response, I feel it best to let him speak for himself. With his permission I include his response in this appendix.

Blake,

I can point out a couple of places where you’re finding in my arguments more than I meant to put into them (whether I succeeded in communicating my intentions or not). For whatever they’re worth, here they are:

1. I don’t assume as a general principle that any longer-lasting project must be based on a morally superior framework than a shorter-lasting one. I am, however, struck by the fact that Mormon’s book of Mosiah presents us with two covenant communities in parallel, and the one that becomes the way forward is the one that downplays royal and sacrificial imagery. It might be that that’s nothing of note, but it strikes me as interesting, and so I explore its possible significance.

2. I quote Alma 31:5 not as a direct and explicit comment on the two communities from the Book of Mosiah, but simply as relevant wording from elsewhere in the Book of Mormon. It may be that I gave the impression that Alma’s directly commenting on that, but I certainly didn’t mean to.

3. I certainly wouldn’t want to say that the angel’s words are “just wrong and misleading.” They’re the words of an angel! I’d want to say, as I think you go on to acknowledge, that they’re accommodating to Benjamin’s people. But that isn’t a way of dismissing them, in my view. In a context like that of Benjamin’s people, the angel’s words clearly do a great deal of good, presumably exactly the right kind of good! There was, in a sense, no call for a different framing for a people living under a good king and with the right relationship to the law. But that there may have been such a call for a different people living under different circumstances suggests that the Atonement doesn’t always have to be understood in violent terms—and it might suggest that, ideally, it wouldn’t be so thought of.

4. I don’t mean to suggest either that Christ’s death wasn’t violent or that Abinadi’s end wasn’t violent. I mean to suggest only that when Abinadi provides meaning-granting metaphors for the Atonement and for Christ, he seems quite deliberately to choose ones that remove Christ from royalty and his Atonement from bloody sacrifice. Of course the crucifixion was bloody, but Abinadi doesn’t emphasize that or make it the key to understanding how atonement works. And of course Abinadi dies a horrible death, but that’s not obviously relevant to how he understands the meaning of the Atonement.

5. I find significance in Abinadi’s talk of Christ’s reigning over the dead because it situates his being king outside the context of his atoning work during mortality. I should probably have made that clearer in that footnote, but that’s what I meant.

6. I don’t mean to suggest that later generations of Nephite teachers also drew a strong contrast between violent and non-violent images for atonement (like the book of Mosiah seems to). They manifestly didn’t, as you point out. But it’s a separate question, I think, to ask what later generations did with the sermons of Abinadi and Benjamin. After the disappearance of monarchy, did they feel that they could use the bloody imagery of the Atonement without the same dangerous implications it might have been granted in the context of Noah’s vicious regime? But again, the point of the paper is to say that one Book of Mormon figure may give us an alternative to violent imagery, and that’s enough: we don’t have to think about atonement in violent terms, it seems, and there are some hints that that’s to be preferred, at least in certain contexts. And maybe in our times, Abinadi’s way of thinking about the atonement might be a resource for speaking to wounded souls.

—Joseph Spencer

Blake T. Ostler is head partner in the law firm of The Ostler Legal Advocates. In 1981 he graduated from Brigham Young University with a BA in Philosophy (summa cum laude) and a BS in Psychobiology (magna cum laude). He then graduated in 1985 as a William Leary Scholar from the University of Utah Law School with a JD (cum laude). He did graduate work in neurophilosophy and also the philosophy of law. Blake has published widely on Mormon philosophy in professional academic journals such as Religious Studies (Oxford, England), International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion (Netherlands), and Element: The Journal of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology, as well as Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Sunstone, BYU Studies, and FARMS Review of Books. He is the author of the multi-volume and award-winning series Exploring Mormon Thought.

1 . Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman, eds., Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2024). Throughout this review I refer to this volume using the shortened title LDS Perspectives.

2 . Stephen Burnhope, Atonement and the New Perspective: The God of Israel, Covenant, and the Cross (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2018), library.villanova.edu/Find/Record/2474161/Details.

3 . David M. Moffitt, Rethinking the Atonement: New Perspectives on Jesus’s Death, Resurrection, and Ascension (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022).

4 . Noel B. Reynolds, “Atonement in the Book of Mormon and in the New Testament” (2018), Faculty Publications, 2324, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/2324.

5 . Tertullian, De Paenitentia, 5.9, ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-repentance -de-paenitentia-11375.

6 . Tertullian, De Paenitentia, 6.4.

7 . Tertullian, De Paenitentia, 9.2, 9.5.

8 . Tertullian, De Baptismo, 20.2, ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-baptism-de -baptismo-11376.

9 . Tertullian, De Oratione, 7.1, ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-prayer-de -oratione-11377.

10 . J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. (London: A & C Black, 1968), 177, archive.org/details/earlychristiando0000kell_q8n9.

11 . Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Nottingham, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 2007), archive.org/details/piercedforourtra0000jeff. See, particularly, chapter 5 (pp. 161–204) which examines writings of many early Christian writers.

12 . Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chap. 95, newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm.

13 . Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions, 166.

14 . Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 95.

15 . Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 93.

16 . Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 96.

17 . Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 96.

18 . See Gustav Aulen, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, trans. by A. G. Herber (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003).

19 . Jacob Morgan, “The Divine Infusion Theory: Rethinking the Atonement,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 39, no. 1 (2006): 57–58, dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V39N01_65.pdf.

20 . Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God (Salt Lake City: Kofford Books, 2006), chap. 7.

21 . In her defense, Givens relies on the century-old study of Hastings Rashdall who adopted the view she presents. See Hastings Rashdall, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology (London: MacMillan, 1925), 253-54.

22 . Ian L. S. Balfour, “Tertullian and Roman Law—What Do We (Not) Know?,” Studia Patristica XCIV: Papers presented at the Seventeenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 2015, vol. 20 (2017): 11-21.

23 . To mention just a few of the numerous critical rejections of the supposed findings of neuroscience, see Joshua Shepherd, “Neuroscientific Threats to Free Will,” in The Routledge Companion to Free Will, eds. Kevin Timpe, Meghan Griffith, and Neil Levy (London: Routledge, 2017); William T. Newsome, “Neuroscience, Explanation, and the Problem of Free Will,” in Moral Psychology: Free Will and Moral Responsibility, Vol. 4, W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2014), 81–96; Alfred R. Mele, Effective Intentions: The Power of Conscious Will (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009); Peter Ulric Tse, The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013).

24 . See, for example, Robin Collins, “Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theory,” (unpublished manuscript, 1995), static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/38692/208738/1263475937360/Understanding%20Atonement%20-%20A%20New%20and%20Orthodox%20Theory.pdf; Timothy J. Gorringe, “Atonement,” in The Blackwell Companion to Political Theology, eds. Peter Scott and William T. Cavanaugh (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 363–76.

25 . See Timothy Bayne and Greg Restall, “A Participatory Model of the Atonement,” in New Waves in Philosophy of Religion, eds. Yujin Nagasawa and Erik J. Wielenberg (London: Palgrave-Macmillan, 150–66.

26 . See Ostler, Love of God and the Problems of Theism, chap. 7. See also the response to Diedre Green regarding the compassion theory in Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: God’s Plan to Heal Evil (Salt Lake City: Kofford Books, 2020), chap. 12.

27 . Richard Swinburne, Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989).

28 . Mark Murphy, “Not Penal Substitution but Vicarious Punishment,” Faith and Philosophy 26, no. 3 (2009): 253–73.

29 . See, for example, Michael C. Rea, ed., Oxford Readings in Philosophical Theology, Vol. 1: Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

30 . William Lane Craig, Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020).

31 . Marilyn McCord Adams, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000).

32 . Eleonore Stump, Atonement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).

The Anomaly: Elliott West’s Continental Reckoning and its Latter-day Saints

Robert Swanson

Review of Elliott West, Continental Reckoning: The American West in the Age of Expansion (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2023). 704 pages, $39.95 (hardcover).

Abstract: This review explores how Latter-day Saints are portrayed in a new landmark history of the American West. Noting the author’s generally accurate portrayal of the Saints, this review focuses on some areas that were missing in this Bancroft Prize winning book that has numerous implications for Latter-day Saint studies.

Elliot West, a prolific historian of the American West and author of numerous works including The Contested Plains1 and The Last Indian War,2 explores an expansive history of the Greater Reconstruction in the American West in his recently published prize-winning work Continental Reckoning: The American West in the Age of Expansion.3 “Greater Reconstruction” is a larger temporal framing of the United States’ effort to “reconstruct” the nation following the Civil War. West argues that the process of Reconstruction began not in 1865 with the end of the Civil War but instead in the 1840s, as American forces marched into Mexican territory. This view prioritizes the American West not only as a laboratory for society and empire, but as a place of dramatic change that influenced the eastern United States far more than scholars have previously suggested. West skillfully argues throughout his book that the birthing and growth of the American West led to dramatic changes in the rest of the United States. As he notes near the beginning of his text, “the remaking of the nation . . . unsettled it more profoundly than ever in its history” (p. 2).

Following explorers, settlers, soldiers, Native Americans, politicians, and miners across the wide expanse of the American West, Continental Reckoning is a tour-de-force that will be generative of many important discussions in coming years. Stretching across twenty-three chapters, West explores the familiar and the less well known as he suggests that “the American West was both the child and the midwife of the new United States” (p. 454).

While there are numerous aspects of this work that will be of interest to scholars of Latter-day Saint history, I will focus primarily on the role that Latter-day Saints play within the text itself. The idea of expanding Reconstruction beyond the eastern United States with a longer temporal framework will likely receive a warm welcome by Latter-day Saint scholars, some of whom have already sought to push the timeframe of Reconstruction to include the federal government’s campaign against the Latter-day Saints in the 1880s and 1890s.4 Scholars of Latter-day Saint history will readily note that the Latter-day Saint experience of Reconstruction could be said to have started long before the final shots of the Civil War, as eastern politicians sought to remake the Latter-day Saint faith to match a broader American Protestant tradition. Latter-day Saints were an “other,” demonized and racialized as a sub-human group throughout America and the broader Atlantic world.5

The role of Latter-day Saints in the West and its growth has long been documented by historians too numerous to name, yet Latter-day Saint readers will perhaps be surprised by how little attention is granted to Latter-day Saints within Continental Reckoning. It should be acknowledged that West has undertaken a colossal work, attempting to bring order to a region with millions of complicated and unique stories. As West rightly notes, the history of the American West is one of deep global connections and as such has a multitude of cultures and visions vying for life in the new “imagined space.” As in any synthesis, much must be left on the editing-room floor for future scholars to discuss, which should be acknowledged at the outset. West’s history could not cover it all. Yet it should be noted how and where his narrative can improve regarding the role of Latter-day Saints in the story of the American West.

The first mention of Latter-day Saints comes well into the book when West notes that the overland road between “Fort Bridger and the Mormon settlements” factored into the US Army’s Topographical Corps route-making in the early 1850s (p. 86). The first discussion of the Latter-day Saints occurs over twenty pages later in the midst of West’s discussions about Indian slavery and focuses on Latter-day Saints’ uneasy entry into the practice (p. 110). A more extended discussion occurs in chapter seven under the section “A Western Dixie.”

Though he rarely uses the full name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (he consistently refers to Latter-day Saints as Mormons with no explanation of the changing usage of the name in the past decade), West has a far more sympathetic discussion of Latter-day Saint beliefs and practices than can be found in many histories. For West, “Mormonism was a paradox” and “embodied many of the nation’s common values” (p. 115). Framing their experiences against the backdrop of persecution, West argues that the Latter-day Saints’ attempted exodus outside the bounds of the United States was similar, in some degree, to the experiences of the East Coast tribes that were forcibly removed to the American West by Indian removal policies. Both groups sought sanctuary outside the United States. Both became subsumed within the growing nation (p. 117).

Focusing on the creation of Deseret and then Utah, West frames the Latter-day Saint experience as a constant resistance to federal control. Emphasizing, I would argue correctly, Latter-day Saint efforts to ally with Natives over white Americans, West carries readers through the 1850s ending with the Mountain Meadows Massacre (pp. 114–24). The Latter-day Saints are thus part of a larger effort shaping the eastern United States as the “Mormon Question” became a continual aspect of national politics for the next several decades. Later, West notes how different the Latter-day Saint economic experiment was from the majority of the American West, particularly in its agriculture and approach to business. West states, “The achievements [of the Saints] were undeniable, notable if nothing else for the brash effort to bring into fruit country known for its main feature, a dead lake” (p. 360).

West is a more careful and nuanced historian than others that have brought the Latter-day Saints into a broader history. However, there are some questionable framings that will leave layman and scholar alike puzzled. First, though less an issue for many scholars, is West’s repeated usage of “Mormons” and his reference to the Church’s founding prophet as “Joe Smith” (p. 114–15). While certainly less offensive to some members of the Church, the refusal by the publisher or author to at least attempt to vary from the institutional moniker can be seen as part of a larger refusal of many to respect the self-identification of the Church and many of its members.

Of more scholarly concern is West’s selection of secondary literature. A critique that could be connected to other areas of the work is his reliance on older scholarship, primarily before 2005. This, perhaps, is most evident in West’s exploration of the Utah War and Mountain Meadows Massacre. Relying heavily on the scholarship of David Bigler and Will Bagley,6 West is correct in detailing this as one of the darkest moments in Latter-day Saint history. Most perplexing, however, is the complete lack of engagement with Massacre at Mountain Meadows7 which is the current definitive exploration of the massacre. Furthermore, the privileging of Bigler and Bagley, who, as reviewers noted of their book The Mormon Rebellion, present “unsubstantiated or confusing claims”8 through the lens of “their enemies’ eyes” with “little effort to see the conflict from the point of view of the Mormons,”9 presents a distorted and less nuanced view of the tragic events of 1857. Even Brigham Young’s call for the Saints to leave the Salt Lake Valley is framed as part of declaring a “new kingdom” rather than an effort to preserve lives (p. 121). While certainly when writing such a massive volume the nuance of scholarly debates may be constrained, the lack in the bibliography of any Latter-day Saint historical scholarship published during the past two decades is a flaw in Continental Reckoning that is a detriment to this otherwise engaging book.

Others may quibble with odd judgments about Latter-day Saints that West occasionally sticks throughout the book (one example is deeming some of their wartime poetry “bad”) or with the general lack of engagement with most religions and religious experience in the West; however, by and large, Continental Reckoning contains a mostly fair and respectful abridgement of the Latter-day Saint narrative. Through it all, the reader may question how such a large population in the Intermountain West (numbering in the tens of thousands even in the 1850s) could only appear on less than two dozen pages of a synthesis of Western history. Perhaps the simplest answer is found within West’s text. He stated that in the larger context of Western economic history, “the Mormon enterprise was anomalous. As a survival of a common prewar impulse to find in the West independent loyalties and arrangements of power, its vision was glaringly at odds with the postwar impulse to make of the West a national unifier” (pp. 360–61). This perhaps suggests the largest reason for the brevity paid to the Saints: they do not fit. As West noted in another spot, “Mormons were different” (p. 115). This leaves future scholars to grapple with the implications of West’s engaging and well-written story of Greater Reconstruction and how it impacted and shaped Latter-day Saint history.

Robert Swanson is a PhD student at the University of Missouri studying early American history. His research interests focus on two fields, Latter-day Saint history and early American abolitionism. He received his MA from Rutgers University Camden and his BA from Brigham Young University. He has published in The Journal of Mormon History, The New American Antiquarian, The Journal of American Nineteenth Century History, and The Journal of Pennsylvania History. He has also worked in various Latter-day Saint historical institutions as a volunteer or employee, including The Mormon Places Project, the Wilford Woodruff Papers, and The Church History Department.

1. 1 . Elliott West, The Contested Plains: Indians, Goldseekers, and the Rush to Colorado (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998).

2. 2 . Elliott West, The Last Indian War: The Nez Perce Story (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

3. 3 . Elliott West, Continental Reckoning: The American West in the Age of Expansion (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2023). Continental Reckoning won the 2024 Bancroft Prize from Columbia University, the 2024 Spur Award from the Western Writers of America, and was a finalist for the 2024 Pulitzer Prize.

4. 4 . See, for example, Clyde A. Milner and Brian Q. Cannon, eds., Reconstruction and Mormon America (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2019).

5. 5 . See, for example, W. Paul Reeves, Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015).

6. 6 . David L. Bigler and Will Bagley, The Mormon Rebellion: America’s First Civil War, 1857–1858 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2011).

7. 7 . Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

8. 8 . Brent M. Rogers, “Review,” Mormon Historical Studies 12, no. 2 (Fall 2011), 167, 170.

9. 9 . W. Paul Reeve, “Review,” The Journal of American History 99, no. 1 (June 2012), 305.

Uncanonized Revelations

Kent P. Jackson

Review of Stephen O. Smoot and Brian C. Passantino, eds., Joseph Smith’s Uncanonized Revelations (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2024). 184 pages, $24.99 (hardcover).

Abstract: In an important new volume, we now have easy access to revelations received by the Prophet Joseph Smith that were not included in the Doctrine and Covenants.

In November 1831, while the early latter-day revelations were being prepared for eventual publication in the Book of Commandments, Joseph Smith invited Church leaders attending a conference to express their collective testimony about the revelations.1 They wrote, in part,

We the undersigners feel willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind to every creature upon all the face of all the Earth upon the Islands of the Sea that god hath born record to our souls through the Holy Ghost shed forth upon us that these commandments are given by inspiration of God & are profitable for all men & are verily true.2

In August 1835, when the Doctrine and Covenants was being prepared for publication, the Quorum of Twelve Apostles issued a testimony about the revelations it contained, a testimony that was published in the book. It included these words:

The testimony of the witnesses to the book of the Lord’s commandments, which he gave to his church through Joseph Smith, jr. who was appointed by the voice of the church for this purpose: we therefore feel willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind, to every creature upon the face of all the earth, and upon the islands of the sea, that the Lord has borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost shed forth upon us, that these commandments were given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for all men, and are verily true. We give this testimony unto the world, the Lord being our helper.3

The testimony of the Twelve was then followed by the testimony of the Seventy, who “accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith,” and then in turn by the two bishoprics, the traveling elders, the priests, the teachers, the deacons, and then “the whole congregation, . . . the several authorities, and the general assembly.”4

These efforts can be seen as the beginnings of the process of canonization in the Church. The word canon—from Latin, which got it from the Greek word meaning rule or measuring stick, which got it from the word for reed or reed length in Semitic languages—implies a rule, ruler, or standard against which other things are measured. Regarding sacred writings, canonization is the formal acceptance by a constituted body of Church members, representing the whole Church, of a text as scripture—as authoritative and binding, as a “standard work.” The Bible and the Book of Mormon apparently didn’t need to be canonized, because they had already been designated by God as scripture (1 Nephi 13:20–25; Doctrine and Covenants 17:6; 20:8–11; 33:16).

In preparation for the printing of the Book of Commandments and, later, the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith and his associates went through the Prophet’s recorded revelations and selected those that would be included in the publications. Revelation Books 1 and 2, the volumes containing the official manuscript transcriptions of the divine communications, show that some revelations that had been received were crossed out and designated to not be included in the published collections.

BYU’s Religious Studies Center recently published a collection of those uncanonized revelations, Joseph Smith’s Uncanonized Revelations, edited by Stephen O. Smoot and Brian C. Passantino. It is an important volume and is nicely edited and nicely produced.

Latter-day Saints observe and acknowledge divine revelation in many manifestations, not only in our standard works. But we reserve the idea of canon for only very special texts. The inspired writings and sermons of Church leaders, however important they may be, are not included among our standard works. Smoot and Passantino chose to limit their volume to texts in which the Lord is the speaker either indirectly or directly, like the revelations we have in the Doctrine and Covenants. Thus, they did not include Joseph Smith’s sermons and writings, which are arguably as fundamental to the Restoration as many scriptures, because they are not in the voice of God. This is not a defect in their book but a wise setting of its parameters.

When we read the divine communications in Uncanonized Revelations, we see that despite their noncanonical status, most of them still have significant historical and spiritual value. They are revelations, after all, and though they address specific needs of their own time and not necessarily of ours, they often speak to us just as the canonized revelations do. For this reason, this new publication is a welcome addition to Church literature.

Several of the revelations are short, such as this one from 1835: “The word of the Lord came unto me saying that President William W. Phelps and President John Whitmer are under condemnation before the Lord for their iniquities” (p. 78). Somewhat longer is this one from 1837: “Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph Smith Jr.—my servants John Whitmer and William W. Phelps have done those things which are not pleasing in my sight. Therefore, if they repent not, they shall be removed out of their places. Amen” (p. 94).

The editors provide background information for each of the revelations, well explained and well annotated. In some cases, the circumstances that led to the revelations are not fully understood. And in virtually no case can we say with certainty why a revelation was not included in the Doctrine and Covenants. By the time the Doctrine and Covenants was printed, some of the revelations were perhaps deemed less relevant than they were when originally given. Some may have been superseded by later revelation, or some may have been rendered unnecessary because of repentance or other changing circumstances. In addition, some came after the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, and later compilers chose not to add them in subsequent editions.

One interesting revelation occurred in early 1833. Frederick G. Williams wanted to know what he should do that would be of “the most worth” to him. The Lord’s answer was:

Now I say unto you—my servant Joseph Smith Jr. is called to do a great work and hath need that he may do the work of translation for the salvation of souls. Verily, verily, I say unto you, thou art called to be a counselor and scribe unto my servant Joseph. (p. 58)

Williams was now being called to the First Presidency, and he was to continue as scribe on the Bible translation, on which he had labored since the previous summer. This revelation is significant because in it the Lord designates the Prophet’s translation of the Bible as a work “for the salvation of souls,” and Williams’s scribing for it would be among things that would be of most worth to him.

Another important revelation occurred in 1838, clarifying the role of the First Presidency to preside over all the units of the Church:

Can any branch of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be considered a stake of Zion until they have acknowledged the authority of the First Presidency, by a vote of said Church? Thus saith the Lord—verily, I say unto you, nay. How then? Answer: no stake shall be appointed except by the First Presidency, and this presidency be acknowledged by the voice of the same; otherwise, it shall not be counted as a stake of Zion. And again, except it be dedicated by this presidency it cannot be acknowledged as a stake of Zion. For unto this end have I appointed them, in laying the foundation of and establishing my kingdom. (pp. 103–104)

This revelation is a gem, with a message that is fundamental to the operation of the Church of Jesus Christ. It provides a doctrinal foundation for sustaining Church authorities in conferences, and it rules out any legitimacy for schismatic movements, providing a safeguard against apostasy.

Readers will identify their own favorites in the collection of uncanonized revelations, and perhaps they’ll find some that they wish were included in the Doctrine and Covenants. But more than anything else, they’ll be reminded that God has been at work in his Church since its founding, often in the small details.

Kent P. Jackson retired in June 2017 as a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, where he had taught since 1980. He has a BA in Ancient Studies from BYU and MA and PhD degrees in Ancient Near Eastern studies from the University of Michigan. His research interests include the Near East and the intersection of the Latter-day Saint faith and the Bible. He has authored or edited From Apostasy to Restoration; The Restored Gospel and the Book of Genesis; Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible: The Joseph Smith Translation and the King James Translation in Parallel Columns; and Understanding Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible. Jackson is a former associate dean of religion and former associate director of the Brigham Young University Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies.

1. 1 . Minutes, 1–2 Nov. 1831, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org
/paper-summary/minutes-1-2-november-1831/1.

2. 2 . Testimony, circa 2 November 1831, p. 121, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/paper-summary/testimony-circa-2-november-1831/1.

3. 3 . Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (Kirtland, OH: F. G. Williams, 1835), 256–57, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary
/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/264.

4. 4 . Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, 256–57,

Nurture and Harvest:
A Continued Conversation with
The Annotated Book of Mormon

Kevin Christensen

Abstract: Because Grant Hardy’s important book deliberately contextualizes the Book of Mormon in light of “the generally agreed upon findings of modern biblical scholars and historians,” it invites further discussion on points in which the Book of Mormon and other significant biblical scholars and historians challenge those findings. Hardy also declares that his commentary “is consistently focused on the plain meaning of the text,” which is understandably appealing, but which is in tension with Joseph Smith’s foundational observation that “the different teachers of the religion understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.” I argue on several key issues that a different contextualization can radically change meaning.

All the texts in the chosen canon would have had an original context, which presupposed a certain pattern of shared beliefs within which the text was set. The context was as much a part of the meaning as the words themselves. Set in a new context, the same text would soon acquire a new meaning.

—Margaret Barker1

The Annotated Book of Mormon2 is, true to its title, an annotated edition of the Book of Mormon, providing notes and commentary on a text held sacred by millions of people. I previously reviewed the book and recommended it for its valuable insights and contributions.3 But I also noted that despite the author’s insider background and careful observations, the lens through which he views the text is, on several key issues, defined by an outsider perspective. The purpose of this essay is to examine the lens used for those key issues and provide additional information that thoughtful readers will want to consider in their own study.

That being said, readers should understand that I make no claim that my examination is exhaustive. Indeed, this essay should be considered a “continued conversation,” drawing upon my own collection of thoughts that reflect my understanding of some topics addressed in The Annotated Book of Mormon.

In no way should engaging in such a conversation be construed as disparaging the author (Grant Hardy), his faith commitment,4 or the book he has meticulously created. Hardy explains his approach to his work this way:

All commentaries have biases of some kind or another. This work is an experiment in reading the Book of Mormon as scripture, a genre that is somewhat distinct from both history and fiction. On the one hand, I take its ostensible historical context seriously, trying to imagine how it might be read as an example of exilic literature informed by Hebrew culture and augmented by new revelations received by Lehi and his descendants. At the same time, I accept the generally agreed upon findings of modern biblical scholars and historians, so along with ancient echoes and literary devices I also note incongruities in the narrative, including anachronisms and nineteenth-century parallels. These are all part of what makes the Book of Mormon what it is. As scripture, the primary value of the text is theological rather than historical, even for believers who assume it is based on an authentic ancient record. Faith can often accommodate some degree of historical inaccuracy or even implausibility in a sacred text.5

At times his determination to contextualize in light of “the generally agreed upon findings of modern biblical scholars and historians” creates obvious tensions between his stated faith and his annotations and commentary. This includes issues such as the authorship and date of the Sermon on the Mount relative to 3 Nephi, the state of evidential support for the New World portions of the Book of Mormon, the significance of the temple for the Book of Mormon, the Isaiah question, longstanding assertions that the Book of Mormon must be read as “too Christian before Christ” and the related significance of Margaret Barker’s paradigm for that question, claims of anachronism and translation issues, and even whether believing approaches to the Book of Mormon are based on an epistemology of “warm feelings.”6 I’ll address some of these issues in this paper, but let me start by considering a concept that is generally and uncritically accepted by Hardy.

Considering the Plain Meaning

Many people assume that a text has what is often referred to as “a plain meaning.” This can be problematic, and Hardy seems to feel that such a meaning is available, even for a text as complicated as the Book of Mormon. He explains that his
headings, introductions, and annotations identify themes and major ideas, highlight narrative structures and literary patterns, delineate arguments, draw attention to internal parallels and allusions, and trace intertextuality with the Bible. The Book of Mormon has often been defined more by its colorful backstory than its actual contents; this annotated edition offers an alternative approach that is consistently focused on the plain meaning of the text.7

The notion of following “the plain meaning of the text” is very human and understandably attractive—Hardy cites Nephi’s appeal8 that way—but again, I deeply appreciate the young Joseph Smith’s concern that “the same passages of scripture” (Joseph Smith—History 1:12) can be understood very differently, as well as Jesus’s key observation that the same words, planted in different soils, nurtured in different ways, can produce vastly different harvests: “Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?” (Mark 4:13). What seems to one person as “the plain meaning of the text” may mean something different to another. Consider Jesus’s plain meaning when talking about being “born again,” “other sheep,” “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again,” “This is my body,” or “My Father and I are one.”

Finally, I have often seen what happens to potential for further expansion and enlightenment for the minds that discard the need for further inquiry and stop at what seems to them the indisputable and final “plain meaning of the text.” I recall Jesus mentioning in 3 Nephi 16:17–23 what happened to other disciples who “supposed” (v. 22) they understood him on the topic of “other sheep” but in fact did not, and in consequence did not ask for or receive further light and knowledge. The same Nephi who “delights in plainness” (2 Nephi 25:4) also simultaneously reports that “there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews” (2 Nephi 25:4). Joseph Smith stated that the problem with creeds was not their content (“all of them have some truth”9 and “it don’t prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine”10), but their effect in declaring “hitherto thou shalt come, and no further,”11 which places adherents beyond both enlightenment and repentance.

In annotating Nephi’s comments on delighting in plainness in 2 Nephi 25, Hardy says this:

1–8: The contrast between Isaiah’s multivalent prophecies and Nephi’s plainly articulated predictions of the last days is, quite literally, the difference between poetry and prose. Nephi begins with a brief narrator’s comment, for his future readers, and then addresses his people directly beginning in v. 4. He regards the Jews at Jerusalem negatively (works of darkness), perhaps understandably given the persecution of his family, yet he acknowledges their unparalleled expertise in interpreting scripture (v. 5); see 29.4n. 4: The spirit of prophecy appears eighteen times in the BoM and once in the Bible at Rev 19.10, where “the spirit [or essence] of prophecy” is equated with “the testimony of Jesus”; see Alma 4.20n. 5: My soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, this phrase completes an inclusio that began at 11.2; similarly, “my soul delights in plainness” in v. 4 above begins an overlapping inclusio that ends at 31.3.12

Hardy’s annotations generally contextualize the plain meaning of the text relative to literary features, the nineteenth-century context, including the Old and New Testaments, and conclusions of mainstream contemporary secular scholarship. He does refer in some annotations and essays to correlations with locations and details for the Arabian journey and Nahom and provides a map for reference. But again, I observe that on several important issues such as the meaning of the Lamanite curse, the issue of directions in the Book of Mormon, the nature of Jacob’s mark, and even the significance of apparent anachronisms, different soil and nurture can radically influence what might appear to the unwary as the fixed, undisputed, unquestionable, “plain meaning.”

The Plain Meaning in Context

With respect to Hardy’s determination to pursue “the plain meaning of the text” there is the issue that Ian Barbour describes where “theory is revisable in light of observation, but observation may also need to be reconsidered in light of theory.”13 For instance, Brant Gardner described an important change in his perspective on Mesoamerican evidence relative to the Book of Mormon:

The difference came when I started looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Oddly enough, there is a huge difference, and the nature and the quality of the correlations has changed with that single shift in perspective.

Further, Gardner states,

When people ask me about the most important correlation I have found, I have a hard time narrowing it to just one. The most important correlation isn’t a singular finding; rather, it can be seen in the many facets of the discovery that the entire text of the Book of Mormon works better in a Mesoamerican context. Speeches suddenly have a context that makes them relevant instead of just preachy. The pressures leading to wars are understandable. The wars themselves have an explanation for their peculiar features. All of these things happen within a single interpretive framework that puts them in the right place at the right time.14

If you approach the New World portions of the Book of Mormon demanding or expecting to locate conspicuous evidence of a transplanted and dominant Old World Hebrew civilization that accounts for all of North and South American continental history and all inhabitants evidenced today, you explore in one way. For example, Brent Metcalfe wrote that “Book of Mormon geographers have been unable to deliver a single archeological dig that can be verified by reputable Mesoamericanists as the ruins of an ancient Near Eastern culture, much less of Lehites and Jaredites.”15

This statement makes clear what Metcalfe demands—an Old World Hebrew civilization; ”the ruins of an ancient Near Eastern culture”—and to whom he will grant authority to dispense what Thomas Kuhn calls “a license for seeing”16: only “reputable Mesoamericanists,” presumably non-LDS, despite the existence of several notably reputable Latter-day Saint Mesoamericanists. One would think, for instance, that Metcalfe would note a most obvious problem: that of looking for the ruins of an ancient Near Eastern culture in Mesoamerica given the conspicuous tendency of ancient Near Eastern cultures to occur in the ancient Near East.

There are other contexts, however. Consider, for example, small groups of migrants entering already inhabited lands (during Lehi’s time at the level of hamlets and villages17) and, for practical matters of survival, available natural resources, and the advice and example of local specialized knowledge and techniques, those minority migrants then largely adopt the material culture of the majority locals and immediately begin to mix with them. Within that context, the kind of evidence you seek and where you seek changes radically. You then contextualize and read the Book of Mormon very differently.18 You might even pay close attention to the internal statements of distance and relationships in considering the location and area concerned, and the state of the society at specific times, rather than assuming an unchanging cultural picture from start to finish. For me, the work of John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, and others like them paradigmatically demonstrates the different harvest produced by the different soil and nurture.

Hardy aptly concludes his essay on “Reading the Book of Mormon as Ancient History” with this:

In summary, taking the Book of Mormon seriously as history in the contemporary era requires some sort of limited geography model that acknowledges the presence of a large number of indigenous peoples in the Americas before 600 BCE, as well as an awareness of anachronisms in the text, and an openness to different types of translation. Reading the Mormon scripture as history might also involve tracking the movements of its characters on a hypothetical map based on internal references (such as the one included in this volume), tracing the development of their ideas over time, weighing their words against their life stories, and looking for the minds of ancient Nephite narrators as conveyed through their writings and editing, with authorial intentions that may be separate from those of Joseph Smith.19

In dealing with Book of Mormon historicity and geography, we also have the problem of the authority of Latter-day Saint traditions regarding the New York hill, the identity of Lamanites, and the nature of the curse. Are they inviolate and unquestionable on grounds that “Surely a prophet or General Authority would know!” (which inevitably invites the conclusion “hitherto thou shalt come, and no further”), or do we take seriously the formal declaration of “mine authority, and the authority of my servants” that ”inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest” and inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:6, 25–26), which encourages a more open-ended, process-oriented approach?

In addition, in considering the impact of Book of Mormon migrations on indigenous populations, we should think through the implications of a first-generation Book of Mormon author (Jacob 1:13–14) deliberately changing the definition of Nephite and Lamanite from genealogical descent to political friendlies and un-friendlies, while very quickly noting the wickedness of Nephites and relative righteousness of less accountable Lamanites that he knew, against the common oversimplifications of many supposedly critical readers. And we should also note that one of Jacob’s first formal acts in the first generation of the narrative is to discourse on how “Gentiles shall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel” (2 Nephi 10:18). Again, the nature of the evidence sought both inside and outside the text and experience of the text becomes very different. As Kuhn explains, “novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation,”20 and observes that “scientists with different paradigms engage in different concrete laboratory manipulations.”21 LDS Mesoamericanist John Clark has written,

The logical challenges with the first assertion, that no “cities have been located,” are more subtle. Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology.22

Hardy provides a supplementary essay that discusses the development of various New World geographies, mentioning briefly important books by both John Sorenson and Brant Gardner, as well as the Heartlanders,23 and the later version of John Clark’s essay on criteria for evaluating geographies. Hardy discusses the lack of any official Latter-day Saint position, other than generally in favor of historicity due in large measure to the implications of the story of physical plates, Moroni as resurrected messenger, and the witnesses. Hardy annotates the evidence for the Book of Mormon mention of Nahom in this way:

Nahom, three altar inscriptions from the 7th–6th c. BCE indicate that NHM (now transliterated as Nihm) was a tribal name in southwestern Arabia in the area where the Incense Trail turned eastward (see 17.1). Many Latter-day Saints have viewed this as an independent confirmation of a historical detail from the BoM.24

In his general essay on “Reading the Book of Mormon as Ancient History,” Hardy returns to the topic and elaborates this way:

These findings are not conclusive; there are questions, for instance, about the Semitic consonant represented by the h in Nahom, about geographic details, or whether the name might have been adopted by Smith from the biblical prophet Nahum.25

Here again, Hardy strives to balance opposing views, as befits a book published by Oxford Press. Though arguing about the “h” in Nahom as an isolated curiosity is a very different thing than addressing the large-scale convergence of Nahom in the right time and place as one element of a complex set of interlocking details, both geographic and cultural in the whole Old World portion of the 1 Nephi description of the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful.26 Hardy does include a map of that journey.27

In his summary of the current state of evidence for Book of Mormon historicity, Hardy does not mention copious other works that provide evidence, including:

- The work of Brian Stubbs on Uto-Aztecan language groups, systematically showing extensive patterns of influence from Hebrew, Egyptian, and Phoenician, influence being a very different thing than origins.28

- The two Mesoamerican cylinder seals that have characters resembling those on the Anthon transcript.29

- “Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages to and from the Americas” by John L. Sorenson and Carl L. Johannessen, nor Sorenson’s 2009 publication “A Complex of Ritual and Ideology Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East.”30

- The 2018 LiDAR surveys with their stunning, revolutionary impact on Mesoamerican archeology, and the unavoidable fact that the exponential leap in evidence to consider that they uncovered so far that had the potential to dramatically undercut the Book of Mormon picture, but instead illuminates and supports it.31

That this sort of thing does not allow us to claim any proof for the Book of Mormon is because of the availability and utility of anyone being able say things like “So what?” and “Some things they have guessed right, among so many” (Helaman 16:16) and “Have any of the rulers, or of the Pharisees believed on him?” (John 7:48). Hardy does mention the existence of the important “Book of Mormon Central” website32 and lists a few books that provide useful collections of Latter-day Saint apologetic writings. Again, Hardy is speaking to a particular audience, working through an academic press with implicit editorial priorities, social protocols, and assumptions and space limitations of only a few hundred pages to deal with an ambitious range of issues.

Which Problems are More Significant to Have Solved?

That any paradigm offers unsolved problems is normal, even inevitable. “To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted.”33 That means that paradigm debate always involves deciding “Which problems is it more significant to have solved?”34 Consider again a few issues that Hardy lists as unsolved for the Book of Mormon.

Others have been troubled by the lack of direct historical evidence in the Americas. There are no authenticated reports of pre-Columbian New World sites that show any evidence of Old World influence in the form of pottery, tools, weapons, inscriptions, or agricultural products.35 Finding these sorts of items in an excavation would not prove the Book of Mormon true, but they would make it more historically plausible and indicate potential locations for further research. (Many Latter-day Saints assume that confirming evidences will someday be unearthed.) When challenged to produce a single, credible Nephite artifact, apologists tend to point toward broader patterns of geographical consistency and Mesoamerican cultural parallels such as cities, fortifications, warfare, and roads. Or they look to secondary confirmations from ancient Near Eastern parallels, literary features, and witness statements.36

In considering “Which problems are more significant to have solved?” I find it useful and telling to consider whether and how the current case changes if believers and skeptics could swap issues. Suppose, for example, that Hardy could point to specific “authenticated reports of Old World influence in the form of pottery, tools, weapons, inscriptions, or agricultural products”37 and, even some DNA, and that the Book of Mormon scripture’s authors (who are mainly priests, political leaders, and military men, rather than, say, botanists or farmers or sports fans) had thought to “include the references to the beans, squash, jade, cacao, blowguns, or ball courts that readers might expect today from a historical account.”38 Also suppose he could report no apparent Biblical anachronisms.

But suppose, with those problems resolved, Hardy then had to report that LDS scholars had to admit no geographical consistency and no notable or elaborate Mesoamerican cultural parallels such as cities, fortifications, warfare patterns, writing, volcanic eruptions in the right time and place, no roads and no ancient Near Eastern parallels and literary features, no Valley of Lemuel, no Nahom, no plausible land Bountiful in Oman with convergent features, no pre-Classic Mesoamerican civilizations rising and falling at the right times and places to compare with both the Jaredite and Nephite accounts, no large scale use of cement in the right time and place relative a complex set of geographic and cultural requirements, and no anciently authentic names. Further, that John Clark had reported that the tendency over time as more knowledge of ancient Mesoamerica is uncovered was away from resolution of questions, rather than towards it; that our understanding of Mesoamerican civilizations has less and less in common with Book of Mormon civilizations over time rather than more and more;39 that Brian Stubbs had discovered no Hebrew, Egyptian and Phoenician influence on Uto-Aztecan language groups; that recent LiDAR surveys had severely undercut Book of Mormon claims; that the book demonstrated no notable literary distinction other than bulk and naivete; that rather than resolving “all the great controversies,” that Alexander Campbell had declared the Book of Mormon was both irrelevant and incomprehensible; and finally, no witness statements besides Joseph Smith’s own story.

Given such a hypothetical exchange of present problems for present solutions, would the current case for the Book of Mormon be stronger or weaker? Indeed, given that exchange, would we even be talking about the Book of Mormon nearly two centuries after it appeared?

The River Sidon and the Issue of Directions

The name “Sidon” appears 58 times in Hardy’s book, with one annotation mentioning “the north-flowing river Sidon as a central feature of the landscape”40 and in another that “The land of Manti was the southernmost Nephite region in the center of their territory. Since it contained the headwaters of the Sidon River, it would have been in the mountains.”41 Hardy does not comment on the directional difficulty these textual details pose for Heartlanders who, as he reports, “regard the Mississippi as the River Sidon and the Great Lakes as the surrounding seas mentioned in the scriptural text.”42 He does, however, spend time detailing supposed directional difficulties for those who adopt a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. He observes,

The natural features of southern Mexico and Guatemala can be roughly matched to the internal geography of the text, including a narrow neck of land (the Isthmus of Tehuantepec) and a river flowing northward (the Grijalva), along with various highlands, coastlines, and wilderness areas (even if it requires shifting the cardinal directions counterclockwise by more than 45 degrees).43

While Hardy mentions that Gardner’s work44 refines Sorenson’s,45 he does not mention that Larry Poulsen and Brant Gardner, in a book Hardy otherwise cites, have refined Sorenson on the issue of direction in the same way that, for astronomical paradigms, Kepler’s elliptical orbits refined the less accurate and less acceptable circular orbits postulated by Copernicus. Poulsen and Gardner pointed out that Mesoamerican culture viewed the directions as related to sunrise and sunset, which varies during the year, and therefore were conceived as quadrants rather than vectors, and viewed the quadrants as a slightly flattened “X” rather than what we, as moderns, reflexively think of in a “+” format. Gardner explains the concept this way:

What you’ll see at the top is this North-South axis and that really looks familiar to us because as modern Americans we conceptualize directions and cardinal directions as a plus sign. What we miss is that Mesoamerica did not. Mesoamerica did not use the concept of a plus sign whenever they described the world and the four quarters of the world. They used an “X.” So for them this is North, not that single line that we think of, but that pie, that whole piece of direction is North. It changes concepts dramatically when we have a quadrant that is Northwest, and they kind of tilt it and say that whole thing is North. So the concept of what North is was probably very different in the Mesoamerican world.46

Figure 1 is Larry Poulsen’s detailed figure to show the difference it makes for Hardy’s complaint about Sorenson’s correlation.47

Figure 1. Poulsen’s depiction of Book of Mormon directions.

Poulsen’s presentation shows how stories, such as that of Limhi’s explorers, can be illuminated by putting them in specific contexts. Poulsen examines how Limhi sent a group from the Land of Nephi to find Zarahemla and seek help. Their problem involved finding a living person from the generation who had made the journey but who, by then, was too old to be a personal guide, essentially asking, “Grandpa, how do we get to Zarahemla?” The answer would be, “Go to the narrow strip of wilderness that extends from the East Sea to the West Sea, separating the Land of Nephi from the Land of Zarahemla as a natural boundary (Alma 22:27)48 and that contains the headwaters of the Sidon. Find the Sidon and follow the West bank downstream until you find Zarahemla. It should take around three to four weeks, if you don’t get lost or delayed.”49 Poulsen suggests that the explorers followed the wrong river, the Usamacinta (see figure 2).50

Figure 2. Poulsen’s suggested route for Limhi’s explorers.

This not only accounts for them missing Zarahemla and how they passed through a land of many waters (Mosiah 8:8), but also how they could find an unoccupied Jaredite ruin, mistake it for Zarahemla (Mosiah 21:26), and return the way they came with the Jaredite record (Mosiah 8:9).

Poulsen shows that La Venta, an Olmec ruin, had been occupied at the time of the Mulekite arrival—thus allowing for their contact with Coriantumr—but was unoccupied at the time of Limhi’s people (see figure 3).51 It is also evident that trying to make the story of Limhi’s explorers plausible with either a continental geography or limited North American geography would be an exercise in futility.

Figure 3. Poulsen’s depiction of the rivers and Olmec ruins.

Race and the Lamanite Curse

I have a different view than Hardy on the curse on the Lamanites. This is a key issue. Hardy cites the recent Book of Mormon Studies: An Introduction and Guide, which makes the point that reader concerns about their perception of racism in the text have become a major issue in whether many readers can believe or accept the Latter-day Saint community and message.52 So how we treat the text on this issue is not of mere academic interest but is a pressing social concern for real life, and has potentially generational consequences. Here is Hardy’s annotation for 2 Nephi 5, where Nephi describes the curse:

Cursing . . . sore cursing, 1 Ne 2.23; 2 Ne 1.22; Jacob 3.3 (which all refer to this moment). Flint, a hard, often grayish rock. A skin of blackness, a notoriously difficult passage, not only because the equating of skin color with righteousness runs counter to modern ethical standards but because it is contradicted within the BoM itself: 26.33 declares that “black and white . . . all are alike unto God,” and the dark-skinned Anti-Nephi-Lehies and Lamanites are sometimes morally superior to the Nephites (see Jacob 3; Hel 6; 13–15). Some LDS readers have interpreted descriptions of the Lamanites being “dark” as cultural or symbolic rather than biological, but this appears to contradict the plain meaning of the text, and the most plausible naturalistic explanation is that they intermarried with indigenous inhabitants of the Americas who had migrated from Asia thousands of years earlier (see v. 23, and 3 Ne 2.14–16, where the curse was taken from Lamanites who united with the Nephites, but only over the course of several generations).53

Several notable LDS scholars have pointed to the Ancient Near Eastern cultural backgrounds relative to the phrase “skin of blackness.” For instance, the transcript of Hugh Nibley’s Teachings of the Book of Mormon class has this:

Now this cursing. There’s a great deal said about this race business in the Book of Mormon. It’s very clear what it is—it’s a cultural thing. It tells us here in verse 21, “Wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome.” That doesn’t mean they had complexions of milk, that they were pale white and ghostly. That’s not healthy anyway. Nor does it mean that the others were coal black. Black is much too strong a word to use here, if you are using it literally. But, as I’ve said before, it applies just as much in shāḥōr and lābān as it does in Hebrew and Aramaic, and also in Arabic. Anything that’s abyaḍ is good, delightful, pleasant; and everything that’s aswad isn’t. In the paintings, whether it’s Greek vase paintings or wall paintings in Egypt, the people who live in the bayt al-shaîr, “the houses of hair, out in the desert are always painted with dark complexions. The people who live in the bayt al-hajar, “the houses of stone,” are always depicted with light complexions. The women never went out; they would paint their faces with white lead, as a matter of fact. It’s a cultural thing. Of course, if you live that way, you become dark. Also, the camps of natives, Asiatics or anything like that, become garbage dumps. They live by hunting and plunder. They are not cultivating the soil and are not bound to work too much. So they become slovenly and dark in their manner. . . .

One was “exceedingly fair and delightsome,” and the other was a skin of blackness. As I said, shāḥōr is a skin of blackness, which means dark. A good source for that would be Morris Jastrow’s Aramaic Dictionary. For the word black, it gives dark, unpleasant—everything sort of uncomplimentary. We don’t need to linger on that. Here it is [in verse 23]; it says it’s a cultural affair. If you mixed your seed with them, you got the same cursing. If you intermarry with them, you are sharing their culture, and you become just like them. In other words, it is not a racial thing because you can get it yourself. “And because of their cursing which was upon them, they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.”54

More recently, T. J. Uriona has looked to the Neo-Assyrian “skin of blackness” curse relative to the Book of Mormon:

The phrase “skin of blackness” is only used once in the Book of Mormon as part of Nephi’s unabridged account of his life and prophecies. This makes the phrase, as Gerrit Steenblik has pointed out, “unusual” and suggests it might be unique to the ancient Near East culture that Nephi was familiar with. Support for this suggestion comes from the fact that in a prominent treaty dating to around Nephi’s time we also find something similar to Nephi’s phrase “skin of blackness.” In the Succession Treaty of King Esarhaddon, “skin black as pitch” seems to be used as a motif for death in relation to being cursed. Understood in this way, the phrase “skin of blackness” brings to mind the promise found in Deuteronomy of “life and death, blessing and cursing” (Deut. 30:19) and the need to hearken to the Lord and his appointed representative. This understanding is consistent with Lehi’s plea to choose life and not death (2 Ne. 2:27–29) and avoid being cursed by trusting in Nephi’s leadership (2 Ne. 1:21).55

Notice that 2 Nephi 5:21 provides the only occurrence of the phrase “skin of blackness” in all the scriptures. No other Book of Mormon writer uses it, and that may be because Nephi is the only Book of Mormon author to be raised in the Ancient Near East and who—if he existed as person and not a figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination—would and could use the demonstrably ancient Near Eastern colloquial phrase in such an unconscious, unelaborated way.

This sort of thing reenforces for me that the “plain meaning of the text” is not a constant to all observers no matter which cultural background and personal assumptions are at work. Rather, interpretation is inevitably culturally conditioned to some degree by the original speaker, intervening editors, subsequent translators and interpreters, and finally by the expectations, preparations, perceptions, and imagination of the modern reader. In addition to this, I consider the definitions in the Webster’s 1828 dictionary for “blackness”:

BLACK’NESS, noun The quality of being black; black color; darkness; atrociousness or enormity in wickedness.56

Even in 1828 skin color is not the only meaning offered. As Jesus observed, the same words, planted in different soils, nurtured in different ways, can produce vastly different harvests. For instance, one of the clearest messages I got from reading Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon, a book that Hardy cites approvingly, is that nineteenth-century Americans had a pre-existing culture that conditioned them to extract their own pre-existing, racist views from the text. Several authors in Americanist Approaches matter-of-factly relate the racism in nineteenth-century American culture to their perception of racism in the Book of Mormon. For example, Peter Coviello sees this in the book:

The Book of Mormon adapts itself to a series of drearily familiar racist tropes of the American nineteenth century: about Indians as remnants of the lost tribes of Israel, or, more saliently, about nonwhiteness as a God-ordained and indelible accursedness. The Book of Mormon, we might say, swallows these conventional racist premises whole, and metabolizes them into an intractably racist cosmology, haphazardly wrought round with a settler-colonial white supremacism that will be unfamiliar to few students of antebellum America.57

I can understand the race-based reading, given the cultural environment of nineteenth-century readers and the culturally conditioned expectations of many modern readers, but I personally feel in no way bound to it, even when expressed by notable scholars or by traditional LDS authorities, all of whom, it must be recognized, were influenced by the cultures and traditions of their upbringing. Despite the common American speculations that the Indigenous tribes were descended from the Lost Tribes and frequent mischaracterizations of the Book of Mormon in this regard (even by notables such as Yale’s Harold Bloom58), Hardy points out that the Book of Mormon expressly declares that the Lost Tribes are lost.59 The three ancient migrations it describes (without ruling out other migrations led or permitted by the Lord in some manner60) are all quite different from the Lost Tribes theories. As far as LDS traditions concerning the racial reading of the curse, the formal statement regarding the authority of the Lord’s servants in Doctrine and Covenants 1 expressly states, that “inasmuch as they erred, it might be made manifest” and “inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed,” which means that LDS traditions on this topic need not be taken as binding nor agonized over, particularly when those who first promoted them demonstrably did not read closely, nor contextualize carefully, nor could they to the extent we can now do so owing to the changes in available contextual knowledge over time.

I perceive that ye are weak, that ye cannot understand all my words which I am commanded of the Father to speak unto you, at this time. Therefore, go ye unto your homes, and ponder upon the things which I have said, and ask of the Father, in my name, that ye may understand, and prepare your minds for the morrow, and I come unto you again. (3 Nephi 17:2–3)

Hardy discusses Joseph Smith’s own use of the Book of Mormon and concludes,

In short, Smith treated the Book of Mormon as something external to himself, whose contents he was not particularly familiar with. He certainly never produced anything else like it. That book of scripture, coming at the very beginning of his public life, emerged fully formed as a unified, coherent, history-like narrative of nearly 270,000 words and almost two hundred named characters interacting with one another in complicated plot lines. His later, relatively brief, mostly discursive revelations, such as those collected in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, along with his revisions of the King James Bible, are not in the same category.61

I have been impressed by careful readings by hundreds of different Latter-day Saint authors who have prepared their minds and pondered in notably mind-expanding ways, including Nibley, Sorenson, Gardner,62 Tvedtnes, Peterson, Ricks, Hamblin, Poulsen, Sproat, Wright, Bowen, Von Feldt, Goff, Ostler, Midgley, Barker, Lindsay, Roper, Larsen, the Astons, Hardy himself, and others. Authors such as these also take into account both close and careful reading and appropriate cultural contexts for at least testing the content of the Book of Mormon. However, even given the racist context of 1820s to 1830 American culture—with the Civil War still thirty years away and slavery still devoutly practiced in half the states—some Book of Mormon commentators have noted the oddness of the text within that nineteenth-century American context, of applying “skin of blackness” to pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Americas, given the conspicuous presence and cultural significance of the enslaved blacks of African descent in the South and the occasional free blacks of the North as a distinctly different people than the our mis-named native Indians. Why not red or copper or brown skin, if the book is to account for Native American origins and if the Book of Mormon is merely a stereotyped recapitulation of nineteenth-century thought?63 Reading the text as Coviello does (“a series of drearily familiar racist tropes”) does not quite fit. Indeed, Jeremy Talmage reports,

The racial worldview of the Book of Mormon is a historical anomaly in that it envisioned Native Americans as either black or white when nearly everyone else identified Indians as red. As it turns out, this radically departed from the personal views of Joseph Smith and his nineteenth-century culture. The description of Native Americans as red, which one should expect to find in the Book of Mormon, simply is not there.64

Hardy does cite several important ways and essays in which the portrayal and destinies of Lamanites in the Book of Mormon subverts convenient racist tropes.65 Indeed, the first descriptions of the Lamanite culture from the inside that we see during the missionary efforts of the sons of Mosiah (Alma 17–27) is very different than the outside view stereotype given by Enos (Enos 20) several generations earlier. The expectations of readers saturated with those tropes should, however, be acknowledged as preconditioning their interpretations and at least raise questions about the authority of their readings.

I’ve elsewhere cited Ethan Sproat’s detailed case in his “Skins as Garments”66 essay that the later Alma 3 discussion of the Lamanite curse should take its context from the dual instances of skin in Alma 3:5–6, where the first use is clearly a garment, and the second likely is as well. Skins can be garments and garments are not always just utilitarian or fashion statements. They can and do often say and symbolize much more, and can, at times, even be metaphoric rather than literal.67 In Fiddler on the Roof, for instance, Tevye discusses his inheritance of culturally distinct identifiers such as his hat and prayer shawl, and says, “Because of our traditions, each of us knows who he is, and who God expects him to be,” a remark I find poignant and applicable to Latter-day Saint traditions like temple clothing. It is also useful in considering military organizations, business attire, school marching bands, biker gangs, and political rallies. This is the passage from Alma that Sproat has demonstrated is a potential interpretive key:

Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth. And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. (Alma 3:5–6)

Sproat reports that “Commentaries handle the two sentences in one of three ways: (1) by treating both of them independently, as if two very different things were at issue; (2) by commenting on only the second of the two sentences, remaining silent about the first; or (3) by failing to comment on either sentence.”68 In Hardy’s commentary, that passage breaks across a page,69 visually and physically separating the “skin which was girded about their loins” from the “skins of the Lamanites” being dark. Here is Hardy’s annotation for verse 6, which makes no connection to the skin as clothing in verse 5:

The Nephite assumptions that dark skin was associated with sin and a divine curse, and that it should be a barrier to social interactions and intermarriage, are, from a modern perspective, offensively racist. It is remarkable when such assumptions are overturned later in the BoM, in the books of Helaman and 4 Nephi.70

Hardy does not engage Sproat anywhere, but comments on what, to him, is the “plain meaning of the text,” which is a little ironic, considering the additional possibilities of self-administered marks Hardy mentions in his own commentary on the previous verse on the previous page.

For the narrator, the Amlicites’ adoption of Lamanite facial marking represents their assimilation into the Lamanite curse; see 2 Ne 5.20–21. Just as the dark skin of the Lamanites—the mark of their curse for rebellion—kept them separate from the Nephites, so also the self-applied facial markings of the Amlicites served to distinguish them from their Nephite brethren.71

Hardy finds himself in the position where he insists that the Book of Mormon curse must be read as offensively racist72 (supposedly based on the “plain meaning of the text”), that the self-applied Amlicite facial marking also denotes the same curse, while also noting the anomaly that the same offensive racial view is “contradicted within the BoM itself: [2 Nephi:]26.33 declares that “black and white . . . all are alike unto God.”73 Hardy dismisses without discussion or citation the notion of the metaphorical reading implied by Nephi’s ancient Near Eastern background and the association of “skins as garments” that Sproat observes in Alma 3, combined with the fact that the same Book of Mormon authors frequently and throughout the entire book use language associating white/pure/clean garments as metaphors of blessings and repentance, and stained/filthy/bloody garments as symbolic of disobedience and covenant curses in ways that directly parallel the use, context, audience and rhetorical intent of verses so often associated with racial readings.74 For example, the same Nephi who wrote both “skin of blackness” and “all are alike unto God” also wrote:

And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood. And the angel said unto me, “Look!” And I looked, and beheld three generations pass away in righteousness; and their garments were white even like unto the Lamb of God. And the angel said unto me, “These are made white in the blood of the Lamb, because of their faith in him.” (Nephi 12:10–11)

Hardy is certainly correct to emphasize the connection of the self-administered Amlicite mark with the Lamanite curse, but he does not consider potentially crucial contextual implications of skins as garments.

A Priestly Mark and Contextualization for the Plain Meaning

In the Book of Mormon, we find a commentary by Jacob concerning the Jews and their inability to see due to their propensity to look beyond the mark:

But behold, 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)

Here is Hardy’s annotation for Jacob’s mark.

Looking beyond the mark, the expression may be original to the BoM. The metaphor appears to come from archery, with the “mark” being a target; cf. 1 Sam 20.20.

Hardy supports the archery interpretation by citing a passage from a biblical story of David and Jonathon, though the general conclusion is consistent with a detailed essay written by Paul Hoskisson.75 Hardy cites the same Bible verse that Hoskisson settles on as the best context for interpreting the verse in Jacob. Here is Hoskisson providing more detail:

From the context of this passage, it is clear that the specific meaning of mark is a target for bow and arrow practice. This meaning is confirmed by the Oxford English Dictionary.[6] In fact, the word target in its current meaning is not attested in Modern English until a few decades before the translation of the Book of Mormon.[7] On the other hand, the word mark already meant target in the sixteenth century, decades before the King James Bible was translated, as is evident in the 1535 Coverdale translation of Lamentations 3:12: “He hath bent his bowe, and made me as it were a marck to shute at.”[8] It is from this traditional meaning of mark that English has derived the noun marksman, the verbal phrase “mark your target,” and the expression “He is a marked man.” Therefore, when the Prophet Joseph used the word mark in the English translation of the Book of Mormon, his nineteenth-century readers would have known that a mark was something to aim at.76

This is a reasonable argument and the reading it implies is common in Latter-day Saint discourse that uses “looking beyond the mark” as a cautionary point, but I think both Hardy and Hoskisson are wrong. Two passages they don’t consider are from Ezekiel 9, which ought to be of contextual interest because Ezekiel and Jacob are contemporary First Temple priests in exile (not archers), and therefore have the potential to cast light on one another.

For instance, compare Jacob on his own consecration as a temple priest (which likely makes him an anointed one, a messiah) and the consequent responsibility that goes with it, potential blessings and curses attached to a covenant:

Wherefore I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having first obtained mine errand from the Lord. For I, Jacob, and my brother Joseph had been consecrated priests and teachers of this people, by the hand of Nephi.

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 might 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 1:17–19)

Compare that with Ezekiel’s commission:

Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.

When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. (Ezekiel 3:17–18)

Both Ezekiel and Jacob report personal visions,77 which means their eyes are open and they are the opposite of blind. They are aware of the stiffhearted (Ezekiel 2:4) or stiffneckedness (Jacob 4:14) tendencies of the portions of Israel to whom they minister. And both discuss an important mark. Here is Ezekiel’s mark, not mentioned by Hoskisson or Hardy:

And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. . . . but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. (Ezekiel 9:4, 6, emphasis mine)

An important aspect of Ezekiel’s mark is that it was associated with the Lord’s sanctuary, which would be the Jerusalem temple. Margaret Barker has commented on the priestly language and traditions around Ezekiel’s mark:

“Mark,” however conceals what that mark was. The Hebrew says that the angel marked the foreheads with the letter tau, the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In the ancient Hebrew script that Ezekiel would have used, this letter was a diagonal cross, and the significance of this becomes apparent from the much later tradition about the high priests. The rabbis remembered that the oil for anointing the high priest had been lost when the first temple was destroyed and that the priests of the second temple were only “priests of many garments,” a reference to the eight garments worn on the Day of Atonement (m. Horayoth 3.4). The rabbis also remember that the anointed high priests of the first temple had been anointed on the forehead with the sign of a diagonal cross (b. Horayoth 12a). The diagonal cross was the sign of the Name on their foreheads, the mark which Ezekiel described as the letter tau.78

Remember that Jacob had been consecrated as a temple priest “by the hand of Nephi,” which likely means that he had been anointed with the mark. Anointing was related to the temple and to vision and to wisdom.

The perfumed anointing oil was kept in the holy of holies, and when the royal high priest was anointed, he received the gift of Wisdom herself: resurrection life, vision, knowledge and true wealth. The high priest was anointed on his head and between his eyelids—a curious detail which must have symbolised the opening of his eyes. When the oil was hidden away in the time of Josiah, Enoch said that the priests lost their vision. This is the context of the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 11: “The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of Wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, knowledge and the fear of the LORD.”79

Remember that “messiah” means “anointed one.” And since the tau mark also represented the Name, anointed high priests quite literally took upon themselves the Name of God in their anointing and calling and standing in for God in their high priestly ritual roles.80 Hence, the association in the scriptures with the phrase “Name of the Lord” with the visible presence of God.81 As Barker explains,

The fact that we call Jesus the Messiah, the Christ, which means the Anointed One, shows that Christians live and think in a world where the lost anointing oil and everything it stood for has been restored. The perfumed anointing oil was fundamental to the original temple world. Tradition remembered that it represented oil from the tree of life, and the tree of life was the ancient symbol of the Holy Wisdom. One of the wise teachers of Israel had said: “Wisdom is a tree of life for those who hold on to her.”

The oil from the tree of life opened one’s spiritual eyes. When the high priest was anointed, the oil was put on his eyelids. It changed the way everything was seen. In fact, the oil transformed and heightened all the senses. The anointed ones saw and heard differently, and so they thought differently. The anointed mind was transformed, and this became the characteristic temple world view. Isaiah said the anointed one received the Spirit of the LORD, the spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, knowledge and the fear of the LORD. When the priests of the original temple abandoned Wisdom, Isaiah said their punishment would be to see and not see, to hear and not hear, and so they would no longer understand.82

Large eyes on many of the hundreds of sixth-century BCE Asherah figurines discovered in and around Jerusalem symbolized the vision bestowed by Wisdom, and the anointing and opening of the eyes, which highlights the irony that the first generation of the archeological discoverers of those Jewish Pillar Figurines could not see any significant place for them in Israel’s religion and discarded them as trash.83 So it is important to consider that the same time that the use of these figures stopped in Israel was the time of Josiah and his violent reform, and his removal of the Tree of Life from the temple (2 Kings 23:6)—the symbol of Wisdom (Proverbs 3:13–19). Deuteronomy also insists, against the Exodus account, that the Lord had been only heard and not seen by Moses.84 Jeremiah 5:21, Zephaniah 1:17, Ezekiel 12:2, 1 Enoch 93:7–8, Lehi (1 Nephi 5:4 versus Jacob 4:14) and Nephi (1 Nephi 7:8 versus 1 Nephi 11), and Jacob (4:14; 7:12) all refer to blindness in Israel at that time, all contrasting that blindness with what they have personally seen.85

Rather than explore Barker’s work relative to the mark and anointing and her relevance to the common claim that the Book of Mormon is anachronistically too “Christian before Christ,” Hardy summarily dismisses her this way:

Some LDS writers, drawing on controversial theories of biblical scholar Margaret Barker, have suggested that the Book of Mormon includes traces of anti-Deuteronomistic ideology, but this hypothesis runs counter to the ethos of the Book of Mormon as a whole.86

Hardy supports his dismissal of Barker with the “controversial” label,87 while providing no details of what her theories are, what books and articles she has written, what her language skills are, what sources and evidence she gathers, what notable non-LDS biblical scholars appreciate her work, what peripheral or direct relevance her work might have for the Book of Mormon, or even mentioning that Barker herself has directly addressed the question of the Book of Mormon relative to Jerusalem in 600 BCE.88 Hardy addresses the question of the Book of Mormon and Josiah’s reform with this argument:

Nephite authors, with their emphasis on Moses, prophets, fulfilled prophecies, obedience to commandments, blessings and curses, and covenant obligations, take a basically Deuteronomistic approach to history. This is perhaps most clearly evident in their frequent invocation of God’s promise to Lehi that “inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence” (2 Ne 1.20, with nineteen additional citations).89

Besides this paragraph, Hardy includes a detailed appendix listing places where the Book of Mormon contains “Biblical Quotations, Allusions and Parallels.” Part of that section goes through Deuteronomy90 and cites fifty-one Deuteronomy verses to compare with Book of Mormon passages. Even with this added set of citations, I do not find Hardy’s argument persuasive because while Nephi, Lehi, and Jeremiah all demonstrate respect for and knowledge of Deuteronomy, they all openly contradict our current version of Deuteronomy on exactly the verses and issues that Barker uses to unlock the nature of Josiah’s reform. None of those key verses appear on his list of Deuteronomy quotations, allusions, and parallels or anywhere in his commentary. Given that Lehi and Jeremiah know and cite Deuteronomy, for me it follows that any contradictions they make are deliberate and significant.

For example, Deuteronomy prohibits “enquiring after the secret things which belong to the Lord alone” (Deuteronomy 29:29) and declares that the duty of Israel was to obey the commandments brought down from Sinai and not to seek someone who would ascend to heaven for them to discover remote and hidden things (Deuteronomy 30:11–13).91 Against this Jeremiah reports that the Lord spoke saying “Call unto me and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty (or hidden) things which thou knowest not” (Jeremiah 33:3). 1 Nephi 1 shows Lehi discovering those secret things, preaching them, and being rejected in Jeremiah’s Jerusalem for doing so.

Deuteronomy has this, depicting the law as replacement for wisdom:

Keep therefore and do them [that is, the statutes and judgments of the law] for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. (Deuteronomy. 4:6)

Even though Jeremiah often cites Deuteronomy and therefore shows direct knowledge and respect when due, he also says this, which strikes me as a direct reply to that passage:

How do ye say, We are wise, and Yahweh’s torah is with us? In fact it was made for a lie, the lying pen of the scribes. [Friedman’s translation here is stronger than the KJV.] The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them? (Jeremiah 8:8–9).

It is this sort of deliberate contradiction to specific passages in Deuteronomy that Barker cites as the key to understanding the nature of Josiah’s reform:

The Deuteronomists denied that anyone had a vision of the Lord (Deuteronomy 4:12), they denied that anyone had revelations from heaven, and they insisted the Ten Commandments were all that was necessary (Deuteronomy 30:8, 11–14). Nothing more was to be added to them (Deuteronomy 5:22). Prophecies were genuine only if they had already been fulfilled and had no more power (Deuteronomy 18:21–22). The Deuteronomists had no place for angels, and so they did not use the title “Lord of Hosts.” These were the minds that eventually led to the closed canon of scripture and the cessation of prophecy. But the prophets did have visions of the Lord and the angels, they did speak in the name of the Lord, and their unfulfilled prophecies were carefully preserved. Not everyone shared the views of the Deuteronomists, but the writings of these other people are often outside the Bible.92

She also made the key observation that “Josiah’s changes concerned the high priests, and were thus changes at the very heart of the temple.”93 Neal Rappleye explains that “being against parts of the ideology of a particular group who uses Deuteronomy as a foundation is not the same thing as being opposed to that text itself. Lehi and Nephi were not anti-Deuteronomy, and certainly were not anti-Moses.”94 Barker suggests that the portion of Isaiah often designated as the Third Isaiah, “illuminates the fifty-year gap in the Chronicler’s record” showing how divisions in Israel hardened into a rift.”95 She also notes:

A relatively uncritical appraisal of the book gives a picture of the enemies whom the prophet attacked, but because the picture is not one for which we have been prepared, I have not found any commentary which actually dwells upon the identity of these enemies, or draws the very obvious conclusion. They were those inspired by the ideals of the Deuteronomists.96

After several pages of close reading and noting patterns of difference between the Masoretic Hebrew of Deuteronomy and the Dead Sea Scrolls, she can conclude “What the Third Isaiah can teach us, if nothing else, is that the Deuteronomistic theology and its offspring were neither normative nor universally accepted.”97

Plus, given some crucial differences between the Masoretic Hebrew that underlies our King James Bible and the much older Dead Sea Scrolls version of Deuteronomy, we can also ask, which version of Deuteronomy did the Brass Plates contain? For that matter, were the Brass Plates compiled during Josiah’s reform or during the reign of Jehoiakim, an Egyptian puppet ruler, as a gift for the Egyptian Pharoh, much as the later Septuagint was commissioned by a Pharoh.

Brass Plates prepared for Josiah might be subsequently updated to include “prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah” (1 Nephi 5:13), Jeremiah having been called the year after Josiah’s reform began. If the Brass Plates were made during the reign of Jehoiakim as a planned gift for Pharoh’s library, during a period when the reformers were in relative disarray due to the death of Josiah and Egyptian control of the government, then Egyptian writing there would set a pattern for Nephi’s record keeping, as well as allowing for the inclusion of prophecies of Jeremiah subsequent to the death of Josiah up to Zedekiah. At the same time, the defeat of the Egyptians and installation of Zedekiah by the Babylonians would have interrupted the diplomatic plans to give the plates to Pharoh, leaving them available to Nephi in Laban’s treasury. Remember that Neal Rappleye and Val Larsen have made substantial observations to show that Laman and Lemuel show sympathy to the Deuteronomists, that perhaps Zoram held to Deuteronomist readings, and that Sherem was clearly a Deuteronomist.98

Barker highlights the difference between Deuteronomy 32:8–9 in the King James Bible (based on the Masoretic text) compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls version:

When the Most High [that is, El Elyon] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [KJV, “children of Israel”]. For the Lord’s portion [that is, Yahweh’s portion as a son of El Elyon] is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

The older version depicts Yahweh as one of the sons of El Elyon, God Most High. For my purposes here, consider that the first two of six occurrences of most high in the Book of Mormon are these:

And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying, “Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God;”

When the son of the Most High appears to the Nephites, he declares, “I am he who gave the law.” That is a notably significant theological statement that Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, the father of those humans who covenant with him, has a Heavenly Father to whom he prays, whose voice we hear announcing him, El Elyon, God Most High.

Barker shows that the reformers presented the Law as replacing Wisdom, noted their rejection of the Tree of Life (a symbol of Wisdom, Proverbs 3:13–19) from the temple, their argument that God cannot be seen, only heard, and that we should consider only the Lord alone, and not consider a Heavenly Father or Mother, and not think of the Lord of Hosts, and that we should not desire for a person to enter the Great Council among those hosts to learn the mysteries but rather obey an unseen God based on the Law given in a presently held book.

Only after establishing her paradigm independently did Barker encounter the Book of Mormon, and she soon publicly recognized its unexpected and elaborate consistency with her reconstruction of preexilic Temple Theology. At the Joseph Smith Conference in 2005 Barker explained,

New Testament scholars agonize over why the first Christians applied Yahweh texts to Jesus. And how, they ask, could all of the early Christian teachers have found Jesus in the Old Testament? When I wrote a book setting out all this rather obvious evidence, [The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God] it was regarded as strange and hopelessly radical. Another example: the Jerusalem Bible, the translation prepared by the Roman Catholic Church, leaves the name Yahweh in the Old Testament, instead of using the customary form, the Lord, and then has “the Lord” in the New Testament. With one editorial decision, they broke the link between the Old Testament and the New and obscured the fundamental proclamation of the first Christians: Jesus is the Lord, Jesus is Yahweh. A third example: the new English translation of the Targum, the Aramaic version of the Old Testament, does not use the term Messiah in the Psalms when translating the Hebrew word msyh, which means Messiah. The reason given is, “It does not seem appropriate to use words like Messiah and ‘messianic’” in connection with the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

It was my challenge to assumptions such as these, which simply ignore the evidence of both the Hebrew Bible and of early Christian writings, that led to my first contact with Mormon scholars. The original temple tradition was that Yahweh, the Lord, was the Son of God Most High, and present on earth as the Messiah. This means that the older religion in Israel would have taught about the Messiah. Thus finding Christ in the Old Testament is exactly what we should expect, though obscured by incorrect reading of the scriptures. This is, I suggest, one aspect of the restoration of “the plain and precious things, which have been taken away from them” (1 Nephi 13:40). The Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Christ of the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 3:8; 3 Nephi 15:5).99

By dismissing Barker as “controversial,” Hardy can side with “biblical scholars” without ever having to address the question of who has the best interpretation of available evidence in terms of Kuhn’s paradigm-choice criteria. By siding with unnamed biblical scholars, he does not have to address the fact that many notable biblical scholars admire and endorse Barker’s work, as is undeniably evidenced by her election as President of the Society for Old Testament Study, her Lambeth Doctor of Divinity awarded by the notably learned Archbishop of Canterbury, and her invitation to write the Isaiah chapter for Eerdman’s Commentary on the Bible. This is also why Hardy can declare on the authority of unnamed biblical scholars in unnamed books and unspecified arguments that the Book of Mormon is anachronistic because it is “too Christian before Christ.” Hardy doesn’t offer a critical engagement with Barker’s work, but rather, a proof-text and an appeal-to-authority assertion to support uncritical dismissal. He mentions the existence, not the content, of a single essay on her work relative to the Book of Mormon that was included in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem.100 He does not mention the many scholars in and out of the Latter-day Saint community that have explored and appreciate her work.101

Thomas Kuhn reports that “no part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; indeed those that will not fit the box are not often seen at all. . . . Normal-scientific research is directed to the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies.”102 There is a difference between examining the Book of Mormon according to the given assumptions of a specific community of biblical scholars and explicitly testing by comparison with a competing paradigm whether that approach provides the best puzzle definition and testability, accuracy of key predictions, breadth and depth and coherence of explanation, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. But as Hardy openly states, his object in his commentary, though still ambitious and valuable, is more limited and deliberately defers to the conclusions of “biblical scholars.”

The Nephite adherence to the Law of Moses, including most of Deuteronomy, does not necessarily mean adherence to the ideology of the Deuteronomist reformers and Deuteronomy’s editors. Lehi’s vision of the Tree of Life (1 Nephi 8:10–12) viewed in relation to Josiah’s recent removal of the Tree of Life from the temple (2 Kings 23:6) should register as significant.

Later in the Book of Mormon, Sherem, echoing the reformers who changed the role of the high priests from being anointed to being the priests of the many-colored robes, declares to Jacob that “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” (Jacob 7:6–7). Jacob, in line with First Temple theology responds, “I have heard and seen; and it also has been made manifest unto me by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, I know if there should be no atonement made all mankind must be lost” (Jacob 7:12). Remember that the festival calendar in Deuteronomy 16 is missing the Day of Atonement, something I have never seen mentioned let alone discussed, by any other biblical scholar besides Barker in discussing Josiah’s reform. I notice that Jacob’s response to Sherem emphasizes the atoning Messiah and that Jacob’s discourse in 2 Nephi 6–10 demonstrates Day of Atonement patterns.103

Nephi’s comments on the rejection of Lehi’s first public discourse indicated he was one who “saw and heard” (1 Nephi 1:19), that he “manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world,” ritually dramatized in the temple on the Day of Atonement. “And when the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out, and stoned, and slain; and they also sought his life, that they might take it away” (1 Nephi 1:19). Hardy’s annotation has this on Lehi’s report of violence:

Despite the persecution reported at Jer 11.18–19 and 26.7–9 (and the NT recollections of Mt 23.37 and Heb 11.36–37), accounts of prophets who were slain are rare in the OT; see 1 Kings 18.4; 2 Chr 24.20–22; Jer 26.20–24.104

Hardy does not mention these Bible passages discussing Josiah’s reform:

And he slew all of the priests of the high places . . . (2 Kings 23:20)

Your own sword hath destroyed your prophets like a destroying lion . . . (Jeremiah 2:31)

. . . in thy skirts is found the blood of poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search but upon all of these . . . (Jeremiah 2:36)

The only biblical account of extensive public violence against religious figures in Israel during the period to compare with Lehi’s report and Jeremiah’s complaint is that of Josiah’s reform. Remember that prophet and priest are not exclusive categories. Note that Jeremiah was called the year after the reform began, “against the kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land” (Jeremiah 1:18), and in the dangerous role he is assigned, Jeremiah receives assurance that he will be protected (Jeremiah 1:19).

The Messiah as Anachronism, or Perhaps Not

Hardy also comments on Lehi’s mention of a Messiah:

A Messiah, in the OT this title generally refers to human priests or kings (e.g., 1 Sam 24.6; Isa 45.1), though the idea of a future Davidic monarch who would bring peace and justice can be seen in the books of Isa, Jer, and other prophets. The word messiah appears a few times in Jewish writings from 200 BCE to 100 CE to describe a coming savior/redeemer of Judah, and then the idea is picked up strongly in the NT. Lehi’s use of “Messiah” is something of an anachronism (especially since he views him as a redeemer of the whole world, not just of Judah; cf. 1 Ne 10.4–5), but the entire Christology of the BoM is anachronistic in the same way. One of the primary themes in the BoM—and one of the ways in which it augments the Bible—is its insistence that some prophets had a clear knowledge of Christ before his birth.105

For some essential perspective on the implications of a reform like the one that 2 Kings attributes to Josiah and the Deuteronomists, and the reluctance of many biblical scholars to even consider the possibility that something was amiss in the aftermath, consider this comment by Kuhn:

For reasons that are both obvious and highly functional, science textbooks (and too many of the older histories of science) refer only to that part of the work of past scientists that can easily be viewed as contributions to the statement and solution of the texts’ paradigm problems. Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of earlier ages are implicitly represented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method has made seem scientific.

No wonder that textbooks and the historical tradition they imply have to be rewritten after each scientific revolution. And no wonder that, as they are rewritten, science once again comes to seem largely cumulative.106

There have been multiple opportunities for exactly this kind of selection, editing, and recontextualization to occur in the transmission of the scriptures throughout history:

- With Josiah and the Deuteronomists before and during the exile.

- With Ezra during the restoration.

- After the destruction of the second temple by the Romans.

- During the rise of Rabbinic Judaism and their development and selection of canon in response to both their changed national circumstances and the rise of Christianity.

- With the Christian development and selection of their canon.

- With the later Protestant reformers and the selection of their canon.

- As opposing tides of believing scholars from various communities and secular scholars push back and forth on biblical claims and interpretations.

- As different generations and schools of Latter-day Saint scholars decide on the best way to present Latter-day Saint history and interpret our scriptures.

In many cases these weren’t just possibilities, but there is significant direct evidence that selection, editing, and recontextualization did occur. It is quite simply a human way to put our lives and thought in order according to our best available, most preferred, most fashionable, or most expedient thinking.

Nevertheless, many Old Testament scholars have noted that an edition of the Deuteronomist history, Deuteronomy through Kings, was expressly created to honor Josiah107 and to denigrate those who came before, specifically on whether they lived up to the Deuteronomistic agenda.108 Is it unthinkable that a process that Kuhn describes as typical in the sciences after a revolution in thought should also have occurred in the Deuteronomist writing and editing as part of political and religious upheaval of Josiah’s openly violent reform? Do the extant Bible manuscripts and versions and contextual writings—by their perfect consistency, purity, and lack of gaps, inner tensions, opaque texts, controversies, degrees of archeological tension and support, and comparisons with other ancient writings and traditions—prove that nothing like that ever happened?109 Would the Deuteronomists who were capable of openly executing a whole set of priests and publicly burning the Tree of Life that had been in the temple for hundreds of years have any qualms about suppressing or editing other texts of which they disapproved? Barker demonstrates that “The distribution of unreadable Hebrew texts is not random; they are texts which bear upon the Christian tradition.”110

Did the later Rabbinic Jews, in the social upheavals after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and against the threat of the rise of Christianity as a rival set of beliefs, have qualms about re-interpreting the scriptures to support their own beliefs?

J. Neusner, Incarnation, says that when the Jerusalem Talmud had taken shape within the Palestinian community it had been addressing the threat of Christianity in the fourth century. The Judaic response to the Christian way of reading the Old Testament was “a counterpart exegesis,” p. 107. The Jewish sages adapted the Scripture to their new situation. When they “read and expounded Scripture it was to spell out how one thing stood for something else. . . . The as-if frame of mind brought to the Scripture renews Scripture with the sage seeing everything with fresh eyes,” p. 125. Such studies should make us less confident that it was the Christians who were “rereading” the Old Testament.111

On this subject, we should consider not only the content of certain of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but also the temporal gap separating their discovery and the circumstances of their first publication. Here is Matt Roper discussing some implications of the content of a fragment called 4Q246 relative to the Book of Mormon:

Another example of the problems with assuming that certain passages from the New Testament represent later developments, peculiar to Christianity, is seen in the Book of Mormon usage of the terms “Son of God” and “Son of the Most High God” (1 Nephi 11:6–7). These terms are seen by the Tanners as obvious plagiarisms from New Testament gospels . . . yet both titles have recently turned up in an unpublished Dead Sea Scroll fragment written in Aramaic from before the time of Jesus. Although it is unknown to whom the prophecy refers, the fragment states:

[X] shall be great upon the earth. (0 king, all (people) shall] make [peace], and all shall serve [him. He shall be called the son of the [G]reat [God], and by his name shall be hailed (as) the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the Most High,”

The writer for Biblical Archaeology Review [Hershel Shanks] states, “This is the first time that the term ‘Son of God’ has been found in a Palestinian text outside the Bible. . . . Previously some scholars have insisted that the origin of terms like ‘Most High’ and ‘Son of the Most High’ were to be found in Hellenistic usage outside of Palestine and that therefore they relate to later development of Christian doctrine. Now we know that these terms were part of Christianity’s original Jewish heritage.’’ If one small fragment can change our understanding of this term, is it really that hard to believe that other ideas and phrases found in the Book of Mormon, heretofore thought to be anachronistic, might also be verified in the future?112

John Tvedtnes also discussed the implications of other Dead Sea Scrolls fragments, in this case, the Messianic Apocalypse 4Q521, which not incidentally, like 4Q206, was held back from publication for over 35 years after its discovery.

[for the hea]vens and the earth will listen to his Messiah,

[and all] that is in them will not turn away from his holy precepts.

Be encouraged, you who are seeking the Lord in his service!

Will you not, perhaps, encounter the Lord in it all those who hope in their heart?

For the Lord will observe the devout, and call the just by name,
and upon the poor will he place his spirit, and the faithful he will renew with his strength

For he will honour the devout upon the throne of eternal royalty,
freeing prisoners, giving sight to the blind, straightening out the twisted.

Ever shall I cling to those who hope. In his mercy he will jud[ge,]

and from no one shall the fruit [of] good [deeds] be delayed,
and the Lord will perform marvelous acts such as have not existed, just as he has sa[id]

for he will heal the badly wounded and will make the dead live, he will proclaim good news to the meek
give lavishly [to the needy], lead the exiled and enrich the hungry. 113

Tvedtnes notes that the text shares some themes with Isaiah 61, the passage Jesus read in the synagogue to open his public ministry (Luke 4:16–30). He then points out that “All of the elements of the Dead Sea Scrolls text are found in the Book of Mormon.”114 For instance, he notes that “The miracles enumerated by King Benjamin [at the temple in Zarahemla, Mosiah 3:5] are essentially the same as those found in the Messianic Apocalypse.”115 After making comparisons to the teachings of several Book of Mormon prophets, Tvedtnes concludes,

It seems unlikely that Jesus would have been so well received by his Jewish disciples had he not conformed to their concept of the Messiah. Some of the recently released Dead Sea Scrolls show that at least some of the Jews of the time expected a Messiah who would be a divine savior, performing many miracles, and bringing the resurrection. In this context, the pre-Christian teachings of a Messiah found in the Book of Mormon are perfectly reasonable.116

In a related vein, Tvedtnes wrote of traditions, none of which were known in Joseph Smith’s day, that credited Jeremiah with having made prophecies that “the Son of God would come,” consistent with Helaman 8:19–20 in the Book of Mormon declaring that he had done so. For instance, he cites Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho and Irenaeus (both second-century church fathers) who “attributed to Jeremiah a prophecy not found in the biblical account in which the prophet wrote that the Lord would descend to preach salvation to the dead.”117

It should not be surprising that John Sorenson reports that destruction of an opponent’s records was a standard feature of Mesoamerican politics, actions that deeply distressed the Mesoamericans when the Spanish in their turn did it to the vast majority of their records.118 In much more recent history, when I look back at what happened to the bulk of old FARMS materials virtually overnight when the new Maxwell Institute management changed their website in 2016, and the deliberate lack of references to that older material in their subsequent publications, it seems obvious to me that yes, people can and do that sort of thing regularly.

When it repudiates a past paradigm, a scientific community simultaneously renounces, as a fit subject for professional scrutiny, most of the books and articles in which it had been embodied.119

All of this background means that when I read Jacob 4:14, given the way I now contextualize the passage, I see a direct and insightful comment on Josiah’s reform:

But behold, the Jews [that Lehi knew in Jerusalem in the period before the destruction] were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness [as Lehi had testified “plainly of the coming of a Messiah and also the redemption of the world” (1 Nephi 1:19, emphasis mine) and Josiah’s recent Reform had changed the role of the Temple High priest to that he was no longer anointed, and therefore, literally, no longer a Messiah, and the festival calendar in Deuteronomy lacks the Day of Atonement (see Deut. 16) which ritually dramatizes the redemption of the world], and killed the prophets [see the recent open violence of Josiah’s reform], and sought for things which they could not understand.120

Wherefore, because of their blindness [also reported for that time by Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Ezekiel, Lehi, Nephi and 1 Enoch], which blindness came from looking beyond the mark [that is, the anointing of the high priest that designated and symbolized the Messiah as atoning Lord and symbolized the opening of the eyes and seeing of the anointed and the council visions of the prophets], they must needs fall; for God hath taken his plainness [concerning a Messiah and the redemption of the world] away from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand because they desired it. (Jacob 4:14)

I cannot offer my reading as proof, but I can invite readers to consider, consistent with Kuhn, which reading is better in terms of testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise? And just how promising is it to approach the Book of Mormon under the assumption that its Christology must be viewed as anachronistic?

The Plain Meaning, Contextualization, and Consequent Theological Perceptions

Hardy discusses Nephi’s preference for “plainness” versus his important post-modern observation that “there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews” (2 Nephi 25:5).

I think Nephi is talking about both his personal preference and practical pedagogical matters in a mostly oral culture in dealing with his own extended families mixing with indigenous peoples who had different cultural backgrounds. “Liken it to yourselves” works across cultural and temporal boundaries and has value in that sense. Joseph Campbell has discussed culturally specific aspects of mythologies, as well as archetypal aspects that cross cultural boundaries, and that one aspect of any mythology is to show us “how to live a human life.”121 I notice that if the only people around for Nephi to talk to and about were Lehi’s descendants and therefore raised in and by a single culture, there could be no cultural mixing and only one cultural outlook possible—Jewish—and therefore it could not be considered as esoteric by insiders because there was nothing outside to contrast and compare it with. There was much of my Utah Wasatch Front upbringing that I had no self-awareness of until I lived in England for two years. Without cultural difference and mixing, the issue of difference and the need for cultural instruction that Nephi references in 2 Nephi 25:1–5 could not have arisen.

In discussing Abinadi’s discourse, Hardy’s annotation has this, showing theological concerns that arise from his preferred contextualization and what seems to him “the plain meaning”:

Abinadi here seems to be describing a single divine being who at times functions as both the Father and the Son, that is, a variation of modalism.122 In other BoM passages, the Father and the Son are depicted as separate persons who are nevertheless one God;123

In The Great Angel, Margaret Barker observes that

All the texts in the Hebrew Bible distinguish clearly between the divine sons of Elohim/Elyon and those human beings who are called sons of Yahweh. This must be significant. It must mean that the terms originated at a time when Yahweh was distinguished from whatever was meant by El/Elohim/Elyon. A large number of texts continued to distinguish between EI Elyon and Yahweh, Father and Son, and to express this distinction in similar ways with the symbolism of the temple and the royal cult. By tracing these patterns through a great variety of material and over several centuries, Israel’s second God can be recovered.124

In his Second Witness commentaries, which Hardy commends,125 Brant Gardner applied this observation to the Book of Mormon in his “Excursus: The Nephite Understanding of God”:

There are two “fathers” here. In the stories or myths (to use the anthropological term) the sons of one father are heavenly, and the sons of the other are human. The two fathers operate in different realms . . . .

When the context is a horizontal relationship in the heavens, the “father” is El Elyon, and Yahweh is his son. When the context crosses the boundaries of the heavens to create a relationship with humanity, the father is defined by this vertical deity-to-human sphere. In the vertical context, the father is Yahweh . . . .

The Book of Mormon defines the various divine personages in the same way. In the Book of Mormon as in the Old Testament, the heavenly or earthly context serves as the defining field of operation which informs the reader (or listener) about the appropriate definitions of “father” and “son.” This variation works for all the texts I have examined in the Book of Mormon.126

Practical approaches to learning and teaching, such as “liken the scriptures unto yourselves” and drawing upon “the plain meaning of the text” adopted for practical reasons can and often do fall short of ideal circumstances. Hence, Nephi encourages his people to “liken the scriptures to themselves,” to apply them to their own circumstances and address their immediate needs and capacity to understand. However, there are those in the Nephite culture who found themselves in ideal circumstances of being able to receive specialist training and I think were “taught after the manner of the things of the Jews, like unto them.” I do not think Nephi meant that no one should be taught Jewish culture and language (or other relevant cultures and languages127) like unto them. Rather, as a practical matter, the “plain meaning” and “liken unto yourselves” approach is a valid way for everyday people to begin to obtain real benefit from the scriptures on immediate exposure, a portion of the word that they can immediately experiment on with their current level of understanding and begin a journey to greater light and knowledge, especially in a society that primarily operates as oral culture, influenced by, but not dominated by, their relatively small-scale print media.128

As Matt Roper and John Gee have argued, we see such likening when Jacob discourses from Isaiah about the good that can come from cultural mixing and extending of the covenant promises through adoption.

Wherefore, the Gentiles shall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel. “Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed, and them who shall be numbered among thy seed [emphasis mine]129 forever, for the land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands, wherefore I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God” (2 Nephi 10:18–19).

In addition to explaining the latter-day application of Isaiah’s prophecy, Jacob’s sermon can be read as addressing the question of how Lehite Israel is to relate to non-Lehite peoples in the promised land. The answer, Jacob taught, is that they may, if they so choose, join with the people of God in seeking to build up Zion as joint inheritors of the land. Once they do so, they become Israel too and are numbered with Lehi’s seed.130

Likening the scripture to yourselves, relating scripture to personal circumstances, and drawing benefit from what seems to be the plain meaning of the text is a start for anyone to begin with, not the end that everyone should settle for. Consider King Benjamin:

2 And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding;131 and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.

3 And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.

4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time. (Mosiah 1:2–4)

Hardy annotates verse two here this way.

All the language of his fathers, including the type of Egyptian on the Brass Plates (cf. v. 4), crucial to retaining a connection to their Israelite heritage, which the Mulekites had lost; see Omni 1.18–19n.132

In 3 Nephi 17: 2–3, Jesus makes this comment, which strikes me as cautionary regarding “the plain meaning.”

I perceive that ye are weak, that ye cannot understand all my words which I am commanded of the Father to speak unto you, at this time. Therefore, go ye unto your homes, and ponder upon the things which I have said, and ask of the Father, in my name, that ye may understand, and prepare your minds for the morrow, and I come unto you again.133

Hardy makes no comment on that passage but moves on to talk about Jesus’s spontaneous compassion and healings in 3 Nephi, which are certainly noteworthy and worthy of comment. I also notice that the 3 Nephi account does not report that anyone raised their hand and protested, “But if you would just tell us plainly enough now, we would not have to ponder, or pray, or have to work to prepare our minds, or actually have to live the covenant path over time to experience the implications for ourselves, and we could have what we want right now, without working or waiting.”

On Others and the Land

Here is a Book of Mormon verse that Hardy annotates regarding others in the land.

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. 9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. (2 Nephi 1:8, emphasis mine)

Hardy’s annotation has this:

Lehi speaks as if there were no indigenous people already in the land. 9: The demonstrative those leaves room for the Mulekites, who were also brought by God out of Jerusalem and whom the Nephites will later encounter; see Omni 1.12–19.134

This is another place where conditionality of both “the plain meaning” and the extent of “the land” comes into play in Hardy’s commentary. This has implications for the “other nations” directly attached to the covenant curse in 2 Nephi 1:8, 11–12. Recall that Hardy has written that
taking the Book of Mormon seriously as history in the contemporary era requires some sort of limited geography model that acknowledges the presence of a large number of indigenous peoples in the Americas before 600 BCE.135

Other than Hardy’s discussion of the Mulekites, we get no exploration of crucial points in the annotations. Must “those” refer only to Mulekites?136 How about surviving Jaredites, especially in light of Nibley’s observation that the curse of destruction was applied specifically to Coriantimur’s house;137 that “destroy” does not mean “annihilate absolutely,” but rather “breaking into constituent parts;” and the notable phenomenon of Jaredite names turning up among the Mulekites;138 as well as the express mention of the changed/different Mulekite language (Omni 17–18). This all has significance for Sorenson’s candidate location for Zarahemla being near the border of two separate language groups in Mesoamerica. And Nephi states that God “remembereth the heathen” (2 Nephi 26:33), which makes the best sense if he knows people who can be described as heathen, rather than as Israelites.

And how big is the land that Lehi is talking about? Must it refer to an empty continent? Two passages have been used to argue that such was the case. Ether 13:2 refers to “after the waters had receded from the face of this land, it became a choice land above all other lands,” but it does not specify whether it was the waters of the flood or the waters of creation.139 The other passage occasionally drawn in this service is the Ether 2:5 reference on the Jaredites passing through “that quarter where never man had been” in context refers to an Old World location before their ocean voyage. In reading The Book of Mormon, must we assume therefore, despite both the archeological evidence and numerous indications in the text of “others,”140 that the North and South American continent was utterly empty for Lehi’s group and Mulek’s group? At the very least we know about Jaredite survivors and Mulek’s people, as well as indeterminate “all those who shall be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord” (2 Nephi 1:5). Is “the land” an absolute concept, or a relative concept? The story of the locusts in Exodus should be a reminder to think in relative terms.

And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt: . . . For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt. (Exodus 10:14–15)

In this passage, even “the face of the whole earth,” that an observer there could see, is limited in context. It is not an absolute that commits readers to imagine the plague locusts denuding all of Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, the Americas, the Islands of the seas, and Antarctica. So, in the Book of Mormon, “the land” refers to just the part they happen to occupy and know. The Webster’s 1828 dictionary has this as the most relevant definition:

“2. Any portion of the solid, superficial part of the globe, whether a kingdom or country, or a particular region. The United States is denominated the land of freedom.

Go, view the land even Jericho. Joshua 2:1. “a portion of the earth’s solid surface distinguishable by boundaries or ownership.” [emphasis mine]

That definition and the following example are directly relevant to the question of the covenant curse concerning the “many nations that might overrun” the land. And is there a difference between a small hamlet141 and a “nation” with a central government and standing military, or at least, a well-trained militia? And must the “other nations” that Lehi mentions in the covenant curse be conceived of as across the oceans in the far future?142 How would that deter Laman and Lemuel, who in the text are warned that given apostacy, the danger can arrive at “the passing of a generation” (2 Nephi 1:10–12) rather than after 2,000 years? Or, rather, can we see Lehi’s “other nations” as across the mountains or other natural boundary at some “many days” distance (where, in 1 Nephi 17:3, eight is “many”), especially if their threat is a significant part of the covenant curse. Think about this passage in Mosiah:

My son, I would that ye should make a proclamation throughout all this land among all this people, or the people of Zarahemla, and the people of Mosiah who dwell in the land, that thereby they may be gathered together; for on the morrow . . . (Mosiah 1:10)

If the people of Mosiah in the land of Zarahemla can gather on the morrow, how expansive is the “land” at that point? Remember that the same covenant with blessings and curses that existed in the land of Nephi had existed in the land of first inheritance. Nephites had to leave the land of first inheritance, traveling for “many days,” and then lived under the same covenant blessings and cursings in the land of Nephi before Benjamin’s people later left that land for Zarahemla. The covenants and promises for “the land” need not be bound to one location but can travel with those who make the covenants. The Book of Mormon expressly declares “and they shall be gathered together to the lands of their inheritance” (1 Nephi 7:12), and Hardy’s annotation states “the plural is significant given BoM teachings about multiple promised lands.”143

Alma’s Nephites later fled from the Land of Nephi to Zarahemla for a distance that families with flocks could accomplish in twenty-one days.144 So, again, if Benjamin’s people can gather “on the morrow,” how big is the land of Zarahemla at that time? Given this context, must we suppose that the plain meaning of “the land” requires an empty continent?

Notice, as well, the timing Lehi predicts for the arrival of other nations to fulfill the covenant curse:

11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten. 12 Yea, as one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodsheds, and great visitations among them. (2 Nephi 1:11)

Hardy’s annotation does not comment on the fact that just after Lehi’s death in 2 Nephi 5, which was the passing of a generation, Nephi and all those who would go with him must leave the land of first inheritance to journey to what becomes the land of Nephi. The 2 Nephi 5 text describes them traveling many days (not weeks, months, or years) to the land they called Nephi, from which Mosiah later migrates (Omni 12) to Zarahemla. In a previous essay, concerning the conditions of the curse and the details of history in the record after the death of Lehi, I wrote this:

Second Nephi 5:2–5 reports that soon after the death of Lehi-the passing of a generation-Nephi’s brothers plotted against his own life. Nephi and those he called “his people” fled the land. Despite the report that those who initially left “were those who believed” in God (2 Nephi 5:6), such passages as 2 Nephi 32:7 and 2 Nephi 33:1–3 suggest strongly that Nephi’s people had problems of their own. For example. Jacob reports on the necessity for “diligent” labor among them on the part of the prophets (Jacob I :7) even before Jacob 2: 15 describes the beginning of extreme tendencies. Prior to the departure of Nephi’s people, the Lamanites had already acted in a role as “a scourge to [Nephi’s people], to stir them up in remembrance of me” (2 Nephi 5:25), Although neither Nephi nor Jacob provides details, Jacob 1:10 describes Nephi as having “wielded the sword of Laban” in defense of his people. Thus we have no record of the conditions for blessing being fully kept, and significant information suggesting that the covenant curse was in effect almost from the time of the death of Lehi. That is, immediately after the death of Lehi (the passing of that generation), we see the loss of lands and scattering (2 Nephi 5:5), and smiting and bloodsheds (2 Nephi 5:25, 34, Jacob I: 10). What about the “other nations”? Alerted by the work of Sorenson and others, we have only to look with eyes that see.145

Notice, again, that the first discourse that Jacob gives at Nephi’s direction that follows upon all of this social upheaval and travel is about Gentiles who “shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters will be carried upon their shoulders,” their kings and queen become the nursing fathers and mothers of Israel, “and the Gentiles shall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel” (2 Nephi 10:18).146

Notice, as well, that Jacob, the one who gave this discourse about cultural mixing and adoption, is a first-generation Book of Mormon writer who declares that subsequently in his record “Nephite” and “Lamanite” are not to be taken as strictly genealogical, but political, with Lamanites as generally unfriendly, rather than as inevitably unrighteous. The very next verse refers to wickedness among the Nephites, which should be a reminder that the Book of Mormon is not stuck in a notion of righteous Nephites and wicked Lamanites, but rather of a constant back and forth, including mixing and changes from one political division to another, and changes in righteousness.

Even though Hardy acknowledges that a case for a historical Book of Mormon “acknowledges the presence of a large number of indigenous peoples in the Americas before 600 BCE,” he appears to dismiss all archeological and textual suggestions for an immediately present threat for nearby “other nations” to fulfill the explicit conditions of the covenant curse at the passing of a generation. At the end of Hardy’s annotation for 1 Nephi 11:12, he looks to a remote future threat: “Other nations, European conquerors and settlers.”147

Temples in the Book of Mormon

When it comes to considerations of the temple and the Book of Mormon, Hardy writes that

Temple worship is a key aspect of Latter-day Saint theology, and while some LDS commentators claim to see in the Book of Mormon echoes of the modern endowment ceremony (a ritualized reenactment of the creation and fall, with sacred clothing, covenants, and gestures), the connections are tenuous. Aside from a presumption that sacrifices and offerings prescribed by the Mosaic Law occurred in Nephite temples, the text gives scant attention to what happened within those sacred precincts.148

Notice the immediate problem with such a statement is contextual—looking in the Book of Mormon for “the modern endowment ceremony” rather than learning about ancient temples and then looking at the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and modern Latter-day Saint temples in that context.

The Nephites soon begin to build temples (2 Nephi 4:16 in Nephi; Mosiah 2:1 in Zarahemla; 3 Nephi 11:1 in Bountiful),149 many major discourses in the Book of Mormon have temple settings (Jacob 1:7; 2–3; Mosiah 2–5, 3 Nephi 11–28), and many have temple themes (2 Nephi 2:14–26; Alma 12:21–37; 13:3–16; 42:2–27). The effect of expectation on perception is like the tendency of Book of Mormon skeptics to call for evidence of a conspicuous and dominant Hebrew culture in Mesoamerica, rather than, as Gardner describes, Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon.

On a more personal level, I have reported what has happened to me on occasion when my wife sends me to find some food item in the kitchen. My expectation of a particular kind of packaging blinds me to the existence of what I seek in a different form. I have pointed to Kuhn’s discussion of how regularly exactly this kind of preconception interferes with perception in the sciences.150

In the literary mystery genre Agatha Christie’s most famous stories work not just because she provides puzzles, but because at times she plays with the expectations that genre readers have learned about what happens in such puzzles. She can construct stories in which many scenes basically shovel important clues in the reader’s face, but we fail to see what she is doing in, for example, The Murder of Roger Akroyd, Murder on the Orient Express, The Mousetrap, Witness for the Prosecution, Curtain, and Crooked House because the plots in those “whodunnit” stories, each in a different way, violate our unconscious expectations of what can happen in a “whodunnit.” Once we unlearn those expectations in the denouements, once we have our eyes opened, the scales fall away, and we experience an expansion of the mind.

The other side of this situation is the problem of Othello, when he misinterprets the evidence in front of him and tragically misreads “the plain meaning.” Instead of enlightenment, due to poor choices made after misreading the evidence, Othello is shattered by what he finally learns. In the sciences, Kuhn observes that “unanticipated novelty, the new discovery, can only emerge to the extent that his [or her] anticipations about nature and his instruments prove wrong.”151

John Welch offered his “paradigm shifting” reading of 3 Nephi as a temple text in 1990, followed by further insights and expanded research in later books and presentations.152 Other Latter-day Saints have built upon his insights, myself included.153 The point is that the context we choose and the possibilities we imagine will affect the insights we obtain.

Even so, suppose we start with Hardy’s brief outline of the “modern endowment ceremony.” There are numerous concepts presented in the Book of Mormon that are also present in the modern endowment.

A ritualized re-enactment of the creation and fall

Third Nephi 8–11 is the story of a society’s fall and massive destruction, as a voice declaring to survivors, “I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are” (3 Nephi 9:15) and later explains the events as a new creation in which “old things are done away. All things are become new” (3 Nephi 12:47). During his personal temple discourses, Jesus “expounds all things, from the beginning” 3 Nephi 26:3). And there is much more to consider. A striking moment in 3 Nephi 9, after the dreadful destruction occurs when the voice of Jesus is heard to proclaim,

That great city Zarahemla have I burned. . . . That great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea. . . . And many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and abominations. (3 Nephi 9:3–4, 12)

In The Myth of Eternal Return or, Cosmos and History, Mircea Eliade discusses an essential part of ancient temple drama as a Sacred Combat. He refers to how “the ritual combats between two groups of actors reactualize the cosmogonic moment of the fight between the god and the primordial dragon . . . for the combat . . . presupposes the reactualization of primordial chaos, while the victory . . . can only signify the creation.” The voice of Jesus in 3 Nephi can be understood as recontextualizing the destructions as the ritual Sacred Combat in the Year Drama where his victory is explicitly described as a new creation. “Old things are done away, all things have become new” (3 Nephi 12:47). Eliade also describes the importance of the kindling of fire and light at the end of three days of darkness.

The death of the individual and the periodic death of humanity are necessary, even as the three days of darkness preceding the ‘rebirth.‘154

And then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land. And it came to pass that there was thick darkness upon all the face of the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof . . . could feel the vapor of darkness; And there could be no light, because of the darkness, neither candles, neither torches; neither could there be fire kindled. . . . And there was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer, neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars. . . . And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days. (3 Nephi 8:19–23)

There is much more in Eliade on the rites performed at ancient temples that casts light on the events in 3 Nephite 8–28, none of which emerges from a nineteenth-century context and a focus on “the plain meaning of the text” from that perspective.155

Several Book of Mormon authors discuss the garden and fall, such as Lehi in 2 Nephi 2, Benjamin in Mosiah 3:19, and Alma in Alma 12:22–30 and to Corianton in Alma 43:2–15. The state of the Nephites in 3 Nephi 8:23–25 is that of not just a fallen couple out of Eden, but of a fallen society, weeping and wailing in darkness, a setting that, if we saw depicted in a medieval painting, we would recognize as hell, which is as fallen as can be.

Sacred clothing in a temple setting

Several Book of Mormon authors talk about garments and purity in temple settings. Notice that in 3 Nephi 11:8, the messenger comes to the temple “clothed in a white robe,”156 and later the glory is expressly stated as “the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold, they were as white as the countenance and garments of Jesus” (3 Nephi 19:25). Further, Jesus mentions “those who have washed their garments in my blood” (3 Nephi 27:19). The Book of Mormon ends with an invitation to “put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion” (Moroni 10:31) and that “the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled” (Moroni 10:31).

Covenants

In 3 Nephi 9:19 is the covenant of sacrifice, to offer up the sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit. This is followed by is a covenant to obedience (3 Nephi 12:20), to obey the Gospel (3 Nephi 12:31–34; 14:12), to avoid evil speaking (3 Nephi 12:22), to live chastely (3 Nephi 12:27–32), and to consecrate one’s life (3 Nephi 13:33; 3 Nephi 26:19; 4 Nephi 1:3).

Gestures

“Behold, mine arm of mercy is extended towards you, and whosoever will come, him will I receive; and blessed are those who come unto me” (3 Nephi 9:14). Later, at the temple, as a means of coming to know that the recently arrived messenger is exactly who the voice proclaimed him to be,

And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come. (3 Nephi 12:15)

Another significant passage in 3 Nephi 27:29 is the Lord’s instruction to “Ask and ye shall receive, knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” Then there is 2 Nephi 1:15: “I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love.”

There is much more to consider in writings of Hugh Nibley, John W. Welch, Eliade, John Lundquist, LeGrande L. Baker, Stephen Ricks, Val Larsen, M. Catherine Thomas, D. John Butler, Margaret Barker, Jeff Bradshaw, and many others that look to the temple and thereby shed light on the Book of Mormon.157

Jesus’s Sermon and Scholarship Regarding Matthew and Gospel Composition

The climax of the Book of Mormon is the 3 Nephi appearance of Jesus at the temple. One dimension of Hardy’s approach is this:

And finally, 3 Nephi offers particularly rich instances of both intertextuality, as it draws on biblical phrases and quotes large blocks of text from both the Old and New Testaments, and also intratextuality, in its extensive allusions to earlier passages from the Book of Mormon itself. The formatting and annotations in this edition can help readers identify these sorts of textual connections, and will also point out variations and modifications to the source texts. In trying to understand what the book’s narrators and characters are communicating, it is useful to note places where Jesus’s sermon at the temple differs from the Sermon on the Mount. And it may be meaningful to ask why Jesus rearranges the sequence of verses in Isaiah 52, or why he skips over Isaiah 53, which is often regarded by Christians as one of the most clearly Messianic of Old Testament prophecies. Similarly, it may be important to note the intricate relationship between earlier Nephite prophecies and the terrible judgments that precede Christ’s appearance, or the numerous points of contact between Jesus’s teachings in Bountiful and those of Nephite prophets who preceded him. The narrative of 3 Nephi interweaves biblical and Nephite voices to an extraordinary degree, with Mormon describing Jesus as having “expounded all the scriptures in one” (23.14)158.

This describes a notable feature of Hardy’s annotations for 3 Nephi. For example, his annotation for 3 Nephi 13:25–34 has this:

The impracticality of this section of the Sermon, with its discouragement of planning or preparation, has long troubled Christian readers. The BoM offers a solution by limiting its scope to those with particular callings to the ministry rather than to believers in general, as happened at Alma 31.37–38. 25: As with the lengthy quotation of Isa 12–24 in 2 Ne, the original chapter breaks in the Nephite Sermon on the Mount do not match those in the Bible. Meat, food. 27: Add one cubit unto his stature, an alternative biblical translation is “add a single hour to your span of life” (NRSV). 30: Cast into the oven, as fuel for cooking. The BoM changes a rhetorical question into a promise, predicated on faith. Here faith refers not so much to belief as to trust in divine providence. 31: The omitted observation has been punctuated as a parenthetical comment in the KJV since 1611. 34: The BoM switches the positions of is and unto from the KJV. If an idiomatic translation of Mt is “Each day has enough trouble of its own” (New International Version), the meaning of the BoM might be “Each day can handle whatever troubles may come.”159

Overall, the formatting and annotations are very helpful to modern readers. However, at times we find this undercurrent in Hardy’s introduction to 3 Nephi.

On the first day, he recites an almost verbatim160 version of the Sermon on the Mount. Biblical scholars believe these Christian guidelines were not collected into exactly this form until the late first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was composed, but in 3 Nephi they provide a convenient synthesis of what Christ describes as “the things which I taught before I ascended to my Father” (15.1).161

The same tension regarding unnamed biblical scholars’ views and textual assertions in their unnamed books, compared to the Sermon at the Temple also emerges later in Hardy’s annotations:

Jesus delivers to the people of Nephi a slightly emended version of the Sermon on the Mount. Biblical scholars generally agree that the sermon in Mt was composed by the author of that Gospel from various sayings of Jesus that had circulated after his death, noting that many of the sayings appear in different contexts in Mk and Lk. Given that the book of Matthew is dated toward the end of the 1st c. CE, Christ’s sermon to the Nephites would have preceded the NT version by several decades. This could be taken as evidence that the sermon in 3 Ne originated with the Bible rather than with ancient Nephites; or that Jesus, knowing what Matthew would eventually write, taught a proto-version in Bountiful, signaling divine approval of Matthew’s later compilation; or that the translator inserted a familiar example of Christian teaching into the Nephite record to represent Jesus’s basic message. In any case, whereas in Mt the Sermon on the Mount is the first of five distinct sermons, suggesting that Jesus is like Moses delivering an updated Torah, in the BoM Jesus is speaking not as a new Moses, but as the God of Israel.162

It is certainly true there are many scholars who accept and promote such claims about Jesus and the composition of the gospels, just as different views of Joseph Smith go with different perspectives of skeptics and believers. For his publisher, Hardy must make a serious effort to accommodate the diversities and expectations of his audience, as well as holding every right to express his own reading of the evidence at hand and his own sense of the best scholarship. Even so, I find more specificity on crucial issues regarding differing views helps in dealing with such controversies and in being able to navigate and reconcile them. How do Hardy’s unnamed scholars date Matthew and support their view of him as the late composer of the Sermon on the Mount? Can they produce the kind of unambiguous direct contemporary evidence that skeptics argue Latter-day Saints ought to find in Mesoamerica before daring to believe in public, or worse, in an academic setting?

For example, do we have signed contemporary witness statements for the existence and provenance of “Q,” a hypothetical source that a notable stream of thought reasons that Luke and Matthew theoretically used to supplement Mark, on their assumption that Mark is the oldest canonical gospel? Do Hardy’s biblical scholars track the various contemporary accounts of Jesus’s sermons in the archives of dated and collected magazines, newspapers, personal journals, and legal records in the publishing houses of the day, which, over the brief period of Jesus’s actual ministry, provide a thorough and detailed account of what he did and did not say and what his disciples did and did not record? And have these scholars then been able to show how, from detailed contemporary records and interviews with a late first century figure writing as Matthew, who, according to this context, gathered previously unorganized wise sayings and memorable parables by the late, lamented Jesus, as passed along by oral means (on the assumption that Jesus’s disciples and followers in Jerusalem, a day’s walk from the literate Qumran communities, all must have been either illiterate or uninterested in writing down significant things Jesus said) until “Q” and Mark, and Luke’s account of the Sermon on the Plain, and added his own imagination to create a notable and influential Sermon to serve a much later audience, and secured its wide acceptance over the potential objections of any still-living people who had heard Jesus speak, and people who knew other witnesses and other gospels, addressing rather different communities and agendas? That is, do those unnamed biblical scholars, figuratively speaking, unlike the Latter-day Saints, have the actual Golden Plates, their language and sources, and their contemporary cultural provenance in hand? Or are they interpreting available later copies of earlier writings according to a specific set of assumptions, ideologies, and interpretive principles? Is it intellectually scandalous that many informed thinkers have faith in those scholars if what they say, while accepted as an academically sound gospel in certain influential circles, has not been proven beyond question with unambiguous evidence?

The issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise. . . . A decision of that kind can only be made on faith.163

What we all have to do is weigh and consider theories that attempt to account for relationships and origins and sources of the synoptic gospels, their differences with John, and relations to the New Testament and early Christian writings. They may be persuasive or dominant theories in some circles and communities, but they are not based on the kind of uninterpreted contemporary confirming data that we also lack for Book of Mormon stories—other than, say, Nahom, as not just a single isolated parallel in the right place and at the right time, but in an elaborate interconnected convergence in relation to the whole journey from a specific time in Jerusalem, across the Arabian Peninsula, through distinctly described locations.164 Nor are they the only theories that circulate among important and influential scholars to account for what we have in Matthew and the other Gospels.

Besides Welch, notable Latter-day Saint scholars such as Robert D. Millet, Richard L. Anderson, A. Don Sorenson, and John Gee have all addressed the question of the dating of the composition of Matthew as presented during their university training in opposition to their faith, and all of them point to other streams of scholarship, interpretations, and issues that ultimately leave them with room for faith. Sorenson and Millet, for instance, both refer to different streams of scholarship that question the claims of late Matthean composition. Millet refers to the work of non-LDS scholar William Farmer,165 that “all the church fathers who mention the sequence of the Gospels indicate that Matthew was written first” and says,

Let us put the matter another way. Jesus and his disciples were Jews living in Palestine. In due time the community that began with Jesus and his disciples spread out into the Mediterranean world. As the extra-Palestinian expansion of the community took place, more and more gentiles sought membership in it until finally it developed into a community that was predominantly gentile.

How does this affect our view of the Gospels? All would agree, of course, that Matthew is the most Jewish Gospel in the canon. It is also the Gospel that best reflects the Palestinian origins of the Christian church. Luke too is very Jewish, but there are many passages where, by comparison, this Gospel is better adapted for use by gentiles outside of Palestine. While unmistakably retaining traditions of Jewish and Palestinian origin, Mark is the best adapted of the three for gentile readers who are not acquainted with Palestinian culture. Thus, in terms of historical development, we can begin easily enough with Matthew and go on to Luke and/or Mark. But historically speaking, it is difficult to reverse the process and to place Matthew after either one or both of the others.166

Gee described both the express controlling assumptions that drive the late authorship hypothesis that dominates one conspicuous stream of New Testament scholarship. These assumptions are:

1. There are no contemporary or near contemporary sources for the existence of Jesus.

2. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s life.

3. We do not know who the authors of the Gospels were.

4. All the Gospel narratives are late.

5. Much of the Gospels and other sources about Jesus were fabricated.167

Gee explains how these assumptions influence the harvest:

The five assumptions that . . . many—if not the majority of—New Testament scholars accept are the consequence of one particular solution to a very old problem. The synoptic problem can be stated as follows: How can one account for the similarities—in some cases verbatim—between the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Traditional solutions to the problem go back to historical evidence from the second century. Protestants, however, who only accepted scripture (sola scriptura) and rejected the use of tradition, rejected this solution. One proposed solution was that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all borrowed from a hypothetical earlier source denoted Q from German Quelle, “source.” There was no historical evidence for this source, but at least it did not follow Catholic tradition.

Hypothesizing a source Q forced scholars to date the gospels all later than that (assumption 4), which in turn meant there were no extant contemporary or near contemporary sources for Jesus (assumption 1) and, given the typical dates hypothesized for the gospels, no eyewitness accounts of Jesus (assumption 2). Rejecting tradition also meant we could not trust the traditional attributions of the gospels (assumption 3). We would also have to reject the correct handing down of the details of Jesus’s life, so at least some of them must have been made up (assumption 5).168

In contrast, Gee explains how he dates Matthew as the first and early Gospel based on Matthew being the gospel quoted in the early Christian Didache and how he dates that document.

The Didache, however, treats both apostles and prophets as current offices as well as bishops and deacons. These are attested in book of Acts and the epistles of Paul in the middle of the first century. The Didache must date to sometime in the first century.

The Didache is labeled as “the teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles through the twelve apostles” It cannot date before the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles recounted in Acts 10. Based on the chronology of Paul’s life, this would have to be before Paul’s mission to the Gentiles in Tarsus. The Didache also refers to disciples as “Christians” which occurs after the mission of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch.

Significantly, however, the Didache contains none of the instructions to the Gentiles on circumcision deriving from the Jerusalem council. The instructions of the Jerusalem council also contain none of the basic Christian teachings and practices enumerated in the Didache. The pronouncements of the Jerusalem council seem to be an appendix to the Didache. The Didache thus predates the Jerusalem council. This places the Didache sometime between Acts 11 and 15.

The Didache three times refers to something it calls “the gospel,” which is in the singular. It knows only one. When it quotes Jesus, the quotations are from Matthew 6:9–13 and 7:6, not from Luke or Mark. The gospel of Matthew must predate the Didache and thus must date sometime before Acts 15 at latest, which puts it before the gospel of Mark.

Matthew, however, preserves the injunction of Jesus to his apostles not to preach to the Gentiles. Such prohibitions are absent from Luke and Mark, which were written after the permission to preach to the Gentiles. Thus, Matthew must have been written before the prohibition was lifted in Acts 9–10. This puts the writing of Matthew within a few years of the resurrection.169

Gee’s essay is very useful in that he exposes the assumptions, the history, and the names involved in the arguments that he addresses, and he gives clear reasons for proposing an alternative.

While Hardy cites Welch’s Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, he does not mention any of Welch’s arguments for questioning the late date and Matthean authorship that Hardy accepts. Welch writes that “nothing like scholarly unanimity exists over how much of the Sermon Matthew wrote himself, or how much he took from pre-existing sources.”170 He observes that “of 383 basic vocabulary words in the Sermon on the Mount, I count 73 (or 19% of the total) that appear only in the Sermon (sometimes more than once) and never elsewhere in the Gospel of Matthew.”171 That is, attributing the Sermon to Matthew seems problematic if its vocabulary is so distinctive compared to the rest of Matthew’s gospel.

In a later publication, Welch offered these new observations, which I notice add weight and depth and range to support Gee’s argument:

Moreover, even more significant for present purposes, Sermon on the Mount elements are also found heavily in 1 Peter (by this count 7 times), in James (12 times), and Romans (11 times). On at least six of these 30 occasions, the word orders are chiastically inverted, which according to Seidel’s law, may indicate that these passages were consciously quoted. It seems easier to believe that the Sermon on the Mount was known to Peter, James, John, and even Paul, than to believe that all of these early New Testament writings were somehow known to the writer of the Sermon on the Mount. As mentioned above, Hans Dieter Betz has argued that parts of the Sermon on the Mount should be seen as pre Matthean. But going beyond Betz’s analysis, the verbiage and echoes of the Sermon on the Mount found elsewhere in the New Testament would not only mean that parts of the Sermon on the Mount were also pre-Petrine, pre-Jamesian, and even pre-Pauline, but also (because these quotations and echoes come from every part of the Sermon on the Mount) that the Sermon had become coin of the realm at a very early stage in the first few decades of Christianity. Otherwise, how can one explain the fact that all of these Sermon on the Mount phrases had become so widely known and commonly taken as magisterial? Seeing the Sermon on the Mount as a temple-related text that was used to instruct converts and perhaps specifically to prepare initiates for baptism (as I suggest) would explain this wide distribution of Sermon on the Mount elements across the full breadth shown on Table 8 [that is Selected Sermon on the Mount Verbiage and Echoes Found Elsewhere in the New Testament, including Mark, Luke, 1 Peter, James, and Romans], a suggestion that certainly has enormous implications.172

One of those implications is that the certainties that Hardy reports with respect to a proposed late dating and Matthean authorship of the Sermon on the Mount can be seriously questioned. We don’t have to take his “biblical scholars” approach as a unanimous consensus or an insurmountable fact, to which surrender and accommodation is the only rational option, but rather, as a stream of thought that we can acknowledge as part of our intellectual environment for which historicist approaches can and ought to prepare themselves.

For specific scholar’s comments on the Sermon in the Book of Mormon, Hardy has this:

Probably the first instance of a prominent biblical scholar reading a section of the Book of Mormon generously was Krister Stendahl, “The Sermon on the Mount and Third Nephi,” in Reflections on Mormonism: Judeo-Christian Parallels, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 139–54. The same topic was taken up at much greater length by John W. Welch in his Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999).173

Besides Welch’s response to Stendahl, Richard L. Anderson also responded directly as part of his important essay on “Imitation Gospels and Christ’s Book of Mormon Ministry.”174 He noted that “Stendahl represents the vocal majority of current New Testament scholars who see all Gospels as formed by the development of stories about Jesus and reflective of the Church, more than personal eyewitness or recollection.”175 While Anderson then goes on to directly “meet the main issues that a sympathetic scholar raises,” Hardy does not refer to Anderson.

In light of the background on various streams of biblical scholarship I have mentioned here, consider the tensions for both Christian and Latter-day Saint faith as evident in Hardy’s approach to the Sermon that by design defers to a particular stream of “biblical scholarship.”

Jesus delivers to the people of Nephi a slightly emended version of the Sermon on the Mount. Biblical scholars generally agree that the sermon in Mt was composed by the author of that Gospel from various sayings of Jesus that had circulated after his death, noting that many of the sayings appear in different contexts in Mk and Lk. Given that the book of Matthew is dated toward the end of the 1st c. CE, Christ’s sermon to the Nephites would have preceded the NT version by several decades. This could be taken as evidence that the sermon in 3 Ne originated with the Bible rather than with ancient Nephites; or that Jesus, knowing what Matthew would eventually write, taught a proto-version in Bountiful, signaling divine approval of Matthew’s later compilation; or that the translator inserted a familiar example of Christian teaching into the Nephite record to represent Jesus’s basic message. In any case, whereas in Mt the Sermon on the Mount is the first of five distinct sermons, suggesting that Jesus is like Moses delivering an updated Torah, in the BoM Jesus is speaking not as a new Moses, but as the God of Israel.176

As I have stated, Hardy’s commentary carries several unresolved tensions like this that occasionally rise to unavoidable prominence and significance, due to the nature of it being obliged to appear objective and attentive to apparent scholarly consensus in a university setting. Writing in defense of a faith that in many obvious ways goes against scholarly consensus, if I hope to be taken seriously, or at least be recognized as dealing with the reality at hand, I must directly address counter arguments and scholarship on the topics I choose to address. I cannot just label and dismiss them as “Not us!” or as “Fake news!,” letting the label seem to do the work while in reality censorship does even more. If I decide that my testimony counts as significant for the question of “Which problems are more significant to have solved?” I must also acknowledge that by itself, a testimony does not make my knowledge “perfect,” as Alma explicitly reminds us (Alma 32:35–36). That means that my experiments on the word ought to continue (Alma 32:41).

Take note that Hardy does cite books and authors that provide commentary and arguments that he does not directly mention or address. As we have seen, he at least cites Welch’s Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, which surveys the question of the Matthew’s date and the question of the composition of the Sermon on the Mount in much more detail than does Hardy, as befits Welch’s more focused and specialized commentary. Welch also raises the issue of the Sermon at the Temple as potentially providing more information on an issue for which “one seeks further documentary evidence in the first place.”177 Hardy is not claiming to be the last word, but is, rather, dealing with a broad array of issues in a single-volume single-author commentary that the Latter-day Saints who enter these fields must confront and resolve one way or another. Even if I am not persuaded by some annotations or comments for this or that issue, I give Hardy his due for pointing to scholars who, in many instances, contextualize and argue differently than he does in his essays and annotations. And I join with many other readers who appreciate the fresh insights that Hardy provides.

Still, as much value as I find in most of Hardy’s formatting, annotations, readings, and supporting essays, for his suggestions on the relation of the Sermon at the Temple to the Sermon on the Mount, I am not enticed by a picture of a divine Christ looking at a future composition by Matthew and saying in essence, “Hey, I wish I’d thought of that. I’ll use it on the Nephites.” That picture assigns more plausibility to a Joseph Smith drawing on his environmental sources to produce a new fiction, as Robert M. Price depicts it in his essay in American Apocrypha, a book Hardy mentions in passing:

If the Book of Mormon is the literary creation of Joseph Smith, who wrote new biblical-sounding stories by combining familiar biblical vocabulary and motifs, then we may do the same sort of comparative redactional analysis on the Book of Mormon that scholars have been doing on the Bible . . . Like the Gospel writers, as understood by Crossan, Brodie, and Helms [emphasis mine], Joseph Smith seems to have created new holy fictions by running the old ones through the shredder, and reassembling the shreds in new combinations.178

That is a paradigmatic narrative, a more elaborate way to say what is said by one source Hardy quotes when describing the Book of Mormon as “Bible fan fiction,”179 a window through which to view the text. Hardy writes that

Launching or reshaping a literary movement is a rare, extraordinary accomplishment; founding a new religion is even more so. Smith’s work tapped into the religious and social assumptions, worries, and yearnings of thousands of Americans and Europeans who welcomed its arrival. This excitement was intimately connected to their feelings about the Bible. Indeed, to use an anachronistic term, the Book of Mormon might be considered Bible fan fiction (an observation made by the creators of The Book of Mormon, the 2011 Broadway musical). People who loved the Bible wanted more of it. They wanted additional episodes and spin-offs that continued the story by filling in gaps, answering questions, exploring alternative plot lines, shifting the focus to an American setting, and addressing contemporary issues.180

For some readers a framing metaphor like “Bible fan fiction” does all the work necessary to model the problem and solution. For others, such a narrative serves to direct the inquiries they subsequently perform. As far as the details emphasized by believers go, “Joseph did it somehow” and “some things they may have guessed right, among so many.” “Somehow” is simple, but does not support helpful puzzle definition, which means it is not easily testable in the way that historicity is. Nibley observed,

Thus, while we can never prove absolutely that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, we are justified in the outset in assuming that it is what it claims to be. If one assumes that it is true, its features at least become testable.181

Without testable puzzles, Kuhn’s criteria for “accuracy of key predictions” in judging paradigms cannot be employed, nor can “comprehensiveness and coherence, nor fruitfulness, nor future promise. Simplicity, yes; it is a simple way to explain the Book of Mormon. It only gets complicated by looking closely and considering oppositional arguments, which with a “fan fiction” understanding is not an urgent issue, and can be deferred by the simple expedient of not reading closely and ignoring the work of informed defenders. Deference to tradition and authority figures can ground personal choices, yes, but they have less to do with “better” and more to do with holding to the familiar and serving social expedience.

Compared to close readings by believers who examine the Book of Mormon in the context it claims for itself, I find that skeptical readings always fall short in light of Kuhn’s criteria for paradigm choice. I found it fascinating that Robert Price, for example, begins his essay approaching 3 Nephi and the Book of Mormon by discussing the discovery of the Book of the Law during Josiah’s day as a meaningful paradigm that guides his approach to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Price views the Book of the Law as a recent pious fraud and applies that pious-fraud model as a paradigm for viewing Joseph Smith and his book.182 Hardy observes that

For most outsiders, however, arguments about Book of Mormon historicity can seem somewhat quaint and of limited interest, except, perhaps, for what they might reveal about faith-filled hermeneutics and scriptural authority. Evidences for and against the existence of ancient American prophets may be significant to people who are invested in the religion or are considering joining, but they are not urgent topics for academic researchers.183

That lack of urgency, it seems to me, is exactly why Hardy (unquestionably an academic researcher) overlooks important observations about historicity issues, such as Mesoamerican directions presented in detail in a book he cites,184 and defers instead to a criticism of Sorenson that remains popular among skeptics despite being obsolete since at least 2008. Such a lack of urgency may be why it seems not to have occurred to Robert Price to consider the reforms of Josiah as a meaningful historical context against which to test the content of the Book of Mormon. That contextual comparison, I notice, is exactly what Margaret Barker appealed to in her talk on the Book of Mormon.

What I offer can only be the reactions of an Old Testament scholar: are the revelations to Joseph Smith consistent with the situation in Jerusalem in about 600 BCE? Do the revelations to Joseph Smith fit in that context, the reign of King Zedekiah, who is mentioned at the beginning of the First Book of Nephi, which begins in the “first year of the reign of Zedekiah” (1 Nephi 1:4)? Zedekiah was installed as king in Jerusalem in 597 BCE.185

As Alma explains, “even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words” (Alma 32:27). Several of Hardy’s comments in his final essays strive to open the possibility of fruitful growth for a portion of words nurtured as inspired fiction. He acknowledges that such a course is in tension with the face value story that Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon present, but Alma of course, recognizes that “even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge” (Alma 32:26). Alma does not specify which portion of his words a person must select if they wish to experiment upon them, and nor does he precisely define which experiments must be performed. Hardy acknowledges some of the experiments both defenders and skeptics have done, and he also sets out a fresh range of possible experiments and frameworks for those who are open to an inspired fiction approach.186

Hardy on “Biblical Quotations, Allusions, and Verbal Parallels”

One of the last sections of Hardy’s book is a detailed, comprehensive listing of “Biblical Quotations, Allusions, and Verbal Parallels.” Hardy recognizes that not only are the dating of Isaiah and the Sermon live issues for Book of Mormon readers, but the anachronistic presence of New Testament phrases in various places present a problem as do issues like “the ending of Mark.”187 He shows his readers that he is aware of the problems, and that he has faced it boldly, carefully, and comprehensively, without flinching from the possible implications for faith. Certainly, ignoring the problem may provide time to consider other things, but does not make the problem go away, nor does blissful ignorance create solutions. Hardy cites the ongoing publications of Nicholas Frederick on this issue,188 just as Frederick later cites Hardy’s efforts on apparent dependence of Ether 12 on Hebrews.

While the question of biblical language in the Book of Mormon is a legitimate topic of study, it seems to me that Nibley’s comments on “The Big Picture” versus a tightly focused little picture have relevance.

It is important to specialize. It is sound professional policy to deal with something that nobody else understands. But there are natural limits to specialization: inevitably one reaches the point at which the study of a single star cannot be pursued further until one has found out about a lot of other stars. The little picture starts expanding into a big picture, and we soon discover that without the big picture the little one cannot be understood at all.189

It is one thing to claim that apparent anachronistic language in various places is a significant problem for seeing the Book of Mormon as an inspired translation of an ancient document. It is quite another thing to turn that observation into predictions that account for a wide range of other specialist observations about the Book of Mormon that strongly indicate historicity, whether the picture of Lehi’s Jerusalem, the journey to Arabia, the authentic non-biblical names, the complex use of allusion and the presence of elaborate ritual patterns, an abundant set of New World correlations, the eyewitness reports of the dictation of the Book of Mormon and the evidence of the manuscripts, detailed accounts within the text that describe specific human experience such as NDE reports, survivor witness patterns, addiction recovery, as well as Hebrew temple ritual and festival patterns, First Temple theology, Hebrew poetic forms, patterns of warfare and politics far beyond Joseph Smith’s experience, and the elaborate New World correlations that have multiplied primarily in the past four decades.

For example, in her approach to explaining Joseph Smith, Ann Taves unblushingly ignores all of that and reduces the problem of the Book of Mormon as a whole to basically bulk and some matters of style.190 This is why I keep promoting the full range of Kuhn’s criteria for paradigm choice as including puzzle definition and testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. Not just a favorite puzzle given some unexamined assumptions, a tightly focused test result, and a declaration that there is nothing remarkable or difficult to explain. (“Nothing to see here folks. Move along!”) Hugh Nibley cogently observed that “Book of Mormon critics have made an art of explaining a very big whole by a very small part.”191

As another relevant example of the difference between a wide-view big picture and a narrow focus, one of the things that struck me most when I read Frederick’s 2015 “Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon: A Proposed Methodology,”192 is that while he gave notice that Jerald and Sandra Tanner had published critical arguments and research that highlighted apparently anachronistic uses of New Testament language,193 he did not acknowledge that Matthew Roper and John Tvedtnes had published very detailed and telling responses to the Tanners that amounted to significant scholarship on the topic.194 Someone must have mentioned Roper’s and Tvedtnes’s essays to Frederick, because a later essay does mention them:

In a response to the Tanner’s Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon, Matthew Roper argues that much of the New Testament language likely had a Semitic background that could explain its presence in the Book of Mormon: “I would like to see an in-depth study of the Semitic background behind the New Testament passages which most resemble those in the Book of Mormon. I believe that such a study would show how frequently the New Testament draws on older material.” In a review of the same work, John A. Tvedtnes proposes a slightly different solution: “My response to this criticism is that Joseph Smith deliberately used the King James Version wording because it corresponded to the Bible known to his contemporaries. . . . The use of precise New Testament phraseology is not negative, however, as long as the idea fits the passage.”195

What Frederick does not do is describe the overall approaches of Roper and Tvedtnes, nor does he mention the evidence for the question at point. Just as importantly, none of their wider evidence relevant to the Big Picture question, “Is Joseph Smith’s inspiration real?” The Tanners had taken advantage of newly available computerized scriptures and search capabilities to look through the Book of Mormon for New Testament language. Roper pointed out several key problems with the Tanner’s approach, including that
they have made no attempt to show where Book of Mormon prophets may have drawn upon Old Testament material, which could have been found on the brass plates. This is certainly an important issue in evaluating the worth of their comparisons. Yet they have failed to include this kind of information in their list. Since I used the same computer media they did, I can only assume that they have ignored those passages altogether. It is unfortunate that they would suppress this information.

Having reviewed the material in question, I conclude that most of the evidence may be divided into three groups:

1. Examples where Old Testament language is equal to or closer to the that of the New Testament passage given by the authors as proof of plagiarism.

2. Examples where Old Testament language can be found which very closely resembles that of the New Testament language.

3. Examples in which the Book of Mormon could have drawn upon Old Testament ideas.196

For practical reasons of space, the published version of Roper’s study only presents his findings for 1 Nephi. But that does allow for many comparisons with Hardy. For example, in Hardy’s list we find 1 Nephi 11.25 appears twice, once alongside Jeremiah 1:13 and once alongside Revelation 11:17. In Roper’s study, we find the following:

1 Nephi 11:25 fountain of living waters

Revelation 7:17 living fountains of waters

Jeremiah 2:13 they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters

Jeremiah 17:13 they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters197

One important thing that even this kind of comparison overlooks is texts external to the Bible, such as 1 Enoch, which has significant influence on Revelation, both being associated with the temple, and which happens to refer to both the Tree of Life (1 Enoch 24:2–6, 25:1–7) and the living waters (1 Enoch 17:4, 22:9). It is important to realize that the New Testament writers quote not only the Old Testament, but other writers known to them and, sometimes, not known to us. Nor can we assume that we know all the sources available to Old Testament and Book of Mormon writers and editors, based only on records that have survived.

One of Hardy’s recurrent points is anachronism.198 He says,

While historical anachronisms and incongruities provide important evidences of Book of Mormon origins, they may not be as definitive as some nonbelievers assume. The Mormon scripture presents itself as a translation of an ancient text, but without having access to the gold plates, it is impossible to determine the exact nature of the translation, and that ambiguity allows Latter-day Saints considerable room for faith. By the same token, the parallels with antiquity that believers are fond of highlighting may also prove elusive, for similar reasons.199

This ambiguity is why Alma distinguishes “proof” from “cause to believe” (Alma 32:17–19) and why Douglas Hofstadter in Gödel, Escher, and Bach must report that “Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved.”200

Hardy’s list of biblical language in the Book of Mormon associates 1 Nephi 2:10 with 1 Corinthians 15:58. Here is Roper’s relevant entry:

1 Nephi 2:10–11 Steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord. Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel.

1 Corinthians 15:58 Be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord.

Psalms 78:7–8, 37 That they might . . . not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments: And might not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; . . . whose spirit was not stedfast with God. . . . Neither were they stedfast in his covenant. (See also Isaiah 48:18–19 and 1 Nephi 20:18–19.)

Roper comments,

In this last comparison, the authors have only circled the Book of Mormon phrase “steadfast and immovable” (p. 85), yet while the words steadfast and unmoveable occur together in the New Testament, it seems clear that the passage of 1 Nephi 2: 10–11, taken as a whole, fits best into the context of Psalms 78, especially since Nephi always compares his family’s experience with the Israelite Exodus from Egypt.201

Another possible language comparison outside of the Bible goes back to Nibley’s discussion of Arabic qasida. Recall that Hardy’s formatting sets those passages off as poetry, but not as culturally specific Arabic poetry, as Nibley argued in An Approach to the Book of Mormon.202

A crucial aspect of the anachronism issue emerges when Hardy cites the King James transition of Matthew 5 along with 3 Nephi.

Behold, do men light a candle and put it under a bushel? Nay, but on a candlestick.

His annotation here is:

Candle and candlestick were anachronistic even in the KJV, where Jesus was speaking of an oil lamp and a lampstand. Bushel, a basket or bowl.203

Here Hardy lands on the issue of translator anachronism but does not explore the implications for the Book of Mormon. He does not suppose or imply that the presence of candle and candlestick and bushel in the KJV means that Jesus did not exist, or that Matthew did not exist but was a medieval fiction. The implication here is that the King James translators were simply trying to communicate the meaning of the Greek for readers in their culture “after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24), and if it happens to not be technically accurate in some respects, it manages to convey the meaning intended, and therefore it is “sufficiently plain to serve my purpose as it stands” (Doctrine and Covenants 128:18). All the English of Joseph Smith’s translation is anachronistic relative to the language on the plates, but that is indeed the point of translation, “to express the sense of one language in the words of another.” 204 The definition does not rule out expressing that sense using words and/or language that is not completely original or unprecedented if it happens to aptly convey the sense to the target audience.

Another related aspect of translation involves the fact that words themselves not only change in pronunciation and spelling over time, but that their definitions can also change. When we read a seemingly simple word like “steel” in the Book of Mormon, what does that mean? Hardy does raise the issue of the Hebrew underlying the English for the King James version:

It is perhaps ominous that Nephi’s attention is first drawn to the sword. Steel, bronze; the BoM follows the anachronistic usage of the KJV in referring to bronze as “steel” or “brass” (2 Sam 22.35; Job 20.24; Ps 18.34; Jer 15.12; see 2 Ne 3.2n).205

That is, if the KJV translators could use steel to translate brass, so could Joseph Smith. In another place he says this:

Sword of Laban, see 1 Ne 4.9, 38n. 15: Nephi’s knowledge of metallurgy would have been unusual. Brass and steel are anachronistic for the early 6th c. BCE; the use of the two metals, along with iron, is unattested in the New World before Columbus.206

For iron and Hardy’s claim that it is “unattested,” see what happens if you Google “Olmec Iron.”207 The discovery of Olmec iron in the 1990s, dating not just to Nephite times, but specifically to Jaredite times, raises the question of just what kind of inquiries Hardy and his editors made, or whether some unquestioned assumptions about the state of Book of Mormon evidence have at times substituted for careful inquiry.

But there is even more to the question of the word steel than this. Before the word steel was applied to the processed alloy we are familiar with as moderns, it had other uses, as explained by one message-board commenter:

The history of the word [steel] originates not in metallurgy, but in adjectives or characteristics: “The noun steel originates from the Proto-Germanic adjective stahliją or stakhlijan ‘made of steel,’ which is related to stahlaz or stahliją ‘standing firm.’”

For that reason, we can find apparently anachronistic use of the word “steel” in the King James Bible.

- In Job 20:24 we read: “He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him through.”

- Similarly in Psalm 18:24: “He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.”

If you do a text search for the words “iron” and “steel” in the OT, the only instances of “steel” that occur are in connection with bows. And as we will remember, there was a problem for Lehi’s expedition when Nephi’s “steel bow” broke. Nephi’s bow could not have been of an alloy of iron and carbon. How the heck could he have drawn it if it were made of that, let alone break it? The technology of archery has a rich and long history. Read up on the types of bows on Wikipedia. It seems that it should be obvious that a “steel bow” is one that is simply exceptionally strong, that propels the arrows a greater distance or with more force.

The point is, the word steel has been used historically to mean things (or people) which are exceptionally strong. Do you remember that stalwart (<-there’s that root word, again!) Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili? Of course you do! But not by that name. He preferred the name Joseph Stalin. He was the “man of steel” who was made of the same stuff you and I are made of. There wasn’t a hint of iron-carbon alloy in his entire body.

The other problem with “steel” and “brass” and suchlike is that we are reading a translation into English from an ancient language whose deepest nuances have been lost to time. In many cases we (or the King James translators) are not entirely sure what was meant by some words. The word “brass” in the OT is translated from a word which may actually mean “bronze.”

And with the Book of Mormon, God Himself gave the translation, and He seemed to want to stay consistent with human translations and word usage.208

This means that Nephi’s steel bow may just be a notably sturdy compound bow. Evidence, again, that the “plain meaning” of the text may, in cases, not be quite as plain as we think. This is exactly why Jesus says that criticism, judgement, and discernment, must begin with being self-critical: “Then shalt thou ye see clearly” (Matthew 7:5). Not before.

Whether the paradigm of discrediting anachronism is better or best compared to a complex play of our incomplete knowledge of the resources available to ancient authors and the valid possibilities and resources available to modern translators including their unrestricted access to and knowledge of the King James Bible, as well the inspiration, requires comparison, and then evaluation against criteria that are not paradigm dependent. Paradigm testing and ideological dismissal are very different things and the existence of faith comparison based on criteria that are not completely paradigm-dependent defines the difference. All the evidence and insinuation and personal insecurity that convinces Othello to adopt the Iago-inspired narrative that Desdemona has been unfaithful can be interpreted differently, and indeed should have been, and that is what makes Shakespeare’s play a tragedy. The case of Othello should remind us that of N. R. Hanson’s observation that “all data are theory-laden.”209 No one actually follows the data to its inevitable conclusion without a framing narrative/theory in which to model and interpret that data. Otherwise, a person has no basis to select which data to consider and has no interpretive framework. Which high-level narrative of the composition of the Book of Mormon is best? Inspired translation, as Joseph Smith claimed? Or an authorship involving imagination that discredits its claims to historicity (if not potential divine inspiration) via conclusive and telling anachronistic plagiarism? How comprehensive and coherent is the explanation? Does verbal anachronism in a translation across time and culture provide a sufficiently decisive solution towards solving the puzzle the Book of Mormon represents as to eclipse all other puzzles and solutions as having of little or no significance? Or should we expect such currently unsolved puzzles as due to the nature of translation and the limits of our knowledge of both ancient authors and the legitimate resources and inspiration of the translator? “What should we expect in an inspired translation?” is a significantly different question than “What do I expect from an inspired translation?” and the related question, “What do I want from an inspired translation?” The difference is an explicit self-awareness of the need to be self-critical and self-reflective.

And what about the aspects of the Book of Mormon as ancient document that a focus on anachronism as such filters out?

Most of us lend to see parts of a form hierarchically. The parts that are important (that is, provide a lot of information), or the parts that we decide are larger, or the parts we think should be larger, we see as larger than they actually are. Conversely, parts that are unimportant, or that we decide are smaller, or that we think should be smaller, we see as being smaller than they actually are.210

None of us can avoid demonstrating exactly which things we think are most important and which things are least important, and time has a way of sorting out whether we are correct.

A Mention of DNA and the Question of Linguistic Evidence

Hardy’s essay on “Reading the Book of Mormon as History” includes a brief mention of the DNA issue. He writes,

More recently, DNA studies have failed to find connections between Native Americans and Near Eastern peoples, and no non-Mormon linguists have recognized any direct contact between New World and Old World languages.211

Here again, “What do I expect?” is a very different question than “What should I expect?” and, different still, “What should I ideally get?” On the topic of DNA, John M. Butler discussed a 2003 study of Icelandic populations and observed,

Examining the same Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA markers used in other genetic studies, these 131,060 Icelanders “revealed highly positively skewed distributions of descendants to ancestors, with the vast majority of potential ancestors contributing one or no descendants and a minority of ancestors contributing large numbers of descendants.” In other words, the majority of people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests being performed and yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors. To the point at hand, if many documented ancestors of 150 years ago cannot be linked to their descendants through Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests from modern Iceland, then it certainly seems possible that the people who are reported in the Book of Mormon to have migrated to the Americas over 2,600 years ago might not have left genetic signatures that are detectable today.212

Is it decisively significant that DNA studies have failed to find a connection? Or is it simply unrealistic to expect such a thing? It turns out that the DNA controversy cannot be separated from the question of whether the Book of Mormon describes indigenous origins absolutely, or just a few small boats and barges arriving in already inhabited locations. Should we judge based on what we want to have from DNA evidence, or what is realistic to expect? Or should we judge based on the Archimedes principle, that “Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I can move the world.” In exploring Book of Mormon issues, there is a difference between looking for understanding and looking for leverage.

As far as linguistic connections go, consider Brian Stubbs, Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan and his 2011 FAIR presentation on the topic.213 Hardy may be hinting at his awareness of the existence of Stubbs’s work in this phrase: “no non-Mormon linguists have recognized any direct contact between New World and Old World languages.”214 Even with the “non-Mormon” qualification made to exclude Stubbs, Hardy overstates the case, failing to recognize the work of John Welch over 30 years ago.215

The Isaiah Problem and Potential Solutions

Latter-day Saint scholars have been addressing the Isaiah question for several decades,216 which involves the commonly held notion that the current book of Isaiah was composed by at least three different authors and/or scribal schools: (1) an original Isaiah contemporary with Hezekiah, (2) an exilic Isaiah, and (3) a post-exilic Isaiah. Nibley,217 In the 1960s, and later Welch,218 in the 1990s, suggested that perhaps what we have in the Book of Mormon was Isaiah at the time, other than Isaiah 54, which, as Welch points out, need not have been on the Brass Plates, since it is quoted by the risen Jesus. Other Latter-day Saint scholars such as Victor Ludlow and Avraham Gileadi argue for a unified Isaiah based on structural arguments. And there are those who treat the multiple Isaiah hypothesis/consensus as kryptonite for the claims of the Book of Mormon. Here is Hardy’s most detailed annotation dealing with the question:

Nephi copies these chapters from the Brass Plates, though most scholars believe that Isaiah 40–55 (Second Isaiah) was written in the mid-6th c. BCE, a generation after Lehi’s family had left Jerusalem. Believers might respond to this discrepancy by positing a divinely sanctioned updating of Nephi’s writings, or a very free translation. In any event, there are similar problems for all the extended quotations from the Hebrew Bible, including the chapters from First Isaiah reproduced in 2 Ne 12–24. The BoM follows the King James Bible quite closely, even though the underlying Hebrew text of that 1611 translation—the Masoretic Text (MT)—was the end result of a process of writing, editing, revising, augmenting, and merging sources that continued for many centuries after 600 BCE. In this edition, many of the BoM modifications to lengthy quotations from the KJV are bolded, to show places where the BoM might function as biblical commentary of sorts. As with other such quotations, many of the changes in chs. 20–21 are to words that were italicized in the KJV (indicating that they were added by the translators when the Hebrew original yielded incomplete sentences in English). Additions of conjunctions, interjections, and minor clarifications are also common, as are transposed words. From the perspective of the narrative, it is unclear whether these changes to the KJV are supposed to be restored original readings, or Nephi’s own glosses on Isaiah intended to “liken” scripture to his family’s current situation. In any case, the deletions, additions, and substitutions of a few words here and there are reminiscent of how 1 Chr 16.8–36 adapts Pss 105, 96, and 106 to fit a particular historical context.219

I wrote a chapter on the Isaiah situation in Paradigms Regained, drawing mostly on the Maxwell Institute volume on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, which offered a range of knowledgeable arguments and assessments, and Barker’s case in The Older Testament that Second Isaiah radically changed the theology of ancient Israel from a belief in El Elyon, the High God, Yahweh as his son assigned to Israel, and the existence of other sons who constituted the angels, the hosts of heaven behind the title Lord of Hosts, toward the strict monotheism that Yahweh was El. The thing I found most interesting about her case was that none of the Isaiah chapters that make that argument (chapters 40–47) appear in the Book of Mormon, which explicitly retains preexilic theology. Barker cites scholars who argued that “the prophecies of the Second Isaiah are thought to have been shaped by the patterns of the preexilic festival,”220 and in a footnote mentions one scholar’s “argument for a remarkable correspondence between Isaiah 40ff and the tradition of the autumn festival in preexilic Jerusalem, and ‘the coherence of many units in an interlocking pattern descended from the festival . . . ; and ‘The relating of prophecies to a ritual tradition shows up the depth and range in their meaning which is missed by an interpretation restricted to a historical view.”221 That is particularly interesting compared to John Thompson’s observations in an essay in Isaiah and the Book of Mormon that “from the structure and themes of 2 Nephi 6–10, one may conclude that Jacob’s speech was given in connection with a covenant-renewal celebration that was most likely performed as part of the traditional Israelite autumn festivals required by the law of Moses.”222 So, in the Book of Mormon we have Jacob quoting from Isaiah 50–51 during the traditional autumn festival, which is thought to have liturgically shaped those chapters. This is not the kind of correlation that is easy to explain as a lucky guess or accident on the part of the youthful Joseph Smith. Hence, it is the kind of thing that critics prefer to not mention or acknowledge in considerations of the purported Isaiah problem.

I subsequently returned to the topic of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon after reading Barker’s essay on “The Original Context of the Fourth Servant Song,” which made the case that Isaiah 53 was directly inspired by Hezekiah’s bout with the plague and, therefore, makes that chapter preexilic and available to Abinadi via the Brass Plates. A recent online discussion included this additional insight:

I suspect that at least portions of what we call Deutero Isaiah existed in the brass plates. INTERESTINGLY, the parts of Isaiah which appear in the Book of Mormon do NOT include the mention of Cyrus, and cut off EXACTLY at chapter 55, which is considered the last chapter of Deutero-Isaiah before Trito-Isaiah starts. Joseph also completely skips over “The Apocalypse of Isaiah” which is a section of Proto-Isaiah now thought to be a post-exilic addition.

Maybe he just got incredibly lucky, but when you look through what texts ARE in the Book of Mormon from Isaiah, notably absent are THE WORDS THAT FORM THE FOUNDATION OF THE DEUTERO ISAIAH THEORY. Pretty much ALL the chapters and verse segments which deal with “politics” other than Babylon. The missing chapters and verses go on and on about the Medes, Elam, Ethiopia, Egypt, etc. But they simply don’t exist in the Book of Mormon. I personally find it very reasonable to assume that the Book of Isaiah was updated by motivated scribes as time went on, just as other biblical texts were, and that the Deutero Isaiah chapters existed before 600 BC, but in a much smaller form.

Taken together, I believe you have a real copy of Isaiah in Lehi’s hands. It is a smaller version of the book than we have, and doesn’t have many of the texts that we suspect were later additions. Also, it has some texts that were later updated and altered. It doesn’t have all the political baggage other than using Babylon as a metaphor.223

John Welch noted that since Isaiah 54 is quoted by the risen Lord, it need not have been on the Brass Plates. It is also of interest that the theme of Isaiah 54 is “the daughter of Zion” where Barker notes that the Servant of the Lord and the Daughter of Zion each “has the same amount of material in chapters 40–55, yet until recently, only the male Servant figure was studied and emphasized.”224 In connection with the recent recognition importance of the Daughter of Zion, along with the more famous Servant songs, only recently recognized by modern scholarship, an important essay at Book of Mormon Central observes that

Moroni beheld the actual destruction of his people, and yet his final message expresses hope that the daughter of Zion will one day be enthroned and endowed, like the goddess Ishtar, due to the Book of Mormon’s salvific power:

Awake, and arise from the dust, O Jerusalem;
yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion;
and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever,
that thou mayest no more be confounded,
that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled. (Moroni 10:31, cf. Isaiah 52:2)

Endowed with beautiful garments of power and glory, the daughter of Zion is the divine, feminine manifestation of God’s righteous sons and daughters passing through the veil of mortality and entering into the joy, rest, and holiness of the Lord.225

All of these insights mean that the Isaiah situation is a field in which it pays to be aware of the best arguments and options in an unsettled situation, and to keep a broad perspective on evidence that suggests that Joseph Smith’s inspiration was real, rather than narrowly focused on what seems to be human perfection. If the question is perfection, then only imperfection is decisive, but only if one can safely assume that they are at present perfectly capable of detecting and interpreting it. If the question concerns evidence for real inspiration on the part of Joseph Smith and the Restoration, I am obligated to take a much broader view and accept the existence of human imperfection, and the limits of current knowledge, especially my own.

To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted.226

If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times.227

The problem is not imperfection, but rather deciding “Which problems are more significant to have solved?” And that, as Kuhn points out, even in the sciences must ultimately involve faith, rather than unattainable certainty.

Literary Approaches to the Book of Mormon

In his essay “The Book of Mormon as Literature,” Hardy writes,

The Book of Mormon, with its ungainly repetitive style, is not an obvious candidate for literary acclaim. Yet if readers can see past the individual sentences and verses to larger units of paragraphs, pericopes, chapters, and books, its literary features become more evident (many of which are noted in the annotations in the present volume). There is a range and verve to the story of the Nephites, which despite its convoluted narrative unfolds according to a coherent underlying design. And for a work with disputed origins, a literary approach offers common ground for discussion between those who regard the text as historical and those who view it as fiction. Someone, somewhere had to determine how the narrative should be structured and presented, with what sorts of details, including physical descriptions, chronological markers, direct discourse, and editorial comments.228

He further comments that
the formatting in this edition is much more suited to reading the Book of Mormon as literature, with larger narrative units readily identified, headings and paragraphs that indicate changes of speakers and topics, quotation marks and poetic forms, and a few highlighted examples of rhetorical devices. The goal has been to bring to the foreground the literary features of the text, and thereby emphasize its meaning and message. Additional details about literary techniques and biblical intertextuality in specific passages can be found in the annotations.229

In his later essay “Further Reading: The Book of Mormon as Literature,” Hardy remarks that

The topic of chiasmus comes up often in LDS discussions of the Book of Mormon as literature, due to its apologetic function and the extensive writings of John W. Welch. Welch has edited Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 1988), which includes a chapter on the Book of Mormon and offers a comparative perspective, while keeping the focus firmly on the ancient world. Brent Metcalfe provides counterarguments in his “Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity,” Dialogue 26, no. 3 (1993): 153–84.230

He also cites his own “Understanding the Book of Mormon” and works by Richard Dilworth Rust231 and Hugh Pinnock.232 He then cites Mark Thomas’s Digging in Cumorah on type scenes:

From a more religiously neutral point of view, Mark D. Thomas’s Digging in Cumorah: Reclaiming Book of Mormon Narratives (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999) makes important points about narrative forms, or type-scenes, in the Mormon scripture, noting precedents in both the Bible and nineteenth-century religious culture.233

While Hardy is a careful and important scholar for literary approaches to the Book of Mormon and offers many important insights, he is not the only one. And while he cites a few other important scholars to show the existence of different approaches, I think it is important for Book of Mormon study to be aware of the range and depth and diverse insights that can come from literary approaches. There is a plethora of sources to which Hardy does not refer:

- Alan Goff, who has not only reviewed Thomas at length,234 but who has also for over thirty years provided many important essays on type scenes and allusion in the Book of Mormon, highlighting the book’s literary qualities and techniques relative to Robert Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative.235

- Matthew Bowen’s extensive work on onomastic wordplay in the Book of Mormon, that is, on how the Hebrew meanings of names disclose wordplay in the stories that deepens the meaning and artistry we can see.236

- Ben McGuire’s important study of allusions to the David story in Nephi’s encounter with Laban, and how all of those allusions fit on one side of what biblical scholars have surmised are two different David stories spliced together.237

- Bruce Jorgenson’s important “The Dark Way to the Tree: Typological Unity in the Book of Mormon”238 and Eugene England’s “A Second Witness for the Logos: The Book of Mormon and Contemporary Literary Criticism,”239 both of which draw on the important literary theorist, Northrop Frye.

- Tod R. Harris’s “Journey of the Hero: Archetypes of Earthly Adventure in the Spiritual Passage in 1 Nephi,”240 which uses Joseph Campbell’s Hero with a Thousand Faces as a lens for exploring Nephi’s account.

- Robert Rees’s important essays on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon compared to the work and processes of the most notable writers of the American Renaissance.241

- John Gee’s “The Wrong Kind of Book,” which shows that the Book of Mormon literary style and themes are very different than what was expected and demonstrated by other nineteenth-century works including View of the Hebrews and Manuscript Found.242

- Eugene England and Jana Riess who have separately and effectively examined Book of Mormon accounts in light of Rene Girard’s theories of the scapegoat and imitative desire and cycles of violence.243

- Lisa Bolin Hawkins and Gordon Thomasson’s important essay on “Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon,” an essay I consider essential reading for understanding Mormon and Moroni as authors with distinctive experience, values, and emphasis that they bring to their witness in relation to the genre of “survivor witness” literature that emerged from Nazi and Soviet death camps.244

- Richard L. Anderson’s “Imitation Gospels and Christ’s Book of Mormon Ministry” with its discussion of the 3 Nephi account in comparison to several other modern books claiming to be new revelations about Christ.

- William Eggington’s essay “’Our Weakness in Writing’: Oral and Literate Culture in the Book of Mormon,”245 nor Brant Gardner’s more recent exploration of that important topic.246

- Alyson Von Feldt’s comparison of the Book of Mormon to biblical Wisdom literature.247

- Nibley’s comparison of Ether to the distinguishing characteristics of the genre of ancient epic literature248 or his later comparison of the 3 Nephi account to ancient Post Resurrection 40 Day accounts249

- Sorenson’s “The Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican Codex,” which compares the themes and content of the Book of Mormon with those of Mesoamerican literature.250

- Joseph Spencer’s An Other Testament: On Typology.251

- Midgley’s and Novack’s work on important distinctions between a community remembrance focused on keeping covenants with a living God versus a detached academic curiosity about the variety and details of Jewish culture that has demonstrably ”assisted the subsequent decline in authentic religiosity.”252

I have not mentioned everything possible to mention but, rather, just a few subjective favorites. Hardy is not attempting to be comprehensive on literary approaches to the Book of Mormon, nor is he obligated to be, given limited space in even a large book. Rather, he is obligated to first provide his own reading and annotations, and then to introduce fields of discussion with deliberate balance while pointing to at least some notable works across a wide range of approaches. My point is that when we approach the Book of Mormon as literature, the field is infinitely larger than any one commentator or school of thought can offer, no matter how important and how welcome their insights.

Wide reading and exploring a range of different approaches continually reminds me that skilled and perceptive readers can see things in the Book of Mormon that I would never have imagined, if left to myself. The consequent awe I feel encourages me to be both humble and teachable.

Epistemology

In his essay on epistemology, Hardy states,

The recommended approach is based on an invitation given by the book’s last narrator to his future audience:

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost. (Moro 10.4)

In most fields, warm feelings are unreliable gauges of truth, yet there is an assumption here that the question of whether the book is an authentic revelation can best be resolved through additional, personal revelation. The requirement of preexisting sincerity and faith makes it as much a test of the reader as of the scripture.253

I very much like Hardy’s insight that reading the Book of Mormon is “test of the reader.” But I also notice that Moroni says nothing about warm feelings as a reliable gauge of truth:

But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God . . .

For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for everything which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. . . .

And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged. Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.

And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them. (Moroni 7:14, 16, 18–19, 24)

Hardy may be conditioned by Latter-day Saint cultural over-use and repetition of Doctrine and Covenants 9:8–9 (“ye shall feel that it is right”), but I conducted a wide survey of scriptural descriptions of how the Holy Ghost confirms truth and found that it is equally balanced between mind and heart (Doctrine and Covenants 8:2), between left- and right-brain operations (see for example, Doctrine and Covenants 11:12–14), between intellectual enlightenment and expansion, feelings of peace, expansion of the soul, joy and reconciliation, and “right action” (actually doing good and demonstrating through those actions faith in Christ).254

For many years I have made the case that the epistemology in Alma 32 corresponds to that offered in Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and I have noticed that where Jesus calls for the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, that is a test of both mind and heart, of our willingness to offer up our preconceptions and our desires in order to discover what is real.

So, yes, Hardy is correct and insightful in recognizing that the Book of Mormon tests the reader. My own study of biblical keys for discerning true and false prophets included observations that of seventy or so arguments offered by biblical peoples to justify rejection of prophets, they all boil down to saying, “it’s not what I think” or “it’s not what I desire.”255 The actions that the Bible recommends that people ought to follow to find truth amount to a formal process of offering up what we think and what we desire—that is, to offer the sacrifice of a contrite spirit and a broken heart in order to progressively discover more of what is real.256 It also turns out that the arguments given by biblical peoples to reject a prophet in every case simultaneously demonstrate exactly where people have failed to live up to the test of offering up the sacrifice of a broken heart (offering what they desire) and of a contrite spirit (refusing instruction, refusing to offer what they think).

Alma 32 encourages readers to start with just a portion of the word. It does not specify which portion, leaving that to the individual, nor does it specify exactly which experiments a person ought to perform. Just by existing, the Book of Mormon defines a great many different puzzles to consider from a wide range of possible approaches. And even as far as trying to spread the good word goes, the Book of Mormon offers the examples of the sons of Mosiah, who clearly began their dangerous and challenging mission with different approaches, Ammon being initially much less direct than his brothers, but ultimately more successful in a way that cleared the way for the later success of his brothers. That is, Ammon was relatively reticent until after he gained trust in important circles. Then he spoke out.

Hardy has managed to get the most prestigious academic press in the world to produce a valuable and impressive annotated edition of the Book of Mormon. That is an impressive achievement. So, Hardy’s approach to sharing the Book of Mormon may be different than mine in some respects, but it is still a welcome invitation to experiment upon the word.257

Conclusions

As should be evident, I am not a fan of asserting a “plain reading” of any historical text, especially one that claims to be an ancient text written by multiple authors and translated by divine means. Any reading, plain or not, is dependent on the lens through which we view the text, and that lens is fashioned by the framework, paradigm, or context that we construct in order to make sense of the data that we have available.

That I would differ from Hardy on some issues is to be expected—we no doubt privilege data differently and, therefore, possess different paradigms for the text. I would likewise expect that readers will differ in their understandings from both Hardy and myself. This is why a continued conversation is so important to all of us.

Fortunately, the Book of Mormon does not present us with a zero-sum proposition. There is much that has been discovered concerning the book and its authors at an increasing pace over the last two centuries. And, no doubt, the pace of discovery will continue into the foreseeable future.

While our individual understanding of some details in the Book of Mormon may differ, I join Hardy in viewing it as a “gift from God,”258 one that should be studied, appreciated, and treasured.

Kevin Christensen has been a technical writer since 1984, since 2004 working in Pittsburgh, PA. He has a B.A. in English from San Jose State University. He has published articles in Dialogue, Sunstone, the FARMS Review of Books, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Insights, the Meridian Magazine, the FARMS Occasional Papers, Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, Interpreter, Square Two, FairMormon, and in collaboration with Margaret Barker, an essay in Joseph Smith Jr.: Reappraisals after Two Centuries. He lives with his wife, Shauna, in Canonsburg, PA.

1 . Margaret Barker, “Text and Context” in The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy (New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 294, margaretbarker
.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf.

2 . Grant Hardy, The Annotated Book of Mormon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2023).

3 . Kevin Christensen, “An Important Addition to the Library,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 60 (2024): 197–210, journal.interpreter
foundation.org/an-important-addition-to-the-library/.

4 . Hardy indicates he is an active Church member and offers this statement of personal faith: “I believe that God has spoken to people throughout history in different ways and different faith traditions, but the Book of Mormon is special. . . . [It] has shaped my identity, engaged me intellectually and spiritually, sustained my faith, inspired me to be a better person, and, I hope, brought me closer to Christ. I believe the Book of Mormon is a gift from God, a revealed translation of a record written by ancient American prophets.” Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, xi.

5 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, viii. Hardy provides further commentary on his approach in a recent interview, Chad Nielsen, “What is the Annotated Book of Mormon?,” From the Desk (website), 14 January 2024, fromthedesk
.org/annotated-book-of-mormon-grant-hardy/.

6 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 823.

7 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, viii.

8 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 43n29.

9 . History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844], p. 1754, The Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838
-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/126?highlight=creeds%20of%20the%20different%20denominations.

10 . Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183–84.

11 . History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844], p. 1755, The Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838
-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/127.

12 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 145n 1–8.

13 . Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), 97.

14 . Brant Gardner, email message to author, August 2003.

15 . Brent Lee Metcalfe, “Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26, no. 3 (Fall 1993): 158n19, dialoguejournal.com/articles/apologetic-and-critical-assump
tions-about-book-of-mormon-historicity/; referencing Deanne G. Matheny, “Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography,” in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 269–328; and Glenna Nielsen, “The Material Culture of the Book of Mormon,” May 1992 Sunstone Book of Mormon Lecture.

16 . Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).

17 . John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013), 82–83.

18 . See Brant Gardner, “The Social History of the Early Nephites” (presentation, FAIR Conference, Provo, UT, 2001), fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference
/august-2001/a-social-history-of-the-early-nephites.

19 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 809.

20 . Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 65.

21 . Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 126.

22 . John Clark, “Archeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 2 (2005): 42–43, scholarsarchive.byu.edu
/jbms/vol14/iss2/6/.

23 . “Heartlanders” is the name generally given to those who propose a North American Book of Mormon geography centered in the “heartland” of the present-day United States.

24 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 54n34.

25 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 805–6.

26 . See Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Draper, UT: Kofford, 2015), 50–51. Also compare Neal Rappleye, “The Nahom Convergence Reexamined: The Eastward Trail, Burial of the Dead, and the Ancient Borders of Nihm,” in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 60 (2024): 1–86, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the
-nahom-convergence-reexamined-the-eastward-trail-burial-of-the-dead
-and-the-ancient-borders-of-nihm/.

27 . Warren Aston comments in personal correspondence that the 2002 map that Hardy supplies has been superseded by better maps that more closely correspond to Nephi’s text.

28 . See Brian Stubbs, “A Few Hundred Hints of Egyptian and Northwest Semitic in Uto-Aztecan,” (lecture, FAIR Conference, 2006), fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp
-content/uploads/2011/11/2006-Brian-Stubbs.pdf; and at much greater length and detail see Stubbs, Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan (Provo, UT: Grover, 2015), archive.bookofmormoncentral.org
/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/stubbs/2020-11-02/brian_d._stubbs
_exploring_the_explanatory_power_of_semitic_and_egyptian_in_uto
-aztecan_2015.pdf.

29 . Carl Hugh Jones, “The ‘Anthon Transcript’ and Two Mesoamerican Cylinder Seals,” Newsletter and Proceedings of the S.E.H.A. no. 122, September 1970, archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf
/christensen/2019-02-08/seha_122_9-1970.pdf.

30 . John L. Sorenson and Carl L. Johannessen, “Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages to and from the Americas” SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS 133 (April 2004), sino-platonic.org/abstracts/spp133
_precolumbian.html; and Sorenson, “A Complex of Ritual and Ideology Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East” SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS 195 (December 2009), sino-platonic.org/complete/spp195_mesoamerica.pdf.

31 . Captain Kirk, “LiDar,” Book of Mormon Resources (blog), February 2, 2018, bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2018/02/lidar.html.

32 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 786. See Book of Mormon Central (website), bookofmormoncentral.org/.

33 . Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 17–18.

34 . Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 110.

35 . Notice that Hardy’s list of possible points of comparison is far from comprehensive, nor that Old World influence must be the only necessary and significant distinguishing feature for relevant Book of Mormon comparison with archeology. Rather, what the text itself offers should count. Compare Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex and Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007); and Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History, among others.

36 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 806.

37 . Compare Sorenson and Johannessen “Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages to and from the Americas.”

38 . See Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 806.

39 . A complete examination of correspondences between Mesoamerican civilizations and those in the Book of Mormon is, obviously, beyond the scope of this paper. Even so, I’ve provided some inkling of the depth of available resources in other notes within this paper..

40 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 378n30.

41 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 438n22.

42 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 804.

43 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 804.

44 . Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History, 129–50.

45 . “One exception is Brant A. Gardner’s Traditions of the Fathers, which offers refinements of Sorenson’s Mesoamerican hypothesis.” Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 836.

46 . Brant Gardner, “Defenders of the Book: Surveying the New World Evidence for Book of Mormon Historicity” (presentation, FAIR Conference, 2006), fair
latterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2006-Brant-Gardner.pdf. Also, for further details and implications, Brant Gardner, “From the East to the West: The Problem of Directions in the Book of Mormon” (presentation, FAIR Conference, South Towne Exposition Center, Sandy, UT, 2–3 August 2012), fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2012/from-the-east-to-the-west
-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon.

47 . See Larry Poulsen, “Book of Mormon Geography” (presentation, FAIR Conference, South Towne Exposition Center, Sandy, UT, 7–8 August 2008), fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf.

48 . Modern readers can look at a topographic map of the Western Hemisphere and consider candidate locations that fit that specific description.

49 . We know the basic time involved because of the details of the movements of Alma’s people from Nephi to the Waters of Mormon, and from there to Zarahemla. See John Sorenson, Mormon’s Map (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS], 2000), 56.

50 . Poulsen, “Book of Mormon Geography.”

51 . Poulsen, “Book of Mormon Geography.”

52 . Daniel Becerra et. al, eds., Book of Mormon Studies: An Introduction and Guide (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University [BYU], 2022): 114–15.

53 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 101n21.

54 . Hugh Nibley, “Lecture 18: 2 Nephi 3–8 - Lehi’s Family: Blessings and Conflict,” in Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Semester 1 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1993), archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/lecture-18-2-nephi-3%E2%80%
938-lehi%E2%80%99s-family-blessings-and-conflict. Hardy (pp. 782–84) warmly mentions Nibley’s historical importance for Book of Mormon study but does not annotate any of his notable insights.

55 . Todd Uriona, “’Life and Death, Blessing and Cursing’: A New Context for ‘Skin of Blackness’ in the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies Quarterly 63, no. 3 (2023), byustudies.byu.edu/article/life-and-death-blessing-and-cursing/.

56 . Websters Dictionary 1828, s.v. “blackness,” webstersdictionary1828.com
/Dictionary/blackness.

57 . Peter Coviello, “How the Mormons Became White: Scripture, Sex, Sovereignty,” in Americanist Approaches to The Book of Mormon, ed. Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 259.

58 . Harold Bloom, The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1992), 86.

59 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 788.

60 . See 2 Nephi 1:5.

61 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 749.

62 . Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 2:108, fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/what
-does-the-book-of-mormon-mean-by-skin-of-blackness.

63 . Jeremy Talmage, “Black, White, and Red All Over: Skin Color in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi
/viewcontent.cgi?article=1633&context=jbms. Also see Douglass Campbell, “’White’ or ‘Pure?’ Five Vignettes,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 29, no. 4 (1996), dialoguejournal.com/articles/white-of-pure-five-vignettes/.

64 . Talmage, “Black, White, and Red All Over: Skin Color in the Book of Mormon,” 67.

65 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 776.

66 . Ethan Sproat, “Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon: A Textual Exegesis,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24, no. 1 (2015), 138–64, scholars
archive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1572&context=jbms.

67 . For such a use see 2 Nephi 7:3, which quotes Isaiah 50:3 where the context for the symbolic/metaphoric use—”I clothe the heavens with blackness”—describes the consequence of a violation of covenants as an implied separation from God.

68 . Sproat, “Skins as Garments” 139–40.

69 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 315–16.

70 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 316n6–10.

71 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 315n4–9.

72 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 316n6–10, “The Nephite assumptions that dark skin was associated with sin and a divine curse, and that it should be a barrier to social interactions and intermarriage, are, from a modern perspective, offensively racist.” Notice that a page break separates the passage he comments on, “skins of the Lamanites were dark” from the precious verse referring to “skin which was girded about their loins.”

73 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 82, 775.

74 . For example, compare Jacob 3:8–11 with his own priestly responsibility in Jacob 1:17–19, particularly in light of the implications Sproat sees in Alma 3:5–6. I listed a representative sampling of clothing/garment passages in Kevin Christensen, “Table Rules: A Response to Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 37 (2020): 78–79, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/table-rules
-a-response-to-americanist-approaches-to-the-book-of-mormon/.

75 . Paul Y. Hoskisson, “Looking Beyond the Mark,” in A Witness for the Restoration: Essays in Honor of Robert J. Matthews, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Andrew C. Skinner (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2007), 149–64, rsc.byu
.edu/witness-restoration/looking-beyond-mark.

76 . Hoskisson, “Looking Beyond the Mark,” 156.

77 . See Ezekiel 40:1–5 and 2 Nephi 2:4, Jacob 7:5, 12.

78 . Margaret Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ Which God Gave Him to Show to His Servants What Must Soon Take Place (Revelation 1.1) (Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark, 2000), 162.

79 . Margaret Barker, “Where Shall Wisdom be Found,” 8, margaretbarker.com
/Papers/WhereshallWisdombefound.pdf.

80 . See William Hamblin, “Sacred Writings on Metal Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean” The FARMS Review 19, no. 1 (2007): 40, scholarsarchive.byu.edu
/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1695&context=msr.

81 . Barker, The Great Angel, 97–112.

82 . Margaret Barker, “Our Great High Priest” (lecture, St Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary, New York, 28 January 2012), 3, margaretbarker.com/Papers/Our
GreatHighPriest.pdf.

83 . Barker, The Mother of the Lord, 1:121.

84 . See Deut. 4:12 compared to Exodus 24:9–11.

85 . Also see Kevin Christensen, “Prophets and Kings in Lehi’s Jerusalem and Margaret Barker’s Temple Theology,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 4 (2013) 177–93, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/prophets-and
-kings-in-lehis-jerusalem-and-margaret-barkers-temple-theology/. Compare William Hamblin’s differing view in “Vindicating Josiah,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 4 (2013) 165–76, journal.interpreterfoundation.org
/vindicating-josiah/.

86 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 764.

87 . If being “controversial” justifies uncritical dismissal, should I take time to study Jesus and Joseph Smith, both notable controversial figures? In endorsing Barker’s Temple Themes in Christian Worship, Rowan Williams, as Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote that “This is a book full of insight and challenge; some of its conclusions will be controversial, but it is a wonderfully learned and creative essay, drawing together much neglected or misunderstood material in a compelling new synthesis.” (quote on the book’s back cover). Williams then, does not see the existence of controversy itself as cause for dismissal. He awarded her the Lambeth Doctor of Divinity to recognize the originality and importance of her work. He is not likely to have recognized her work in the same way, had she just been just uncritically repeating whatever consensus happened to dominate discussion at the University level, regardless of how uncontroversial such an approach would be.

88 . See Margaret Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” BYU Studies 44, no. 4 (2005): 69–82, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol44/iss4
/9/; Kevin Christensen, “Twenty Years after Paradigms Regained, Part 1” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 54 (2022): 34–38, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/twenty-years-after-paradigms-regained
-part-1-the-ongoing-plain-and-precious-significance-of-margaret-barkers
-scholarship-for-latter-day-saint-studies/.

89 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 763–64.

90 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 868–69.

91 . For references, see Christensen, “Prophets and Kings in Lehi’s Jerusalem.” I have never seen any conventional Biblical scholar who has addressed Josiah’s reform, including Friedman and Doorly and Sweeney, even mention these passages. It is as though most scholars are blind to their existence and implications.

92 . Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion.”

93 . Margaret Barker, “What King Josiah Reformed,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004), scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/39/.

94 . Neal Rappleye, “The Deuteronomist Reforms and Lehi’s Family Dynamics: A Social Context for the Rebellions of Laman and Lemuel,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 16 (2015): 97, journal.interpreterfoundation.org
/the-deuteronomist-reforms-and-lehis-family-dynamics-a-social-context
-for-the-rebellions-of-laman-and-lemuel/.

95 . Margaret Barker, The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1987), 201.

96 . Barker, The Older Testament, 205.

97 . Barker, The Older Testament, 217.

98 . See Rappleye, “The Deuteronomist Reforms and Lehi’s Family Dynamics”; and Val Larsen, “Josiah to Zoram to Sherem to Jarom and the Big Little Book of Omni,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 44 (2021): 217–64, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/josiah-to-zoram-to-sherem
-to-jarom-and-the-big-little-book-of-omni/.

99 . Barker, ”Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion.”

100 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 832.

101 . See Christensen, “Twenty Years after Paradigms Regained, Part 1.”

102 . Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 24.

103 . See William Hamblin, (presentation, Temple of Mount Zion Conference, 22 September 2012), interpreterfoundation.org/conference-talks-jacobs-sermon
-2-nephi-6-10-and-the-day-of-atonement/.

104 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 16n20.

105 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 15n19.

106 . Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 138. Compare Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1987), 4:219. “Wherever we look in the Ancient World the past has been controlled, but nowhere more rigorously than in the history of the Christian church. The methods of control, wherever we find them, fall under three general heads, which might be described as (a) the invention, (b) the destruction, and (c) the alteration of documents.”

107 . See Richard Elliot Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1987).

108 . See Barker, The Great High Priest, 308.

109 . See Barker, “Text and Context”; John Gee “The Corruption of Scripture in in Early Christianity in Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Apostasy, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2005).

110 . Barker, The Great High Priest, 309.

111 . Barker, Risen Lord, 58n2.

112 . Matt Roper, “Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011 3, no. 1 (1991): 173–74, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol3/iss1/18/. Compare Barker’s discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Deuteronomy 32:8–9, which, in contrast to the later Masoretic Hebrew, refers to J Yahweh as a Son of God Most High. See Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God, 5–6.

113 . Florentino Garda Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 2nd ed., trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson (Leiden, NL: Brill, 1994), 394.

114 . John Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book: Insights from a Book of Mormon Scholar (Bountiful, UT: Horizon, 2003), 300.

115 . Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book, 303.

116 . Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book, 307.

117 . Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book, 99–100.

118 . See John L. Sorenson, “The Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican Record,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997), 430–32, scripturecentral.org
/archive/books/book-chapter/book-mormon-mesoamerican-record.

119 . Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 167.

120 . See in depth in 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): 37–84, journal.interpreterfoundation
.org/first-visions-and-last-sermons-affirming-divine-sociality-rejecting-the
-greater-apostasy/.

121 . Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers, The Power of Myth (Doubleday, New York, 1988) 31.

122 . In my own life, I at times have functioned as both a father and as a son and grandfather, and I also have a father and a son, and two grandfathers, and no one has felt the need to describe that as modalism in order to not be confused about my having a father and being a father, having a son, and being a son. The yearning for absolutes does not creep into our view of mortal relationships and roles to the extent that it does in theology. Rather, we look to the relative contexts and roles and relationships where each title is appropriate.

123 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 265n 1–9. Compare, Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, “The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths,” FARMS Review of Books 13, no. 2 (2001): 109–69, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol13/iss2/13/. Also, Barry Bickmore, “’Show Them unto No Man’ Part 1. Esoteric Teachings and the Problem of Early Latter-day Saint Doctrinal History,” BYU Studies Quarterly 62, no. 1 (2023): 29–60, byustudies.byu.edu/article/show-them-unto-no-man/; and Barry Bickmore, “’Show Them unto No Man’ Part 2. The Book of Moses and the Early Jewish Christian Esoteric Tradition,” BYU Studies Quarterly 62, no. 2 (2023): 117–33, byustudies.byu.edu/article/show-them-unto-no-man-2/.

124 . Barker, The Great Angel, 10.

125 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 830, “The most comprehensive apologetic commentary is Brant A. Gardner’s Second Witness . . . which assumes a Mesoamerican setting for the Nephites.”

126 . Gardner, Second Witness, 1:220–21.

127 . See Doctrine and Covenants 90:14–15 and 88:78–80 urging us to expand our minds and capacity through study, rather than settle for common place thoughts. The presence of ongoing revelation does not cancel the need for personal study that improves comprehension and capacity for understanding and teaching.

128 . See William Eggington, “Oral and Literate Cultures in the Book of Mormon” (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/%E2%
80%9Cour-weakness-writing%E2%80%9D-oral-and-literate-culture-book
-mormon.

129 . Should not this definition apply to Nephi’s initial vision in 1 Nephi 12. And what about that same chapter’s language, “people of my seed?”

130 . Matthew Roper and John Gee, “’I Did Liken All Scriptures Unto Us’: Early Nephite Understandings of Isaiah Implications for ‘Others in the Land’ in The Fulness of the Gospel: Foundational Teachings from the Book of Mormon, ed. Camille Fronk Olson, et. al (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2003), 56, archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/gee
/2015-12-15/05_gee_and_roper_i_did_liken_2003.pdf.

131 . Compare Doctrine and Covenants 90:15 and Doctrine and Covenants 78:80, which encourages us to seek further knowledge in the same ways.

132 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 229n2.

133 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 602.

134 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 86n 8–9.

135 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 809.

136 . An essential essay for informed discussion is Matthew Roper, “Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011 15, no. 2 (2003): scholars
archive.byu.edu/msr/vol15/iss2/8.

137 . Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert: The World of the Jaredites: There Were Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1988), 5:240–41.

138 . Nibley, Lehi in the Desert: The World of the Jaredites: There Were Jaredites, 242–46.

139 . Incidentally, I grew up in regular sight of clear evidence of the waters of ancient Lake Bonneville as having receded from the Salt Lake Valley, exposing it to us for use as a promised land for the Latter-day Saint exodus from other promised lands in Missouri and Illinois. That evidence of those waters having receded from a notable Latter-day Saint promised land says nothing about either the Noah story or the presence of the Utes and Piutes, Shoshone, Goshutes, Navaho, and other indigenous peoples in “the land” before the Latter-day Saints arrived in 1847.

140 . See Roper, “Nephi’s Neighbors.” Also compare Brant Gardner, “The Gadianton Robbers in Mormon’s Theological History: Their Structural Role and Plausible Identification” (presentation, FAIR Conference, Utah Valley State College, Orem, UT, 2002), fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2002
/the-gadianton-robbers-in-mormons-theological-history-their-structural
-role-and-plausible-identification.

141 . Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex, 82–83.

142 . See Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 87n12.

143 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 75n23.

144 . Sorenson, Mormon’s Map, 56.

145 . Kevin Christensen, “Paradigms Crossed,” FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 7, no. 2 (1995), 165–66, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol7
/iss2/9. Also see the more detailed investigation by Roper, “Nephi’s Neighbors.”

146 . See Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 118.

147 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 87n12.

148 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 771. Hardy footnotes John W. Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999). On this key point, Hardy offers an ideological dismissal of the temple in the Book of Mormon, rather than critical engagement. The distinguishing difference of those modes of discussion is that Hardy does not describe any of Welch’s arguments and evidence, let alone those of several other Latter-day Saint scholars who have joined Welch in exploring the notion of the temple in the Book of Mormon. Also see Jeffery Bradshaw, “What Did Joseph Smith Know About Modern Temple Ordinances by 1836?,” in The Temple: Ancient and Restored, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and Donald Parry (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2016), interpreterfoundation.org/reprint-what
-did-joseph-smith-know-about-modern-temple-ordinances-by-1836/; and Don Bradley, “Piercing the Veil: Temple Worship in the Lost 116 Pages” (presentation, FAIR Conference, South Towne Exposition Center, Sandy, UT, 2–3 August 2012), fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2012
/piercing-the-veil-temple-worship-in-the-lost-116-pages.

149 . See 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; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1994), 297–387.

150 . Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 62–65.

151 . Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 96.

152 . See Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple, which offered an update of the original 1990 case. At the invitation of Margaret Barker, Welch also produced The Sermon on the Mount in Light of the Temple (New York: Ashgate, 2009). In 2012, Welch presents additional observations in “The Temple, the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel of Matthew” (presentation, Academy of Temple Studies, Logan, UT, 29 October 2012), templestudies.org/wp-content
/uploads/2013/02/MormonismAndTheTemple.pdf.

153 . For example, see LeGrand L. Baker and Stephen D. Ricks, Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the LORD?: The Psalms in Israel’s Temple Worship and in The Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2009). LeGrand L. Baker, The Book of Mormon as an Ancient Israelite Temple (Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2012). D. John Butler, Plain and Precious Things: The Temple Religion of The Book of Mormon’s Visionary Men (self-pub., 2012) and D. John Butler, The Goodness and the Mysteries: On the Path of the Book of Mormon’s Visionary Men (self-pub., 2012).

154 . Mircea Eliade, The Myth of Eternal Return or, Cosmos and History, trans. Willard R. Trask (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954), 88.

155 . See Kevin Christensen, “Dan Vogel, Origins and the Book of Mormon,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 2, no. 1 (1990), 248–56, scholars
archive.byu.edu/msr/vol2/iss1/28/.

156 . Notice that the glory is not mentioned here in the first appearance, despite what is depicted in the Arnold Friberg painting.

157 . For example, consider, Jeff Bradshaw, “The Covenant Path in the Book of Mormon” (devotional, Collections Zone of the Salt Lake City Headquarters Mission, Salt Lake City, 1 February 2024), interpreterfoundation
.org/blog-the-covenant-path-in-2-nephi-3119-20/. See also Scripture Central Staff, “How Does the Doctrine of Christ Relate to the Ancient Temple?,” KnoWhy 552, 25 February 2024, scripturecentral.org/knowhy/how-does
-the-doctrine-of-christ-relate-to-the-ancient-temple.

158 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 559.

159 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 596n25–34.

160 . In Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple, Welch devotes a chapter to “The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon the Mount: The Differences,” 125–50.

161 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 555.

162 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 590nChapters 12–14.

163 . Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 157–58.

164 . See Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, “Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 8 (2014): 157–85, journal.interpreterfoundation.org
/book-of-mormon-minimalists-and-the-nhm-inscriptions-a-response-to
-dan-vogel/; and Neal Rappleye, “An Ishmael Buried Near Nahom,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021): 33–48, journal
.interpreterfoundation.org/an-ishmael-buried-near-nahom/.

165 . See William R. Farmer, Jesus and the Gospel: Tradition, Scripture, and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 3–7.

166 . Robert L. Millet, “The Historical Jesus: A Latter-day Saint View” in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2001), rsc.byu.edu/historicity-latter-day-saint-scriptures
/historical-jesus-latter-day-saint-perspective.

167 . John Gee, “The Implications of Some Standard Assumptions of New Testament Scholars: Responding to a Modern Anti-Christ,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 46 (2021): 15–32, journal.interpreter
foundation.org/the-implications-of-some-standard-assumptions-of-new
-testament-scholars-responding-to-a-modern-anti-christ/.

168 . Gee, “The Implications of Some Standard Assumptions of New Testament Scholars,” 18.

169 . Gee, “The Implications of Some Standard Assumptions of New Testament Scholars,” 29.

170 . Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, 215.

171 . Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, 215.

172 . John W. Welch, “The Temple, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Gospel of Matthew,” in Mormonism and the Temple: Examining an Ancient Religious Tradition, ed. Gary N. Anderson (Logan, UT: Academy for Temple Studies, 2013), 91, templestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/MormonismAnd
TheTemple.pdf.

173 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 832.

174 . Richard L. Anderson, “Imitation Gospels and Christ’s Book of Mormon Ministry” in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints, ed. C. Wilfred Griggs (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1986), 53–107, rsc.byu
.edu/apocryphal-writings-latter-day-saints/imitation-gospels-christs-book
-mormon-ministry.

175 . Anderson, “Imitation Gospels and Christ’s Book of Mormon Ministry,” 77.

176 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 590.

177 . Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple, 219.

178 . Robert M. Price, “Joseph Smith: Inspired Author of the Book of Mormon” in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 347.

179 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 811.

180 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 811–12.

181 . Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1989), 56.

182 . Kevin Christensen “Notice and Value” in Remembrance and Return: Papers in Honor of Louis Midgely, ed. Ted Vaggalis and Daniel C. Peterson (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2019), 426–35.

183 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 812.

184 . Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History, 129–50, which discusses the Mesoamerican concept of directions at length and in telling detail.

185 . Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion.”

186 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 809–28.

187 . Hardy mentions the disputed “long ending of Mark,” which raises a legitimate question (Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 671n21). He does not mention Jeff Lindsay’s recent essays on the topic. “Following the account of the ministry of Christ among the Nephites as recorded in the Book of Mormon, Christ gave a charge to His New World disciples (Mormon 9:22–25). These words are very similar to the commission of Christ to His apostles at the end of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9–20). According to the consensus of modern Bible scholars, Christ did not speak those words; they are a later addition. If so, this is a problem for the Book of Mormon. Fortunately, recent modern scholarship offers compelling reasons for overturning the old consensus against the longer ending of Mark.” Jeff Lindsay, “The Book of Mormon Versus the Consensus of Scholars: Surprises from the Disputed Longer Ending of Mark, Part 1,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25 (2017): 283–321, journal
.interpreterfoundation.org/the-book-of-mormon-versus-the-consensus-of
-scholars-surprises-from-the-disputed-longer-ending-of-mark-part-1/ and Lindsay, “The Book of Mormon Versus the Consensus of Scholars: Surprises from the Disputed Longer Ending of Mark, Part 2,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25 (2017): 323–65, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the
-book-of-mormon-versus-the-consensus-of-scholars-surprises-from-the
-disputed-longer-ending-of-mark-part-2/.

188 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 832.

189 . Hugh Nibley, “A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price: Conclusion: Taking Stock,” Improvement Era 73, no. 5 (May 1970): 84, archive.bookofmormon
central.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/nibley/2019-08-21/hugh_
nibley_ie_73.05_a_new_look_at_the_pearl_of_great_price_may_1970.pdf.

190 . See discussion in Kevin Christensen, “Playing to an Audience: A Review of Revelatory Events,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 65–114, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/playing-to-an-audience-a-review-of
-revelatory-events/.

191 . Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1989), 8:175.

192 . Nicholas J. Frederick, “Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon: A Proposed Methodology,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24, no. 1 (2015), scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/view
content.cgi?article=1567&context=jbms.

193 . “The task of identifying New Testament parallels within the Book of Mormon has largely been taken up by those hostile to the Book of Mormon, such as Jerald and Sandra Tanner.” Frederick, “Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon,” 4n6.

194 . See Matthew Roper, “Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 3, no. 1 (1990): 171–81, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&
context=msr; John A. Tvedtnes, “Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism of the Book ‘Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon,’” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6, no. 2 (1994): 204–49, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent
.cgi?article=1227&context=msr. See, also, John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, “’Joseph Smith’s Use of the Apocrypha’: Shadow or Reality?,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 8, no. 2 (1996): 326–72, scholarsarchive.byu
.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1306&context=msr.

195 . Nicholas J. Frederick, “The Bible and the Book of Mormon: A Review of Literature,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Vol. 28, no. 1, (2019): 228, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol28/iss1/9.

196 . Roper, “Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon,” 174.

197 . Roper, 175.

198 . A search turns up 33 matches for anachronism, anachronistic, anachronisms. This is not overwhelming in a 900-page book, but it remains conspicuous.

199 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 749.

200 . Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Esher and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (New York: Vintage Books, 1980), 19.

201 . Roper, “Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon,” 175–76.

202 . Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1964), 223–28.

203 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 592n15.

204 . Websters Dictionary 1828, s.v. “Translate,” webstersdictionary1828.com
/Dictionary/Translate.

205 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 22n9.

206 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 101n14.

207 . See Captain Kirk, “Olmec Iron,” Book of Mormon Resources (blog), March 18, 2019, bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2019/03/olmec-iron.html.

208 . Stargazer, January 26, 2024, reply to Zosimus, mormondialogue.org/topic
/75695-this-is-where-the-book-of-mormon-happened-according-to
-ai/?do=findComment&comment=1210174535. Quote edited slightly for clarity.

209 . N.R. Hanson, cited in Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), 95.

210 . Betty Edwards, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, rev. ed. (Los Angeles: Tarcher, 1989), 134.

211 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 804–5.

212 . John M. Butler, “Addressing Question Surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research,” in The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, ed. Daniel C. Peterson (Provo: UT: Maxwell Institute, 2008), 75, scholarsarchive.byu.edu
/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1658&context=msr.

213 . Brian Stubbs, Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan (Provo, UT: Grover, 2015), fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content
/uploads/2011/11/2006-Brian-Stubbs.pdf.

214 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 805–6.

215 . See the chapter “Old World Languages in the New World” in Re-Exploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 29–31.

216 . “Deutero-Isaiah,” Mormonr (website), mormonr.org/qnas/y7pqob/deutero
_isaiah. The Mormonr website includes this useful summary of range of responses, as do more detailed chapters in Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch, eds., Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), particularly John W. Welch, “Authorship of the Book of Isaiah in Light of the Book of Mormon,” 423–37; and John S. Thompson and Eric Smith, “Isaiah and the Latter-day Saints: A Bibliographic Survey,” 445–509, archive.bookofmormon
central.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/parry/2016-02-10/parry_and
_welch_isaiah_in_the_book_of_mormon_1998.pdf

217 . Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah: The Book of Mormon in the Modern World (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967), 137–52.

218 . Parry & Welch, Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.

219 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 67nChapters 20–21.

220 . Barker, The Older Testament, 148.

221 . Barker, The Older Testament, 157n36.

222 . John 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, 143.

223 . OneWatt, December 2023, comment on Instrument_801, “Best Explanation for Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” reddit.com/r/latterday
saints/comments/18j541c/comment/kditb5a/?utm_source=share&utm
_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share
_button.

224 . Barker, The Great Lady: Restoring her Story, 86.

225 . Scripture Central Staff, “Why Does Isaiah Prophesy of the Daughter of Zion?,” KnoWhy 550, 12 February 2024, scripturecentral.org/knowhy/why
-does-isaiah-prophesy-of-the-daughter-of-zion.

226 . Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 17–18.

227 . Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 146.

228 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 795.

229 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 802.

230 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 835.

231 . Richard Dilworth Rust, Feasting on the Word: The Literary Testimony of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997).

232 . Hugh W. Pinnock, Finding Biblical Hebrew and Other Ancient Literary Forms in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999).

233 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 835.

234 . Alan Goff, “Scratching the Surface of Book of Mormon Narratives,” FARMS Review of Books 12, no. 2 (2000): 51–82, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol12
/iss2/8/.

235 . See Goff’s extensive works at Book of Mormon Central, archive.bookof
mormoncentral.org/author/Goff%2C%20Alan; BYU Scholars Archive, scholars
archive.byu.edu/do/search/?q=author_lname%3A%22Goff%22%20author
_fname%3A%22Alan%22&start=0&context=5485626; and Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, journal.interpreterfound
ation.org/author/alang/.

236 . See Bowen’s extensive works at Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/author/matthewb/.

237 . Ben McGuire, “Nephi and Goliath: A Case Study of Literary Allusion in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 18, no. 1 (2009): scholars
archive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1535&context=jbms.

238 . Bruce Jorgenson’s important “The Dark Way to the Tree: Typological Unity in the Book of Mormon,” in Literature of Belief, ed. Neal E. Lambert (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1981), 217–32, rsc.byu.edu/literature-belief
/dark-way-tree.

239 . Eugene England, “A Second Witness for the Logos: The Book of Mormon and Contemporary Literary Criticism,” in By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh Nibley, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1990), 91–125, scholarsarchive
.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1018%26context%3Dmi%26filename%3D3%26type%3Dadditional&ved=2ahUKEwiinreQ-5qHAxUgOTQIHYX5CHoQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw39LAL1fBVHRxwJUIorbBPl.

240 . Tod R. Harris, “Journey of the Hero: Archetypes of Earthly Adventure in the Spiritual Passage in 1 Nephi,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 6, no. 2 (1997): 26–42, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol6/iss2/4/.

241 . Robert A. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35, no. 3 (Fall 2002): 83–112, dialoguejournal.com/articles/joseph-smith-the-book-of-mormon-and
-the-american-renaissance/; Robert A. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance: An Update,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 1–16, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph
-smith-the-book-of-mormon-and-the-american-renaissance-an-update/.

242 . John Gee, “The Wrong Kind of Book” in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002), 307–29.

243 . England, “A Second Witness for the Logos,” and Jana Riess, “There Came a Man: Sherem, Scapegoating, and the Inversion of Prophetic Tradition” in Christ and Antichrist: Reading Jacob 7, ed. Adam S. Miller and Joseph M. Spencer (Provo, UT: Maxwell Institute, 2017), scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent
.cgi%3Ffilename%3D3%26article%3D1022%26context%3Dmi%26type%3Dadditional&ved=2ahUKEwjGtanW_ZqHAxX_ETQIHQzBA4cQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1RKlUbLuETTUEhyBDcyvdN.

244 . Lisa Bolin Hawkins and Gordon Thomasson, “I Only Am Escaped Alone to Tell Thee: Survivor Witnesses in the Book of Mormon” (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1984), archive.dev-bookofmormoncentral.org/content/i-only-am-escaped
-alone-tell-thee-survivor-witnesses-book-mormon.

245 . William Eggington, “’Our Weakness in Writing’: Oral and Literate Culture in the Book of Mormon” (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), archive.bookofmormon
central.org/content/%E2%80%9Cour-weakness-writing%E2%80%9D-oral
-and-literate-culture-book-mormon.

246 . Brant Gardner, “Literacy and Orality in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 9 (2014): 29–85, journal.interpreterfoundation
.org/literacy-and-orality-in-the-book-of-mormon/.

247 . See Alyson Skabelund Von Feldt, “’His Secret is with the Righteous’: Instructional Wisdom in the Book of Mormon” (FARMS Occasional Papers #5, 2007): 51–52, web.archive.org/web/20130701164749/http://maxwellinstitute
.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=9&chapterID=74.

248 . Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert; The World of the Jaredites; There Were Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1988), 5:293–423.

249 . Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1988), 8:407–34.

250 . John L. Sorenson, “The Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican Codex,” Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology 139 (December 1976): 1–9. archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files
/archive-files/pdf/warren/2019-04-26/seha_139_12-1976.pdf.

251 . Joseph M. Spencer, An Other Testament: On Typology 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: Maxwell Institute, 2016).

252 . Gary Novak and Louis Midgley, “Remembrance and the Past,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011 19, no. 2 (2007): scholarsarchive
.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1718&context=msr.

253 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 823.

254 . For references, see Kevin Christensen, “A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience,” oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/A-Model-of-Mormon
-Spiritual-Experience.pdf.

255 . Kevin Christensen, “Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets,” fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/prophettestsfv5.pdf.

256 . For references, see Kevin Christensen, “Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets: Biblical Approach to Seeing Truth,” fairlatterdaysaints
.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets
/Seeing_the_truth.

257 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 823.

258 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, xi.

Did Korihor Usurp the Words of Zeniff?

Elliott Jolley

Abstract: The Book of Mormon contains several instances where a speaker or author in the Book of Mormon quotes a previous one. This article presents one such example: It appears that Korihor usurped the words of Zeniff, quoting some of them for his own purposes. The context of this reference to Zeniff’s words lies in Korihor’s claims that the Nephites were in bondage to the priests, just as the Lamanites wanted to bring Zeniff’s people into bondage. The connections between these two passages cross multiple generations and narrative events internally, and multiple pages of translated, dictated manuscript by Joseph Smith. It provides yet another example of the authenticity and complexity of the Book of Mormon, revealing the subtle rhetorical devices of the Book of Mormon, and further revealing the devices of an anti-Christ.

In the land of Zarahemla around 200 years before Christ, the Book of Mormon records that a military leader named Zeniff led a group of Nephites back to the land of Nephi, from which they had previously fled (Omni 1:27–30; Mosiah 9–10). However, this land was now ruled by the Lamanites, and after allowing Zeniff and his people to inhabit the land of Nephi, King Laman desired to bring them into bondage, which was his secret goal from the beginning (Mosiah 9:11–12). Zeniff, now a king himself, rallied his people to defend themselves “in the strength of the Lord” (Mosiah 9:17–18; 10:10–11).1 Before his death, he recorded a brief history of his reign and left his son, King Noah, to reign, rather disastrously, in his stead. Approximately eighty years after Zeniff left Zarahemla, and following much tribulation, the Lord enabled his people to return (Mosiah 25:16).

After their return, life continued in Zarahemla for the next forty-six years. With a few notable exceptions, “the establishment of the church became general throughout the land, in all the region round about, among all the people of the Nephites” (Alma 16:15). Many Lamanites were converted and brought under the protection of the Nephites, which strengthened the Church greatly (Alma 27:26–30). But those years were also marked by vigorous defensive wars to keep the Lamanites out of their land. Following one such war, the believers “were strict in observing the ordinances of God according to the law of Moses” (Alma 30:3), and the people lived in peace for two years. Then, an anti-Christ named Korihor came among the Nephites in the latter end of the seventeenth year of the reign of the judges (around seventy-four years before Christ). He attempted to counter the prevailing beliefs by preaching that there would be no Christ.

While it is appropriate that much has been written about the teachings of Korihor and how they are echoed in our day, this article will focus on a different aspect of Korihor’s preaching: the accusation that the people in the land of Zarahemla were in bondage, both to a belief in Christ and to the leaders of the Church. “O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? . . . Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say: These are in bondage” (Alma 30:13, 24). This theme of bondage is what connects Korihor to Zeniff. He even repeats a passage from Zeniff’s record. He was making a rhetorical appeal to the Nephite history of bondage to make his message more persuasive.

Zeniff’s Description of the Lamanites

Zeniff realized that the Lamanites had only allowed them to live in the land of Nephi so that they could bring them into bondage. He explains the motive of the King of the Lamanites and provides a description of his people in stark but clear terms:

Now it was the cunning and the craftiness of king Laman to bring my people into bondage that he yielded up the land that we might possess it. . . . Now they were a lazy and an idolatrous people. Therefore they were desirous to bring us into bondage that they might glut themselves with the labors of our hands, yea, that they might feast themselves upon the flocks of our fields. (Mosiah 9:10, 12)

After years of resistance to Lamanite attacks, Zeniff’s people were brought into bondage, but in two separate groups: the people of Limhi (Zeniff’s grandson), and the people of Alma1. Eventually both groups were delivered by the Lord and brought back to the land of Zarahemla.

When they were in bondage, the Lamanites required a tribute of half of all the possessions of the people of Limhi and absolute servitude from the people of Alma1. Both groups also shared a common, earlier type of bondage under Zeniff’s son, Noah, who taxed his people one fifth of their possessions. Alma1 taught his people that they had “been oppressed by king Noah and have been in bondage to him and his priests and have been brought into iniquity by them, therefore ye were bound with the bands of iniquity” (Mosiah 23:12). Noah and his priests were “supported in their laziness and in their idolatry . . . by the taxes which king Noah had put upon his people” (Mosiah 11:6). Thus, Zeniff’s son led his people to become exactly what Zeniff had described the Lamanites to be, “a lazy and an idolatrous people” (Mosiah 9:12).

Nephite Scriptures

Zeniff’s personal account is short—comprising only two of our current chapters, Mosiah 10 and 11—unabridged and spoken in the first-person (Mormon’s abridgement shifts to third person at the beginning of the reign of King Noah). It was written on plates that Limhi brought with him to Zarahemla and gave to King Mosiah (Mosiah 8:5), who “read and caused to be read” Zeniff’s words to his people (Mosiah 25:5). Mosiah also read the records of Alma1. This was a memorable event for the people as they “beheld those who had been delivered out of bondage” in front of them (Mosiah 25:8). Greatly expanding their scriptural canon, Limhi also brought the twenty-four Jaredite plates to Mosiah, which he “translated and caused to be written . . . because of the great anxiety of his people, for they were desirous beyond measure to know” (Mosiah 28:11–12). At the end of his reign, Mosiah conferred all the records, including Zeniff’s record, “upon Alma, which was the son of Alma—yea, all the records and also the interpreters” (Mosiah 28:20).

Several passages in the Book of Mormon imply a wide distribution of these scriptures—and that the Nephites studied and knew them. From generation to generation only one person at a time had charge of the records, but at the same time, “all those engravings . . . were written and sent forth among the children of men throughout all the land” (Alma 63:12–13; Mosiah 28:20). Some places where these writings are mentioned include:

1. Abinadi read the commandments to the priests of King Noah from a likely transcription of the plates of brass (Mosiah 13:11).

2. Alma2 and Amulek at Ammonihah. Alma2 cited several scriptures while teaching the people, including the Lord’s words to Lehi (Alma 9:13), scenes from the Garden of Eden (Alma 12:20–23; 31–35), and the story of Melchizedek (Alma 13:14–20), concluding, “the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them, it shall be to your own destruction” (Alma 13:20).

3. Many of the people of Ammonihah “began to repent and to search the scriptures,” and were subsequently “cast into the fire. And they also brought forth their records, which contained the holy scriptures, and cast them into the fire also, that they might be burned and destroyed by fire” (Alma 14:1, 8).

4. Ammon and Aaron read and used personal written copies of the scriptures in their missionary efforts (Alma 18:36–38; 22:11–13).

5. Alma2 asked Korihor if he would deny “the testimony of . . . all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee” (Alma 30:44).

6. While teaching the Zoramites, Alma2 said, “ye had ought to search the scriptures; for if ye suppose that they have taught you this, ye do not understand them. Do ye remember to have read what Zenos the prophet of old hath said . . . ?” (Alma 33:2–3).

7. Alma2 taught Helaman the importance of the plates of brass: “they have enlarged the memory of this people, yea, and convinced many of the error of their ways. . . . Were it not for these things that these records do contain, which are on these plates, Ammon and his brethren could not have convinced so many thousands of the Lamanites of the incorrect tradition of their fathers. Yea, these records and their words brought them unto repentance; that is, they brought them to the knowledge of the Lord their God and to rejoice in Jesus Christ their Redeemer.” Alma2 expected the scriptures to bring thousands more Lamanites and thousands of Nephites to repentance, implying widespread dissemination (Alma 37:8–10).

8. Alma2 charged Helaman to continue to preserve the twenty-four Jaredite plates, “that they may be made manifest unto this people” (Alma 37:21).

These are just a few examples out of many in the Book of Mormon, chosen because they are around the time of Korihor. Taken together they demonstrate widespread copying and dissemination of the records and scriptures in a form that was portable (and sometimes flammable). The original records that Mormon used to narrate the story of bondage in our current book of Mosiah—records of Zeniff, Noah, Limhi, and Alma1—were available to the Nephites, including Korihor.

The Nephites were also in the practice of quoting scripture in order to bolster their message. In order for such a practice to be impactful, a knowledge of the scriptures is required both by those quoting and by those listening. Abinadi’s message is a good example of this. The priests of Noah quoted Isaiah 52:7–10 in their accusation, and in reply, Abinadi read the ten commandments and all of Isaiah 53. Note that the priests and Abinadi used, and were well-versed in, written copies of the plates of brass; the original set was in Zarahemla with King Mosiah and King Benjamin.

Some examples of quoting scripture to strengthen a message include Limhi referring to the exodus and quoting scripture (Mosiah 7:19, 29–32), Alma2 quoting Isaiah (Alma 7:11), Antionah and Alma2 quoting the plates of brass to each other (Alma 12:20–23), Alma2 teaching about Melchizedek (Alma 13:14–20), Alma2 quoting Zenos and Zenoch (Alma 33:2–16), and Captain Moroni quoting the biblical Jacob (Alma 46:24–27). Note that these are all examples of quoting from the plates of brass, but quoting original Nephite scriptures was also common.

Indeed, the two most striking examples of internal quotation in the Book of Mormon are quotations from previous Nephite prophets: Alma2 quoting Lehi, and Samuel the Lamanite quoting King Benjamin.2 Korihor quoting Zeniff is yet another example of this type of quotation.

Korihor’s Usurping the Words of Zeniff

Even though Zeniff lived around nine to twelve decades earlier than Korihor, the history of Nephite bondage, particularly their deliverance, was more recent. About forty-six years previous to Korihor, Mosiah had welcomed back the people of Limhi and Alma1 to the land of Zarahemla, ending their bondage (Mosiah 6:4; 7:1; 29:46; Alma 30:6). It is safe to assume that at the time of Korihor, many of the survivors were still alive, and their children would have been aware of what their parents and grandparents endured. Alma2 may even have been one of the children persecuted by Amulon’s children in Mosiah 24:8. Whether that speculation is correct or not, Alma2 clearly implies that he himself was a survivor of Lamanite bondage: “the Lord did deliver them out of bondage by the power of his word. And we were brought into this land” (Alma 5:5). Alma2’s common preaching to “remember the captivity of your fathers” meant that this history of bondage and the Lord’s deliverance was not forgotten among the people (Alma 5:5–6; 29:11–12; 36:2).

Korihor appears to have repurposed this theme of bondage. Alluding to the history of Limhi and Alma1’s people, he claimed that belief in Jesus Christ was akin to being bound down and yoked with foolish things, and also that the Nephite priests were keeping the people in ignorance, binding them to foolish ordinances and performances (Alma 30:13, 23). In the land of Gideon, to the high priest Giddonah, Korihor repeated Zeniff:

And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges. Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, which do yoke them according to their desires. (Alma 30:27–28)

In all his recorded words in the Book of Mormon, Korihor used the concept of bondage/binding four times, and yoke two times. Significantly, he also used the word glut, “that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands.” This specific phrase is a direct reference to Zeniff’s writings (see table 1).

Table 1. Similarities between writings of Zeniff and Korihor.

Zeniff (Mosiah 9:12)

Korihor (Alma 30:27)

they were desirous

according to your own desires; and ye keep them down,

to bring us into bondage

even as it were in bondage,

that they might glut themselves with the labors of our hands

that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands

The word glut has meanings of “to feed to repletion; to indulge (appetite) to the utmost” and “to swallow, or to swallow greedily; to gorge.”3 Zeniff wrote that the Lamanites wanted to “glut themselves with the labors of our hands, yea, that they might feast themselves upon the flocks of our fields” (Mosiah 9:12). Though Korihor didn’t quote Zeniff regarding the flocks of our fields, in Korihor’s claim that the Nephites “durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests” (Alma 30:28), the words their own may refer to the best of their flocks, required under the Law of Moses, which the Nephites were “strict in observing” (Alma 30:3).4

Korihor accused Alma2 and the priests and teachers of “leading away the people after the silly traditions of their fathers for the sake of glutting in the labors of the people” (Alma 30:31). The Nephite monetary system provided Alma2 with evidence to prove that he and his fellow priests were not laboring in the church out of gluttony or greed: “notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor, neither hath any of my brethren” (Alma 30:33). It was actually King Noah and his priests who had done what Korihor accused Alma2 and the Nephite priests of doing: glutting themselves on the labors of their people. Through taxation, Noah and his priests had extracted great wealth from the people.

Yea, and thus were they supported in their laziness and in their idolatry and in their whoredoms. . . . Thus did the people labor exceedingly to support iniquity. . . . king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings, and he ornamented them with . . . all manner of precious things, of gold. . . . And he also built him a spacious palace and a throne . . . and he spent his time in riotous living with his wives and his concubines. (Mosiah 11:6, 8–9, 14)

This gross wickedness was decried by an expelled priest of Noah, Alma1. When later organizing the believers, he taught that the priests “should labor with their own hands for their support” (Mosiah 18:24).5 His son Alma2 lived by the same precept: “I have labored even from the commencement of the reign of the judges until now with mine own hands for my support” (Alma 30:32).

Additional Important Connections and Contrasts

Korihor’s teachings demonstrate a difference in approaches to using Nephite history to promote a message. The Book of Mormon uses the story of the Nephites’ bondage and subsequent deliverance to strengthen faith and trust in God. But Korihor used that same history to entice disbelief in God. Originally, Korihor’s teachings came from the devil, who appeared to Korihor “in the form of an angel” and taught him what to say (Alma 30:53).6 In contrast, Alma2’s teachings came from an angel who used Nephite bondage to encourage belief in God. He taught him to “remember the captivity of thy fathers in the land of Helam and in the land of Nephi, and remember how great things [God] hath done for them. For they were in bondage and he hath delivered them” (Mosiah 27:16). That message, to “remember the captivity of our fathers,” was something Alma2 faithfully taught his people for years before Korihor’s disruptions (Alma 5:5–6; 36:2, 29) and, indeed, for the rest of his life. Thus, with the history of Nephite bondage, Alma2 was inspired by an angel to teach faith, and Korihor was inspired by the devil, in the form of an angel, to teach doubt.

Korihor further claimed that the Nephites were taught “that they may not lift up their heads” (Alma 30:23, 27). His teachings rejected an attitude of humility and reverence toward God. He taught his many followers to defiantly “lift up their heads in their wickedness” (Alma 30:18). Korihor may have been making another connection to the history of the people of Alma1 and Limhi, who were not inclined to “lift up their heads” in their bondage. After Ammon had found Limhi’s people, the king was joyous at the possibility of being freed from the Lamanites and told his people: “lift up your heads and be comforted; for behold, the time is at hand—or is not far distant—when we shall no longer be in subjection to our enemies” (Mosiah 7:18). Similarly, the Lord silently spoke to the people of Alma1 in their bondage to the Lamanites, “Lift up your heads and be of good comfort” (Mosiah 24:13). After further demonstrating their faith and patience, the Lord delivered them. Korihor’s teaching that the Nephites “may not lift up their heads” and “durst not look up with boldness” (Alma 30:23, 27) was an attempt to reinforce his accusation that they were in bondage, and that his teachings would free them.

The word glut is a key word in connecting these two passages. These are the only two chapters in the Book of Mormon that contain this specific word, and also the phrase “that they might glut themselves with the labors of our hands.” Korihor’s use of words of bondage—yoke, bondage/binding, etc.—may comprise a motif, similar to other biblical repetition motifs, with the word glut acting as a Leitwört, or lead-word. Ronald D. Anderson credited Robert Alter in explaining, “The Leit-wört theory is that when a word, word-root, or phrase recurs significantly in a text, the reader is able to decipher or grasp the meaning of the text by noting these repetitions and thus can determine its theme as well.”7 Noel Hudson explains,

Once the readers’ attention is captured, they may be prompted to recall a related passage of scripture that uses the same word in a similar way. This creates an intertextual linkage between the two passages of scripture in a way that allows the reader to draw new conclusions.8

Several other examples have been noted in the Bible and Book of Mormon as evidence of ancient literary practice.9

The text of the Book of Mormon has multiple layers and languages—the original records, abridged by Mormon and translated by Joseph Smith—each encompassed by the gift and power of God. All of these factors can make establishing intertextual connections complicated. In this instance, it appears at face value that Mormon copied Zeniff’s personal record in its entirety (Mosiah 9–10) and Korihor’s exact words—recorded in first-person speech. Of course, Korihor spoke many more words to the Nephites than what we have in Alma 30. As editor and narrator, by choosing which words of Korihor to include, it seems Mormon himself is highlighting Korihor’s intertextual use of Zeniff, and guiding us to notice it also. Thus, we understand Korihor’s message in a new light and see a deeper meaning in it that helps us understand it closer to the way the Nephites did.

Accusations in Gideon and Zarahemla

A city named Gideon is where Korihor quoted Zeniff’s words directly. John Welch suggests that this city may have been where many of the people of Limhi settled. The city was named after Limhi’s captain, Gideon, who was instrumental in delivering them from bondage. Zeniff’s record may have been particularly well known among them.10 They would have known exactly what Korihor was implying by quoting it. Rather than reply, they bound him and sent him to Zarahemla, where he repeated the accusation in front of both Alma2 and Nephihah, the chief judge:

he did go on in the same manner as he did in the land of Gideon; . . . and did revile against the priests and teachers, accusing them of leading away the people after the silly traditions of their fathers for the sake of glutting in the labors of the people. (Alma 30:30–31)

Alma2’s response was direct: “Thou knowest that we do not glut ourselves upon the labors of this people” (Alma 30:32). Alma2’s dismissal of these accusations cut through Korihor’s “great swelling words” and got to the heart of the matter: belief in God. After repeated denials, God struck Korihor so that he could no longer speak. He confessed, lost his followers, and eventually was “ran upon and trodden down, even until he was dead” (Alma 30:59) by the Zoramites.11

Summary and Conclusions

Korihor usurped Zeniff’s words for his own purposes, which were to convince the people they were in a type of bondage; to denounce the Nephite priests just as Zeniff denounced the Lamanites. Even though these two passages are rather obscure and separated in the text, Korihor’s quotation fits his message seamlessly. This is more than just shared language; it makes narrative sense that he would attempt to reinforce his message by an appeal to the people’s recorded history. The fact that he taught it in the land of Gideon shows a subtle cunning on Korihor’s part—a calculated attempt with real human motivation. Thus, it further demonstrates the tactics of an anti-Christ.

All this adds together as another evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient and authentic text, not a creative work of Joseph Smith. The two passages are separated by over one hundred manuscript pages of dictated text.12 Joseph never boasted about or published this connection, yet it was always there, waiting for us to discover it.

[Author’s Note: Thank you to my wife and children for all their patience and support and to the reviewers and editors of Interpreter, especially Godfrey Ellis.]

Elliott Jolley was born and raised in Vernal, Utah, and served a mission in Jamaica. He met his future wife (Michelle Wold) while studying biology at Brigham Young University. After graduating from dental school at Nova Southeastern University, Elliott completed graduate dental studies in orthodontics at the University of Pennsylvania. He practices orthodontics in Utah, where he and his wife raise their six children.

1. 1 . Royal Skousen, The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2022). This edition is used for the passages quoted from the Book of Mormon throughout this article.

2. 2 . John W. Welch and J. Gregory Welch, “Samuel’s Quotation of Benjamin,” Chart 105, and “Alma’s Quotation of Lehi,” Chart 103, in “Charting the Book of Mormon: Visual Aids for Personal Study and Teaching,” (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS], 1999), scholarsarchive
.byu.edu/mi/20.

3. 3 . Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “glut,” oed.com/search/advanced/Meanings?text
TermText0=glut&textTermOpt0=WordPhrase&dateOfUseFirstUse=false
&page=1&sortOption=AZ&tl=true; Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary, s.v. “glut,” webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/glut.

4. 4 . Daniel L. Belnap, “‘And he was Anti-Christ’: The Significance of the Eighteenth Year of the Reign of the Judges, Part 2,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 28, (2019): 120, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/4482/. Belnap states, “According to the law of Moses, the priests were in fact entitled to a portion of any given sacrifice offered at the sanctuary. Moreover, the Old Testament attests to the fact that this right, in some cases, led to priestly abuses.”

5. 5 . Belnap, “And he was Anti-Christ,” 120.

6. 6 . Godfrey J. Ellis posits that the “devil” who appeared to Korihor may have been Zoram, the leader of the Zoramites in “The Rise and Fall of Korihor, a Zoramite: A New Look at the Failed Mission of an Agent of Zoram,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 48 (2021): 49–94, journal
.interpreterfoundation.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-korihor-a-zoramite-a-new
-look-at-the-failed-mission-of-an-agent-of-zoram/.

7. 7 . Ronald D. Anderson, “Leitworter in Helaman and 3 Nephi,” The Book of Mormon: Helaman Through 3 Nephi 8, According to Thy Word, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1992), introduction page, rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon
-helaman-through-3-nephi-8-according-thy-word/leitworter-helaman-3
-nephi.

8. 8 . Noel Hudson “The Seed of the Serpent and the Seed of the Woman in the Standard Works,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 63 (2024), forthcoming.

9. 9 . Alan Goff, “Types of Repetition and Shadows of History in Hebraic Narrative,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 45 (2021): 265, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/types-of-repetition-and-shadows-of
-history-in-hebraic-narrative/. See also Anderson, “Leitworter.”

10. 10 . The author gratefully credits Jack Welch with this insight regarding the city of Gideon. Email to author, 26 March 2020.

11. 11 . For an in-depth analysis of Korihor’s life and death, see Noel Hudson, “Insights into the Story of Korihor Based on Intertextual Comparisons,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 62 (2024), 223–42, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/insights-into-the-story-of-korihor-based-on-intertextual-comparisons/. See also Ellis, “The Rise and Fall of Korihor.”

12. 12 . It is exactly 113 pages in “Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, circa August 1829–circa January 1830,” Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers
.org/paper-summary/printers-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa
-august-1829-circa-january-1830.

Insights into the Story of Korihor Based on Intertextual Comparisons

Noel Hudson

Abstract: A brief outline of the saga of Korihor, the Anti-Christ, is provided along with a discussion of his affinities with other Book of Mormon anti-Christs, including those in the order of Nehors. Literary allusions suggesting Korihor as a foil to the king of the Lamanites are examined. Evidence of a schism among the order of Nehors leading to violence is discussed. Korihor’s unusual death is examined within the context of the theme of crushing the serpent from the stories of Adam, Eve, and Cain.

The brash materialism of Korihor during his trial as he argues against the existence of prophecy, sin, and even basic morality mark him as one of the most modern-sounding antagonists in the Book of Mormon. His arguments that “every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime” and “that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof” (Alma 30:17–18) would be at home on many college campuses worldwide. Like many of the other antagonists in the Book of Mormon, his origins, motivations, and purposes are all rather murky. John Welch notes:

The text gives no indication whatever of his ethnic or tribal origin, his city or land of residence, or his religious or political affiliations. All these omissions cannot be accidental. Indeed, the text wants readers to see Korihor as an isolated individual defying the foundation of collective responsibility that undergirded the concepts of justice, ethics, prosperity, and well-being in Nephite and Israelite societies. In the Book of Mormon array of typologies, Korihor represents the radical individual thinker, detached from community and unconcerned about the consequences of his ideas, who is bound and determined above all to speak his mind. Speech was his stock-in-trade.1

Korihor challenges the basis of legitimacy of both the Nephite legal system and the Christian church, but his swift rise in the text is followed by an equally swift fall. The end of Korihor has provoked much speculation, for it is difficult to understand what circumstances might have led to him getting trampled “until he was dead” (Alma 30:59). After a brief discussion of some of the information that can be gleaned about Korihor, we will see that Korihor was viewed by the authors of the Book of Mormon as a villain stamped in the mold of Cain, and that his eventual end is as predictable as that of any of the biblical antagonists who hearken to the whisperings of that old serpent, the devil.

The Mission and Life of Korihor

In his efforts to undermine the foundations of the Nephite government and religion, Korihor seems to be attempting to advance the agenda of either the Nehors or the Zoramites. The text tells us that Nehor was executed based on the logic that, “were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction” (Alma 1:12). Amlici, a follower of Nehor, later alarmed the Christian Nephites because “it was his intent to destroy the church of God” (Alma 2:4), and “the Nephites greatly feared that the Zoramites would enter into a correspondence with the Lamanites, and that it would be the means of great loss on the part of the Nephites” (Alma 31:4). These warnings suggest that the religious and political turmoil swirling through the Nephite polity during the timeframe in question were of a sort that could bring about their entire destruction. Korihor seems, in turn, to have been actively promoting the very ideas that the Christian Nephite leaders feared. Alma had seen firsthand what could happen when the ideas propounded by the Nehors propagated freely among his people, which is perhaps why later on he worked so hard and enlisted some of the most powerful missionaries of his generation to try to stem the threat of similar philosophies espoused by the Zoramites.

Where does Korihor fit on the spectrum of philosophies discussed in the book of Alma? Welch is in favor of classifying Korihor as a Nehorite, suggesting that:

He may, however, have been associated with people in Ammonihah, since some of his arguments seem to build upon those of the radical Nehorites of that city as well as upon the teachings of Nehor that were still being promoted by the Amulonites.2

Ellis proposes that Korihor may have been sent from Antionum, by Zoram, the leader of the Zoramites, as an agent to sow both religious and political discord: “Although his disruption was intellectual and doctrinal rather than military, it was just as destructive as any war. Worse, it threatened eternal consequences for those led astray.”3

Others have proposed that Korihor’s position represents what we would call in modern terminology an atheist or agnostic.4 After all, when asked by Alma if he believed there is a God, Korihor answered “Nay” (Alma 30:37–38). One commentator suggests that Korihor may have been a “practical” atheist, and he meant “that specifically the Nephite God, Jehovah, with his strict commandments, laws, ordinances, and statutes did not exist.”5 Gardner says:

Modern readers should not understand Korihor’s answer as a declaration of atheism. People at that time lived in a world defined by its gods and their control of the elements. Events occur because of the gods. Korihor is not a secularist. Alma is not asking him if he believes in any god, but rather if he believes in the Nephite God. The plate text may well have contained a more specific designation than simply “God,” perhaps using whatever form “Yahweh” took in their language. Although our long history with Christian and Jewish monotheism has shaped our interpretation of “Do you believe that there is a God?” in the ancient world it would be better rendered, “Do you believe that Yahweh exists?”6

Gardner’s view makes sense, as Korihor’s later explanation of his beliefs seems nonsensical if he is to be taken as an atheist with no belief in a divinity of any sort, for he told Alma that the devil appeared to him in the form of an angel and deceived him (Alma 30:53). The number of scriptural accounts of the devil appearing to someone and suggesting a course of action are quite limited. Ellis gives evidence that Korihor may have been referring to a mortal agent suggesting a diabolical course of action,7 but if the diabolical angel was in fact the devil himself, then Korihor’s experience mirrors that of early biblical characters. In a couple of early accounts, the devil’s modus operandi consists of giving suggestions or commandments that appear on the face of it to aid in fulfilling the commandments of God. To Eve, he suggested eating the fruit because “In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Moses 4:11). And to Cain, Satan’s commandment was “Make an offering unto the Lord” (Moses 5:18). The same sort of seemingly pro-religious commandment is given to Korihor: “Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God” (Alma 30:53).

Korihor’s reception of commands from Satan may be an intentional literary allusion, as we will see below. First, however, let us consider Korihor from the point of view that he himself seems to have wanted to portray: that of a zealous missionary seeking to reclaim lost souls.

Gardner likes the symmetry of Korihor as a Nehor missionary. He suggests that “Mormon shows Alma, the descendant of a converted priest of Noah, confronting Korihor, the descendant of an unconverted priest of Noah.”8

Reading the narrative of Korihor in the context of a missionary effort with symmetry to other missionary efforts may lead us to recognize that only a year or two earlier Ammon and his brethren had brought massive numbers of converts from among the Lamanites to the Christian Nephite religion. The conversion of the Lamanites wreaked havoc with the Lamanite political structure and led to civil war (Alma 24:2). The order of the Nehors was extremely hostile to the idea of Lamanite conversion (Alma 25:7), but they may not have been opposed to evangelizing for their own purposes. For example, might Alma and the sons of Mosiah have been specifically targeted for conversion by an earlier forerunner to the order of Nehors? Certainly, some form of conversion must have occurred, for as young men they were of a different religious persuasion than their parents (Mosiah 27:8).

Based on verbal allusion, and parallel story structures, there is some evidence that we ought to interpret the story of Korihor in terms of a missionary milieu: a comparison of Alma 22 and 30 yields the impression that Korihor is meant as a literary foil to contrast with the Lamanite king, for there are several verbal and thematic parallels in the passage of Aaron preaching to the Lamanite king that are reflected in the negative by Korihor. The following definition of a literary foil character may aid in understanding the contrast between the two stories:

A foil is a character that contrasts with another character, usually the protagonist, and so highlights various facets of the main character’s personality. A foil usually has some important characteristics in common with the other character, such as, frequently, superficial traits or personal history. The author may use the foil to throw the character of the protagonist into sharper relief.9

There appear to be verbal parallels at key points in the narratives of both Aaron and Korihor that seem designed to echo the opposite counterpart. Additionally, there are a couple of brief phrases repeated verbatim in the two accounts (see the bold words in table 1). Table 1 illustrates the verbal, thematic, and structural parallels. McGuire discusses these three types of literary allusion in the Book of Mormon and notes that:

Structural parallels [exist] when material in the local text and material in the source text occur in the same order. I would add that structural parallels are also seen in poetic structures and in narrative dialogue. This evidence becomes stronger as the structure is extended over a larger body of text, and generally functions as a more effective indicator than thematic or verbal parallels.10

Table 1. Parallels in the accounts of Korihor and Aaron

Thematic Element

Aaron: Alma 22

Korihor: Alma 30

The Existence of God

Alma 22:7 And Aaron answered him and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And the king said: . . . if now thou sayest there is a God, behold I will believe.

Alma 30:37–38, 43 And then Alma said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And he answered, Nay. . . . show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced . . .

A wicked or lying spirit

Alma 22:15 . . . Yea, what shall I do that I may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast . . .

Alma 30:42 . . . I know that thou believest, but thou art possessed with a lying spirit, and ye have put off the Spirit of God that it may have no place in you . . .

Requesting a Sign

Alma 22:18 O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me . . .

Alma 30:48 . . . I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God; and except ye show me a sign, I will not believe.

Struck by the Power of God

Alma 22:18 . . . And now when the king had said these words, he was struck as if he were dead.

Alma 30:50 Now when Alma had said these words, Korihor was struck dumb, that he could not have utterance, according to the words of Alma.

Put forth his hand

Alma 22:22 Now when Aaron saw the determination of the queen . . . he put forth his hand and raised the king from the earth . . .

Alma 30:51 And now when the chief judge saw this, he put forth his hand and wrote unto Korihor, saying: Art thou convinced of the power of God? . . .

Publishing the Events to all the people in the land

Alma 22:27 And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about . . .

Alma 30:57 Now the knowledge of what had happened unto Korihor was immediately published throughout all the land; yea, the proclamation was sent forth by the chief judge to all the people in the land . . .

This contrast between the story of Korihor’s confrontation with Alma and the story of Aaron preaching to the Lamanite king seems to be intentional, as Mormon placed parallel narratives in his record that allow for learning through comparison and contrast. As Larsen puts it, “Since his history is so brief, Mormon has the option—and has exercised it—of selecting material that is aesthetically unified, that can be arranged to feature narrative parallels and contrasts that anticipate, echo, and amplify.”11

One point that Mormon may be attempting to convey with this juxtaposition of the story of Aaron and the story of Korihor is the contrast between those who accept the gospel message and those who reject it. In the two parallel stories, Alma and Aaron present the same basic information and invite the hearer to accept their message. The Lamanite king is open to Aaron’s presentation based on his previous interaction with Ammon (Alma 20:27), but while Korihor has also interacted with Ammon previously (Alma 30:20), his expulsion from the land of Jershon suggests that his interaction was negative, and therefore he is much less predisposed to accept the message than the Lamanite king.

Mormon’s parallels between the two stories seem designed to invite us to reflect upon the outcomes to be expected for those who accept the gospel and those who reject it, especially in terms of curses and blessings. We are told that in the case of the converted Lamanites “the curse of God did no more follow them” (Alma 23:18) while in the case of Korihor, his refusal to accept the gospel results in a great curse falling upon him (Alma 30:53). This outcome, we are told, is to be expected for any who come out in open rebellion against God (Alma 3:18), and the case of Korihor only serves to reinforce the point made so forcefully throughout the entire chapter of Alma 3. Indeed, the contrast between those who rebel against God and those who repent and accept the gospel is strengthened by Alma a few chapters later as he relates the story of his own conversion to his son, Helaman. Just like Korihor, Alma went about seeking to destroy the children of God (Alma 36:14), and just like Korihor he was struck dumb because of his rebellion (v. 10). However, unlike Korihor, but similar to the king of the Lamanites, while in a physically unresponsive state Alma experiences a mighty change of heart, and he repents and is born again as a follower of Christ.

The parallel between the story of Korihor and the teachings of Aaron is interesting in its own right, but it also fits as part of a larger perspective in which the teachings of Korihor are explored in detail and rebutted throughout at least eleven chapters of the Book of Mormon. This vast amount of attention in a book whose authors consistently mention the difficulty of engraving and the limited space available (for example, Jacob 4:1) suggests that we are dealing with a topic of great importance. Regarding the pervasiveness of the doctrines of Korihor and the need to rebut those doctrines, James Faulconer suggests reading the story of Korihor in a broader context based on the original chapter structure of the Book of Mormon. He explains that in Alma 30:1–35:16 the teachings of Alma and Amulek to the Zoramites constitute a rebuttal of the doctrines of Korihor. He notes that:

The original chapter of the Book of Mormon presents Alma’s sermon as a response to Korihor’s accusation that religion is false consciousness and that we ought to serve only ourselves.12

In addition to the extensive discussion of Korihor’s doctrines and the rebuttals given by Alma and Amulek in Alma 30–35, Alma devotes four more chapters to an in-depth discussion of the doctrines taught by Korihor while attempting to correct the misapprehensions of his son, Corianton.13 When we include Mormon’s careful structuring of the story of Aaron to mirror the story of Korihor, we see that the tally of teachings meant to counter the philosophies of Korihor is quite extensive. Perhaps this indicates just how important Mormon felt it was that his audience understand and reject the doctrines of Korihor.

The Origin of Korihor

The story of Korihor begins and ends with him wandering from city to city. This wandering near the end of his life was a direct result of the curse that came upon him (Alma 30:56), but what led Korihor to travel from city to city in the first place? One possibility is that Korihor had been a victim of the social turmoil of the time that led to war and destruction among the Nephites. Welch suggests that:

Since Ammonihah had been left desolate by the war that had ended only a few years before Korihor entered the land of Zarahemla (Alma 16:9–11), his base of operation or closest allies may well have been destroyed by the Lamanite invasion that left Ammonihah in ruins.14

If Korihor had been rendered bereft of allies, support, and family, it makes sense that he might seek to re-establish a Nehor community, but in that case, why not join the Nehors who were active among the Lamanites? A close reading of the text uncovers the insight that the order of the Nehors consisted of at least two factions and that one faction annihilated the other.

The two groups of Nehors in the land in the early years of the reign of the judges consisted of the people of Ammonihah (Alma 15:15) and the Amulonites and Amalekites (Alma 24:28). A third, earlier, group of Nehors bridges these two sets of people: the Amlicite Nehors who began as Nephites and ended up as refugees among the Lamanites after Amlici’s failed coup.

It may have been Amlicite Nehors who brought Nehorism to the Amulonites. The events recounted in Alma 2, when compared with the information in chapters 8 through 14, reveal an apparent schism in the order of the Nehors; the Amlicite Nehors fought in the civil war against the Christian Nephites led by Alma while those in the city of Ammonihah apparently remained loyal to the Nephite government. There may have been many reasons why the people of Ammonihah declined to participate in the rebellion; perhaps they thought that open war was too risky, or perhaps they felt that their city was more likely to experience negative consequences due to its proximity to the Nephite heartland. Whatever the reason, the people of Ammonihah did not break with the Nephite leadership at the time the Amlicite Nehors rebelled.

It would be reasonable to conclude that a great deal of hostility would have accompanied such a political schism among the Nehors. Consistent with this theory is the idea that a great degree of festering resentment remained after the resolution of the Amlicite rebellion. This idea is reinforced by the actions of the Amulonite and Amalekite Nehors who “took their armies and went over into the borders of the land of Zarahemla, and fell upon the people who were in the land of Ammonihah and destroyed them” (Alma 25:2).

The nickname given to Ammonihah at this time, “The desolation of the Nehors,” (Alma 16:11) seems doubly significant once we recognize that the city of nominally Nephite Nehors may have been destroyed by Lamanite Nehors.

One group of Lamanite Nehors did not outlast the Nephite Nehors by very long, for in a clear thematic parallel pointed out by Mormon, as soon as they burned the Christian converts that began to appear among them (as the people of Ammonihah had done), they destroyed the Amulonite Nehors, just as they had destroyed the people of Ammonihah (Alma 25:5–12).

The foregoing conclusions depend on the timing of the events presented allowing for the rise of Nehorism and its spread to Ammonihah. As a border town, Ammonihah may not have been as involved in the cultural and religious happenings in Zarahemla as other areas, and so Nehorism may not have spread there as early as it did elsewhere.

Of course, if there were animosity between the Amulonite and Amalekite Nehors and the Nehors of Ammonihah, Korihor would not have been inclined to seek asylum among them, assuming he was associated with the Nehors of Ammonihah. With some of the Nehor strongholds gone, it may have made sense for Korihor to seek out allies elsewhere. To this end he may have scoured the land for some remnant of the order so that he might build it up again, or he may have gone first to Antionum, where he was taken in by Zoram based on the similarity of the religious philosophies between the Zoramites and the Nehors.15 Ellis notes at least eleven close correlations between the philosophies taught by Korihor and those espoused by the Zoramites,16 while Welch suggests that Nehor, Zeezrom, and Korihor all make similar arguments because they had the same religious training.17

We don’t know if Korihor was from Antionum, hailed originally from Ammonihah and was later taken in by Zoram, or was acting entirely independently. He starts by preaching in Zarahemla, where the order of Nehor had previously been popular. Encouraged by his success in Zarahemla, he then travels to Jershon and preaches to the former Lamanites (among whom the Nehor faith had been previously preached). When he is rejected there, he moves on to Gideon and preaches among the former inhabitants of Noah’s kingdom (to whom Nehorism may have once been appealing judging by the way in which Amulon and the other priests of Noah had embraced it). In both cases his failure may well have been due to the fact that these peoples had become less likely to respond to his message, having seen the damage that Nehorite or Nehorite-like beliefs could wreak.

Of course, Korihor’s efforts to revive the faith of the Nehors, or raise up a philosophically compatible faith based on the Zoramite model (if such was his aim) ultimately failed, but there is another lesson to be found in the manner of his death. After he was struck dumb in response to his demand for a sign, he went among the Zoramites where he was “run upon and trodden down, even until he was dead” (Alma 30:59). Now, it is possible he may have been unlucky enough to get caught up in a stampede or other accident, as suggested by Thompson,18 but based on the events recounted in several different Book of Mormon narratives in which those with divergent religious views were killed, it seems more likely that his death was an execution rather than an accident. Indeed, the treatment of Alma, Amulek, and their converts would argue rather strongly for this possibility. Ellis suggests that Korihor was executed in Antionum as punishment for a failed mission as a Zoramite agent.19

Korihor, the Amlicite Nehors, and Cain

In the story of Cain and Abel recounted in Moses 5, Satan comes among the descendants of Adam and commands them not to believe in the gospel (Moses 5:13). Because of Cain’s intention to ignore the commandments of God and instead follow the commandments of Satan, he is warned “thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition” (Moses 5:24). Despite a very explicit warning from God about the consequence of his actions, Cain ignores the warning and is cursed (Moses 5:36).

There are a number of striking similarities in the story of Korihor to the story of Cain. Satan appears to Korihor and gives him commands (Alma 30:53), Alma says that Korihor is possessed of a lying spirit (v. 42), and Korihor appears to have been given the appellation of Anti-Christ, similar to how Cain was given the appellation of Perdition. Alma warns Korihor what will happen to him if he persists in his lying words, but Korihor ignores the warning and brings a great curse upon himself (v. 53).

Interestingly, the story of the Amlicite Nehors also has potential literary allusions to the story of Cain. After the great battle with the Nehors recounted in Alma 2, there is an extensive discussion of both the mark that the Amlicites bore and of the curse associated with the mark, which was based on the spirit they listened to and obeyed:

Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads. Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them. And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also. And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed. And again, I say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth and forever; and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and to his seed. Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them. Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation . . . according to the spirit which they listed to obey, whether it be a good spirit or a bad one. For every man receiveth wages of him whom he listeth to obey. (Alma 3:13–19, 26–27)

Of course, Cain’s rebellion and curse also have associations with a mark, which came about because he listened to and obeyed Satan. The biblical motif that deals with Satan inciting rebellion against God and the curse associated with that rebellion is first seen in the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Biblical scholars have pointed out that the story of Cain follows the same motif as the Garden of Eden theme, and they refer to the conflict embodied in the theme as the conflict between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman.20 The name of this theme is in reference to the curse given to the serpent:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (Genesis 3:15).

This curse of the serpent is relevant to the story of Korihor and, in particular, to the curious way in which his death is described. Recall that Korihor “was run upon and trodden down, even until he was dead.” On the face of it, this manner of death has nothing at all to link it with either the story of Cain or the conflict with the seed of the serpent just mentioned. However, a familiarity with the nature of the seed of the serpent theme in the Bible might provide an explanation for why the odd detail of Korihor’s death was described in this way. James Hamilton, commenting on the seed of the serpent motif in the Bible, says:

The damage done to the head of the serpent and the damage done to the heel of the seed of the woman in Gen 3:15 both seem to be interpreted in later biblical texts as resulting from the stomping of the serpent. The seed of the woman tramples on the head of the serpent, crushing the serpent’s head and incurring damage to his own heel. This reality lends significance to references to the enemies of the people of God being “trodden down” or “placed underfoot.” When Joshua leads Israel to victory, their triumph over their enemies is celebrated by the placement of their feet on the necks of the defeated kings (Josh 10:24). The seed of the serpent is under the foot of the seed of the woman. Similarly, David proclaims that his enemies fell under his feet (2 Sam 22:39/Ps 18:39), and the conquering warrior in Isa 63 boasts of the way that he has “trodden (dārak) the winepress alone” (63:3a). It is clarified that there were not grapes but rebellious people in the winepress: “I trod (dārak) them in my anger, and I trampled them down (rāmas) in my fury; and their blood spattered on my garments.”21

This unique description of the manner of Korihor’s death adds another allusion to the details given above linking Korihor’s story to that of Cain. However, a possible objection to identifying the manner of Korihor’s death with Hamilton’s examples from the Bible of the seed of the serpent getting trampled is based on who does the trampling; in the cases noted above, it is generally clear that the one doing the trampling is a member of the collective “seed of the woman.” In the story of Korihor it would be difficult to make that case. However, this difference in who does the trampling may be a result of a unique point of view of the Book of Mormon that is clearly articulated by Mormon. He says:

But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed. (Mormon 4:5)

The specific manner of Korihor’s death (or execution) may be noteworthy because it strengthens the literary allusions to the story of Cain. Likewise, the link between the story of the Amlicites and the story of Cain may suggest that Korihor shares a connection with the Nehors, as Welch proposed. Welch also noted the relationship between the names Korihor and Nehor in the book of Alma and the names Corihor and Nehor in the book of Ether, providing yet another possible link between Korihor and the order of Nehors,22 a link that Ellis and others have also noted and remarked upon.23

The Captivity of the Devil

There is yet another set of intertextual links that deals with a theme also found in the story of Cain, but dealt with in much greater detail in the Book of Mormon, the theme of the captivity of the devil. The concept of captivity is explored in great detail in the story of Korihor, including through the use of intertextual linkages based on short phrases. Elliott Jolley notes that Korihor alludes to Zeniff when he is accusing Alma and the priests of the Nephites of exploiting the people.24 Korihor says:

And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges. (Alma 30:27)

Compare Korihor’s accusation to what Zeniff says of the Lamanites:

Now they were a lazy and an idolatrous people; therefore they were desirous to bring us into bondage, that they might glut themselves with the labors of our hands; yea, that they might feast themselves upon the flocks of our fields. (Mosiah 9:12)

Korihor’s words seem designed to elicit a strong emotional response from his audience. People who have been in slavery would not soon forget their experience, nor would they want to repeat it. Therefore, when Korihor says that the people are in bondage, he is doing his best to stir them up in anger. His words also appear to be part of a memorized speech that he tries out on various different audiences; he appears to have said essentially the same thing to both Giddonah in Gideon and to Alma in Zarahemla (note how Alma’s response in Alma 30:32 addresses what Korihor said in Gideon in v. 27).

Korihor uses imagery evocative of binding or yoking six times,25 and he is bound himself as he is carried before various magistrates and high priests three separate times (Ammon, Giddonah, and Alma), and he flatly asserts that “Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage” (Alma 30:24). Clearly bondage is a major theme of the Korihor story, and it was a topic that would have been of immediate concern to all the major groups involved in this story: the people of Ammon, the people of Limhi, and the people of Helam. Indeed, what Korihor is suggesting (that the people are in bondage) is a situation that was twice suggested when, in bondage themselves or under immediate threat of death, Limhi and Anti-Nephi-Lehi proposed they would take their people into bondage in the land of Zarahemla. Limhi said:

And now, behold, our brethren will deliver us out of our bondage, or out of the hands of the Lamanites, and we will be their slaves; for it is better that we be slaves to the Nephites than to pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites. (Mosiah 7:15)

While Anti-Nephi-Lehi said:

Yea, if the Lord saith unto us go, we will go down unto our brethren, and we will be their slaves until we repair unto them the many murders and sins which we have committed against them. (Alma 27:8)

Korihor’s assertion, then, is that the different groups of people to whom he is preaching have not escaped from bondage at all but that they have merely traded one type of servitude for another. Obviously, this idea would be very inflammatory among groups of people who had been in captivity for years, and they seem designed to incite rebellion.

However, there is yet another unique phrase in this story that creates intertextual linkages to a theme that deals with captivity of another kind and that reveals that Korihor’s apparent concern with physical captivity is part of an elaborate ruse designed to lead the people into spiritual captivity. Korihor alludes to this phrase as he claims that the aim of the priestly leaders of the Nephites is to: “lead you away into a belief of things which are not so” (Alma 30:16), and again when he asserts that : “ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage” (v. 27). Alma reveals that despite Korihor’s apparent preoccupation with the theme of captivity, his true plan all along has been to “lead away the hearts of this people” (v. 55).

Variants of this particular phrase are used to refer to Satan’s subtle plans to bring the people into spiritual bondage so he can exercise his dominion over them. He frequently does this by getting the people to focus on material wealth in a way that leads them to neglect their spiritual well-being. John Tvedtnes identifies this plan of the devil as part of a larger theme of captivity and deliverance that runs throughout the Book of Mormon, and he cites the teaching of Alma to his son Corianton, cautioning him to “suffer not the devil to lead away your heart” (Alma 39:11).26

Nephi3 could be alluding to the teachings of Korihor when he notes that the people began to disbelieve the signs and wonders given before the coming of Christ, explaining that they were:

Imagining up some vain thing in their hearts, that it was wrought by men and by the power of the devil, to lead away and deceive the hearts of the people; and thus did Satan get possession of the hearts of the people again, insomuch that he did blind their eyes and lead them away to believe that the doctrine of Christ was a foolish and a vain thing. (3 Nephi 2:2)

Later on, when the church was broken up and the majority of the Nephites associated themselves with the Gadianton robbers, the catastrophe is explained as follows:

Now the cause of this iniquity of the people was this—Satan had great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner of iniquity, and to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world. And thus Satan did lead away the hearts of the people to do all manner of iniquity. (3 Nephi 6:15–16)

Various anti-Christs and other antagonists in the Book of Mormon are also described as aiding Satan in his purpose by leading away the hearts of the people. Sherem, a man described as using “much flattery, and much power of speech, according to the power of the devil” (Jacob 7:4), used his skills “that he might lead away the hearts of the people, insomuch that he did lead away many hearts” (Jacob 7:3). The king-men who overthrew the freedom of Zarahemla “used great flattery, and they have led away the hearts of many people” (Alma 61:4), and while he does not use the exact phrase, Jesus Christ encapsulates the concept of the captivity of the devil in his teachings to the Nephites when he says: “they are led away captive by him even as was the son of perdition; for they will sell me for silver and for gold, and for that which moth doth corrupt and which thieves can break through and steal” (3 Nephi 27:32).

The irony of the captivity of the devil is that those who grant him dominion, binding themselves as his slaves, always seem to be able to deceive themselves into believing that they are somehow making themselves free. This was clearly the attitude of Korihor, who explained to Giddonah that his preachings were meant to liberate the people from the bondage of their traditions, their priests, and their ignorance (Alma 30:23). Perhaps the most ironic statement ever made on this topic was uttered by Cain as recorded in Moses 5:33 after he killed Abel and boasted “I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands.”

Conclusion

The doctrines taught by Korihor show up in multiple different locations in the Book of Mormon and are similar to some of the sophistries that are used to argue against the doctrine of Christ even to this day. Some of the modes of thinking that Korihor demonstrates are so seductive that even Alma’s own son, Corianton, while serving as a missionary among the Zoramites, seems to have been led away by the ideas that Korihor describes as being “pleasing unto the carnal mind” (Alma 30:53), a situation that Alma felt obliged to correct in great detail.

Understanding the allure of these doctrines and how to respond to them in light of the doctrine of Christ is as important now as it was in the days of Alma.

Employing the lens of literary allusion in examining the story of Korihor can lead to several new insights that may help us to correctly perceive the inevitable outcome that awaits those who, like Korihor, come out in open rebellion against God. Conversely, these insights may also aid in recognizing the blessings that await those who repent of their sins and receive a new birth in Christ. The insights examined include the recognition that Korihor might be meant to serve as a foil to the king of the Lamanites; how the use of thematic parallels in the case of the Nehors give the impression of poetic justice in the manner in which certain groups of Nehors were destroyed; a possible allusion to the story of Cain and how that allusion strengthens the possibility of a connection to the Nehors of Ammonihah; and a possible connection between Korihor’s death and the “seed of the serpent” motif.

All of these literary connections in the Book of Mormon help the reader to appreciate the interplay between the different stories and draw new conclusions that add to the richness of the book.

[Author’s Note: I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editorial staff of Interpreter for all their excellent suggestions and recommended changes. This article is much better than it otherwise would have been due to their influence. I would especially like to thank Godfrey Ellis, my Executive Editor, whose enthusiasm, encouragement, and guidance were instrumental in leading to the publication of this article.]

Noel Hudson was born in Idaho Falls, Idaho, and raised in Provo, Utah. He earned a BS in Zoology from BYU, an MS in Engineering Technology from BYU, and an MBA in marketing from BYU. While working as an Electrical Engineer for a company that manufactures communications equipment, he published eight books of historical and science fiction and has written articles on the Book of Mormon. He and his wife, Luciana, are the parents of three children.

1 . John Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University [BYU] Press and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2008), 273.

2 . Welch, Legal Cases, 274.

3 . Godfrey J. Ellis, “The Rise and Fall of Korihor, a Zoramite: A New Look at the Failed Mission of an Agent of Zoram,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 48 (2021): 51, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-rise
-and-fall-of-korihor-a-zoramite-a-new-look-at-the-failed-mission-of-an
-agent-of-zoram/.

4 . Joseph M. Spencer, “Is Not This Real?,” BYU Studies Quarterly 58, no. 2 (2019): 91.

5 . Scripture Central Staff, “Was Korihor Really an Atheist?,” KnoWhy 532, 19 September 2019, knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/was-korihor
-really-an-atheist.

6 . Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 4, Alma (Salt Lake City: Kofford Books, 2007), 421.

7 . Ellis, “Rise and Fall of Korihor,” 67–74.

8 . Gardner, Second Witness, 4:419.

9 . “Contrasts and Foils in Scripture,” Meridian Magazine, 4 January 2011, latter
daysaintmag.com/article-1-7225/.

10 . Ben McGuire, “Nephi and Goliath: A Case Study of Literary Allusion in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 18, no. 1 (2009): 20, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol18/iss1/12/.

11 . Val Larsen, “In His Footsteps: Ammon1 and Ammon2,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 3 (2013): 86, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/in-his -footsteps-ammon-and-ammon/.

12 . James E. Faulconer, “Desiring to Believe: Wisdom and Political Power,” in An Experiment on the Word: Reading Alma 32, ed. Adam Miller (Provo, UT: Maxwell Institute Publications, 2014), 24, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=3&article=1006&context=mi&type=additional.

13 . Dan Belnap, “‘And Now My Son, I Have Somewhat More to Say’: Corianton’s Concerns, Alma’s Theology and Nephite Tradition,” in Give Ear to My Words: Text and Context of Alma 36–42, eds. Kerry M. Hull, Nicholas J. Frederick, and Hank Smith (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019), 214–22, rsc.byu.edu/give-ear-my-words/now-my-son-i-have-somewhat-more-say.

14 . Welch, Legal Cases, 275.

15 . A. Keith Thompson, “Apostate Religion in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25 (2017): 208, journal.interpreterfoundation
.org/apostate-religion-in-the-book-of-mormon/.

16 . Ellis, “Rise and Fall of Korihor,” 53.

17 . John W. Welch, Finding Answers to B.H. Roberts’s Questions and “An Unparallel” (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1985), archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/finding-answers-bh-robertss-questions-and-unparallel.

18 . A. Keith Thompson, “Who was Sherem?,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14 (2015): 14, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/who-was-sherem/.

19 . Ellis, “Rise and Fall of Korihor,” 80.

20 . James Hamilton, “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10, no.2 (Summer 2006): 33. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Editorial: Foundations for Faith,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 5, no. 3 (2001): 2–3. John L. Ronning, “The Curse on the Serpent (Genesis 3:15) in Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics,” (PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1997), ii, iii, 61, 144–93.

21 . Hamilton, “Skull Crushing Seed,” 39–40.

22 . Welch, Legal Cases, 275.

23 . Ellis, “Rise and Fall of Korihor,” 51.

24 . Elliott Jolley, “Did Korihor Usurp the Words of Zeniff?,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 62 (2024), 216–18, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/did-korihor-usurp-the-words-of-zeniff/.

25 . Jolley, “Did Korihor Usurp the Words of Zeniff?,” 216.

26 . John A. Tvedtnes, “Captivity and Liberty in the Book of Mormon,” in The Fulness of the Gospel: Foundational Teachings from the Book of Mormon, eds. Camille Fronk Olson et. al (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2003), 170, rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/Captivity_and_Liberty_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.pdf.

“That They May Know That They Are Not Cast Off Forever”: Jewish Lectionary Elements in the Book of Mormon

Bradley J. Kramer

Abstract: It is not uncommon for Jews who join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to notice connections between certain events in the Book of Mormon and modern Jewish practices associated with the feasts of Passover, Weeks, Tabernacles, and Rosh Hashanah. Aware that traditional Christianity holds not only that Jews were ousted from God’s covenant but that Jewish traditions in support of that covenant are spiritually worthless, these Jews find great comfort in these connections as well as in Book of Mormon statements that affirm their continued inclusion in that covenant. But aren’t there also connections to the modern Jewish lectionary—the order in which Jews today read and explain their scriptures as part of their worship services? And don’t these connections similarly affirm Jewish efforts to uphold that covenant? This article explores these possibilities, first by describing three of the most basic principles behind that lectionary and second by showing how Book of Mormon prophets, Jacob in particular, adhere to these principles in their presentation of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures. In this way, this article shows how the Book of Mormon strengthens its already strong refutation of Christian supersessionism and encourages its readers to value Jews as Jews and to cease all anti-Semitic activities and attitudes.

For many Latter-day Saint Jews, several events in the Book of Mormon resonate remarkably well with current Jewish practices. Gale Boyd, for instance, a Jewish woman who joined the Church as a teenager and has studied the “connection between Judaism and Mormonism” for decades,1 sees a striking similarity between the way Alma counsels his sons (Alma 36–42) and the way adult Jews are encouraged to teach children during Passover. As she writes, the modern Seder text “describes four kinds of children: the wise child, the wicked child, the innocent child, and the child unable to inquire” and “instructs the leader on how to inform and encourage [these different children] to feel the meaning of the Passover.” According to Boyd, “Alma’s counsel to his sons parallels the structure presented in the Passover ritual.”2

Marlena Tanya Muchnick, another Latter-day Saint with a similar Jewish background, even suggests that Alma’s counseling sessions may have actually occurred during a Passover service.3 After all, not only does Alma tailor the tellings of his own miraculous deliverance from the “everlasting chains of death” (Alma 36:18) to the unique situation of each of his sons, but he begins the first session much like a Seder leader, by admonishing Helaman to “do as I have done, in remembering the captivity of our fathers; for they were in bondage, and none could deliver them except it was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Alma 36:2).

However, these perceived linkages to modern Jewish practices are not limited to Passover. They include connections to other festivals as well. Jason Olson, for instance, author of The Burning Book: a Jewish-Mormon Memoir,4 sees “pretty clear imagery with King Benjamin that [the Nephites] are practicing some form of Sukkot or the Feast of Tabernacles.”5 Other Latter-day Saint Jews similarly recognize resonances between Lehi’s initial experience in Jerusalem and Rosh Hashanah, between his later dwelling in a tent and Sukkot, and between Jesus’s appearance at the Nephite temple at Bountiful and Shavuot or the Festival of Weeks.6

Given that the Book of Mormon was explicitly written for modern Jews (among others) and that one of its main reasons for doing so is so that “they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever” (title page), it is therefore fitting that the Book of Mormon would prophetically pick events from Nephite history and present these events in such a way as to connect them with the way Jewish festivals are currently observed. After all, these festivals, like the Sabbath itself (Exodus 31:13–17),7 are considered signs of God’s “perpetual covenant” with Israel.8 Coupled with statements affirming the place of the Jews as God’s “ancient covenant people” (2 Nephi 29:4–5) as well as their continuing inclusion within that covenant (Mormon 3:21), such connections go far in reassuring Latter-day Saint Jews that God’s covenant with their people remains intact and that traditional Jewish efforts to preserve that covenant are valued by God—claims that traditional Christianity has historically disputed.9

But supplying linkages to modern observances of Jewish festivals is not the only way the Book of Mormon reinforces the ongoing nature of this Sabbath covenant. The way various people in the Book of Mormon approach the Hebrew Scriptures—in three parts, in a specific order, and in relation to certain significant events—similarly connects to the way these scriptures are approached on the Sabbath in synagogues today and, by inference, affirms that neither Jews nor their heritage have been replaced by Christians or superseded by Christianity.

To be clear, this is not to say that the Nephite lectionary of old somehow mirrored in any precise way the Jewish lectionary of today. Since the content and order of the modern Jewish lectionary formed centuries after Lehi left Jerusalem, such a close correspondence is highly unlikely. However, the Book of Mormon is not a history of the Nephites in the usual, comprehensive sense. Instead, as Richard Dilworth Rust writes, the Book of Mormon consists of “materials” from Nephite history that were “selected and designed by inspired persons ‘to come forth in due time,’ as Moroni puts it in the title page, for people living in a later age,” and it does so in order that these materials might “touch [their] hearts and souls as well as [their] minds.” 10 In this way, by connecting to the way Latter-day Saint Jews have experienced the Hebrew Scriptures in modern Jewish worship services, the writers, compilers, and translators of Book of Mormon—all of whom were prophets, operating under the inspiration of God—provide them with both intellectual and emotional evidence that they and their heritage are very much valued by God and that he condemns the anti-Semitic attitudes and behaviors that still pervade our society.

The Three-Part Approach to Scripture Reading in Judaism

According to longstanding practice, the standard Sabbath lectionary today consists of three basic elements: parashot, haftarot and derashot. The first of these, parashot (singular: parashah), consists of portions of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) that are read aloud in the synagogue weekly. According to Jewish tradition, this custom of reading the Torah publicly was begun by Ezra after he and a group of Jews had returned to Jerusalem from exile in Babylon.11 Although Deuteronomy stipulated that “the sons of Levi” were to read the Torah before all Israel at the end of each seven-year period (31:9–13), it was not until his time that public Torah reading started to become the norm. At that time, all the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem after their exile in Babylon gathered themselves together “into the street that was before the water gate” and listened while Ezra read the entire Torah to them “from the morning until midday” (Nehemiah 8:3).

Nonetheless, Ezra did not simply read the Torah. He also “gave the sense” of it (v. 8). Consistent with this practice, another custom developed over the centuries where the weekly Torah readings were followed by explanatory sermons or derashot (singular, derashah). In place at least since Jesus’s time (Luke 4:17–27), derashot are delivered by darshanim or “interpreters,” people who, according to Michael Fishbane, appropriately enough, attempt to interpret the day’s reading “in the light of tradition, theology, or historical circumstance” and do so in terms understandable and applicable to the congregation.12

However, derashot are not the only element of the traditional Jewish lectionary that attempts to comment upon the weekly parashot. Between the readings of the Torah and the derashot, come readings mostly from the Prophets (Joshua, Judges, the Samuels, the Kings, as well as the literary prophets) or haftarot (singular, haftarah). These haftarot are not meant to compete with parashot or to contradict them. Far from it. In traditional Jewish worship services, the Torah is supreme. Many Ultraorthodox and Orthodox Jews consider its words to have come directly from God. Even Conservative and Reform Jews (whether they believe it or not) raise the Torah scroll high above their heads each Sabbath and proclaim that this text was set “before the Children of Israel; by the hand of Moses according to the command of God.”13 In contrast, the prophetic works are thought to come from God but indirectly, in a mediated form through the minds and hearts of human beings. Haftarot are therefore considered somewhat secondary to parashot since their authority, like that of the prophets themselves, depends upon the Torah and their purpose is primarily to reinforce its commandments. Similarly, derashot are considered less religiously reliable than parashot for much the same reasons.14

In this way, the sequence of the three elements of the Jewish lectionary mirrors what Rabbi Wylen calls “the descending order of sanctity” of the three basic divisions present in Jewish versions of the Hebrew Scriptures.15 There, the Torah comes first, followed by the Prophets. Finally, there are the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ruth, Esther, Daniel, and so forth), whose place in the Jewish canon derives primarily from their use in Jewish services.16

The Three-Part Approach to Scripture Reading
in the Book of Mormon

In the Book of Mormon, there is no clear or complete description of Nephite Sabbath services. Consequently, how portions of the Torah and the Prophets were read and explained in these services, if indeed they were, is far from certain. Nonetheless, when the Hebrew Scriptures are read or cited in the Book of Mormon, the traditional Jewish view of the relative priority of these lectionarial elements, and perhaps their authority as well, is preserved.

Nephi, for instance, when he “did teach [his] brethren” in 1 Nephi 19, follows the parashah/haftarah/derashah sequence used in synagogues today. Here, in this informal setting, Nephi begins by reading “many things unto them which were written in the books of Moses.” He then reads “that which was written by the prophet Isaiah” (1 Nephi 19:23). And finally, he explains what these readings “meaneth” (1 Nephi 22:1–31). In this way, Nephi’s approach not only involves each one of the principal parts of the Jewish lectionary, but it presents them in their traditional sequence.

Abinadi follows this same order. In a much more formal setting, he is asked by King Noah’s priests to explain the meaning of some verses in Isaiah 52 concerning a person “that publisheth salvation” (Mosiah 12:21–24). However, Abinadi does not respond directly by turning immediately to the prophetic chapter in question. Instead, he redirects the discussion to the Torah, first by asking his interrogators, “What teach ye this people?” They respond that they “teach the law of Moses.” He then asks them, “Doth salvation come by the law of Moses?” The priests answer affirmatively, as does Abinadi (Mosiah 12:27–33). Abinadi consequently recites two of the most prominent of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:35–36). Later, after Noah and his priests attempt to slay him, he recounts the rest of these commandments since, according to Abinadi, they were clearly “not written in [the priests’] hearts” (Mosiah 13:11–24).

In other words, only after Abinadi has read from the Torah and established a Mosaic foundation for salvation does he attempt to answer the priests’ question, in a sermon, after reciting Isaiah 53 to them. In this way, Abinadi, like Nephi, follows the traditional lectionary pattern. He first establishes the foundation for his discussion with a Torah text, then complements it with a related prophetic text, and finally comments on both with interpretive words of his own.

Ammon, too, when he begins to teach King Lamoni, follows this same pattern. As Mormon writes, Ammon starts off with the Torah, beginning “at the creation of the world.” He next lays “before [Lamoni] the records and the holy scriptures of the people, which had been spoken by the prophets.” Only then, after he has set the scriptural “stage,” as it were, does he expound “unto them the plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world” (Alma 18:36, 39).

The Relationship between the Torah and Prophetic Readings in Judaism

Aaron (Alma 22:12–13) and Jacob (2 Nephi 6:4–5) similarly follow this same basic presentational pattern. However, the traditional Jewish lectionary does not simply require certain types of scripture to be read and interpreted in a certain sequence; it also promotes a very specific connection between these readings.

Although haftarot are not read sequentially, from the first prophetic book in the Bible to the last, as are parashot with respect to the books of Moses, they are not random either. Just as the weekly Torah readings are set, so are their prophetic counterparts, and all of these haftarot connect to their parashot in at least one meaningful and scripturally significant way. For instance, both Numbers 13:1–15:41 and its haftarah (Joshua 2:1–24) describe scouts reconnoitering Canaan in preparation for an Israelite invasion.17 However, the parashah tells the story of ten faithless scouts whose discouraging report kept the Children of Israel wandering outside their Promised Land for forty years while its haftarah relates how two faithful scouts produced a more encouraging report and consequently paved the way for the children of these children to, at last, enter into that land and possess it.

The situational similarities in these stories, therefore, serve to connect them and highlight their main point: that faithfulness to God, though challenging, brings blessings, while fear postpones those blessings. In this way, haftarot complement their parashot, not only by reinforcing a point, but also by rendering an academic point applicable, by translating an ancient situation into more current terms, and by increasing a passage’s significance.18

No one knows for certain when or why this custom of reading complementary selections from the Prophets began. Although they could reflect a much earlier practice, haftarot readings have been traditionally thought to have originated during the second century bce. This is when Antiochus Epiphanes IV, a Greek Seleucid king, imposed harsh restrictions on Jewish worship, including banning the reading of the Torah. Jews at that time, so the tradition goes, resorted to reading related material from the Prophets as a reminder of the Torah portion they would have ordinarily read on that day. Other scholars think that haftarot were later innovations affirming the place of the prophets in response to the Sadducees and to other groups who denied prophetic authority.19 Regardless of their origins, haftarot continue to enhance Jewish understanding of the Torah by closely connecting it to the Prophets and by adding to it what Rabbi J. H. Hertz calls “a Prophetic message of consolation and hope.”20

The Relationship between the Torah and Prophetic Readings in the Book of Mormon

Once again, because there are no clear or complete descriptions of Nephite worship services in the Book of Mormon, it is not certain how—or even if—portions of the Torah were liturgically linked to specific readings from the prophets. However, there are at least two reasons why Deuteronomy 7:12–11:25, the parashah traditionally connected to Isaiah 49, could have been one of the “many things . . . which were written in the books of Moses” (1 Nephi 19:23) that Nephi read to his brothers before he read that prophetic chapter to them.

For one, the presentational style of this parashah helps explain why Nephi’s brothers asked if the gathering spoken of in Isaiah 49 is “to be understood according to things which are spiritual” or was it something that would occur in “the flesh” (2 Nephi 22:1). Deuteronomy 7:12–11:25, the Torah portion called ‘Eikev or “if” as in “if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them” (Deuteronomy 7:12),21 develops the idea that such obedience will bring blessings to Israel by listing many of the blessings and by doing so in straightforward, tangible terms. As Chapter 7 continues:

He will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee. Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle. And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee. (Deuteronomy 7:13–16)

Chapter 8 similarly describes Israel’s Promised Land as
a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills; A land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and fig trees, and pomegranates; a land of oil olive, and honey; A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass. When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless the Lord thy God for the good land which he hath given thee. (Deuteronomy 8:7–10)

In contrast with the simplicity of Eikev’s presentation, the presentation in Isaiah 49 is much more literarily complex. It includes figures of speech:

- Similes—such as claiming that the prophet’s mouth will be “like a sharp sword,” that the Lord will clothe Israel “as with an ornament,” and that Israel’s enemies “shall be drunken with their own blood as with sweet wine.”

- Metaphors—such as calling the prophet “a polished shaft,” predicting that God has hidden him in his “quiver,” and prophesying that Gentiles will “bow down“ to Israel and carry their children back to their ancient homeland “in their arms” and “upon their shoulders.” Such phrases, though vivid and even beautiful, are impossible to interpret literally (1 Nephi 21:2, 18, 26).

Given this difference in presentation, it is understandable why Nephi’s brothers, if Eikev had indeed been read to them first, would question the physicality of any future gathering of Israel. However, Eikev’s style is not the only reason they would do this. Eikev is similarly straightforward about what Israel is required to do to receive these promised blessings as well as what the consequence would be if these requirements were not met.

In Deuteronomy 8, immediately after detailing the blessings the Lord promises to give Israel, Moses warns them not to forget ”the Lord thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day” (Deuteronomy 8:11). He then reminds them of several times when the Lord blessed them in the past and concludes,

If thou do at all forget the Lord thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the Lord destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 8:19–20, emphasis added)

Lehi had openly testified of the wickedness of the Jews who were living in Jerusalem at that time and had read in vision how many of them would indeed “perish by the sword” (1 Nephi 1:13, 19), just as Eikev predicted. Consequently, it would be only natural for Nephi’s brothers to question the physicality of this gathering—especially considering how far they, as some of those dispersed Israelites, had traveled and how concerned they themselves had been about perishing along the way (1 Nephi 2:11; 5:2, 4; 16:35, 39; 17:5).

Another reason why Eikev might have been one of the “many things” that Nephi had read to his brothers is suggested by his purpose for reading Isaiah 49 to them. As Nephi declares in 1 Nephi 19, he chose this chapter explicitly so that he “might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer” (v. 23).

In the majority of the English-language translations of the Torah, the word redeem is used most often to refer to the process of buying back people or properties that have either been sold to someone or sanctified to the Lord (Exodus 34:20; Leviticus 25:25–26, 29–32, 48–49, 54; 27:13, 15, 19–20, 27–29, 31, 33; Numbers 3:46, 48–49, 51). However, except for one passage in Genesis (48:16), only in Eikev and in the parashot that surround it does this word appear in the Torah in the sense that Nephi uses it—as an action or as an actor that saves people from sin or evil.

In the parashah that comes immediately before Eikev, Va-Ethannan (see Table 2), Moses tells Israel, “Because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen” (Deuteronomy 7:8, emphasis added). In Eikev itself, Moses reinforces this concept of redemption by recounting for Israel the many ways the Lord has aided them during their journey. Those ways included feeding these Israelites with manna, preventing their clothes from wearing out, and producing water out of “rock of flint”—all so that they might know that it is he that rescued them and that “it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth” (Deuteronomy 8:2–4, 15, 18).

Underscoring Israel’s dependence upon the Lord’s power and mercy, Moses next tells them, still in Eikev, that it is “not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land.” He then recounts how Israel provoked the Lord in the wilderness, how they “corrupted themselves” with the golden calf, and how they rebelled against him at Kadesh-barnea (Deuteronomy 9:5, 23–24). Nevertheless, despite these events, Moses prayed for them, pleading with the Lord to “destroy not thy people and thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed through thy greatness” (v. 26, emphasis added).

In fact, the Lord’s redemption of Israel is one of the main themes of Eikev as well as that of the parashot that immediately follow it (see Table 2). In R’eih, the Lord is twice described as the being that “redeemed you out of the house of bondage.” In Shoftim, Moses again pleads with the Lord to “be merciful unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed.” And in Ki Tetzei, he enjoins Israel to “remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee thence” (Deuteronomy 13:5; 15:15; 21:8; 24:18, emphasis added).

Nevertheless, in these parashot, the Lord’s redemption of Israel is confined to the past, to their deliverance from Egypt, and to their rescue from the difficulties of the desert. Isaiah 49, however, extends this concept into the future, using the future tense. Here, in this chapter, the Lord is explicitly referred to as “the Redeemer of Israel,” and he is shown reassuring a much later (and sometimes sinful) Israel that they remain his servants, in whom “I will be glorified.” Similarly, the Lord promises this same Israel that “I will preserve thee” and affirms that, although others may do otherwise, “yet will I not forget thee, O house of Israel” (1 Nephi 21:3, 7, 8, 15). As the Lord adds,

I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard 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 face towards the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord. (1 Nephi 21:22–23)

Again, the Lord states that he will do all these things for Israel in the future and that he will do them so that “all flesh shall know that I, the Lord, am thy Savior and thy Redeemer” (v. 26). In this way, by extending the Lord’s redemption of Israel into the future, Isaiah 49, as a haftarah of Deuteronomy 7:12 to 11:25, does indeed provide a “fuller,” more sweeping presentation of the Lord as Israel’s Redeemer, just as Nephi desired (1 Nephi 19:23).

The Connection between Prophetic Readings and Specific Events in Judaism

However, in the traditional Jewish lectionary, haftarot are not only linked to their parashot; some are connected to Jewish festivals and other significant events as well. This is particularly true of the haftarot that are read immediately before and after Tisha b’Av. On Tisha b’Av, the ninth day in the Jewish month of Av, observant Jews traditionally mourn the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE. Later tradition holds that the destruction of the Second Temple also occurred on that day, as did other tragedies in Jewish history. As Rabbi George Robinson writes, “Tisha b’Av is quite simply the saddest day in the Jewish calendar.”22 As a result, many observant Jews fast on Tisha b’Av and sit “shiva” for their people. They gather in darkened sanctuaries, forego their usual hygienic routines, and sit shoeless on the floor in mourning. They chant Lamentations aloud according to a melody so sorrowful that it is used only on this day. In this way, according to Rabbi Irving Greenberg, “unshaven, unwashed, hungry people reexperience the tragedy of the Destruction.”23

For various reasons, Tisha b’Av is not a major holiday. For one, it is not one of the chagim, or pilgrim festivals, specified by the Torah. Secondly, it is not emphasized by Reform and other liberal Jews who consider their dispersion a good thing in that it put them in a better position to serve as an ethical “light unto the Gentiles” (Isaiah 42:6). Nevertheless, liturgically Tisha b’Av remains important for virtually all observant Jews. As Michael Fishbane writes, this day initiates “a period during which the haftarot relate thematically to the religious calendar.” Instead of reinforcing the themes of their parashot, the haftarot that surround Tisha b’Av stress instead repentance and forgiveness and therefore connect more “to themes of the [upcoming] holy days of the New Year.”24 In this way, the prophetic passages that are read aloud during the weeks that come immediately before and after Tisha b’Av cause their listeners to turn their grief inward, to examine themselves and their lives to see if there are not things they need to change in order to be prepared for Yom Kippur and the redemption that day represents.

According to Rabbi Wayne Dosick, observant Jews traditionally prepare for Tisha b’Av three weeks before, on the seventeenth day of Tammuz, a fast day that “marks the first breach of the walls of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E.” From that day forward, they display “the traditional signs of mourning”—refraining from participating in weddings and other celebrations as well as abstaining from shaving and cutting their hair.25 During this time, “The Three Haftarot of Admonition” are read in Sabbath services—prophetic readings that, according to Fishbane, “warn the people Israel about the consequences of sin.”26

Table 1. The Three Haftarot of Admonition

Parashot Title

Readings

Haftarot

Mattot

Numbers 30:2–32:42

Jeremiah 1:1–2:3

Mas’ei

Numbers 33:1–36:13

Jeremiah 2:4 –28, 3–4

D’varim

Deuteronomy 1:1–3:22

Isaiah 1:1–27

Jeremiah 1:1–2:3, for instance, the first of these haftarot, relates how “out of the north an evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of [Jerusalem]” and tells how the Lord will “utter [his] judgments against them touching all their wickedness” (vv. 1:14, 16). Jeremiah 2:4–28, 3–4, the second haftarah similarly addresses Israel stating, “Thy way and thy doings have procured these things unto thee; this is thy wickedness, because it is bitter, because it reacheth unto thine heart.” (v. 4:18). And Isaiah 1:1–27, the last of these three haftarot, calls Jerusalem a “sinful nation” and tells its inhabitants that they are like a man whose “whole head is sick,” whose “whole heart faint,” whose country will become desolate, and whose cities will be burned with fire (vv. 4–7).

Read on Shabbat Chazon—meaning “vision,” taken from the first Hebrew word of this passage—this last haftarah, according to Greenberg, constitutes “a devastating critique of the sin and corruption of Israel.”27 It serves as the third and final reminder, according to W. Gunther Plaut, that punishment “will be meted out to a people that forgets the God of the Covenant.”28 Nevertheless, as harsh as this warning is, it is not without hope. Here, in this chapter’s last verse, the Lord affirms that despite its sins “Zion shall be redeemed with judgment” (v. 27). In this way, according to Rosenberg, this haftarah serves as a link to the Seven Haftarot of Consolation.29

The Seven Haftarot of Consolation come immediately after Tisha b’Av. In them, the comforting assurances hinted at in the previous haftarah become the dominant theme, and in so doing they not only offer solace to their hearers regarding the destruction of Jerusalem but help prepare them for Yom Kippur, the ultimate consolation, when sins, even the severe sins that led to the destruction of that temple, can be forgiven and mistakes made right.

Table 2. The Seven Haftarot of Consolation

Parashot Title

Readings

Haftarot

Va-Ethannan

Deuteronomy 3:23–7:11

Isaiah 40:1–26

Eikev

Deuteronomy 7:12–11:25

Isaiah 49:14–51:3

R’eih

Deuteronomy 11:26–16:17

Isaiah 54:11–55:5

Shoftim

Deuteronomy 16:18–21:9

Isaiah 51:12–52:12

Ki Tetzei

Deuteronomy 21:10–25:19

Isaiah 54:1–10

Ki Tavo

Deuteronomy 26:1–29:8

Isaiah 60:1–22

Nitzavim

Deuteronomy 29:9–31:30

Isaiah 61:10–63:9

The first haftarah, Isaiah 40:1–26, for instance, sets the tone for the six that follow by commanding God’s prophets to speak “comfortably” to Jerusalem and to “cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned” (Isaiah 40:2). Instead of dwelling on Israel’s past problems, these prophets are to look forward and prepare “the way of the Lord,” make “straight in the desert a highway for our God,” and generally smooth the path on which Israel can return to its promised place of honor (v. 3). To this end, they are to prophesy that eventually “every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together” (vv. 4–5).

In other words, God’s prophets are to send forth “good tidings” to Zion and announce to its dispersed and afflicted inhabitants that God yet remains “your God,” that he “shall feed his flock like a shepherd,” and that he will gather them like “lambs with his arms” (vv. 9–11). In this way, according to Fishbane, Isaiah 40:1–26 as well as the six haftarot that follow it, “announce Israel’s redemption.” In it, “the prophet stresses the fulfillment of God’s word and His supremacy over all nations and kings. The prophecy reorients the people to Zion and announces the advent of God’s Presence—to confirm and guide the renewal of His people and their homeland.”30

At the end of this liturgical cycle comes Shabbat T’shuvah or the Sabbath of Repentance. This is the last Shabbat before Yom Kippur, and during worship services on that day, “it is probable that one will hear a sermon on the theme of repentance. Indeed,” as Robinson continues, “even before it became the custom for a rabbi to sermonize regularly, this Shabbat was marked by a sermon, often given by a leader of the Jewish community, exhorting Jews to repent.”31 Here, once again, according to Fishbane,
haftarah texts were chosen according to the theme of the day and not because of any verbal correspondence with the weekly Torah portion. . . . Hosea in particular, expresses confession of sins and commitment to God; Joel refers to rituals of contrition and purification, along with priestly prayers; and Micah celebrates divine forgiveness of sin.32

In this way, Shabbat T’shuvah completes the ten-week liturgical path from the sorrow and sin of Tisha b’Av to the hope and redemption of Yom Kippur.33

The Connection between Prophetic Readings and Specific Events in the Book of Mormon

Since the Lehites left Jerusalem several years before it was destroyed by the Babylonians,34 they clearly could not have observed Tisha b’Av. Nevertheless, Jacob’s reaction to Jerusalem’s destruction and to the resultant captivity and dispersion of its inhabitants, as recorded in 2 Nephi 6–9, is remarkably similar to the readings and sermons that traditionally follow that day.

Here, consistent with what Jewish leaders have done for centuries on the Sabbath and still do today, Jacob addresses all of his people, and he does so formally and officially, as their priest and teacher, in what very much appears to be a worship service (1 Nephi 6:1–2). Here, consistent with how the Torah comes first in all Jewish services, Jacob begins by reminding his people that he has previously taught them from it, even “all things which are written, from the creation of the world” (v. 3). Here, consistent with how a reading from the Prophets comes next, he then reads a section from Isaiah 49, part of the Second Haftarah of Consolation (vv. 5–7). Here, consistent with how an explanatory sermon then follows the haftarah reading, Jacob follows his reading with a derashah, where he speaks to his people “somewhat concerning these [Isaiah’s] words” (v. 8). And here, consistent with what darshanim traditionally attempt to do during the Sabbath worship services that succeed Tisha b’Av, he likens these readings to his listeners and tries to comfort them. He explains that, although the Lord has shown him that the inhabitants of Jerusalem “have been slain and carried away captive” in the past and will be similarly afflicted once more in the future, their descendants shall be “gathered together again to the lands of their inheritance” when the Messiah will set himself “the second time to recover them” (vv. 8, 11, 14).

However, as striking as these consistencies may be, there are more. After his first derashah, Jacob reads the rest of the Second Haftarah of Consolation (Isaiah 50 to 51:3) to his people as well as most of the Fourth (51:12 to 52:12). These readings testify that “the Lord is near” (2 Nephi 7:8–9), that he “shall comfort Zion,” and that “he will comfort all her waste places.” Jacob then continues, declaring that the Lord “will make her wilderness like Eden” (8:3), that “the redeemed of the Lord shall return,” and that in that land “they shall obtain gladness and joy” (v. 11). In this way, Jacob, again, just as Jewish religious leaders have for centuries, tries to console a displaced and afflicted Israel and reassures them that they still have a place in God’s heart and a home in Jerusalem.

Nonetheless, along with these words of consolation there is also encouragement to repent, as is appropriate for readings leading up to Yom Kippur, the day when the high priest anciently made “an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel” (Leviticus 16:17). This is also the day when Jews finalize their repentance process and at last receive forgiveness from God.35 Isaiah 52, for instance, begins, and 2 Nephi 8 ends, by speaking to Israel directly and by urging them, as a “captive daughter of Zion,” to “awake,” to “put on thy strength,” to “shake thyself from the dust,” and to “loose thyself from the bands of thy neck” (2 Nephi 8:24–25). Similarly, Jacob, in his second derashah, reassures his people that they, as part of scattered Israel, will also “be gathered home to the lands of their inheritance” (9:2). However, he also invites them to “turn away from [their] sins” by urging them to “shake off the chains of him that would bind [them] fast” and to “come unto that God who is the rock of [their] salvation” (v. 45).

In addition, Jacob augments his heartfelt plea by explaining to his people the concept of atonement—what it is and how it works. Much like a rabbi readying his congregation for Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, Jacob urges them to prepare “for that glorious day when justice shall be administered unto the righteous, even the day of judgment, that ye may not shrink with awful fear; that ye may not remember your awful guilt in perfectness, and be constrained to exclaim: Holy, holy are thy judgments, O Lord God Almighty” (v. 46).

In this way, Jacob completes the liturgical path that surrounds Tisha b’Av, a path that leads Israel from sin and destruction to a final redemption symbolized by Yom Kippur. In sharp contrast with the fasting that is observed on both of these somber days, Jacob concludes his derashah by quoting Isaiah 55:1–2, part of the Third Haftarah of Consolation, a passage that revels in the joy of that redemption:

Come, my brethren, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; and he that hath no money, come buy and eat; yea, come buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore, do not spend money for that which is of no worth, nor your labor for that which cannot satisfy. Hearken diligently unto me, and remember the words which I have spoken; and come unto the Holy One of Israel, and feast upon that which perisheth not, neither can be corrupted, and let your soul delight in fatness. (2 Nephi 9:50–51)

Conclusion

Once again, how exactly the Nephites worshipped anciently on the Sabbath is not entirely clear. However, the fact that their use of the Hebrew Scriptures, as presented in the Book of Mormon, connects so strikingly with the way Jews today use those scriptures in their Sabbath worship services is extremely meaningful, especially to Latter-day Saint Jews. Through sad experience, they are very much aware that traditional Christianity has historically held that the covenant between God and the Jews was broken and that all of their traditional practices in support of that covenant are superficial and worthless.36 These Jews, like almost all Jews, are also cognizant that this anti-Judaic view, augmented by accusations of being Christ-killers, has led to nearly two thousand years of Jewish subjugation, segregation, persecution, and victimization—and that these anti-Semitic activities continue today. Consequently, they are often conflicted about joining a Christian church, even one outside of that historical tradition such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As Lindsay Perlman states, “I am always Jewish. That doesn’t change. But [being baptized into the Church] can feel a little bit like you are cut off from your people.”37 Consequently, it was a great comfort to her that, as she studied the Book of Mormon, she noticed a number of actions and events in that book that resonated with her Jewish heritage—so much so that she now refers to the Book of Mormon as very much “a Jewish book.” As she explains, ”[The people in the Book of Mormon] have a way of thinking of things that is very, very at its core Jewish.”38

Indeed, Jason Olson, who suffered tremendous angst about joining the Church despite a dramatic spiritual experience, was greatly relieved to discover that the idea “that the Lord has not cast those [Jewish] covenants off” is a pervasive “theme throughout the entire Book of Mormon.”39 Consequently, the way it prophetically connects to modern Jewish practices that have been seen and heard and even touched by many Latter-day Saint Jews provides them—as well as others—a very personal, almost sensory reassurance that God, like Nephi, does in fact have “charity” for Jews as Jews, that he treasures their traditions, particularly their scriptural traditions, and that he condemns all efforts to denigrate Jews and devalue their heritage (2 Nephi 25:5; 33:8). As Nephi prophetically writes:

But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people. (2 Nephi 29:4–5)

Bradley J. Kramer is the author of Beholding the Tree of Life: A Rabbinic Approach to the Book of Mormon and Gathered in One: How the Book of Mormon Counters Anti-Semitism in the New Testament. He holds an MA in English from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a BA in English from Brigham Young University with a minor in Near Eastern Studies. As a native of Cincinnati and as the son of an LDS mother and a non-LDS father, he has had a life-long interest in interfaith dialogue. For over twenty years, he has been a regular participant in Torah and Talmud classes at local synagogues in Durham, North Carolina, and has helped arrange joint Latter-day Saint-Jewish study sessions and other educational exchanges. He has also given several presentations to local and regional groups on the affinities between Latter-day Saints and Jews and is a regular speaker at comparative religion classes. Bradley has worked professionally as a writer and editor for several computer companies. He is an avid reader and researcher; a one-time youth soccer coach; a frequent Sunday School, Seminary, and Institute teacher; and devoted tennis player. He and his wife, Nancy, have three children and eight grandchildren.

1 . Gale T. Boyd, Days of Awe: Jewish Holy Days, Symbols, and Prophecies for Latter-day Saints (self-pub., Millennial Press, 2002 and 2007), back cover.

2 . Boyd, Days of Awe, 175.

3 . Marlena Tanya Muchnick, ed., A Mormon’s Guide to Judaism: Introduction to Jewish Religion and Culture for Latter-day Saints (self-pub., Granite Publishing, 2004), 33.

4 . Jason Olson and James Goldberg, The Burning Book: A Jewish-Mormon Memoir (Newburgh, IN: By Common Consent Press, 2022).

5 . Rebecca Devonas, “In the Burning Book: Jason Olson,” interview with Jason Olson, In the Book (podcast), 16 June 2023, 14:04, inthebook.podbean.com/e
/trying-to-burn-the-book/.

6 . Affirmed verbally in conversations by several Latter-day Saint Jews, these connections are described by Bradley J. Kramer in Gathered in One: How the Book of Mormon Counters Anti-Semitism in the New Testament (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2019), 73–82, 100–02.

7 . All of these festivals are called Sabbaths or involve Sabbaths, days where “ye shall do no servile work therein”: Passover (Leviticus 23:5–8); Shavuot (Leviticus 23:9–21); Rosh Hashanah or the Feast of Trumpets (Leviticus 23:23–25); Sukkot (Leviticus 23:34–39).

8 . Dovid Rosenfeld, “Tefillin on Chol HaMo’ed,” Ask the Rabbi (blog), Aish, aish.com/tefillin-on-chol-hamoed/. In this article Rabbi Rosenfeld cites Eruvin 96a as evidence that festivals are signs of God’s covenant with the Jews. The William Davidson Talmud, Sefaria.org, sefaria.org/Eruvin.96a.10?lang=bi. Menachot 36b states something similar. The William Davidson Talmud, Sefaria
.org, sefaria.org/Menachot.36b?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en.

9 . John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 213.

10 . Richard Dilworth Rust, Feasting on the Word: The Literary Testimony of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS], 1997), 2–3, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/34/.

11 . Elyse Goldstein, ed., The Women’s Haftarah Commentary: New Insights from Women Rabbis on the 54 Weekly Haftarah Portions, the 5 Megillot and Special Shabbatot (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 2004), xxi. Because the Book of Mormon was written explicitly to the “Jew” (title page) and not to Jewish scholars, I have chosen to cite sources commonly seen in synagogue libraries and in Jewish homes as opposed to less frequently known scholarly articles.

12 . Michael Fishbane, The JPS Bible Commentary: Haftarot (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002), xix.

13 . Hayim Halevy Donin, To Pray as a Jew: A Guide to the Prayer Book and the Synagogue Service (New York: BasicBooks, 1980), 55. A more literal translation would include the phrase “from the mouth of God.”

14 . Fishbane, Haftarot, xix.

15 . Stephen M. Wylen, Settings of Silver: An Introduction to Judaism (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 12.

16 . Esther is read on Purim, Song of Solomon on Passover, Ruth on Shavuot, Lamentations on Tisha b’Av, Jonah on Yom Kippur, and Ecclesiastes on Sukkot. The Psalms figure prominently in all services, as they did in ancient temple worship.

17 . The Ashkenazic and Sephardic traditions differ occasionally on what haftarot are read with what parashot. However, in all of examples used in this paper, the two traditions agree. Furthermore, this paper (and the books it cites) follow the Annual Cycle of Torah readings. There is a Triennial Cycle that some Jews use. However, the Annual Cycle is more traditional and more widely used.

18 . A helpful discussion of the purposes of haftarot and their connection to the Book of Mormon can be found in Part 2 of Bradley J. Kramer, Beholding the Tree of Life: A Rabbinic Approach to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2014).

19 . Goldstein, Women’s Haftarah Commentary, xxi–xxii.

20 . J. H. Hertz ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 2nd ed. (London: Soncino Press, 1981), 20.

21 . Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 88.

22 . George Robinson, Essential Judaism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs, Customs, and Rituals (New York: Pocket Books, 2000), 131.

23 . Irving Greenberg, The Jewish Way: Living the Holidays (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), 296.

24 . Michael Fishbane, “First Haftarah of Admonition: Haftarah for Mattot,” in Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, ed. David L. Lieber (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 2001), 968.

25 . Wayne Dosick, Living Judaism: The Complete Guide to Jewish Belief, Tradition, and Practice (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), 197.

26 . Fishbane, “First Haftarah of Admonition,” 968.

27 . Greenberg, The Jewish Way, 295.

28 . W. Gunther Plaut, The Haftarah Commentary, trans. Chaim Stern (New York: UAHC Press, 1996), 428.

29 . Stephen Gabriel Rosenberg, The Haphtrara Cycle: A Handbook to the Haphtaroth of the Jewish Year (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 2000), 175.

30 . Michael Fishbane, “First Haftarah of Consolation: Haftarah for Va-Ethannan,” in Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, ed. David L. Lieber (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 2001), 1032.

31 . Robinson, Essential Judaism, 96.

32 . Michael Fishbane, “Haftarah for Shabbat Shuvah,” in Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, ed. David L. Lieber (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 2001), 1234.

33 . Fishbane, “First Haftarah of Consolation,” 1032.

34 . For a sampling of when scholars think Lehi left Jerusalem, see Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “Dating the Departure of Lehi from Jerusalem,” BYU Studies 57, no. 2 (2018): 7–51, byustudies.byu.edu/article/dating-the-departure-of-lehi
-from-jerusalem, and David Rolph Seely, “Chronology, Book of Mormon,” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 196–204.

35 . Dosick, Living Judaism, 135.

36 . William Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1995), 130, 172–73.

37 . Rebecca Devonas, “Another Jewish Book: Lindsey Perlman,” interview with Lindsey Perlman, In the Book (podcast), 2 June 2023, 16:17, inthebook.podbean.com/e/another-jewish-book/.

38 . Devonas, “Another Jewish Book,” 10:42.

39 . Devonas, “In the Burning Book,” 11:15. Joseph Spencer thinks that the main example of “plain and precious things” that the Book of Mormon says were removed from the Bible was the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, one of the main purposes of the Book of Mormon is to restore these “things” and reaffirm that covenant with the Jews. Joseph Spencer, The Vision of All: Twenty–five Lectures on Isaiah in Nephi’s Record (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2016), 8.

Restoring Melchizedek Priesthood

John S. Thompson

Abstract: Church historical sources make four differing claims as to when, how, and by whom Melchizedek priesthood was restored. These seemingly conflicting sources have led to many theories about what happened, including the idea that Joseph Smith changed his narrative and rewrote history as his ideas of priesthood evolved. A closer look at the sources, more carefully defining the terminology, and being more aware of ancient patterns provide a better solution for understanding the purpose and relationship of these four narratives and thus the nature of the Melchizedek priesthood Joseph Smith restored.

“In establishing his kingdom, church, or order, in the world the Savior seems to have pursued a certain system.”

—Sidney Rigdon1

On 27 August 1843, in the grove next to the Nauvoo temple site, Joseph Smith gave a sermon on the biblical Letter to the Hebrews, stating that it, particularly the seventh chapter, referenced “3 grand principles or orders of Priesthood” or “three different priesthoods.”2 According to those who left a record of the sermon, the Prophet referenced these three priestly orders as follows:

Willard Richards

- “King of Shiloam,”3 “the power of Melchisedick,”4 “Presthood of Melchisedek”5

- “patriarchal authority”6

- “Levitical Prest”7

James Burgess

- “the priesthood of Aron,” “Levi’s [priesthood],” “priesthood of Levi,”8 “that of Levi or Aron,” “levitical priesthood”9

- the “priesthood of . . . Abraham,” “Abraham’s priesthood,” “that of Abraham”10

- “the priesthood of . . . Melchesedek,” “Melchesedeck’s [priesthood]”11 “the order of Melchesideck”12

Levi Richards

- “Aaronic”13
- “Patriarchal”14
- “Melchisedec”15

Franklin D. Richards

- “Levitical”16

- “Abraham’s patriarchal power,”17

- “That of melchisedec,” “power & Authority of Melchisede”18

William Clayton

- “the priesthood of Melchisedek,”19 “Melchisek p’d,”20

Apart from William Clayton, who only recorded remarks concerning the Melchizedek order,21 everyone reporting the sermon portrayed the Prophet outlining the three priestly orders in a particular relative sequence. They place the Abrahamic or patriarchal order in the second position, greater than the Aaronic or Levitical but subordinate to the Melchizedek order. James Burgess’s account makes this sequence explicit: “Paul is here treating of three different priesthoods, namely the priesthood of Aron, Abraham, and Melchesedeck, Abrahams’s priesthood was of greater power than Levi’s and Melchesedeck’s was of greater power than that of Abraham.”22 Joseph Smith is also reported to have said that the Abrahamic/patriarchal order was “the greatest yet experienced in this church,” suggesting that the highest, Melchizedek order, had not yet been experienced as of the August 1843 date of this sermon.23 That some aspect of priesthood had not yet been experienced in the Church was also expressed in an earlier 1841 revelation that indicated it was necessary for the Nauvoo Temple to be built in order that the Lord will have a “place found on earth that he may come and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the Priesthood” (Doctrine and Covenants 124:28).

Joseph Smith, declaring in August 1843 that the Melchizedek order of the priesthood had not yet been experienced in the Church, is the last in a long line of seemingly confusing and contradictory narratives concerning the restoration of this priesthood. As historians have pointed out, the standard narrative that John the Baptist as an angel restored the Aaronic priesthood; that Peter, James, and John as angels restored the higher Melchizedek priesthood; and that Moses, Elias, and Elijah as angels restored specific keys of the priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery is not so simple in the historical record. Indeed, there are four accounts in the sources concerning how, when, and by whom the Melchizedek priesthood was restored:

1. The earliest sources (1831) explicitly claiming a restoration of a “high” or “Melchizedek” priesthood point to the June 1831 conference in Kirtland, Ohio, wherein several elders of the Church met together and ordained each other to this priesthood, including Joseph Smith himself.24 The original entry for this conference in the official History of the Church (initially begun in 1838) declared, “The authority of the Melechisedec priesthood was manifested and conferred, for the first time, upon several of the elders.”25

2. The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants is the first source to explicitly mention Peter, James, and John giving a high authority to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, 26 but this account only mentions they were ordained as apostles. It is not until the 1838 History of the Church that Peter, James, and John are connected specifically to a Melchizedek priesthood.27

3. The 1838 History of the Church declares that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were praying in the chamber of Father Whitmer’s house for the specific purpose of obtaining the higher Melchizedek authority whereby they could give the Holy Ghost, an authority promised to them by John the Baptist at the time he gave them the lesser Aaronic priesthood.28 In a miraculous answer to this prayer, the voice of the Lord was heard, instructing them to gather together those who had been baptized, partake of the sacrament together, obtain everyone’s consent that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery should be the First and Second Elder of the Church respectively, and then to ordain each other (and others as moved upon by the Spirit) as elders. Once these steps were taken, they were authorized to give the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who had been baptized, suggesting this was when and how the Melchizedek authority for giving the Holy Ghost was to be restored.29 All of these instructions were fulfilled during the organization of the Church on 6 April 1830 and the gift of the Holy Ghost was indeed given at that time.30

4. In Joseph Smith’s 1838 History, the report of the angel Moroni’s appearance in September 1823 has the angel declaring that Elijah would be the one who would “reveal the priesthood.”31 Likewise, Joseph Smith’s 27 August 1843 sermon indicates not only that the Melchizedek Order had not yet been experienced in the Church (as noted above), but that “[God] shall send Elijah” in relation to it.32

These apparently competing claims of how, when, and by whom the Melchizedek priesthood was restored have led to several theories and debates about what is happening in the historical records. The school of thought that appears to have gained the most traction among more recent historians was laid out in monographs by Gregory A. Prince and D. Michael Quinn.33 Quinn’s work characteristically plumbs the depths of the sources, notes seeming contradictions, and concludes that Joseph Smith appears to be changing his ideas of priesthood and altering his histories over time.34 Greg Prince’s publication a year later also leans in the direction of shifting terminology, and thus narratives, due to a changing theology of priesthood in the mind of the Prophet. For example, he concludes that Joseph Smith’s seeming change from two to three priesthood orders in the August 1843 sermon noted above and the declaration that the Melchizedek order had not yet been experienced was a result of the Prophet’s renaming the former Melchizedek order of priesthood as the “patriarchal” order so he could make room for an additional higher order he was introducing for the first time in Nauvoo.35

The works of Brian Q. Cannon and Larry C. Porter, appearing in roughly the same time-period as those of Prince and Quinn, attempt to synthesize the data in ways more consistent with mainstream views of priesthood in the Church.36 However, they do not appear to fully engage with many of the issues that Quinn and Prince raise. More recent historians appear more influenced by Quinn’s and Prince’s compelling works. Richard Bushman defers largely to Prince’s work and conclusions concerning priesthood concepts and development in his seminal biography of Joseph Smith.37 Spencer Fluhman’s article on priesthood development also relies heavily on the work of these others for his conclusions. Fluhman’s statement that “Joseph Smith and the other brethren early on used the terms ‘elder,’ ‘high priesthood,’ ‘high priest,’ and ‘Melchizedek Priesthood’ in sometimes confusing ways” appears true to anyone who is familiar with the original sources. His conclusion that “Joseph Smith learned the hard way that as soon as he said something like, ‘We now have all the authority or power God intends for his people,’ some other authority, power, or deep insight came and rearranged the ecclesiastical furniture” summarizes current assumptions among many historians.38

Terryl Givens’s and Jonathan Stapley’s monographs likewise lean towards evolutionary explanations; however, they give greater emphasis to the idea, which the others had also noted, that much of the confusion arises from tensions and conflations of two seemingly separate priesthood traditions that they assert Joseph Smith is restoring—a male-centric ecclesiastical priesthood related to Church government and a later-developed family-centric “cosmological” priesthood related to his temple theology.39

The general conclusion these scholars develop is that the Church began with shifting narratives around a male-centric, ecclesiastical concept of priesthood. Then later, particularly in Nauvoo, a cosmological priesthood took shape in Joseph Smith’s mind, which began to rise in prominence and which included the role of women and family. However, after the Prophet died, the earlier male-centric ecclesiastical version expanded and overcame the cosmological version and suppressed it from the cultural memory of the Church (partly due to misogynistic tendencies). As Stapley summarizes:

[The cosmological priesthood] rose and fell in the history of Mormon belief. The gender-inclusive priesthood language of the Nauvoo Temple contradicted the exclusively male ecclesiastical priesthood language that developed in the church; ultimately, the latter held sway. After the decline of the cosmological priesthood as an active internal framework, Mormons spent the last one hundred years working to understand how women fit into an increasingly vast priesthood authority structure. Similarly, baby blessings, which once announced the place of children in the cosmological priesthood, grew to be a performative act of a sacerdotal and ecclesiastical fatherhood. With regard to healing, cosmological priesthood language became an area of confusion as church leaders concentrated church liturgy and authority within the priesthood ecclesiastical structures of the church and created ordinances—sacred and venerable rituals performed by priesthood officers that became the basis of worship for millions. Any analysis of authority throughout Mormon history is consequently challenged by the changing lexical terrain.40

There has certainly been some difficulty understanding the sources on priesthood that Joseph Smith left behind. The works of Quinn, Prince, Cannon, Stapley, and others have done much to gather relevant data and raise questions about priesthood not only in Joseph Smith’s day but in subsequent generations as they attempt to fully unpack and implement his restorations.41 However, the conclusions that the Prophet was changing and rewriting the narrative of priesthood origins as he went along or was evolving two different versions of priesthood (ecclesiastical and cosmological) are more likely, on closer inspection, artificial portrayals and divisions created by the scholars who promote them in their effort to make sense of the data. The liberal use of second-hand or late sources to reconstruct history as well as misunderstandings concerning the nature and terminology of priesthood that Joseph Smith was restoring appear to have contributed to some of the confusion.

When more contemporary and reliable sources are used and the nature of priesthood is better understood, the co-existence of the multiple origin narratives appears less confusing. This is not to say that the Prophet always had everything perfectly figured out from the beginning, but the framework he erects does appear to be more consistent than some have claimed, and many of the contradictions resolve themselves.

It is important to note that all four seemingly conflicting narratives of Melchizedek priesthood restoration appear to one degree or another in the singular 1838 History of the Church that Joseph Smith started with his scribes—a strange thing to do if all narratives were meant to be describing the same event. The simultaneous existence of these many narratives becomes more understandable; however, when it is acknowledged that the Prophet frequently and consistently taught that though he was restoring a singular priesthood, it was a composite priesthood of portions and degrees.

For example, after outlining several offices of priesthood within the Church, the Prophet explained in 1832 that really there were only two main offices—the priest and high priest—and all others were appendages to them:

And again, the offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood [i.e., high priests]. And again, the offices of teacher and deacon are necessary appendages belonging to the lesser priesthood [i.e., priests], which priesthood was confirmed upon Aaron and his sons. (Doctrine and Covenants 84:29–30)

In these sources the offices of priest and high priest are not referred to as “appendages” to a general “lesser priesthood” or “greater priesthood” because these two offices were understood to be the embodiment of the lesser and greater priesthood respectively; therefore the other offices are appendages to them.42 Additionally, as an 1835 revelation indicates, the lesser priesthood (i.e., the Aaronic priest) is itself just a sub–division of the greater priesthood (i.e., the Melchizedek high priest): “Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, . . . a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:14, 17). In other words, all offices in the Church (an important distinction as will be made clear below) were viewed as portions or appendages to the one singular high priestly office.

Likewise, in 1837 “Joseph Smith jr. rose and spoke on the subject of the Priesthood. . . . all [the different offices] are necessary in their place, and the body is not complete without all the members. . . . Therefore in viewing the church as whole, we may strictly denominate it one priesthood.”43 In a sermon given in 1841, the Prophet again affirmed: “All priesthood is Melchizedeck; but there are different portions or degrees of it.”44

If Joseph Smith made four different claims to restoring Melchizedek priesthood but then provided the actual key for understanding why—i.e., that the whole of Melchizedek priesthood has different portions and degrees—then historians and theologians are duty bound by their source to try and understand how each piece, uniquely defined, fits into the whole. Simply declaring that Joseph Smith is changing his mind, and thus the narrative, because the sources appear contradictory or confusing to the modern reader is an easy way out. There is no indication that the narrative was confusing to him.

William Hartley’s and Michael MacKay’s works on priesthood restoration explore the idea that the Prophet appears to be restoring component parts of a whole.45 Hartley particularly does a wonderful job of visualizing the role of the Book of Mormon in shaping priesthood restoration.46 Approaches like theirs begin to make more sense of all the data and should likely bear greater fruit. However, they, like the others, have not yet given substantial reasons for the existence of each part nor fully defined the relationship of each to the others. Additionally, the relationship of priesthood ordination by the laying on of hands to priesthood ordination by temple rites has yet to be explained satisfactorily.

The following attempts to build on the extensive work these scholars have done but suggests some clearer terminology and proposes a relationship between all four narrative accounts of Melchizedek priesthood restoration—a relationship centered upon how each uniquely contributes to building a kingdom of God. Remaining difficulties will also be noted. Additionally, Joseph Smith and his contemporaries claimed they were restoring an “ancient order” of priesthood,47 so academic rigor and integrity with respect to this claim requires that one looks at how priesthood operated anciently. Patterns and terminology from that era do indeed give clarity to the Prophet’s multiple priesthood restoration narratives. Using antiquity as an approach to understanding the revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith has fallen out of favor among many Latter-day Saint scholars of late, but its inclusion here provides crucial insight that helps explain the sources.

The four narratives mentioned above can be placed in order of when “high priesthood” or “Melchizedek priesthood” are explicitly mentioned, giving the appearance that the first restoration of this priesthood was at the June 1831 conference. In contrast, the following organizes the sources according to the time any claim to higher authority or office appears in the sources.48 Such an ordering better demonstrates the purpose and relationship of each portion of the priesthood to its complementary parts and arguably provides a more accurate historical picture. Additionally, this approach allows ancient patterns to be more easily perceived. It should become clearer through this investigation that restoring Melchizedek priesthood was no singular event but a restoration patchwork of portions and degrees represented by the various priestly orders. Each is necessary and has a unique role in the complete construction of a kingdom of God. However, one portion did have to come first and open the way for all the other parts and degrees.

The Melchizedek Priesthood in the Wilderness for Establishing a Kingdom (Apostle)

The earliest (1829–1830) title of high authority associated with or claimed by Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and others in the sources is that of apostle.49 It is not until 1835 that sources connect their reception of apostleship at the hands of the ancient Apostles Peter, James, and John50 and not until the History of the Church (initial draft begun in 1838) is their authority explicitly referenced as Melchizedek priesthood.51 Two additional sources in 1832 and 1835 mention unnamed angelic messengers bestowing a “holy priesthood,” but who and what exactly is meant is not explicitly stated.52 However, since the “holy priesthood” in the 1835 account is given by “they [plural] who received it under the hand of the Messiah,” the historian must consider that Joseph Smith may have had disciples of Jesus in mind in the 1832 account as well since the same term “holy priesthood” appears in both sources and both make reference to plural agents (“angels” and “they . . . who received it under the hand of the Messiah”) giving this priesthood—in contrast to claims of a lesser authority bestowed by a singular angel.53

The important thing is that apostleship is the first higher authority claimed chronologically. This is consistent with ancient patterns. As discussed below, the first authority Jesus appears to grant his followers in the Bible is apostleship. Likewise, Jesus first grants authority to twelve disciples in the Book of Mormon in the pattern of the Apostles in the Bible. That apostolic authority comes first is also consistent with Joseph Smith’s later teachings that an apostle, in contrast to all other authorities, is sent first into the world to establish a church or kingdom of God.

Not long after the Prophet, through the Three Witnesses, called and formalized the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in February 1835, he counseled them to keep a record of their ministry. The Record of the Transactions of the Twelve was created and many of the initial instructions the Prophet gave to the Twelve were copied into it, including his remarks on the unique authority and purpose apostles have in contrast to other callings and offices:

The following question was then proposed by president J Smith Jun. (viz) What importance is attached to the callings of these twelve apostles differrent from the other callings and offices of the church. After some discussion by Elders [David W.] Patten, [Brigham] Young, M’cLellin and W[illiam] Smith, the following decision was given by President Smith, the Prophet of God. They are the twelve apostles who are called to a travelling high council to preside over all the churches of the saints among the gentiles where there is no presidency established. They are to travel and preach among the Gentiles until the Lord shall command them to go to the Jews. They are to hold the keys of this ministry—to unlock the door of the kingdom of heaven unto all nations and preach the Gospel unto every creation. This is the virtue powr and authority of their Apostleship—Amen. 54

The Prophet spoke of apostles preaching “among the gentiles” and having the keys to “unlock the door of the kingdom of heaven” to them as well as presiding over any gathering of saints or churches that were considered “among the gentiles.” More specifically, apostles preside among the gentiles “where there is no presidency established.”

During a 30 March 1836 meeting recorded in his journal, Joseph Smith clarified the labor and authority of the Apostles through their connection with the Seventy who were also called in February 1835 to assist the Twelve:55
the seventies are not called to serve tables [an idiom from Acts 6:2] or preside over churches to settle difficulties, but to preach the gospel and build them up, and set others who do not belong to these quorums to preside over them who are high priests—the twelve also are not to serve tables, but to bear the keys of the kingdom to all nations, and unlock them and call upon the seventies to follow after them and assist them. The 12 are at liberty to go wheresoever they will and if one shall say, I wish to go to such a place let all the rest say Amen.56

The combined thrust of his teachings is that the Apostles, with their assistants the Seventy, are to preach the gospel among the Gentiles and use their keys to establish churches and build them up until they can “set others . . . who are high priests” to preside over them. Once they have high priests, presumably the core of the kingdom of God is established in that place and the Twelve move on to expand the boundaries of God’s kingdom elsewhere.

While the Twelve can go anywhere, the Prophet clarified at the 2 May 1835 conference in Kirtland, just prior to the Twelve departing for their mission to the Eastern States, that
the Twelve will have no right to go into Zion or any of its stakes [i.e., the ecclesiastical boundaries where a high priest presides] and there undertake to regulate the affairs thereof where there is a standing High Council. But it is their duty to go abroad and regulate all matters relative to the different branches of the Church. . . . [Conversely] No standing high council has authority his to go into the churches abroad and regulate the matters thereof, for this belongs to the Twelve. No High Council will ever be established only in Zion or one of its Stakes.57

Interestingly, Esplin and Nielsen noted that when any of the Twelve attended a conference in an established part of the kingdom, they did not record any ministering they did in the official record of the Twelve. Rather, they only recorded their efforts in their private journals or histories, suggesting they did not view any preaching or ministering they may have done within a fully established kingdom as part of their official role as Apostles.58

In sum, the unique “virtue power and authority of [the] Apostleship” was to have authority in “the wilderness” (Revelation 12:14) where no kingdom is established and to turn the keys which they hold to establish the kingdom by eventually setting up presiding high priests and high councils. That the kingdom of God in any place was only considered fully incorporated by the appointment of a high priestly presidency suggests that Joseph Smith viewed the kingdom of God growing as a network of smaller kingdoms (or “principalities”) that were each established and appended to the whole via the Apostles and the Seventy. This is like the Book of Mormon’s portrayal of smaller kingdoms that exist within a large singular kingdom such as Melchizedek’s, who was a king in his land of Salem but “did reign under his father” (Alma 13:18). Also, Lamoni and his friend Antiomno were both kings in their lands but were subordinate to Lamoni’s father “who was king over all the land” (Alma 20:1–8).

In this context, the “keys of this [apostolic] ministry” (referred to by Oliver Cowdery as the “keys of the kingdom” when he ordained Orson Hyde an Apostle),59 appear to be keys that are specific to establishing a kingdom of heaven where one does not exist. This is not to be confused with other keys of authority restored later to operate within an established kingdom.

These later teachings of Joseph Smith to the Twelve (and to their assistants the Seventy) are consistent with the very beginnings of priesthood restoration. In fact, the Prophet explicitly likened the apostolic authority of the Twelve among the Gentile nations to the reception of his own apostolic authority prior to the establishment of the Church in the United States:

In the first place God manifested himself to me and gave me authority to establish his church, and you have receivd your authority from God through me; and now it is your duty to go and unlock the kingdom of heaven to foreign nations, for no man can do that thing but yourselves. Neither has any man authority or a right to go to other nations before you; and you, twelve, stand in the same relation to those nations that I stand in to you, that is, as a minister; and you have each the same authority in other nations that I have in this nation.60

Here, the Prophet claimed that “in the first place” God gave him “authority to establish his church” and that he, through the Three Witnesses, has now passed “this same authority”—i.e., apostolic authority—to the Twelve so they can “unlock the kingdom of heaven to foreign nations” just as Joseph has “in this nation.” These words demonstrate that Joseph Smith saw apostolic authority as the first and unique high authority for establishing and organizing an official kingdom of God or church, with the goal of eventually having presiding high priests appointed to fully incorporate it.

This account (corroborated by the earliest sources) counters any speculation that Joseph Smith viewed any other authority as sufficient to inaugurate an official kingdom of God as he did on 6 April 1830. Apostleship is the first high authority associated with and claimed by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the earliest sources prior to the restoration of the Church as noted above.61 Consequently, the earliest sources agree with the principle he taught later that apostleship is that portion of the Melchizedek priesthood that is sent first into a wilderness (among the Gentiles where no presidency exists) in order that it may use its unique authority and keys to establish and build up a kingdom. This understanding can give greater meaning to Joseph Smith’s reflection that he and Oliver Cowdery received the apostolic authority by “the voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness . . .” (Doctrine and Covenants 128:20).

That apostles (and Seventy) can be preceded by a lesser priesthood—which is also, scripturally speaking, a voice crying “in the wilderness” preparing the way—is a pattern in biblical antiquity and echoed in Joseph Smith’s Restoration. The supreme example is, of course, John the Baptist, an Aaronic priest who baptized with water in the wilderness, declaring that the kingdom of God was at hand but telling his followers that they needed to anticipate another who was coming after with greater authority to baptize them with fire and the Holy Ghost (see Matthew 3:1–12, John 1:1–34).

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery claimed that an angel, John the Baptist, restored a lesser priesthood for baptizing prior to their apostleship and prior to the organization of the Church.62 They used this lesser authority to formally bring people to repentance through baptism as a preparation for their later entrance into the kingdom via the gift of the Holy Ghost (compare John 3:5).63

In sum, apostolic authority appears to be the first high authority sent to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery for the purpose of establishing a kingdom of God, building it up, and eventually putting high priestly presidencies into place to complete it. As will be seen, apostleship is the foundation from which all other high authorities or offices come into existence in likeness of Paul’s declaration in Ephesians 2:20. As Sidney Rigdon declared, “Such was the ancient order of things in laying the foundation to establish the order of God, and out of this [apostleship] all the rest of the order grew.”64 Based on this and the principle of synecdoche (a part representing the whole), it is both logical and understandable to view the restoration of apostleship as representing the restoration of the whole of Melchizedek priesthood as the standard narrative in the Church declares.

Apostleship is the authority that has established high priestly presidencies of the Church from the local stake to the general First Presidency level since the beginning. When any of these high priestly presidencies dissolve through death or other release, the keys of the kingdom held by the Apostles turn in order to reconstitute those presidencies because establishing kingdoms is their unique role, as the Prophet said. Once a presidency of high priests is established, the early teaching of Joseph Smith appears to indicate that the office of Apostle no longer regulates the affairs of the kingdom in that area. However, “an apostle is an elder” (Doctrine and Covenants 20:38) and this second title gives them another distinct authority relative to the construction of a kingdom of God.65

The Melchizedek Priesthood in the Church for
Confirming a Kingdom (Elder)

Another title of higher authority that is claimed in the earliest sources is that of elder.66 In contrast to David Whitmer’s late (1887) and questionable recollection that the office of elder was first given in 1829, Joseph Smith’s 1838 History indicates this authority was restored specifically at the organization of the Church or kingdom of God on 6 April 1830.67 As will be demonstrated, this portion of the Melchizedek priesthood was ordained specifically for the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost in the context of a Church, thus making it somewhat distinct in purpose from the apostolic authority in the wilderness noted above.

The June 1829 entry of the 1838 History of the Church provides detail concerning the beginnings of this portion of Melchizedek priesthood. In it, Joseph Smith indicated that he and Oliver Cowdery were in the chamber of Father Whitmer’s home specifically praying to obtain “the Melchizedek priesthood, which holds the authority of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost”—an authority that the angel John the Baptist had previously promised them would soon come.68 In answer to their prayer, they heard the voice of the Lord authorizing and commanding them to ordain each other as an “Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ.” However, they were to wait until 1) they could gather with those brethren that had or would be baptized, 2) obtain the members’s sanction to ordain one another as elder and to be their “spiritual teachers” in the community, and 3) partake of bread and wine together. After doing this, they, Joseph and Oliver, could “proceed to ordain each other according to the commandment” as elders as well as any others “as the Spirit should dictate.” Only after following the above directives, the Lord added “then attend to the laying on hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.”69

The 6 April 1830 entry of the History of the Church indicates that all the particulars of the Lord’s commands above were fulfilled during the official organization of the Church. After gathering in the Whitmer home, Joseph indicates
we proceeded, (according to previous commandment) to call on our brethren to know whether they accepted us as their teachers in the things of the Kingdom of God, and whether they were satisfied that we should proceed and be organized as a Church according to said commandment which we had received. To these they consented by an unanimous vote.70

Having thus established the Church and kingdom of God, Oliver Cowdery and then Joseph Smith ordained each other as elders of the Church, administered the sacrament of bread and wine to everyone, and then proceeded to the give of the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who had been baptized so they would be “confirmed members of the Church of Christ.”71 While together Joseph received a revelation that a record should be kept and in it, he should be called “an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the Church” (Doctrine and Covenants 21:1).

Two important details given in this account need to be highlighted. First, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were praying specifically for “the authority of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Second, the subsequent ordinations of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and others were as elders “in” or “of” the Church. The April 1830 “Articles and Covenants,” a governing document for the newly established Church, mentions that one of the express duties of an elder is: “to confirm the church by the laying on of hands and the giving of the Holy Ghost.”72 The phrase in this early source regarding the Church (maintained into the 1833 Book of Commandments) is not to confirm someone a “member of the church” but to “confirm the church.” Likewise, a July 1830 revelation declares to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who were the First and Second Elder of the Church, “Attend to thy calling and thou shalt have wherewith to magnify thine office, and to expound all scriptures, and continue in laying on of the hands and confirming the churches” (Doctrine and Covenants 24:9). Later, the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants adds a verse that indicates elders were “to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost” but also kept the original phrase: “and to confirm the church by the laying on of the hands, and the giving of the Holy Ghost.”73 Thus the specific role of an elder in the early sources was to confirm the Church through the giving of the Holy Ghost. There are no sources corroborating any later assertions that elders were ordained or that the gift of the Holy Ghost was given prior to 6 April 1830.

While some scholars note the ordination of elders in connection with the organization of the Church, understanding the significance of these occurring in tandem has not really been explored. It has ancient precedence. The pattern in the New Testament was that the Apostles such as Peter and Paul were called by Jesus Christ and sent into all the world as the initial authority to formally inaugurate churches where one did not exist. Wherever early believers began gathering, sometimes through the preparatory ministry of those with lesser authority baptizing, the Apostles would come along and formally establish a church in two ways. They would ordain elders as local overseers, and the gift of the Holy Ghost would be given (see Acts 8:14–17; 11:29–30; 14:21–23; 20:16–17, 28; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1–3). Through this two-part pattern, Paul and his companions went about “confirming the churches” (Acts 15:41). The Apostle Peter’s declaration that he was “also an elder” of the church (1 Peter 5:1) signals that he not only has apostolic authority to establish the kingdom where one did not exist, but he also had authority to operate within a kingdom as an elder who can confirm members by the giving of the Holy Ghost.

The offices of apostle and elder in the New Testament thus represented respectively 1) the higher authority sent by the Lord into the wilderness to inaugurate a church where one does not exist and 2) the initial authority that apostles step into or setup within the church to confirm it, through the gift of the Holy Ghost, and initially oversee it once it had been created. The two offices are a complimentary team working together to lay the foundation and begin to build up a kingdom of God.

The complimentary roles of apostle and elder are apparent in Jerusalem where the “apostles and elders” are often mentioned together (see Acts 15:2, 6, 22–23; 16:4). This dynamic may be at play in the Jerusalem Council where Peter, the leader of the Apostles, and James, the brother of Jesus and arguably the leader of the Jerusalem elders (see Acts 21:18), are the main voices of authority (see Acts 15:7, 13). Interestingly, James may have been the one who gave the final decision of the council (“my sentence [or “judgment”] is . . .”) as the representative the Apostles set to govern the affairs within the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15:19–20).74

The Book of Mormon follows a similar pattern. The first authority Jesus established in the new church he organized during his visit to the Americas was to call twelve disciples (3 Nephi 11:21–22; 12:1). Jesus later promised them another authority. Just after the gathered crowd had partaken of the sacrament, he touched each of the twelve with his hand and told them to call in mighty prayer upon the Father in his name to have power to lay hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost (3 Nephi 18:36–37; cf. Moroni 2:2–3). On the next day, they gathered the people together again and then prayed “for that which they most desired; and they desired that the Holy Ghost should be given unto them,” and the power was granted (3 Nephi 19:9–13).

If the authority to give the Holy Ghost was inherent in the initial calling of the twelve, the Savior later touching them and commanding them to pray for the power to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost would be an unnecessary redundancy. But if it is understood that the Nephite twelve were becoming elders of the Church with authorization to give the gift of the Holy Ghost, then the redundancy disappears. Through this foundation, the twelve disciples “were called the elders of the church” (Moroni 3:1).

This ancient pattern was followed in the modern restoration of priesthood. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery first claimed that they received apostleship. Then they, like the twelve in the Book of Mormon, prayed to the Father in the chamber of Father Whitmer “in order more particularly to seek of the Lord what we now so earnestly desired”—i.e., to receive the authority to give the Holy Ghost.75 They were told by the voice of the Lord to gather, partake of the sacrament, lay hands and ordain one another and others as elders; then they could give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, formally confirming the existence of a church. So, again, apostleship was the high authority in the wilderness to authorize the organization of a church-kingdom, and the office of elder was the authority that apostles stepped into or placed within a newly organized church, to oversee it and confirm members into it by giving the gift of the Holy Ghost, thus confirming the church.

The fact that the early revelations indicate Joseph and Oliver had dual titles as apostles of Jesus Christ as well as elders of the Church, and that “an apostle is an elder,” suggests that, in spite of the equation, some sort of distinction must exist between these two authorities. Joseph Smith’s teachings and revelations explained this distinction as outlined above. Likewise, the apostolic disciples of Christ in the Book of Mormon were also called elders but usually when they were functioning in some capacity within the church such as ordaining other church officers (see Moroni 3:1). The deep relationship between apostle and elder was carried over to the Seventy. Joseph Smith indicated that the Seventy were to come from the elders of the Church, not high priests.76

The existence of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery’s apostleship prior to the organization of the Church raises questions concerning the nature of apostolic authority that may have been given to others like John Whitmer, who was certified as an apostle and elder in June 1830.77 If apostles like John Whitmer had authority to establish churches by ordaining elders who gave the Holy Ghost, then their authority would not be much different than that which Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had (with the exception of the their being the “First” and “Second” elder, establishing a hierarchy within the Church).

But if apostles in the early years of the modern Church could, like Paul, be called and sent out to establish and build up churches, what need was there for formalizing a Quorum of Twelve Apostles in February 1835? Perhaps the distinction of apostolic authority in the earliest days of the modern restoration compared to that of the 1835 Quorum of the Twelve is not about the former’s being a generic term for a missionary and the latter’s having real authority in an office as some historians posit. Rather, the organization of the Twelve may simply be a formalization of apostolic authority in a defined Church body. Due to apostolic responsibility to not only build up churches but to constitute or reconstitute presidencies of high priests, Joseph Smith, as presiding high priest at that time who would gather more keys for ruling a kingdom, must have recognized that a formal body that could reconstitute a presidency of the Church with all the keys that had been given needed to reside outside himself in the eventual case of his death. The Twelve gave him a clear body where such keys were held.78

This, of course, raises another question: at what point did the Twelve have independent or self-directing authority to reconstitute a presidency of high priests? Given the nature of Joseph Smith’s instructions to the Twelve in 1835, a strong case could be made that they had authority to reconstitute the presidencies when they were first created as a quorum of the Church. Establishing the Church and high priest presidencies is the unique role the Prophet stated they already had, as noted above, and Joseph revealed at that time that “they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents [First Presidency] previously mentioned” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:24).79 However, since further authorities or keys would yet be given to the Prophet, logic would dictate that there would need to be future moments when those additional keys were also deposited into the Quorum of the Twelve, so all the authorizations of the Lord could be reconstituted along with the office.

The formal establishment of the Twelve in 1835 may have also signaled a difference of scope. The apostleship of the early years focused on establishing units of the Church in the United States, but with the establishment of the Twelve, the prophet indicated, as noted above, that they would have the same authority in foreign nations as he did in this nation. The calling of the Twelve was a benchmark to organize and formalize the worldwide scope of that office. They were sent out over the next few years on missions that included Canada, Great Britain, and beyond to unlock the kingdom, ordain elders, and confirm the Church through the gift of the Holy Ghost in those lands.

Since the authority of elder appears to be the first office born out of apostleship and is given to oversee a newly created church unit (or kingdom of God), it is understandable why some of the sources may refer to the restoration of this office as the restoration of Melchizedek priesthood. The office of elder is the priesthood office that signals the official existence of a church. It confirms the church by giving the Holy Ghost to its membership. Through the principle of synecdoche and due to its foundational role as the first authority within a new church, the restoration of the office of elder is the restoration of Melchizedek priesthood in the Church, just as the 1838 History of the Church claimed was being restored by the voice of the Lord in the chamber of Father Whitmer.

The Melchizedek Priesthood for Ruling a
Kingdom (High Priest)

As noted above, Joseph Smith’s teachings and revelations seem to indicate that apostles are sent among the Gentiles to initially establish and then confirm and build up churches via elders, overseeing this process where there is no presidency of high priests. However, as a November 1831 revelation outlines “then cometh the high Priest hood which is the greatest of all.”80 Once high priests (the office embodying the totality of Melchizedek priesthood) are appointed, then the core framework of the kingdom of God was in place through which all blessings of the kingdom can eventually be administered to its constituents. High priests were the supreme religious authority in kingdoms throughout the ancient world (a title often held in tandem by the king himself),81 and it appears to be no different in the Restoration.

As already noted, the earliest source that explicitly claims a restoration of “high priesthood” is the minutes of the June 1831 conference in Kirtland wherein Joseph Smith ordained Lyman Wight and a few others to this office and then Lyman Wight ordained Joseph Smith and several others to this same office.82 Several corroborating sources affirm the Times and Seasons publication stating that at this conference “the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested, and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders,” including upon Joseph Smith himself.83 Ezra Booth (who also received the high priesthood at this conference) published only a few months later, in October 1831, that they were being “ordained to the High Priesthood, or the order of Milchesidec.”84 John Corrill, who was also present at this conference and ordained to this high priesthood, understood that on this occasion, “The Malchisedec priesthood was then for the first time introduced, and conferred on several of the elders.”85 Parley P. Pratt’s record of this event states,

Several were then selected by revelation, through Presdent Smith, and ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of the Son of God; which is after the order of Melchisedec. This was the first occasion in which this priesthood had been revealed and conferred upon the Elders in this dispensation, although the office of an Elder is the same in a certain degree, but not in the fulness. On this occasion I was ordained to this holy ordinance and calling by President Smith.86

Less than a year after this conference, Joseph Smith organized a presidency of this “high priesthood,” today called the First Presidency.

Pratt’s declaration that this office, in contrast to the office of elder, was a “fulness” of the Melchizedek priesthood, alongside the repeated declarations that this was the first time this priesthood was restored, should be understood in the light of Joseph Smith’s teachings already noted above: that the other offices were appendages to the office of high priest and that the high priestly office could function in the roles of all other offices. A high priest represents the very embodiment and totality of the Melchizedek priesthood.

An 1832 revelation indicates that the high priestly office is the one that administers the full blessings of the gospel, is given power over the nations, and will “bring as many as will come to the church of the first born” (Doctrine and Covenants 77:11)—a technical title for those who obtain the highest celestial glory (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:54–58, 71, 94). This is consistent with the Book of Mormon, revealed in 1829, which indicates that through the ministering of the high priestly office the “children of men . . . might enter into [God’s] rest” (Alma 13:6). Likewise, the Book of Abraham, revealed in 1835, explains that Abraham sought for the office of high priest because it held the “right . . . to administer [the blessings of the fathers]” (Abraham 1:2). Given that it is the office that represents the totality of priesthood and can perform the duties of all other offices, this makes sense.

Though high priests may be subject to their own internal hierarchy, as was common in the ancient world,87 a high priest has the inherent capacity, being the totality of priesthood, to fully preside in whatever jurisdiction of the kingdom they are given:

The Melchisedek priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things. . . . High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things. (Doctrine and Covenants 107:8, 10)

The parallel in the source above suggests that to “officiate in their own standing” likely means that high priests are not subject to any other priestly office, except their own internal presidency. High priests have “power and authority over all the offices;” consequently, it is their right to preside.

Again, this idea is consistent with the Book of Mormon. Alma as high priest held supreme authority within the church and all other offices or authorities within the church were ordained by him (see Mosiah 23:16–17; 26:7–8; 29:42). Again, Melchizedek was a great high priest who fully reigned as a king in his own kingdom but was still under the hierarchy of his own father (see Alma 13:18). Having total authority but still being subject to an internal hierarchy, whether ecclesiastical or familial, can explain the existence of a plurality of high priests in the Book of Mormon at any given time (Alma 46:38; Helaman 3:25). This stands in contrast to biblical Israel, which on the surface appeared to only have one high priest. The Book of Mormon reflects the broader Near Eastern world wherein multiple high priests can preside in various locales and temples but may be subject to a presiding or supreme high priest—usually the king himself.

The title high priest in the New Testament represents the totality of Jesus’s priesthood and is associated with the “order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 4:14, 5:4–10; 6:20; 10:19–22). This is also consistent with Joseph Smith’s usage. While there does not appear to be any clear canonical record that the Apostles established high priests in any of the New Testament churches, leading many Christians to view Jesus alone as the replacement for any concept of high priest, the Didache does mention that the Christian “prophets” were high priests (Didache 13:3).88 This may give additional meaning to such passages as Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11 that address the organization of the church. The close relationship of the titles prophet and high priest can also be seen in other areas of the ancient world. For example, a high priest of ancient Egypt was called a ḥm-nṯr, literally “servant of God.” The equivalent term in Coptic, hont, is replaced with the variant prophētēs “prophet” in some texts.89 Likewise, many who were called to be prophets in the Old Testament are depicted receiving their calls inside temples, before God’s throne, which was the domain of the high priest (see Isaiah 6; Ezekiel 1–2; Jeremiah 1; 1 Nephi 1).

Given all the above, the declaration in Hebrews 3:1–2 that Jesus is both “the apostle and high priest of our confession,” likely indicates, using priesthood terms—the same idea as Jesus being Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the Author and Finisher of our faith. His apostleship is the initial priesthood in the wilderness that lays the foundation of one’s faith and his high priesthood is the final priesthood that completes one’s faith.

The introductory material of Joseph Smith’s 1832 History indicates that it would outline: “thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of—Aangels . . . forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God.”90 As noted above, the reception of the “holy priesthood” under the hands of angels is likely a reference to the apostolic authority (possibly including its lesser priesthood forerunner). Consequently, the “confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood” in this source most likely refers to the high priestly office given for the first time in the June 1831 conference—thus marking that event as one of principal significance in Joseph Smith’s summary outline of the rise of the Church.

In sum, claims that the restoration of the high priesthood office in 1831 was the first time the Melchizedek priesthood was given to the Church is correct. Not until then, in Joseph Smith’s unfolding restoration, did the Melchizedek priesthood exist in its complete singular form to which all other offices are appendages. Not until then did the highest presiding authority with the potential to administer all eternal blessings in the Church exist. Not until then could children of God enter that priesthood office which would enable them to possess all the powers of heaven and preside in their own eternal kingdom.

But if a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, as restored in 1831, was the capstone, if it were the totality of priesthood to which all others are appendages, if it were the highest presiding authority to be given from heaven in both ancient and modern times, then why did Joseph Smith state in his 27 August 1843 sermon that the Melchizedek order had still not been experienced in the Church? Why did Joseph Smith reveal in his January 1841 revelation that the Saints needed to build the Nauvoo temple so that they could have a place where God “may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood” (Doctrine and Covenants 124:28)? Why did the Prophet indicate in his 1838 History that the angel Moroni told him from the beginning of the Restoration that Elijah would be the one who would “reveal the priesthood”?91

While some may conclude that Joseph Smith is changing what it means to have a fulness of priesthood, shifting his terminology of priesthood, or creating a new temple-centric priesthood that is different than what had been revealed to that point, the remainder of this study lays out a different path through this conundrum. While the restored 1831 high priestly office was a fulness of form, a complete whole of the offices, it still needed to grow into a fulness of ability and power. In relation to this understanding, three related threads will be explored to provide a better understanding of the final steps in Melchizedek priesthood restoration:

1. Joseph Smith’s earliest revelations speak clearly about this final fulness of the high priesthood, prefiguring his Nauvoo teachings and restoration of the full powers of all priestly offices in relation to the temple, especially the fulness of the high priestly order of Melchizedek.

2. What is the relationship between the so-called “ecclesiastical priesthood” that Joseph Smith organized in the Church and how priesthood is manifested in the temple?

3. What is the relationship between the ordinance of laying on of hands for priesthood and entering priestly orders via temple rites?

It is hoped that briefly exploring these ideas will not only provide additional clarity to the sources concerning the restoration of Melchizedek priesthood but that it will add more to the basic framework of priesthood provided so far, allowing for further study, refinement, and correction.

Elijah and the Melchizedek Priesthood for Ruling a Kingdom (High Priest Made Sure)

Joseph Smith’s 27 August 1843 sermon affirms, according to Willard Richard’s record, that the highest or Melchizedek order of the priesthood would fully be experienced through Elijah’s ministry: “[God] shall send Elijah . . . and he shall reveal the covenants to seal the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. anointing & sealing—called elected and made sure without father &c. a priesthood which holds the priesthood by right from the Eternal Gods.”92 That Elijah will “reveal the covenants to seal the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers . . . a priesthood” echoes Joseph Smith’s earlier claim that Moroni told him four times in 1823 that Elijah would “reveal the priesthood” (Joseph Smith—History 1:38, 43–49).

Joseph Smith calling the order of priesthood that Elijah would reveal the “order of Melchizedek” (or some variation) is no different than his use of this term for all the other high authorities restored up to this point—again, “all priesthood is Melchizedek.” However, his focus in this moment was on the fulness wherein a person’s high priesthood in a theocracy is affirmed or made sure. It was a power above, but it included that of a prophet, apostle, and patriarch, even the power of a king and priest who can stand as God himself and give laws and administer endless lives to people. Here are some relevant phrases from the sermon indicating that his focus was on the final stages or fulness of the Melchizedek order or high priesthood:

- “the last law or a fulness of the law or priesthood”93

- “a king & a pri[e]st to the most high Good [God].”94

- “kingly powers”95

- “a perfect law of Theocracy holding keys of powe[r] & bless[in]gs. stood as God to give laws to the people.”96

- “not the power of a Prophet nor apostle nor Patriarch only but of King & Priest to God to open the windows of Heaven and pour out the peace & Law of endless Life to man”97

- “power & authority over that of Abraham holding the key & the power of endless life.”98

- “administering endless lives to the sons and daughters of Adam”99

The Prophet’s declaration that in the fulness one was a “king and priest” likely meant obtaining ultimate authority in political and religious matters. Thus, priest in this context really meant high priest, for that is the office of highest authority as discussed earlier. This is not a different office of high priest than that given at the 1831 conference, but again, as will be demonstrated, it is the fullness of that office bestowed through temples, divine instruction, and after periods of testing. It is that office “made sure” in the lives of those who possess it.

The Prophet explained in his sermon that confirming or making sure this highest order required one to first demonstrate their willingness to sacrifice all things in the service of God:

- “if a man would attain—he must sacrifice all to attain to the keys of the kingdom of an endless life”100

- “Abraham obtained by the offering of his son Isaac.”101

Further, Joseph Smith indicated in his teachings that for this high priesthood order to be finalized, it needed to be fully ordained through those rites and covenants related to Elijah and the temple, beyond the simple “laying on of hands.” Such things as anointings, sealings, and covenants signaled that one’s calling and election as a king and high priest was “made sure”:

- “of anointing”

- “Elijah . . . shall reveal the covenants to seal the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers.”

- “anointing & sealing—called elected and made sure”102

Again, to be clear, although Joseph Smith restored what can be considered a complete vessel of high priesthood in June 1831—representing the fulness of offices—that complete vessel anticipated what would be realized later, a vessel filled with power and that was “made sure.” This is what his August 1843 sermon addressed.

The fulness of high priesthood in Joseph Smith’s earliest sources

The August 1843 sermon was not the first time such ideas were taught among the Saints. Many of Joseph Smith’s earliest revelations discuss obtaining the high or Melchizedek priesthood or the “order of the Son of God” via temple oaths and covenant rituals, and divine instruction after extensive testing. These earliest sources reflect the same ideas as the fulness of priesthood outlined in his August 1843 sermon above, suggesting that the Prophet’s theology of priesthood was not changing as much as many historians claim. For example, the 1829 Book of Mormon contains a sermon from the prophet Alma declaring that one is “ordained” to a “high priesthood” associated with Melchizedek via “ordinances [plural]” (Alma 13:16). These ordinances had the unique distinction of being performed in a way that helped people understand how the Son of God would redeem them (Alma 13:1–2, 16). In addition, Alma indicated that the recipients of these priesthood ordinances obtained them only after they had demonstrated great righteousness, even “exceeding faith and repentance . . . they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish” (Alma 13:10).

Obtaining this priesthood is mentioned within the context of Alma’s teachings about those who are given to “know the mysteries of God” but they were not to reveal these mysteries unto others until they also were diligent and gave heed to God. God would reveal to them the mysteries by portion “until it is given unto [them] to know the mysteries of God until [they] know them in full” (Alma 12:9–10). Alma’s sermon goes on to suggest that these mysteries and ordinances included instructions concerning the pre-mortal life, creation, the fall of Adam and Eve, and redemption, as well as the issuance of commandments, a calling, cleansing, clothing, judgment, and an entering into the presence or rest of God.103

Alma declares that those who had demonstrated this exceeding faith and righteousness and had received these additional ordinances and instructions were considered “high priests forever, after the order of the Son” (Alma 13:3, 9–10). Additionally, they “were sanctified, having their garments made white through the blood of the Lamb,” were “pure and spotless before God,” and they “could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence.” Indeed, they were “made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God” (Alma 13:11–12). Being “high priests forever” may be a technical term indicating their priesthood was made sure for eternity. Alma further remarked that the man Melchizedek entered this order and received “the office of the High Priesthood,” was called a “Prince of Peace,” and was a “king” who “did reign under his father” (Alma 13:10–12, 18).104

Alma’s discussion of this “order of the Son” was given in response to the comments of a man named Zeezrom who was astonished that Alma and his partner Amulek had great power “given unto them”:

Zeezrom began to tremble more exceedingly, for he was convinced more and more of the power of God; and he was also convinced that Alma and Amulek had a knowledge of him, for he was convinced that they knew the thoughts and intents of his heart; for power was given unto them that they might know of these things according to the spirit of prophecy. (Alma 12:7)

Whether or not Alma and Amulek had this priestly power is a central theme of this Book of Mormon story. For example, those who rejected Alma and Amulek’s teachings forced them to watch the believing women and children being burned in a fire. Amulek desired to “exercise the power of God which is in us” to stop the killings, but Alma declared that the Spirit constrained him from using such power in that moment (Alma 14:10–13). Later, they are imprisoned, and their captors (the same who burned the believers) begin to smite them and say that because they did not save the believers from death, they must not have any real power. This suggests that part of the reason that innocents were being killed was to prove the validity of Alma and Amulek’s claims of power in this high priesthood. Indeed, the captors repeatedly smite them and taunt them saying “If ye have such great power why do ye not deliver yourselves?” and “If ye have the power of God, deliver yourselves from these bands, and then we will believe that the Lord will destroy this people according to your words. And it came to pass that they all went forth and smote them, saying the same words, even until the last” (Alma 14:15, 19–20, 24).

A climactic moment immediately follows for “when the last had spoken unto them the power of God was upon Alma and Amulek, and they rose and stood upon their feet. . .. And they broke the cords with which they were bound” (Alma 14:25). This breaking of their bands was followed by a collapse of the prison itself and the death of their captors within. In contrast, “Alma and Amulek came forth out of the prison, and they were not hurt; for the Lord had granted unto them power, according to their faith which was in Christ” (Alma 14:28). Although “exceedingly great faith” is declared as a means by which this power was given, it does not preclude the other requirements by which such power is granted that Alma outlined as noted above.

Rather than indicating a bestowal of Melchizedek priesthood by the laying on of hands, the teachings in this story of the Book of Mormon are consistent with Joseph Smith’s later Nauvoo teachings concerning the fullness or highest order of the priesthood outlined in his August 1843 sermon. Indeed, Alma’s pericope declares that ordinances performed in a manner that foreshadow the redeeming acts of Christ (which the laying on of hands does not seem to fulfill), require divine instruction in the mysteries and demonstrating “exceeding” faith and righteousness before one fully enters this order of the Son and is made a king and high priest, like Melchizedek. These are the same requirements Joseph Smith outlined in his sermon more than thirteen years later.

Another text from the Book of Mormon portrays Nephi, a prophet in the book of Helaman, preaching that many prophets before him had entered into “the order of [God’s] Son” and that in this order, even because of this order, God had given them much power, such as the ability to part seas, like Moses, and the ability to know the future, like Moses, Abraham, and all the holy prophets “which were called by the order of God; yea, even after the order of his Son; and this that it should be shewn unto the people a great many thousand years before his coming, that even redemption should come unto them” (Helaman 8:11–23).

In this context, Nephi himself seems to have this order of the priesthood confirmed upon him, not by the laying on of hands, but through a formal oath that God swears with his own mouth and “in the presence of . . . angels” as witnesses (Helaman 10:6). With this oath-rite, God promises Nephi power to smite the earth with famine, pestilence, and destruction, according to the wickedness of the people, and to rend temples or make mountains smooth, among other things (Helaman 10:6–10). This power was confirmed unto Nephi because, like the priests and Melchizedek in Alma’s sermon, he had first proven himself exceeding faithful by serving God “with such unwearyingness” and willingness to sacrifice all, even his own life, to do God’s will:

I have beheld how thou hast with unwearyingness declared the word which I have given unto thee, unto this people. And thou hast not feared them, and hast not sought thine own life, but hast sought my will, and to keep my commandments . . . even that all things shall be done unto thee according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will. (Helaman 10:4–5)

Again, the descriptions of the priestly order in this part of the Book of Mormon are more consistent with Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo teachings concerning the fullness of the high priesthood. There is no mention of a laying on of hands, but rather kingly and divine blessings and powers confirmed by a covenant oath from God on account of a lifetime of faithful unwearying service. Mormon’s follow-up commentary on this story in the book of Helaman even outlines how this power of God has been used, recalling what seem to be the various miracles wrought by holy men outlined in scriptural history (Helaman 12:7–19).

In addition to the fulness of high priesthood in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s June 1830–March 1831 revelations concerning Genesis 1–19 also discusses a reception of priesthood via temple rites and after great testing. The Prophet’s expansions of the Genesis 5 Enochic material, likely recorded in December 1830, indicate that Adam was of an “order” in which he was known as a “son of God;” but, no mention of the mechanisms by which he entered this order appears outside the previously mentioned baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost.105

However, the “order of the son of God” is clarified a little more in Joseph Smith’s March 1831 expansions of Genesis 14. Like the Alma and Nephi narratives already mentioned, Joseph Smith reveals in his Genesis expansion that Melchizedek entered the order of the son of God only after a period of great testing wherein he “wrought righteousness,” “feared God,” “stopped the mouths of lions” and “quenched the violence of fire”—or was “tried so as by fire” (JST Genesis 14:26, 35). Melchizedek was “approved of God” by means of these demonstrations of faithfulness (JST Genesis 14:27).106 Once approved, Melchizedek was “ordained a high priest” into the “order of the Son of God” with no mention of a laying on of hands. Rather, this initiation was accomplished by means of a covenant and an oath by God. More precisely, Joseph Smith revealed, “the order of the Son of God” is “the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch” and is delivered “by the calling of [God’s] own voice” wherein God swears an “oath by himself,”—i.e., in his own name—just as he did in the story of Nephi in the book of Helaman noted above (JST Genesis 14:27–30).

As in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith revealed in his expansion of Genesis that those who enter this priesthood order by the covenant and oath of God are given godly powers. The powers include the ability to
break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course; To put at defiance the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break every band, to stand in the presence of God; to do all things according to his will, according to his command, subdue principalities and powers; and this by the will of the Son of God which was from before the foundation of the world. And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven. (JST Genesis 14:30–32)

Priesthood powers to move mountains and turn rivers from their course was also promised to Enoch in Joseph Smith’s earlier December 1830 expansion of Genesis 5. In this text, Enoch’s priesthood power was not given to him by the laying on of hands, but by visionary instruction and rituals. The “Spirit of God descended out of heaven, and abode upon” Enoch, and the Lord instructed Enoch concerning a decree which he has sent forth since “the beginning of the world” even “from my own mouth from the foundation thereof” or before the world was created and will be “sent forth in the world unto the end thereof” (Moses 6:26–30). Having this decree, Enoch, like his fathers, was being sent by God to “prophecy unto this people.” After Enoch’s declarations of an inadequate mouth, reminiscent of other prophetic callings (see Exodus 4:1, 10; Jeremiah 1:6, Isaiah 6:5), God told Enoch to “open thy mouth” and through his words “the mountains shall flee before you and the rivers shall turn from their course” (Moses 6:31–34). Additionally, Enoch was told to “anoint thine eyes with clay, and wash them, and thou shalt see,” after which he appears to have had a vision of pre-mortal life, “the spirits that God had created,” among other things “not visible to the natural eyes” (Moses 6:35–36). Later, Enoch declared that he was on a “mountain,” had the “heavens open,” was “clothed upon with glory,” and saw God “face to face” and the “world for the space of many generations” (Moses 7:2–4).107

While priesthood is not explicitly mentioned, the Prophet’s 1830 prelude to Genesis 1 has Moses in a “high mountain” experiencing an initial vision of God, pre-mortality, creation, and the end of the world, and he is also declared God’s “son” (see Moses 1:1–8), elements that are typically associated with the priestly order of Melchizedek (compare Psalms 2 and 110). Moses then goes through a series of three intensity-progressive temptations by Satan wherein Moses demonstrates his unyielding faithfulness to God (Moses 1:9–23).108 Because of his faithfulness, Moses appears to be given full power and authority to now command the waters “as if thou wert God,” has a repeat vision similar to the first of the earth’s creation and history, is again affirmed as God’s son; however, the second vision appears with greater, even divinely enabled, detail (Moses 1:24–40). The affirmation of power after a period of great testing, fits the fulness of high priesthood pericope Joseph Smith outlined in his August 1843 sermon.

In addition to the Prophet’s revelations on priesthood via his translations of ancient records, his May 1831 revelation for his contemporaries includes wording that also prefigures the fulness of the high priesthood he later reveals in Nauvoo. The passage in question begins with a promise of possessing godly power: “He that is ordained of God and sent forth” is a “possessor of all things” and “all things”—including “light,” “life,” “Spirit,” and “power”—will be “subject onto him” (Doctrine and Covenants 50:26–27). However, the next line seems to indicate that to be “ordained” as a “possessor of all things” requires more than just the laying on of hands, it requires that one be purified and cleansed: “But no man is a possessor of all things except he be purified and cleansed from sin” (Doctrine and Covenants 50:28).

The explicit means for one’s purification in the Prophet’s May 1831 revelation are not mentioned, but again, the previously noted sources, particularly Alma’s sermon, allude to other covenants and rites that allow one to be “sanctified, having their garments made white through the blood of the Lamb” and become “pure and spotless before God” or “made pure.” Joseph Smith goes on to say that a person who has achieved this full ordination can ask for anything in the name of Jesus and it will be given, but “it will be given you what you shall ask,” meaning they will only ask that which is God’s will (Doctrine and Covenants 50:29–30). This echoes the similar requirement of only using priesthood power to do God’s will that appears in the stories of Alma and Nephi discussed earlier.

Joseph Smith’s February 1832 revelation on the three degrees of glory also mentions the fulness of the order of the Son of God in connection with the highest degree of glory, resounding the earlier sources above and anticipating later uses in Nauvoo. Speaking of those who inherit the highest glory, the Prophet states that these are they
who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, . . . who are the church of the Firstborn. They are they into whose hands the Father hath given all things—They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fullness, and of his glory; and are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son. Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, . . .” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:53–59).

In this revelation, Joseph Smith equates the order of the Son of God with those who receive the fullness of celestial glory, obtain the status of god and king, and possess “all things,” including life and death, just as outlined in the May 1831 revelation above and affirmed in his Nauvoo sermon.

He further indicates that the requirements for entering such an exalted status are to “overcome by faith” and to be “sealed” by the Holy Spirit of promise. It is also important to note that the “order of the Only Begotten Son” is here referred to by alternate names: “the order of Enoch” (already identified as such in the Prophet’s expansion of Genesis 14) and “the order of Melchizedek.”

Joseph Smith first revealed in July 1831 that a temple was to be built in Missouri, but the revelation did not provide any detail as to the purpose of the temple itself (Doctrine and Covenants 57). His September 1832 revelation, however, places the priesthood’s covenant, oath, and ordinances relative to the holiest order or fulness of the priesthood in the context of the temple or house of the Lord that would be built in Missouri:

And the sons of Moses and of Aaron shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, upon Mount Zion in the Lord’s house, whose sons are ye; and also many whom I have called and sent forth to build up my church. For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods . . . (Doctrine and Covenants 84:32–33)

If one obtains priesthood and then proves himself to the point of receiving God’s final oath and covenant, which confirms upon him powers of godliness and all that the Father has, the Prophet declares that such cannot break this covenant and “altogether turneth therefrom” lest they “not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come” (Doctrine and Covenants 84:41). This unforgivable fate is something that Joseph Smith will address again in Nauvoo wherein he declares that those who receive the Holy Ghost and obtain the fullness of blessings and then openly rebel against God cannot repent or be redeemed and are sons of Perdition.109

Joseph Smith’s continuity of priesthood doctrine, but a developing and unfolding practice, necessarily requires that one navigate carefully what exactly is happening in the sources. Additionally, “bracketing” faith can add to the difficulty of understanding the sources pertaining to priesthood. Such a position prevents the Book of Mormon and other revelations of Joseph Smith from having an ancient complexity or theology deeper than what Joseph Smith himself may have understood when he conveyed the revelations. It forces all of Joseph Smith’s productions into a 19th century American setting and evolutionary model that can skew the meaning of the words and terminology if some of the sources were indeed ancient records or the words of a divine being whose thoughts are more complete or higher. Arguably, remaining open to the idea that Joseph Smith’s earliest revelations already portrayed the more fully developed terminology and ideas of ancient authors steeped in ancient priesthood and temple frameworks, frameworks that were often different than the Protestant religious sects of Joseph Smith’s day, is crucial to fully understanding the restoration of priesthood.

The relationship of ordination by the laying on of hands to ordination by temple rites/covenants

Consistent emphasis that receiving the fulness of high priesthood required temple rituals, divine instruction, and testing beyond the laying on of hands brings into greater focus the question: “what is the relationship between the laying on of hands that ordain one into various priestly orders and the temple rituals that also ordain one into priestly orders?” The “laying on of hands” for priestly ordination is a practice occurring in both modern and ancient sources.110 However, the Bible also suggests that initiation into the priesthood was accomplished through a series of rituals that occurred in the context of temples. For example, although Moses laid hands on Joshua in order to put some of his “honor” upon him (Numbers 27:18–23), the ordination of Aaron and his sons into the priesthood, outlined in greatest detail in Exodus 29:4–28, makes no mention of the laying on of hands but rather emphasizes their being washed with water, anointed with oil and blood, ritually clothed in priestly vestments, and eating a ritual meal in the context of the temple.

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others were also called, and arguably received priesthood, in temple-settings where they, like the Aaronic priests, are often depicted as being ritually cleansed and clothed prior to their service in Israel (Isaiah 6; Jeremiah 1:5–11; Ezekiel 1–3).111 One difference to note, however, is that the Aaronic priests are initiated in the courtyard of the temple whereas the prophets are depicted inside the temple proper or in the presence of God on his throne when they are initiated, suggesting theirs was a greater priesthood.112 During the Second Temple period in Ancient Israel, the initiation of Joshua into the high priesthood, recorded in Zechariah 3:1–7, seems to have included a temple drama portraying a confrontation between Jehovah and Satan as the context for his receiving his priestly vestments and priesthood.113

In the New Testament period, there is evidence that priesthood authority may have been bestowed by the laying on of hands (e.g., see Acts 6:5–6, 13:3; 1 Timothy 14:4); however, the Epistle to the Hebrews declares that a man cannot take the priesthood unto himself unless he was “called of God, as was Aaron” (Hebrews 5:4). Since, as noted above, Aaron was ordained to priesthood via temple-centric rites in the Old Testament records that they possessed, this passage in Hebrews can indicate that even the early Christians understood priesthood initiation to include temple rites. Indeed, the letter to the Hebrews goes on to mention that after Abraham “patiently endured, he obtained the promise,” and that God “confirmed it by an oath” which is then likened to a soul who “entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 6:15–20). This passage suggests that the early Christians understood Abraham to have entered the priesthood order of Melchizedek via an “oath” after having “patiently endured.” This is likely an allusion to the ordeal of Isaac being bound, for that is when God swore the oath to Abraham (see Genesis 22:15–18).

Latter-day Saints understand that Abraham received priesthood much earlier in his life than in this moment. The biblical text depicts him offering sacrifices, preaching, prophesying, getting married, entering into the new and everlasting covenant with God, leading a family, giving blessings, and so forth. The Letter to the Hebrews, however, states that Abraham didn’t have the Melchizedek order confirmed until after the Isaac ordeal and oath from God very late in his life just as Joseph Smith highlighted in his August 1843 sermon. Hebrews also shows that the early Christians likened the Melchizedek order to entering the holy of holies, for example, “within the veil,” of the temple. Even more evidence for attaining priesthood relative to temple covenants and teachings in the Early Christian era is emerging from current New Testament scholars who are increasingly arguing for the existence of secret teachings and temple rituals in the days of Christ and his Apostles.114

From the beginning of the modern Church, the laying on of hands alone seemed to be the mechanism by which one is authorized to fully officiate in priestly duties (see also Article of Faith 5). For example, being ordained to the fullness of the Aaronic priesthood or office of priest by the laying of hands immediately authorizes one to baptize, to offer the sacrifice of the Lord’s supper, and to ordain other priests. In contrast, authorization for similar duties in the biblical world required that one first be initiated a priest via temple rites. So, if one can do all their priestly duties by the laying on of hands only, then what purpose does a modern temple initiation into the Aaronic order serve? The same is true for one ordained a high priest by laying on of hands versus one receiving the fulness of a high priest via temple rites. Why is entering the order of Melchizedek in the temple even necessary if the laying on of hands seemingly gives a high priest all the authorization they need to preside in a kingdom?

An answer can be found in the theological doctrine of justification—a concept that includes the idea that one can be given a status in advance of when they fully become what that status indicates. For example, members of the Church are given the title saint (from the Latin meaning holy one) as soon as they enter into the Church by baptism, but this title technically and more precisely indicates their future state when they are fully sanctified and made holy.115 Likewise, the gift of the Holy Ghost is given at the beginning of one’s spiritual journey by the laying on of hands, but Joseph Smith declared in 1836 that the “fullness” of the Holy Ghost is actually obtained through temple worship (Doctrine and Covenants 109:14–15). Alma likened baptism to partaking of the tree of life (Alma 5:62, prefigured by the tree of life in Lehi’s vision that represented a birth scene) but the tree of life in its fullest form is the symbolic end of one’s spiritual journey in the celestial kingdom as depicted by John the Revelator (Revelation 22:1–2).

Through the doctrine of justification made possible through Jesus Christ, titles, the Holy Ghost, and even the status of eternal life can be given and enjoyed at the beginning of one’s journey because there is a recognition that one will eventually fulfill all expectations or fully grow into the status given. Such a doctrine would allow the laying on of hands to represent an initiation into a priestly order, with full authority to act as such, even though one had not yet fulfilled all the requirements of the temple to fully enter that order.

This appears to be the basis for Joseph Smith’s teaching that all “covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations” would cease to have authority “in and after the resurrection” unless they were fully “sealed up” as part of one’s temple worship (Doctrine and Covenants 132:7), suggesting he understood that temporary measures were in place via justification until the Church could truly fulfill the requirements that God’s law required as administered in the temple. All ordinances, covenants, and priestly rites must, as the Lord stated in Joseph Smith’s January 1841 revelation, be “ordained by the ordinance of my holy house” (Doctrine and Covenants 124:39).

Such a view would also explain why Oliver Cowdery told the initial Twelve Apostles ordained in February 1835 that “your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid his hand upon you. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us.”116 This comment suggests they understood that additional measures were needed to be Apostles in the fullest sense. Yet the Twelve immediately went about doing their duties anyway. Likewise, Joseph Smith’s aforementioned 1832 revelation appears to teach that after receiving the priesthood by the laying on of hands, one can “magnify” this priesthood by remaining faithful through various trials of fire until he is “approved of God.” When approved, great power and titles in the priesthood are “ordained” or confirmed by means of further instruction and ordinances, including a final “covenant” that contains an “oath” from God (Doctrine and Covenants 84:33, 39).

Considering this evidence, the initial laying on of hands to initiate one into any priestly order does indeed bestow authority, but it is a conditional authority given by the justification of grace. Such a conditional bestowal allows for God’s sons to learn and act in their priestly orders until such a time as they can fully confirm their priesthood via the temple rites, covenants, and demonstrations of faithfulness. Through their ascent in the temple, they eventually make their priesthood sure and efficacious in and after the resurrection. It becomes thereby an eternal priesthood.

The relationship of the so-called ecclesiastical priesthood and temple priesthood

One’s ordination into various orders via the laying on of hands and one’s ordination into various order via temple rites, raises questions concerning the relationship of the priestly orders in the Church and the priestly orders of the temple. While some assume that so-called “temple” or “cosmic” priesthood was a later development of Joseph Smith and is distinct from his so-called “ecclesiastical” orders set up in the Church, a closer examination of the sources do not require that such a distinction existed.

As noted earlier, the Prophet’s circa April 1835 revelation affirmed that “there are, in the church, two priesthoods, . . . two divisions or grand heads—one is the Melchizedek priesthood [high priest], and the other is the Aaronic, or Levitical Priesthood [priest]” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:1–3).117 All other offices in the Church are appendages to the high priest and priest. This bipartite division in the Church provides clear equivalence to the two main priestly orders functioning in the temple which is itself divided between two principal domains of priest and high priest, the Aaronic and Melchizedek orders. The “world” or “telestial” rooms (and by extension the baptistries and initiatory rooms) in modern temples are where preparatory rites and covenants are administered for initiation into the Aaronic order (the modern equivalent of ancient temple courtyards). The “terrestrial” rooms and sealing rooms by extension (the modern equivalent of the ancient temple’s holy place) are where covenants and rites are administered with respect to the higher Melchizedek order as a preparation for entering the presence of the Lord. Likewise, the earliest priestly sources in the Bible have priests functioning in the courtyard and high priests inside the temple’s holy place.118

Consequently, ordination into the order of priest in the Church by the laying on of hands finds its fulness in the rites and covenants relative to the Aaronic order of the temple. Likewise, initiation into the order of high priest is made sure and finds its fulness in the complete rites and covenants relative to the Melchizedek order of the temple. Brigham Young understood this two-part division of the temple and even suggested that the Church could theoretically provide the Aaronic portion of the endowment to a priest and send such a one on a mission or perform other tasks to prove themselves prior to their higher ordinations and receiving the Melchizedek portion of the endowment and other higher blessings.119

The offices of deacon and teacher are appendages to the office of priest and do not necessarily need to be ritually represented in the temple. Likewise, the ancient Levites did not participate in the same temple initiation that the sons of Aaron as priests experienced (compare Exodus 29 to Numbers 8:7–16). However, the Levites did assist the priests in the temple anciently, demonstrating that lesser appendages may be present. In a similar manner, the office of elder is an appendage to the high priest and does not necessarily need to be ritually reflected in the temple though that office may functionally play a role.

Notwithstanding these two grand divisions, Joseph Smith’s August 1843 sermon outlined three temple orders of the priesthood, not two. He called the additional priestly order the “patriarchal” order, identified it with Abraham, and said it was greater than the Aaronic priestly order but subordinate to the Melchizedek high priestly order.120 So what relationship does the “patriarchal order” of the temple have, if any, to the offices in the Church?

Today an elder of the Church can enter the patriarchal order through temple marriage, so one might view that office as the one connected to and fulfilled ritually in the “patriarchal order” of the temple (all being appendages and preparations for entering the fulness of high priesthood wherein all blessings are made sure). However, Joseph Smith’s restoration of the office of Patriarch may be a better entity to compare with the patriarchal order of the temple.

Joseph Smith initiated his father, Joseph Smith Sr., into the office of Patriarch in 1834 by the laying on of hands.121 Not long before the death of Joseph Smith Sr., he ordained his son, Hyrum Smith, to this office in September 1840.122 According to a May 1835 revelation (Doctrine and Covenants 107:39–40) and the earlier practice of conveying this office from father to son in the Church, the order of Patriarch appears to represent the idea that priesthood was ultimately to be inherited by lineage. Some may suppose that only this office was meant to be inherited. However, since the order of Patriarch is a part of and a preparation for the full Melchizedek order, it is likely that the whole of priesthood was meant to be organized into family lineages and given as an inheritance as some of Joseph Smith revelations indicate:123

Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers—For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God—Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began. (Doctrine and Covenants 86:8–9)

Questions by Elias Higbee: What is meant by the command in Isaiah, 52d chapter, 1st verse, which saith: Put on thy strength, O Zion—and what people had Isaiah reference to? He had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost. (Doctrine and Covenants 113:8)

A patriarch’s purpose of declaring lineages in connection with the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (or the blessings of eternal life) seem to affirm this general truism. Oliver Cowdery indicated that Church patriarchs helped in “securing the blessings of the Lord unto [the fatherless] and their posterity.”124 The principle of lineage and inheritance seems to be in play in Cowdery’s words, since posterity are blessed when an individual is blessed.

The rites relative to the patriarchal order in the temple (namely temple marriages and child-to-parent sealings) make the lineages declared in patriarchal blessings real. These rites literally organize and bind men and women, children and parents, together into officially sealed families (both natural and adopted). Through these family ties, priesthood as well as land or kingdoms can be inherited from generation to generation. Indeed, children are literally declared to be heirs, thus making concrete what the patriarch’s blessing only announced.

If entering the patriarchal order in the temple is the priestly order that fulfills the purpose and meaning of the office of patriarch in the Church, then why was/is this office not more generally given to men in the Church as a preparation for the temple? One possible reason is that no one at present can claim an unbroken inheritance of priesthood through their family lineages due to the loss of priesthood from their family in the Great Apostasy. Angelic restoration and ecclesiastical distribution is a necessary step until families can be restored. Additionally, the Church is currently subject to kings, presidents, and rulers of gentile nations. Fully reconstituting a patriarchal government as the Church would make men and women kings and queens having dominion in their own literal kingdoms. Such a structure would not to be tolerated while the Church is subject to other forms of government.

Under gentile overseership and without unbroken covenant links in place to inherit priesthood through ancestors, the Church instead passes priesthood through ecclesiastical channels without reference to family inheritances or actual kingdoms. This will continue until such a time when the familial order can be fully reconstituted and can stand freely on its own politically. Just as the Apostles were told by the resurrected Lord, the kingdom of God in its fullest form will have to wait (see Acts 1:6–7; cf. Doctrine and Covenants 105:9–11). In the meantime, the earlier practice of passing the office of patriarch in the Church from father to son, the lineage-centric blessings of patriarchs today, and the marriages and generational sealings of the patriarchal order in temples all affirm that the Melchizedek priesthood is meant to be an inheritance in a familial order when it is fully restored.

Joseph Smith’s 1835 revelation on priesthood indicates that apostles can appoint patriarchs in the “large branches of the church” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:39). This suggests that patriarchs can exist in those areas where no high priest yet presides. This affirms that patriarchal priesthood is an important part of preparing a kingdom for its eventual fulness under the high priesthood.

Although the simple bifurcation of priesthood between priest and high priest, Aaronic and Melchizedek, has analogues in many ancient and modern religions of the world, Joseph Smith’s mention of a third patriarchal priesthood that exists between the Aaronic priest and Melchizedek high priest also has precedent. For example, in ancient Egypt there appears to be two main levels of priesthood associated with the two main areas of the divine temple complexes: the wꜥb-priest (“pure one”) and the ḥm-nṯr (“servant of God” or “prophet” in later Greek sources) as noted earlier. The “first” or “head” ḥm-nṯr was considered the “high priest” of the god.

However, there was also a little-understood middle priestly order in ancient Egypt with the intriguing patriarchal title jt-nṯr “god’s father.”125 In one source, Bakenkhonsu, a high priest of Amun during the reign of Rameses II, actually lists his ascension through these three orders of priesthood—first as a wꜥb-priest of Amun for four years, then as a jt-nṯr of Amun for twelve years, and finally becoming a third, second, and then first ḥm-nṯr of Amun.126 The patriarchal title “god’s-father” appears to be greater than the priest but less than the high priest, similar to the “patriarchal order” of Joseph Smith’s progression. While this does not fully elucidate the role of patriarchs and the patriarchal order in the Restored Church, it does simply indicate that there is an ancient precedent for an intermediate fatherly order of priesthood that prepares one for the highest.

Conclusions

When Joseph Smith first administered the endowment in Nauvoo on 4 May 1842, he appears to have connected all the orders of the priesthood to that event. Willard Richards recorded the event that was then later edited into the 1838 History of the Church as Joseph Smith’s voice:

I spent the day in the upper part of the Store . . . in Council with [various names], instructing them in the principles and order of the Priesthood, attending to washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of Keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of Melchisedec Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles, by which any one is enabled to secure the fulness of those blessings, which have been prepared for the Church of the first born, and come up and abide in the presence of the Eloheim in the Eternal worlds. In this Council was instituted the Ancient order of things for the first time in these last days.127

The italics emphasize that the endowment incorporated all the instructions or “plans” for obtaining the fullness of the priesthood. Specifically, Richards indicated that he received instruction in the Endowment pertaining to the Aaronic priesthood, “and so on to the highest order of the Melchisedec Priesthood.”

Some may want to see Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo endowment as a complete ritual within itself and see temple marriage and the fullness of the priesthood introduced thereafter as independent, perhaps even evolutionary developments. However, a careful reading of the report of the first Nauvoo endowments suggests that the Prophet viewed this rite as providing a map to all the ordinances, covenants, and priestly orders from the Aaronic to the fullness of the Melchizedek order, even if the specific practices of patriarchal marriage and full initiation into Melchizedek order via the temple had yet to be given to the Church.128 In September 1842, Joseph Smith declared relative to the temple, “Now the great and grand secret of the whole matter, and the summum bonum of the whole subject that is lying before us, consists in obtaining the powers of the Holy Priesthood. . . . Herein is glory and honor, and immortality and eternal life” (Doctrine and Covenants 128:11–12).

While it is often the case that the purpose of Elijah’s modern ministry is more simply expressed as the authority by which temple marriages or work for the dead is accomplished, Joseph Smith’s teachings suggest that it should be viewed as something grander and more holistic. Elijah’s role, declared from the very beginning of the Restoration according to Joseph Smith, was to “reveal the priesthood” or, in other words, to complete the priesthood in mortality, making it and all the oaths, covenants, rites, performances, and connections that it administers sure. Elijah’s key is the final seal confirming the Melchizedek high priesthood after the Order of the Son of God with full authority to administer a kingdom of God. Such kingdoms are begun with a foundation laid by apostolic authority (often preceded by the lesser priesthood and assisted by the Seventy), confirmed by elders giving the Holy Ghost, eventually organized into a family of lineal inheritance by patriarchal rites (that the patriarchal office in the Church represents), and then made sure by high priests having the supreme authority to make all of it efficacious in the resurrection and beyond. Joseph Smith’s unfolding of all these portions and degrees together is the restoration of Melchizedek priesthood, with the caveat that the place of women and the Relief Society in the structure outlined above has yet to be addressed.

[Author’s Note: This paper is the culmination of several presentations and drafts I have made on this topic over the years. For example, “The Grand Orders of the Priesthood: Joseph Smith’s August 1843 Discourse on Hebrews 7,” given at the Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, Brigham Young University, October 2002; “The Sacrifice of Isaac: Abraham’s Initiation into the Highest Order of the Priesthood,” given at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies and the Religious Studies Center Conference on Genesis 22: Latter-day Saint Perspectives on the Binding of Isaac, Brigham Young University, March 2004; “Orders of the Priesthood Ancient and Modern,” given at the Religion Department Faculty Forum, Brigham Young University, March 2007. I would like to personally thank my colleagues, friends, and research assistants Douglas Maughan, Ronald Bartholomew, Jonn Claybaugh, Richard Moore, Robert Millet, John Welch, David Holland, Tona Hangen, Andrew Ehat, Jeffrey Bradshaw, Stephen Fleming, and Paul Bryner for reading drafts and/or discussing with me over the years many of the ideas presented herein. I would also like to thank my many Institute and BYU students for their feedback on the coherency and logic in how I presented the information. I dedicate this study to my father John S. Thompson Sr. and my sons Jacob, Jared, Hyrum, Joseph, Spencer, and Preston who have taught me in so many ways what it means to honor one’s priesthood.]

John S. Thompson obtained his BA and MA in Ancient Near Eastern Studies (Hebrew Bible) from BYU and UC Berkeley respectively and completed a PhD in Egyptology at the University of Pennsylvania, with a dissertation emphasis on ancient priesthood. He was an employee of the Seminaries & Institutes of Religion for 28 years, most recently as a Coordinator and the Institute Director in the Cambridge, Massachusetts, area. John now researches/writes full-time for Scripture Central. He is married to Stacey Keller from Orem, Utah, and they have nine children and four grandchildren.

1 . Sidney Rigdon, “The Ancient Order of Things,” Messenger and Advocate 1 (September 1835): 183.

2 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin D. Richards,” 25–26, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-august-1843-as-reported-by-franklin-d-richards/1; “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by James Burgess,” 14, Joseph Smith Papers, joseph
smithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-august-1843-as-reported
-by-james-burgess/1; See also “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 71, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-august-1843-as-reported-by-willard-richards/3. In this and all other quotations from original sources, spelling, grammar, and capitalization are retained as in originals.

3 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 71.

4 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 72.

5 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 74.

6 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 74.

7 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 74. The Joseph Smith Papers editors notate “Prest” as having received a strikethrough, but the line in question is not complete and is at an angle more reminiscent of a stray mark than a deliberate strikethrough.

8 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 14.

9 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 15.

10 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 14.

11 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 14.

12 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 15.

13 . 27 August 1843 entry, Levi Richards diaries, vol. 20: 1843 July 13–September 17, Levi Richards papers, 1837–1876, MS 1284, Church History Catalog, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, catalog.churchof
jesuschrist.org/assets/10d5fe6e-eac4-4528-a8c2-cc6d15b85b32/0/8; published in Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University [BYU]; Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980), 247.

14 . 27 August 1843 entry, Levi Richards diaries.

15 . 27 August 1843 entry, Levi Richards diaries.

16 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin Richards,” 26.

17 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin Richards,” 26.

18 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin Richards,” 26.

19 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by William Clayton,” 102, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-august
-1843-as-reported-by-william-clayton/1.

20 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Clayton,” 103.

21 . Comparing the various reports, the Melchizedek order received the most attention and appears to be the emphasis of the sermon, possibly explaining why Clayton reported only on it.

22 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 14.

23 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin Richards,” 26.

24 . “Brs. Lyman Wight John Murdock Reynolds Cahoon Harvey Whitlock & Hyrum Smith were ordained to the high Priesthood under the hand <of> br. Joseph Smith jr. . . . Brs. Parley P. Pratt Thomas B. Marsh Isaac Morley Edward Partridge Joseph Wakefield Martin Harris Ezra Thayer Ezra Booth, (denied the faith) John Corrill Samuel H. Smith Solomon Hancock Simeon Carter Wheeler Baldwin Jacob Scott (denied the faith), Joseph Smith [Sr.] John Whitmer Joseph Smith jr. & Sidney Rigdon were ordained to the High Priesthood under the hand of br. Lyman Wight.” “Minutes, circa 3–4 June 1831,” 4, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-circa-3-4-june-1831/2. See also Ezra Booth, “Mormonism—No. II,” Ohio Star (Ravenna, OH), 2 October 1831, 3.

25 . “History of Joseph Smith,” Times and Seasons 5 (1 February 1844), 416, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-of-joseph-smith/95. The original manuscript was edited after its publication by Willard Richards to read “the authority of the melechisedec <priesthood> was manifested and <I> conferred, <the high priesthood> for the first time, upon several of the elders.” “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 118, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30
-august-1834/124. B. H. Roberts’s 1902 republication retains the original published version, not the altered manuscript, but he disagrees with the declaration that the Melchizedek priesthood was manifested for the first time at this event (see his footnote in History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, volume I [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1902], 175–76). That the introduction of Joseph Smith’s 1832 History announces its plan to cover the “reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God” is most likely referring to the giving of the high priesthood at this June 1831 event in Kirtland. “History, circa Summer 1832,” 1, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1.

26 . The 1835 version of a revelation that became Doctrine and Covenants 27 mentions that Peter, James, and John bestowed apostleship on Smith and Cowdery: “John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, jr. and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto this first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron” and “also with Peter, and James, and John whom I have sent unto, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry.” 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, Section 50 (Doctrine and Covenants 27:8, 12).

27 . “The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this priesthood upon us said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the new Testament, and that he acted under the direction <of> Peter, James, and John, who held the keys of the priesthood of Melchisedeck.” “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 18.

28 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 26–27, also 17–18.

29 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 26–27.

30 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 37–38.

31 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 5.

32 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 73.

33 . Gregory A. Prince, Having Authority: The Origins and Development of Priesthood During the Ministry of Joseph Smith (Independence, MO: Independence Press, 1993); D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994); Gregory A. Prince, Power from on High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995).

34 . See particularly the opening chapter of Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy, 1–38. It should be noted that there is a difference between making alterations to a narrative that clarifies ideas or terminology versus making alterations that change the fundamental nature or history of an event.

35 . “Smith merely kept the essence of what had been called Melchizedek Priesthood, renamed it after the patriarchs, and applied the former term to the new order.” Prince, Power from on High, 40–41.

36 . Brian Q. Cannon and BYU Studies Staff, “The Earliest Accounts of the Restoration of the Priesthood,” in Opening the Heavens, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017), 229–46; Larry C. Porter, “The Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods,” Ensign, December 1996, 30–47.

37 . Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling: A Cultural Biography of Mormonism’s Founder (New York: Vintage, 2007), 156–60, 258–66.

38 . J. Spencer Fluhman, “Authority, Power, and the ‘Government of the Church of Christ,’” in Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 195–232.

39 . Terryl L. Givens, Feeding the Flock: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Church and Praxis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 105–43; Jonathan A. Stapley, The Power of Godliness: Mormon Liturgy and Cosmology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 10–33.

40 . Stapley, Power of Godliness, 125–26.

41 . B. H. Roberts wisely noted: “‘Mormonism’ . . . calls for thoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some of its truths, but will develop its truths; and enlarge it by that development. Not half—not one-hundredth part—not a thousandth part of that which Joseph Smith revealed to the church has yet been unfolded, either to the church or to the world. The work of the expounder has scarcely begun. The Prophet planted by teaching the germ-truths of the great dispensation of the fulness of times. The watering and the weeding is going on, and God is giving the increase, and will give it more abundantly in the future as more intelligent discipleship shall obtain.” B. H. Roberts, “Book of Mormon Translation,” Improvement Era 9, no. 9 (July 1906): 713.

42 . See “Church Organizations, 1831–1833,” Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/back/church-organizations-1831-1833; also William V. Smith, “Early Mormon Priesthood Revelation: Text, Impact, and Evolution,” Dialogue 46, no. 4 (Winter 2013): 13.

43 . “Discourse, 6 April 1837,” 487, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-6-april-1837/1.

44 . “Discourse, 5 January 1841, as Reported by William Clayton,” 5, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-5-january-1841-as-reported-by-william-clayton/2. See also “in viewing the church as whole, we may strictly denominate it one priesthood” (“Discourse, 6 April 1837,” 487).

45 . William G. Hartley, My Fellow Servants: Essays on the History of Priesthood (Provo, UT: BYU Press, 2010), 3–24; Michael Hubbard MacKay, Prophetic Authority: Democratic Hierarchy and the Mormon Priesthood (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2020); and Michael Hubbard MacKay, “Event or Process? How ‘the Chamber of Old Father Whitmer’ Helps Us Understand Priesthood Restoration,” BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 1 (2021): 73–101.

46 . For other studies concerning the Book of Mormon’s impact on the restoration see John W. Welch, “The Book of Mormon as the Keystone of Church Administration,” in A Firm Foundation: Church Organization & Administration, ed. David J. Whittaker and Arnold K. Garr (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2011), 14–57; Gerald E. Smith, Schooling The Prophet: How the Book of Mormon Influenced Joseph Smith and the Early Restoration (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2015).

47 . See, for examples, “Minutes, 19 February 1834,” 37, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-19-february-1834/2; Rigdon, “Ancient Order of Things,” 182–85; “History, 1838–1856, volume C-1 [2 November 1838–31 July 1842],” 1328, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-c-1-2-november
-1838-31-july-1842/502; “John Whitmer, History, 1831–circa 1847,” 95, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/john-whitmer-history
-1831-circa-1847/99.

48 . Too much emphasis on keeping earlier uses of authority and later uses of priesthood completely divided has confounded the data and prevented the natural language relationships of the one to the other from emerging.

49 . “I speak unto you [Oliver Cowdery] even as unto Paul mine apostle for ye are called even with that same calling with which he was called . . . Behold I am Oliver I am an Apostle of Jesus Christ.” “Appendix 3: ‘Articles of the Church of Christ,’ June 1829,” 1, 3, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org
/paper-summary/appendix-3-articles-of-the-church-of-christ-june-1829/1. Joseph Smith’s June 1829 revelation also refers to Oliver Cowdery as an apostle (Doctrine and Covenants 18:9). This revelation and another summer 1829 revelation (Doctrine and Covenants 19:8–9) also suggest that David Whitmer and Martin Harris may have received apostolic authority as well, perhaps due to their appointment as part of the Three Witnesses. Brigham Young indicated in a 7 April 1852 discourse that “Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer were the first Apostles of this dispensation.” Journal of Discourses, vol. 6 (Liverpool: Asa Calkin, 1859), 320. Heber C. Kimball indicated in an 8 November 1857 discourse that all three witnesses were ordained as apostles in Journal of Discourses, 6:29. Possibly due to the apostolic calling of Joseph Smith and the Three Witnesses, as well as the experience of the Eight Witnesses (twelve men total, though there is no evidence the Eight Witnesses were apostles), the Palmyra Reflector reported that “The number of the Gold Bible Apostles is said to be complete. Jo Smith Jr. is about to assign to each, a mission to the heathen.” “Selected Items,” The Reflector (Palmyra, NY), 23 September 1829, 14. Some April 1830 revelations also refer to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as apostles (Doctrine and Covenants 20:2–3; 21:1). In June 1830, Oliver Cowdery is referred to as “The apostle to the NEPHITES.” The Reflector (Palmyra, NY), 1 June 1830, 28. June 1830 ministerial licenses issued by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as apostles indicate that others were also given apostleship: “A License Liberty Power & Authority Given to John Whitmer signifying & proveing that he is an Apostle of Jesus Christ an Elder of this Church of Christ . . . Signifying that he has been baptized & received into the Church according to the Articles & Covenants of the Church & ordained under the hand of Joseph Smith Jun. <who is an Apostle of our Lord>.” “License for John Whitmer, 9 June 1830,” 1, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/license-for-john-whitmer
-9-june-1830/1. “Those who are the friends and advocates of this wonderful book, state that Mr. Oliver Cowdry has his commission directly from the God of Heaven, and that he has credentials, written and signed by the hand of Jesus Christ, with whom he has personally conversed, and as such, said Cowdry claims that he and his associates are the only persons on earth who are qualified to administer in his name. . . . If these things are true, God has certainly changed his order of commission. When Jesus sent his disciples to preach, he gave them power against all unclean spirits, to cast them out, to heal all manner of diseases, and to raise the dead. But these newly commissioned disciples have totally failed thus far in their attempts to heal, and as far as can be ascertained, their prophecys have also failed.” A Lover of Truth, “The Book of Mormon,” Painesville Telegraph (Painesville, OH), 7 December, 1830. “In conclusion, I remark, that if the above observations are correct, we are bound to consider the Apostles of this pretended new Revelation, either as wild Fanatics, or (what is more probable) as designing Villains, unless they can convince mankind of the truth of their mission from Heaven—either by imitating Moses, by dividing seas, and feeding their followers with Manna—or like our blessed Saviour, by healing the sick, restoring lost limbs, or raising the dead; or else by performing other miracles equally stupendous.” H., “Letter to the Editor,” Observer and Telegraph (Hudson, OH), 30 December 1830.

50 . An 1835 expansion of a revelation that became Doctrine and Covenants 27 mentions that Peter, James, and John bestowed apostleship on Smith and Cowdery: “John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, jr. and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto this first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron” and “also with Peter, and James, and John whom I have sent unto, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry” (1835 Doctrine & Covenants, Section 50; Doctrine and Covenants 27:8, 12). Such later expansions in the historical record are viewed by many historians as an evolving story thus rewriting of history, but it can also reflect the claim that such details were not included in earlier sources on purpose due to persecution: “we were forced to keep < secret > these things entirely secret in our own bosoms, viz: the circumstances of our having been baptized and having received this aaronic priesthood. And this on account of < owing to > a spirit of persecution who which had been < already > manifested itself in the neighborhood, for some time previous. We had been threatened with being mobbed, from time to time and this too by professors of religion . . .” “History, circa June–October 1839 [Draft 1],” 1, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-june-october-1839-draft-1/1.

51 . “The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this priesthood upon us said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the new Testament, and that he acted under the direction <of> Peter, James, and John, who held the keys of the priesthood of Melchisedeck.” “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 18.

52 . The introductory material of the 1832 History indicates that it will outline, among other things, “the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of—Aangels.” “History, circa Summer 1832,” 1. An 1833 blessing Joseph Smith gave to Oliver Cowdery was expanded and recorded in 1835 to indicate that Oliver was ordained to the lesser priesthood “by the hand of the angel in the bush . . . and after receive[d] the holy priesthood under the hands of they . . . who received it under the hand of the Messiah.” “Appendix 5, Document 6. Blessing to Oliver Cowdery, 2 October 1835,” 12, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-5-document-6-blessing
-to-oliver-cowdery-2-october-1835/1. A third 1833 source indicates that Joseph Smith claimed to have seen and conversed with “Jesus Christ and the Apostles” but no specific reference to priesthood is mentioned in this context. Reverend Richmond Taggart to Reverend Jonathon Goings, Cleveland, Ohio, March 2, 1833, in Jonathon Goings Collection, American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, NY, printed in John W. Welch, ed., Opening the Heavens, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017), 251.

53 . “This promise was made by the angel [singular] while in company with President Smith, at the time they recievd the office of the lesser priesthood.” “History, 1834–1836,” 17, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org
/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/19. That the plural angels restoring holy priesthood in the 1832 history could be referencing all angels that had restored any priesthood, including the lesser, to that point is a possible reading.

54 . “Minutes and Discourses, 27 February 1835, as Reported by William E. McLellin,” 3, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary
/minutes-and-discourses-27-february-1835-as-reported-by-william-e
-mclellin/1.

55 . “Minutes and Blessings, 28 February–1 March 1835,” 164, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-and-blessings-28
-february-1-march-1835/1.

56 . “Journal, 1835–1836,” 188–89, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-1836/191.

57 . “Discourse, 2 May 1835, as Reported by William E. McLellin–A,” 187, Joseph Smith Papers, emphasis added, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary
/discourse-2-may-1835-as-reported-by-william-e-mclellin-a/1.

58 . Ronald K. Esplin and Sharon E. Nielsen, “The Record of the Twelve, 1835: The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles’ Call and 1835 Mission,” BYU Studies Quarterly 51, no. 1 (2012): 13.

59 . “Minutes, Discourse, and Blessings, 14–15 February 1835,” 151, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-discourse
-and-blessings-14-15-february-1835/5?highlight=keys.

60 . “Record of the Twelve, 14 February–28 August 1835,” 4, (entry for 27 February 1835), Joseph Smith papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper
-summary/record-of-the-twelve-14-february-28-august-1835/8.

61 . See also Richard E. Bennett, “The Circumference of the Apostleship,” in Firm Foundation, 59–81.

62 . “‘Articles of the Church of Christ,’ June 1829,” 1. See also, Oliver Cowdery to W. W. Phelps, 7 September 1834, Messenger and Advocate 1 (October 1834): 14–16.

63 . For baptisms prior to the organization of the Church, e.g., that of Peter and David Whitmer and Samuel and Hyrum Smith, see Lyman D. Platt, “Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Baptized by September 26, 1830,” Nauvoo Journal 1 (1989): 20–22, ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp
-content/uploads/2013/05/NJ1_Platt4.pdf.

64 . Rigdon, “Ancient Order of Things,” 184.

65 . “Revelation Book 1,” 55, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-book-1/39.

66 . “Commandments were given to Joseph Smith, jun. who was called of God and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church, and also to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God an apostle of Jesus Christ an elder of the church . . . we elders of the church have heard and bear record to the words of the glorious Majesty on high.” “Articles and Covenants, circa April 1830 [D&C 20],” 4, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/articles-and-covenants-circa-april-1830-dc-20/1; also “Revelation Book 1,” 53.

67 . David Whitmer indicates that he and others were ordained elders in the summer of 1829. David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, MO: 1887), 32. Whitmer also indicates that before his own 1829 ordination that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery ordained each other as elders “in the Church of Christ,” but the Church was not formally organized until 1830. Since there is no corroborating evidence to Whitmer’s claim that he was ordained as an elder in the summer of 1829 and since his claim that Joseph and Oliver were ordained elders in the Church of Christ prior to the summer of 1829 appears to be wrong, Whitmer appears to be conflating some things that occurred in 1829-1830. Most likely, Whitmer is confusing 1829 ordinations to apostleship (discussed in footnote 49) with being ordained as an elder. As will be seen, the offices of apostles and elders are very closely related so the conflation is understandable. Although an 1829 source speaks of church members partaking “oft . . . of bread & wine” and that “The Elder or Priest shall minister it…” and anticipates the office of elder as part of “build[ing] up [God’s] church,” (“‘Articles of the Church of Christ,’ June 1829,” 1), no one need assume that the office of elder or the Church itself existed prior to its formal organization on 6 April 1830. Prince, Quinn, and Cannon use the late source of Whitmer to suggest that elders were first ordained in 1829, but this conflicts with other sources and muddies the waters. The Whitmer source, as it stands, should be dismissed in favor of the more contemporary report by Joseph Smith regarding the establishment of the office of elder.

68 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 26–27, also 17–18.

69 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 26–27.

70 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 37.

71 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 37–38.

72 . “Articles and Covenants, circa April 1830 [D&C 20],” 4.

73 . “Doctrine and Covenants, 1835,” 79, [D&C 20:41, 43], Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/87.

74 . While James’s status as an elder in the Church is likely, he is also explicitly called an apostle by Paul (Galatians 1:19).

75 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 27.

76 . “Discourse, 6 April 1837,” 487.

77 . “License for John Whitmer, 9 June 1830,” 1.

78 . A clearer understanding of this may have prevented Sidney Rigdon from attempting to claim the Presidency for himself.

79 . But one could argue that the formation of the Twelve did not mean they were necessarily given keys at that time to act independently if the presiding high priesthood for the Church dissolved.

80 . “Revelation, 11 November 1831–B [D&C 107 partial],” 122, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-11-november-1831
-b-dc-107-partial/1. The space within “Priest hood” is in the original.

81 . For example, the Egyptians, Hittites, and Assyrians all had state-sponsored cults in which the king was usually seen as the presiding high priest, though he might delegate away some of those duties by necessity. A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), 98–100. Ada Taggar-Cohen, Hittite Priesthood (Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag Winter, 2007), 28, 222, 380. Aylward M. Blackman, “Priest, Priesthood (Egyptian),” in Gods, Priests and Men: Studies in the Religion of Pharaonic Egypt by Aylward M. Blackman, ed. Alan B. Lloyd (London: Kegan Paul, 1998), 117, 127. The king as high priest would serve as the supreme religious authority over the whole kingdom, but other high priests may be the supreme authority in more limited geographies within a kingdom such as temple precincts.

82 . “Brs. Lyman Wight John Murdock Reynolds Cahoon Harvey Whitlock & Hyrum Smith were ordained to the high Priesthood under the hand <of> br. Joseph Smith jr. . . . Brs. Parley P. Pratt Thomas B. Marsh Isaac Morley Edward Partridge Joseph Wakefield Martin Harris Ezra Thayer Ezra Booth, (denied the faith) John Corrill Samuel H. Smith Solomon Hancock Simeon Carter Wheeler Baldwin Jacob Scott, (denied the faith) Joseph Smith [Sr.] John Whitmer Joseph Smith jr. & Sidney Rigdon were ordained to the High Priesthood under the hand of br. Lyman Wight.” “Minutes, circa 3–4 June 1831,” 4.

83 . “History of Joseph Smith,” 416. See note 25 for additional discussion on this source and its history

84 . Ezra Booth, “Mormonism—No. II,” 3.

85 . “John Corrill, A Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1839,” 18, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/john-corrill-a-brief-history-of-the-church-of-christ-of-latter-day-saints
-1839/16.

86 . Parley P. Pratt, The Autobiography of Parley Parker Pratt, One of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Embracing His Life, Ministry and Travels, with Extracts, in Prose and Verse, from His Miscellaneous Writings, ed. P. Pratt, Jr. (New York: Russell Brothers, 1874), 72.

87 . Though ancient Assyrian temples and priesthoods do not present an obvious hierarchy, Egyptian and Hittite temples and priesthoods had clear hierarchies, though all of these submitted to the king as the de facto high priest. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 106. Taggar-Cohen, Hittite Priesthood, 438. Blackman, “Priest, Priesthood (Egyptian),” 127–38.

88 . My thanks to Matthew Roper for bringing this insight to my attention.

89 . Raymond O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, modernized by Boris Jegorović (Frome and London: Butler & Tanner, 2017), 209, archive.org/details/pj1425.f3/page/n225/mode/1up. Walter E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1939), 691. Blackman, “Priest, Priesthood (Egyptian),” 127.

90 . “History, circa Summer 1832,” 1.

91 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 5. Compare Doctrine and Covenants 2.

92 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 73–74.

93 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 15.

94 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 72.

95 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 73.

96 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 72.

97 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin Richards,” 26.

98 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 71–72.

99 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 72.

100 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 72.

101 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin Richards,” 26. Joseph Smith’s remark appears to indirectly address a passage in Hebrews, the text of his sermon, wherein the reader is told that Abraham entered into the Melchizedek order via a covenantal “oath” from God after Abraham had “patiently endured” (Hebrew 6:15–20). Connecting the sacrifice of Isaac to Abraham’s initiation into the highest priestly order greatly expands the meaning of that story already pregnant with deep philosophical implications. I addressed this unique teaching of Joseph Smith in my presentation “The Sacrifice of Isaac: Abraham’s Initiation into the Highest Order of the Priesthood,” at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies and the Religious Studies Center Conference Genesis 22: Latter-day Saint Perspectives on the Binding of Isaac, Brigham Young University, March 2004. The oath that God swore to Abraham after the binding of Isaac is recorded in Genesis 22:15–18.

102 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 73.

103 . For further discussion of this, see 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), 365–67.

104 . Ruling “under his father” suggests a family order wherein Melchizedek’s father was also a king having a greater dominion, like the kingdom of the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon wherein Lamoni was a king ruling over a principality in his father’s greater kingdom (see Alma 13:18).

105 . “Old Testament Revision 1,” 15, [Moses 6:64–68], Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/old-testament-revision-1/17#
historical-intro. The enigmatic phrase Joseph Smith recorded earlier—“and thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance”—probably relates, but it is not explicitly connected to the priesthood in the immediate context (“unto Adam by an holy ordinance” appears in Old Testament Revision 2 [Moses 5:59]). “Old Testament Revision 2,” 14, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/old-testament-revision-2/18.

106 . “Old Testament Revision 1,” 33 [JST Genesis 14:27].

107 . For further discussion on the relationship of Enoch’s call to temple ascent, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and David J. Larsen, In God’s Image and Likeness 2: Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014), 33–41.

108 . This is similar to Jesus’s three temptations that appear to be in an ascending nature (e.g., from the wilderness, to the temple pinnacle, and then to a high mountain according to Matthew) as a prelude to his coming forth “in the power of the spirit” (Luke 4:14). On the relation of Moses 1 to the temple generally see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, In God’s Image and Likeness: Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses (Salt Lake City: Eborn Publishing, 2010).

109 . “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by William Clayton,” 17, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as
-reported-by-william-clayton/7.

110 . One of the earliest revelations mentioning priesthood ordination by the “laying on of hands” is in the Book of Mormon, published in March 1830. It indicates that Alma “ordained priests and elders, by laying on his hands according to the order of God, to preside and watch over the church” (Alma 6:1). The Book of Mormon also indicates that Jesus “laid his hands upon” the disciples he chose from the Nephites giving them authority to give the Holy Ghost to others (Moroni 2). These disciples are said to have ordained other priests and teachers in the following manner: “After they had prayed unto the Father in the name of Christ, they laid their hands upon them, and said, In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a priest; (or if he be a teacher,) I ordain you to be a teacher, to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end. Amen. And after this manner did they ordain priests and teachers, according to the gifts and callings of God unto men” (Moroni 3:1–4). Oliver Cowdery’s “Articles of the Church of Christ” (June 1829) appears to use the pre-published Moroni passage above to indicate how priests and teachers should be ordained in his day: “Ye shall pray unto the Father in my name & then shall ye lay your hands upon them.” “‘Articles of the Church of Christ,’ June 1829,” 1. Joseph Smith’s circa April 1830 revelation, known as the “Articles and Covenants” of the Church, mentions the “ordaining” of deacons, teachers, priests, and elders. It does not, however, explicitly describe the manner of these ordinations. The opening lines of this revelation do indicate that Oliver Cowdery was “ordained under his hand,” suggesting that ordaining in the later passage may also indicate the laying on of hands, but this is not definitive (Doctrine and Covenants 20:3). Joseph Smith’s 1832 History begins with a summary of major events that had transpired to date, including a mention of priesthood restoration by angels: “the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of—Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel—the Law and commandments as they were given unto him—and the ordinencs” (“History, circa Summer 1832,” 1). However, only later sources indicate the mechanics by which this priesthood authority was first conferred, namely “by the hand” or “under the hands” of angels or that an angel “laid his hands upon” the recipients. See Oliver Cowdery, Messenger and Advocate 1:15–16; and Oliver Cowdery’s blessing from Joseph Smith Sr. recorded in Patriarchal Blessing Book 1, [Dec. 1834–ca. Spring 1868], Church History Library, 12, accessible as Appendix 5, Document 6. Blessing to Oliver Cowdery, 2 October 1835, 12, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/paper-summary/appendix-5-document-6-blessing-to-oliver
-cowdery-2-october-1835/1. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were ordained in February 1835 when the three witnesses “laid their hands upon each ones head and prayed separately.” “Minute Book 1,” 149, Joseph Smith papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minute-book-1/153. The 1838 History of the Church has Joseph Smith stating that on 6 April 1830, the day the Church was organized, “I then laid my hands upon Oliver Cowdery and ordained him an Elder of the ‘Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.’ after which he ordained me also to the office of an Elder of said Church” (“History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 37). Again, these and other records of the Restoration mention the “laying on of hands” as the means for bestowing priesthood along with its various offices, and it remains the common practice to the present day. This practice arguably has biblical precedents wherein Moses put some of his “honor” upon Joshua when “he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge” (Numbers 27:18–23; cf. Deuteronomy 34:9) and when Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13:3) and Timothy (1 Timothy 4:14) were called to serve. While these biblical passages mention the laying on of hands in relationship to their being authorized to serve, the passages do not explicitly mention conferring “priesthood.”

111 . The Isaiah text specifies a temple setting before God’s throne, accompanied by angelic beings and smoke, presumably from the altar of incense. Isaiah’s mouth is cleansed by a coal from the altar fire. Jeremiah receives instruction concerning the pre-mortal life, has his mouth touched by the finger of God (perhaps echoing Isaiah’s purging), and sees “a rod of an almond tree” (Jeremiah 1:4–11). The later point suggests a temple setting since Aaron’s almond rod was kept in the Holy of Holies (Numbers 17:8, 10; Hebrews 9:4) The disappearance of the rod and manna in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 8:9) is said by biblical scholars to be a Deuteronomist scribal tradition whereas the priestly tradition claims that the rod and pot of manna were there. Ezekiel is also depicted in the temple before God’s throne, his mouth being filled with the words of God as he eats a book.

112 . If the Law of Moses only permitted sons from the house of Levi to enter the temple as typically assumed, then by what authority do the prophets enter the temple as the ancient texts so often depict since not all of them were Levites? The notion that prophets are in the holiest parts of the temple is evidence for the existence of a different or greater priesthood among the prophets than that held by the priests and Levites. This distinction in the temple between priest and prophet is also seen in the Egyptian religion where the wꜥb (lit. “pure one”, this term is translated into later Judeo-Christian tradition as “priest”) seem to have access only to the courtyard of the temple, while the ḥm-nṯr (lit. “servant of god,” or “prophet”) are given access to the sanctuary of the temple and see the god. See John Gee, “Prophets, Initiation and the Egyptian Temple,” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 31 (2004): 97–107.

113 . Due to the similarities of this account with the confrontation between Jehovah and Satan with regard to Job, one might resolve the theological problems surrounding the “deal” made between Satan and the Lord by viewing that dialogue as being part of a temple drama as well—itself being an echo of the confrontation in heaven between Lucifer and Jehovah during the pre-mortal council of the gods—the council where the Lord foreordained these prophets as they are often told (see Jeremiah 1:5; Abraham 3:23).

114 . For a good overview of the issues and sources, see Margaret Barker, “The Secret Tradition,” in The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 1–33.

115 . The Catholic tradition emphasizes the latter, whereas LDS tradition typically emphasizes the former. Both are correct in their general understanding of what constitutes a saint.

116 . “Minutes and Blessings, 21 February 1835,” 160, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-and-blessings-21-february
-1835/7. However, Oliver seems to suggest an ordination by the laying on of hands by God, which could differ from a temple ordination.

117 . For difficulties of precisely dating this revelation see Steven C. Harper, Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2008), 563–64; Doctrine and Covenants 107, note 2.

118 . Scholars have noted that the earliest sources regarding priesthood in the Bible have Aaron, the high priest, performing the rites inside the temple, whereas priests primarily function in the courtyard (see, for example, Exodus 30:7–8).

119 . “When we give the brethren their endowments, we . . . confer upon them the Melchisedec Priesthood; but I expect to see the day when we shall . . . say to a company of brethren you can go and receive the [endowment] ordinances pertaining to the Aaronic order of Priesthood, and then you can go into the world and preach the Gospel, or do something that will prove whether you will honor that Priesthood before you receive more. Now we pass them through the [temple] ordinances of both Priesthoods in one day.” G. D. Watt and J. V. Long, eds., Journal of Discourses, vol. 10 (Liverpool: Daniel H. Wells, 1865), 309. Quoted in John A. Widstoe, Discourses of Brigham Young (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1973), 396.

120 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 15.

121 . See Oliver Cowdery’s report of Joseph Smith Sr. being ordained as “president and patriarch” in Patriarchal Blessing Book 1 [Dec. 1834–ca. Spring 1868], Church History Library, 9, published in H. Michael Marquardt, comp., Early Patriarchal Blessings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2007), 3, and compare to the minutes of Joseph Smith Sr.’s ordination to the “Presidency” in “Account of Meetings, Revelation, and Blessing, 5–6 December 1834,” 20, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/account-of-meetings-revelation-and-blessing-5-6-december-1834/4.

122 . “[Joseph Smith Sr.] ordai[ned] his sons Hiram to be a Patriarch, and pronounced great blessing upon all his children before he died.” Vilate Murray Kimball letter to Heber C. Kimball, 11 October 1840, Vilate M. Kimball letters, 1840, Church History Catalog, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; cf. Doctrine and Covenants 124:91.

123 . On priesthood as inheritance, see John S. Thompson, “‘Being of that Lineage’: Generational Curses and Inheritance in the Book of Abraham,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 54 (2022): 97–146, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/being-of-that-lineage-generational
-curses-and-inheritance-in-the-book-of-abraham/.

124 . Patriarchal Blessing Book 1 [Dec. 1834–ca. Spring 1868], Church History Library, 8, published in Marquardt, Early Patriarchal Blessings, 3.

125 . Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), 555; Alan H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica (Oxford: Oxford University Press) I:47*; Faulkner, Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, 32. Blackman, “Priest, Priesthood (Egyptian),” 127–38.

126 . Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical, vol. 3 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996), 298. My thanks to John Gee for pointing out this source to me many years ago.

127 . “History, 1838–1856, volume C-1,” 1328, emphasis added. For a publication of the draft sheet of this passage in the hand of Willard Richards, see Andrew F. Ehat, “Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord?” Sesquicentennial Reflections of a Sacred Day: 4 May 1842,” in Temples of the Ancient World, 50–51.

128 . Joseph Smith was “attending to washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of Keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of Melchisedec Priesthood, . . . and all those plans and principles, by which any one is enabled to secure the fulness of those blessings, which have been prepared for the Church of the first born, and come up and abide in the presence of the Eloheim in the Eternal worlds. In this Council was instituted the Ancient order of things for the first time in these last days” (“History, 1838–1856, volume C-1,” 1328, emphasis added). Not unlike initiatory ordinances that occur prior to an Endowment today, ordinances such as marriage that occur after an Endowment can still be part of “all those plans and principles” of the Endowment itself.

The Man with No Name:
The Story of the Brother of Jared
as an Anti-Babel Polemic

Walker Wright

Abstract: Within the text of the Book of Mormon, the name of Jared’s brother is never revealed. Various reasons have been offered for the lack of a name, but nothing conclusive has been offered. Taking a cue from the polemical nature of Old Testament theology, this paper argues that the opening of the book of Ether is a polemic against Babel, with the brother of Jared being contrasted against the people and ruler of Babel. Led by the mighty hunter Nimrod, the people of Babel refused God’s command to multiply and fill the earth. Instead, they gathered together, built a tower to reach the heavens, and explicitly sought to make a name for themselves. In response, the Lord confounded their language and scattered them abroad. In contrast, the brother of Jared was a mighty, unnamed man who communed with the heavens on top of a high mountain. The language of his people was spared, and they spread across the face of the promised land. Moroni’s abridgement of Ether thus may present the anti-Babel origins of the Jaredites.

It is well known that within the text of the Book of Mormon, the name of Jared’s brother is not revealed. He is simply known as “the brother of Jared.” Extratextual sources have potentially identified his name. A late, third-hand source provides the most detailed account:

While residing in Kirtland Elder Reynolds Cahoon had a son born to him. One day when President Joseph Smith was passing his door he called the Prophet in and asked him to bless and name the baby. Joseph did so and gave the boy the name of Mahonri Moriancumer. When he had finished the blessing he laid the child on the bed, and turning to Elder Cahoon he said, the name I have given your son is the name of the brother of Jared; the Lord has just shown [or revealed] it to me. Elder William F. Cahoon, who was standing near heard the Prophet make this statement to his father; and this was the first time the name of the brother of Jared was known in the Church in this dispensation.1

Other sources lend increased credence to the account. For example, “Moriancumer” is the name given by the Jaredites to the place they settled prior to their sea voyage (Ether 2:13). Furthermore, an 1835 Church publication identified the brother of Jared as “Moriancumer.”2 But the Book of Mormon does not identify the brother of Jared as “Moriancumer,” and external sources do not answer the question of why his name is never given within the text itself. Various reasons have been offered for the missing name of this prominent figure. These include modesty on the part of the brother of Jared, difficulty in transliterating the name into English during the translation process, or the emphasis on Jared’s ancestral lineage (instead of his brother).3 On the latter, Brant Gardner has suggested that “Jared is the ruler and his brother is his accompanying priest. . . . Ether is writing this story as it has descended through Jared’s line.”4 While there may be some truth to these explanations, the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1–9) may provide a potential answer and act as a key in interpreting the brother of Jared story.

The opening of the book of Ether could be seen as a polemic against Babel and its leader, with Moroni’s telling of the brother of Jared story serving as the main contrast. This would fit with what some scholars see as the polemical nature of the Hebrew Bible, where the biblical authors attempt to show the superiority of Israelite theology by contrasting it with that of their neighbors and rivals. As examples of the foregoing, some have argued that the creation account in Genesis 1 in some sense demotes the primeval forces of chaos and luminaries. Rather than presenting astral lights as deities, or sea monsters as powerful hostile forces, God contends with during creation, the opening of Genesis labels each of these entities as creations under God’s power.5 In Genesis 41, Pharaoh is unable to understand his heavenly dream; an Israelite prisoner and slave (Joseph) is given power to interpret the dream and declare that “God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do” (Genesis 41:25). In ancient Egypt,
a characteristic of the royal . . . dream is the direct revelation of a god to the king. The appearance of a god, or another holy being, in the king’s dream expresses the firm connection between the kings of Egypt and their gods. It strengthens the ideology of the Egyptian monarchy, one of whose foundation stones is the belief that the king is the physical son of a god. The biblical text comes out against this ideology, which it undermines. Not only is Pharaoh “a man and not a god” (cf. Isa. 31:3), he is inferior to ordinary mortals of the Children of Israel to whom God appears in a dream, and speaks a clear message, without a picture and enigmatic visions.6

The Exodus narrative is presented as a cosmic battle between gods, with Yahweh triumphing over Pharaoh and the Egyptian pantheon via the plagues: “against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord” (Exodus 12:12).7 The storm imagery of the Canaanite god Ba’al is often attached to Yahweh by the biblical authors, most explicitly in the showdown between Elijah and the priests of Ba’al (see 1 Kings 17–18). It is Yahweh, rather than Ba’al, who brings about the lightning (fire from heaven) and rainfall that gives life to the land.8 Even in the Book of Abraham, there are potential polemics. According to John Gee,

The ancient Egyptians associated the idea of encircling something (whether in the sky or on the earth) with controlling or governing it. . . . Kolob, which is the nearest star to God (Abraham 3:16; see also 3, 9), revolves around and thus encircles or controls the sun, which is the head of the Egyptian pantheon.9

Abraham’s vision of the Pre-Mortal Council and his foreordination as one of the “noble and great ones” destined to be God’s “rulers” (Abraham 3:22–23) could also be a subtle attack on Pharaoh. Ancient Egyptians believed Pharaoh to have been foreordained by the gods to rule—a belief that Abraham’s vision would undermine.10

In a fashion similar to that of the biblical authors, Moroni may be pitting the brother of Jared against the people of Babel and their ruler Nimrod. (A summary of these contrasts can be seen in table 1.) In numerous ways, the brother of Jared is shown to be successful where Babel has failed. And these achievements come by means that are antithetical to Babel’s own.

“Let Us Make Us a Name”: Genesis 6, the Tower of Babel, and the Unnamed Brother of Jared

The book of Ether sets the stage for the Jaredite story by explaining that “Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth; and according to the word of the Lord the people were scattered” (Ether 1:33). The main character of the early Jaredite story is then introduced in the next verse simply as “the brother of Jared” (Ether 1:34). This remains his sole identification throughout the entirety of the book of Ether.

Table 1. Key contrasts of Babel and Jaredite origins.

Contrast

Babel (Genesis)

Brother of Jared (Ether)

Name/Pride/Humility

“Let us make us a name” (Genesis 11:4)

Unnamed, “the brother of Jared” (Ether 1:34)

“Men of renown [name]” (Genesis 6:4)

“we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually . . . O Lord, look upon me in pity, and turn away thine anger from this thy people” (Ether 3:2–3)

“Before the Lord”

“Nimrod . . . was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord” (Genesis 10:8–9)

“O Lord . . . do not be angry with thy servant because of his weakness before thee . . . we are unworthy before thee . . . and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord . . . never has man come before me with such exceeding faith . . . the Lord showed himself unto him . . . therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you” (Ether 3:2, 6, 9, 13).

“they bowed themselves down upon the face of the land, and did humble themselves before the Lord, and did shed tears of joy before the Lord” (Ether 6:12)

Might

“Nimrod . . . began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Genesis 10:8–9)

“And the brother of Jared being a large and mighty man, and a man highly favored of the Lord” (Ether 1:34)

“mighty men which were of old” (Genesis 6:4)

“the name of the valley was Nimrod, being called after the mighty hunter” (Ether 2:1)

Temple/Heavens

“Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven” (Genesis 11:4)

“the brother of Jared . . . went forth unto the mount, which they called the mount Shelem, because of its exceeding height” (Ether 3:1)

“And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower . . . let us go down” (Genesis 11:5, 7)

“the Lord showed himself unto [the brother of Jared], and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you” (Ether 3:13)

“And the Lord commanded the brother of Jared to go down out of the mount from the presence of the Lord” (Ether 4:1)

Language

“Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech . . . Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth” (Genesis 11:7, 9)

“the brother of Jared did cry unto the Lord, and the Lord had compassion upon Jared; therefore he did not confound the language of Jared; and Jared and his brother were not confounded . . . and the Lord had compassion upon their friends and their families also, that they were not confounded” (Ether 1:35, 37)

Fill the Earth

“lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (Genesis 11:4)

“Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:12).

“And it came to pass that they began to spread upon the face of the land, and to multiply and to till the earth; and they did wax strong in the land” (Ether 6:18)

This clearly connects to the story of the Tower of Babel. While we do not have the Jaredites’ full account of the event (nor even the account that was likely on the brass plates),11 we can draw on the account in Genesis:

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. (Genesis 11:1–4)

Both in the beginning at the creation and later after the flood, God commands his people to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28; 9:1, NRSV). The people of Babel instead “came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there” to “make a name for [them]selves” and to avoid being “scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (Genesis 11:2, 4, NRSV). The desire for a name hearkens back to the Nephilim (translated as “giants” in the KJV) in Genesis 6,12 who are described as “mighty men which were of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:4). As biblical scholar Michael Heiser explains,

The Nephilim are cast as “mighty warriors” (gibborim) and “men of renown”—literally, “men of the name (shem).” . . . Immediately after the flood, Nimrod (whose name most likely means “rebellion”) is called a gibbor. Nimrod is cast as the progenitor of the civilizations of Assyria and Babylon (Gen 10:6–12). . . . The language is not coincidental. It links Babylon back to Genesis 6 and its divine transgression. The Nimrod description in Genesis 10, in the so-called Table of Nations, is therefore a theological bridge between the violation of Genesis 6:1–4 and the next momentous event in the Torah [the Tower of Babel] that will frame the entire story of Israel.13

The Nephilim or “men of the name” in Genesis are seen as the offspring of “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men” (Genesis 6:4). In the biblical text as well as later postbiblical tradition, “the sons of God” are depicted as gods or angels—literal sons of El and members of the Divine Council—who mate with mortal women.14 In Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible, “the sons of God” are instead human beings, specifically Noah and his sons (or perhaps his descendants) who “hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed” (Moses 8:13).15 “The sons of men” who did “not hearken to [God’s] voice” and married “the daughters of men” also try to claim this title (Moses 8:15, 21). In both the biblical and JST version, a violation of divine boundaries occurs. The Genesis version follows the biblical pattern of humans “striving to transcend the limits of humanity, to break through the boundary between the human and the divine.”16 The JST appears to focus on the obedience of those within the covenantal or priestly order and the disobedience and marriages of those outside of it.17 The violations in both the biblical and JST versions seem to be part of the “wickedness of man” that trigger the flood (Genesis 6:5–7; Moses 8:13–17).

Moroni appears to pick up on the connections between the Tower of Babel and Noah’s flood while tying them together in the story of the Jaredites. After sparing their language, the Lord commands the Jaredites to “gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind” (Ether 1:41). This is similar to the command given to Noah (Genesis 6:19–20; 7:9). Their barges are later described as “tight like unto the ark of Noah” (Ether 6:7).18 These echoes of Noah’s flood further solidify the connection between the stories of Genesis 6—including those about the “sons of God” and “men of the name”—and the Tower of Babel.

Scattering was later associated in Israelite history with covenant breaking, captivity, and exile from the promised land.19 According to biblical scholar Bruce Waltke, the Tower of Babel represented a “united titanic societal self-assertion against God” and his command to “fill the earth.”20 The desire for a name or reputation combined with the fear of scattering or captivity led the people of Babel to reject God’s command. The story thus concludes, “The Lord did . . . confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9).

The contrast between the people of Babel and the brother of Jared begins early in the story. The brother of Jared has no revealed name in Moroni’s abridgement. This distinguishes him from the “men of the name” in Genesis 6 and the prideful in Babel who sought to “make a name for [them]selves” (Genesis 11:4, NRSV). The humility of the brother of Jared compared to the hubris of Babel is made evident in his prayer in Ether 3:

Now behold, O Lord . . . do not be angry with thy servant because of his weakness before thee; for we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually. . . . O Lord, look upon me in pity, and turn away thine anger from this thy people. (Ether 3:2–3)

Because of the humility of this unnamed man, “the Lord had compassion” on him along with his family and friends and “therefore . . . did not confound” their language (Ether 1:34–37), a fate that the prideful Babel did not escape. The brother of Jared and his company also did not resist the Lord’s command to fill the earth and allowed him to “drive [them] out of the land” to “a land which is choice above all the earth” (Ether 1:38)—one that was “free from bondage, and from captivity” (Ether 2:12). Once they arrived in the promised land, the Jaredites “began to spread upon the face of the land, and to multiply and to till the earth” (Ether 6:18). Instead of being part of the name-hungry, disobedient, and forcibly scattered people of Babel, the Jaredite origins are rooted in the humility and experiences of an unnamed man. This man and his people are spared the confounding of language, led to a choice land free from captivity, and followed God’s edict to “fill the earth.”

“A Mighty One in the Earth”:
Nimrod and the Brother of Jared

As briefly mentioned, Genesis lists the ruler of Babel to be Nimrod, son of Cush: “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel . . . in the land of Shinar” (Genesis 10:8–10). Jared and his family also travel to the valley of Nimrod, which is “called after the mighty hunter” (Ether 2:1). The biblical record of Nimrod is sparse, but many later traditions arose about this figure. While some traditions paint Nimrod in a positive light, most cast him as the leader of Babel’s rebellion against God and the builder of its tower.21

Nimrod is described in Genesis as a “mighty hunter before the Lord” (Genesis 10:9). The phrase “before the Lord” (lipnê Yhwh) can be translated as “at the face of” or “in the presence of” the Lord. In the case of Nimrod, it could mean “in the sight of” the Lord.22

In general, any cultic activity to which the biblical text applies the formula ‘before the Lord’ can be considered an indication of the existence of a temple at the site, since this expression stems from the basic conception of the temple as a divine dwelling-place and actually belongs to the temple’s technical terminology.23

Yet, Joseph Smith’s inspired translation reads, “He was a mighty hunter in the land.”24 This new rendering removes any indication of Nimrod being favorable in the Lord’s eyes and may reflect similar readings found in antiquity. For example, ancient commentators like Philo of Alexandria and St. Augustine relied on the Greek translation of the Old Testament to assist in their understanding of Nimrod’s disposition. Augustine explained,

Not a few translators have failed to understand this, being misled by an ambiguity in the Greek, and so have rendered it as “before the Lord” rather than “against the Lord.” Indeed, the Greek word enantion does mean both “before” and “against.” . . . But it is in the latter sense that we are to understand it in the description of the giant Nimrod, who was “a mighty hunter against the Lord.”25

Philo described Nimrod as “a giant hunter” who was “zealous for earthly and corruptible things’ . . . ‘a giant before God,’ which clearly is opposition to the Deity.”26 In The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, the phrase is translated as “proud before the Lord.”27 The author (Pseudo-Philo) proceeds to tell a story about the patriarch Abraham’s refusal to participate in the building of the Tower of Babel. In response, Nimrod attempts to have Abraham executed by casting him into a fiery furnace. But Abraham is miraculously delivered by God and escapes unscathed. Josephus later recounted Nimrod’s pride and tyrannical reign:

God again counselled [the people of Babel] to colonize; but they, never thinking that they owed their blessings to His benevolence and regarding their own might as the cause of their felicity, refused to obey. . . . They were incited to this insolent contempt of God by Nebrodes [Nimrod], . . . an audacious man of doughty vigour. He persuaded them to attribute their prosperity not to God but to their own valour, and little by little transformed the state of affairs into a tyranny, holding that the only way to detach men from the fear of God was by making them continuously dependent upon his own power. He threatened to have his revenge on God if He wished to inundate the earth again; for he would build a tower higher than the water could reach and avenge the destruction of their forefathers.28

If these later traditions at least capture the intention of the Genesis authors regarding Nimrod, they bolster the contrast between the brother of Jared and Babel’s founder: “And the brother of Jared [was] a large and mighty man, and a man highly favored of the Lord” (Ether 1:34). Far from this mighty man being against the Lord, the brother of Jared sees himself as the Lord’s “servant” and recognizes his “weakness” and “unworth[iness] before [the Lord]” (Ether 3:2). When the brother of Jared saw the Lord’s finger through the veil, he “fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear” (Ether 3:6). In response, the Lord states that “never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast. . . . And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you” (Ether 3:9, 13). Later, when the Jaredites arrived in the New World, they “did humble themselves before the Lord, and did shed tears of joy before the Lord, because of the multitude of his tender mercies over them” (Ether 6:12).

The ruler of Babel was considered “a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Genesis 10:9) but rebelled against the Lord. Consequently, his language was confounded and his people scattered abroad. The results of Nimrod’s kingship could be the reason the brother of Jared objected to a monarchy in the promised land (Ether 6:23). The pattern of wickedness that followed the establishment of the Jaredite monarchy may have also inspired Mosiah to institute the reign of the judges.29 The brother of Jared is described as “a large and mighty man” much like Nimrod, but by contrast is “highly favored of the Lord” (Ether 1:34). His language was preserved and his people divinely led to a choice land. It was this mighty man who was, quite literally, brought “before the Lord” and into his presence. In essence, the brother of Jared is shown to be everything Nimrod failed to be; the anti-Nimrod.

“A Tower, Whose Top May Reach Unto Heaven”: The False Temple and the Temple Mount

Mountains and temples anciently were seen as “the primeval hillock of creation, the meeting place of the gods, the dwelling place of the high god, the meeting place of heaven and earth, the monument effectively upholding the order of creation, the place where god meets man, a place of theophany.”30 Scholars have noted that the “tower” spoken of in the biblical narrative is likely a reference to a Mesopotamian ziggurat, a large pyramid-like temple structure meant to symbolize a mountain.31 “The name babel means, in Akkadian, ‘gate of God’ and is a play on the Hebrew balal, meaning ‘to mix or confound.’ It is apparent then that the tower of Babel was a counterfeit gate of God, or temple, that [was] . . . built in rebellion against God.”32 Hugh Nibley referred to the tower as “the first pagan temple.”33 Mormon certainly recognized the source of the tower, as he identified Satan as the one “who put it into the hearts of the people to build a tower sufficiently high that they might get to heaven” (Helaman 6:28). Some scholars have pointed out that the ultimate sin of the tower was “humanity corrupting the nature of Deity. . . . Humanity had a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s sovereignty, transcendence, and power.”34

Rather than worshipping at the false temple and symbolic mountain that was meant to have its “top in the heavens” (Genesis 11:4, NRSV), the brother of Jared “went forth unto the mount, which they called the mount Shelem, because of its exceeding height” (Ether 3:1). Here the contrast between the false temple and natural temple begins, with both being described according to their height. The name of the Jaredite mountain also signals its holy nature. According to M. Catherine Thomas, “Shelem (and shalom) signify peace with God, especially in the covenant relationship. It also connotes submission to God . . . In particular, shelem has a reference to the peace offering of the law of sacrifice, which corresponds to the seeking of fellowship with God, and thereby has a relationship to the meanings of the at-one-ment.”35

The contrast between the Tower of Babel and Mount Shelem is similar to the contrast between Nimrod and the brother of Jared regarding the true presence of the Lord. In the case of the Tower of Babel, “the Lord came down to see the city and the tower.” He then tells his Divine Council “let us go down” to the level of the tower in order to confound the people’s language (Genesis 11:5, 7 NRSV). Ironically, the people “erect the highest building they can, but even to see it, the Lord must descend from His heavenly dwelling.”36 Yet, after ascending the mountain of “exceeding height,” the brother of Jared’s faith allows him to witness the finger of the Lord through the veil. He is subsequently “redeemed from the fall” and “brought back into [the Lord’s] presence” (Ether 3:13). On top of Mount Shelem, the brother of Jared “saw Jesus; and he did minister unto him” (Ether 3:20). Following his theophany, the brother of Jared is then commanded “to go down out of the mount from the presence of the Lord” (Ether 4:1).

The people of Babel sought to “build . . . a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven” (Genesis 11:4). But this false temple—a false gate of God—fails to reach the presence of God. The Lord and his Divine Council had to “go down” to even see the Tower of Babel in order to disrupt the arrogance of the people. But on the temple mount of “exceeding height” (Ether 3:1), the brother of Jared is allowed to enter into the Lord’s presence. And when he descends the temple mount, it is from seeing the Lord face to face. Mount Shelem is shown to be the true gateway to God. Once again, the brother of Jared and his people are shown to achieve where Babel failed—the anti-Babel.

Summary

The story of the Tower of Babel provides the context for the interpretation of the opening of the book of Ether. It also provides a compelling explanation as to the absence of the brother of Jared’s name within the Book of Mormon text. The people of Babel, led by the mighty hunter Nimrod, refused God’s command to multiply and fill the earth. Instead, they gathered together, built a high tower—a false temple—to reach the heavens, and sought to make a name or legacy for themselves. In response, the Lord confounded their language and scattered them abroad. Babylon (or Babel) in the Hebrew Bible is “emblematic of imperialistic hubris, injustice and oppression,”37 making it a pristine target for Moroni’s polemics. The brother of Jared was a mighty, unnamed man who communed with the heavens on top of a high mountain. The language of his people was spared, and they spread across the face of the promised land. This is how Moroni’s abridgement of Ether presents the anti-Babel origins of the Jaredites.

Walker Wright received a BBA and MBA from the University of North Texas and an MA in government from Johns Hopkins University. He has published on economics, theology, and history in various peer-reviewed journals, including SquareTwo, BYU Studies, Dialogue, Graziadio Business Review, Faith & Economics, and Economic Affairs. His popular writing has appeared in Law & Liberty, Public Square Magazine, and Deseret News. Walker currently works for a public policy think tank in Washington, DC.

1 . George Reynolds, “The Jaredites,” The Juvenile Instructor 27:9 (May 1, 1892): 282n*.

2 . “Letter VI to W.W. Phelps, Esq.,” Messenger and Advocate 1:7 (April 1835): 112.

3 . Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 310.

4 . Brant Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6: Fourth Nephi through Moroni (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2011), 166.

5 . See John D. Currid, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 33–46. Nonetheless, traces of the older concept of creation through battle with primeval forces can be found throughout the Hebrew Bible, particularly the Psalms. See Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Franscisco: Harper & Row, 1988).

6 . Nili Shupak, “A Fresh Look at the Dreams of the Officials and of Pharaoh in the Story of Joseph (Genesis 40–41) in the Light of Egyptian Dreams,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 30:1 (2006): 138. Cf. Daniel 2.

7 . See John D. Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 104–120; Kerry Muhlestein, “‘What I Will Do to Pharaoh’: The Plagues Viewed as a Divine Confrontation with Pharaoh,” in From Creation to Sinai: The Old Testament Through the Lens of the Restoration, ed. Daniel L. Belnap and Aaron P. Schade (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, [BYU], 2021).

8 . See John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 68–127.

9 . John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2017), 116–17.

10 . Stephen O. Smoot, “‘Thou Wast Chosen Before Thou Wast Born’: An Egyptian Context for the Election of Abraham,” Religious Educator 22:1 (2021): 101–21.

11 . For more on the possible contents of the brass plates, see A. Keith Thompson, “The Brass Plates: Can Modern Scholarship Help Identify Their Contents?,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 45 (2021): 81–114, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-brass
-plates-can-modern-scholarship-help-identify-their-contents/.

12 . “The only obvious meaning of the Hebrew term [for Nephilim] is ‘fallen ones’—perhaps, those who have come down from the realm of the gods, but then the word might conceivably reflect an entirely different, un-Hebraic background.” See Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, vol. 1 (New York: W.W. Norton, 2018), 25n4.

13 . Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 110–111.

14 . See Simon B. Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999); Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 41–66.

15 . Some apocryphal and rabbinic sources identify the “sons of God” as human beings, including descendants of Seth. See Jaap Doedens, The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4: Analysis and History of Exegesis (Leiden: Brill, 2019).

16 . Joseph Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1–11, reprint (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 122.

17 . For more on the JST version, see Aaron P. Schade and Matthew L. Bowen, The Book of Moses: From the Ancient of Days to the Latter Days (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2021); David E. Bokovoy, “‘Ye Really Are Gods’: A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John,” FARMS Review 19:1 (2007): 296–99.

18 . Hugh Nibley has drawn parallels between the Jaredite story and other ancient Near Eastern flood tales. See An Approach to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, [FARMS], 1988), 340–60. Moroni briefly mentions that “the waters had receded from off the face of this land” (Ether 13:2). This could be another reference to the flood, but it could also be a reference to the primordial waters of Genesis 1:2.

19 . For a useful overview of this theme in the Pentateuch, see M.G. Klingbeil, “Exile,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003).

20 . Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 180.

21 . On the traditions about Nimrod discussed here, see K. van der Toorn and P. W. van der Horst, “Nimrod Before and After the Bible,” Harvard Theological Review 83:1 (1990): 16–29. See also Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1988), 163–71.

22 . Mervyn D. Fowler, “The Meaning of lipnê YHWH in the Old Testament,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99:3 (1987): 384, 385.

23 . Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 26.

24 . The Joseph Smith Translation reads, “And Cush begat Nimrod. He began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter in the land, wherefore, it is said; ‘Even as Nimrod, the mighty hunter in the land.’ And he began a kingdom. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel . . . in the land of Shinar.” See Kent P. Jackson, Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible: The Joseph Smith Translation and the King James Translation in Parallel Columns (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2021), 64.

25 . Augustine, The City of God against the Pagans, ed., trans. R.W. Dyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 703.

26 . Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, trans. Ralph Marcus, Supplement I (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953), 173.

27 . The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, trans. M.R. James (New York: McMillan, 1917), 84.

28 . Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books I–IV, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, reprint (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961), 55.

29 . See John A. Tvedtnes, “King Mosiah and the Judgeship,” Insights: A Window on the Ancient World 23:1 (2003): 2, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/insights/vol23
/iss1/3/.

30 . Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), 5. See also John M. Lundquist, “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology,” in Temples in the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1994), 83–86.

31 . See, e.g., Johnny Cisneros, “Babel, Tower of,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016); Marc Z. Brettler, “Ziggurat,” in The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 1130–31.

32 . M. Catherine Thomas, “The Brother of Jared at the Veil,” in Temples in the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1994), 389.

33 . Hugh Nibley, “What Is a Temple?” in The Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1984) 29, rsc.byu.edu/temple-antiquity/what-temple.

34 . George A. Pierce and Krystal V. L. Pierce, “The Tower of Babel, the Jaredites, and the Nature of God,” in They Shall Grow Together: The Bible in the Book of Mormon, ed. Charles Swift and Nicholas J. Frederick (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2022), 89.

35 . Thomas, “The Brother of Jared at the Veil,” 390.

36 . Jon D. Levenson, “Genesis,” in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 29.

37 . Blenkinsopp, Creation, 166.

Aftermath of the Martyrdom: Aspirants to the Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Smith

R. Jean Addams

Abstract: In the weeks, months, and years following the murders of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum, several aspirants stepped forward to claim the mantle of the prophet. Who were these individuals with claims to the leadership of the church? What were their motives? How were these men able to inspire large numbers of saints to follow them? What became of their efforts and how are their works manifest in the present day? The reasons that members or prospective members chose or rejected the claims of these aspirants are examined, as are the churches of the organizations that were established by them. That study is augmented by a discussion of where these religious “expressions” subsequently gathered and the status of those entities today.

Those individuals even modestly familiar with the history of the Restoration are familiar with the immediate return of Sidney Rigdon to Nauvoo as soon as he received the news of the death of Joseph Smith and of Rigdon’s claim to be the Guardian of the church. Likewise, many church adherents are also familiar with Brigham Young’s return to Nauvoo from his mission in the Eastern States, arriving just in time for a subsequent showdown with Rigdon at a hastily arranged conference. Many of those in attendance at that historic 8 August 1844 conference believed they saw the image or heard the voice of Joseph Smith when Young spoke to the estimated 5,000 in attendance.1

What is generally not known, however, is that: 1) in the aftermath of the martyrdom there were several individuals who claimed that they had been directed to take charge of what they now surmised was a leaderless church, or 2) as circumstances developed, they came to that conclusion. Subsequently, a considerable number of organized groups departed from the church that Joseph Smith originally organized. How extensive were those departures? Historian Steven L. Shields has tallied that, during the 194 years since the Church of Christ was founded at Fayette, New York, on 6 April 1830, approximately 500 separations from the original church have occurred. Furthermore, he has documented some 125 church organizations or associations functioning today that consider Joseph Smith the prophet of the Restoration.2

It is not possible to discuss all the organizations in a single article. We can, however, gain a better understanding of the aftermath of the martyrdom and the leadership issues that were faced by the saints. We can also gain some understanding of who the aspirants to the mantle of Joseph Smith were and what motivated them to pursue their quest to lead what they now perceived as a leaderless flock. To facilitate that understanding, I will present a brief sketch of the influential leaders who were either aspirants who sought the mantle or promoted others to seek that mantle.

To avoid sensitivities with terms like off-shoots, splinter groups, and schisms, I use the word expression to refer to the separate organizations or associations that emanated from the original church. Most expressions either consider themselves the original church, or that their expression has been reconstituted or divinely separated. Each individual or aspirant and the expression associated with that person is listed below in table 1. Note, again, that the list is necessarily incomplete for this relatively short treatment of the topic.

This paper is organized in two parts. Part One details doctrinal and policy similarities and differences across the various expressions of the Restoration. Part Two provides timelines and brief biographies of selected aspirants who claimed leadership of the church.

Table 1. Major aspirants and expressions.

Aspirants

Name(s) of Expressions3

Date

Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

1844

Sidney Rigdon

Church of Christ;
Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion (second attempt)

1845
1863

James J. Strang

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

1844

Lyman Wight

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
(Merged with William Smith 1849; dissolved 1851)

1849
1851

William Smith

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

1847

Granville Hedrick

Church of Christ

1852

Jason W. Briggs and Zenos H. Gurley Sr.

New Organization4
(Reorganized) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints5

1852
1860

Alpheus Cutler

Church of Jesus Christ

1853

Joseph Smith III

(Reorganized) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

1860

William Bickerton

Church of Jesus Christ

1852

Part One: Doctrinal Issues

Before discussing the motivations of the aspirants who announced themselves as successors to the mantle of the Prophet Joseph Smith in the months and years following his death at Carthage, it will be helpful to understand the varying doctrines and beliefs of these individuals and the expressions of the Restoration that they led. Of necessity, sometimes aspirants mentioned in Part One will not be formally presented until later in the paper. In the following discussion, references to the Doctrine and Covenants or D&C will refer to the volume as printed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, while the version printed by the Community of Christ will be referred to as the RLDS D&C.6

Further, following the conventions of the Interpreter journal, references to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its members will not be abbreviated with the term LDS. RLDS, nevertheless, may be used. Additionally, the Church Style Guide calls for the word church to be capitalized. However, since this paper deals with the early church and other expressions of the church, the discussion will deviate from the recommended style of capitalizing that word.

Elements that are similar across the expressions

It is obvious that those who separated from the original church established by Joseph Smith had differing views on doctrine and policy. That is to be expected. Despite these differences, there are several points of similarity or near-similarity. Before discussing the differences, I will briefly mention the points on which there was some agreement.

The origins and names of the expressions

All of the expressions examined in this essay claim Joseph Smith Jr. as their founder. None claimed or claim to be creating and/or restoring a church without the foundation of Joseph Smith, at least in his earlier years. That is an important base on which to begin the discussion.

The name of the original 1830 church was the Church of Christ (D&C 21:3; RLDS D&C 19:1c). In 1834, that title was changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints.7 A revelation given to Joseph Smith on 26 April 1838 (D&C 115:3–4) formalized the name of the church to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Consequently, nearly all of the expressions maintain that name or some variation of it. Delegates to the World Conference of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints voted on 7 April 2000 to change the name of this expression of the Restoration to Community of Christ.8

The use of the identifier “Mormon” was taken, of course, from the Book of Mormon. The first edition of the book was available for purchase in Palmyra, New York, on 26 March 1830, shortly before the organization of the Church of Christ on 6 April 1830.9 The name initially used to describe followers or adherents to the religious organization introduced by Joseph Smith was “Mormonite.”10 The name was intended as a derogatory identifier, but members soon began referring to themselves with that name. The use of that identifier was short-lived, the “ite” being dropped, and the name “Mormon” was generally used thereafter to designate followers of Joseph Smith. Within the church, regarding the source of that name (i.e., the Book of Mormon), Joseph Smith, speaking to a meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1841, stated emphatically that “the Book of Mormon is . . . the keystone of our religion.”11 The identifier “Mormon” is also quite common across the various expressions and is often applied in both speech and print by outsiders, though not favored by most members of the various expressions.

Published revelations of Joseph Smith

A significant majority of today’s expressions assert the historicity of the Book of Mormon and acknowledge the volume as scripture. However, the Community of Christ accommodates a range of individual perspectives regarding the role and authenticity of that book.12

Additionally, a preponderance of these expressions accept Joseph Smith’s published revelations as the inspired word of the Lord. These divine disclosures were originally selected to be printed in A Book of Commandments for the Government of the Church of Christ. It was to have been published by William W. Phelps at Independence, Missouri, 1832–33.13 Phelps had been called in 1831 by revelation to “be planted in this place [Independence], and be established as a printer unto the church” (D&C 57:11; RLDS D&C 57:5a). The volume, which was intended to be small, was never completed because of mob action in Jackson County in mid-summer of 1833. A populace of local angry residents pillaged the printing office and residence of Phelps on 20 July 1833 and attempted to destroy the printed signatures (sheets). Fortunately, some of the signatures that had been removed from the printing shop by the mob and scattered were later gathered up, cut, and bound into an unknown number of small volumes.14

After the 1833 Missouri events, a renewed effort to print Smith’s revelations commenced in Kirtland, Ohio. He edited his revelations received up to mid-1833 and added some additional revelations he received up to the date of publication.15 The result was the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints: Carefully Selected From The Revelations of God.

An 1844 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published shortly after Smith’s death and contained eight additional revelations. Thereafter, some previously omitted revelations given to Smith were published in editions of the Doctrine and Covenants by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,16 the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Community of Christ),17 and others. There are also differences in the subsequent publications of Smith’s revelations by various expressions. Some expressions only accept Smith’s revelations up to a specific month and year. Many of them also include in their Doctrine and Covenants (or a re-named volume) additional sections considered as revelations given to their prophets, apostles, or others within their churches. Indeed, there is a wide range of what is considered “revelatory” within the spectrum of the various expressions. Examples from expressions featured in this article include:

1. Church of Christ (Temple Lot): Any member of the Council of Twelve Apostles may receive a revelation for the church; however, the revelation must be submitted to the church for a confirmation or rejection vote.18

2. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Community of Christ): does not include the Joseph Smith Jr. revelations after 1838 in their published Doctrine and Covenants.19 Currently, only the Prophet-President may receive revelations for the church. To canonize a revelation, it must be accepted by a majority vote of the official delegates at a World Conference.

3. Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, PA): Any member of the church may receive a revelation for the church, but it must be subsequently sanctioned by a vote of the members of the church.20

4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Only the Prophet-President may receive revelations for the church. For a revelation to be canonized, it is presented to church members at a session of a General Conference. The revelation is then voted upon for acceptance as canonized scripture. Other leaders and individuals may receive revelation for their area of responsibility, family, or for themselves.21

Within other expressions, the prophet, president, presiding elder, or other church leader is entitled to a receive a church-wide revelation.

For ease of presentation, future mention of revelations, visions, and promptings accepted by the various expressions will be labeled as stated. There will be no attempt to question the validity of those claims.

Elements that vary among expressions

Despite the surface similarities, several points of doctrine constitute significant differences between the expressions. They include membership considerations, priesthood, the concept of a “gathering” for the redemption of Zion, and the question of the future construction of a Millennial Temple or temple complex.

Membership considerations

When an individual is converted and subsequently baptized, he or she becomes a member of that church. This person’s membership can be terminated at any time, either by the church or by the individual. If the termination is instigated by the church, an official will usually confront the person about his or her errant behavior or apostasy. If the member, instead, freely leaves the organization, it was often because they began to question either doctrine or leadership. In many cases, that original baptism will continue to be recognized by the new expression with whom the person later becomes associated.22

Priesthood and priesthood keys

The position taken by the majority of the expressions regarding priesthood authority is that its bestowal, and the accompanying ordination to any designated office therein, is an individually conferred blessing that is retained by that person so ordained, regardless of whether that individual is later separated from the original church.23 Examples from the early post-martyrdom period are those of Zenos H. Gurley Sr., William Marks, and Joseph Smith III. Smith assumed his “father’s place” as president and leader of the New Organization at the April 1860 conference held in Amboy, Illinois. Gurley, who became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the New Organization, and Marks, who had recently (1859) joined the New Organization and was now a member of the High Priests quorum,24 ordained Smith as President of the High Priesthood.25 Gurley and Smith III are discussed later in this paper.26

In the years following Joseph Smith’s death, certain early church apostles, no longer affiliated with the original church, conferred upon other men the Melchizedek Priesthood and ordained them to priesthood offices, including that of an apostle. Another example of this varying interpretation of priesthood authority involved John E. Page, a former member of the Twelve Apostles of the original church.27 After becoming a member of the Church of Christ in 1862, Page ordained Granville Hedrick an apostle on 17 May 1863. Two months later, on 19 July 1863, Page ordained Hedrick “Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Translator” of the church.28

The gathering and the redemption of Zion

Nearly all expressions support a “gathering” concept. This may or may not include a specific geographical location, and that location may or may not be permanent. One week following the Kirtland Temple dedication in April 1836, Moses appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey and restored the “keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth” (D&C 110:11). Since the revelatory gathering “call to the Ohio” in 1830–31 (D&C 37:3, 38:31–33, 39:14; RLDS D&C 37:2a, 38a-c, 39:4d) and the subsequent directive in 1831 to gather to Missouri (D&C 45:64–66, 52:2, 57:1; RLDS D&C 45:12a-c, 52:1b, 57:1a), members of the original church, in compliance to revelations given to Joseph, uprooted themselves and moved as directed.29 In compliance, many early adherents moved westward from Ohio to Jackson County, Missouri.30 Many of these early members dealt with additional re-locations or gatherings in Missouri during the 1830s. Likewise, members living in and around Kirtland, of necessity, departed for Far West, Missouri, in 1838. The October 1838 Extermination Order of Governor Lilburn W. Boggs forced the saints to flee the State of Missouri.31 They turned to the east and gathered in western Illinois, primarily in and around the town of Quincy.32

In late April 1839, a conference of the church was held at Quincy, where the Prophet, Bishop Vinson Knight, and Alanson Ripley were appointed to select a relocation site. Gathering sites in Hancock County, Illinois, and Lee County, Iowa, were selected. By summer 1839, the small town of Commerce was promoted as the “main gathering place,” and Commerce was soon renamed Nauvoo.33 And, of course, there was the gathering to the Great Basin of the American West led by Brigham Young in 1847.34

Other early gathering locations by the various expressions have included Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Kansas. Later subsequent gatherings by certain expressions have included locations in Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, South Dakota, southern Alberta, southern Manitoba, and northern Mexico. Figure 1 shows the geographical location of many of the expressions.

In September 1830, only five months after the church was organized, Smith received a revelation enjoining the members of the church to “bring to pass the gathering of the Lord’s elect” (D&C 29:7–8; RLDS D&C 28:2.c). In the summer of 1831, Joseph Smith and several others traveled to western Missouri in fulfillment of the Lord’s directive.35

Arriving in Independence in mid-July 1831, additional information was revealed to Smith regarding the location for a Millennial Temple (D&C 57; RLDS D&C 57). Jones Flournoy, postmaster of Independence and early settler, was the original claimant who had first rights (squatters rights) to the property. He granted partial access to Smith. With revelatory specifics, Smith and others made arrangements for the area where the Lord had directed Smith to locate the temple.36 On 3 August 1831, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Martin Harris, and several of the brethren gathered to witness and participate in the historic event.37

Figure 1. Locations of some of the early expressions of the Restoration.

Smith, in a simple ceremony, dedicated the spot where the Millennial Temple would one day stand.38 As part of the ceremony, a stone was placed on the northeast corner of the planned edifice.39 The “Temple Lot Property” (63.27 acres) was subsequently purchased by Bishop Edward Partridge on 19 December 1831.40

Most of the expressions, therefore, believe that the Millennial Temple will be built on the Temple Lot Property. It is in Independence that Smith, nearly two years later, expanded his vision of Zion and designated a significant increase in the size of the original spot for a temple. In fact, Smith’s drawing details a cluster of twenty-four temples where the Lord will return in the Last Days for his millennial reign.41

The Redemption of Zion, however, is much more than a gathering. More specifically, most of the expressions believe that in fulfillment of the scriptures regarding the Redemption of Zion, i.e., that the Millennial Temple will be built on the 1831 dedicated lot in Independence. Furthermore, they adhere to the tenet that this is the location of the future city of Zion or the New Jerusalem. The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, PA) believes that a “New Jerusalem” will be located “somewhere in the Americas,” but not necessarily in Jackson County.42

Based on their understanding of the revelations given to Joseph Smith, several of the expressions of the Restoration have already acted on this belief, i.e., they have reestablished a physical presence in Jackson County. The Church of Christ moved to Independence in 1867, centered upon a revelation that Granville Hedrick received in 1864.43 The majority of its members also physically relocated to the Independence area in February 1867, as admonished in that revelation.44 The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints authorized its members to return to Jackson County and thus reestablish a physical presence in 1877.45 This initial authorization was subsequently and significantly upgraded when the church officially moved its headquarters to Independence in 1920.46 In 1900, the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints moved its mission office from St. John, Kansas, to Kansas City, Missouri, to officially reestablish the church’s return to Jackson County, although there were several families already living in the greater community. In 1907, the church relocated the Central States Mission Office to Independence where a mission headquarters has been maintained since that time.47 The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutler) moved its own headquarters from Minnesota to Independence in 1928.48 Other separations from these four expressions have also established a presence in Independence in the years since 1928.49 More information, not essential to the thesis of this paper, is located in the Appendix for interested readers.

In the years following (between 1867 and 1900), the Church of Christ, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints committed to the reacquisition of land in the Independence area. Each expression began to acquire (or re-acquire) Temple Lot Property originally purchased by Bishop Edward Partridge for the church in December 1831 as opportunities and finances were available.50

As noted previously, the earliest returning expression to Independence was the Church of Christ. They acquired 2.5 acres of the original Temple Lot Property in 1867–74.51 In 1906, the City of Independence sold the church a small triangular strip of land (approximately one-fourth acre).52 This acquisition brought their ownership to a total of 2.75 acres. Their current church building, including a chapel, classrooms, and offices for local and world headquarters, was constructed on a portion of this acreage and was dedicated in 1992 following a fire set by an arsonist on 1 January 1990, which destroyed the previous building on this same site.53

At present, the Community of Christ is the largest landowner on the dedicated Temple Lot Property, having acquired 40.5 acres over many years.54 The church built their Auditorium on a large piece of their property and dedicated that building in 1962.55 A temple was constructed on a portion of their acreage and dedicated in 1994, although the church does not connect the temple with “millennial expectations.”56 The temple and The Auditorium both house administrative offices for their world headquarters. Additionally, a sanctuary, library, and archives are located in the temple.

A majority of the expressions believe that the Millennial Temple will be built on the Temple Lot Property purchased by Bishop Partridge, as originally directed by revelation in July 1831.57 Both the Church of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints subscribe to the specific language of Smith’s revelation, that is, that the Millennial Temple will be built on the dedicated “spot for the temple” located about a mile west of the courthouse in Independence (D&C 57:3).58 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints secured 20 acres of the original Temple Lot Property in 1904.59 The Visitors Center was constructed on a portion of that land and was dedicated in 1971.60 The church also constructed a large stake center adjacent to the property. Combined, these three expressions now own the 63.27 acres originally purchased by Bishop Partridge for the express purpose of building the Millennial Temple as envisioned by Joseph Smith.61 The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) acquired property to the immediate south of the Temple Lot Property in 1924. The building occupied by the church today was constructed in 1928.62

As of 2024, the total membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is slightly over 17 million,63 the Community of Christ has 248,500 members,64 the Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, PA) has 23,000 members,65 and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) has 12,000 to 15,000 members.66 All other expressions have 10,000 or fewer members.

Elements influencing the following or rejection of an aspirant

Besides understanding the concepts of membership, priesthood, and the gathering of Zion, there were several reasons why members left the original church following the martyrdom and chose to follow (or reject) one of the claimants in the post-martyrdom period. Five major considerations will now be discussed.

Authority issues with leaders

The aspirants to Joseph Smith’s position each presented a different position of why and/or how they had the authority to lead the church in the post-martyrdom era. They were:

- Brigham Young: revelation and ordination as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the “Last Charge” directive of Joseph Smith

- Sidney Rigdon: First Counselor in the First Presidency and vice-presidential running mate at the time of the Martyrdom

- James J. Strang: letter from Joseph Smith authorizing the authority and a confirming manifestation

- William Smith: right by lineage

- Joseph Smith III: three blessings from his father confirming his succession to his father’s position in the First Presidency

Many people were convinced by one or more of these justifications. Other individuals were repelled.

The concept of a “rejected gospel/church”

A belief that the Lord had “rejected” the church was raised by some individuals in the post-martyrdom period and used as a justification of why a new direction or reorganization of the church was necessary. This reasoning was based upon the 19 January 1841 revelation given to Joseph Smith at Nauvoo (D&C 124:25–32; RLDS D&C 107:10–11). The revelation covered a variety of topics pertinent to the church at that time, including the command to build a temple. In this revelation the Lord stated, “I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me . . . and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God” (D&C 124:32; RLDS D&C 107:11a).

Since the temple was still under construction at the time of Joseph Smith’s death, some individuals used the language of this revelation as the basis of the “rejected church” argument. This argument reached a high point in the 1890s with the 1894 publication of Succession in the Presidency of the Church by Latter-day Saint historian B. H. Roberts.67 His position held that the temple was sufficiently completed to facilitate the promised endowment in which members participated before vacating Nauvoo.68 This explanation was countered by Heman C. Smith of the RLDS Church with his 1898 rebuttal publication of True Succession in Church Presidency.69

Baptism for the dead

Joseph Smith introduced certain key ideas during the Nauvoo period (1839–44), specifically, actions for deceased ancestors such as temple ordinances (baptism for the dead and the endowment). The following brief paragraphs outline the positions taken by various early expressions vis-à-vis these practices and doctrines. Again, I note that while the names of various aspirants of these competing expressions will be mentioned, for the sake of presentation, these men will not be fully introduced until Part Two of this paper.

While some readers might assume that such practices and doctrines originated in later years, more and more scholarship is demonstrating that many, if not most, of the so-called “Nauvoo-era doctrines” were actually a part of the Restoration from the very beginning. Current research is showing that such doctrines were clarified and re-emphasized in Nauvoo. As an example, a recent article by Andrew Miller demonstrates strong similarities between the modern church endowment and the discourse of King Benjamin as recorded in the book of Mosiah.70 He also offers a literature review of other scholars finding the same thing. Jeffrey Bradshaw similarly finds evidence for early doctrine occurring in the Book of Moses.71 This body of research suggests that these ideas predate the Nauvoo period by twenty or more years. Similarly, Larsen and Wright demonstrate that the concept of theosis or divinization occurs throughout the Book of Mormon.72

The idea of living mortals focusing on the spiritual well-being of their deceased ancestors began at essentially the same time as the First Vision. Three years and five months later, during four appearances of Moroni, Joseph was told that “God had a work for [him] to do” in which “the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers” (Joseph Smith—History 1:33, 39). For Joseph, one of the ways to accomplish this divine mission was through the practice of vicarious baptism for ancestors who had passed on. The ordinance of baptism for the dead was first specifically discussed by Smith on 15 August 1840 while delivering a sermon at the funeral of Seymour Brunson.73 The ordinance of baptizing “for and in behalf of someone who is dead” was practiced in Nauvoo beginning in September 1841, with baptisms performed in the Mississippi River.74 In January 1841, a revelation to the Prophet Joseph provided additional insight on this subject (D&C 124:28–42), including placing the ordinance in the context of restored knowledge.

Baptism for the dead was continued by several expressions in the years following the prophet’s death and is a fundamental tenet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today. However, the expressions that developed in the years following the martyrdom have varied in their acceptance of these ordinances. Although certain of these ordinances were continued by some of the new expressions, in general these doctrinal practices were abandoned by most of the expressions that developed in the post-martyrdom era.

Following the Nauvoo exodus, baptism for the dead was not practiced again until 1867 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are only three known documented exceptions to this pause in performing baptisms for the dead. The first exception
occurred on 4 April 1848. While in Iowa, just prior to his return trip to the Salt Lake Valley, Wilford Woodruff performed nine baptisms for deceased persons in the Missouri River, followed by four confirmations.75

The second exception occurred on 21 August 1855, with a baptism and confirmation “in City Creek in Salt Lake City.”76 The third occurred on 23 October 1857, when “two baptisms took place in the baptismal font affixed to the Endowment House in Salt Lake City.”77

Initially, and perhaps reluctantly, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints continued to acknowledge the practice of baptism for the dead as “possibly legitimate.” Five years after Joseph Smith III was acknowledged as the prophet and president of the church, however, he expressed his concern regarding this specific doctrine and addressed the subject in a May 1865 council meeting with other leaders of the church. The council, in a carefully worded statement, resolved “that it is proper to teach the doctrine of baptism for the dead when it is necessary to do so in order to show the completeness of the plan of salvation, but wisdom dictates that the way should be prepared by the preaching of the first principles.”78 There was a stipulation, however, “that baptisms for the dead had to be carried out in a temple and with no prospect for the building of such an edifice in the immediate future, the doctrine was shunted into a nether land between belief and practice.”79 Historian Roger D. Launius concluded his remarks on this and other related subjects in his book Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet with a quote from Alma R. Blair who stated that “to ignore was to reject.”80

James Strang continued the practice of performing baptisms for the dead within his organization. One such example is documented in the Chronicles of Voree.81 Historian Vickie Speek points out that when Strang returned to Voree in August 1849 to preside over a church conference, “members of the Order of Enoch performed baptisms for their dead ancestors.”82

Alpheus Cutler also continued the ordinances of the Nauvoo era, including baptism for the dead. Historian Biloine Whiting Young quotes from an undated letter written by Jennie Whiting to her daughter Bonnie that when Bonnie’s sister Daisy died in 1906: “We sent for Uncle Lute and Uncle Vet who came and prayed for her and anointed her. . . . I was baptized for her and she is now resting in Paradise until the resurrection.” In her letter she added that during the time that Whiting was president, they “were permitted to work for the dead,” and commented, “We had several of these baptismal meetings.”83

From the examples listed above, it is clear that the practice of baptism for the dead was continued by some of the expressions in the post-martyrdom period. However, from the lack or absence of historical documentation for the majority of the expressions that developed in the years after Smith’s demise, it is apparent that the continuation of this ordinance was extremely limited. And, as also noted, the practice or ordinance of baptism for the dead, in concept, was initially acknowledged by the RLDS Church in 1865 but was soon set aside.

Endowment (temple ordinances)

Joseph Smith first introduced the ordinance of the endowment to a select group of trusted men on 4 May 1842.84 This event took place on the second story of his Red Brick Store in Nauvoo. Later, men and women received the endowment under Smith’s direction prior to his death in 1844.85 Thereafter, this ordinance was performed under the direction of the Quorum of the Twelve in the Nauvoo Temple.

As the political situation in Illinois became more acute for the church, plans were expedited for implementing their westward journey. Coupled with the departure to the Great Basin, a priority for Brigham Young was the completion of the temple. Obtaining one’s individual endowment in the temple, prior to the planned exodus, became a major concern. Although the temple was not completely finished, as rooms became functional, they were dedicated and put in use to accommodate church members wanting their endowment.86 Beginning in December 1845 and continuing until 7 February 1846, when the final ordinances were performed (as the first pioneer companies headed west), some 5,615 individuals had been endowed. These ordinances for the living continued in Utah Territory and were accomplished in temporary dedicated locations (for example, the Endowment House on Temple Square in Salt Lake City) until temples were completed. The first temple in Utah was built in St. George (1877), followed by Logan (1884), Manti (1888), and Salt Lake City (1893).87

Referring to the endowment, Joseph Smith III remarked some twenty years after the death of his father, “I cannot see anything sacred or divine in it.”88 He was never “seriously challenged in his denunciations of the practice of temple endowments” because the temple rituals were associated with the Utah church.89 That association ensured continuing opposition from RLDS membership.90

James Strang had undoubtedly heard about the sacred rites performed by Joseph Smith in his Red Brick Store over three years before the dedication of the Nauvoo Temple. In an attempt to bind his most loyal followers to his leadership and provide an opportunity for adherents to participate in a secret society, Strang introduced similar rituals. He established the Halcyon Order of the Illuminati for select church members. The first meeting of this order was 6 July 1846, two years after the martyrdom. The participants were initiated with secret handshakes, signs, and code words. The ceremony concluded with each participant swearing an oath to “never reveal” any of the secrets of the order. Strang also had plans in 1849 to build a temple near Voree.91

Lyman Wight also perceived a need to receive the endowment, as evidenced in his priority to build a temple soon after his followers settled in Zodiac, Texas. This facility was completed in 1849; reference is made to its completion in a revelation to William Smith as recorded in the minutes of his April 1850 conference when Smith and Wight were in a period of merging their respective churches.92

Alpheus Cutler, based on his memory of the ordinances, pledges, and oaths, also continued the Nauvoo Temple ordinances in his expression. His followers continued practicing temple rituals for thirty or more years following his death in 1864. In the 1890s, however, it appears that the rituals “had been allowed to lapse.” Under the leadership of Isaac Whiting, beginning in 1909, the Nauvoo Temple rituals were reinstated. When the church moved its headquarters from Clitherall, Minnesota, to Independence, Missouri, in 1928, they purchased property and built a church to the south of the Temple Lot Property. The second floor of their church was designated for the performance of Nauvoo Temple ordinances.93

Polygamy/plural marriage/celestial marriage/spiritual wives

Perhaps the most significant reason for following or rejecting the leadership of Joseph Smith and, later, Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve, was the controversial teaching generally referred to as polygamy and technically called polygyny.94 It was also called plural marriage, spiritual wife doctrine, or celestial marriage.95 This doctrine was a major factor or turning point for followers of James Strang and William Smith, who vacillated on the acceptance or rejection of this highly volatile tenet.

This new doctrine, when first revealed by Joseph Smith to select individuals in 1841–42, was explained as only one of several parts of the “restoration of the ancient order of things in the dispensation of the fulness of times” and was only taught privately by Smith with a pledge to keep the disclosure confidential.96 As the circle of those to whom this teaching had been conveyed expanded during the two years prior to Smith’s death, rumors and innuendos regarding this marital arrangement began to circulate in Nauvoo.97

For William Law—a former counselor in the First Presidency and now a leader of a rival group, the True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints—the doctrine of plural marriage was the proverbial last straw. It became the final motivating factor in his efforts to expose Smith as a fallen prophet. In May 1844, under the direction of Law and others, a printing press was purchased for the publication of a newspaper meant to “expose” Smith—The Nauvoo Expositor.98 The subsequent destruction of the newspaper, after its first and only issue on 7 June 1844, by order of the City Council and signed by Mayor Joseph Smith, was the primary cause of Smith’s imprisonment and death at Carthage on 27 June 1844.99

The acceptance or rejection of plural marriage became pivotal for many church members in deciding whom to follow in the period of 1844–60. As knowledge of this new and controversial doctrine expanded, there were other voices clamoring for support as to why they should lead the church. Both Sidney Rigdon and James Strang used this teaching as an added argument in their individual efforts to convince potential adherents to follow them. Rigdon referred to the purported precept as a “heretical practice” and “barbaric.”100 Strang stated that “spiritual wifery [was] an abomination.”101

Certainly by 1852, other individuals, unpersuaded by the claims of Rigdon or Strang, were using the issue of plural marriage as a reason for joining with them and their organizations versus staying with the leadership of Brigham Young. Jason Briggs, Zenos Gurley, and Granville Hedrick, for example, became disillusioned over the issue of plural marriage. Eight years after the martyrdom, they were still very much resistant to reestablishing any connection with Young. Briggs and Gurley were, individually, persuaded to first join up with Strang in the late 1840s.102 Upon learning that Strang had switched from opposition to acceptance of plural marriage, they left his organization in 1850. This same scenario was repeated as they next joined William Smith’s fledgling church, only to be disillusioned, again, when they discovered his involvement with polygamy in 1851.

Hedrick and his Crow Creek branch of the original church were appalled upon hearing of the August 1852 pronouncement made by Orson Pratt in Salt Lake City regarding the open advocacy of plural marriage.103 The Crow Creek branch immediately announced a “withdrawal from fellowship with all who were indulging in these evils.”104

One of the first pronouncements made by Joseph Smith III, on 6 April 1860, immediately prior to his being voted as the “prophet and president of the church” was his position on the subject of polygamy, which he referred to as an “utter abhorrence.”105 Thus, the acceptance or rejection of plural marriage became a serious decision-making factor for some members considering one or another of the contenders for the leadership of the church. This became even more of an issue as knowledge of the teaching became more widespread. Table 2 summarizes this acceptance or rejection of plural marriage.

Table 2. Response to plural marriage among the expressions.

Expression

Leader

Accept/Reject

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Young (the Twelve)

accept106

Church of Christ

Rigdon

reject107

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Strang

reject/accept108

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

William Smith

accept/reject/accept/reject

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Wight

accept109

Church of Christ (Temple Lot)

Hedrick

reject110

Church of Jesus Christ

Cutler

accept/reject111

Community of Christ (Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of LDS)

Briggs, Gurley, et. al./Joseph Smith III

reject112/reject113

Church of Jesus Christ

Bickerton

reject114

Polygamy, indeed, would continue to be a “breaking point” for many members of the original church. The acceptance of this teaching also posed a serious consideration for prospective new members, as a result of increased missionary efforts of the Young-led church in Europe. Likewise, proselyting efforts of the New Organization/RLDS Church, James Strang, William Smith, Alpheus Cutler, and others brought significant challenges as they, out of necessity, were required to explain how and why they were different from the Utah-based church. In addition, there was a nationwide negative reaction to the practice. In 1856, John C. Fremont, a Republican party nominee for President of the United States, pledged to fight the “twin relics of barbarism” namely, slavery and polygamy.115 The subject of polygamy and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would continue as a topic of national discussion for the next half-century.116

Part Two: Aspirants and Expressions

Part One provided information about doctrinal similarities and differences across the various expressions of the Restoration. Part Two now presents a timeline of the various aspirants to the mantle of the Prophet who separated from the original church and attempted to set up their own organizations.

Aspirants prior to the martyrdom

From the earliest years of the Restoration, there were individuals who disagreed with either Joseph Smith or with the particulars of doctrine that he claimed had been revealed to him. As mentioned above, some asserted, even during his lifetime, that Joseph Smith was a “fallen prophet.” The following simple biographical sketches note the four influential individuals who initiated the separations and when their departure occurred. Most of the men who claimed the mantle of Joseph did not consider that they were “separating.” They believed that they were providing reorganization, or redirection, for the original church organization. There was a relatively small number of members who separated during the first fourteen years of the church.

Wycam Clark

Soon after Joseph Smith’s relocation to Kirtland, Ohio, in early 1831, a small group of six individuals, who had been initially intrigued and joined the church, came to disbelieve Joseph as a true prophet. Led by Wycam Clark, who claimed that “he was to be the prophet—that he was the true revelator,” they separated from the original church circa 1831 and called their group the Pure Church of Christ. Apostle George A. Smith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, speaking at a church conference years later, referred to Clark and his expression as follows: “They had two or three meetings; but the society would never have been known in the world, had not a few of us remembered the circumstance and told of it.” The Wycam-led expression dissolved in the same year as it was established. It is generally regarded as the first separation from the main body of the church. Since the first expression of the Restoration was the original church organized by Joseph Smith, this new group could be considered the second expression.117

Warren Parrish

Baptized in 1833, Warren Parrish was ordained a Seventy in 1835. He was actively involved in the Kirtland Safety Society of which he was the cashier. The Kirtland Safety Society was a financial institution or bank established by church leaders in the fall of 1836 to facilitate the need for cash, which was exchanged for non-liquid assets (primarily land). Heavy demand for the redemption of the notes (the cash value of their issued notes), fueled by the land speculation, led to a suspension of payments within the first month of operation and, coupled with a nationwide banking panic in the spring of 1837, brought about the institution’s closure in November 1837. Parrish was subsequently accused of fraud by many of the note holders within the Kirtland community.118

Beyond the controversial issues of the Safety Society, however, was a broader concern expressed by Parrish and others—they questioned Smith’s leadership and, more specifically, whether he could be a true prophet if he were involved, as he was, in a failed bank that left many of his followers in dire financial circumstances. Led by Parrish, who had emerged as a leading critical voice and an opponent to Smith, dissenters formed their own organization in the summer and fall of 1837, which they called the Church of Christ. This group included John Boynton, Lyman Johnson, and Luke Johnson who had all been members of the original 1835 Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, as well as Martin Harris, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Both Lyman and Luke Johnson had sent letters to the “Bishop & his council in Kirtland and the Stake of Zion” in May 1837 to “prefer charges against” Joseph Smith.119 Parish and twenty-seven others were excommunicated during the late months of 1837.120 Parrish’s Church of Christ ceased to function circa 1838.

George Hinkle

A colonel in the Missouri state militia, George Hinkle was generally regarded as either “a Benedict Arnold” or the “betrayer of Joseph Smith.” He received these epithets when he convinced Smith to meet with General Samuel D. Lucas at Far West, Missouri, on 31 October 1838 under a “white flag.” Hinkle had convinced Smith to discuss a peaceful solution to the difficulties that had placed the church in an armed adversarial position in northern Missouri in the late summer and fall of 1838. Instead, Smith and others were arrested, put in chains, and transported to Richmond, Missouri. They were tried and imprisoned during the winter of 1838–39 in Liberty Jail, awaiting another trial in Richmond.

George Hinkle quickly left Far West. He was excommunicated in March 1839. Approximately eighteen months after his departure, he organized the Church of Jesus Christ, the Bride the Lamb’s Wife, at Moscow, Iowa, on 24 June 1840. Hinkle, an old friend of Sidney Rigdon, merged his organization with Rigdon’s in the spring of 1845.121 The last meeting of Hinkle’s expression was 16 June 1845.122

William Law

William Law was chosen as Second Counselor in Joseph Smith’s First Presidency at Nauvoo in January 1841. He was excommunicated for apostasy on 18 April 1844. Ten days later, William and his brother Wilson, along with Robert and Charles Foster and Francis and Chauncey Higbee, organized a separation from the Smith-led church, which they titled the True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Law continued to work personally for the overthrow of Smith and was a principal participant in publishing the Nauvoo Expositor. As previously noted, the subsequent destruction of the Expositor press on 10 June 1844, following its one and only publication on 7 June, was the primary event that resulted in the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith on 27 June.123

Law’s expression dissolved shortly after its organization. William Law, his brother Wilson, and Robert Foster, together with their families, quickly left Nauvoo on 12 June 1844 aboard the “Steamboat for Burlington, Iowa,” a two-day trip. From Burlington they subsequently moved to Hampton, Illinois.124

Figure 2 summarizes the significant events of the Restoration prior to the Martyrdom as well as highlighting the four men who separated from the original church to begin their own expressions.

Early 1844 aspirants and major events

In addition to the four men who broke away from the original church prior to the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, several men led separations immediately following the martyrdom. In discussing these post-martyrdom expressions, the following question is often asked: “Why was there so much confusion regarding leadership of the church in the aftermath of the martyrdom?” The answer is simply that Joseph Smith left no unambiguous instruction regarding succession. Some of his actions and pronouncements led to varying interpretations as to his intent. It appears that Smith had previously designated several different individuals as his successor (implied or otherwise).

Figure 2. Timeline for pre-martyrdom aspirants and events up to June 1844.

Both Oliver Cowdery and Hyrum Smith had been specifically designated as “Associate President”125 or “Assistant President,”126 as had John C. Bennett.127 All three individuals had been set apart or ordained to that position. In addition, Joseph had stated that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was “equal in authority” to the First Presidency. Finally, he had apparently provided his oldest son with three separate blessings suggesting his succession to his father’s position in the First Presidency. As a consequence, the surviving membership of the church were deeply divided as to the direction regarding the transition of leadership subsequent to his unexpected and early death. Given this confusion and lack of agreement regarding a successor, several men stepped forward to claim the mantle of the deceased prophet. These aspirants played a major role in complicating Brigham Young’s efforts to keep the Nauvoo-based church intact.

Each individual cited in the remainder of this paper was successful in leading adherents away from the Nauvoo-based church. As mentioned in the introduction to Part Two of this essay, other actors will be discussed in brief sketches along with the development of their expressions and the location associated with their movements. I will begin with those whose claims were staked immediately following the martyrdom (see figure 3).

Figure 3. 1844 aspirants to the mantle of the Prophet, Joseph Smith, left to right: Brigham Young, Sidney Rigdon, and James Strang.

In late January 1844, the national election was beginning to become a contentious political focus.128 Fearing to associate with a religious controversy and fearing to lose the Missouri vote, none of the known candidates from either party would take a position favorable to the plight of the saints over the problems they experienced in Missouri. In response, Joseph Smith announced his own candidacy for President of the United States.129 The Nauvoo Neighbor (a church publication), in its issue of 28 February 1844, carried the official announcement of his candidacy in an article titled “For President, Joseph Smith.”130 During the next three months (March to May) members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles left on missions to the various states to proselytize and/or to campaign. Two of their number, however, did not go east, as they had other assignments. John Taylor was the editor of the Times and Seasons and Willard Richards was serving as Joseph Smith’s secretary.

Taylor and Richards would both spend the last days of the prophet’s life with him. Both men were also imprisoned with him and his brother, Hyrum, in Carthage Jail when it was stormed by the mob that killed Joseph and Hyrum. Taylor was severely wounded, having been shot four times. Richards miraculously escaped the barrage of bullets that filled the room that tragic afternoon. He escaped without a scratch, except for a graze on the lower tip of his left ear. At some point after the mob had fled, Richards realized that his life had been spared as a result of a prophecy Joseph had made to him over a year previous. Joseph had told Richards at that time “that the time would come that the balls would fly around him like hail, and he should see his friends fall on the right and on the left, but that there should not be a hole in his garment.”131

During the precarious weeks following the murders at Carthage, John Taylor was bed-ridden and healing from the wounds he had received at Carthage. He made himself available, on a limited scale, for consultation on church matters. Richards did his best to keep the church focused and intact and from members taking any retaliatory measures against known enemies of the church. The 1 July 1844 issue of the Times and Seasons featured an article penned by Richards and Taylor addressed to the branches of the church, “urging the Saints to remain steadfast in the faith and to be peaceable citizens.”132

The majority of the Quorum members in the East received word of the death of Joseph and Hyrum through stories published in newspapers where they were serving. Individually, or in small groups, they returned to Nauvoo as quickly as possible, with the exception of William Smith and John E. Page.

William Smith had received a mission assignment to strengthen branches of the church and was temporarily residing in Philadelphia. On 9 July 1844, while meeting with apostle Heber C. Kimball in Salem, Massachusetts, he was shocked to learn of the death of his brothers in the local newspapers.133 A letter from Willard Richards, William later reported, warned him “not to return to the scene of the recent sad events,” as it might “continue the excitement and endanger not only my own life . . . but perhaps hundreds, even thousands of the saints.”134 Furthermore, his wife, Caroline, was in ill health and unable to travel. They left Philadelphia for Nauvoo some ten months later, in April 1845, arriving in Nauvoo on 4 May 1845.135

John E. Page had been assigned a mission to Pittsburg by Joseph Smith at the April 1843 conference of the church. Subsequent assignments, and a very independent spirit, put him at times in a difficult position with Smith and members of his quorum. For whatever reasons, Page did not return to Nauvoo until early December 1845.136

Parley P. Pratt was the first of the proselyting apostles to return to Nauvoo. He arrived on 10 July and was an immediate help to Willard Richards. Pratt recorded that Richards and he “united in daily councils at Bro. Taylor’s, who was confined by his wounds, and counseled for the good of the church.” Pratt was impressed that Richards and Taylor had men “already renewing their labors on the temple.”137

The next apostle to arrive was George A. Smith. He returned on 27 July and, like Pratt, was an important addition to the leadership needs at this critical time.138 Pratt later stated that they (the four apostles) were “enabled to baffle all the designs of aspiring men . . . and to keep the Church in a measure of union, peace and quiet till the return of President Young and the other members of the quorum.”139

With the arrival of apostles Brigham Young, Heber C, Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, Lyman Wight, and Orson Pratt on the evening of 6 August, nine members (more than a majority) of the Quorum were now present in Nauvoo.140 At this juncture, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles assumed control of the church with Brigham Young taking charge as its president.141 The arriving five apostles were apprised of the situation regarding Sidney Rigdon and his planned appeal for control of the church, which was to be made to the saints at a conference set for the morning of 8 August.

Sidney Rigdon during 1844

Sidney Rigdon was born on 19 February 1793, in St. Clair Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. He was an early convert to Mormonism, joining the infant church on 8 November 1830 at Kirtland, Ohio. At the time of his conversion, he was a Campbellite or Reformed Baptist preacher in Mentor, Ohio, near Cleveland. Rigdon’s influence with his congregation had produced great success for the four missionaries who had traveled to Mentor enroute to western Missouri in the late fall of 1830. Rigdon quickly converted and he soon became an early leader in the growing church. He was chosen to serve as First Counselor in the First Presidency on 8 March 1832, and served in that significant capacity until Smith’s death.

However, by 1842, Smith had begun to have concerns about Rigdon’s loyalty and diminished efforts in his calling and responsibilities.142 Smith’s frustration reached its apex at the October 1843 conference of the church. Speaking to the assembled saints, he formally proposed that Rigdon be dropped from his position of First Counselor. However, Hyrum Smith next spoke in defense of Rigdon. The result was that when a vote was called, Rigdon was retained. To this announced decision, Joseph Smith allegedly said, “I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have again put him on me. You may carry him, but I will not.” A contemporary and more sympathetic account of this delicate confrontation was printed in the next issue of the Times and Seasons. In the article, Smith “expressed entire willingness to have elder Sidney Rigdon retain his station, provided he would magnify his office . . . but signified his lack of confidence in his integrity and steadfastness, judging from their past intercourse.”143

Rigdon vacated Nauvoo prior to the culminating events that led to the martyrdom and had removed his family to the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, area. His purpose in leaving for Pittsburgh, ostensibly, was his appointed political mission, as he had only recently been chosen as Joseph Smith’s vice-presidential running mate. Upon hearing of Smith’s murder, Rigdon quickly returned to Nauvoo, arriving on Saturday, 3 August 1844.144

As Joseph Smith’s First Counselor for the previous twelve years and his position as his vice-presidential running mate, Rigdon was a formidable claimant to the mantle of Joseph Smith. Upon his arrival, he purposely distanced himself from the apostles who were in town and sought to persuade the saints that he, as Joseph’s “Spokesman for the Church,” should assume the leadership.145 Ignoring a request from Willard Richards, Parley P. Pratt, and George A. Smith to meet at 8:00 am at John Taylor’s home on Sunday, 4 August, Rigdon spoke at worship services being held that morning in Nauvoo. He emphasized his long-time role as Spokesman to the Church, telling those in attendance that it was “the Lord’s wish that ‘there must be a guardian appointed to build up the Church to Joseph.’”146 Prior to the Sunday services, Rigdon had previously asked Nauvoo Stake president William Marks to arrange a special assembly of the saints where he could present his position and receive a sustaining vote or agreement of the Saints to lead the church as Guardian. Marks, who tacitly agreed with Rigdon’s claim, readily accommodated and scheduled the conference for the morning of 8 August 1844, an event that Marks announced at the afternoon session of the Sunday worship services.147

Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles during 1844

As the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the original church at this critical time, Brigham Young was the “key figure” in the immediate leadership crisis aftermath of the martyrdom. Young had joined the early church on 14 April 1832.148 He had been chosen as a member of the original Quorum of the Twelve in 1835149 and had become president of the Quorum after the death of David Patten in October 1838.150

As previously mentioned, at the time of the martyrdom, most of the apostles were in the eastern states on missions. Brigham Young and his four apostle traveling companions arrived in Nauvoo on the evening of Monday, 6 August. They were immediately apprised of the situation concerning Sidney Rigdon and his planned appeal to the saints at the hastily scheduled conference set for 8 August. Sensing the urgency of the situation, Brigham Young called for a special meeting the next day for the Quorum of the Twelve, the Nauvoo High Council, and the High Priest’s quorum, including Sidney Rigdon.

In proposing that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, of which he was president, should lead the church, Young believed he was acting in accordance with a March 1835 revelation to Joseph Smith, which stated that the Quorum is “equal in authority” to the First Presidency (D&C 107:23–24).151 Where there is no First Presidency—that body dissolved on the death of the president—the presiding church officer was, therefore, the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. That office was determined by the seniority of an ordained member of the Quorum. Additionally, on 26 March 1844, Joseph Smith had instructed the Council of Fifty (which included the members of the Quorum of the Twelve) on several significant points of doctrine, including the keys of the Priesthood. After imparting what was on his mind, Smith declared, “I roll the burthen and responsibility of leading this church off from my shoulder on to yours.” This declaration has become known as the “Last Charge.”152

The confrontation on 7 August 1844

At the urgently arranged meeting of 7 August, and upon the invitation of Brigham Young, Sidney Rigdon was invited to explain his position regarding the claim to be Guardian for the church. In response, Rigdon stated that he had been ordained as a spokesman by Joseph Smith and, as such, “the Saints had to acknowledge that all revelations from Joseph Smith would have to come through him.”153

To this assertion, Brigham Young replied, “I do not care who leads the church . . . but one thing I must know, and that is what God says about it.” Brigham continued, “I have the keys [as president of the Quorum of the Twelve] and the means of obtaining the mind of God on the subject. . . . Joseph conferred upon our heads all of the keys and powers belonging to the Apostleship.” With this pointed exchange between Rigdon and Young, the stage was set for the following day.

The conference on 8 August 1844

On the morning of 8 August, the hastily convened conference was held, attended by upwards of 5,000 people.154 In the morning session, Rigdon made his formal claim as Guardian for the church. Rigdon’s lengthy ninety-minute oration apparently did not motivate the assembly as he had anticipated.

In the afternoon session, Brigham Young took the podium. He advised the saints of the role and responsibility of the Twelve Apostles.155 In a two-hour long exhortation, he then laid out the particulars and reasons why the Lord expected the Quorum of the Twelve to lead the church. Among the highlights of his discourse was this provocative question: “Here is Brigham, have his knees ever faltered?” According to his great-grandson, S. Dilworth Young, Brigham’s answer to his rhetorical question “carried the day.”156 Many of those who attended later testified that they “saw the Prophet Joseph speaking” to them instead of Brigham. Others claimed they “heard the voice of Joseph.” And still others stated that they “felt” the mantle of the deceased prophet rest upon Brigham Young.157

Of course, there are those like Richard S. Van Wagoner who claim that these recitals, provided years later and with no known contemporary account available, simply reject these later retellings of the event as a “myth.”158 Daniel C. Peterson, in a recent article titled “The Heavenly Sign: Brigham’s Transfiguration at Nauvoo,”159 concurs with Lynne Watkins Jorgensen that the preponderance of the accounts of this significant event, either orally or in writing, by at least 129 documented individual testimonies, provides validity for this remarkable manifestation.160 Historian Ronald K. Esplin stated, “Though there is no contemporary diary account, the number of later retellings, many in remarkable detail, argues for the reality of some such experience.”161

Following Young’s remarks, a vote was taken. The saints were given two options: “Do you want Brother Rigdon to stand forward, your guide, your spokesman?” Or “does the church want, and is it their only desire to sustain the Twelve as the First Presidency of this people?”162 There was an almost universal affirmative vote in favor of the Twelve.

James Strang during 1844

No sooner was the 8 August 1844 conference concluded than another formidable aspirant made his own position known. Through an emissary, the members of the Nauvoo-based church were unexpectedly informed that the leadership of the church should be entrusted to James J. Strang, a new member of the church who was living in a branch in Wisconsin.

Strang was born on 21 March 1813 at Scipio, New York. He was thirty-one years old when he was introduced to the teachings of the church. Intrigued by the doctrine he heard from missionaries, he traveled to Nauvoo from his home in Spring Prairie, Wisconsin, to get a first-hand look at the church and to meet the Prophet of whom he had heard so much. At Nauvoo, he met Joseph, was convinced, and converted. He was baptized on 25 February 1844 by Joseph Smith and ordained an elder on 3 March 1844 by Hyrum Smith. Soon thereafter, he returned home to Spring Prairie, Wisconsin.

On 9 July 1844, Strang first received the news of the murder of Joseph Smith. He also stated that on that same day he received a letter written to him by Smith. It was dated 18 June 1844, only ten days before the martyrdom.163 Although he had been a member of the church for less than four months, this letter indicated that he was to be the successor to Smith and receive the mantle of the Prophet. The contents of the letter also included a revelation specifically stating that the future gathering place of the saints was to be in the area of Strang’s current residence in Spring Prairie, which was to be renamed. The revelation stated, “The name of the city shall be called Voree, which is interpreted, garden of peace, for there shall my people have peace and rest.”164 Strang also told of a personal angelic confirmation to lead the church. He later stated that at 5:30 on the afternoon of 27 June 1844, within minutes of the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum:

[T]he Angel of God came unto him and saluted him, saying: “Fear God and be strengthened and obey him, for great is the work which he hath required at thy hand.” . . . The Angel of the Lord then stretched forth his hand unto him and touched his head, and put oil upon him and said, “Grace is poured upon thy lips, and God blessed thee with the greatness of the Everlasting Priesthood.”165

Imbued by this personal visitation and the letter from Joseph Smith, Strang set out for a conference of local church leaders being held in Florence, Michigan, on 27 July 1844. On 5 August 1844, he presented his letter to the presiding elder of the branch, Crandall Dunn. Dunn and others denounced his claim, and Strang was excommunicated that same day.166 Strang became ill following the conference and returned to his home in Spring Prairie, Wisconsin. Unable to travel to Nauvoo and present his claim, he sent Moses Smith, an uncle by marriage, to present his letter and his angelic confirmation to the leadership.167 In Nauvoo, Moses Smith presented Strang’s letter and claim to all those who would listen. Brigham Young, not surprisingly, disputed Strang’s leadership claims. Strang was excommunicated a second time on 26 August 1844.168

Notwithstanding his excommunication, Strang’s claim resonated with some members who were dissatisfied with their options of Brigham Young or Sidney Rigdon—especially with the doctrine of plural marriage. The result of Strang’s missionary work, which was carried out by himself and others, was his leading 500 to 1,000 followers169 from Nauvoo and the scattered branches—primarily in northern Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan—to Spring Prairie, Wisconsin, which he had renamed Voree as instructed in Smith’s letter of appointment. Part of his success was likely due to a rejection of the doctrine of plural marriage introduced by Joseph Smith and supported by Brigham Young—this despite the fact that several years later, Strang adopted the principle of polygamy. In any case, his followers at the time included such notables as the Nauvoo Stake president, William Marks; Joseph Smith’s brother, William Smith; his mother, Lucy Mack Smith; and apostle John E. Page. Strang retained the same 1844 name for his church organization, i.e., the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, since he claimed he was simply “assuming” the leadership of the existing church. Over the next few months, Strang urged his adherents and recent converts to relocate to Voree.170

Sidney Rigdon, remainder of 1844

Despite the vote taken at the conclusion of the 8 August 1844 conference, the articulate and highly influential Sidney Rigdon did not curtail his proselyting efforts in and around Nauvoo. Throughout the summer of 1844, he continued to advocate the same positions he had championed prior to and at the conference, namely that he had been, or was, the first counselor in the First Presidency, Joseph Smith’s vice-presidential running mate, and the Guardian for the church. The result was that he was successful in gathering many undecided individuals to his stated position. Brigham Young, after being informed of Rigdon’s ongoing proselytizing efforts, coupled with his defaming members of the Quorum—especially Brigham—called for a church court. On 8 September 1844, Rigdon was tried for his church membership. Rigdon chose not to attend this meeting at which he was excommunicated.

Two days later, Rigdon departed Nauvoo for Pittsburgh.171 Upon his arrival in mid-September 1844, Rigdon’s supporters and sympathizers rallied around him and, within a month, he had organized a church with himself as First President. Rigdon wasted little time in launching a newspaper with a familiar name to his followers: Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate.172 The first publication appeared on 15 October 1844 and it, like many of the early issues, carried letters that supported Rigdon and, at the same time, denounced the claims of the Twelve Apostles in Nauvoo.173

Figure 4 summarizes the main events in the tumultuous year of 1844.

Figure 4. Timeline for post-martyrdom aspirants and events,
June to December 1844.

Post-martyrdom aspirants and developments after 1844

In the years after 1844, both Rigdon and Strang moved forward with their own expressions in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin/Michigan, respectively. During the ensuing twenty-plus years, new challenges would arise. Church members in a growing array of expressions would be challenged by advocated doctrines and new aspirants to the mantle of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Lineal rights would become a major factor, as would the doctrines that Joseph refined and emphasized and that Brigham Young promoted, such as baptism for the dead and plural marriage.

Figure 5 shows the eight additional aspirants not previously pictured in figure 3.

Figure 5. Later aspirants to the mantle of the Prophet Joseph Smith, left to right (top row): Lyman Wight, William Smith, Granville Hedrick, and Jason Briggs; (bottom row): Zenos Gurley, Alpheus Cutler, Joseph Smith III, and William Bickerton.

Sidney Rigdon after 1844

On 6 April 1845, Rigdon and his adherents convened in Pittsburgh for the annual conference of their newly organized expression of the Restoration. Rigdon’s adherents decided to rename their church. They chose to return to the original name of the 1830 church, i.e., the Church of Christ.174

During late 1844 and throughout 1845, Rigdon’s church continued to grow as several hundred members gathered to Pittsburgh and vicinity.175 At the April 1846 conference, Rigdon announced a revelation regarding the location of the New Jerusalem. It was to be in the Cumberland Valley, about 300 miles to the east, to which the majority of his church adherents relocated. For a variety of reasons, his organization disintegrated just a year later, in April 1847.176 Rigdon was forced to move to Cuba, New York, where he was given a place to live by his son-in-law, George W. Robinson. Two years later, the Robinsons and Rigdons moved to nearby Friendship, New York.177

Several years later, encouraged by supporters who again sought out Rigdon, a second attempt to formalize a church began in the late 1850s. With his persuasive preaching, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion was officially established in Philadelphia in July 1863. A standard topic taught by Rigdon was the concept of Zion, which resulted in a “new Zion” located in the middle of Iowa. Rigdon, however, did not move from his home in Friendship, New York. Rigdon’s new expression began to dissolve in 1871. Those who remained committed subsequently moved to southern Manitoba, Canada, in 1875.178 Health issues caused Rigdon to stay homebound in the 1870s. In 1872, he suffered a stroke. He died on 14 July 1876 at Friendship, New York.179

Brigham Young after 1844

The historical record is clear that most church members chose to follow the leadership of Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve. Providing the needed leadership to these members in Nauvoo, the rest of the country, and abroad was an ongoing challenge for Young and the Twelve. In April 1845, a lengthy letter of appeal and hoped for direction was addressed to U.S. President James K. Polk. There was no corresponding offer of relief.180 As a result, and with persecution starting to resurge, staying in Illinois became impractical.

Plans were made to immigrate as a body to the Great Basin of the American West with a beginning departure date of April 1845. Nauvoo became a frenzy of activity as wagons were made and outfitted for the exodus planned for 1846. The completion of the Nauvoo Temple was also a high priority. When the first floor was ready for use, the full ordinance of the endowment was administered to the saints beginning 10 December 1845 and continuing until 7 February 1846. During that brief period of approximately sixty days, a total of 5,615 church members were endowed.181

During this time, there was increased persecution and indictments that charged Young and the apostles with various crimes. There were also rumors of a military intervention to keep Young’s planned western movement from establishing an independent commonwealth in Mexican Territory. Given this emerging crisis, Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles decided it was time to begin the westward trek earlier than had been anticipated. Despite the bitterly cold weather, the exodus began on 2 February 1846. By 15 February, Young himself joined the growing camp across the Mississippi River in Lee County, Iowa. Throughout 1846 and thereafter, thousands of saints traveled across Iowa to the vicinity of Council Bluffs. There, Brigham Young created a temporary terminus. In the fall and early winter of 1846, some of the refugees, including Young, traveled over the Missouri River and established what became known as Winter Quarters, in eastern Nebraska (near what is now Omaha).182

In April 1847, Young led the first caravan of Latter-day Saints west from Winter Quarters. The first pioneer party of 148 individuals entered the Valley of the Great Salt Lake beginning 21 July 1847, with Young arriving on 24 July 1847. Young and others left the newly established settlement on 26 August 1847 to return to Winter Quarters and arrived there on 2 October.183

On 5 December 1847, a quorum meeting was held at the home of Orson Hyde, where a reestablishment of the First Presidency was agreed to with Brigham Young as president. Heber C. Kimball was called as First Counselor and Willard Richards as Second Counselor. Following this action, plans were immediately initiated to erect a log structure in Kanesville (Council Bluffs) where a conference of the church could be held to transact business, including the sustaining of the action taken by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles regarding the First Presidency. The structure was completed in just three weeks. On the morning of Monday, 27 December 1847, over 1,000 men and women crowded into the log tabernacle. The vote was unanimous in the affirmative. Brigham Young left again for the Valley of the Great Salt Lake in the spring of 1848.184 He died in Salt Lake City on 29 August 1877.185

James Strang after 1844

In 1846, a new plan for “the gathering” began to develop for James Strang and his followers in Wisconsin. That summer, Strang claimed a vision that pointed him to a land surrounded by water. On returning home from missionary efforts in the eastern states, the boat on which he was traveling had to take refuge from a severe storm at Beaver Island located in northwest Lake Michigan. Strang was convinced that this was the land he had previously envisioned. In 1847, a few families of converts began moving to this newly designated location. By August 1849, Strang and his family also departed Voree for Beaver Island. Within months, the church headquarters was established on the island. Strang was crowned as “King” by his constituents in an elaborate ceremony on 8 July 1850.186

However, within months of his coronation, Strang and his adherents had developed an adversarial relationship with the fishermen that frequented the island, as well as with many of the locals. Simultaneously, Strang had alienated some members of his own organization because of his overly strident enforcement of his leadership dictates. As an outcome of these two situations, in June 1856, a conspiracy developed to assassinate Strang. This scheme was facilitated by dissidents from within his church and by outsiders, including Captain Charles H. McBlair of the U.S. warship Michigan.187 On 16 June 1856, the Michigan188 returned to the dock after having departed only a short time before. McBlair sent one of his officers, Alexander St. Bernard, “to find Strang and bring him on board.” St. Bernard remembered that “he often came on board the ship.”189 Strang was escorted to the ship by St. Bernard and was shot by two men who were following along behind. Struck by three bullets, Strang fell wounded to the dock. He was attended by the doctor from the Michigan and told that his “wounds [were] mortal and he would not recover.”190 Twelve days later Strang was removed from Beaver Island and taken to the home of his parents at Voree, where he and his escorting party arrived on 1 July. Strang subsequently died from his wounds on 9 July 1856.191

Lyman Wight

Lyman Wight was introduced to the gospel in Kirtland, Ohio, in November 1830.192 He quickly became an enthusiastic member and leader. He was forty-four years old on 8 April 1841 when he was ordained an apostle in the original church.193 According to Wight, in early 1844, Joseph Smith designated him to search out a possible area of relocation for the church in the Republic of Texas.194

After Smith’s death in June of that same year, Wight advised Brigham Young of his intention to still fulfill the assignment, despite the death of Joseph Smith. With Young’s reluctant approval, in September 1845 Wight led his Black River Lumber Company of approximately 150 persons south from the church-operated pinery in Wisconsin to Texas, over 1,200 miles away. The pioneering company arrived at Georgetown (near present-day Dallas) in mid-November.

The following spring, Wight’s party traveled further south towards Austin, where they arrived on 6 June 1846. They quickly began construction of a water mill nearby. Four months later, the spring that fed the mill ran dry and the colony was forced to move. An exploratory party located a suitable spot about seventy-five miles south near the German colony of Fredericksburg, which they named Zodiac.195

Two years later, in 1848, Brigham Young, concerned about the Wight-led saints, sent Preston Thomas and William Martindale to Texas to locate Wight and his people and return them to the main body of the church now located in, or enroute to, the Territory of Utah. The elders were able to meet with Wight and his group of adherents. However, they were unsuccessful in their efforts to persuade Wight to rejoin the westward movement or determine a loyalty to the leadership of the church. Wight separated from Young and was disfellowshipped on 3 December 1848 at a meeting in Great Salt Lake City.196

Beginning in late 1848, Lyman Wight and Joseph Smith’s youngest brother, William Smith, began an exchange of letters, each expressing interest in merging their organizations. To further this effort, Wight sent his son, Orange, and others, to meet Smith in Palestine Grove, Illinois. As a result of the meetings and exchange of letters, the two organizations tacitly merged, with Smith conferring on Wight the office of First Counselor in the First Presidency of his Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in September 1849. Wight’s followers reciprocated and sustained Smith “as Prophet, Seer, revelator and translator” on 1 November 1849.197

By late 1849, plans were being made for Smith’s disciples to join Wight in Texas. To facilitate, Wight again sent representatives in preparation for the physical move and to otherwise participate in church conferences. However, because of a variety of issues that developed in 1850–51, nothing further developed regarding the actual merger. The most concerning issue to Wight was Smith’s position that he was the only living heir to the First Presidency of the church. Wight thought that William Smith should relinquish his position to his nephew and Joseph Smith’s son, Joseph Smith III, when he came of age. This variance of opinion became an unreconcilable difference, and the two parties separated in December 1851.198

After the flooding of the Pedernales River, economic circumstances forced Wight’s community at Zodiac to again relocate in 1851 to the Hamilton Valley, northeast of Zodiac and Austin. In 1854, the majority of Wight’s followers, financially unable to sustain themselves, moved again. This time they established themselves on the Medina River, southeast of Mountain Valley. In 1858, once again, Wight and his church membership were of necessity required to move. The anticipated move was to an undetermined location somewhere north of the Red River near Indian Territory. Wight became seriously ill on the first night of this latest undertaking and died on 31 March 1858 at Dexter, Texas, near San Antonio. His body was taken back to Zodiac and buried there. After Wight’s death, his church quickly dissolved. Many of his followers left Texas to join the New Organization and others traveled west to Utah Territory, most often if there were family members living there.199

William Smith

Joseph Smith’s youngest brother, William Smith, was born in Royalton, Vermont, on 13 March 1811. He was ordained an apostle in the first organization of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on 18 February 1835. Following the deaths of his brothers, Smith claimed that he was an equal with his brother Hyrum (Assistant or Associate President of the Church and Patriarch) by lineal descent and, therefore, to the ordained offices which Hyrum held at his death.200 As such, Smith believed that he had the right and authority to take charge of the church.

Brigham Young, in an attempt to mollify Smith and to hopefully change or correct his thinking, ordained him as Church Patriarch on 24 May 1845, with all fellow apostles participating. For a brief period thereafter, a spirit of unity existed within the Quorum. The positive feelings between Smith, Young, and the Twelve did not last long.201

Within days, William Smith again expressed what he perceived as his “rights” to church leadership. He sent a letter to the Times and Seasons wherein he announced his availability to bestow blessings and at the same time emphasized his status as the only surviving son of Joseph Smith Sr., his calling as an apostle, and his ordination as Church Patriarch. In the letter he also disagreed with other members of the Twelve concerning lineal priesthood. Assistant Editor W. W. Phelps furthered the confusion of William’s authority by including an article of his own (in the same issue) implying that William had inherited the office of patriarch by linage, which suggested that this element was more important than his ordination to the office. Confusion, indeed, was the result.

The Quorum of the Twelve sensed a need to respond to these articles and requested John Taylor to write an article of clarification, which was published in the next issue of the Times and Seasons. Taylor stated, among other things, that Smith’s ordination to the office of patriarch was not “patriarch over the whole church” but rather, “patriarch to the church.” Smith’s relationship with Young and the Twelve deteriorated in the weeks that followed this in-print exchange as Smith continued to make statements regarding his lineal right of leadership, further confusing church members and agitating his fellow apostles. Fearful of retaliation, Smith vacated Nauvoo on the night of 12–13 September 1845.202

At the October 1845 conference of the church, William Smith was not sustained as either a member of the Quorum of the Twelve or as Church Patriarch. He immediately responded by publishing a pamphlet denouncing the Twelve, titled “A Proclamation.” On 19 October excerpts were read from this pamphlet at a meeting of “the Twelve, the high council, and a gathering of the Saints.” A vote of the council was called, resulting in Smith’s excommunication. In March 1846, Smith began to publicly offer support for James Strang and went to Voree that summer to meet with him. On 11 June 1846, Smith was ordained by Strang “to the office of Patriarch . . . also to be an apostle.” Smith’s relationship with the Strangite movement soon unraveled and, by October 1847, Strang excommunicated Smith for adultery.203

William Smith changed direction and proceeded to start his own church in 1847 with a branch in Palestine Grove, Illinois. In November 1848, Isaac Sheen, another early church elder who had a following in Covington, Kentucky, began a correspondence with Smith in which he undoubtedly informed Smith of his own positive views on the matter of lineal priesthood, i.e., that it was “young Joseph’s right by lineage” to lead the church when he came of age. (“Young Joseph” is the name often used to refer to Joseph Smith III.204) The exchange of letters soon led to a meeting between the two men. Smith and Sheen agreed to combine their efforts in early 1849, retaining the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Smith as president.205

Roughly during the time that Smith was developing the relationship with Isaac Sheen, he also began corresponding with Lyman Wight, who was then in Texas, in an effort to strengthen Smith’s fledgling church. Wight, like himself, had been a member of the 1841 Quorum of the Twelve, and was now the leader of the group of original church then in Texas. Wight was happy to combine his church with Smith’s, and Smith bestowed on Wight the office of First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This combined effort lasted for only a brief period and collapsed in late 1851 because of Smith’s pronounced thinking his lineal right of leadership, thus discounting the need for young Joseph to come of age to assume the leadership of the church.

While these arrangements with Wight were taking place, Sheen discovered that he had been deceived regarding William Smith’s practice of polygamy and abruptly left him.206 As a result of his departure, Smith was forced to retreat from Covington in the fall of 1851 and return to Palestine Grove. By the summer of 1852, with the stories of his polygamy circulating, William’s church was in a rapid state of dissolution. Many of his former followers joined the New Organization.

On 8 April 1878, after a period of some twenty-six years, and based on his original baptism, William joined the RLDS Church led by his nephew Joseph Smith III. However, William did not hold the office of either an apostle or patriarch within the RLDS Church leadership ranks. He died on 13 November 1893, at Osterdock, Iowa.207

Granville Hedrick

Twenty-nine years old when he joined the original church in 1843, Granville Hedrick was ordained an elder soon thereafter.208 Several years later, after the Young-led saints had settled in the Great Salt Lake Valley, Hedrick led an effort, beginning in 1852, to merge three branches of the original church, located in north-central Illinois, into one body.209 Apparently, these small branches had not had any contact with the original church during the past several years, especially after the Brigham Young-led church left Illinois and headed west. Furthermore, in March 1857, the Crow Creek Branch issued “A Declaration of Independence and Separation.”210 The consolidated organization was renamed the Crow Creek Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ (of Latter day Saints).211 At a meeting of the church held in December 1860, the members discussed and advocated a return to the original name of the 1830 church, specifically, the Church of Christ, but no formal vote was recorded.

In April 1864, Hedrick advised church members that he was directed by revelation to return to the “consecrated land which I have appointed and dedicated by My servant Joseph Smith . . . in Jackson County, state of Missouri.”212 In accordance with the revelation, which was discussed earlier in this paper, three families relocated to Independence in 1865–66, including Granville’s brother, John, who was the first member of any of the expressions to return to Independence following the end of the Civil War. In January 1867, approximately sixty members made the difficult trek and arrived in late February. However, and surprisingly, Granville did not come with the departing church members. Rather, he and his family made the journey “sometime later,” most likely in 1869.213 This delay, apparently, was due to the need to sell his farm and collect on the sale of John Hedrick’s farm.214 The Church of Christ was the first expression of the restoration to return to Independence, Jackson County, Missouri. Five years after his belated arrival in Jackson County, Hedrick moved his family to Johnson County, Kansas, where he lived and farmed for the rest of his life.215 Granville Hedrick died 22 August 1881.216

A significant part of the return of the Church of Christ to Zion was the purchase (actually the re-purchase) of the Temple Lot Property in Independence. In August 1867, John Hedrick initiated the purchase of three of the eight contiguous lots encompassing a portion of the area where Joseph Smith had dedicated the site for the Millennial Temple (discussed earlier).217

Another early elder in the original church, William Eaton, now a member of the Church of Christ, purchased five additional lots in 1873–74. These five lots, plus those purchased by John Hedrick, were necessary to complete the encompassed area required by the dimensions of the original Millennial Temple site. More specifically, the acquisition of Lot 15, purchased by Eaton on 7 March 1874, is the presumed spot where Joseph Smith set a stone at the northeast corner218 when he dedicated the ground for the Millennial Temple on 3 August 1831.219

Jason W. Briggs and Zenos H. Gurley Sr.

Most of the thousands of converts to the original church chose to remain under the voted leadership of Brigham Young their whole lives. Two of those who did not, and who questioned some doctrine and leadership decisions espoused by Young and the Twelve, were Zenos H. Gurley Sr. and Jason W. Briggs. Gurley had been baptized and ordained an elder in the original church in 1838; Briggs had been baptized and ordained an elder in 1841. After Joseph Smith’s assassination, both men came to reject the course taken by Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve.220 In 1846, they joined with James Strang in Wisconsin. Both men became successful missionaries for Strang but, by 1850, came to find his doctrine repugnant—polygamy in particular. Briggs then associated with William Smith for a brief period, but again became disillusioned when he heard about Smith’s polygamy. He left his church in October 1851.221

In the years following their associations with Strang and William Smith, both Briggs and Gurley became convinced by what they considered personal revelation that “young Joseph” was the rightful heir by reason of lineal descent.222 Briggs and Gurley, anxious to share their recent convictions, began assimilating several branches of the original church in southern Wisconsin and northern Illinois. Their individual efforts led to a conference held in Beloit, Wisconsin, in June 1852. At that time, their efforts were consolidated into what became known as the New Organization.223

The re-connected branches scheduled another conference for April 1853. In preparing for the meeting, a dedicated group of men, who had all been priesthood holders in the original church, met in late March 1853. Collectively, they were seeking counsel from the Lord regarding the need to more fully “organize ourselves.”224 One of the men attending, H. H. Deam, advised Gurley on 20 March that he had received an answer from the Lord while praying. Deam was then asked to read to the assembled elders what he had recorded after his prayer. Deam proceeded and read, “Verily, thus saith the Lord, . . . [l]et three men be appointed by the conference to select seven men from among you, who will compose the majority of the Twelve [Apostles].”225At the opening of the April conference those seven individuals chosen for ordination to the apostleship were accepted by the unanimous vote of the conference and were ordained on 8 April 1853. Perhaps not surprisingly, Jason Briggs and Zenos Gurley were among the seven chosen and ordained as apostles.226

The October 1856 conference of the New Organization voted to send two members, Edmund C. Briggs and Samuel H. Gurley, brothers of Jason and Zenos, respectively, to visit Joseph Smith III. Although he was still in his early twenties, they attempted to encourage Smith to join their fledging church and assume his role as president. The young man demurred. In spite of the lack of success in convincing Smith III to join their movement, the efforts of the leaders continued to grow the New Organization. The men were committed to wait for a change in Joseph Smith III’s thinking.

Alpheus Cutler

On 29 February 1784, Alpheus Cutler was born in Plainfield, New Hampshire. Following his service in the War of 1812, he moved his family to western New York. During the winter of 1832–33, David Patten, an elder in the Church of Christ, stopped at the Cutler home on his way to Kirtland, Ohio, and preached to those gathered. Alpheus and his family were baptized by Patten on 20 January 1833. He soon sold his farm and moved to Kirtland. Later, the Cutlers moved to Far West, Missouri.227 As a result of the Extermination Order issued by Missouri Governor Lilburn W. Boggs in October 1838, the church was effectively forced to flee Missouri for Western Illinois. The members who fled Missouri included the Cutlers. After settling in Commerce (which became the city of Nauvoo), Cutler was chosen as a member of the Stake High Council. He was also chosen as a member of the secretive Council of Fifty, organized by Joseph Smith on 11 March 1844.228

Cutler was later a part of the exodus of the saints from Illinois and across Iowa to Winter Quarters in 1846. On 27 January 1848, Cutler was chosen as president of the Heber C. Kimball Wagon Company, scheduled to travel west in the spring of 1848. However, as the time of departure drew near, Cutler, instead, wanted to proselyte among the Native American tribes. Four years earlier, while serving as a member of the Council of Fifty, Cutler had received a missionary assignment from Joseph Smith that would have significant consequences for the rest of his life. The Smith directive was to take the gospel to the Native Americans or, more precisely, to “every Lamanite nation.” Brigham Young was aware of Cutler’s missionary assignment and acquiesced to it, but provided no resources. A new leader for the “wagon company” was chosen.229

When Winter Quarters was abandoned in May 1848, the headquarters for the church’s westward migration was established in Kanesville, Iowa, on the eastern side of the Missouri River. That spring, Cutler relocated his family to a Big Grove—a community founded by followers of Young and the Twelve about twenty-five miles from Kanesville—and then pursued his proselyting. When his efforts were only marginally successful, Cutler was again encouraged to move west by church leaders. Cutler, however, made no effort to do so. Apostle Orson Hyde was assigned by Young to coordinate the continuing westward migration. He was also designated the president of the new High Council at Kanesville. Hyde advised Young of Cutler’s continued recalcitrance. To force the issue, Cutler and some of his associates were summoned to appear before the High Council in 1850. The meeting did not go well and, as a result, Cutler and several of his brethren were disfellowshipped. With no change in attitude, and no effort to prepare to go west by Cutler and his followers, Young reluctantly agreed with Hyde that further disciplinary action was necessary. Cutler was excommunicated by the High Council on 20 April 1851.

Cutler soon began informing those he had previously proselyted that he was actually the legitimate leader of the Brigham Young-led church based on his position of seniority in the Council of Fifty organized by Smith shortly before his martyrdom. His efforts were successful with some members, and in 1852 he moved some thirty miles distant, with many of his adherents, to a new area of southwest Iowa that they named Manti. By 1853, Cutler and his associates, now numbering around four hundred, were situated in three geographic locations in southwest Iowa. That same year, Cutler named himself President of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Several years passed, but in 1864, Cutler, responding to what he felt were spiritual promptings, made plans to move his church to Minnesota. Cutler died on 10 August 1864 and his followers carried out the Minnesota relocation plan the following year, settling in what became the small town of Clitherall, Minnesota. The church’s headquarters were subsequently relocated to Independence in 1928.230

Joseph Smith III

At the time of his father’s death, Joseph Smith III was eleven years old.231 As young Joseph matured, there were subtle pressures from various claimants (and others) to consider what his family ties could do for the various expressions of the Restoration. Many were anxious for young Joseph to align himself with one expression or another. The prodding eventually caused him to reflect on his father’s church and position. While studying at home in Nauvoo in the late autumn of 1853, Smith had a profound experience. He later told friends and family of a manifestation in which he was shown two choices in life: (1) “a place of fame and notoriety” or, (2) the “pursuits of a happy peace.” The person standing next to him in the vision asked him, “Which do you prefer. . . . Think of it well, for the choice will be offered to you sooner or later, and you must be prepared to decide. The decision once made you cannot recall it, and must abide the result.”232

Three years passed and, in October 1856, Smith married Emmaline Griswold.233 That year would also be significant for young Joseph in reaching a decision regarding his father’s blessings of years ago. In the fall of 1856, Joseph Smith III, now twenty-three years old, received a visit in late November from George A. Smith and Erastus Snow. Not only were they members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Utah church, but George was a cousin to young Joseph. They wanted another opportunity to convince young Joseph to go west and affiliate with their organization. He recorded that he told them he “could not go out there and make my home with you while you are teaching and practicing as you are,” referring to plural marriage.234

A few days later, on 5 December, young Joseph was visited by E. C. Briggs and Samuel Gurley, officially representing the New Organization. They believed Smith would respond favorably to their message and soon “take the place of his father” at the head of their church.235 They brought with them a letter, prepared by Jason Briggs, expressing the wishes of the saints of the New Organization. E. C. Briggs and Gurley asked Smith to read it. He accepted the letter, read it, and then told them he would gladly discuss a variety of subjects with them, “but on religion—I will not allow one word spoken in my house.” Briggs and Gurley left Nauvoo sadly disappointed.236

Over the next three years, Smith struggled with several financial and personal issues. The death of his infant daughter, Evelyn Rebecca, on 30 September 1859, prompted Smith to pray for an explanation of his difficulties. He stated that, while thus engaged in prayer, he received an answer regarding the New Organization “as the only portion of the Church accepted by me.”237 Soon thereafter, Smith made the decision to join with them and accept the leadership position.

During the winter of 1859–60, he discussed his decision with members of his family and, finally, on 5 March 1860, wrote a letter to William Marks, known to Smith from his youth and who was now affiliated with the New Organization, advising him that “I am soon going to take my father’s place at the head of the Mormon Church.”238 Accordingly, Smith and his mother, Emma, traveled to Amboy, Illinois, for the April conference of the New Organization. On 6 April 1860, at the age of 27, Joseph Smith III was ordained “President of the High Priesthood.”239

Following the Amboy conference, the church dropped “New Organization” as its name because Smith’s followers “did not believe their efforts launched a new church.”240 Therefore, they used the 1838 name of the church, i.e., the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as revealed to Joseph Smith at Far West, Missouri, on 26 April 1838 (RLDS D&C 104).

In 1865 Smith began serving as the editor of the Saints Herald, the church’s newspaper, and served in this capacity for several years. Accordingly, in 1866, Smith moved from Nauvoo to Plano, Illinois, where the church was then headquartered. In 1872 the church incorporated in Illinois under the name of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The primary purpose of adding “Reorganized” to their name was to distinguish itself from the Utah church and certain of the practices, specifically polygamy, that were associated with that organization. Accordingly, five weeks later, on 21 October, the church filed the required papers to change its name officially and legally with the recorder of deeds for Kendall County, Illinois. Smith next relocated to Lamoni, Iowa, in 1881, as the church gathered and developed there. Twenty-five years later, in 1906, Smith made his last move to Independence, Missouri, where the church subsequently moved its headquarters in 1920. After leading the church for fifty-four years, Joseph Smith III died in Independence on 10 December 1914.

William Bickerton

William Bickerton was an early disciple of Sidney Rigdon, receiving baptism into Rigdon’s church in 1845. When the church began disintegrating in 1847, Bickerton joined with those who departed the Cumberland Valley. He subsequently inquired about the Brigham Young-led church and was contacted by two missionaries. In May 1851, Bickerton, along with his wife and eight members of his congregation, were baptized and joined the main body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in West Elizabeth, Pennsylvania. After learning of the practice of polygamy a short time later, he left the church after having been a member less than a year. Soon thereafter, in 1852, Bickerton began preaching again, gaining converts along the way. By the end of 1852, he had re-baptized a number of members of the Pennsylvania congregants, plus others who believed what he preached. Although Bickerton started his own church, it was not until several years later that he formalized the name and organization as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, although the name was generally shortened to the Church of Jesus Christ.241

In the post-Civil-war era, concern for the American Indian tribes, particularly in the southwest, became a focus of the missionary zeal of Bickerton’s church. By 1872, he “decided it was not enough just to have a branch near Indian Territory, but that church headquarters would need to be moved there.”242 In fulfillment of Joseph Smith’s 1831 revelation concerning Zion, that “her borders must be enlarged” (D&C 82:14; RLDS 81:4.c), Bickerton interpreted this verse to include cities in other states, including Kansas, as part of an expanded Zion. At the Church of Jesus Christ conference in early 1874, a favorable report from John Stevenson, a missionary laboring near Indian Territory at the time, further stimulated Bickerton’s desire and resolve to go west.243

Accordingly, Bickerton and Stevenson left Pennsylvania later that year to investigate the possibilities for additional missionary work. They reached the Kansas border in late 1874 and continued west to their predetermined location, an uninhabited area of Stafford County, Kansas. Bickerton obviously felt inspired regarding the location; he later reported that they “drove a stake in the ground which we named a stake of Zion.” The area would be called Zion Valley.244 Bickerton returned to his home soon thereafter and began preparing for a permanent move the following spring. In early 1875, Bickerton led several of his followers from Pennsylvania to Zion Valley.245

Over the following five years, a falling-out occurred between Bickerton and William Cadman, a fellow church leader located in Pennsylvania. The conflict culminated on 7 July 1880, with Bickerton’s excommunication by the Cadman-led members of the church. All those that had defended Bickerton during the trial over his membership were also excommunicated. Years later, and shortly before his death, Bickerton reluctantly settled his differences with Cadman and the church reunited, albeit with Cadman still harboring concerns. Bickerton died on 17 February 1905 at the home of a friend in St. John, Kansas.246 The Church of Jesus Christ is headquartered at Monongahela, Pennsylvania.

Figure 6 summarizes the events and aspirants mentioned.

Summary and Conclusions

The martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith threw the church into turmoil and unchartered waters. There were no clear and unambiguous instructions written down by Joseph Smith. Likewise, prior to Smith’s death, there were no previously announced public discussions of the process of succession by which a new president or prophet should be chosen. Willard Richards and John Taylor, members of the Quorum of the Twelve, deserve credit for their initial response and handling of the chaos caused by the martyrdom they had witnessed. As the only two apostles in Nauvoo at the time, their handling of a volatile situation that kept the church membership from overreacting or seeking revenge is noteworthy. This can surely be granted, regardless of anyone’s personal feelings as to which expression of the Restoration is correct.

The events occurring in the weeks, months, and years following the martyrdom have been summarized in this paper. Those who sought Joseph’s mantle are herein capsulized as are the reasons why one person may have followed one aspirant versus another. Likewise, the churches established by these would-be leaders, and the journey(s) taken by their congregants, is briefly reviewed. Finally, what became of these early efforts and the organizations that followed has been examined. Hopefully, I have presented this material in a way by which all members of the various expressions of the Restoration can benefit.

Figure 6. Timeline for post-martyrdom aspirants and events.

President Gordon B. Hinckley, who served as president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1995–2008, often counseled Latter-day Saints that, as individuals, they needed to be more forgiving, more tolerant, and more understanding of each other. In a 2004 General Conference address, he said:

We must do all that is required in moving forward the work of the Lord in building His kingdom in the earth. We can never compromise the doctrine which has come through revelation, but we can live and work with others, respecting their beliefs and admiring their virtues, joining hands in opposition to the sophistries, the quarrels, the hatred—those perils which have been with man from the beginning. Without surrendering any element of our doctrine, we can be neighborly, we can be helpful, we can be kind and generous.247

On another occasion, Hinckley reminded us, “May God help us to be a little kinder, showing forth greater forbearance, to be more forgiving . . . to lay aside old grudges and nurture them no more. For this I humbly pray.”248 His remarks could certainly apply to all of us, regardless of our personal affiliation with any of the expressions of the Restoration reestablished again on the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith on 6 April 1830.

Appendix

There are over one hundred expressions of the Restoration functioning as of this writing. Of this number, nineteen are located in Independence, Missouri. The following is a listing of the four expressions of the Restoration that located between 1865 and 1924 in the Independence area and those later expressions that have separated from these initial four churches and are viable organizations in Independence today.

Church of Christ (Temple Lot)—separated expressions (beginning in 1930) include:

1. Church of Christ (Restored)—1930

(a) Church of Christ—1950s

2. Church of Christ with the Elijah Message—Established Anew in 1929—1944

3. Church of Christ with the Elijah Message—1994

(a) Church of Christ with the Elijah Message—With the Assured Way of the Lord—2002

RLDS/Community of Christ—separated expressions/associations (from 1984) include:249

1. Restoration Branches (independent)—1984

(a) Church of Jesus Christ, Zion’s Branch—1986

(b) Church of Christ, Restored—1987

(c) The Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints—1989

(1) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Israel—1989

(d) Joint Conference of Restoration Branches—2005 (association)

(1) Conference of Elders—1993 (association)

(2) Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints—2000

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—separated expressions (from 1981) include:

1. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Samoan)—1981—all independent

2. Church of Jesus Christ in Zion—1984

Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)—no separated expressions

As shown in Figure 7, there are seventeen separate expressions of the Restoration (and two associations) that have a presence in Independence as of 2022.250

Figure 7. Expressions in the vicinity of Independence, Missouri, as of 2022.

[Author’s Note: The author wishes to thank and acknowledge the following individuals for their invaluable assistance in providing information in various forms, interviews, editing, source checking, developing tables and figures, and lots of encouragement: Steven L. Shields, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, H. Lon Addams, Stace Rudd, Rachael Killebrew, Lachlan Mackay, Daniel P. Stone, Harvey E. Seibel, Ronald E. Romig, Patrick S. McKay Sr., Geri Adams, Craig Foster, William Shepard, Vickie Speek, Brian C. Hales, Kyle R. Walker, and Alexander L. Baugh. In particular, I would especially like to thank and credit Godfrey J. Ellis for his countless hours of editing and for his invaluable work in laying-out the figures and tables. My sincere appreciation to each and all.]

R. Jean Addams is a lifetime Mormon History enthusiast, independent historian, and author. He and his wife, Liz, reside in Kirkland, Washington. He holds a BS in Accounting and an MBA from the University of Utah. Addams has presented and published several articles dealing with the “Redemption of Zion,” the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), and related topics. His recently published articles include: “The Past and Future of the Temple Lot in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri,” (Interpreter, 2021); “John Beck’s Fabulous Mine and Its ‘Consecrated’ Stock,” (Latter-day Saint Historical Studies, 2021); and “The Temple Lot at Independence, Jackson County, Missouri,” (John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, 2023). Addams 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). He is a past president of the John Whitmer Historical Association, a member of the Mormon History Association, the Missouri Mormon Frontier Foundation, and the Sons of the Utah Pioneers.

1 . Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed., B. H. Roberts, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1971), 7:231–43; Lynne Watkins Jorgensen, “The Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Passes to Brother Brigham: One Hundred Twenty-nine Testimonies of a Collective Spiritual Witness,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, ed. John W. Welch and Erick B. Carlson (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2005), 373–463.

2 . Steven L. Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration (Independence, MO: Herald House, 2001).

3 . Almost all of the expressions used some form of the name Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, usually without a hyphen between Latter and Day and with a capital “D” for Day.

4 . “New Organization” was the short name for what was unofficially known as the New Organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, organized by Jason W. Briggs and Zenos H. Gurley Sr. See Shields, Divergent Paths, 55. The short name was, and still is, often used to describe the early reorganization. Ronald E. Romig, personal communication to author, March 2024, former Community of Christ archivist. More details on the genesis of the New Organization can be found later in this paper in the section about Jason W. Briggs and Zenos H. Gurley Sr.

5 . As early as 1866 the official organ of the church, the True Latter Day Saints Herald, whose editor was Joseph Smith III, began using “Reorganized” as an essential part of the name of the church. Officially the name change occurred on 21 October 1872. Mark A. Scherer, The Journey of a People: The Era of Worldwide Community, 1946–2015 (Independence, MO: Seminary Press, 2016), 3:152.

6 . More specifically, the RLDS D&C, also known as the CC (Community of Christ) D&C is The Doctrine and Covenants of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Independence, MO: Herald House, 1958), while the D&C is The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1967). The D&C and RLDS D&C have different arrangements of sections and numbering systems.

7 . On 3 May 1834, the official name of the church became the “Church of the Latter Day Saints.” Matthew C. Godfrey, et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: April 1834–September 1835 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2016), 4:36n173.

8 . Scherer, Journey of a People: The Era of Worldwide Community, 3:514–16. As noted previously, the church had originally changed its name to the Reorganzied Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on 21 October 1872.

9 . Gordon L. Weight, Miracle on Palmyra’s Main Street: An “Old-Time” Printer’s Perspective on Printing the Original Copies of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: self-published, 2003), 25. Egbert B. Grandin’s announcement that the Book of Mormon would be available for sale appeared in the Wayne Sentinel (Palmyra, NY), 19 March 1830. Grandin made a second announcement that the Book of Mormon was now for sale appeared in the Wayne Sentinel, 26 March 1830.

10 . Mark Lyman Staker, Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Setting of Joseph Smith’s Ohio Revelations (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2009), 73–74. Most religious movements of the time identified with a major figure; for example, followers of Alexander Campbell’s movement were referred to as Campbellites.

11 . History of the Church, 4:461. The quote: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

12 . Lachlan Mackay, interview by author, 11 November 2021. Mackay is an apostle of the Community of Christ.

13 . History of the Church, 1:217, 273–78. In the fall of 1831, Phelps had returned to Kirtland, Ohio. He was soon instructed to purchase a printing press in Cincinnati, Ohio, on his return trip to Missouri the following spring and to establish at Independence the church’s first newspaper The Evening and Morning Star. The first issue was published in June 1832.

14 . Gerrit J. Dirkmatt, et al., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: February 1833–March 1834 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2014), 3:573. There are very few of the original copies of the Book of Commandments known to exist.

15 . James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 68–69.

16 . Specifically, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ publications of 1876, 1879, 1921, 1981, and 2013. Additionally, there is the 1845 Liverpool, England, edition. See Richard O. Cowan, The Doctrine and Covenants: Our Modern Scripture (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 4–10; See also Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:425–26.

17 . Specifically, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints/Community of Christ publications of 1864, 1880, 1894, 1897, 1909, 1911, 1952, 1960, 1970, 1978, 1986, 1990, 2000, and 2004. See Richard P. Howard, Restoration Scriptures: A Study Of Their Textual Development (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1969), 232–38.

18 . From 1860 to approximately 1900, the Church of Christ used a variety of name derivations; for example, The Truth Teller, published by the Church of Christ between 1864 and 1868 used the name “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” or “Church of Jesus Christ (of Latter Day Saints).” John H. Hedrick’s quit claim deed conveys his three individual lots of the “Temple Lot” to his brother Granville as “President of the Church of Christ (of Latter day Saints”). The Searchlight (official organ of the Church of Christ in the late 1890s) referred to itself as the “Church of Christ in Zion.” The parenthetical enclosure (Temple Lot) was added later to differentiate it from other denominations of the same name and is not part of the legal or official name of the church. Note: For purposes of this article, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) will be hereafter referred to and cited as the Church of Christ except where the parenthetical enclosure is part of a direct quote.

19 . Certain Smith revelations (post 1838) were included in earlier editions of the RLDS D&C but were removed and put in an “Appendix” by vote of the World Conference in 1970. The Appendix was subsequently removed by the World Conference in 1990.

20 . Daniel P. Stone, interview by author, 11 November 2021. Stone is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

21 . Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 3:1225–28; David A. Bednar, The Spirit of Revelation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021), 1–2.

22 . Mark A. Scherer, The Journey of a People: The Era of Reorganization, 1844 to 1946 (Independence, MO: Seminary Press, 2013), 2:88.

23 . Inez Smith Davis, The Story of the Church (Independence, MO: Herald House, 1943), 370–71.

24 . Andrew Jenson, Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1901), 1:283–84.; Fred C. Collier, The Nauvoo High Council Minute Books of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Hanna, UT: Collier’s Publishing, 2005), 146. Note that the title of the church is as it is printed, i.e., “Latter Day” (with no hyphen).

25 . Richard P. Howard, ed., The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III, 1832–1914 (Independence, MO: Herald House, 1979), 73–75.

26 . Joseph Smith III and Heman C. Smith, The History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (1896; repr., Independence, MO: Herald House, 1976), 3:209.

27 . John E. Page was dropped from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in February 1846 and excommunicated in August 1846 for his association with James Strang. Mark Ashurst-McGee, et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: September 1838–August 1839 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2017), 6:641.

28 . Crow Creek Record: From Winter of 1852 to April 24, 1864 (Independence, MO: Church of Christ [Temple Lot], n.d.), 12. Page stated that he was “mouth” for the Quorum of Apostles and that Judy, Haldeman, and Owen joined him in this ordination. R. Jean Addams, “The Church of Christ (Temple Lot), Its Emergence, Struggles, and Early Schisms,” in Newell G. Bringhurst and John C. Hamer, eds., Scattering of the Saints: Schism within Mormonism (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2007), 206–23.

29 . Staker, Hearken, O Ye People, 96.

30 . “The Gathering,” Evening and Morning Star 1, no. 6 (November 1832). The date of the letter to the Star is 20 September 1832; Church History in the Fulness of Times (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989), 111.

31 . Alexander L. Baugh, A Call to Arms: the 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri (Provo, UT: BYU Press, 1971), 109; History of the Church, 3:175.

32 . Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 155.

33 . Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 156.

34 . Richard E. Bennett, We’ll Find the Place: The Mormon Exodus 1846–1848 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), xxiii–xix.

35 . History of the Church, 1:188; History of the RLDS Church, 1:201.

36 . Pearl Wilcox, Jackson County Pioneers (Independence, MO: n.p., 1975), 152–53.

37 . Four of the five individuals who reported or recorded this event in their histories or correspondence indicated, by name, eight individuals being present at the dedication, but each listing has a different mix.

38 . R. Jean Addams, “The History and Acquisition of the Original Temple Lot Property in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri,” Mormon Historical Studies 20, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 35–37. Also see Aaron L. West, “Questions and Answers about the Temple Lot in Independence, Missouri,” The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints, 14 March 2019,
history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/historic-sites/missouri/questions
-and-answers-about-the-temple-lot-in-independence-missouri.

39 . F. Mark McKiernan and Roger D. Launius, An Early Latter Day Saint History: The Book of John Whitmer (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1980), 79–80; W. W. Phelps, “A Short History of W. W. Phelps Stay in Missouri,” 1, catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org
/assets/4ac45361-c5d3-49ac-882d-53a00ae11f22/0/0.

40 . Jackson County, Missouri, Property Records, Book B, 1, Independence, Missouri, in Matthew C. Godfrey, et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: July 1831–January 1833 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2013), 2:5–12. The “city of Zion” is also referred to as the “city of New Jerusalem.” See D&C 28, 49, 84; RLDS D&C 27, 83.

41 . History of the Church, 1:57–62.

42 . Daniel P. Stone, interview by author, 11 November 2021. See also, Daniel P. Stone, William Bickerton: Forgotten Latter Day Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2018), 219–21.

43 . On 24 April 1864, Hedrick announced that a “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.” Granville Hedrick, “Revelation,” Truth Teller 1, no. 2 (August 1864): 31.

44 . Hedrick, “Revelation,” 4. In Hedrick’s 1864 revelation, he was told that the year of the gathering to Jackson County would be in 1867. A vanguard of three families sold their farms and homes and moved to Independence in 1865–66. The first member to return was John Hedrick (Granville’s brother) who purchased a farm near Independence in October 1865. He was followed by the John Clark and Jedediah Owen families in April and July 1866. Additional families (35–60 individuals) banded together in January 1867 and made the trip to Independence, arriving in late February. R. Jean Addams, “Reclaiming the Temple Lot in the Center Place of Zion,” Mormon Historical Studies 6, no. 1/2 (Spring/Fall 2006): 11–12, ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content
/uploads/2013/04/3-MHS_2006_Reclaiming-Temple_lot.pdf.

45 . History of the RLDS Church, 4:166–67; Joseph Smith III and Henry Stebbins, “Notes on Travel,” Herald 24, no. 2 (15 January 1877): 25. Some members had relocated to Independence before Smith’s official announcement.

46 . “Adopt Moving Plans,” Jackson Examiner, 16 April 1920, 1; History of the RLDS Church, 7:383–85.

47 . William J. Curtis and Annette W. Curtis, eds., The Missouri Independence Mission, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1883–2005: The Return to Zion (Independence, MO, 2005), 158–59; R. Jean Addams, “The Return of the LDS Church to Jackson County (1900–1907) and the Redemption of Zion,” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 38, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2018): 46–78, jstor.org/stable/26614536.

48 . Biloine Whiting Young, Obscure Believers: The Mormon Schism of Alpheus Cutler (n.p.: Pogo Press, 2002), 186–87.

49 . Several other expressions have established a presence in Independence since 1928. Each, however, is a separation from one of the four churches that had previously reestablished a presence in Independence, Jackson County, as explained in the text above.

50 . Jackson County, Missouri, Property Records, Book B, 1, Independence, Missouri, in Godfrey, et al., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: July 1831–January 1833, 2:5–12. (Partridge’s purchase of the 63.27 acres in December 1831).

51 . Jackson County, Missouri, Property Records, Book 50, 331–32; Book 53, 526–27; Book 104, 311, 517, Independence, Missouri; examined by the author. See Addams, “History and Acquisition of the Original Temple Lot Property,” 62.

52 . Jackson County, Missouri, Property Records, Book 264, 621–22, Independence, Missouri; examined by the author. The transaction between the City of Independence and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) for $75 was more of a mutual accommodation as the city did not realistically have anyone who would have wanted the unique location other than the Church of Christ (Temple Lot).

53 . R. Jean Addams and Alexander L. Baugh, “‘Upon a Lot . . . Not Far from the Courthouse’: A Photographic History of the Temple Lot in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri,” Mormon Historical Studies 9, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 57–58, ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/“Upon-a-Lot-.-.-.-Not-Far-From-the-Courthouse”-A-Photographic-History-of-the-Temple-Lot-in-Independence-Jackson-County-Missouri.pdf.

54 . In 1925, the RLDS Church organized the Independence Development Trust. In 1927, that entity became the Central Development Association and was incorporated in 1930.

55 . Roger Yarrington, The Auditorium (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1962), 87; Scherer, Journey of a People: The Era of Worldwide Community, 3:486.

56 . Dedication of the Temple: Independence, Missouri: 10:30 a.m., Sunday, April 17th, 1994 (a copy of original program in possession of the author); Lachlan Mackay, interview by author, 11 November 2021.

57 . Jackson County, Missouri, Property Records, Book B, 1, Independence, Missouri, in Godfrey, et al., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: July 1831–January 1833, 2:5–12. The “city of Zion” is also referred to as the “city of New Jerusalem.” See D&C 28, 49, 84; RLDS D&C 27, 83.

58 . B. C. Flint, An Outline History of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (Independence, MO: Board of Publications Church of Christ [Temple Lot], 1953), 44–45, archive.org/details/outlinehistoryof0000apos/mode/2up. The temple site was dedicated on 3 August 1831. Four of the five individuals who reported or recorded this event in their histories or correspondence indicated, by name, eight individuals present at the dedication, but each listing has a different mix. It appears that there were at least thirteen men present. Addams, “History and Acquisition of the Original Temple Lot Property,” 34–37; Godfrey, et al., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: July 1831–January 1833, 2:5–12. This revelation to Joseph Smith was on 20 July 1831, shortly after arriving in Independence.

59 . Jackson County, Missouri, Property Records, Maggie C. Swope to James G. Duffin, 14 April 1904, 251:66; Untitled news item, Jackson Examiner, 22 April 1904, 1. Duffin subsequently deeded this property to Joseph F. Smith, also on 14 April 1904, but the transfer was not recorded until 1907, two years after Duffin was released as president of the Central States Mission and three years after the land purchase. Jackson County, Missouri, Property Records, James G. and Mary Jane Duffin to Joseph F. Smith, 5 July 1907, 273:152–53.

60 . “LDS Dedicate Center Before Storm Hits,” Independence Examiner, 1 June 1971, 1; Joseph Fielding Smith, “The First Prophet of the Last Dispensation,” Ensign, August 1971, 5–6, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/08
/the-first-prophet-of-the-last-dispensation?lang=eng#p18.

61 . Jackson County, Missouri, Property Records, Book B, 1, Independence, Missouri, in Godfrey, et al., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: July 1831–January 1833, 2:5–12.

62 . Young, Obscure Believers, 186. Young cites: Julian and Ilo Whiting, undated letter (Kathy Castillo collection, St. Paul, MN).

63 . Tad Walch, “Latter-day Saint membership passed 17 million in 2023, according to a church statistical report,” Deseret News, 1 April 2023, deseret.com/general-conference/2023/4/1/23663620/latter-day-saint-mormon
-membership-increased-this-much-in-2022-says-new-church-statistical
-report/.

64 . Rachel Killebrew, email message to author, April 6, 2024; Killebrew is the World Church Librarian-Archivist and Records Manager for the Community of Christ, wherein she cites Christopher Shaw, World Church Recorder, who confirms number with said date.

65 . “The Church of Jesus Christ internal RIP System/Database.” The official number as of 5 April 2024, is 23,013.

66 . Conversation with Harvey E. Seibel, 26 March 2022, former General Church Secretary, for which the author expresses his thanks. Of the total membership, 8,000 are in congregations in the Philippines, 2,000–4,000 in North America, and 2,000–3,000 in Africa and Asia.

67 . B. H. Roberts, Succession in Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1894).

68 . E. Cecil McGavin, The Nauvoo Temple (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1962), 69–70.

69 . Heman C. Smith, True Succession in Church Presidency (Lamoni, IA: Herald
Publishing House, 1898), 72–73.

70 . See Andrew Miller, “King Benjamin’s Sermon as Endowment,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, 61 (2024): 1–44, journal
.interpreterfoundation.org/king-benjamins-sermon-as-a-type-of-temple
-endowment/.

71 . Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “The Book of Moses as a Temple Text,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, 49 (2021): 63–112, journal
.interpreterfoundation.org/the-book-of-moses-as-a-temple-text/.

72 . Val Larsen and Newell Wright, “Theosis in the Book of Mormon: The Work and Glory of the Father, Mother and Son, and Holy Ghost,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, 56 (2023): 275–326,
journal.interpreterfoundation.org/theosis-in-the-book-of-mormon-the-work
-and-glory-of-the-father-mother-and-son-and-holy-ghost/.

73 . Matthew C. Godfrey, et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: September 1839–June 1841 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2018), 7:419, 470.

74 . Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 109, 183–84.

75 . Dan Vogel, ed., The Wilford Woodruff Journals (Salt Lake City: Benchmark Books, 2020), 2:289.

76 . Alexander L. Baugh, “’For this Ordinance Belongeth to My House’: The Practice of Baptism for the Dead Outside the Nauvoo Temple,” Mormon Historical Studies 3, no. 2 (Spring 2002): 54, ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp
-content/uploads/2013/05/MHS3.1Spring2002Baugh.pdf.

77 . Baugh, “’For this Ordinance Belongeth to My House’: The Practice of Baptism for the Dead Outside the Nauvoo Temple,” 54.

78 . Council of Twelve, Resolutions, 1865–1914, 3, Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, MO.

79 . Joseph Smith to Alfred Ward, 9 May 1880, Joseph Smith III Letterbook #3 and Joseph Smith to Job Brown, 5 January 1886, Joseph Smith III Letterbook #4, Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, MO.

80 . Alma R. Blair, “The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: Moderate Mormons,” in The Restoration Movement: Essays in Mormon History, ed. F. Mark McKierman, Alma R. Blair, and Paul M. Edwards (Lawrence, KS: Coronado Press, 1973), 222.

81 . Vickie C. Speek, “God Has Made Us a Kingdom”: James Strang and the Midwest Mormons (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006), 73. Speek cites “Chronicles of Voree, A record of the establishment and doings of the Stake of Zion called Voree in Wisconsin made by the Scribes appointed to that office,” 206, microfilm copy, Library-archives, Wisconsin Historical Library, Madison, WI.

82 . Speek, “God Has Made Us a Kingdom,” 73.

83 . Young, Obscure Believers, 178. Young cites Jennie Whiting in an undated letter to her daughter, Bonnie. See Kathy Castillo collection, St. Paul, MN.

84 . Elizabeth A. Kuehn, et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: May–August 1842 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2020), 10:xxv–xxvi, 6–8, 7n24.

85 . Kuehn, et al., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: May–August 1842, 10:7n24.

86 . B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church: Century I, 6 vols. (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 22.

87 . Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 224, 231, 378, 420.

88 . Joseph Smith to L. L. Barth, 26 May 1893, Joseph Smith III Letterbook #4, Community of Christ Library-Archives (Independence, MO).

89 . Roger D. Launius, Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995), 156–57.

90 . Launius, Joseph Smith III, 156; Smith, “Memoirs,” Saints Herald 82 (5 February 1935): 177–78 and 82 (12 February 1935): 207–08.

91 . Speek, “God Has Made Us a Kingdom,” 47–48, 73.

92 . Kyle R. Walker, William B. Smith: In the Shadow of a Prophet (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015), 383–84, 384n37.

93 . Shields, Divergent Paths, 63–64.

94 . David W. Grua, et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: March–July 1843 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2021), 12:457–67; Garr, et. al., eds., Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History, 927–29; Milton V. Backman Jr. and Richard O. Cowan, Joseph Smith and the Doctrine and Covenants (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 136–40.

95 . The doctrine of plural or celestial marriage was first committed to writing on 12 July 1843. In 1876, the revelation was published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Backman and Cowan, Joseph Smith and the Doctrine and Covenants, 137.

96 . Brian C. Hales, “‘Denying the Undeniable’: Examining Early Mormon Polygamy Renunciations,” Journal of Mormon History 44, no. 3 (July 2018): 24, 24n6, jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jmormhist.44.3.0023.

97 . Backman and Cowan, Joseph Smith and the Doctrine and Covenants, 1367.

98 . Ted Gibbons, Like a Lamb to the Slaughter—The Nauvoo Expositor: Traitors & Treachery (Orem, UT: Keepsake Paperbacks, 1990), 36–43. See also History of the Church, 6:448; John S. Dinger, ed., The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2011), 266.

99 . Craig L. Foster, “Turning Type into Pi: The Destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor in Historical Context,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, 58 (2023): 107–26, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/turning
-type-into-pi-the-destruction-of-the-nauvoo-expositor-in-historical-context/. Also see Ivan J. Barrett, Joseph Smith and the Restoration, rev. ed. (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1973), 593–94.

100 . Stone, William Bickerton, 18, 22.

101 . Speek, “God Has Made Us a Kingdom,” 46. Presumably, Strang’s argument was that Joseph was behind that practice from Bennett, but it was not the same as polygamy and was opposed by the Church. See journal.interpreterfoundation
.org/a-response-to-grant-palmers-sexual-allegations-against-joseph-smith
-and-the-beginnings-of-polygamy-in-nauvoo/.

102 . Scherer, Journey of a People: The Era of Reorganization, 2:80–81.

103 . Crow Creek Record: From Winter of 1852 to April 24,1864, 1–4; R. Jean Addams and Alexander L. Baugh, “The Historical and Geographical Beginnings of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot),” Mormon Historical Studies 12, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 87–103, ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/The
-Historical-and-Geographical-Beginnings-of-the-Church-of-Christ-Temple
-Lot.pdf.

104 . Flint, Outline History of the Church of Christ, 98.

105 . Scherer, Journey of a People: The Era of Reorganization, 2:96, 98–99. As early as 1866 the name Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had been used informally in church publications. Incorporation in Illinois became official on 21 October 1872, after the September 1872 conference of the church adopted articles of incorporation and their new name.

106 . Grua, et al., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: March–July 1843, 12:457–67.

107 . Richard S. Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 290–302; F. Mark McKiernan, The Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness: Sidney Rigdon, Religious Reformer 1793–1876 (Lawrence, KS: Coronado Press, 1971), 115–16, 143.

108 . Speek, “God Has Made Us a Kingdom,” 45 (no), 68 (yes); Scherer, Journey of a People: The Era of Reorganization, 2:18.

109 . Walker, William B. Smith, 402; Scherer, Journey of a People: The Era of Reorganization, 2:19.

110 . Granville Hedrick, The Spiritual Wife System Proven False (Bloomington, IL: W. E. Foote’s Power Press Printing House, 1856), iii.

111 . Young, Obscure Believers, 45 (yes), 107 (no).

112 . Davis, Story of the Church, 366.

113 . Scherer, Journey of a People: The Era of Reorganization, 2:152 and 311 (no), 62 and 313 (no).

114 . Stone, William Bickerton, 72, 76, 223.

115 . John A. Wills, “The Twin Relics of Barbarism,” Historical Society of Southern California 1, no. 5 (1890): 40–44.

116 . Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 164–76.

117 . Russell R. Rich, Those Who Would Be Leaders: Offshoots of Mormonism (Provo, UT: Extension Publications, BYU, 1967), 1; Shields, Divergent Paths, 21. Shields cites George A. Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7 (Liverpool, 1860), 114 and vol. 11 (Liverpool, 1867), 4.

118 . Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:792–93; Shields, Divergent Paths, 22–23.

119 . William Shepard and H. Michael Marquardt, Lost Apostles: Forgotten Members of Mormonism’s Original Quorum of Twelve (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2014), 142; Shields, Divergent Paths, 22.

120 . Brent M. Rogers, et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: October 1835–January 1838 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2017), 5:286–93, 319n146, 329n187, 418n285, 583.

121 . Shields, Divergent Paths, 26–27; Rich, Those Who Would Be Leaders: Offshoots of Mormonism, 9.

122 . Shields, Divergent Paths, 26.

123 . History of the RLDS Church, 2:737–38; History of the Church, 4:284–86, 6:341, 346–47.

124 . Lyndon W. Cook, William Law (Orem, UT: Grandin Book, 1994), 56–57.

125 . Pearson H. Corbett, Hyrum Smith, Patriarch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1971), xiv, 248–49. Also see D&C 124:94–96; RLDS D&C 107:29d-f. Certain Smith revelations (post 1838) were included in earlier editions of the RLDS D&C but were removed and put in an “Appendix” by vote of the World Conference in 1970. The Appendix was subsequently removed by the World Conference in 1990.

126 . Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984), 37–38, 640n132.

127 . Brent M. Rogers, et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: February–November 1841 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2017), 8:113.

128 . History of the Church, 6:187–88.

129 . John J. Stewart, Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet (Salt Lake City: Mercury, 1966), 203.

130 . History of the Church, 4:262, 386–97. Others left following the 17 May 1844 convention that nominated Smith and Rigdon.

131 . History of the Church, 6:619.

132 . Mark H. Taylor, ed., Witness to the Martyrdom (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1999), 130.

133 . Walker, William B. Smith, 212.

134 . Walker, William B. Smith, 213, 213n17.

135 . Walker, William B. Smith, 213–18.

136 . History of the Church, 541.

137 . Parley P. Pratt, ed., Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1970), 334.

138 . History of the Church, 7:212.

139 . Pratt, Autobiography, 334.

140 . History of the Church, 7:228.

141 . Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985), 113–15.

142 . Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 510–11.

143 . Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 324–25.

144 . Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 323–25.

145 . Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 2:414–20.

146 . Orson Hyde, Speech of Elder Orson Hyde, Delivered Before the High Priest’s Quorum, in Nauvoo, April 27th, 1845, Upon the Course and Conduct of Mr. Sidney Rigdon, and Upon the Merits of His Claims to the Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Liverpool: James and Woodburn, 1845), 8–9, contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/139.

147 . Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 336–37; History of the Church, 7:225.

148 . Preston Nibley, Brigham Young: The Man and His Work (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1970), 8.

149 . Godfrey, et al., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents: April 1834–September 1834 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2016), 4:219–22.

150 . Arrington, Brigham Young, 81.

151 . D. Michael Quinn, “The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844,” BYU Studies 16, no. 2 (1976), 209–12, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol16/iss2/2/.

152 . Alexander L. Baugh and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, “I Roll the Burthen and Responsibility of Leading This Church Off from My Shoulders on to Yours: The 1844/1845 Declaration of the Quorum of the Twelve Regarding Apostolic Succession,” BYU Studies 49, no. 3 (2010), 18, scholarsarchive.byu.edu
/byusq/vol49/iss3/2/; Arrington, Brigham Young, 109–10.

153 . Arrington, Brigham Young, 113–14.

154 . Arrington, Brigham Young, 114; Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 339.

155 . Joseph Fielding Smith stated that in the case of the dissolution of “the First Presidency of the Church, the Twelve should succeed to the Presidency.” When the President of the church dies, the First Presidency is automatically dissolved and, therefore, the positions of counselor also cease to exist, and the ultimate authority of the Church passes immediately to the Twelve. If the former counselors have previously been ordained apostles, and have also been sustained as members of the Quorum of the Twelve, they revert to their previous positions in that quorum by seniority. Therefore, until a First Presidency is re-organized, the Quorum of the Twelve assumes the leadership of the Church, and the president of that quorum, established by position of his seniority therein, steps forward as the presiding authority or leader of the church. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 1 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1959), 254. Also see Hoyt W. Brewster Jr., Prophets, Priesthood Keys, and Succession (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 76–105. (Chapter Five, titled “A Historical Overview of Succession,” encompasses the cited pages.) Also see Baugh and Holzapfel, “I Roll the Burthen and Responsibility of Leading This Church Off from My Shoulders on to Yours,” 15, 18.

156 . S. Dilworth Young, “Here is Brigham”: Brigham Young . . . the years to 1844 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1964), 361.

157 . History of the Church, 7:231–43.

158 . Richard S. Van Wagoner, “The Making of a Mormon Myth: The 1844 Transfiguration of Brigham Young,” Dialogue 28, no. 4 (Winter 1995), 1–24, dialogue
journal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V28N04_15.pdf.

159 . Daniel C. Peterson, “The Heavenly Sign: Brigham Young’s Transfiguration at Nauvoo,” Meridian Magazine, 13 May 2024, latterdaysaintmag.com
/the-heavenly-sign-brigham-youngs-transfiguration-at-nauvoo/.

160 . Jorgensen, “The Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Passes to Brother Brigham,” 373–463.

161 . Ronald K. Esplin, “Joseph, Brigham and the Twelve: A Succession of Continuity,” BYU Studies 21, no. 3 (1981): 325n84, scholarsarchive.byu.edu
/byusq/vol21/iss3/5/.

162 . Arrington, Brigham Young, 115.

163 . William Shepard, Dona Falk, and Thelma Lewis, James J. Strang: Teachings of A Mormon Prophet (n.p.: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [Strangite], 1977), 250–53; Speek, “God Has Made Us a Kingdom,” 22–24. In this letter, dated 18 June 1844, Joseph Smith was responding to an inquiry of Strang’s (dated 24 May 1844). Smith proceeded to relate a revelatory vision and experience to Strang. He also informed Strang of the instruction he had received, including this message: “[B]ehold my servant James J. Strang hath come to thee . . . and to him shall the gathering of the people be, for he shall plant a stake of Zion in Wisconsin, and I will establish it; and there shall my people have peace.” Two pages of the original letter are archived at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT. The letter was published in the Chronicles of Voree, 1–2, and the Voree Herald, January 1846.

164 . Speek, “God Has Made Us a Kingdom,” 22.

165 . Shepard, Falk, and Lewis, James J. Strang: Teachings of A Mormon Prophet, 244–46.

166 . Quinn, “The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844, 195.

167 . Speek “God Has Made Us a Kingdom,” 23–24.

168 . Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 2:43n2.

169 . The number of followers varies. In a conversation with historian Vickie Speek, she estimated the number as between 1,000 and 2,000. In an interview with historian and Strangite church member William Shepard, he placed the figure between 300 and 500.

170 . Quinn, “The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844,” 196; Speek, “God Has Made Us a Kingdom,” 24.

171 . Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 355–59.

172 . Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:892. The Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate was published in Kirtland, Ohio, between October 1834 and September 1837.

173 . Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 367–68.

174 . Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 376–77.

175 . Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 378–79.

176 . Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 380–82, 391–93.

177 . McKiernan, The Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness, 143.

178 . Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 400, 405–06, 442–43, 447; Shields, Divergent Paths, 39.

179 . Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 444, 449.

180 . Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 402–04.

181 . Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), 210–11, 221.

182 . Arrington and Bitton, The Mormon Experience, 95–98.

183 . Bennett, We’ll Find the Place, 245, 279, 367–80 (the latter is an alphabetical listing of the 148 men, women, and children who comprised the original pioneer company).

184 . Richard E. Bennett, Mormons at the Missouri, 1846–1852: “And Should We Die” (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987), 212–14; Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 315, 318.

185 . Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 320.

186 . Speek, “God Has Made Us a Kingdom,” 54–56.

187 . Speek, “God Has Made Us a Kingdom,” 109–13.

188 . Doyle Fitzpatrick, King Strang Story: A Vindication of James J. Strang, the Beaver Island Mormon King (Lansing, MI: National Heritage, 1970), 113.

189 . Speek, “God Has Made Us a Kingdom,” 217.

190 . Speek, “God Has Made Us a Kingdom,” 218–19.

191 . Fitzpatrick, King Strang Story, 210–11.

192 . Karen Lynn Davidson, et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories: 1832–1844 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 1:640.

193 . History of the Church, 4:341.

194 . Michael Scott Van Wagenen, The Texas Republic and the Mormon Kingdom of God (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2002), 42.

195 . Van Wagenen, The Texas Republic and the Mormon Kingdom of God, 55, 60.

196 . Andrew Jenson, Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1901), 1:96.

197 . Walker, William B. Smith, 375, 377. Capitalization is as it appears in the actual quote. Walker cites “Letter to the Saints Scattered Abroad, Greeting, September 30, 1849,” Melchisedek & Aaronic Herald 1, no. 6 (September 1849).

198 . History of the Reorganized Church, 3:34.

199 . Van Wagenen, The Texas Republic and the Mormon Kingdom of God, 55–63.

200 . Walker, William B. Smith, 21, 101–02, 249. In this biography, Walker covers the tumultuous period involving William B. Smith and Brigham Young and other associates in detail, particularly pages 242–53.

201 . Walker, William B. Smith, 242, 244, 246–47, 249. Brigham Young ordained William to the office of Patriarch.

202 . Walker, William B. Smith, 248–49, 299.

203 . Walker, William B. Smith, 248–49, 303–06, 337.

204 . Davis, Story of the Church, 396.

205 . Walker, William B. Smith, 354, 362–63.

206 . Walker, William B. Smith, 389–90. Sheen subsequently joined the New Organization. Soon after Joseph Smith III became the president and prophet of the RLDS church, Isaac Sheen was asked to be the editor of the church’s newspaper. Walker, William B. Smith, 499, 502.

207 . Walker, William B. Smith, 512, 562; William Smith officially joined the RLDS Church at Plano, Illinois. William was also recognized as a High Priest. Davidson, et al., The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories: 1832–1844, 1:640.

208 . Church of Christ Membership Record, Independence, Missouri. Hedrick was born in Clark County, Indiana, in 1814. Addams and Baugh, “The Historical and Geographical Beginnings of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot),” 100n13.

209 . Crow Creek Record, 1–4; Addams and Baugh, “The Historical and Geographical Beginnings of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot),” 87–103.

210 . Flint, Outline History of the Church of Christ, 104–05.

211 . Flint, Outline History of the Church of Christ, 101. In some instances, the church’s name is recorded as the Church of Jesus Christ (Of Latter day Saints). Crow Creek Record: From Winter of 1852 to April 24, 1864 (Independence, MO: Church of Christ [Temple Lot], n.d.), 14. (In the names of some of the expressions, the “d” in day is capitalized; for others it is not.)

212 . Flint, Outline History of the Church of Christ, 107; Truth Teller 1, no. 1 (July 1864): 4. The Truth Teller was the official monthly newspaper of the Church of Christ published at Bloomington, Illinois, and later in Independence, Missouri.

213 . William E. McLellin letter to “Our very dear Friends,” Brownsville, Missouri, 12 July 1869, Miscellaneous Letters and Papers, P13, f185, Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

214 . On 29 May 1868, Granville Hedrick personally recorded a power of attorney from John Hedrick, Marshall County, Illinois, Property Records, Book 5, 138, Lacon, Illinois.

215 . Johnson County, Kansas, Property Records, Book 29, 62, Olathe, Kansas; Addams, “Reclaiming the Temple Lot in the Center Place of Zion,” 15.

216 . Hedrick family history provided to author by Geri Adams (a great-great-granddaughter of Granville Hedrick).

217 . R. Jean Addams, Upon the Temple Lot: The Church of Christ’s Quest to Build the House of the Lord (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2010) 15; H. Michael Marquardt, “The Independence Temple of Zion,” Restoration Studies 5, no. 4 (October 1986): 13–17.

218 . Karen Lynn Davidson, Richard L. Jensen, David J. Whittaker, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories: 1831–1847 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 2:12; Marquardt, “The Independence Temple of Zion,” 13–17.

219 . Addams, “History and Acquisition of the Original Temple Lot Property,” 34–37. The temple site was dedicated on 3 August 1831. Four of the five individuals who reported or recorded this event in their histories or correspondence indicated, by name, eight individuals being present at the dedication, but each listing has a different mix. From these records it appears that there were at least thirteen men present.

220 . Davis, Story of the Church, 352, 362.

221 . Davis, Story of the Church, 350–52, 358–60.

222 . History of the RLDS Church, 3:201; Davis, Story of the Church, 352, 362. Jason W. Briggs announced his revelation in October 1851, see “History of the Reorganized of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” The Messenger (Salt Lake City), November 1875.

223 . Davis, Story of the Church, 363–71.

224 . Davis, Story of the Church, 304.

225 . Davis, Story of the Church, 305.

226 . Davis, Story of the Church, 363–71.

227 . Rupert J. Fletcher and Daisy Whiting Fletcher, Alpheus Cutler and the Church of Jesus Christ (Independence, MO: Church of Jesus Christ, 1974), 9–10, 13, 22, 24–26. Cutler and family moved to Far West, Missouri, in late 1836 or early 1837.

228 . Matthew J. Grow, et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records—Council of Fifty, Minutes: March 1844–January 1846 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2016), xx–xxi, 3.

229 . Young, Obscure Believers, 46–47, 50, 52–54.

230 . Shields, Divergent Paths, 60.

231 . Howard, The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III, 1.

232 . Launius, Joseph Smith III, 65–67.

233 . Scherer, Journey of a People: The Era of Reorganization, 2:49.

234 . Launius, Joseph Smith III, 100–01.

235 . Launius, Joseph Smith III, 101.

236 . Davis, Story of the Church, 385.

237 . Launius, Joseph Smith III, 108–09.

238 . Launius, Joseph Smith III, 110.

239 . Edmund C. Briggs, Early History of the Reorganization (Independence, MO: Price, 1998), 300–03; Davis, Story of the Church, 404–07.

240 . Scherer, Journey of a People: The Era of Reorganization, 2:151.

241 . Stone, William Bickerton, 20, 36, 51, 54–55, 68, 71, 88, 143–44, 148.

242 . Stone, William Bickerton, 219–20.

243 . Shields, Divergent Paths, 92.

244 . Stone, William Bickerton, 222.

245 . Stone, William Bickerton, 226–27.

246 . Stone, William Bickerton, 331–33.

247 . Gordon B. Hinkley, “Dawning of a Brighter Day,” Ensign, May 2004, 84, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/04/the-dawning
-of-a-brighter-day.

248 . Gordon B. Hinkley, “Forgiveness,” Ensign, November 2005, 84, churchof
jesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/10/forgiveness.

249 . Explanation and layout facilitated by Patrick S. McKay Sr., Apostle, Joint Conference of Restoration Branches, in conversation and correspondence 26 March–1 April 2022, for which the author expresses his thanks.

250 . The two associations constitute independent congregations that choose to affiliate within the parameters established by the representatives that, in turn, have been selected by those independent congregations.

A Model for Looking Deeply
and Deeply Looking

Godfrey J. Ellis

Review of Peter J. Williams, The Surprising Genius of Jesus: What the Gospels Reveal About the Greatest Teacher (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023). 113 pages, $14.59 (paperback).

Abstract: Peter Williams, an independent biblical scholar, has written an analysis of the parable of the prodigal son in a fascinating attempt to demonstrate two truths. The first is that one of the most overlooked attributes of the Savior is his brilliant and analytical mind. In the process, Williams reveals many intricacies hidden in the parable. He also reminds readers of the role of the Old Testament in the understanding and appreciation of the teachings of Jesus. These contributions, by themselves, demonstrate the value of the book. The second truth is that Jesus, himself, and not the gospel writers or the Apostle Paul, was the source of his teachings. However, an even greater value (and a third truth, if you will) may be a powerful demonstration of the process of looking deeply at scripture to uncover and “see” easily missed insights.

Every so often, one stumbles upon a truly enjoyable tidbit of new information, and it is only human nature to wish to share it. Such is the case with Peter Williams’s new book, The Surprising Genius of Jesus.1 Short though it may be, it is long in learning.

Williams is the CEO of Tyndale House, an independent biblical research library located in Cambridge, England. He also serves as a member of the English Standard Version (ESV) Translation Oversight Committee as well as the chair of the International Greek New Testament Project. As such, he is in an excellent position to guide readers, including members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, through various aspects of the New Testament.

The thesis of his delightful little book is best described in Williams’s own words:

Many believers would describe Christ as kind, loving, strong, or powerful. Few would first think of the word genius. When studied in detail, however, Jesus’s teachings and interactions with others reveal a combination of profound wisdom, verbal dexterity, simplicity, and creativity. (back cover)

He adds,

Probably about two billion Christians would claim to follow his teachings, which is more than follow the teachings of any other person in history. But most of the Christians I mix with would be more likely to see Jesus’s intelligence as a necessary corollary of his divine nature than to point to specific things he said as examples of remarkable intellect. (pp. 1–2)

To prove his point, and to demonstrate that the teachings of the Savior really come from Jesus and not from the Gospel writers or from the Apostle Paul, as some have contended,2 Williams meticulously dissects Christ’s parable of the prodigal son as found in Luke 15:11–24.

The Amazing Intellect of Jesus

I fully acknowledge that different people will draw different lessons from any given book. For some, the main takeaway will be Williams’s thesis that Christians need to recognize and appreciate more fully the genius of Jesus. Williams demonstrates that genius in a most convincing and enlightening manner. I see this as the first contribution of this book. So, for those happy to add intellect to Christ’s usual repertoire of attributes, this 113-page book is well worth the enjoyable and rewarding read.

However, this lesson, as valuable as it may be, is not the main contribution of the book, at least for me. The genius of Jesus is something that most members of the Church already assume, even if that is not always recognized or discussed as one of his attributes. One quick example of a Latter-day Saint author who does recognize that attribute is Tad Callister. In his widely read book The Infinite Atonement, he writes: “No mortal can cry out, ‘He does not understand my plight, for my trials are unique.’ . . . The Savior knows, understands, and feels every human condition” (emphasis added).3 Although not writing about the Savior’s genius, per se, I and others have also previously written about his omniscience.4

As long as Williams is not using the idea that Christ possessed a great intellect as a way of robbing him of his divinity, and he is certainly not doing that, I welcome any emphasis on Christ’s razor-keen mind. His genius was vastly superior to any other thinker. Williams describes Jesus’s intellect as greater than, “Aristotle (384–322 BC), Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519), Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791), and Albert Einstein (1879–1955),” but many more could be cited (p. 1). I would say that Christ’s intellect was superior to all of them combined. Thus, while I applaud the recognition of his genius, the fact that he has unlimited intellectual capacity is already well established in scripture. Isaiah poetically quotes the Lord as telling us, “My thoughts are not your thoughts . . . for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my . . . thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8–9). Restoration scripture concurs but goes even further. King Benjamin admonishes us to “believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend” (Mosiah 4:9). Abraham is told, “These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.” (Abraham 3:19).

The Close Connection with the Old Testament

A second set of readers may relish the fascinating associations that Williams uncovers between elements of the parable of the prodigal son in the New Testament and various Old Testament stories. These intertextual linkages may resonate with many members who, like me, came to appreciate more fully the incredible value of the Old Testament when the Church’s Come, Follow Me curriculum focused on that holy scripture in 2022. After Williams demonstrates numerous linkages, he concludes with the statement, “We have also seen that Jesus knew and loved the Old Testament, which is a reminder to any who claim to follow him that they need to take the Old Testament seriously” (p. 109). I see this as the second contribution of this book.

The parable of the prodigal son and its connection to the Old Testament was something that I believed I already understood. Peter Williams convinced me that I did not. Throughout Williams’s book, I encountered wave after wave of insights that were entirely new to me. It left me thinking, “Why couldn’t I see any of this?” However, other scholars of the Church have also provided amazing commentaries on this parable. For example, Matthew Linford provides his own masterful discussion of this parable, and I also recommend his analysis to interested readers.5 Moss and Moss compare the prodigal Son with Jean Valjean of Les Misérables,6 and Elder Jensen highlights how the parable taught of the characteristics of God.7 John W. Welch and Jeannie S. Welch point out that, “like so many of the parables, this text so rich in meanings can and must be read in many ways.”8 Robert L. Millet’s excellent book Lost and Found: Reflections on the Prodigal Son provides an in-depth discussion of this parable.9 Still, there remains more that is left to learn from the story, and Williams’s book is a valuable addition to a complete understanding of Christ’s message in that parable.

Learning to Deeply Look and Spiritually See

For me, though, the overarching value in The Surprising Genius of Jesus lies elsewhere. While I greatly appreciated the insightful details I learned, I was entranced by Williams’s example of how to look. Insights regarding aspects of the parable of the prodigal son, as fascinating as they may be, will soon be lost; but tools of how to look deeply and what to look for are tools that, once learned, will never be lost. I see this as the third and, to me, most important contribution of this little book. As Albert Einstein once noted, the value of education is not the acquisition of information as much as the training of how to look. In his words:

It is not so very important for a person to learn facts. For that he does not really need a college. He can learn them from books. The value of an education in a liberal arts college is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think something that cannot be learned from textbooks.10

By looking deeply, I obviously do not mean a casual glance or even a reading through on some daily obligatory schedule. I mean what is variously called a “deep dive,” or an “unpacking,” or what Newell Wright calls “reading intentionally”11 for understanding and insight. Arthur Conan Doyle once had the fictitious Sherlock Holmes compare his process of careful deduction with Dr. Watson’s failure of looking without seeing: “I observe . . . I see it, I deduce it. . . . You have not observed. And yet you have seen. . . . I have both seen and observed.”12

Let me elaborate with an example of learning to look deeply. This example comes from an entirely different field of endeavor. Realistic portrait painting is one of the most difficult art forms that one can master. That is not to devalue in any way landscape art, abstract art, or any other form of art. It’s just that rendering one tree taller or shorter than another makes little to no difference in a landscape painting of a forest scene. However, a human’s lip that arches too high, even microscopically, can change a smile to a sneer. An eyebrow that is raised even a hair or two too high can change sultriness to suspicion. An iris that extends even a millimeter too far to the side of an eye can distort a likeness. Such miniscule details can even render a face unrecognizable. Artists who shift from landscapes to portraiture seldom need to be taught how to paint; they almost always need to be taught how to look. It is only by looking minutely and critically that an artist can end up with a portrait that truly captures the person being painted. That is what Williams’s book means to me. It exemplifies his tremendous skill of looking deeply, critically, and minutely in order see that which is not apparent to others.

Running as an example of deep looking

Allow me to share one example from The Surprising Genius of Jesus. Most readers are aware that the prodigal son squandered his inheritance, and then repented and returned home. “But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Luke 15:20). Many commentators have focused on the “great way off” detail. It is a beautiful metaphor showing that a loving Heavenly Father is only looking for the beginning of repentance to embrace us, too. Gerald Lund, for example, notes, “It was not required that the son come all the way back. The father was watching and went out to meet him while he was yet a long way off.”13 That is a most encouraging insight, and Williams talks about that, too.

However, who notices the running part? Peter Williams does. He notes that “Abraham is the first person in the Bible recorded as running” (p. 56). Additionally,

Besides the father in Luke 15, Abraham is the Bible’s only other aged figure who runs: “He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth” (Gen 18:2 ESV): “And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf, tender and good” (18:7 ESV). Abraham’s running is particularly noteworthy because he seems to have been ninety-nine years old at the time (17:24). (p. 56)

Is “running” a significant element in the parable? Does the Lord run to us? Of course, he does. Christ took on mortality “that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:12). The word succor comes from the Latin “sub ‘up to’ . . . + currere ‘to run.’”14 The Greek word boethéo, translated as succor in Hebrews 2:18 (Strongs G997), conveys “run to the cry of.”15 Jesus Christ’s “running” to us to “lift up” (i.e., redeem us) was God’s greatest gift to his children and illustrates his grace and condescension.16 Elder Holland writes, “I testify that Christ will run to us, and is running even now, if we will but receive the extended arm of His mercy.”17 Even though this element of “running to help” is stressed in lessons and sermons that focus on Alma 7, few mention the “running” detail in discussions of the parable of the prodigal son.

In addition to Christ running to us, we are to run to him—as fast as we can—although “all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength” (Mosiah 4:27). Paul encourages us: “let us run with patience the race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12:1). Running is symbolic of the earnest and enthusiastic two-way commitment of the Abrahamic Covenant: we choose him to be our God and he chooses us to be his people. Thus, running is an example of a word that we may see—but not see in a deep sense. Like poor Dr. Watson, we “see, but [we] do not observe.”18 The astounding attention to detail that Peter Williams demonstrates invites readers to also utilize the tool of deeply looking at each and every word, which tool can then be applied to many and varied situations.

Seeing line upon line

I have always been intrigued by the Old Testament story of the servant of Elisha who looked with fear at the overwhelming enemies surrounding the paltry forces of the Israelites. He looked, but he could not truly see. “Alas, my master! how shall we do?” he cried. “And [Elisha] prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha” (2 Kings 6:15, 17). How I long to see more deeply as did Elisha’s servant. Most of us likely long for the same. For most of us, though, learning to see in a spiritual manner is a process that can be frustratingly slow. As Latter-day Saint scholar Newell Wright notes, “Learning how to look is an acquired skill, developed over a lifetime.”19

For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more. (2 Nephi 28:30)

How merciful, after all, that it actually is a slow process, because we immediately become accountable for what we see. So, in the end, it is a blessing that we only learn to see more deeply line upon line and precept upon precept. Looking must be a spiritual aspiration on our part; seeing is a spiritual gift on God’s part.

Nephi’s pattern of “Look! . . . And I looked”

Nephi practiced the aspiration and was rewarded with the gift. He initially “desire[d] to behold the things which [his] father saw” (1 Nephi 11:3). Subsequently, he was guided through various stages of vision. It is perhaps revealing that most of the vision elements that Nephi saw were prefaced by the divine command, “Look!” His immediate response was, “And I looked.” This sequence of “Look! . . . And I looked” occurred not once, not twice, but an astonishing thirteen times. And that sequence was supplemented by seven other statements that Nephi “looked” without being commanded to do so. In all, he “looked” twenty-one times in 1 Nephi 11 through 14. Yet, even looking was not enough. He still had to seek understanding. “And [the Spirit] said unto me: What desirest thou? And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof” (1 Nephi 11:10–11).

Is there any question that we should also “Look!” and then seek interpretation and understanding through the Spirit?

The Interpreter journal is a place that offers me glasses to look, see, and understand. I am privileged to be an executive editor, and I routinely process articles that see what I do not, at first, see. Working with some of the great scholars of the Church, I sometimes feel like one of the men who accompanied Paul on the road to Damascus. “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7). I had looked; but I had not seen. Happily, though, through the review process, the editors, reviewers, and authors all work together to learn to see even more deeply. The result inevitably helps the readers see more deeply as well.

I must remind the reader of this review that the process of looking deeply is only a secondary goal of The Surprising Genius of Jesus. Consequently, Williams does not provide step-by-step instructions for how to look. There is only his own demonstration of that ability. However, for those who are interested, Newell Wright offers several helpful hints in his article “Reading the Scriptures More Intentionally.”20 And Jensen presents “certain guidelines and . . . helpful rules” in interpreting parables.21

The theme of the “two sons”

Let me end this review by sharing one final example of Peter Williams showing us that, as with the servant of Elisha, there is more—much more—to see in the parable of the prodigal son—if we can only look deeply. He carefully considers stories of “two sons” in conflict. He discusses Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and Judah,22 Moses and Pharoah, and of course the prodigal son and his older jealous brother.

As an interesting aside, Williams also touches very briefly on the parable of another two sons. This latter parable was offered in response to a trick question hurled at Jesus by the chief priests and the elders of the people. The priests had come to Jesus and demanded to know “by what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?” Surprisingly, Christ’s response is a refusal to answer directly: “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.”

Ahh, he does not tell them; he shows them—if they only had eyes to see. Jesus recounts a parable consisting of less than sixty words (Matthew 21:28–32). Two sons are asked by their father to work in the vineyard. The first son says, “I will not,” but later goes anyway. The second son says, “I go, sir: and went not.” Jesus asks, “Whether of them twain did the will of his father?” and the chief priests rightly answer, “The first.” But why is this parable even here? And what does it reveal about authority? Without Restoration eyes to see, this parable may seem misplaced, even irrelevant, in a context of revealing Christ’s authority and who sent him. It has been interpreted by some commentators as referring to Israel versus the gentiles, but, again, that has little to do with explaining Christ’s authority.

With the benefit of Restoration doctrine, which teaches of a premortal council, John Welch is able to see more—much more. He argues very convincingly that the two sons are Jehovah and Lucifer.23 Lucifer will go into his Father’s vineyard, yes, but only if he can have all the glory. When he is denied that, he does not go. The other son, however, the one who appears to say, “I will not,” is not actually refusing. Rather, he is saying, “I will it not,” meaning, “I do not will it or desire it.” (Who would?) Still, he goes—in fact, he runs—to succor his people “that he may loose the bands of death . . . [and] take upon him their infirmities” (Alma 7:12). By so doing, he saves mankind and completes his Father’s work and glory (Moses 1:39). What is his authority? He is God the Son. Who sends him? Elohim and the divine council, supported by all of us. Of course, the chief priests see none of this.

Returning to the final example of the theme of the “two sons,” Williams sees clearly that the older brother of the prodigal son is also lost spiritually. Williams’s insight is, “Although we have often thought of only the younger son as lost . . . the question is left open about whether the other one will be found too” (p. 9).24 Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has taught that the older son “has, as yet, been unable to break out of the prison of himself.”25 Matthew Linford words the condition of the older brother as “his salvation is pending.”26

Two sons in the Book of Mormon

In several of the “two sons” stories, the younger son is more righteous than the older and even comes to rule over the older. While Williams obviously does not consider stories from the Book of Mormon, a Latter-day Saint’s thoughts, like mine, might immediately turn to two other sons: the first-born son (Laman) and his much younger brother (Nephi).27 It is beyond the scope of this review to fully trace a comparison between the parable of the prodigal son and the story of Laman and Nephi, but there are similar aspects that readily come to mind.28 I hesitate to scratch the surface of this idea, because it may invite the reader to push back on what is only the sketchiest of musing, but it might serve as an example of applying the deep looking that Williams demonstrates. Here are but a few of the elements in the two stories that students of the Book of Mormon might look at if they undertook such a comparison:

- An emphasis on distance and far-off countries and lands.

- The rejection of what the fathers offer.

- An emphasis on the loss of wealth/inheritance through squandering or theft.

- Hunger as a driving force leading to repentance.

- Complaints of years of work and servitude.

- The deep concern of two fathers who watch for wayward sons in the distance.

- The jealousy of the perceived favoritism of the youngest.

- Music and dancing and “be merry” or “make merry.”

- A possible similarity of some longer phrases. For example, consider Laman’s lament, “Behold, these many years we have suffered in the wilderness, which time we might have enjoyed our possessions . . . yea, and we might have been happy” (1 Nephi 17:21). Now consider the prodigal’s older brother: “Look [ESV], these many years do I serve thee . . . yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry” (Luke 15:29).

This sketchy comparison might be a stretch that only leads to a dead end. The point is that Williams’s book is yet another way to demonstrate, and therefore teach, the tool of deeper looking. Readers can then apply that refined skill to the story of Laman and Nephi (or other stories) on their own journey of exploration for greater scriptural sight and insight.

Summary and Conclusions

It is indeed rare and most welcome that there are several reasons for enjoying this delightful short book, The Surprising Genius of Jesus. It illustrates the immense value and rewarding role of the Old Testament in the devotional life of Latter-day Saints. It provides insight after insight on several parables, but most notably the parable of the prodigal son, all connected closely with the Old Testament. Finally, it demonstrates the value and benefit of a detailed examination of even the tiniest of phrases in scripture. Truly, this little book is well worth a deep look.

Godfrey J. Ellis is a retired professor of psychology. At retirement he was serving as the director of the master’s program in Counseling Psychology and the chair of the Department of Leadership and Counseling Psychology at a university in western Washington. After earning his BA in French and MA in Family Relations from Brigham Young University, he completed his PhD in Family Sociology and Social Psychology from Washington State University. He worked as a professor of Family Relations or of Psychology for more than 41 years and as a marriage and family therapist in private practice for more than 34 of those years. He was born in England, raised in Canada and the United States, served a mission in France, and has taught in China. Ellis has published in the Ensign magazine (now Liahona), BYU Studies, and Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. He currently serves as an Executive Editor of the Interpreter journal. He enjoys painting acrylic portraits of friends, missionaries, and family (see GodfreyEllisArt.com). He and his wife are blessed with four sons and daughters-in-law, fourteen grandchildren, four grandchildren-in-law, and three great-grandchildren.

1 . Peter J. Williams, The Surprising Genius of Jesus: What the Gospels Reveal About the Greatest Teacher (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023).

2 . See the Blue Letter Bible, (website), for a brief discussion of this theory: blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/accusations-against-jesus
-answered/15-did-paul-change-the-teachings-of-jesus-and-invent-christianity
.cfm.

3 . Tad R. Callister, The Infinite Atonement (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 209.

4 . See Godfrey J. Ellis, “Experiential Knowledge and the Covenantal Relationship in Alma 7,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 51 (2022): 29–80, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/experiential-knowledge
-and-the-covenantal-relationship-in-alma-7.

5 . Matthew R. Linford, “The Parable of the Benevolent Father and Son,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 22 (2016): 149–78, journal.interpreter
foundation.org/the-parable-of-the-benevolent-father-and-son. See also, D. Kelly Ogden and Andrew C. Skinner, Verse by Verse: The New Testament: The Four Gospels (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2006), 362–69.

6 . Bradley Moss and Shawnda Moss, “Jean Valjean, the Prodigal Son: Review Essay on Regional Productions of Les Misérables,” BYU Studies Quarterly, 53, no. 2 (2014): 161–67, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol53/iss2/14/.

7 . Jay E. Jensen, “The Parable of the Two Sons: A Revelation about God,” in Sperry Symposium Classics: The New Testament, ed. Frank F. Judd Jr. and Gaye Strathearn (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University [BYU]; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2006), 25–35, https://rsc.byu
.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/The_Parable_of_the_Two_Sons
.pdf.

8 . John W. Welch and Jeannie S. Welch, The Parables of Jesus: Revealing the Plan of Salvation (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2019), 105.

9 . Robert L. Millet, Lost and Found: Reflections on the Prodigal Son (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2001).

10 . Quoted in Philipp Frank, Einstein: His Life and Times (New York: A.A. Knopf, 1947), 185.

11 . Newell D. Wright, “Reading the Scriptures More Intentionally, Meridian Magazine, 6 September 2023, latterdaysaintmag.com/reading-the-scriptures-more
-intentionally.

12 . Arthur Conan Doyle, “A Scandal in Bohemia,” in The Complete Sherlock Holmes (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1930), 162–63.

13 . Gerald N. Lund, “Knowest Thou the Condescension of God?,” in Doctrines of the Book of Mormon: The 1991 Sperry Symposium, ed. Bruce A. Van Orden and Brent L. Top (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 89.

14 . Online Etymology Dictionary, s.v. “succor,” etymonline.com/word/succor.

15 . Blue Letter Bible, s.v. “Hebrews 2:18,” blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g997/kjv
/tr/0-1.

16 . Matthew Linford also sees significance in the running, which he translates as racing. He notes that “for a man in robes to run, and especially for him to race, he would need to gather his robes in his arms and expose his legs. Both running and exposing his body would cause him tremendous shame in his community—these would be unthinkable acts.” Linford, “The Parable,” 155.

17 . Jeffrey R. Holland, “Teaching, Preaching, Healing,” 8 August 2000, address given at a Church Educational System religious educators conference, BYU, Provo, UT, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2003/01/teaching
-preaching-healing.

18 . Doyle, “Scandal in Bohemia,” 162–163.

19 . Newell Wright, email correspondence to author, 30 May 2024.

20 . Wright, “Reading the Scriptures.”

21 . Jensen, “The Parable,” 33n5.

22 . There were more than two sons in this story, of course, but Williams considers Judah the main antagonist.

23 . John W. Welch, “Symbolism in the Parable of the Willing and Unwilling Two Sons in Matthew 21,” in Let us Reason Together: Essays in Honor of the Life’s Work of Robert L. Millet, ed. J. Spencer Fluhman and Brent L. Top (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016), 97–116, rsc.byu.edu/let-us-reason-together/symbolism-parable-willing-unwilling
-two-sons-matthew-21. See also, Welch and Welch, The Parables, 44–46.

24 . See also, Linford, “The Parable,” 166.

25 . Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Other Prodigal,” Ensign, May 2002, 63, churchof
jesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/04/the-other-prodigal.

26 . Linford, “The Parable,” 166.

27 . Lemuel and Sam are mere shadows of these two primary characters.

28 . Matthew Linford sees a parallel between the refusal of the prodigal son’s brother to partake of the feast, even with the father entreating him to do so, and Lehi’s vision where Laman and Lemuel refuse to feast on the fruit of the tree, even with their father entreating them to do so. Linford, “The Parable,” 173. It is a great start, but I am suggesting that a comparison of the parable and the story in First Nephi could be more extensive than that one parallel.

More Evidence for Alma
as a Semitic Name

Neal Rappleye and Allen Hansen

Abstract: Beginning with Hugh Nibley, several Latter-day Saint scholars have highlighted a deed found among the Bar Kokhba documents as evidence of the name Alma as a Jewish male name in antiquity. Here we highlight a second attestation of the same name used for a Jewish male from a slightly earlier period, as well as other evidence from Hebrew toponymy that helps corroborate not only that Alma is a Hebrew name, but also supports the etymology proposed by Latter-day Saint scholars and is suggestive of wordplays previously identified in the Book of Mormon text. Past critics have mocked the name Alma as a feminine name, but since this criticism has now been answered, some have pivoted to claiming that Alma was, in fact, a man’s name in Joseph Smith’s time and place. We investigate this claim and demonstrate that the evidence for Alma as a male name in the United States—and specifically upstate New York—during the early 1800s has been vastly overstated. Overall, this combination of data suggests that Alma in the Book of Mormon is better accounted for by the ancient rather than modern evidence.

In a recently released episode of the documentary series A Marvelous Work, Dr. Donald W. Parry, professor of the Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls at BYU, mentioned the attestation of the name Alma in an ancient legal deed as evidence supporting the appearance of the name in the Book of Mormon.1 Parry was referring to the attestation of one ʾlmʾ bn yhwdh (אלמא בן יהודה) in the Bar Kokhba documents (ca. 135 AD), which Yigael Yadin initially rendered “Alma son of Judah.”2 This document was first brought to the attention of Latter-day Saints in 1973 by Hugh Nibley, in a review of Yadin’s work on the Bar Kokhba documents, and has been noted by several other Latter-day Saint scholars since then.3 A Semitic name transliterated as Alma has also been found in documents from the third millennium BC at Ebla,4 and the Nabataean form Almu (ʿlmw) occurs as a male name in Hawran in a fourth century BC context.5 But the Bar Kokhba deed from the second century AD was long thought to be the only example of the name in Hebrew.

Examining New Evidence

New evidence now provides additional support for the name Alma as a Hebrew male name in antiquity. An ossuary recovered from the Batn el-Hawa neighborhood of Jerusalem in 1942, and dated to sometime between the first century BC and the first century AD, bears an inscription which reads, yhwdh bn ʾlmʾ (יהודה בן אלמא), “Judah son of Alma.”6 These are the same two names as found in the Bar Kokhba deed, but in the opposite relationship—Judah is the son, and Alma the father in this instance. Since Alma occurs as a patronym, once again there can be no question that the individual is male. Furthermore, since this ossuary is dated to before 70 AD, and Alma is the name of the father, it indicates that the name Alma likely goes back to the first century BC.7

Both L. Y. Rahmani and Tal Ilan consider it a variant of the name Elam (ʾlm; אלם), which is the patronym of a priest from the days of Herod mentioned by Josephus (Joseph b. Elam) and attested frequently (with variant spellings) in the Talmud.8 Ilan accounts for the final aleph (א) as an Aramaic suffix added as an “extension of a biblical name,” but also notes that sometimes “the א suffix is the abbreviation of theophoric names with יה into ה or א,” a form “already documented in the First Temple Hebrew seals.”9 The shortened theophoric form has been favored by Latter-day Saint scholars for the Book of Mormon Alma.10 Since shortened theophoric names could be written with either a ה or an א at the end, the variant spelling that occurs in the signature line of the Bar Kokhba deed, where the name is spelled ʾlmh (“Almah”) with a final ה, instead of a terminal א, may support this explanation.

The meaning of ʾlm (אלם) in Hebrew is “mute,”11 but Hoskisson and others have noted, “In the final centuries B.C. and the first centuries A.D., in the spoken language among the Jews the consonants aleph and ayin began to run together. As a result the letters representing those sounds tended to become interchangeable as well.”12 This raises the possibility that the root for the name Alma was not “mute,” but ʿlm (עלם), “lad” or “youth.” Alma would thus be the hypocoristic of ʿlmʾl (“lad of God”) or ʿlmyhw (“youth of YHWH”).13 Significantly, Alma is first introduced as a “young man” in Mosiah 17:2. As Matthew L. Bowen, an expert in Semitic languages and literature, explains, “The introduction of Alma as a figure and name into the Book of Mormon text is immediately juxtaposed with a description of Alma the Elder as a ‘young man’—i.e., as an ʿelem—in Mosiah 17:2. Thus, this narrative biographical introduction exactly matches the proposed (and far-and-away most likely) meaning of the name.”14 Bowen also notes echoes in the narrative of another homographic Hebrew root which means “to hide” or “to conceal”: “Following Alma’s biographical introduction, Mormon places tremendous emphasis on Alma’s ‘hidden’ activities, raising the possibility of a paronomastic treatment of Alma’s name in terms of the Hebrew root ʿ-l-m (‘conceal’) and its synonyms (see e.g., Mosiah 17:4; 18:1, 3, 5).”15

Spelling Alma with an initial ayin (ע), rather than an aleph (א), also receives support from Hebrew toponymy.16 A village in modern Israel, in the northern Galilee area only a few kilometers south of the border with Lebanon, is called Alma (עלמה)—spelled with an initial ע rather than an א. The name goes back to at least the period of the Crusades (twelfth to thirteenth century), when it is mentioned in the writings of Benjamin of Tudela.17 One manuscript variant renders the name as ʿAlem or ʿElem.18 Leopold Zunz’s conjectural form, ʾUlma, can be rejected.19 There was a Jewish village at the site of Alma at least as far back as the third century AD based on the finding of an inscribed synagogue lintel.20 In general, there was a continuity in the Jewish settlements and place names of the Upper Galilee that could lend support to Alma being the original name of the village.21 Another synagogue lintel from the fourth to fifth centuries AD contains an inscription that Joseph Naveh reconstructed as “May the Ruler of the world (ʿalmah) bless this effort (ʿamlah).” While it is tempting to view this wordplay as evidence for the place name Alma, this was a common Aramaic phrase that appears in synagogues at Hammath Gadera, next to the biblical Gadara, and at Susiya.22 The Jewish community of Alma is attested as late as the sixteenth century but appears to have ended by the seventeenth century. Many of the families left for the village of Peki’in where they bore the surname ʿAlmani.23

The village appears as ʿAlma el-Khait on a list of toponyms in Israel gathered by Edward Robinson from local informants during his travels in the Holy Land in the 1830s.24 Edward H. Palmer indicated that the toponym Alma was a common personal name as well and thought it was etymologically related to Almaniyah or Alman, the Hebrew form being עלמון (ʿlmwn), which appears in Joshua 21:18 (Almon).25 This biblical Almon could plausibly be the name Alma with the -on suffix common to place names affixed at the end.26 A variant tradition in 1 Chronicles 6:60 records the name as Alemeth (ʿlmt; עלמת), which also appears as a personal name in 1 Chronicles 7:8; 8:36; and 9:42.27 Scott C. Layton argues that the etymology of the biblical Almon/Alemeth derives from the Semitic root *ǵlm—the same root from which Hebrew ʿlm, “young man, lad” is derived—and Ran Zadok indicates that the toponym ʿAlma also comes from either this root or the root for “concealed, hidden” (ʿlm) discussed above.28 Thus, the evidence related to this Hebrew toponym further strengthens the case that Alma is an acceptable English rendering of a Hebrew name connected to Semitic roots that are echoed in the Book of Mormon narrative about Alma the Elder.

The Name Alma in Joseph Smith’s Day

For many years, detractors of the Book of Mormon have ridiculed the Book of Mormon’s use of the name Alma for male prophets in antiquity. Infamous Evangelical counter-cultist Walter Martin wrote, “Alma is supposed to be a prophet of God and of Jewish ancestry in The Book of Mormon. In Hebrew Alma means a betrothed virgin maiden—hardly a fitting name for a man.”29 In 1973, Hugh Nibley observed that “the name in the Book of Mormon that has brought the most derision on that book, and caused the greatest embarrassment to the Latter-day Saints . . . is the simple and unpretentious Alma. Roman [Catholic] priests have found in this obviously Latin and obviously feminine name (who does not know that Alma Mater means fostering mother?) gratifying evidence of the ignorance and naivete of the youthful Joseph Smith.”30 Such criticisms have continued well into the twenty-first century. For instance, in 2002, a critic suggested that “modern potential sources for the name Alma could be, among others, the phrase alma mater or even the transliterated Hebrew word for ‘virgin’ or ‘young woman.’”31

In the face of clear and compelling evidence that Alma was a Semitic, masculine name in antiquity, however, some critics have now resorted to searching genealogical records found online through Ancestry.com for examples of men named Alma in the early 1800s.32 Latter-day Saint apologist Kevin L. Barney actually noted this data more than 20 years ago but wisely cautioned “that the male gender of these individuals has not yet been independently verified,” and thus “more research needs to be undertaken to verify that the database correctly reflects the gender of these individuals.”33 Indeed, we have found that Barney’s caution is more than warranted. Out of forty-two male Almas listed on an Ancestry.com search for people born between 1780 and 1820 and connected in some way to Wayne County, New York, or the surrounding region, only four were males when the search results were compared with the available records (see chart in the appendix). This means that roughly nine times out of ten, a “male” Alma was actually a misgendered woman.

These false positives seem mostly due to issues with the search engine, but there were a few genuine oddities. The 1870, United States Federal Census listed Alma Cram as male.34 However, the 1850 census listed her (correctly) as a female, alongside her husband, Ebenezer Cram, with the same children and the right ages for all listed.35 The 1870 entry would thus appear to be a clerical error. One Alma Johnson was male but when the census record is read carefully, you can see he was actually an Alva, not an Alma.36 Similarly, Alma Parkhurst was male, but appears to actually be named Ahira—the two names actually look remarkably similar when written in cursive, save for the dot over the i, which is apparent on the lone 1875 New York state census record for this supposed Alma.37 Alma Pratt was another male, but we do not know whether he was even in the United States prior to 1830, as he was born on the Isle of Man around 1817, and we were unable to find immigration records.38 In fact, no records besides one in the 1870 census could be found to corroborate any information about this Alma.39 Alma Frary was male, though typically listed as Almon or Almond. It is unclear whether Alma was a nickname or whether it reflects how the census clerk might have misheard the name Almon pronounced.40 Because of the parameters of the Ancestry.com search, most of these individuals may not have resided in Wayne County at all, let alone where the Smiths may have encountered them.

It is clear that the search results of Ancestry.com cannot be taken at face value, and when the data is combed more closely, it indicates that as a male name, Alma was exceptionally rare in Joseph Smith’s time and place. Furthermore, the fact remains that it was not known to be a Hebrew name until after the Book of Mormon was published.41 Thus, if we are to hypothesize that the name Alma was randomly chosen by Joseph Smith from his environment, then it must be admitted that (1) it is much more likely he would have thought of it as a feminine name, and (2) it is quite the remarkable coincidence that it is not only a legitimate rendering of a Hebrew masculine name, but also interplays with narrative contexts relevant to its likely Hebrew etymology. While some might be inclined to consider this a lucky guess, that is much harder to do when considered within the broader context of Book of Mormon onomastics, wherein numerous non-biblical names have either been attested in Hebrew or Egyptian inscriptions discovered long after the Book of Mormon was published, or to have credible ancient Near Eastern etymologies and to be employed in the narrative in ways that interplay with those meanings precisely as is commonly done in biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature.42

Appendix

Table 1 lists persons named Alma and listed as “male” on Ancestry.com born between 1780 and 1820 and having some connection to Wayne County, New York, (or neighboring counties) during their lifetimes. The “correct sex” was determined by examining the records attached to their names on Ancestry.com. Out of forty-two total, only four were actually male. Of these four, three—Alma (actually Alva) Johnson, Alma (actually Almon) Frary, and Alma (actually Ahira) Parkhurst appear to be misrecordings of more traditionally masculine names, and that may very well be the case with the fourth one as well (though this could not be verified). In any case, actual men named Alma appear to be relatively rare in the early nineteenth century.

Table 1. Incidents of Alma found in census records.

Name

Listed Sex

Correct Sex

Alma Cram

Male

Female

Alma Benham

Male

Female

Alma Huntley

Male

Female

Alma Smith

Male

Female

Alma Bacon

Male

Female

Alma Hubbard

Male

Female

Alma Rice

Male

Female

Alma Warner

Male

Female

Alma Rew/Rue

Male

Female

Alma Johnson

Male

Female

Alma (Alva) Johnson

Male

Male

Alma Huntley

Male

Female

Alma Benedict

Male

Female

Alma Barnet/Barrnett

Male

Female

Alma Caroline Spoor

Male

Female

Alma Coe

Male

Female

Alma Mills

Male

Female

Alma Cleveland

Male

Female

Alma Jenks

Male

Female

Alma Almira/Elmira Palmer

Male

Female

Alma Crowl

Male

Female

Alma Cornelia Williams

Male

Female

Alma Hannah Harned

Male

Female

Almira “Alma” Hall

Male

Female

Loney Alma Parks

Male

Female

Amy Alma Southworth

Male

Female

Laura Alma Beach Huntington

Male

Female

Alma (Ahira) Parkhurst

Male

Male

Alma A Pratt

Male

Male

Alma Terrell

Male

Female

Alma Rees

Male

Female

Alma Smith (b. 1819)

Male

Female

Alma Snyder

Male

Female

Alma Anna Wilson

Male

Female

Alma P. Twaddle

Male

Female

Alma Lucas

Male

Female

Alma Janet/Jeanette Seymour

Male

Female

Almira (Alma) Beebee

Male

Female

Alma Quick

Male

Female

Alma J(enks) Tiedman

Male

Female

Alma “Almy” Partelow

Male

Female

Alma Ann Stone

Male

Female

Alma (Almon) Frary

Male

Male

Neal Rappleye is director of research at Scripture Central. He is involved in ongoing research on many facets of the Book of Mormon’s historical context, including ancient Jerusalem, ancient Arabia, the ancient Near East more broadly, pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, and the nineteenth-century witnesses to the discovery and translation of the Book of Mormon plates. His research has been published with BYU Studies, The Interpreter Foundation, Scripture Central, Greg Kofford Books, and Covenant Communications.

Allen Hansen is an independent researcher born and raised in northern Israel. He served a mission in Russia, and married Kateryna from Ukraine. They are parents to a daughter. His research interests include the Bible, ancient, medieval and early modern Jewish literature, Book of Mormon translation, and the meeting points between the Church, Judaism, and the history of Israel.

1 . Book of Mormon Central, “The Allegory of the Olive Tree,” YouTube video, 14:04–15:02, 29 February 2024, youtube.com/watch?v=hXtUbMg0BXg. See also Book of Mormon Central, “Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon: Donald W. Parry,” YouTube video, 9:12–10:25, 12 March 2004, youtube.com
/watch?v=RMgiOhU1CCY.

2 . Y. Yadin, “Expedition D—The Cave of Letters,” Israel Exploration Journal 12, no. 3/4 (1962): 250, 253; Yigael Yadin, Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery of the Legendary Hero of the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (New York: Random House, 1971), 176. This name occurs again in the signatures at the end of the deed, but is spelled slightly differently: ʾlmh bn yhwdh, “Almah son of Judah.” Yadin, as cited and discussed in Book of Mormon Onomasticon, sv, “Alma,” last modified 7 September 2023, onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php
?title=ALMA; later rendered the name ʿAllima, based on the assumption that it was an Aramaic name meaning “the strong one.” No other scholars commenting on this name have followed this Aramaic proposal but rather tend to prefer Hebrew etymologies, as discussed later in this paper. The fact that the text uses the Hebrew bn and not the Aramaic br for “son” suggests a Hebrew etymology is more likely.

3 . Hugh Nibley, “Review of Bar-Kochba by Zigael Yadin,” BYU Studies 14, no. 1 (1974): 121, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol14/iss1/12/; reprinted as “Bar-Kochba and the Book of Mormon,” in The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS], 1989), 281. See also Daniel C. Peterson, “Is the Book of Mormon True? Notes on the Debate,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997), 145–46; Paul Y. Hoskisson, “What’s in a Name? Alma as a Hebrew Name,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7, no. 1 (1997): 72–73, scholars
archive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1192&context=jbms; Donald W. Parry, Preserved in Translation: Hebrew and Other Ancient Literary Forms in the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2020), 130, 134; Stephen D. Ricks et al., Dictionary of Proper Names and Foreign Words in the Book of Mormon (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2022), 17–18.

4 . Terrence L. Szink, “Further Evidence of a Semitic Alma,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8, no. 1 (1999): 70, scholarlypublishingcollective.org/uip/jbms
/article-abstract/8/1/70/274684/Further-Evidence-of-a-Semitic-Alma; Terrence L. Szink, “The Personal Name ‘Alma’ at Ebla,” Religious Educator 1 (2000): 53–56, rsc.byu.edu/vol-1-no-1-2000/personal-name-alma-ebla.

5 . L. Y. Rahmani, “A Hoard of Alexander Coins from Tel Tsippor,” Schweizer Münzblätter 16, no. 64 (1966): 131, 133, e-periodica.ch/digbib/view
?pid=smb-001%3A1963%3A13%3A%3A484#484. Rahmani cites an inscription which reads ʿlmw br ʿnmw br rglw, indicating that Almu is a “son” (br) and thus male.

6 . L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority and Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 107; Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, Part I: Palestine, 330 BCE–200 CE (Tubingen: Mohr Seibeck, 2002), 361; Rachel Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period (Boston: Brill, 2005), 221; Hannah M. Cotton et al., eds., Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae, vol. I: Jerusalem, part 1: 1–704 (New York: de Gruyter, 2010), 292–93. Rahmani and Hachlili render the name Illma, but it is identical, in Hebrew, to the one originally rendered Alma by Yadin. Cotton et al. note that both Illma and Alma are possible.

7 . Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 361, dates this ossuary to pre-70 AD (see p. 52 for explanation of dating), while Cotton et al., Corpus Inscriptionum, 292, dates it to either the first century BC/AD. Rahmani, Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, 21–22, provides a date range of 20 BC to 70 AD for the construction of ossuaries in Jerusalem. Even if we assume that Judah’s ossuary is from the latter part of that date range and he died relatively young (say, around 40), his father would be a generation older (ca. 30 years), placing his birth (and thus naming) sometime around the late first century BC or perhaps very early in the first century AD. If Judah was older, perhaps between ages 60 to 70, then his father was likely born roughly a hundred years or so earlier, more definitively placing his birth and naming in the first century BC.

8 . See Rahmani, Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, 107; Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 361.

9 . Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 25–26. One difficulty with Ilan’s explanation of the final aleph in ʾlmʾ is that the name Elam—with an initial aleph (א)—does not occur the Hebrew Bible. Thus, if this is an example the Aramaic aleph suffix being added as “an extension of a biblical name” it is presumably a variant spelling of the name ʿylm (עילם)—spelled with an initial ayin (ע)—also often translated as Elam in English Bibles. This would actually support the hypothesis proposed by Hoskisson and other Latter-day Saint scholars that the name should actually begin with an ע not an א (see n.12) but does not support the supposition of Ilan and Rahmani that the name means “mute” (see n.11).

10 . Hoskisson, “Alma as a Hebrew Name,” 72–73; Ricks et al., Dictionary of Proper Names, 17–18; Hoskisson, Book of Mormon Onomasticon, sv, “Alma.” See also Kevin L. Barney, “A More Responsible Critique,” FARMS Review 15, no. 1 (2003): 127.

11 . Rahmani, Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, 107; Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 361; Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, 221.

12 . Hoskisson, “Alma as a Hebrew Name,” 72. See also Ricks et al., Dictionary of Proper Names, 18.

13 . Hoskisson, “Alma as a Hebrew Name,” 72–73; Ricks et al., Dictionary of Proper Names, 17–18. Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1988), 76, also suggested that the name Alma could mean “young man.”

14 . Matthew L. Bowen, “Striking While the Irony Is Hot: Hebrew Onomastics and Their Function within the Book of Mormon Text,” in Perspectives on Latter-day Saint Names and Naming: Names, Identity, and Belief, ed. Dallin D. Oaks, Paul Baltes, and Kent Minson (New York: Routledge, 2023), 233. This was first proposed in Matthew L. Bowen, “‘And He Was a Young Man’: The Literary Preservation of Alma’s Autobiographical Wordplay,” Insights: The Newsletter of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship 30, no. 4 (2010): 2–3, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/insights/vol30/iss4/3/.

15 . Bowen, “Striking While the Irony Is Hot,” 234. Bowen’s arguments are more elaborately developed in Matthew L. Bowen, “Alma—Young Man, Hidden Prophet,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 343–53, journal
.interpreterfoundation.org/alma-young-man-hidden-prophet/, reprinted in Matthew L. Bowen, Name as Key-Word: Collected Essays on Onomastic Wordplay and the Temple in Mormon Scripture (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2018), 91–100; Matthew L. Bowen, “‘He Did Go About Secretly’: Additional Thoughts on the Literary Use of Alma’s Name,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 27 (2017): 197–212, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/he-did-go-about-secretly
-additional-thoughts-on-the-literary-use-of-almas-name/, reprinted in Matthew L. Bowen, Ancient Names in the Book of Mormon: Toward a Deeper Understanding of a Witness of Christ (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2023), 233–45.

16 . We would like to thank Matt Roper for first bringing this possibility to the attention on one of the authors. See also John A. Tvedtnes, “Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon” (Presentation, Thirteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 2001), 3, 6n41, ldssoul.com/wp-content
/uploads/2015/05/tvedtnes-HebrewNames.pdf.

17 . “Travels of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela,” in Early Travels in Palestine, ed. Thomas Wright (Mineola, NY: Dover, 2003), 89. See also Benjamin Z. Kedar, Holy Men in a Holy Land: Christian, Muslim and Jewish Religiosity in the Near East at the Time of the Crusades, Hayes Robinson Lecture Series, no. 9 (London: University of London, 2005), 21–22. The earliest English translation we have thus far identified was published in London in 1840, with a second volume of notes published in 1841. See A. Asher, The Itinerary of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, 2 vols. (London: A. Asher, 1840–1841).

18 . MS Epstein, which would seem to date from fifteenth to sixteenth century Italy and has no vocalization. See M. N. Adler, The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela: Critical Text, Translation and Commentary (London: Henry Frowde; Oxford University Press, 1907), xiv–xv. “[T]he spelling of persons and places in E often differs from that in the text of Asher.” The precise implications require further study and are beyond the scope of our paper.

19 . Leopold Zunz, The Itinerary of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela (New York: Hakesheth Publishing, 1900), 2:109. Zunz based this on Oulammous in Eusebius’s Onomasticon, but this was an erroneous LXX translation of Luz in Genesis 28:19. See R. S. Notley and Z. Safrai, Eusebius, Onomasticon: A Triglott Edition with Notes and Commentary, (Leiden: Brill, 2005), xxxiv.

20 . The same artisan in the inscription, Jose the Levite son of Levi, is known from the Bar’am synagogue lintel partially preserved in the Louvre. See Joseph Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1978), 19–20, 22–23. Bar’am itself is not mentioned by name until the thirteenth century, yet would have been a prosperous village.

21 . J. Braslawski, “The Synagogue Remains at Kefr Dalâtā,” Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 2 (1933/34): 14–20.

22 . Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, 23–24, 54–57, 121–22.

23 . I. Ben-Zvi, Erez Israel Under Ottoman Rule: Four Centuries of History (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute 1955), 190.

24 . E. Robinson and E. Smith, Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petrea: A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838 (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1841), 3:134.

25 . E. H. Palmer, The Survey of Western Palestine: Arabic and English Name Lists (London: Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1881), v, 17, 40, 61, 66.

26 . For the -on suffix in place names, see E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (I Q Isaa) (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 114; Yoel Elitzur, Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land: Preservation and History (University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 284–86; John A. Tvedtnes, “Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (Boston: Brill, 2013), 2:195. For the -on suffix as a phenomenon occurring in both personal and place names, see A. Hurvitz, “Ακκαρων = Amqar(r)una = עקרוֹן,” Lešonenu 33, no. 1 (1968): 22–24.

27 . According to Elitzur, most place names ending in -at/th had the -t/th dropped in late antiquity, leaving an aleph or aleph-heh ending. He further notes that there are cases like the biblical Aqrabath, which became Aqrabah after the Muslim conquest but appears more often in the written sources as Aqraba. If the -at suffix changed during the Roman-Byzantine era to -it then that was preserved in the Arabic forms. The shift from Alemeth/Almat/Almit is well documented. If the transition to an -it suffix did not occur with the northern Alma, that might explain its medieval form. See Elitzur, Ancient Place Names, 269, 272, 391.

28 . Scott C. Layton, “The Semitic Root *Ǵlm and the Hebrew Name ʿĀlœmœt,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 102, no. 1 (1990): 80–94, academia.edu/77575399/The_Semitic_Root_Ǵlm_and_the_Hebrew_Name_Ālœmœt; Ran Zadok, “Notes on Modern Palestinian Toponymy,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 101, no. 2 (1985): 156–57, jstor.org
/stable/27931263.

29 . Walter Martin, The Maze of Mormonism, rev. ed. (Santa Ana, CA: Vision House Publishers, 1978), 327. See also Robert McKay, “What Is the Gospel?” Utah Evangel 31, no. 8 (August 1984): 4. See also John Smith, “That Man Alma,” Utah Evangel 33, no. 3 (April 1986): 2. We thank Matt Roper for these sources.

30 . Nibley, review of Bar-Kochba, 121; Nibley, Prophetic Book of Mormon, 281. For an example of a critic identifying the name Alma as Latin, see Charles A. Shook, Cumorah Revisited: “The Book of Mormon” and the Claims of the Mormons Re-examined from the Viewpoint of American Archaeology and Ethnology (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1910), 500. Others claimed that the name (along with others in the Book of Mormon) was “unbliblical” and “philologically impossible” (presumably as Hebrew). See James Williams, “The Law and the Book of Mormon,” Law Magazine and Review: A Quarterly Review of Jurisprudence 24 (1898–1899): 140; M. A. Sbresny, Mormonism: As It Is To-Day (London: Arthur H. Stockwell, 1911): 24–25.

31 . Thomas J. Finley, “Does the Book of Mormon Reflect an Ancient Near Eastern Background?” in The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement, ed. Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 355. See also Marian Bodine, “The Book of Mormon Vs The Bible,” Christian Research Institute, last updated 13 April 2023, equip.org/articles/the-book-of-mormon-vs-the-bible/. Gabriel Hughes, “What the Mormons Believe about Joseph Smith,” Pastor Gabe’s Old Blog, 24 May 2016, pastorgabehughes.blogspot.com/2016/05
/the-following-is-first-chapter-of-book.html. Once again, we thank Matt Roper for these sources.

32 . This argument was previously addressed by Daniel C. Peterson, “Does the Name ‘Alma’ Challenge the Historicity of the Book of Mormon?,” Meridian Magazine, 1 August 2019, latterdaysaintmag.com/does-the-name-alma
-challenge-the-historicity-of-the-book-of-mormon/.

33 . Barney, “A More Responsible Critique,” 128n54. Barney noted that one of his examples “was married to someone with the given name ‘Amasa’ (usually a male name, as in ‘Amasa Lyman’),” suggesting that it was, in fact, a woman.

34 . US Census Bureau, 1870 United States Federal Census, Population Schedule, Palmyra, Wayne Co., NY (Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration), accessed at ancestry.com.

35 . US Census Bureau, 1850 United States Federal Census, Population Schedule, Oswego, Oswego Co., NY (Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration), accessed at ancestry.com.

36 . 1865 New York State Census, Population Schedule, South Bristol, Ontario Co. (Albany, NY: New York State Archives), accessed at ancestry.com.

37 . 1875 New York State Census, Population Schedule, Mendon, Mendon Co. (Albany, NY: New York State Archives), accessed at ancestry.com. Numerous records for an Ahira Parkhurst from the same place, the same age, and with a wife and children the same names and ages corroborates this reading of the name.

38 . US Census Bureau, 1870 United States Federal Census, Population Schedule, Rochester Ward 1, Monroe Co., NY (Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration), accessed at ancestry.com.

39 . The 1870 census identifies Alma A. Pratt as a “shoe dealer” staying in a hotel in Rochester, NY, at the time of the census. This makes it likely that he was only passing through the area when the census taker happened to arrive in Rochester. Even broadening the geographic scope of our search parameters, however, we have been unable to identify any other records for an Alma A. Pratt. In Rochester, city directories (accessible on Ancestry.com) from the 1860s to 1880s include a shoe dealer named L. A. Pratt, who can be identified as Luther A. Pratt, a long-term resident originally born in 1826 in Connecticut. An Almond or Almon Pratt is also listed in Rochester city directories from this time, but he is identified as a physician and does not appear to be the same person as our Alma. We appreciate the assistance of Jared Riddick, archivist for Scripture Central, in tracking down this information.

40 . US Census Bureau, 1870 United States Federal Census, Population Schedule, Mexico, Oswego Co., NY (Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration), accessed at ancestry.com. All other records on this person accessible at ancestry.com, including other state and federal censuses, list him as either Almon or Almond.

41 . The earliest English publications we have been able to find that document the toponym Alma (in Israel) are Asher in 1840, based on medieval Hebrew documents, and Robinson and Smith in 1841, based on knowledge obtained by local informants during their travels in the Holy Land in 1838 (see n. 17 and 24). Furthermore, in nineteenth-century sources, it was presented as an Arabic toponym. It would not be until much later that it was known to be Hebrew in origin, and to also be a male personal name in antiquity.

42 . See Ricks et al., Dictionary of Proper Names; Bowen, Name as Key-Word; Bowen, Ancient Names in the Book of Mormon.

Accessing Nephi’s Bountiful: A New Proposal for Reaching Irreantum

Warren P. Aston

Abstract: Many Latter-day Saint scholars recognize that an excellent candidate for Nephi’s Bountiful is found at the inlet Khor Kharfot in southern Oman at the end of the lengthy Wadi Sayq. Many researchers have reasonably assumed that Lehi’s eastward travel from Nahom must have led to Wadi Sayq, which then leads directly to Khor Kharfot. However, there is a second route, through Wadi Kharfot, that leads to Khor Kharfot, joining Wadi Sayq near the inlet. Although almost unknown, this second wadi could also have offered a plausible route with some advantages to travelers arriving from the interior desert plateau. Specifics and details of terrain, distances, and directions are presented to support seriously considering this new proposal.

Since its discovery in the mid-1980s during a multi-year ground search of the entire southeastern coast of Arabia, the inlet of Khor Kharfot in Dhofar, southern Oman, has been the candidate favored by most Book of Mormon researchers for the ease in which it uniquely meets all the detailed descriptors of Bountiful embedded in Nephi’s text.1 Nephi was very clear in the directions he gave—most importantly, that Bountiful lies “nearly eastward” from Nahom:

And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And we did travel and wade through much affliction in the wilderness. . . . And we did come to the land which we called Bountiful. . . . And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters. And it came to pass that we did pitch our tents by the seashore. (1 Nephi 17:1, 5–6)

Figure 1 is an overview of the proposed area in which the final stage of the Lehite journey took place. It illustrates that both Wadi Sayq and Wadi Kharfot lead directly into Khor Kharfot, the leading candidate for Bountiful. It also shows the plateau from which both wadis originate. This penultimate leg of the Lehite group’s difficult journey across Arabia—plausibly around two years of travel to cover the approximately 2,100 miles (3,400 km) from Jerusalem—was also its main directional change.2 Following Ishmael’s burial at Nahom, the group headed “nearly eastward from that time forth” (1 Nephi 17:1), eventually bringing them to Irreantum, the great ocean, where the place they named Bountiful awaited.3

The Presence of Two Wadis

Not all students of Nephi’s journey across Arabia may realize that there are actually two wadis, or river valleys, providing access for the final stage of travel from the interior deserts into Khor Kharfot. Both wadis converge near the beginning of the inlet. Wadi Sayq is the best known, with a long pathway spanning 23 miles (38 km). It leads from the modern border between Yemen and Oman down through the Qamar mountains, until it reaches the inlet of Khor Kharfot. On-site exploration and high-resolution satellite imagery has shown the prominent Wadi Sayq to be a plausible, reasonable path for an ancient group reaching Khor Kharfot as they came from the west. While Wadi Sayq could have been the path that Lehi used, it need not be the only plausible candidate.

Continuing exploration by the author over recent years has led to the recognition that Wadi Kharfot, the other wadi that arrives at the beginning of the inlet of Khor Kharfot, merits consideration alongside Wadi Sayq as a candidate for part of Lehi’s journey to Bountiful. With this in mind and rethinking earlier assumptions, in 2020 the author began a focused examination of Wadi Kharfot. The study and exploration was completed in 2024. Wadi Kharfot is narrower and shorter, just 7.5 miles (12 km) in length. It meets Wadi Sayq at the inland end of the inlet, just some 1.17 miles (1.88 km) from the shoreline. Interestingly, Wadi Kharfot can be said to roughly mean “Abundance [of fruit] Valley.”4

Wadi Kharfot turns out to represent an attractive second possibility for accessing Khor Kharfot. Wadi Kharfot potentially offers a substantially more direct, much-less-difficult access to the ocean than its longer sister-wadi. This study compares these two wadis that jointly reach Khor Kharfot, proposing that this second wadi is not only a viable route, but may have provided an advantage to the Lehite group over Wadi Sayq by offering them a faster final stage of travel. Figure 2 provides an aerial view of the meeting of the two wadis at the entrance to the inlet of Khor Kharfot. Figure 3 provides a close-up version of that meeting point.

It has long been customary in Latter-day Saint commentary (including by this author) and, in academic studies, to speak of Khor Kharfot as being the “end” of Wadi Sayq, or as being an extension of it. More accurate descriptive terminology should acknowledge that Khor Kharfot begins where two wadis, Wadi Sayq and Wadi Kharfot, converge, terminating at Khor Kharfot. An inlet is defined as being the extent of the original bay; in other words, it is where the ocean has, and sometimes still does, reach inland. Though there is not a precise point where a wadi ends and an inlet begins, the furthermost inland point of Khor Kharfot can be estimated to be at or near the region where both wadis meet.

Differences between the Two Wadis

The differences between the two wadis are significant. The first difference is their respective positions in the landscape. Figure 1 illustrates how travelling eastward from Yemen’s Mahra plateau into the Qamar region of Oman offers two very different routes to reach the inlet of Khor Kharfot. Wadi Sayq immediately plunges into the midst of the corrugated and steep Qamar mountains, winding eastward in a gradual descent toward the coast. In contrast, anyone arriving just a short distance north of Wadi Sayq enters a long undulating plateau that skirts the northern side of the Qamar mountains, avoiding them altogether. This plateau allows an eastward journey through easy terrain, followed by a short south-trending pathway to the inlet.

The physical structure of the wadis differs

As noted earlier, Wadi Kharfot is 7.5 miles (12 km) long, or less than a third of the length of Wadi Sayq’s 23 miles (38 km). It meanders less than does Wadi Sayq, and its base is also narrower. (Wadi Sayq is shown in figure 4.)

The terrain surrounding the newly considered entrance to the inlet of Wadi Kharfot is shown in figure 5. That wadi has several shallow paths leading into it at the beginning of its descent toward the ocean.

Finally, with the modern road to Rakhyut roughly following its contours for about two thirds of the distance, Wadi Kharfot descends to the Khor Kharfot inlet through much lower surrounding terrain than does Wadi Sayq (see figure 6).

The natural function of each wadi differs

Wadi Sayq is the primary drainage for the Qamar ranges, a sizeable block of mountainous terrain stretching east from the Mahra province of Yemen almost to Mughsayl, in Oman. Dozens of tributary wadis feed their runoff into Wadi Sayq, which means that during and following the monsoon rains, the wadi has long had a substantial amount of water flowing through it toward the coast. The scouring of rocks at the base of the wadi over thousands of years can easily be seen today.

In contrast with Wadi Sayq, Wadi Kharfot receives very limited water runoff from its surroundings. With a single small tributary wadi feeding into it on its west side, its water levels are significantly less than in Wadi Sayq.

The huge amount of water coursing through Wadi Sayq for several months of each year has, over millennia, resulted in an accumulation of huge boulders shortly before its very end at the beginning of the inlet.5 However, this accumulation of boulders need not have prevented people and animals from entering the inlet of Khor Kharfot in ancient times. Based on my fieldwork, even though the boulders may be more numerous today than anciently, they extend for only a short distance, and it is not overly difficult to pick one’s way past them along the side of the wadi. Locals regularly do this as they bring cattle, goats, and camels to graze in the inlet.

On the other hand, while Wadi Kharfot certainly has boulders along its length, there is no appreciable accumulation of rock debris at any point. The point is that the rocks in Wadi Kharfot present less hindrance to travel than do the ones in Wadi Sayq.

These differences between the two possible pathways to the coast mean that arriving via Wadi Kharfot, rather than via Wadi Sayq, would involve faster travel because of the less-difficult terrain leading to the entrance to the wadi, plus the considerably shortened length of the wadi itself.

Similarities in the Two Wadis

Both wadis are readily accessible at their very beginnings inland, and both become gradually descending conduits toward the ocean. In the case of Wadi Sayq, the sides of the valley are often very steep and even convex in places. This means that entering the wadi can only be done at its beginning because of the natural barrier presented by those valley walls. While Wadi Kharfot runs between much lower hills for its entire length, entry into it is also most likely to occur at its beginning.

In late September 1993, the author and his team were granted a permit to access the beginning of Wadi Sayq, located in a military area, just meters from the Yemen border. While the visit was necessarily brief and the team’s vehicle was not allowed to stop at any point, it nevertheless allowed the team to confirm that Wadi Sayq could be easily and simply accessed from the Qamar plateau through low, gently rolling terrain. Within a short distance, however, the walls on each side of the wadi became “too convex and deep to enter.”6

Satellite imagery has become available at a resolution where the literal commencement of Wadi Sayq can be seen clearly.7 As of 2024, while the general lay of the land where Wadi Sayq begins is clear enough, continuing road construction at various sections of the wadi have somewhat obscured its very beginning in updated satellite imagery. On the other hand, the commencement of Wadi Kharfot remains clearly visible and undisturbed, both on the ground and viewed remotely.

Wadi Sayq channels most of the rain that falls over the Qamar mountains downstream to its outlet, Khor Kharfot, thus providing this one coastal bay with a level of fertility—including timber species—unique among the inlets of the entire Arabian coast. It should also be noted that the Khor Kharfot inlet additionally receives a considerable amount of water directly from its surrounding hills. Although the drainage offered by Wadi Kharfot is relatively insignificant; the smaller wadi may have also played a significant, albeit quite different, role by providing shorter access to the inlet for the Lehite group. Figure 6 shows that Wadi Kharfot is quite narrow as it wends its way toward the inlet of Khor Kharfot.

Otherwise, the sparse details of the arrival at Bountiful recorded by Nephi do not favor either of the two wadis. In particular, travel through either wadi results in what Nephi’s text suggests—that the group did not see the great ocean until they emerged into Khor Kharfot and pitched their tents “by the seashore” (1 Nephi 17:6). Regardless of which access wadi was used, the great ocean—called “Irreantum” by Nephi (1 Nephi 17:5)—remained firmly out of sight, hidden by the surrounding terrain until they emerged into Khor Kharfot with its unique resources, towered over by the nearby mountain that came to play a key role as Nephi sought revelatory guidance (accounts beginning with 1 Nephi 17:7).

Conclusions

Many readers and commentators of Nephi’s account have noted that the exuberant rejoicing captured in 1 Nephi 17:5–6 largely resulted from the “much fruit” being visibly abundant and accessible as they arrived, becoming the primary reason for the group naming the place Bountiful. This is important, because it virtually requires that the arrival at Bountiful came soon after the completion of the monsoon rains, in other words, mid-September to late-October, when the vegetation was at its most abundant.

Providentially, for a group exhausted from the deprivations of the most difficult stage of their land travel, the essentials of life—food, water, and shelter—were truly optimal. In addition to food and water resources, there would likely have been no need to change from tent living on the seashore for several months. From about April onwards, increasing wind and rain from the approaching monsoon season would require more durable homes in a less exposed part of the inlet or the use of natural protection such as caves.

Realities on the ground—most still visible today—thus continue to inform our quest to probe these sacred records. They bring us closer to a fuller appreciation of what is surely one of the longest and most consequential journeys in history. Specifics such as the terrain, distances, directions, and so on—embedded in Nephi’s text and discussed here—offer further compelling support for it being a history of real people on a real journey. This author believes that all further studies involving the Old World Bountiful, and the Lehite journey across Arabia, should take into account this new possibility in any discussion of the route traveled.

Warren P. Aston is a New Zealand–born researcher based in Brisbane, Australia. Since 1984 his exploratory efforts have identified the candidates for “Nahom” and the Old World “Bountiful” now accepted by most Latter-day Saint scholars, and he remains the only person to have retraced the full Lehite journey across the Old World. After completing ground exploration in Yemen and Oman over the entire eastern coast of Arabia from 1986 to 1992, he cofounded the Khor Kharfot Foundation in 2013 and led several international teams undertaking fieldwork at the site. He is the author of In the Footsteps of Lehi (1994); Lehi and Sariah in Arabia: The Old World Setting of the Book of Mormon (2015); and numerous papers and articles. Warren’s findings have been reported in Church Education System manuals, BYU Studies Quarterly, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, and presented in non–Latter-day Saint forums such as the annual Seminar for Arabian Studies in the UK and in publications such as the Journal of Arabian Studies. He is the proud father of six children and eighteen grandchildren.

1. 1 . Warren P. Aston, “Nephi’s ‘Bountiful’: Contrasting Both Candidates,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 55 (2023): 219–68, journal
.interpreterfoundation.org/nephis-bountiful-contrasting-both-candidates and Warren Aston, Lehi and Sariah in Arabia: The Old World Setting of the Book of Mormon (Bloomington, IN: Xlibris, 2015), scripturecentral.org/archive
/books/book/lehi-and-sariah-arabia-old-world-setting-book-mormon.

2. 2 . See Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “An Archaeologist’s View,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 15, no. 2 (2006): 74–75, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms
/vol15/iss2/8/. The issue of the time required for travel prior to reaching Bountiful has been most fully explored in Godfrey J. Ellis “Nephi’s Eight Years in the ‘Wilderness’: Reconsidering Definitions and Details,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 57 (2023): 281–356, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/nephis-eight-years-in-the-wilderness
-reconsidering-definitions-and-details/.

3. 3 . George Potter has proposed Khor Rori, an inlet further east of Khor Kharfot, as a possibility for Bountiful. See George D. Potter, “Khor Rori: A Maritime Resources-Based Candidate for Nephi’s Harbor,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 51 (2022): 253–94, journal
.interpreterfoundation.org/khor-rori-a-maritime-resources-based-candidate
-for-nephis-harbor/. An illustrated comparison of both locations is provided in Aston, “Nephi’s ‘Bountiful.’” Since exploration of the entire eastern coast of Arabia was completed, no other locations have been found with the requisite features.

4. 4 . The etymology of the pre-Arabic term giving rise to the modern name Kharfot is discussed in Aston, “Nephi’s ‘Bountiful.’” These data document that in the present day, Kharfot is the most widely used Arabized rendering of the original Mahri name, Kharifot, and retains the same meaning of “abundance” following the [monsoon] rain. See Aston, “Nephi’s ‘Bountiful,’” 235–36.

5. 5 . See the geological data and illustrations presented in Bradley Larsen, “Update on Locating Nephi’s Ore Deposits in the Khor Kharfot/Wadi Sayq Region of Oman . . . and Related Considerations,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship (forthcoming).

6. 6 . The original account appears in Warren P. Aston and Michaela K. Aston, In the Footsteps of Lehi: New Evidence for Lehi’s Journey across Arabia to Bountiful (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994), 72. Two images of Wadi Sayq’s interior appear in the color insert of the book.

7. 7 . One image appeared in Aston, Lehi and Sariah in Arabia, 129.

Figure 1. Satellite view of Qamar mountains highlighting Wadi Sayq, Wadi Kharfot, and Khor Kharfot. Image courtesy of Google Earth.

Figure 2. Wadi Sayq and Wadi Kharfot arriving at Khor Kharfot. Image from Google Earth.

Figure 3. Close-up view of Wadi Sayq (from the lower left side of this image) and the narrower Wadi Kharfot, converging at Khor Kharfot inlet. Image from Google Earth.

Figure 4. A representative view of Wadi Sayq, facing eastward, just a few kilometers from its arrival at Khor Kharfot. Photograph by the author.

Figure 5. A view of Wadi Kharfot showing its base and the surrounding terrain, facing inland. Photograph by the author

Figure 6. This view of Wadi Kharfot, facing the ocean, shows some of the shallow entrances into the wadi as it commences its descent toward Khor Kharfot. Photograph by the author.

The Pathophysiology of the Death of Jesus the Christ

C. Thomas Black

Abstract: Centuries-long speculation continues regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of the Savior. Over the past century, the Savior’s tribulations between the Last Supper and his death on the cross have been scrupulously examined from a medical viewpoint. In this article I review many of these studies and, using current medical acumen, propose additional inferences and explanations based on scriptural, medical, and historical accounts. The evidence suggests that at some point between Gethsemane and his last moments on the cross, the Lord’s body was pushed beyond the limit that a normal mortal could endure. The Lord did, however, endure and completed the Atonement. He left this mortal life and “yielded up the ghost” (Matthew 27:50) on his own terms and timeframe, not as the result of any action inflicted upon him. He always acted and was never acted upon unwillingly. His persecutors, although permitted to inflict horrific injury and pain, were powerless either to take his life or to accelerate his death.

To the thoughtful Christian, a consideration of the suffering of Jesus Christ during the final hours of his life is both horrifying and compelling. President Thomas S. Monson expressed what most feel: “It is emotionally draining for me to recount the events leading up to the Crucifixion of the Master.”1 Although repugnant, the horrors endured by the Lord constitute the basis for the believer’s hope for the resurrection and for eternal life. Because of their love for the Lord, some will assert that an in-depth study of the brutal injuries the Lord endured is an unnecessary study of gratuitous violence and an affront to him and to his memory. I believe the converse to be true, that rather than suppressing it, the suffering of the Lord on our behalf should be studied and revered. Such understanding would be welcome because, as James E. Faust stated, “Any increase in our understanding of his atoning sacrifice draws us closer to him.”2

The reader is cautioned, however, that many people will find the material discussed in this article to be graphic and disturbing. I offer no apology, since the Lord himself commanded each of us to review weekly the circumstances of his suffering and death. The words of the sacramental prayers, “in remembrance of the body of thy Son” (Doctrine and Covenants 20:77) and “in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them” (Doctrine and Covenants 20:79), are not meant to be understood thoughtlessly or euphemistically but rather quite literally and profoundly. They should remind us of the unpleasant fact that

In token of thy bleeding flesh
And of thy blood so freely spent,
We meet around thy table now
And take thy holy sacrament.3

Two millennia after it occurred, the death of the Savior continues to be thought provoking and widely discussed. More than thirty articles discussing either death by crucifixion in general or the death of Jesus Christ in particular have appeared in the medical literature during just the past three years. After 2,000 years of intense scrutiny, however, no one will stumble upon an undiscovered statement or even a word in the Biblical text that will contribute immeasurably to our previous knowledge.

Numerous attempts to explain the cause of the Savior’s death have been proposed without achieving unanimity. All such attempts, including this one, are speculative. Even so, advances in scientific understanding—particularly in human physiology, biology, geography, and archeology—and the study of historical, secular, and sacred sources may allow additional inferences to be made with increasing accuracy. An exploration of his death, however, is far more complex than is a simple analysis of the effects of crucifixion and cannot be explained by medical acumen alone.4

The purpose of this essay is to provide an in-depth discussion of the physiologic and anatomic aspects of the suffering of the Lord to the extent we currently understand or may reasonably infer. Numerous commentators have championed diverse theories regarding the cause of the Savior’s physical death, and these will be reviewed. I also attempt, based on my own evaluations and inferences, to propose an opinion regarding the cause of the Lord’s death.

The Cause of Christ’s Death

Generally, the cause of death is the term applied to the inciting event of a chain of events that culminate in the death of an individual. The mechanism of death is those final steps that lead to the universal endpoint of cardiac arrest.5

This article will, as have many other articles, attempt to elucidate the mechanism of the death of the mortal body of Jesus Christ. In the end, however, the mechanism makes very little difference. Such a study is of value only if it helps to answer the question, “What or who set in motion the chain of events that inevitably led to his death?”

The usual answer is that the Romans, the Jews, or both caused the Savior’s death. Paul claims, “the Jews . . . both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets” (1 Thessalonians 2:15). Matthew wrote that the Lord “must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed” (Matthew 16:21). Nephi says that the Jews “had slain the Messiah” (1 Nephi 10:11). Abinadi preached, “Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain” (Mosiah 15:7). The Lord himself said, “Come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world” (3 Nephi 11:14).

Christ, however, clearly said, “No man taketh it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father” (John 10:18). Christ never was or ever is the unwilling object of any external influences. Throughout his life the Lord always acted and was never acted upon. Perhaps he was willing to die, and his oppressors were simply the means to bring about his death. Such has been the case with other martyrs such as Paul, Abinadi, and Joseph Smith. I believe, however, that the unique nature of the Lord’s death means that it cannot be equated with the death of any other martyr. The Lord was given power over death, and it is unthinkable that he would relinquish this power to a group of mortals to be the agents of his death. His death atoned for all of mankind’s sins, while the death of no other could atone even for their own sins.

“The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). The Law of Justice required death, and Christ was willing and able to pay that ultimate price to satisfy the requirement. On this, all of Christendom agrees; it is simply an issue of where did the atoning sacrifice take place? Was it on the cross at the third hour at the hands of his executioners, or in the Garden of Gethsemane as the full weight of the sins of all of creation crushed him? I believe that had he been a fully mortal individual, Jesus would have been mortally injured in the Garden as the result of the physical trauma he endured there.6 However, because he had to fulfill the demands of the Law of Justice and because he had power of life and death, he chose to sustain his body until the time was appropriate for him to release his spirit from his mortal body. Thus, following Gethsemane—where an ordinary mortal would have died—he remained alive and, by his own choice, continued to experience pain and suffering. Those who conspired against him were powerless to take his life—he was able to compensate for whatever they inflicted upon him. They didn’t even have the power to hasten his death—he would die when he was ready. They had power only to inflict additional pain and suffering.

Although the Lord could have healed himself and survived, the Law of Justice would not have been satisfied, and his sacrifice would have been for naught. Instead, he voluntarily gave up the ghost (Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46; John 19:30). Some may find it anticlimactic to ascribe the cause of the Lord’s death to a “law,” but the Law of Justice is just as immutable as the Law of Gravity or the Law of Electricity, both of which claim lives every day. The effect of the Law of Justice on his physical body was death, albeit at a time of his choosing because of his ultimate power over life and death. That physical death may be the result of violations of sacred law should not be surprising as we have record of such events. Uzzah steadied the ark without authority, “and the anger of the Lord was kindled . . . and God smote him there for his error” (2 Samuel 6:7). Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Ghost and died (Acts 5:1–10). Even Lot’s wife was killed for wanting to return to sinful Sodom (Genesis 19:26).

How Much Trauma Did the Lord Incur?

To appreciate completely what the Savior did on our behalf, we must have some concept of the amount and nature of the trauma that he incurred between the Last Supper and his death. This period may be divided into three distinct and informative stages for closer examination and analysis.

- In the Garden of Gethsemane
- Between Gethsemane and Golgotha
- At Golgotha

In the Garden of Gethsemane

Before entering the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ had already begun experiencing anguish several hours previously at the Last Supper. John relates that as he ate and spoke with his apostles, the Lord warned that one of those present would betray him, “When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me” (John 13:21). The Greek word translated to was troubled in English is etarachthe, the past tense of the verb tarássō, meaning, according to Thayer, “to agitate, trouble; to cause one inward commotion, take away his calmness of mind, disturb his equanimity; to disquiet, make restless.”7 His anguish intensified as he approached the Garden with his apostles; “And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me” (Matthew 26:37–38; Mark 14:38). The Lord then entered Gethsemane (Hebrew gat shemanim, “oil press”).

Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane was physical, not just emotional

That Christ suffered emotionally in the Garden is a given, but he suffered physically as well. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has emphasized the importance of the Lord’s spiritual and physical experiences in the Garden of Gethsemane more than have most other Christian denominations.8 The Church is more cognizant of the agony the Lord experienced in the Garden, partly because of the Lord’s own statements found in modern-day scripture. “Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink” (Doctrine and Covenants 19:18). The mention of “[bleeding] at every pore” and “would that I might not drink the bitter cup” clearly reference the Lord’s agony in the Garden. That experience was horrific and traumatic to “both body and spirit.” The physical trauma he sustained in Gethsemane was not as obvious as the trauma he later suffered, but this does not mean that it was less painful or damaging to his physical health. Significantly, when Christ described the severity of the punishment awaiting the unrepentant, he alluded to the agony of Gethsemane, both spiritual and physical, rather than to later physical abuses. “For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I” (Doctrine and Covenants 19:16–17).

Current medical knowledge allows the bodily injury subsequently sustained by the Lord during the scourging and crucifixion to be reasonably quantifiable. The degree of damage inflicted upon his mortal body by his experience in the Garden of Gethsemane, however, is much more difficult to assess. Even the cause, and therefore to some extent, the degree of the agony the Lord experienced in Gethsemane is debated among and even minimized by many Christians. It is commonly maintained that Christ’s suffering was emotional distress over the impending physical abuse he knew he must endure and to his struggle with, and ultimate acquiescence to, the will of his Father. A few representative examples follow.

From a Methodist background, one author wrote,

Filled with anguish and deep dread over what He would soon experience, Jesus . . . takes refuge in . . . the Garden of Gethsemane. . . . There He wrestled in great sorrow with the torture and humiliation He knew was before him . . . He prayed in deep distress, overwhelmed about what was to come. . . . There in the Garden of Gethsemane, He felt sorrow and great distress over the hardship He would need to endure.9

Another, from a Baptist perspective asked,
don’t you think that Jesus’ agony was due to his awareness of his impending death as a sin-bearer for humanity and his attendant forsakenness by God the Father?10

And another with a Catholic viewpoint stated,

The Gethsemane experience was Jesus’ anticipation of bearing the guilt of all the sins of human history as if it were His own. I imagine that Jesus in His human nature experienced the natural fear of his impending suffering and death, but I think His agony in the garden was something more painful. It was the burden of the mystery of the world’s sin which lay on His heart. He was about to carry the awful burden of the world’s sin.11

A non-denominational evangelical minister writes,

The Bible shows us that Jesus (being God in the flesh) knew ahead of time the things he was going to suffer before they happened. This caused him such distress that as He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, just before his arrest, “His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground.”12

Martin Pable, a Franciscan monk, resolved that Christ was “feeling weighed down with . . . fear, loneliness, and a sense of failure.”13 Friedrich Knecht, an early twentieth-century Catholic theologian, wrote of three possible causes he could discern for Christ’s agony:

- The anticipation of his impending torture and death

- The abhorrence and aversion he felt toward the horrible mass of evil, abomination and guilt that filled his soul as he took upon himself the sins of all men

- A realization that many souls would be eternally lost despite his Atonement because they would reject his invitation to salvation14

There is also a sentiment that Christ’s experience in Gethsemane was no more than the struggle we mortals also experience as we yield our will to that of The Father.

The events at the Garden of Gethsemane offer support and comfort to Christians today when they are going through difficult times in their lives. They believe that Jesus understands their pain because—like all human beings—he experienced suffering.

This story teaches Christians that in times of need they should pray to God, just as Jesus prayed to his Father.15

Some even maintain that The Lord’s internal anguish was due to concerns for his personal condition and that it was not on behalf of anyone else. The following are representative of some Christian writers:

Jesus, though very much divine, also shared fully and completely in the human condition. There in the Garden of Gethsemane, He felt sorrow and great distress over the hardship He would need to endure. He sought out the quiet and privacy of this special place so He could go before God and beg for a reprieve—though not a reprieve from the will of God, which Jesus was committed to.16

Jesus prayed three times to avoid the cross. He certainly experienced anxiety over His coming torture and gruesome death. However, He also understood the greater agony He would experience in bearing the sins of the world.17

Here is seen again the belief that the Savior’s Atonement occurred exclusively on the cross.

In these verses, we . . . see [the Savior’s] anguish, fear, and dread. He was overwhelmed and sorrowful as he is betrayed and abandoned. . . . Every one of us can identify with deep sorrow on some level. At some point in our lives, most of us have felt these deep emotions, maybe even to the point of wishing we would die instead of suffering so much. These feelings are human. There is nothing sinful about any of them. Even Jesus felt this way.18

One commentator believes that Christ was struggling with his “final temptation to . . . let the world perish instead of himself.”19

As mentioned by Knecht, perhaps the most common modern belief is that the Lord’s suffering was emotional, the result of extreme anxiety over the impending torture he knew he must face and his inevitable death.20 Such a viewpoint is, however, incompatible with the Lord’s admonition to “fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). Christ’s concern was always for all mortal beings, “For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I” (Doctrine and Covenants 19:16–17). Talmage agreed: “The thought that he suffered through fear of death is untenable.”21

Hematidrosis as a manifestation of Christ’s physical suffering

The Lord withdrew from his disciples, knelt, and prayed. As he prayed, his anguish deepened: “And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:44). Modern-day scripture clarifies that his suffering was in large part physical since “[This] suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit” (Doctrine and Covenants 19:18). Benjamin stated, “[H]e shall suffer . . . pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore” (Mosiah 3:7).

Blood oozing from every pore is a rare medical condition called hematidrosis,22 “an eccrine sweat disorder where sweat mixed with blood appears spontaneously without any visible trauma to the skin . . . the most frequent trigger factors are either anxiety, fear, or excessive stress.”23 Appropriately, it is the physician, Luke, who alone records this phenomenon, which had been described anciently by Aristotle, who associated it with intense fear.24 Hematidrosis causes the capillaries in the skin to become extraordinarily fragile and to rupture. Blood escapes into the tissues and through the pores onto the skin. This loss of blood and sweat results in weakness and dehydration,25 but the total amount of blood lost through hematidrosis was probably not hemodynamically significant. The accuracy of Luke’s account has been disputed by some commenters due to the words “as it were” (Greek hósei), which may imply “similar to, but not exactly.” Other connotations include “about,” “as,” or “like.”26 Doubters claim that the wording is really a simile and the drops are not actually blood, just “like blood.”27 Anyone who has seen blood mixed with water knows that it takes only a small amount of blood mixed with a much greater quantity of water to appear as though the liquid is composed entirely of blood.

The microtrauma to the capillaries caused by hematidrosis renders the skin exquisitely sensitive.28 This hypersensitivity would have intensified the Lord’s suffering during his impending physical abuse.

Modern references to hematidrosis describe extreme suffering or anxiety resulting in a very limited amount of bleeding from small patches of skin.29 The degree of suffering required to cause “bleeding from every pore” is unimaginable. Elder McConkie describes what the Lord experienced.

We know that he lay prostrate upon the ground as the pains and agonies of an infinite burden caused him to tremble and would that he might not drink the bitter cup. . . .

As near as we can judge, these infinite agonies—this suffering beyond compare—continued for some three or four hours.30

President Nelson reminds us that the red raiment with which the Lord will be clothed at his second coming is a reminder of his blood-soaked raiment as he completed his ordeal in Gethsemane.31

Emotional stress disrupts the body’s equilibrium, or homeostasis. The stress response may be slow and long-term through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. This axis regulates numerous longer-term physiological processes such as metabolism and the immune response. Chronic stress can cause maladaptive reactions including depression, anxiety, cognitive impairment, and heart disease.32

More frequently, however, the stress response is rapid and acute, mediated by the sympathetic-adreno-medullar (SAM) axis. This type of stress leads to the features of the so-called “fight or flight” response. The adrenal glands suddenly release the hormone epinephrine (adrenaline), which causes the body’s metabolism to shift into high gear as all systems are suddenly on alert and ready to deal with a crisis. The pupils dilate and the skin pales as blood is diverted to internal organs such as muscles. The heart pumps much harder and faster, increasing blood pressure. Chemical energy stored in the liver and muscles is quickly mobilized by epinephrine into glucose to provide ready energy, and blood glucose levels rise sharply.33 Metabolism increases and the respiratory rate rises to compensate for the increased demand for oxygen.

Such changes are normal and occur in varying degrees within each human being every day. The SAM stress response undoubtedly began very early in the course of the Savior’s time in Gethsemane, if not before he had even arrived in the Garden. Hematidrosis is the effect of a greatly exaggerated SAM response, but the SAM response is insufficient to explain why Christ “trembled with pain” and “suffered both body and spirit” as he took upon him the sins of the world. We do not understand the nature or the degree of this pain because no other mortal has experienced it.

The intense agony Christ experienced, which was sufficient to produce the most severe case of hematidrosis on record, was not solely from the fear of physical death or pain but of the infinitely more dreadful spiritual death that sin would impose upon others. “I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I” (Doctrine and Covenants 19:16–17).

Andrew Skinner writes, “in Gethsemane the Savior had to experience all things, even descend below all things, to satisfy the demands of justice. Those things included spiritual death, the withdrawal of the Father and the removal of his immediate influence.”34 “[T]here appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him” (Luke 22:43), “and we suppose it was mighty Michael, who foremost fell that mortal man might be.”35 Despite his paternal anguish,36 the Father had to allow his Son to complete what his Son had begun, without the Father’s direct intervention. He allowed Christ to be strengthened through an angel’s appearance, but we do not know the manner in which the Lord was strengthened. He may have received a priesthood blessing.37

McConkie said,

We know he suffered, both body and spirit, more than it is possible for man to suffer, except it be unto death . . . and these infinite agonies—this suffering beyond compare—continued for some three or four hours . . . his body [was] wrenched and drained of strength.38

Marion G. Romney observed that Jesus suffered “the pains of all men, which he did, principally, in Gethsemane, a scene of great agony.”39 Despite the lack of externally appreciable physical trauma, Gethsemane was a site of incomprehensible agony and significant physiologic injury. Ezra Taft Benson wrote, “It was in Gethsemane . . . where His pain was equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men.”40

The lethal effects of extreme exertion

We can never begin to imagine how grueling the exertions were that left the Lord’s body, in McConkie’s own but inspired words, “wrenched and drained of strength.”41 “Wrenched” clearly implies an extreme physical activity that has strained and stressed muscles and joints. “Drained,” however, is a physiologic effect that reflects the resultant severe depletion of available energy.

Energy in readily available form is stored in the body in the form of a carbohydrate called glycogen. Glycogen consists of chains of glucose (sugar) molecules linked together. Glycogen can be easily and quickly transformed into glucose when immediate energy is needed. One of the consequences of the SAM response, which the evidence suggests the Lord experienced to a greatly exaggerated degree in the Garden of Gethsemane, is that the body’s glycogen stores are quickly mobilized into glucose for immediate use.42 When an individual’s glycogen stores become depleted after rigorous physical activity, glucose is no longer available to provide needed energy. When long-distance runners and road cyclists experience this sudden loss of energy, they say they have “hit the wall” or “bonked.” For marathon runners, this typically occurs around mile twenty.43 Symptoms include incapacitating fatigue, nausea, vertigo, headache, impaired cognition, poor coordination, and diminished mental acuity. Christ concluded his ordeal in Gethsemane in a similar state. This suggests that the calories the Lord expended exceeded the caloric expenditure of even all extreme human activities.

Estimates of the Lord’s height and weight are predictably diverse. Judas had to point him out among the rest of the apostles. Isaiah indicates that he was apparently average in appearance “he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2). At one extreme, based on an examination of the Shroud of Turin,44 Ferri believed the Lord’s height to have been 74 in (185 cm).45 Taylor, who bases her investigations on archeological and anthropological data, estimates the height of a typical Jewish male at the time to have been a more plausible 66 in (168 cm).46 Based on his active lifestyle and likely sparse diet, she agrees that the Lord was thin.47 Assuming a BMI of about 20, which is on the lower end of normal for an adult male,48 his weight would have been about 123 lb (56 kg). At that weight, high impact aerobic exercise would consume about 400 calories per hour (CPH), vigorous calisthenics about 475 CPH, running upstairs about 900 CPH, and running a 5.5 minute mile about 1,050 calories per hour.49

Untrained individuals are able to store only about 1,500 calories as glycogen.50 Although training may allow an athlete to develop the ability to carbohydrate load, or to store glycogen as a reserve of up to about 3,600 calories, we have no evidence that the Lord had done so. Three hours of the equivalent of running upstairs, not even the most vigorous of the activities mentioned, would have consumed at least 2,700 calories. The Lord had already walked from the Last Supper to Gethsemane, an estimated distance of about a mile downhill and up again, expending about 100 calories. It is therefore quite likely that he had more than depleted 1,500 calories of stored glycogen and hit the wall, suffering from complete exhaustion.

If an individual who has become completely energy depleted is allowed to rest for at least ten minutes (perhaps during the angel’s visit?), energy will begin to be produced from free fatty acids—the so-called second wind.51 However, nutrition must then be ingested to replenish the depleted glycogen stores. If this does not happen, symptoms will worsen and muscle protein will begin to be metabolized, damaging muscle and producing byproducts toxic to the kidneys.52 How appropriate it is that the Lord instituted at the Last Supper the practice of partaking of bread, which is composed of starch, the precursor of glucose and glycogen, the very substance he was lacking, as a symbol of the sacrifice of his body.

Reports examining the effects of severe acute exhaustion, such as on a forced march,53 are scant in medical literature. Non-combatants are rarely forced to exert themselves to the point of death, and the pathophysiology of persons forced to do so has never been scientifically studied. Perhaps the individuals most comparable are marathon or ultramarathon runners, who voluntarily push themselves beyond normal physiologic limits. When they do so, the heart is most often affected, as evidenced by deaths among marathon runners. According to Plutarch, Eucles (or perhaps Thersippus) ran the first “marathon” in 490 BC, running twenty-seven miles from the Plains of Marathon to Athens to bring news of victory before collapsing and dying.54 The association of cardiac death with distance running is well known.55 Since the modern marathon began in 1896 to the time of this article, sixty-one runners have died during sanctioned competitions. Of the fifty-six deaths studied, forty-two were found to be cardiac related, and thirty-five of those were due either to a heart attack or to a cardiac arrhythmia. Four others died of a significant electrolyte imbalance.56 Fifty-one fatalities have been associated with ultramarathons between 2008 and 2019 in Western Europe alone. The major cause of death was sudden cardiac arrest due to heart failure (43%), a myocardial infarction, or an arrhythmia.57 The psalmist alludes to the weakened condition of the Lord’s heart at the time of his Atonement; “my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels” (Psalm 22:14).

The comparison to a distance runner is helpful only to establish that the heart is most likely responsible for the death of an individual whose metabolism has been overexerted. The comparison between long distance running and the Lord’s experience in Gethsemane suggests that his heart was likely adversely affected by his severe exertions, but this comparison greatly underestimates the probable effect on the Lord’s physical body. Each of the above-referenced runners was in superb physical condition, had trained extensively, and had had previous long distance running experience. The Lord, although likely in good physical condition, had doubtless not undergone athletic training nor had he stored excess carbohydrates in preparation for this experience. We do not know the type of exertion to which the Lord was subjected, but it was without a doubt more taxing than long distance running. No one had been subjected to the degree of exertion the Lord experienced nor have they been since.

During the SAM response mentioned above, large amounts of catecholamines, primarily epinephrine, are rapidly secreted into the bloodstream. The physiologic effects of these agents are seen almost instantaneously. The closest approximation to an exaggerated SAM response such as the Lord may have experienced might be seen during an inadvertent or even intentional administration of a large dose of epinephrine intravenously.58 Effects include tachycardia (very rapid heart rate), several types of potentially fatal cardiac arrhythmias, and a lack of blood flow to the heart that often results in a myocardial infarction (heart attack). A cerebrovascular hemorrhage (stroke) is also possible, although that occurs more often among elderly patients. Severe pulmonary edema (fluid congestion) may develop in the lungs. Glucose is rapidly mobilized from glycogen resulting in an elevated blood sugar level (hyperglycemia).59 As a result, an intense and prolonged episode of increased circulating epinephrine will result in profound hypoglycemia. The Lord was unable to replenish his glycogen stores, so further exertion would have been grueling and further damaging to his body.

Circulating epinephrine is quickly metabolized with a half-life of just two to three minutes.60 It is synthesized so rapidly, however, that acute depletion of circulating catecholamines is difficult to demonstrate in a living organism and does not normally occur.61 Once the precipitating threat is past, catecholamine stores are very rapidly replenished, but the effects of a typical “adrenaline rush” may linger in a normal individual for up to an hour.62

Both the cardiac and the metabolic consequences of an extreme SAM response may have been, and I believe probably were, lethal to the Lord’s physical body in the Garden. Lund believes that the Savior’s death was due to the events in Gethsemane and not to the numerous subsequent injuries he incurred that culminated in the crucifixion.63 It was not, however, the appropriate time for the Savior to die. He had instituted the Sacrament in remembrance of the sacrifice of his body and blood, which was yet to occur. The following discussion concerning Christ’s suffering after Gethsemane is essential to our appreciation of what he endured on our behalf, and it is his desire that we review these events often—usually weekly.

Between Gethsemane and Golgotha

According to the authors of the gospels, relatively little time elapsed between the agony and anguish of Gethsemane and the Lord’s apprehension by the mob. One moment he was in agony, bleeding from every pore and drained of strength, while quite soon after he was greeting the apostles and then—“while he yet spake” (Matthew 26:47, Mark 14:43, Luke 22:47)—the arresting mob. There is no hint in the narrative of any lack of energy or impaired demeanor. It is as if his physical body had become miraculously reanimated, as I believe it had. Prior to considering the events between Gethsemane and Golgotha it is important to remember that regardless of what happened in Gethsemane, the Lord still possessed a mortal body that was capable of every normal physiological response including, and perhaps most importantly, the response to pain.

The Lord had healed the sick on numerous occasions and had very recently raised Lazarus from the dead. Following Gethsemane and his arrest, he reattached and healed a severed ear. His ability to manipulate human anatomy and physiology in a miraculous manner was demonstrably unchanged. This divine ability surely applied to his own physiology as well.

Following his apprehension, Christ was subjected to life-threatening trauma during the mockery of a series of trials. He was taken first to Annas, then to Caiaphas, to Pilate, to Herod Antipas, and then back to Pilate. Throughout this process, he was made to walk a distance of perhaps 2.5 miles (4.0 km),64 although some specific locations are not precisely known, expending some 250 more calories.

Using a combination of religious, scriptural, historical, and astronomical data, and logic, Chadwick proposes that the Lord was crucified on a Thursday rather than a Friday. Christ had predicted quite specifically, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). Indisputably, he appeared first to Mary on a Sunday morning, and given a Friday crucifixion and death, no manipulation of time can account for the three nights predicted by the Lord. Only a Thursday crucifixion and death could satisfy both three days and three nights.

Humphreys has examined the time needed for all the known events that occurred between the Garden of Gethsemane and the crucifixion on Friday morning. He provides compelling evidence that the Jewish and Roman trials occupied an additional day and could not have been carried out overnight. He maintains that the Last Supper took place actually on Wednesday evening rather than on Thursday, which was occupied with the trials.65 Furthermore, why would Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, Pilate’s wife, Barabbas, the apostles, a large mob of people, and all the soldiers be awake and active between 3 and 6 am? It is more reasonable that Jesus was incarcerated overnight and that the trials took place during usual daylight hours. If true, an additional day of hunger, thirst, sleeplessness, and suffering would have contributed to the Lord’s critical condition.

Chadwick proposes further, and most importantly, that the Lord and his apostles celebrated the Passover on a Tuesday evening, as the Essenes did.66 The text itself may support an additional day between the arrest and the crucifixion. When the Lord stood before Pilate “it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!” (John 19:14). The Jewish sixth hour corresponds to our noon or midday. Mark reports, however, that the Lord was crucified at the third hour (Mark 15:25). Had he been crucified at the first “third hour” following his apprehension, by the time of the first “sixth hour,” three hours later, rather than standing before Pilate, he would already have been on the cross for three hours. Numerous suggestions have been proposed to reconcile this discrepancy, but one possibility is certainly that there was an additional day of incarceration that was occupied by the trials.

Chadwick suggests that the timeline of events commencing with the gathering in the upper room was as follows (note that a Jewish day begins at sunset). For example, Wednesday night precedes Wednesday day:

Wednesday night—the Lord and his disciples celebrate the Essene Passover and the Last Supper, he prays in Gethsemane, he is apprehended and incarcerated for the remainder of the night.

Wednesday day—the Jewish and Roman trials. The Lord stands before Pilate at the sixth hour.

Thursday night—the Lord is again incarcerated overnight awaiting his death on the morrow.

Thursday morning—Chadwick writes that Pilate sentenced the Lord early on Thursday morning prior to the scourging, but I believe that this is more likely to have taken place on Wednesday afternoon following the trial. The Lord is scourged soon after dawn, is made to walk to Golgotha, and is crucified at the third hour.

Thursday afternoon—the Savior “gives up the ghost” at the ninth hour and is entombed.

Late Thursday afternoon, all of Friday night and the following day, all of Saturday night and the following day, all of Sunday night and possibly a small part of Sunday morning following dawn—the Lord is “in the earth” fulfilling the Sign of Jonas.

Sunday morning—after three complete nights and more than three days, the Lord appears to Mary.67

The number forty has special significance in both Judaism and Christianity. In the Talmud, forty is sometimes “used as a round number or as a concrete and definite expression in place of the abstract and indefinite ‘many’ or ‘some.’” In fact, the number is used so frequently that it is now assumed that “forty” is more symbolic than it is precise.68 Forty was, however, often a literal rather than an abstract number. A few examples among many include the number of weeks from conception to birth for a human being, the number of lashes allowed for corporal punishment (Deuteronomy. 25:5) (although it was typically reduced to thirty-nine), how many days Goliath challenged the army of Israel (1 Samuel. 17:16), and the number of days Nineveh was allowed for repentance before it would have been destroyed (Jonah 3:4).

According to the Orthodox Jewish educational organization, AISH, “The number forty has great significance throughout the Torah and the Talmud. The number forty represents transition or change; the concept of renewal; a new beginning. The number forty has the power to lift a spiritual state.”69 The Fathers of Mercy, a Roman Catholic Congregation of Priests, writes, “In Sacred Scripture, the number ‘40’ signifies new life, new growth, transformation, a change from one great task to another great task, etc.”70 Halverson, a Latter-day Saint scholar, says, “In scripture, the number 40 symbolizes a time of trial, testing, uncertainty, difficulty, effort, wandering, and wondering.”71

Consequently, it is possible that the Lord lived for forty more hours after being apprehended. If he had been betrayed and arrested at 11 pm, he would have been in custody for one hour prior to midnight, twenty-four hours throughout Wednesday, and the fifteen hours of Thursday from midnight until 3:00 pm. This would total forty hours, symbolic of transition, change, renewal, a new beginning, a new life, transformation, or a change from one great task to another great task.

Blunt facial trauma

Because of his responses, and sometimes because of his failure to respond, the Lord’s tormentors slapped him (John 18:22), “spit in his face and buffeted him,” “smote him with the palms of their hands,” and “struck him on the face” (Matthew 26:67, Mark 14:65, Luke 22:63–64, John 19:3). These were vicious men, physically stronger than the Lord and trained to inflict significant injury, who repeatedly struck him while he was bound, defenseless, and even blindfolded (Luke 22:64). Blunt trauma to the face often causes lacerations of the skin and bruising of the subcutaneous tissues. Such trauma may also result in fractures of the teeth, nasal bones, the maxilla (upper jaw), the zygoma (cheekbone), the orbit (eye socket), or the mandible (jaw). Isaiah seems to have foreseen the results of this trauma when he wrote, “As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men” (Isaiah 52:14). The writer of the Psalms assures us that not one of the Lord’s bones were broken, “Not one of [my bones] is broken” (Psalm 34:20), and John verifies that the prophecy was fulfilled (John 19:36). If so, the soft tissues bore the brunt of this trauma. The pain he suffered as a result of the beatings was intensified by the hypersensitivity of his facial skin associated with his recent “bleeding from every pore.”

Occasionally the Lord did not respond to questioning. This fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, “he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7). We know that this and surrounding verses refer specifically to the Lord because Philip said so when he taught the eunuch who asked him for the meaning of this scripture (Acts 8:32). Why did he not answer? It is not unreasonable to imagine that blows to his head left him momentarily stunned or with a mild concussion and unable to respond. However, Jesus also possessed the power to heal himself and sustain his body, so it is just as likely that not answering was a conscious decision on his part not to provide additional answers to those who would not accept his answers.

The scourging and its effects

Scourging is certainly one of the most violent and inhumane of all forms of physical abuse that human beings have devised to be used against their fellow human beings. The Romans were experts at administering this punishment. Although the scriptural accounts do not inform us whether the two malefactors with whom the Lord was crucified were scourged, according to Mommsen, it was the rule at the time before crucifixion, so it is likely the case.72

Abhorrent as it may be, we are commanded to reflect upon, and be grateful for salvation “only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ” (Helaman 5:9). Blood was shed by Christ on at least five occasions:

- From the pores of his skin in Gethsemane,

- (Likely) from facial trauma during beatings,

- From the skin, muscles, and deep tissues of his back and elsewhere during and following scourging,

- From his scalp, pierced by the crown of thorns,

- From his hands and feet at the crucifixion,

- (Posthumously) from his side when pierced by the spear.

Of these, however, surely the greatest amount of bloodshed occurred as a result of scourging (Matthew 27:2, 6; John 19:1; Mark 15:15) and relatively little from the crucifixion itself.

Nephi (1 Nephi 19:9), Jacob (2 Nephi 6:9), Benjamin (Mosiah 3:9), and Abinadi (Mosiah 15:5) conspicuously mention that the Lord would be scourged. With chilling accuracy Isaiah wrote, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5). Scourging was clearly an essential part of the Lord’s Atonement since it was the principle manner by which we are saved “only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ” (Helaman 5:9). Although distasteful and even horrifying for most followers of Christ to consider, we are obligated—even commanded—to reflect weekly on the bloodshed that was essential to the Atonement of the Savior as we partake of the Sacramental water, “that they may [drink of it] in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them” (Doctrine and Covenants 20:79). We love the Lord for what he did on our behalf, but we would rather not dwell on his experiences.

The gospels relate no details about the scourging of Christ, which has led some commentators to claim that the event was not significant enough to warrant much attention73 or perhaps that it never even occurred.74 It is possible that none of them were eyewitnesses to the actual event, but at least John saw him on the cross (John 19:26) and must have noticed the effects of the scourging. Despite much having been written about the practice of scourging in the ancient world, we know relatively little about the manner in which the Lord was scourged.75 The first comment on the scourging of the Savior is found in the Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden (1303–1373 AD), who stated that she had seen in a vision that the Lord had been “scourged with barbed whips.”76

Andrea Nicolotti, Professor of History of Christianity at the University of Turin, wrote,

In 1416 Vincent Ferrer preached that Jesus was scourged by the soldiers with switches of thorns and brambles, then by whips the tips of which bore nodules with spiked tips attached, and finally by chains with hooks at the ends. The belief that these three types of scourges were used became widespread, . . . [h]owever, there is no evidence that these really existed in ancient Rome at the time of Jesus.77

A single example of a Roman scourge was found in the city of Herculaneum, buried during the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in 79 AD. It had a wooden handle and three leather thongs with two lead balls attached to the ends of each thong but no spikes or hooks.78 After an exhaustive discussion of scourging practices in the Roman world, Nicolotti wrote,

We know nothing about the progression and intensity of the scourging of Jesus, . . . yet, despite the scarcity of information, it is not uncommon for modern commentaries of the narratives about Christ’s passion and Biblical dictionaries to provide a fairly accurate description of the tool used to scourge him.79

He states further, “Unfortunately, there is no information about the shape of the scourge.” Referring to various whips and flagella that have been depicted and described over the past millennium, he states, “there is no evidence that these really existed in ancient Rome at the time of Jesus.”80

Much of what has been claimed about the manner of scourging has been deduced from an examination of the Shroud of Turin, the existence of which can be reliably dated to no earlier than 1353. The Shroud is a large linen cloth purported to have been the burial shroud of the Savior, but its veracity is in question. Inferences regarding the details of crucifixion, and especially of specifics pertaining to the crucifixion of the Savior are specious. McConkie, however, validated some claims of those who have analyzed the patterns of markings on the Shroud when he stated that the Lord was “scourged with a multi-thonged whip into whose leather strands sharp bones and cutting metals were woven.”81

Despite the paucity of historical or archeological evidence, if McConkie’s and other descriptions of brutal scourging are accurate, the whip or flagrum would have consisted of a short handle with several short single or braided leather thongs into which small iron balls and sharp pieces of bone, glass, or other hard objects were affixed.82 The man was first stripped of clothing and his hands tied to a post, immobilizing him and exposing and arching his back.83 A strong soldier or two, called lictors, then repeatedly and aggressively flogged the victim’s back, buttocks, and legs. As the victim was repetitively struck with force, the iron balls would cause deep contusions, and the thongs and sharp bones would lacerate the skin, subcutaneous tissue, and muscles down to the bone. Sometimes injuries could extend even more deeply. Eusebius records, “bystanders were struck with amazement when they saw them lacerated with scourges even to the innermost veins and arteries, so that the hidden inward parts of the body, both their bowels and their members, were exposed to view.”84 Often bones would be exposed.85 Scourging was intended to bring the victim to a state near to death. Although individuals would occasionally die from the effects of scourging alone, the intent was to weaken the victim, not to kill him.86

We do not know whether Christ was scourged more brutally than were the other two crucarii. It is quite possible that he was, however, because of the perceived anti-Roman implications of his statement about being the King of the Jews. While the Jews were limited to administering 39 lashes (2 Cor 11:24), the Romans had no limit,87 and Pilate, who oversaw the scourging, was Roman.

Some commentators believe that the Lord was whipped or scourged twice.88 They reference John’s account that relates that Pilate wanted to release him. Pilate first tells the Jews, “I find no fault in him” (John 18:38), but the Jews demanded that Barabbas be released rather than the Lord. Pilate makes a final attempt to mollify the bloodthirsty mob by stating, “I will therefore chastise him and release him” (Luke 23:16, 20, 22). As the reasoning goes, this chastisement consisted of a less vicious form of scourging than that which we generally envision (John 19:1). Following this flogging (of which there is no explicit record), Pilate then presented the Lord before the crowd, repeating “I find no fault in him” (John 19:4) and “Behold the man” (John 19:5). If his intent were to appeal to their mercy, it was to no avail as the unappeased crowd and religious leaders continued to demand crucifixion and called for the release of Barabbas rather than the Lord. As the mob demanded “Crucify him, crucify him,” Pilate, after stating a third time that he found no fault in the Lord, finally realized that the mob was not to be placated so he acquiesced to their demand (John 19:6). “And he released unto them [Barabbas] but he delivered Jesus to their will” (Luke 23:25), which was crucifixion (Luke 23:23). Mark specifies the chronology: “And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified” (Mark 15:15).

If there had been a first, more lenient episode of scourging, the second episode would have been much more violent, as it customarily prepared the condemned individual for crucifixion.89 Two episodes of scourging would have left the Lord considerably weaker physically than the usual victim, including the other two who were crucified with him. The soldiers of the governor had handled the Savior in a particularly cruel manner so they may also have been particularly vicious in administering the scourging. The fact that the Lord did not die as a result of the scourging is no indication of its severity. He did not die in Gethsemane, and regardless of his injuries, he would not have submitted to death before the appropriate moment.

Little has been written about the muscular and neurovascular injuries that must have resulted from scourging. The trapezius and latissimus dorsi muscles are the most superficial muscles covering the upper and most of the lower back. These must have been severely lacerated. Beneath them lie the rhomboids, the teres major and minor, and the serratus posterior muscles, which would likely also have been injured. The spinal accessory nerves, which run from the neck down the back on either side, allow the trapezius muscles to function; these may have been severed along with the thoracodorsal nerves, which enervate the latissimus muscles. These injuries are important because these muscles allow an individual to pull himself up when his hands are outstretched or above his head, which are those movements necessary to allow one to breathe while immobilized on a cross (see below).

Blood loss from torn blood vessels and muscles may result in hypovolemia, defined as inadequate circulating blood volume.90 Severe enough hypovolemia may result in shock, which is defined as insufficient oxygenation of body tissues, especially the brain.91 Using Taylor’s estimate of the Lord’s height92 to calculate an estimated weight of 123 lb (56 kg), and the normal blood volume for a healthy adult male as about 7% of body weight, his expected blood volume would have been about nine pints (4,200 mL).93 The degree of hemorrhagic hypovolemia (sudden or acute blood loss) is based on the percentage of total blood volume (TBV) lost. A less than 15% decrease in the TBV is termed Class I and results in few physiologic effects. Given the Lord’s estimated weight, this would be less than 630 mL. A 15%–30% blood loss is termed Class II and results in an elevated heart rate above 100, decreased blood pressure, increased respiratory rate, and anxiety (630–1,260 mL). Class III TBV loss of 30%–40% results in a heart rate over 120, decreased blood pressure, increased respiratory rate, and mental confusion (1,260–1,680 mL). Class IV blood loss, greater than 40% results in a heart rate over 140, decreased blood pressure, increased respiratory rate, and lethargy (greater than 1,680 mL).94

There are few major blood vessels in the back, so profuse bleeding from a single vessel would have been unlikely, but muscle contains innumerable tiny vessels, which, in aggregate, can bleed considerably. The lictors undoubtedly knew to avoid large vessels close to the skin, such as those in the neck and upper arms, so they could inflict injury but not death.

Clearly, the more hypovolemic an individual is prior to crucifixion, the more unstable he will be and the shorter the length of time he might be expected to survive. This may be particularly significant in the Lord’s case since there is no evidence that he had ingested any food or drink following the Passover meal with his Apostles. He had proceeded directly from the upper room to Gethsemane, where he had sweat and bled, and was taken captive immediately thereafter. As a prisoner, it is quite unlikely that he was fed, especially if he were held only overnight.

The tissue injuries sustained by the Lord during scourging were far worse than they would have been had he sustained a second- or third-degree burn. According to a current formula widely used for resuscitating burn victims, an individual whose entire back has been burned should receive an estimated 5,600 mL (6 quarts) of fluid during the 24 hours following the injury.95 Furthermore, his injuries may not have been limited to his back. The actual fluid loss experienced by the Lord would most certainly have been significantly greater, yet he received no resuscitative fluid.

The crown of thorns

A crown is normally a symbol of power and royalty, but the crown of thorns placed on the Savior’s head symbolized disrespect and humiliation. It was also viciously cruel, and identifying the plant from which the crown of thorns was made is of more than dispassionate academic interest since some species are more traumatizing than others. The identity of the species of plant from which the crown of thorns was fashioned is lost in antiquity. Nevertheless, local folklore identifies various species as possible sources.

One popular legend identifies the shrub from which the crown of thorns was woven as Euphorbia milii “crown of thorns,” “Christ plant,” or “Christ’s thorn.” The thorns of this plant measure 1–2 in (20–50 mm) in length.96 Although the plant is native to Madagascar rather than to the Levant, historical evidence suggests that it was introduced to that area at about the time of Christ.97

Another legend maintains that the crown of thorns was fashioned from the branches of the Syrian Christ’s thorn or jujube tree (Ziziphus spina-christi). This tree is native to and common in the Levant.98 The thorns measure between 1/4 and 3/4 in (5–20 mm) in length.99 The branches may be too brittle, though, to be woven easily into a crown of thorns.

Another possibility is the ‘Jerusalem thorn,’ ‘garland thorn,’ or ‘crown of thorns’ Paliurus spina-christi. This plant is closely related to the aforementioned Ziziphus spina-christi but the branches are more flexible and easier to plait. The thorns are stiff and spiky and occur in pairs of unequal length, one straight and one hooked.100

Euphorbia milii, perhaps the candidate most likely to have been the actual crown of thorns, exudes a white sap from the cut surface. This sticky sap is a latex that contains a toxin that can cause severe blistering when it comes into contact with the skin.101 It is so caustic that experts recommend wearing gloves when handling the plant. The sticky sap causes temporary blindness if it gets in the eyes.102 Toxic sap from the cut twigs, mixed with blood and sweat, running unhindered down the Lord’s already sensitive forehead and face, would have added to the pain and trauma he endured during his ordeal.

The thorns of the crown were clearly driven into the Lord’s scalp: “And they . . . platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head, . . . And they smote him on the head with a reed” (Mark 15: 17–19) The injured scalp can bleed profusely. The rich blood supply to the scalp is located in dense connective tissue just beneath the skin. Vasoconstriction that normally occurs in damaged blood vessels, which allows them to close and the bleeding to stop, cannot occur because of this dense tissue surrounding the vessels. The tight occipitofrontalis muscle, which stretches over the skull from back to front, prevents scalp lacerations from closing and also inhibits the constriction of bleeding vessels.103 Although it is well known that scalp lacerations may cause considerable blood loss,104 it is doubtful that even numerous puncture wounds alone will result in hemodynamically significant blood loss. In the Savior’s case, however, bleeding from many disparate causes contributed to a significant cumulative blood loss.

The skin, including that of the scalp, is supplied with nociceptive sensory nerve endings. Nociceptive nerve endings sense pain such as sharpness, aching, burning, or throbbing—sensations that piercing thorns would have elicited. These numerous piercings of the skin are what one generally imagines when considering the pain that a crown of thorns pressed into the scalp would elicit. The pain from the skin punctures, however, was probably not the most significant pain the Lord suffered from the crown of thorns. All bones, including the skull, are covered with a thin but very tough layer of tissue called periosteum. Periosteum contains blood vessels that provide the bone with nutrients, but it also has a plentiful supply of nociceptive nerve endings, causing it to be exceedingly sensitive to pain.105 Hori et al. determined that the average thickness of the scalp and galea of a male human in his early thirties is about 0.18 in (4.5 mm).106 This thickness is well within reach of the tips of the thorns. When pressed through the skin and underlying layers of tissue, the thorns would have punctured the periosteum, encountered the hard surface of the skull and been deflected, tracking between, and forcibly separating, the periosteum from the bone. The crown of thorns may have remained in place throughout the crucifixion, as is often shown in medieval art. Even if the crown had been removed prior to the crucifixion, thorns that would have undoubtedly broken off during the rough placement of the crown would have remained imbedded between the bone and periosteum of the skull. This pain together with irritation from the toxic sap would have persisted and worsened throughout his ensuing agony.

Aside from the dishonor and contempt it signified, the crown of thorns was a terribly painful and significant contribution to the suffering endured by the Savior.

Trauma related to clothing

The Lord’s clothing would have consisted of an inner garment or tunic, which in his case was woven without a seam, and an outer garment or mantle. Both articles were most likely made of wool, the fabric the populace would commonly have worn at the time.107

The fabric of the purple robe that was placed upon the Lord’s macerated back following his scourging is less predictable. The purple/scarlet color would have come from an extremely costly dye derived from a local shellfish.108 Because of its expense, the dye was available only to the political elite, and eventually it was reserved for royalty.109 One commentator claims that, “The nearer to the shade of clotted human blood that a manufacturer of the dye could manage to condense, the dearer his product.”110 Whose robe it was that was placed upon the Lord is unclear, but it may well have been Herod’s own since a “gorgeous robe,” of which there would not have been many, was placed upon the Lord while he was with Herod and before he was sent to Pilate. Such a valuable gift may have been the cause of Herod‘s and Pilate’s new friendship “And Herod . . . arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves” (Luke 23:11–12). The robe may have been made of wool or of linen, but it may have even been made of silk, whose scarcity and value were more commensurate with the expensive dye.111

The text indicates that clothing was placed on, and removed from, the Savior’s back several times following the scourging. When he was scourged by Pilate (Matthew 27:26), his back would have been bare, yet Matthew states just two verses later that, “they stripped him and put on him a scarlet robe.” This implies that clothing (probably his own) had been placed back upon him following scourging, then removed before the scarlet robe was placed. This robe may or may not have been the same “gorgeous robe” that Herod had placed on him. After the robe had been placed upon his macerated back, the crown of thorns was placed, and he was mocked and abused. Some time later, the robe was removed, and his own clothes were again placed upon him (Matthew 27:31) before he began the long trek to Golgotha. Once there, his clothing was removed for the final time as he was positioned for crucifixion.

Wool, the fabric of which the Lord’s clothing was probably made, is composed of keratin protein, or collagen.112 Collagen promotes the adhesion and activation of platelets, which promote hemostasis, or the stoppage of bleeding. It also activates coagulation factor XII, which initiates the intrinsic pathway of blood coagulation and promotes hemostasis.113 Negatively charged substances on the surface of collagen accelerate the coagulation of blood and clot formation.114 Wool therefore adheres rather quickly to a bleeding surface and initially stops the hemorrhage. When woolen fabric is pulled away from a wound, however, clotted blood and bits of tissue are pulled away with the clothing, and bleeding resumes immediately. This would have reinjured the damaged muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and restarted the hemorrhage that had been temporarily staunched. Previously traumatized nerve endings were reinjured. It is quite unlikely that the other two who were to be crucified were subjected to this additional trauma and the accompanying hemorrhage and pain.

Linen and silk do not wick moisture well115 and would not have adhered to a bleeding surface. Instead, they would have allowed hemorrhage to continue. The fabric of the robe would have been less likely to adhere to his back than would his own clothing, were it woolen.

Carrying the cross

Christ was now tied to the wooden instrument upon which he was to be crucified, and he was compelled to carry it from the place at which he was scourged to Golgotha. The Lord steadfastly refused to allow himself to die, but in this part of his passion, we witness the only indication that his strength was waning. The shape, size, and weight of the cross may seem immaterial, but they are, in fact, quite essential for us to consider so that we may better appreciate what the Lord endured on our behalf.

The shape of the cross is controversial. The Greek word σταυρός (stauros, Strong’s #4716) is translated to Latin as crux and into English as cross ten times in the Gospels (Matthew 10:38, 16:24, 27:32; Mark 8:34, 15:21; Luke 9:23, 14:27, 23:26, 19:17; Hebrews 12:2). Stauros, however, does not imply any specific shape. According to Strong, stauros means “a stake or post (as set upright), i.e. (specially), a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment).”116 The word as used in the New Testament is therefore of indeterminate shape.

Justin Lipsius, a learned seventeenth-century writer on the subject of the cross, categorized stauros by possible shapes. He termed a simple stake or pole as a crux simplex.117 A stauros with a crosspiece was a crux compacta118 and consisted of a stipes or upright post and a patibulum or crosspiece. A crux compacta in a Τ shape he called a crux commissa.119 A crux compacta in the shape of the traditional or Latin cross or † he called a crux immissa.120

A small minority of commentators believes that the stauros was simply a vertical stake (crux simplex).121 Dionysius, however, described the usual means of execution in the century before Christ, and a crosspiece of some type was involved:

A Roman citizen of no obscure station, having ordered one of his slaves to be put to death, delivered him to his fellow-slaves to be led away, and in order that his punishment might be witnessed by all, directed them to drag him through the Forum and every other conspicuous part of the city as they whipped him, and that he should go ahead of the procession which the Romans were at that time conducting in honour of the god. The men ordered to lead the slave to his punishment, having stretched out both his arms and fastened them to a piece of wood which extended across his breast and shoulders as far as his wrists, followed him, tearing his naked body with whips.122

Few deaths by crucifixion occur in modern times, and none have been studied scientifically. Beginning last century, investigators began conducting experiments on the effects of crucifixion to learn more about what Christ experienced.

In one of the first of these experiments, Mödder suspended healthy volunteers by their wrists alone and monitored their vital functions. He found that after just six minutes, respiratory tidal volume—the amount of air the individual was able to breathe in and out—had decreased by 70% and blood pressure had dropped nearly 50%. Cardiorespiratory collapse quickly ensued, and by twelve minutes, respiration had become totally dependent on the diaphragm, which is insufficient for long-term survival. Schulte found that if the volunteers were allowed to support themselves intermittently for twenty seconds at a time, their cardiorespiratory physiology improved greatly.123 In the case of the Lord, He would have been able to support himself intermittently, but agonizingly, upon the nail or nails driven through his feet. Similarly, Zugibe discovered that by binding the subject’s ankles to the post, breathing was no longer difficult since the subject could occasionally support himself by his feet.124 Despite Zugibe’s finding, however, it is clear that neither Christ nor the others crucified with him could have been suspended with arms directly overhead as none could have lived as long as they did.125

Most commentators agree instead that the cross of the Savior was a crux compacta, consisting of a stipes (vertical post) and a patibulum (crossbar). Catholics and Protestants, however, who represent the vast majority of Christians, honor the shape of the traditional Latin cross or † (crux immissa) as the true shape of the cross upon which Christ was crucified. The Catholic Encyclopedia reports: “The cross on which Jesus Christ was nailed was of the kind known as immissa.”126 Jowett refers to Lipsius and claims:

The third, and most common sort [of cross], was made of two pieces of wood crossed, so as to make four right angles. It was on this, according to the unanimous testimony of the fathers who sought to confirm it by Scripture itself (Lips. De Cruce, I.9), that our Saviour suffered.127

Lipsius, however, states only that it was a cross, but not which type of cross, so the unanimity of the fathers is suspect.

A crux commissa consists of a patibulum placed on top of the stipes in the shape of a Τ (Greek, tau). A graffito found in a hostel in Puteoli, Italy, dating to between the late first century and early second century AD, shows a crucarius with arms outstretched, affixed to a gibbet (the scaffold upon which an execution is performed) in the shape of a Τ. The marks on the back of the torso indicate that the victim had been scourged.128 Another graffito, dating to the first or second century AD depicts an individual again crucified on a Tau-shaped cross.129

Tertullian wrote that the Greek letter Τ (Tau) and the Latin letter T share the shape of the cross upon which Christ died. “For the very letter of the Greeks is Tau, and ours is T, a type of the cross.”130 Clement of Alexandria wrote “the character representing 300 [Τ] is, as to shape, the type of the Lord’s sign.”131 In a piece entitled “Trial in the Court of Vowels,” Lucian (125–180 AD) wrote:

Men weep, and bewail their lot, and curse Cadmus . . . for introducing Tau [Τ] into the family of letters; they say it was his body that tyrants took for a model, his shape that they imitated, when they set up the erections on which men are crucified.132

Τ remained the shape used to depict the cross of crucifixion until the time of Constantine.133

It was the custom for the condemned person to carry the gibbet to the site of execution, but did Christ carry the patibulum to a previously erected stipes at Golgotha or did he carry the entire stipes and patibulum already assembled? Despite tradition and the work of numerous artists, the latter option is quite unlikely for several reasons including the following.

It is impractical to dig a deep hole, erect and brace a crux immissa, unearth and remove afterward the entire crux, and transport the unwieldy apparatus to the site of the next trial to be reused. It is far more economical to reuse an implanted stipes with a removable patibulum.

In classical Latin texts . . . the individual to be crucified never carried a crux (vertical beam or entire cross) but only the patibulum (horizontal piece). When a criminal carried the patibulum, the crux (vertical beam, in this case) was already set in place. That implies that in John 19:17 Jesus only carried the horizontal member of the cross to Golgotha, since Pilate would have followed Roman procedure.134

The weight he carried was dependent on the shape and the type of wood of which the cross was constructed. No account dating from the time of the Lord has indicated the type of wood from which crosses were generally fashioned. Most accounts purporting to identify the type of wood are fanciful, and the remainder are simply speculative. Lipsius believed that it was made of oak.135 Oak trees were plentiful in the area around Jerusalem at the time of the Savior’s death. Other trees in the area at the time included fir, sycamore, sycomore (probably the same as the Egyptian fig-mulberry), sycomine (probably the same as the black mulberry), and terebinth.136 Cedar, olive, palm, and cypress were also present. Oak has a density of 35–60 lb/ft3 (600–900 kg/m3) and is somewhat denser than the others, which average about 15% less.137 The earliest legends claim that the cross was composed of three kinds of wood—cypress, cedar, and pine, but the Venerable Bede added box (ashur) to the list.138 In 1968, Tzakris found a nail within a heel bone that had been used for a crucifixion and identified the bit of attached wood as olive.139 While the stipes may have been made of olive wood, the type and therefore the density of the wood of the patibulum remains undetermined.

The dimensions of the patibulum are also unknown. If, however, the patibulum had measured a reasonable 6 ft x 12 in x 6 in (2 m x 15 cm x 10 cm), or 3 ft3 (0.085 m3) and were made of solid oak, it would have weighed between 100 and 130 lb (45–60 kg). Of course, reducing the amount of wood by 50% and using 15% lighter wood would make the patibulum lighter, but it could still weigh no less than 40 lb (18 kg).

If the cross were a crux immisa, the stipes, in all depictions, would be about twice as long as the patibulum. The combined weight would then be no less than 120 lb (136 kg) but could easily weigh much more. This is obviously more than most adult males can carry when healthy, let alone after hours of torture, injury, and lack of fluids and nutrition.

The one-half mile (0.8 km) path to Golgotha, would have been paved with uneven stones. There may have been steps and turns to negotiate. The terrain would have varied considerably as the path climbed to the top of the hill of crucifixion. The Savior likely stumbled often and sustained severe injuries to his head and face while carrying the heavy patibulum. Arms are important for maintaining balance, and with them immobilized against the patibulum, and in his weakened state, the Lord would have lost his balance often. When he did stumble, he could not catch himself and must have fallen repeatedly with the full weight of the crosspiece behind him. Although his face may have already been disfigured by the beatings he sustained during the trials, he certainly sustained additional severe facial trauma by these repeated falls against the pavement stones. Facial fractures may easily occur with such falls, but since apparently none of the Lord’s bones were broken, again the soft tissues bore the brunt of the trauma. The words of Isaiah, stating that the Savior’s “visage was so marred more than any man” (Isaiah 52:14) are again applicable. One reason I cannot believe the image on the Shroud of Turin is that of the Savior is because the face imprinted thereon appears so undamaged.

Eventually, because he no longer had sufficient energy to carry the patibulum, and conceivably because repeated head trauma from the beatings and the falls had rendered him nearly unconscious, the crossbar was given to Simon of Cyrene to carry in his place (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26).

To carry the patibulum the entire one-half mile to Golgotha would have expended about 475 CPH, but the distance he actually carried it is unknown, so the caloric expenditure cannot be calculated.140 However, having expended at least 1,500 calories in the Garden of Gethsemane, together with the stress and energy expenditure during the marches and punishment of the trials without any nutritional intake, his energy stores had become fully depleted. The Lord’s inability to carry the patibulum, which might have weighed as little as 40 lb, is further evidence that his condition was significantly worse than that of the usual victim.

The Lord likely continued the march to Golgotha without food or drink. Under such conditions, the muscles are severely affected by the lack of glycogen and are actually being consumed to generate needed energy. Resulting symptoms include muscle fatigue, muscle cramping, myalgia (muscle pain), tachycardia (rapid heart rate), dyspnea (shortness of breath), and tachypnea (rapid breathing).141

At Golgotha—the crucifixion

Few methods of execution can compare with the cruelty of crucifixion. It was designed to inflict the greatest amount of pain and indignity together with a prolonged death.

The manner of crucifixion

The messianic Psalm 22 describes some of the effects that the Savior experienced, as detailed in table 1.

Table 1. Effects mentioned in Psalm 22:14–18 and their meaning.

Verse

Wording

Medical Implications

14

I am poured out like water

My energy has been utterly consumed.

14

all my bones are out of joint

The weight of my body caused my shoulders and elbows to become dislocated within minutes of my being suspended.

14

my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels

Physically, my heart weakened and rapidly approached failure.

15

my strength is dried up like a potsherd

My energy was totally depleted resulting in complete exhaustion.

15

my tongue cleaveth to my jaws

I suffered intense thirst.

15

thou hast brought me into the dust of death

I was brought very close to death.

16

dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me

Everyone was against me.

16

they pierced my hands and my feet

My hands and feet were pierced.

17

I can tell (count) all my bones

My skin was stretched so tightly that all my bones could be seen.

17

they look and stare upon me

My crucifixion was a public spectacle, and I was naked (or nearly so).

18

they part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture

The soldiers cast lots for my clothing.

The crucifiers drove nails first through the Savior’s palms. They then somehow recognized that the nails might tear through the flesh of the palms, so they drove additional nails through his wrists so his weight would be adequately supported. Several reasonable inferences are listed here and discussed below.

1. Placing nails initially through the palms of the victim to be crucified must have been the usual practice.

2. Nails through the palms must generally have been sufficient for the purpose or else the more secure location would have been used initially.

3. Placing nails through the palms must have been preferable to placing them through the wrists alone.

4. The crucifiers were somehow able to ascertain immediately that, in this instance, nails through the palms alone would be insufficient.

5. The crucifiers were not able to make this determination until nails had been driven through both palms.

6. The crucifiers must have encountered this same situation previously because they knew what must be done as recourse and how to do it effectively.

Barbet was the first to study the mechanics of crucifixion. In an experiment with a cadaveric human hand and forearm, he drove “a square nail [with sides] of about 1/3 of an inch” between the metacarpal bones and into wood. Barbet estimated Christ’s height at 72 in (183 cm) because he was convinced of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, and he based his anthropometric data on the markings found thereon. That estimated height led him to estimate the Lord’s weight to have been 176 lb (80 kg). He therefore suspended a weight of 88 lb (40 kg)—half the estimated weight—from a severed forearm and found that the nail pulled eventually through the intact soft tissue and skin. By this single experiment and by using these figures to calculate the tension on the tissues of the hands,142 Barbet concluded that the stress on the palmar tissues was too great to believe that ether Christ or anyone else could have been crucified by placing nails through the palms alone.143 Zugibe points out correctly that Barbet’s was a single experiment based on inaccurate information. He also notes that, although no one has reproduced Barbet’s experiment, his conclusions continue to be universally accepted.144

Taylor estimates the Lord’s height at 66 in (168 cm)145 with an estimated weight of about 123 lb (56 kg). Others estimate his height at only 61 in (155 cm) and weight at 110 lb (50 kg).146 All estimates based on archeological and anthropological data are considerably less than Barbet’s estimate.147 Repeating the calculation for tension with the angle kept at 65°, but with a lower estimated weight of 120 lb (55 kg), the tension on each hand decreases to 142 lb (64.5 kg).148 Although this weight still exceeds by a considerable amount the 88 lb (40 kg) that Barbet found would tear through the tissues of the hand, additional mitigating circumstances must be considered.

Calculations for tension are valid only if the crucarius has no additional support, which was not the case. Crucarii were able to support themselves by standing on the nail in their feet, so the tension on the hands at the outset would be much less than that calculated. As the victim’s leg muscles became fatigued and cramped, more weight was necessarily placed on the nails in the hands. Soon the weight of the person’s body would cause the shoulders to dislocate, followed by the elbows and even the wrists; a Messianic psalm predicts “all my bones are out of joint” (Psalm 22:14). As the shoulders of a crucarius became dislocated, each arm might stretch as much as 6 in (15.25 cm).149 If the elbows and wrists dislocated as well, an additional three inches of length could have been the result. The outstretched arms of a crucarius of the average height at the time of 63 in (160 cm) were likely about 23 in (58.4 cm) long.150 By the time the joints had dislocated and his arms had gained an additional 6 in (15.25 cm), they might measure 29 in (73.66 cm). Barbet assumed the angle of the arms to be 65° from the vertical, but taking into account shorter arms and the additional distance, the true angle might actually be closer to 53°. The decreased angle of the arms from the vertical decreases the tension on the tissues of the hands to 98.6 lb (44.8 kg). If an additional three inches in arm length had occurred, the angle would have decreased to 46° and the tension would have decreased to 86.4 lb (39.3 kg).151

The tissues of the hand in question include the deep transverse metacarpal ligaments (DTML). These bind together adjacent metacarpal (hand) bones at the knuckles. Other than Barbet’s crude experiment, no information is available regarding the tensile strength of these ligaments. We do not know how the muscles (the interossei and lumbricals) between the metacarpal bones, or the tough palmar aponeurosis that lies between the skin of the palm and the metacarpals, handle such abuse.

The metacarpal interspace (between the bones) most likely to be pierced by a crucifying nail would have been between the index and middle or between the middle and ring finger metacarpals. The mean maximum distance (MMD) between metacarpal bones has not been reported in the medical literature. Using radiographs of the hands of adult men, I find the MMD between the index and middle metacarpal bones to be approximately 0.5 in (13 mm) while the distance between the middle and ring metacarpals is only about 0.25 in (7 mm). The distances may have been even less in those days because the men were of shorter stature. The few crucifixion nails that have been found are square and measure about 0.4 in (10 mm) in the smallest diameter or nearly 0.6 in (14 mm) from corner to corner.152 If a nail of that size had been driven into a palm, it would either have entered the space between the bones, or a metacarpal bone would have broken. If the nail had entered the relatively wide space between the index and middle bones, the DTML would have remained intact. If, however, the nail had entered the space between the middle and ring metacarpal bones, either an adjacent metacarpal bone would have fractured allowing the DTML to remain intact, or the DTML would have ruptured allowing the bones to remain intact. If the bone fractured, each of the DTMLs on either side of the broken metacarpal bone would have had to support only one-half of the tension, which could then have been as little as 43 lb (19.5 kg) apiece. This is only half of the 88 lb (40 kg) that Barbet used in his failed experiment. These data indicate that until disproven, it is possible that additional nails were not needed even when the palms alone were pierced.

Barbet stated that the width of the nail he used in his experiment measured only 1/3 in (8.3 mm).153 Although not stated in his report, it is unlikely, regardless of the interspace, that a nail driven through the palm would have fractured a metacarpal bone. With the nail between the bones, the entire 88 lb (40 kg) was placed on a single DTML, facilitating the failure of the soft tissue to support the weight.

After having placed nails through the palms, what then did the crucifiers observe that convinced them that those nails would be insufficient? The first indication might have been inadvertently placing the nail through the interspace between the index and middle metacarpal bones. Such placement would not support the victim because half of the body weight would be suspended on a single DTML. A second indication might have been seeing a diastasis (spreading) of the space between the knuckles of the middle and ring fingers. If the nail were placed through the narrow interspace between the middle and ring metacarpals, and a bone didn’t break, the DTML had to have torn, causing the diastasis.154

If we again assume that none of the Savior’s bones were broken (Psalm 34:20), I suggest that the crucifiers saw a diastasis due to a rupture of the DTML between the knuckles of the middle and ring fingers. They then drove additional nails through his wrists.

As a youth, the Savior worked with his hands as a tektōn (Mark 6:3). This Greek word was translated as “carpenter,” but it may also mean “woodworker” or “builder,” as in “architect” (“architektōn” master builder). This manual labor when young may have strengthened his bones so the DTMLs were more likely to tear rather than the metacarpal bones to fracture. Manske et al. found:

Physical activities, exercise, and sports provide a wealth and variety of mechanical loads to bones, through muscle forces, ground reaction forces, and other contact or impact forces. . . . Physical activity appears to be acutely beneficial for enhancing bone health in the early pubertal period.155

Perhaps his years of manual labor as a youth caused the bones of his hands to become stronger and more resistant to breakage than normal. The Lord’s hands may have been prepared for his crucifixion from an early age.

As the arms of a crucified individual stretched, the muscles, ligaments, nerves, and blood vessels stretched as well, as much as six inches.156 As nerves are progressively stretched, then overstretched, injury is the inevitable result. Mild stretching to the point of injury results in a condition known as neuropraxia. This condition is characterized by weakness of the muscles controlled by the nerves and severe burning or stinging pain of the enervated skin. Nerves may stretch approximately 15% before structural damage begins to occur.157

When the nerves are stretched further, to the point of becoming avulsed (torn), complete paralysis of the muscles and numbness of the skin is the result. This inevitably results in an injury to the brachial plexus, a group of nerves that exit the spinal cord between the fifth (of seven) cervical vertebra and the highest thoracic vertebra, T1. These nerves supply motor function to the muscles and sensory function to the skin of the upper extremities.158 The nerves most likely to be damaged would be the lower roots, termed T1 and C8. An injury to those nerve roots affects specifically the intrinsic muscles of the hand, the forearm muscles that flex the wrist and fingers, and the skin on the ulnar (little finger) side of the forearm and hand. Neuropraxia of these nerve roots is called Klumpke’s Palsy, while complete avulsion is known as Klumpke’s Paralysis.159 This type of injury is rarely sustained by adults these days and generally occurs either in a motorcycle wreck or by an individual grabbing onto a branch or a pole during a fall.160

Stretching a blood vessel causes its length to increase and the cross-sectional diameter of the lumen (inside of the vessel), to decrease. The flow inside is reduced dramatically by even a small decrease in the diameter since the flow is inversely proportional to the radius of the blood vessel raised to the fourth power. This means, for example, that if an artery constricts to one-half of its original radius, the resistance to flow will increase sixteen times. The length also affects blood flow, but only in proportion to its length. These factors, together with the overall decrease in blood volume and therefore blood pressure, and the arms being raised above the level of the heart, will cause the blood flow to the arm and hand to reduce drastically. This lack of blood flow causes an effect similar to placing a tourniquet resulting in further nerve damage due to lack of blood flow to the nerves. We have all felt this sensation temporarily when our arm or leg “goes to sleep.” Even worse, the arteries might have been avulsed (torn) by the stretching, causing additional blood loss into the tissues, depending on the blood pressure and flow to the elevated limbs.

Breathing occurs in two phases, inspiration and expiration, normally at a rate of about 12–18 times per minute.161 The chest wall is compliant, meaning that it can change its shape. The volume of the lungs increases with inspiration and decreases with expiration in two ways. First, the contraction and relaxation of the intercostal (between the ribs) muscles and by accessory muscles of respiration. Second, the dome-shaped diaphragm, a thin muscle that separates the abdominal cavity from the chest cavity, contracts and becomes flatter. This enlarges the chest cavity and draws air into the lungs. At rest, the chest wall normally assumes the configuration of complete exhalation with the diaphragm relaxed. Breathing is accomplished by active inhalation by contracting muscles and passive exhalation.162

The mechanics of breathing are radically altered by gravity when an individual is suspended vertically by outstretched arms with severely restricted movement. The weight of the suspended body changes the resting state from complete exhalation to complete inhalation in the same two ways. First, the intercostal and accessory muscles are stretched to the point that they must be actively contracted to allow exhalation. Second, the weight of the internal organs flattens the diaphragm so it can no longer relax and allow expiration. Breathing is now accomplished by active exhalation by a movement that allows the intercostal and other muscles of respiration to relax and by passive inhalation.163 Zugibe concluded otherwise, but his experiments using healthy volunteers do not accurately replicate the mechanics of a suspended individual either anatomically or temporally.164

As with nails being driven between unbroken metacarpals, a nail driven from front to back between the metatarsals would also have torn ligaments. Diastasis of the bones of the feet would have been even more pronounced, as the metatarsals are much closer together than are the metacarpals. The location of the nails would have traumatized the digital nerves on either side of both the metacarpal and metatarsal bones as well as the median and likely the saphenous nerves. The resultant pain would have been greatly intensified by the Lord having to put his entire weight alternately on the nails in his wrists and those in his feet to allow himself to inhale and exhale.

The only artifacts ever found of crucifixions are heel bones (calcanei, singular calcaneus) that had been transfixed with nails. One was found at Giv‘at ha-Mivtar, in northeast Jerusalem in 1968165 and the other in the village of Fenstanton, Cambridgeshire, England, in 2018.166 An intact calcaneus bone with a hole very reminiscent of a nail hole was found at Gavello, near Venice, Italy, in 2007, but the investigators cannot with certainty state that the bone was that of a crucarius because no nail is present. It is quite likely, however, that a nail had been placed, then removed and reused.167 The two illustrations of crucifixions that date to the period during which crucifixion was practiced show the victims’ feet affixed separately to the upright, in a manner reminiscent of the archeological evidence.168 This, however, does not allow any conclusion to be drawn regarding the manner in which the Lord was crucified. Methods may have varied with location and preference of those in charge. It should be noted that the bones of individuals crucified with nails driven between, rather than through, the metatarsals will show no evidence of trauma when unearthed centuries later. Nails driven through the calcanei would give a strikingly literal interpretation to Elohim’s declaration to Satan recorded in Genesis 3:15, “. . . thou shalt bruise his [the Savior’s] heel.”

The psalmist stated that Christ “keepeth all his bones: Not one of them is broken” (Psalm 34:20). Some may assume then that a nail or nails were driven from front to back between the metatarsals rather than through the heels. It may be claimed, however, that the calcanei mentioned above were pierced, but not actually broken, depending upon the definition of “broken.” Alternatively, it may be alleged that the psalmist was alluding only to the bones of the leg, although the qualifying words “not one of them” seem to imply otherwise. In short, just how the nails were placed in the Lord’s feet is unresolved.

The first of only two ways for the Lord to exhale with hands and feet fixated in a vertical position would be for him to stand on the nail or nails in his feet. If the nails had been driven through the feet from front to back, the soles of the feet would have been flat against the stipes, and his knees would have necessarily been flexed. Alternatively, nails placed through the calcanei would have allowed the knees nearly to straighten, but the center of mass of the body would have been just in front of the feet. In either case, straightening the legs and locking the knees to support his weight would have been impossible.

Having to push himself upright as much as possible to exhale would result in agonizing pain both in his feet and in his muscles and could not be sustained long. Then, taking the weight off the nails in his feet, he would have to hang temporarily from the nails in his wrists. By alternating these movements, he could fill and empty his lungs. He would also have to pull himself up by the arms as much as possible. Stretching of the arm and chest muscles would significantly compromise the ability of an individual to pull himself up to exhale.

If one is forced to stand with knees only slightly flexed or at 45°, cramping of the quadriceps muscles (front of the thighs) will begin within minutes.169 The tendency would be to attempt to straighten the body as much as possible, but that would cause the macerated skin of the back to rub agonizingly against the rough wood of the stipes.

The second way for the Lord to exhale would be to contract his abdominal muscles strongly, which would force his diaphragm to elevate. This unnatural abdominal breathing pattern could not be sustained long either, due to fatigue of the abdominal muscles, which were not designed to function in that manner. Following a prolonged period of torture, with every movement exquisitely agonizing, breathing would eventually become impossible and death by asphyxia would occur. A normal respiratory rate at rest is about 12 to 18 breaths per minute, but the Lord could never remain at rest for long. It is unlikely, however, that the Lord was able to exhale completely. This would have necessarily led to a more rapid breathing rate in order to move the same amount of air in and out each minute. The inability to do so would lead to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream and a decrease in oxygenation, both indications of progressive respiratory failure.

The return of the agony of Gethsemane

Strictly speaking, the Garden was not the place of the Savior’s greatest suffering since the same agony returned to compound the anguish the Lord was already enduring in his final hours on the cross.170 Talmage wrote, “It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred.”171 At the sixth hour, after the Lord had hung on the cross for three hours, the sky grew dark and remained so until his death at the ninth hour (Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44). It was during these final three hours that Christ re-experienced the recent three hours of agony in Gethsemane, intensifying the anguish he was already enduring.172

As the moment of the Lord’s death drew nigh, this time his Father sent no comforting angel. Jeffrey R. Holland explained that the Father had to withdraw his Spirit from the Savior because

For His Atonement to be infinite and eternal, He had to feel what it was like to die not only physically but spiritually, to sense what it was like to have the divine Spirit withdraw, leaving one feeling totally, abjectly, hopelessly alone.173

The Lord, sensing keenly the absence of any divine support, exclaimed, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). During his mortal mission, Christ had experienced nearly all that a mortal individual could experience. Until Gethsemane, however, and again in the waning hours of his life, he had never experienced the effect that sin has on an individual, having never been spiritually separated from God. Mortals are quite familiar with the feeling of divine separation since we experience it often. Even worse, the sensation has unfortunately become all too commonplace, and for many individuals it has become the norm. But to the Savior, experiencing separation from the presence of his Father was a new and devastatingly painful experience. After having sustained trauma, both physical and spiritual, that should have already proven fatal, the Savior was left to himself for possibly those final three hours. Crucified, experiencing again the despair of Gethsemane, devoid of his Heavenly Father’s support, and without the succor this time of a ministering angel, the Lord was supported in his agony only by those who wept at the foot of the cross.

With the recurrence of Gethsemane’s anguish, the extreme expenditure of energy demanded by the SAM (fight or flight) response would have recurred. Perhaps the hematidrosis he had experienced in the Garden of Gethsemane recurred as well. This time it would have gone unnoticed because of the blood that must already have covered the Savior’s body from head to toe.

Postulated Mechanisms of the Lord’s Death

Numerous attempts to identify the specific mechanism of the physical death of Jesus Christ have been made, as summarized by Habermas et al.174 None consider the possibility that the Lord’s mortal body had been injured beyond normal human limits well before he finally died—possibly even before his arrest. It is beyond the scope of this study to review every theory, but several recent and/or more comprehensive articles are presented to illustrate the diversity of opinions regarding the trauma he did sustain.

The heart

William Stroud was the first in modern times to discuss the mechanism of Christ’s death, which he believed was due to cardiac rupture.175 James E. Talmage, a former apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints;176 Lund, a former Seventy of the Church;177 Bennett;178 Bergsma;179 and Ball180 agree with the ruptured heart theory. This idea has become popular because the majority of these authors believe, as Lund states, that the Lord’s death was due to grief expressed as a rupture of the heart.

In 1994, Holoubek and Holoubek studied the Shroud of Turin for evidence of the mechanism of death. They arrived at no specific conclusion but implicated both hemorrhage leading first to hypovolemia and then to shock, and exhaustion leading first to weakness and then to asphyxia as contributing factors. They proposed, however, that cardiac arrhythmia may have been the final mechanism of death.181

W. Reid Litchfield summarized various prevailing theories regarding the physical mechanism of Christ’s death from a Latter-day Saint perspective and agreed that Christ died from cardiac arrhythmia.182 Davis cited the related but more generalized concept of heart failure as the mechanism of death.183 Bucklin agrees with congestive heart failure.184

Le Bec attributed the Lord’s death to a “nervous exhaustion” that led to syncope and “fainting of the heart.”185

The lungs

Ineffective respiration leads to hypoxemia (a decrease in blood oxygen). This causes capillaries to dilate and serum to leak into the extra-vascular space. Circulating blood volume decreases and blood pressure falls even further. Blood is initially redirected from the muscles to the heart and central nervous system. Decreased pressure exacerbates hypoxia (a decrease in levels of oxygen in the tissues), however, and the vicious cycle worsens until organs begin to fail.186

Hyneck believed that the mechanism of the Lord’s death was suffocation, citing a form of torture he had seen in 1914—performed by members of the Austro-German Army during WWI—called anbinden.187 Mödder reported experiments in which he tied the arms of medical student volunteers to crosses and observed the rapidly detrimental effect of such immobilization on respiratory function.188 Father G. Delorey related first-hand observations of experiments conducted by Nazis in which doomed prisoners were tied to crosses. He reported that “after their hanging for one hour the victims could no longer exhale the air that filled their chest” and “only at the end of the torture, when the victim’s strength failed, did asphyxiation take place, generally within two to four minutes.”189 Brenner suggested that the mechanism of death was a pulmonary embolism (a blood clot that travels to the lungs and prevents blood flow).190

Pierre Barbet used corpses to study the effects of crucifixion. From these experiments and from his analysis of the Shroud of Turin, he concluded that the Savior had died of asphyxia.191 Tzaferis also attributed death on the cross to asphyxia.192 Wijffels believed that acidosis alone was the mechanism of death.193

The loss of blood

Hemorrhage without fluid replacement will inexorably deplete the amount of blood in the circulatory system. For the Lord’s estimated weight, blood loss exceeding one pint (500 mL) would have mildly lessened his blood pressure and the blood flow to his brain. Blood loss over three pints (1,500 mL) would have caused a severe loss of mental acuity due to lack of oxygen, a condition called shock. It is impossible to know how much blood the Lord lost first in Gethsemane and later from beatings, scourging, the crown of thorns, and the crucifixion; but three pints is hardly an unreasonable estimated amount.

Orthostatic hypotension is the decline in blood pressure that results from being in the upright position. It is a function of gravity, which resists the return of blood from the lower body to the heart and the outflow of blood from the heart to the brain. Orthostatic hypotension is significantly worsened if the heart is weak and cannot pump strongly, or if the amount of blood in the circulatory system is low, generally due to bleeding. The Lord would certainly have experienced orthostatic hypotension from being constrained in the upright position for hours and that hypotension would have contributed significantly to low blood low to his brain and internal organs.

Several investigators including Tenney194 concluded that traumatic shock was the mechanism of death. Zugibe was also intrigued by the Shroud of Turin and he, too, recruited volunteers to undergo simulated crucifixion by being suspended by their wrists with outstretched arms. Mödder and Barbet had found that no subject could survive more than several minutes while being suspended by their wrists alone, but Zugibe discovered that by binding the subject’s ankles to the post, breathing was no longer difficult since the subject could occasionally support himself by his feet. He concluded that hemorrhagic shock, not asphyxia, was the true mechanism of death.195 As mentioned earlier, his findings and conclusions are compromised by his methodology of employing healthy volunteers, who were allowed to rest whenever they developed muscle cramps or experienced discomfort.

Eduard et al. believe that the mechanism of the Lord’s death on the cross was disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC).196 DIC occurs when the clotting mechanisms in the blood become overactive as a result of infection or trauma. This leads to blood clots forming in the blood vessels and blocking blood flow to vital organs. If unchecked, the clotting factors are exhausted and unchecked bleeding, both externally and internally, will occur.197 It is quite appropriate that the Lord instituted at the Last Supper the practice of partaking of wine (later water). As with the sacramental bread that he instituted as a symbol of the energy that was drained from his body, fluid is the very substance that could have counteracted the hypovolemia and resultant hypotension that contributed to his death.

Exposure

Following his ordeal in Gethsemane, the Lord’s sweat- and blood-drenched clothes in the cold of a springtime Jerusalem night—the average nighttime temperature is 51°F (10.5°C) on 4 April—surely left him uncomfortably chilled.198 This sensation must have been heightened by skin rendered hypersensitive as a sequela of the hematidrosis discussed previously.

Upon his arrival at Golgotha, the soldiers “parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet” (Matthew 27:35). Matthew is referring here to the psalmist who wrote, “They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots” (Psalm 22:18; see table 1). The Savior’s unprotected body was now exposed to the elements. While all three victims were ostensibly subjected equally to the effects of exposure, the Savior would have been more susceptible than the others to those effects because of exhaustion and the additional trauma including the hematidrosis he had experienced in Gethsemane.

When the body can produce sufficient heat to offset loss, core body temperature will remain normal. Clearly the conditions at the time of the crucifixion of the Savior may only be estimated, but examining the evidence we do have is instructive. Heat is produced through passive metabolic functions and through exertion, including active movements and shivering. Affixed to the cross, his movements, including the ability to shiver, were severely limited. Even more important, his energy was spent.

Conversely, heat loss would have been substantial. The rapidity of heat loss from the body is determined by the temperature of the environment and by the amount of insulating clothing the individual is wearing. We do not know for certain whether the Lord was entirely unclothed or was allowed a modest loincloth as depicted in Medieval and Renaissance artwork. It is, however, quite possible that he was unclothed because the soldiers had claimed his clothing (John 19:23–24), and cruciarii were meant to be humiliated as much as possible. However, if the Romans acquiesced to Jewish modesty, a small covering might have been permitted.199 If the individual’s clothing or skin were saturated because of sweat, blood, or rain; heat loss would be much more likely to exceed the internal generation of heat. Under such circumstances, an individual will lose body heat 25 times more rapidly than under dry conditions, both because water conducts heat away from the body much more quickly than does air and because the evaporation of water is a cooling process.200 Currently, the average daytime temperature in Jerusalem on 11 April is about 60°F (16°C), ranging between 50° and 68°F (10° to 21°C),201 with the temperature lower in the mornings and increasing during the day.202 John relates that it was cold enough in the early morning hours that people were warming themselves around open fires (John 18:18). Luke notes, however, that beginning at the sixth hour, or noon, when the air temperature would normally begin rising, “a darkness [fell] over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened” (Luke 23:44–45). It is safe to assume that the air temperature either remained cool or more likely became even colder during the final three hours of the Savior’s life. Neither thunder nor lightning is mentioned in the New Testament accounts as they are in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 8:5–7). No mention of rain is made in either account, only of a “storm” and “tempest.” Regardless, the Lord’s skin was certainly wet from perspiration after having carried the cross as far as he did. His back was raw and weeping blood and body fluid. His head and neck would have been damp with blood, perspiration, and probably tears, contributing significantly to evaporative heat loss since nearly half of heat loss is through the head and neck.203 Any wind associated with the storm would have accelerated evaporative heat loss, a process known as wind chill.204 Wind chill is not calculated for temperatures above 50°F (10°C),205 but although minimal, it still exists, and a decrease of even a few degrees is significant to a dying person.

Early effects of hypothermia include shivering, feelings of exhaustion, sleepiness, goose bumps, confusion, and hyperventilation. As the core body temperature continues to decrease, the risk of cardiac arrhythmias increases, notably atrial fibrillation, atrioventricular block, and ventricular fibrillation.206 As body temperature drops further, hypothermia becomes the instigating factor in the highly lethal “trauma triad of death.” This triad consists of hypothermia, coagulopathy, and acidosis.207 Coagulopathy refers to the inability of the blood to clot properly, a temperature dependent and cyclically worsening process.208 It would have led to deepening hypovolemic shock by prolonging the bleeding caused by scourging. In his efforts to breathe, the Lord’s back would have scraped against the rough wood of the stipes, reopening wounds that then bled unchecked due to the hypothermia-induced coagulopathy. The acidity of the blood is normally maintained within a very narrow range. Deranged metabolism, including low blood pressure and poor perfusion of tissues and organs, would have built up lactic and other acidic products of metabolism in his bloodstream. This condition is known as metabolic acidosis. A second type of acidosis is due to inadequate breathing, as mentioned above, which allows carbon dioxide to accumulate in the bloodstream. This raises the level of carbonic acid, creating respiratory acidosis. A combined metabolic and respiratory acidosis, as the Savior experienced, is particularly lethal, with a mortality rate of 57% among patients in the intensive care unit.209

Exhaustion

Benjamin preached that Christ suffered “pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore” (Mosiah 3:7). This very important and illuminating verse reveals two significant truths regarding the Lord’s suffering. The phrase “except it be unto death” indicates that the Lord’s mortal body was taxed beyond normal survivability. Furthermore, by focusing on “pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue” Benjamin specifies the physical nature of the Lord’s suffering and places it squarely within the realm of extreme physical exhaustion.

I believe that Benjamin is relating that the severe injury the Lord sustained in Gethsemane was due to complete, thorough, and absolute exhaustion of all available internal energy stores. The Lord’s exertions in the Garden taxed his physical body beyond its limit and left it without sufficient energy to perform adequately its necessary functions. Severe exhaustion and the effects of excessive epinephrine may well have manifested in the form of cardiac failure, cardiac arrhythmia, or myocardial infarction, all of which have been recognized as common mechanisms of death among marathon runners.210 The importance of complete exhaustion in the Lord’s sufferings is further suggested by a Messianic psalm, the opening statement of which reads: “I am poured out like water . . . My strength is dried up like a potsherd” (Psalm 22:14, 15; see table 1).

Spiritual encounters are often taxing to a mortal body. In the Bible, Abram collapsed when God spoke to him (Genesis 17:3), and Joshua collapsed in the presence of the Lord (Joshua 5:14, 15), as did Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:28, 3:23), Daniel (Daniel 8:17, 10:15), Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17:6), Paul (Acts 9:4, 26:14), and John (Revelation 1:17). In the Book of Mormon, Alma lost his strength during a spiritual experience (Mosiah 27:19), as did King Lamoni (Alma 18:42). Joseph Smith was left weak after the First Vision (Joseph Smith—History 1:20) and after his initial encounter with Moroni (Joseph Smith—History 1:48). Several years later, however, he calmly received the revelation contained in Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants. However, “Sidney [Rigdon] sat limp and pale, apparently as limber as a rag, observing which, Joseph remarked, smilingly, ‘Sidney is not used to it as I am.’”211 Why a spiritual encounter may cause weakness and exhaustion is unclear from a physical viewpoint. In these instances, relatively minor spiritual interactions produced significant physical effects. The incomprehensible amount of spiritual interaction required of the Lord while taking upon himself the Infinite Atonement may have contributed to the damage his physical body incurred.

Most commentators would not recognize the possibility that Christ’s physical body had been severely wounded in Gethsemane because there was no indication that either his outward appearance or demeanor had changed. We know that his clothing was bloodstained,212 but this would not have been noticeable at his nighttime apprehension. By the time daylight arrived, his clothing may have become much more bloodstained as a result of the inhumane treatment inflicted upon him. He emerged from Gethsemane seemingly unscathed, but in reality, his physical body must have been severely injured.

Other relevant theories

Several researchers have concluded that the mechanism of the Savior’s death either could not be determined with accuracy or was multifactorial. Davis attributed death to hemorrhage, severe fatigue, asphyxia, hypovolemia, pericardial effusion, shock, and heart failure.213

In 1986, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a comprehensive and detailed article by Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer entitled “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ.”214 The bibliography of that seminal article contains forty references to articles concerning the medical aspects of the Savior’s death. Although several treatises on the topic had been published in state medical journals, this essay was a controversial inclusion in a lay scholarly journal. It was followed quickly by harsh criticism from numerous respondents, who called the article “an apology for the Christian faith, yet it masquerades as a scientific study,”215 “anti-Semitism,”216 and “particularly offensive . . . pseudointellectual and maudlin”217 among numerous other slurs. Nonetheless, the article has been cited in over 270 publications and remains a landmark report on the subject. Edwards et al. were unable to conclude whether the Savior died of hypovolemic shock, exhaustion, asphyxia, acute heart failure, fatal cardiac arrhythmia, cardiac rupture, hypoxia, hypovolemia, altered coagulation state, or friable vegetations (delicate tissue growths or deposits that may break off) on cardiac valves with subsequent embolization and myocardial infarction. They preferred, however, either cardiac rupture or cardiorespiratory failure.

Retief and Cilliers suggested that the mechanism of the Lord’s death was multifactorial. They cited the effects of scourging such as hypovolemic shock from hemorrhage and dehydration. He might also have sustained rib fractures causing a collapsed lung. Internal bleeding around the lung or around the heart would have led to respiratory and cardiac failure, respectively. Ultimately, they believed the mechanism of death was cardiac arrest, the result of a severely low blood oxygen level.218

Maslen and Mitchell, writing in 2006 in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, concluded that the mechanism of death of crucarii most likely varied from victim to victim.219

Finally, there are those who believe that, although tortured, crucified, and pronounced dead, and after a spear had been thrust into his chest, Christ survived his injuries.220 The so-called swoon hypothesis proposes that Christ merely fainted on the cross but was removed by his friends and revived with spices and ointments.221

The counterargument to this fanciful notion is medically irrefutable. Active movement is required for a crucarius to breathe. When movement and therefore breathing cease due to fainting (syncope), “permanent brain damage [will begin] after only 4 minutes without oxygen, and death can occur as soon as 4 to 6 minutes later.”222 When soldiers arrived to break the legs of the crucarii, they found Christ dead, in their opinion. Rather than break his legs, they stabbed him in the chest to make certain (John 19:32–35) and reported their findings back to Pilate (Mark 15:44–45). There was no doubt in the mind of these experienced centurions that Christ was dead (Matthew 27:54). “When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathæa, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered” (Matthew 27:57–58). A considerable length of time had clearly passed between the time the soldiers determined that the Lord had died and when his body was released to Joseph. Even if his body had been removed from the cross by the time Joseph received it, it still took time to dismantle the cross and remove the nails from his hands and feet—certainly longer than ten minutes. During this time, Christ was constantly being observed. Oxygen is carried by red blood cells, which were in very short supply following his experiences over the past day or days. If the Lord were breathing so little that it was unnoticeable, he could not have been breathing enough to circulate sufficient oxygen to stay alive. After such a prolonged period of time without oxygen, no amount of CPR, IV fluid, pharmacologic agents, blood transfusions, ventilators, and intensive care treatment—even if it had been available—could have resuscitated the Savior, particularly when his body had been so severely traumatized.223

As terrible as the Lord’s suffering was, his agony was insufficient payment for the entire price of sin. At no point could he have said, “It is enough, the debt is paid,” and miraculously descended from the cross to resume his ministry. The Lord could have survived his crucifixion had he desired, but his offering had to be sealed with his death so that he, and we, could be resurrected.224 It is unpleasant to consider the manner in which the Lord died, but together with his blood, we are commanded to reflect weekly on the Lord’s traumatized body as we partake of the Sacramental bread and water, “in remembrance of the body/blood of thy Son” (Doctrine and Covenants 20:77, 79).

How Did Christ Survive Gethsemane?

How detrimental to the Savior’s physical body was his experience in the Garden of Gethsemane? The Book of Mormon prophet and king, Benjamin, gives an unambiguous declaration regarding the magnitude of the Lord’s suffering in Gethsemane when he said in Mosiah 3:7, “[The Lord] shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death, for behold, blood cometh from every pore.” In other words, the Lord sustained injury sufficient to kill a mere mortal.

Talmage explained that the Lord’s suffering was a combination of physical pain, mental anguish, and spiritual agony:

Christ’s agony in the garden is unfathomable by the finite mind, both as to intensity and cause. . . . He struggled and groaned under a burden such as no other being who has lived on earth might even conceive as possible. It was not physical pain, nor mental anguish alone, that caused him to suffer such torture as to produce an extrusion of blood from every pore; but a spiritual agony of soul such as only God was capable of experiencing.225

The fact that the Lord experienced suffering that only God could experience without perishing is not appreciated by everyone. Some believe that his suffering in Gethsemane was no more than what we mortals must occasionally face. Rather, as expressed further by Talmage, “No other man, however great his powers of physical or mental endurance, could have suffered so; for his human organism would have succumbed, and syncope would have produced unconsciousness and welcome oblivion.”226

We cannot know all of the physiologic consequences or the extent of their effect on the Savior’s mortal body as a result of the unimaginable agony of Gethsemane. Appropriately, what he did there was accomplished in private without fanfare and without onlookers.

Benjamin informs us that, as a result of that experience, death should have been the expected result. Until relatively recent times, to remain alive, an organism had to support its own existence. Because of medical advances, however, the ability to keep an individual, whose body cannot maintain itself, alive by the use of external support until the vital organs can regain sufficient function, is now routine. When the Lord died on the cross, his heart stopped beating, respiratory movement ceased, and his spirit departed his body. I believe, therefore, that following the severities of Gethsemane, Christ must have kept himself alive by applying internal resuscitative methods of which he had knowledge, but of which we have very limited understanding—in other words, the fact that he healed himself and remained alive was evidence of his divine parentage and his ability to control his own mortality.

Following the strenuous events in the Garden of Gethsemane—events which would have been fatal to purely mortal bodies—the question was one of timing only. When he fully completed the mission he was sent to do and had made the Atonement efficacious in behalf of all mankind, the Lord declared his work finished and he “gave up the ghost” (Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46; John 19:30).

Summary and Conclusions

Evidence has been presented to support the following conclusions:

1. Christ’s physical body was severely injured in Gethsemane. The degree of physical trauma incurred by the Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane is vastly unrecognized. That unquantifiable and nearly invisible trauma was likely very injurious to his physical body.

2. The severe injury the Lord sustained in Gethsemane may have been due to glycogen depletion and the adverse effects of excessive catecholamines. The Lord was subjected to three hours of superhuman spiritual and physical exertion. A prolonged surge in epinephrine levels would have caused his glucose levels to escalate and his glycogen stores to plummet.

3. Beginning at some point, the Lord’s physical body had to be divinely assisted. This may have occurred as early as in the Garden of Gethsemane. As a result of his exertions there, both the lack of available energy and the consequences of excessive epinephrine could have precipitated a cardiac event such as an arrhythmia or a myocardial infarction. At the least, severe exhaustion due to depleted energy stores might have severely incapacitated his physical body. His mortal capabilities to sense and react to pain were not diminished.

4. The Lord’s mortal body was kept alive by his divine will. Following an accumulation of trauma sufficient enough to critically injure his physical body, the Lord kept his body alive by manipulating his physiologic status. Willingly he continued on to suffer further physical abuse, including scourging at the hands of the Romans and Jews, fulfilling prophecy. He then suffered the agony and indignity of crucifixion.

5. The trauma the Lord suffered after Gethsemane was not the cause of his death, but it was necessary for him to complete the Atonement. The scriptures contain details about the death of the Savior that had to be fulfilled. Hours before, he had instituted the sacrament in remembrance of the offering of his body and the shedding of his blood, and he was committed to do so. He was the sacrificial lamb that had to be offered as an end to the practice of animal sacrifices. His blood had to be shed and we were to be healed by his stripes.

6. The Lord’s death was a passive rather than active event. Assuming that an active event was the cause of the Lord’s death, investigators have searched inconclusively for a specific mechanism. I believe, however, that throughout his ordeal, the Lord was combatting a mounting list of severe injuries, any one of which would have been fatal at any time had he permitted it.

7. He allowed his spirit to escape his fatally injured body only when it suited his purpose. The degree of trauma sustained by the Lord was sufficient for him to have died long before he did. He chose, however, to endure the pain and suffering on our behalf and not to die until the appropriate moment. This will be explored in a future manuscript.

Christ’s was and will be the only death of its kind in the history of the world because he alone had power to lay down his life. He therefore was, is, and ever will be, the only being to have control over death in such a manner. Christ had always been fully aware of the prophesied manner in which he must die, but he proceeded regardless.

Although tens of thousands of people have died by cruel crucifixion, the Savior’s death was voluntary as opposed to the deaths of all others, who were powerless to save themselves. The efficacy of the Savior’s Atonement lies in its voluntary nature. It was also preceded by, and magnified by, the Lord’s agonizing experience in the Garden of Gethsemane. We have no comprehension of the manner by which the suffering voluntarily endured by the Savior can somehow generate the celestial currency required to pay for the sins committed by mankind. A similar awful exchange rate must be in effect for those who choose not to avail themselves of the merciful gift of repentance (Doctrine and Covenants 19:16–17).

If the deductions and conclusions are as described, our feeling of indebtedness for what Christ endured on our behalf should deepen. The realization that Christ was capable of avoiding the ordeal he knew he was about to endure but he proceeded nonetheless, willingly and voluntarily, is overwhelming to the natural mind that is by instinct so entirely preoccupied with self-preservation. The degree of self-control he would have had to exert not to diminish his suffering in any way, whether obvious or clandestine, is astonishing and humbling. Most assuredly do we stand all amazed.

[Author’s Note: I am indebted to my wife, Ruth, for her patience in allowing me the time and latitude to delve into this important subject. The editorial assistance and encouragement from Godfrey Ellis has been indispensable. I am particularly indebted to a long-time friend, Anne Biggs, who urged me to examine the greatest event since Creation.]

C. Thomas Black, MD, earned undergraduate and graduate degrees from Brigham Young University in Microbiology before attending and graduating from Baylor College of Medicine in Houston in 1979. He completed residencies in General Surgery, then Pediatric Surgery, and obtained Board Certification in Adult Surgery, Surgical Critical Care, and Pediatric Surgery. He was Associate Professor of Surgery and Pediatrics at the University of Texas Medical School in Houston before beginning private practice in pediatric surgery in Dallas. He and his wife of fifty years serve as ordinance workers in the Dallas Texas Temple. They have six sons and 12 grandchildren.

1 . Thomas S. Monson, “They Showed the Way,” Ensign, May 1997, 52, churchof
jesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1997/04/they-showed-the-way.

2 . James E. Faust, “The Atonement: Our Greatest Hope,” Ensign, November 2001, 18, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2001/10/the
-atonement-our-greatest-hope.

3 . “Again, Our Dear Redeeming Lord,” Hymns, no. 179.

4 . Such a statement should not be surprising, as there are other occurrences in Jesus’s life that are unexplainable by medical means alone, such as his conception and birth.

5 . Adebayo Adeyinka and Keneisha Bailey, “Death Certification,” StatPearls, 17 April 2023, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526015/.

6 . “We believe that Jesus was fully human in that He was subject to sickness, to pain and to temptation. We believe Jesus is the Son of God the Father and as such inherited powers of godhood and divinity from His Father, including immortality, the capacity to live forever. While He walked the dusty roads of Palestine as a man, He possessed the powers of a God and ministered as one having authority, including power over the elements and even power over life and death.” Robert L. Millet, “What Latter-day Saints Believe About Jesus Christ,” LDS Newsroom, newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article
/what-mormons-believe-about-jesus-christ.

7 . Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: American Book, 1886), s.v. “ταράσσω,” 615, christianresearcher.com
/uploads/1/6/2/9/16298120/01greekenglishlexicongrimmthayer.pdf.

8 . John Hilton III and Joshua P. Barringer, “The Use of ‘Gethsemane’ by Church Leaders: 1859–2018,” BYU Studies Quarterly 58, no. 4 (2019): 49–76, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/3671/.

9 . Jessica Brodie, “What Is the Garden of Gethsemane and Why Was It So Crucial to Jesus’ Life?,” Bible Study Tools, last updated 27 March 2024, biblestudy
tools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/why-is-the-garden-of-gethsemane
-so-crucial-to-jesus-life.html.

10 . William Lane Craig, “Why Jesus’ Agony in the Garden?,” The Good Book Blog, 21 June 2019, biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2019/why-jesus-agony
-in-the-garden.

11 . “The Agony In the Garden,” Today’s Catholic, 17 March 2015, todayscatholic
.org/the-agony-in-the-garden/.

12 . Steve Shirley, “Can you describe Jesus’ physical sufferings on His final day?,” Jesus Alive, jesusalive.cc/jesus-sufferings-final-day/.

13 . Martin Pable, “Lessons from Jesus’ Agony in the Garden,” St. Anthony Messenger, March 2018, franciscanmedia.org/st-anthony-messenger/march
-2018/lessons-from-jesus-agony-in-the-garden/.

14 . Friedrich Justus Knecht, “The Agony of Jesus in the Garden,” A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910), LXIX:653–54, ecatholic2000.com/knecht/untitled-166.shtml.

15 . “The death and resurrection of Jesus,” BBC (website), bbc.co.uk/bitesize
/guides/zdryd6f/revision/5.

16 . Brodie, “What is the Garden of Gethsemane?”

17 . Micheal Maynard, “The Anguish of Gethsemane,” Sweetwater Now, 9 April 2017, sweetwaternow.com/the-anguish-of-gethsemane/.

18 . Mendie Skarp, “Learning from Jesus’ Prayer in the Garden,” Berean Blog, 30 March 2021, bereanmn.com/berean-blog/learning-from-jesus-prayer
-in-the-garden/.

19 . Gerrit Scott Dawson, “Agony in the Garden: What Jesus Suffered in Gethsemane,” Desiring God, 13 April 2022, desiringgod.org/articles/agony-in
-the-garden.

20 . Knecht, “The Agony,” 653–54.

21 . James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 3rd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1915), 613, archive.org/details/jesusthechrist1915.

22 . Gilbert Sterling Octavius et al., “Systematic review of hematidrosis: Time for clinicians to recognize this entity,” World J Dermatol 1, no. 2 (2023): 7–29, wjg
net.com/2218-6190/full/v11/i2/7.htm. Jacalyn Duffin, “Sweating blood: history and review,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 189, no. 42 (23 October 2017): E1315–17, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5654990/.

23 . Debra Jaliman, “What Is Hematidrosis?,” WebMD, 3 February 2020, webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/hematidrosis-hematohidrosis. Édouard Le Bec, “Le Supplice de la Croix, Les Forces Naturelles Inconnues et le Miracle,” L’Evangile dans la Vie, April 1925, 7, gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k324971r.

24 . Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals, trans. W. Ogle (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench & Co., 1882), 3.5:668b, ia801609.us.archive.org/21/items/aristotleon
parts00arisrich/aristotleonparts00arisrich.pdf. Aristotle, History of Animals, trans. Richard Cresswell (London: George Bells & Sons, 1883), 3.XIV.3, archive
.org/details/aristotleshistor00arisiala/page/n16/mode/1up.

25 . William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” JAMA 255, no. 11 (21 March 1986): 1455–63, research
gate.net/publication/19648788_On_the_Physical_Death_of_Jesus_Christ
/link/0fcfd50d47c85123a8000000/download.

26 . Thayer, A Greek English Lexicon, s.v. “ωσει,” 682.

27 . Clint Archer, “Blood, Sweat, and Fear: Did Jesus sweat blood?,” The Cripplegate (15 September 2014), thecripplegate.com/blood-sweat-and-fear
-did-jesus-sweat-blood/.

28 . M. Gary Hadfield, “Neuropathology and the Scriptures,” BYU Studies Quarterly 33, no. 2 (1993): 317–18. scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol33/iss2/6.

29 . Duffin, “Sweating blood,” E1315–17.

30 . Bruce R. McConkie, “The Purifying Power of Gethsemane,” Ensign, May 1985, 9, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1985/05/the-purifying-power
-of-gethsemane?lang=eng#p27.

31 . Russell M. Nelson, “The Future of the Church: Preparing the World for the Savior’s Second Coming,” Ensign April 2020, churchofjesuschrist.org/study
/ensign/2020/04/the-future-of-the-church-preparing-the-world-for-the
-saviors-second-coming.

32 . Kyle D. Ketchesin, Gwen S. Stinnett, Audrey F. Seasholtz. “Corticotropin-releasing hormone-binding protein and stress: from invertebrates to humans,” Stress 20, no. 5 (September 2017): 449–64, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles
/PMC7885796/.

33 . Brianna Chu et al., “Physiology, Stress Reaction,” StatPearls (12 September 2022), ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541120/.

34 . Andrew C. Skinner, “Who Was the Angel Sent to Comfort Jesus in Gethsemane?,” Latter-day Saint Life, 13 June 2019, ldsliving.com/who-was-the-angel-sent
-to-comfort-jesus-in-gethsemane/s/91021.

35 . McConkie, “The Purifying Power,” 9.

36 . Jeffry R. Holland, “The Hands of the Fathers,” Ensign, May 1999, 14, churchof
jesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1999/05/the-hands-of-the-fathers.

37 . A blessing of healing or of comfort may be administered by one who has priesthood authority to do so. Christ performed this ordinance: “All they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them” (Luke 4:40). Later, others who had received the same priesthood authority performed the same ordinance: “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14).

38 . McConkie, “The Purifying Power,” 9–11.

39 . Marion G. Romney, “The Resurrection of Jesus,” Ensign, May 1982, 6, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1982/04/the-resurrection
-of-jesus.

40 . Ezra Taft Benson, “Five Marks of the Divinity of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, December 2001, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2001/12/five-marks
-of-the-divinity-of-jesus-christ.

41 . McConkie, “The Purifying Power,” 9.

42 . Chu, “Physiology.”

43 . Salman Bhai, “Neuromuscular Notes: Diagnosing Metabolic Myopathies,” Practical Neurology, September 2021, 57, practicalneurology.com/articles
/2021-sept/neuromuscular-notes-diagnosing-metabolic-myopathies.

44 . The Shroud of Turin is a large, long linen cloth, purported to have been the burial shroud of the Savior. Upon its surface, the outline of a seemingly crucified figure is imprinted, apparently by supernatural methods. The veracity of the Shroud is highly suspect, partly because its existence can be reliably dated to no earlier than 1353.

45 . Frederick T. Zugibe, The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Enquiry (New York: M Evans and Company, 2005), 190–91, archive.org/details/crucifixion
ofjes0000zugi/page/190/mode/2up?q=support. Zugibe summarizes the numerous estimates of Christ’s height that are each based on the Shroud. He concludes that the average of all estimates is 72 inches. He also concedes that the average based on anthropological studies is 62–64 inches, but he has no suggestion for resolving this discrepancy other than the supposition that Lord must have been unusually tall.

46 . Joan E. Taylor, What Did Jesus Look Like (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018), 167.

47 . Taylor, What Did Jesus Look Like, 168.

48 . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “About Adult BMI,” 3 June 2022, cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html#Interpreted
Adults.

49 . Department Of Health Services, Division of Public Health, “Calories Burned per Hour,” September 2005, dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p4/p40109.pdf.

50 . Suzanne Girard Eberle, “The Body’s Fuel Sources,” Human Kinetics, 2024, us.humankinetics.com/blogs/excerpt/the-bodys-fuel-sources. See textbook reference.

51 . “Hormonal Regulation of Energy Metabolism” in Berne and Levy Physiology, 8th ed., ed. Bruce M. Koeppen, Bruce A. Stanton (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2023), doctorlib.info/physiology/physiology/38.html.

52 . Majdi Hamadeh, et al., “Clinical Presentation and Management of Severe Acute Renal Failure in McArdle Disease,” Clinical Medicine and Research 19, no. 2 (June 2021): 90–93, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8231694/.

53 . “Forced March,” Holocaust Centre North (website), hcn.org.uk/glossary
/forced-march/.

54 . Plutarch, Moralia, trans. Frank Cole Babbitt (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936), IV:503–05, archive.org/details/plutarchs-moralia-vol.-4-loeb
-305.

55 . Oliver Waite et al., “Sudden cardiac death in marathons: a systematic review,” The Physician and Sportsmedicine 44, no. 1 (2016): 79–84, doi.org/10
.1080/00913847.2016.1135036.

56 . No list is more current, complete, or well referenced as that maintained by Wikipedia, s.v. “List of marathon fatalities,” last updated 24 August 2024, 18:30, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_marathon_fatalities.

57 . Jeff Barton, “Is Ultrarunning Becoming More Dangerous?,” Runner’s Life, 6 September 2021, medium.com/runners-life/is-ultrarunning-becoming-more
-dangerous-bd4838c02e2b.

58 . Cristian Palmiere et al., “A case of suicide by self-injection of adrenaline,” Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, 2 August 2015, 11:421–26, link
.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12024-015-9700-x.

59 . John P. Cunha, “Adrenalin,” RxList, 12 April 2023, rxlist.com/adrenalin-drug
.htm#overdosage. “Epinephrine Injection,” Medline Plus, National Library of Medicine, 15 May 2023, medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a603002.html.

60 . “Epinephrine,” DRUGBANK Online, 13 June 2005, go.drugbank.com/drugs
/DB00668#.

61 . Phillip Bishop and Brian Church, “An Alternative Mechanism For Death by Crucifixion,” The Linacre Quarterly 73, no. 3 (August 2006): 285, epublica
tions.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3733&context=lnq.

62 . Claire Sissons, “What happens when you get an adrenaline rush?,” Medical News Today, 21 July 2023, medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322490.

63 . Gerald N. Lund, “What the Atoning Sacrifice Meant for Jesus,” in My Redeemer Lives!, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 36, rsc.byu
.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/02%20Lund.pdf.

64 . Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, “On the Physical Death,” 1456–57.

65 . William R. Telford, review of Colin J. Humphreys, The Mystery of the Last Supper: Reconstructing the Final Days of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 194, zenodo.org/record/4081107/files/article.pdf.

66 . Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “Dating the Death of Jesus Christ,” BYU Studies Quarterly 54, no. 4, (2015): 168, byustudies.byu.edu/article/dating-the-death
-of-jesus-christ/. The Essenes were a separatist group of Jews who lived at Qumran and gave us the Dead Sea Scrolls.

67 . Chadwick, “Dating the Death,” 173.

68 . AISH, “The Number 40,” Ask the Rabbi, aish.com/the-number-40/. See also Alonzo Gaskill, The Lost Language of Symbolism (Deseret Book: Salt Lake City, 2003), 137–8.

69 . AISH, “The Number 40.”

70 . Wade Menezes, “The Significance of ‘40’ in Sacred Scripture,” 2019, fathers
ofmercy.com/the-significance-of-40-in-scripture.

71 . Taylor Halverson, “The Symbolism of 40 in Scripture,” 25 April 2020, taylor
halverson.com/2020/04/25/the-symbolism-of-40-in-scripture-mosiah-7-10/.

72 . Theodor Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1899), 938, babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044046865572&seq=966.

73 . Andrea Nicolotti, “What Do We Know About Scourging Jesus?,” in The Ancient Near East Today (Alexandria, VA: American Society of Overseas Research, 2023).

74 . Gerald Sigal, “Was Jesus Actually Scourged Before Pilate?,” Jews for Judaism (2013), jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-53-jesus-not
-suffering-servant-part-10/.

75 . Mommsen, Römisches, 938. Andrea Nicolotti, “The Scourge of Jesus and the Roman Scourge, Historical and Archaeological Evidence,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 20 August 2017, 1, vdoc.pub/documents
/journal-for-the-study-of-the-historical-jesus-410ve3j33bt0.

76 . Saint Bridget, “The Prophecies and Revelations of Saint Bridget (Birgitta) of Sweden,” Book 4, Chapter 70, saintsbooks.net/books/St.%20Bridget%20(Birgitta)%20of%20Sweden%20-%20Prophecies%20and%20Revelations
.pdf.

77 . Nicolotti, “The Scourge,” 6–7.

78 . Mainstream Apologetics, “Scourging Details Unknown Before Fourteenth Century,” mainstreamapologetics.org/evidences/HIS-EV53.html.

79 . Nicolotti, “The Scourge,” 4.

80 . Nicolotti, “The Scourge,” 1.

81 . McConkie, “The Purifying Power,” 9.

82 . Renner Ministries, “Scourged!,” renner.org/article/scourged/.

83 . “Roman Scourge and Flagellum,” BibleVerseStudy.com (2023), bible
versestudy.com/acts/acts22-roman-scourge.htm.

84 . Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Book IV, Chapter 15:4, ewtn.com/catholicism/library/church-history-books-ivvi
-11517.

85 . Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chapter 5:3, gutenberg
.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm#link62HCH0003.

86 . Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, “On the Physical Death,” 1457.

87 . Carl Schneider, “μαστιγóω,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967) 4:515–19, archive.org/details
/theologicaldicti0004kitt/page/514/mode/2up?q=romans.

88 . Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 885–89, archive.org/details/gospelaccordingt0002unse/page/884
/mode/2up.

89 . Stephen M. Tenney, “On death by crucifixion,” American Heart Journal 68, no. 2 (August 1964): 286–87.

90 . Cleveland Clinic, “Hypovolemia,” Cleveland Clinic, 10 May 2022, my.cleveland
clinic.org/health/diseases/22963-hypovolemia.

91 . Sharven Taghavi, Aussama k. Nassar, Reza Askari, “Hypovolemic Shock,” StatPearls, 5 June 2023, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513297/.

92 . Taylor, “What Did Jesus Look Like,” 168.

93 . John R. Cameron, James G. Skofronick, Roderick M. Grant, Physics of the Body (Madison, WI: Medical Physics, 1999), 182, archive.org/details
/physicsofbody0000came/page/182/mode/2up.

94 . Rachel Nall, “How Much Blood Is in Your Body and How Much You Can Lose,” Healthline, 18 July 2017, healthline.com/health/how-much-blood-in
-human-body#howmuch-blood-can-you-lose.

95 . For comparison, the Modified Parkland Formula for burn resuscitation of an adult specifies administering an intravenous infusion of 4 mL of resuscitating fluid multiplied by the percentage of body surface burned multiplied by kilograms of body weight. Assuming Christ had sustained a 20% burn of his total body surface area (approximately the entire surface of the back) and weighed 55 kg (120 lb), resuscitation would have consisted of 4 mL x 20% x 55 kg or 4,400 mL (9.25 pints) of fluid over the following 24 hours. By the time Christ died, about twelve hours later, for his damaged skin, he should have received half of that amount, nearly five pints. This is irrespective of any blood loss.

96 . Miruna Secuianu, “Euphorbia Milii Guide: How to Grow & Care for ‘Crown of Thorns’ Plant,” GardenBeast, 26 July 2023, gardenbeast.com/euphorbia
-milii-guide.

97 . Thomas Ombrello, “Crown of Thorns,” Plant of the Week (website), 2004, web.archive.org/web/20090917022506/http://faculty.ucc.edu/biology
-ombrello/pow/crown_of_thorns.htm.

98 . Matthew George Easton, Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Treasury of Biblical History, Biography, Geography, Doctrine, and Literature: With Numerous Illustrations and Important Chronological Tables and Maps (London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1893), 665, archive.org/details/illustratedbible00east/page/664
/mode/2up.

99 . “Ziziphus spina-christi, Jujube, Christ’s thorn, Atad,” Flowers in Israel, flowersinisrael.com/Ziziphusspina-christi_page.htm.

100 . “Crown of Thorns,” Encyclopedia of The Bible, biblegateway.com/resources
/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Crown-Thorns.

101 . “Crown of Thorns,” Plants Toxic to Animals, 11 May 2022, guides.library.illinois
.edu/c.php?g=745575&p=6243278#s-lg-box-19837015.

102 . Secuianu, “Euphorbia Milii.”

103 . Will Hunt, “The Scalp,” TeachMe Anatomy, 22 November 2020, teachme
anatomy.info/head/areas/scalp/.

104 . M. J. Lemos and D. E. Clark, “Scalp lacerations resulting in hemorrhagic shock: case reports and recommended management,” Journal of Emergency Medicine 6, no. 5 (September–October 1988): 377–79, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih
.gov/3225445/.

105 . Edwin Ocran, “Periosteum,” Kenhub, 30 October 2023, kenhub.com/en
/library/anatomy/periosteum.

106 . Hiroyuki Hori et al., “The Thickness, of Human Scalp: Normal and Bald,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 58, no. 6 (1972): 396–99, jidonline.org
/article/S0022-202X(15)48154-0/pdf.

107 . Joan E. Taylor, “What Did Jesus Look Like?,” The Ancient Near East Today 7, no. 12 (December 2019), asor.org/anetoday/2019/12/Jesus-Look-Like.

108 . Tyrian, imperial, or royal purple is a reddish-purple dye extracted from the Murex brandaris sea snail, which is found in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The dye was incredibly laborious and costly to produce. Around “10,000 shellfish would produce 1 gram of dye stuff, and that would only dye the hem of a garment in a deep colour.” The dye was said to be worth three times its weight in gold. Mark Cartwright, “Tyrian Purple,” Ancient History Encyclopedia, 21 July 2016, ancient.eu/Tyrian_Purple/.

109 . Kassia St. Clair, The Secret Lives of Colour (London: John Murray, 2016), 163–64.

110 . Kelly Grovier, “Tyrian Purple: The disgusting origins of the colour purple,” BBC 1, August 2018, bbc.com/culture/article/20180801-tyrian-purple
-the-regal-colour-taken-from-mollusc-mucus.

111 . Kristin H. South, Anita Cramer Wells, “Clothing and Textiles in the New Testament,” in New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament, ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019), 645, rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/clothing-textiles
-new-testament.

112 . Jesse Mark Dawson, “Super Hydrophilic Wool based Biomaterial for Wound Dressing Application” (Thesis, Master of Science, University of Otago, 2021), hdl.handle.net/10523/10945.

113 . Bruno M. Pereira, José B. Bortoto, Gustavo P. Fraga, “Topical hemostatic agents in surgery: review and prospects.” Rev Col Bras Cir 45, no. 45 (18 October 2018): 5, scielo.br/j/rcbc/a/bbtkdfQvLDxFKhHcM48YCbk/?format
=pdf&lang=en.

114 . R. W. Farndale et al., “The role of collagen in thrombosis and hemostasis,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 25 March 2004, onlinelibrary.wiley
.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2004.00665.x.

115 . Ken Knapp, “How to Pick the Most Breathable Fabrics,” REI COOP Expert Advice, rei.com/learn/expert-advice/how-to-pick-the-most-breathable-fabrics
.html.

116 . James Strong, s.v. “4716,” A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament with Their Renderings in the Authorized English Version” (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1890), 66, archive.org/details/StrongsGreekAnd
HebrewDictionaries1890/StrongGreekDictionary/page/n62/mode/1up.

117 . Justus Lipsius, De Cruce (Ex officina Plantiniana, apud viduam & Joannem Moretum, 1594), Book 1, Chapter V:16–21, archive.org/details/bub_gb
_gyEfy09YIRwC/page/n33/mode/2up.

118 . Lipsius, De Cruce, Book 3, Chapter VII:26–30, archive.org/details/bub_gb
_gyEfy09YIRwC/page/n39/mode/2up.

119 . Lipsius, De Cruce, Book 3, Chapter VIII:31–35, archive.org/details/bub_gb
_gyEfy09YIRwC/page/n47/mode/2up.

120 . Lipsius, De Cruce, Book 3, Chapter IX:35–42, archive.org/details/bub_gb
_gyEfy09YIRwC/page/n51/mode/2up.

121 . Ethelbert W. Bullinger, s.v. “Cross,” A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (London: Longmans, Green, 1895), 195, archive.org/details/criticallexiconc00bull/page/194/mode/2up.

122 . Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, VII, 69:1–2, (60 BC to later than 7 BC), penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of
_Halicarnassus/7C*.html.

123 . Hermann Mödder, “Die todesursache bei der Kreuzigung.” Stimmen der Zeit,” 144, no. 1 (1948): 50–59. Quoted by Frans Wijffels, “Death on the Cross: Did the Turin Shroud Once Envelop a Crucified Body?,” British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, no. 52 (November 2000), shroud.com/pdfs
/n52part3.pdf.

124 . Frederick T. Zugibe, The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Enquiry (New York: M Evans, 2005), 86–89, archive.org/details/crucifixionofjes0000zugi
/page/86/mode/2up?q=support.

125 . Antoine Legrand, “Du Gibet du Golgotha à ceux de Dachau,” Médecine et Laboratoire, 19 December 1952, 39–93. Quoted in Frans Wijffels, “Death on the Cross.”

126 . “Archaeology of the Cross and Crucifix, III The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ,” Catholic Encyclopedia, catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=3537. This lengthy article contains a wealth of ancient sources regarding all aspects of the cross and crucifixion in antiquity.

127 . Benjamin Jowett, “Crux,” in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, ed. William Smith (London: John Murray, 1875), 370–71, archive.org/details
/adictionarygree05smitgoog/page/n388/mode/2up?q=crux.

128 . John Granger Cook, “Crucifixion as Spectacle in Roman Campania,” Novum Testamentum 54, no. 1 (2012): 60, 92–98, jstor.org/stable/23253630.

129 . James Grout, “Alexamenos Graffito,” Alexamenos and pagan perceptions of Christians, Encyclopaedia Romana, 2023, penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout
/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/graffito.html.

130 . Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, trans. Earnest Evans (1972), liber III:22, 241, tertullian.org/articles/evans_marc/evans_marc_08book3_eng.htm.

131 . Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata: The Book of the Patchwork, trans. Peter Thompson, Book 6, 11.1 Chapter 195, Div. 6088, academia.edu/63145
482/the_Stromata_of_Clement_of_Alexandria_books_6_7_8.

132 . Lucian, “A Trial in the Court of Vowels,” The Works of Lucian of Samosata, trans. H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905), 30.

133 . Bruce W. Longenecker, The Cross before Constantine: The Early Life of a Christian Symbol (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 73–120, jstor.org/stable/j
.ctt13wwwf3.8.

134 . John Granger Cook, “Crucifixion in the Ancient Mediterranean World,” (paper, LaGrange College, June 2014), 4, bibleinterp.arizona.edu/sites/bible
interp.arizona.edu/files/docs/CrucifixionAncientMed.pdf.

135 . Lipsius, De Cruce, Book 3, Chapter XIII:157, archive.org/details/bub_gb
_gyEfy09YIRwC/page/n181/mode/2up?q=quercu.

136 . David Cloud, “Trees in Ancient Israel,” in Jews in Fighter Jets: Israel Past, Present, and Future (Port Huron, MI: Way of Life Literature, 2018), wayoflife
.org/reports/trees_in_ancient_israel.php.

137 . “Wood Species—Densities,” The Engineering Toolbox, engineeringtoolbox
.com/wood-density-d_40.html.

138 . J. Charles Wall, Relics from the Crucifixion (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2015) 23–24, google.com/books/edition/Relics_from_the_Crucifixion
/sxJ6CwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq.

139 . Vassilios Tzaferis, “Jewish Tombs at and near Giv’at ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal 20, no. 1/2 (1970): 18–32, jstor.org/stable/27925208.

140 . “Calories Burned per Hour,” Division of Public Health, Department of Health Services, State of Wisconsin, dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p4/p40109.pdf.

141 . Alejandro Lucia et al., “Clinical practice guidelines for glycogen storage disease V & VII (McArdle disease and Tarui disease) from an international study group,” Neuromuscular Disorders 31, no. 12 (December 2021): 1296–310.

142 . The formula for calculating the tension on each of the nails that pierce the hands is: Tension = Weight / 2 (cos θ) where θ is the angle of the arms from the vertical. Barbet estimated angle θ to be 65°, so his calculation was: 175 lb / 2 x 0.423 = 207 lb of tension on each hand.

143 . Pierre Barbet, A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon, trans. The Earl of Wicklow (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1963), Chapter 5, where-you-are.net/ebooks/a-doctor-at-calvary
-pierre-barbet.pdf.

144 . Zugibe, The Crucifixion of Jesus, 84.

145 . Taylor, “What Did Jesus Look Like,” 168.

146 . Mike Fillon, “The Real Face of Jesus,” Popular Mechanics, December 2002, zoe-life.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/popular-mechanics-dec-2002
-the-real-face-of-jesus.pdf.

147 . Joseph M. Jordan, “How much did Jesus weigh (How heavy was Jesus)?,” Christian Faith Guide, christianfaithguide.com/how-much-did-jesus-weigh/.

148 . With a decreased estimated weight, the calculation becomes: Tension = 120 lb (55 kg) / 2 x cos 65° = 60 / 0.423 = 142 lb (64.5 kg).

149 . Cahleen Shrier, “The Science of the Crucifixion,” APULife, March 2002, apu.edu/articles/the-science-of-the-crucifixion/.

150 . Waldemar Karwawski, William S. Marras, eds., The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1999), 148, google.com/books
/edition/The_Occupational_Ergonomics_Handbook/B1EUF7mpJ4QC?hl
=en&gbpv=1. These data are an approximation because they reflect anthropometric measurements of adult East German men whose proportions may vary from those of adult first century Jewish men. Another estimate is the height times 3/8; this equals a very similar 23.6 inches. I also subtract 120 millimeters from the shoulder-to-tip-of-middle-finger distance to account for the distance from the mid-palm to the tip of the middle finger. Although approximations, these calculations are almost certainly more accurate than are many other assumptions made by these investigators.

151 . Given an initial arm length of 23 inches, an additional 6 inches of length would cause angle θ to become arcsin 23/29 or arcsin 0.793, which is 52.5°. Tension = Weight / 2 (cos θ), so the calculation becomes: 120 lb / 2 x cos (52.5°) = 98.6 lb of tension on each hand. An additional three inches of length would cause angle θ to become arcsin 23/32 or arcsin 0.72, which is 46°. The resulting tension would be 120 /2 x cos (46°) or 86.4 lb.

152 . Stephen Lewis, “Some Notes on Crucifixion,” Organ (1995), 8:8–11, web
.archive.org/web/20110718171841/http://chesterrep.openrepository.com/cdr
/bitstream/10034/40813/1/Some%20Notes%20on%20Crucifixion.pdf.

153 . Barbet, A Doctor at Calvary, Chapter 5.

154 . Javier E. Sánchez Saba, et al., “Nonsurgical treatment of deep transverse metacarpal ligament injuries.” MOJ Orthop Rheumatol 14, no. 5 (2022): 163–64, medcraveonline.com/MOJOR/MOJOR-14-00599.pdf.

155 . Sarah L. Manske, Caeley R. Lorincz, Ron F. Zernicke, “Bone health: part 2, physical activity,” Sports Health 1, no. 4 (July 2009): 341–46, researchgate.net
/publication/231215574_Bone_Health_Part_2_Physical_Activity.

156 . Shrier, “The Science of the Crucifixion.”

157 . Andrew Dilley, Bruce Lynn, See Jye Pang, “Pressure and stretch mechanosensitivity of peripheral nerve fibres following local inflammation of the nerve trunk,” Pain 117, no. 3 (October 2005): 462–72, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles
/PMC1402335/.

158 . Aarti Sareen, ed., “Brachial Plexus Injury,” Physiopedia, physio-pedia.com
/Brachial_Plexus_Injury.

159 . Justin Merryman, Matthew Varacallo, “Klumpke Palsy,” StatPearls, 4 August 2023, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK531500/.

160 . Sareen, “Brachial Plexus Injury.”

161 . Linda J. Vorvick, “Vital signs,” Medline Plus, National Library of Medicine, 2 February 2023, medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002341.htm.

162 . Kamashi Pandirajan, “Mechanics of Breathing,” Teach Me Physiology, 16 July 2023, teachmephysiology.com/respiratory-system/ventilation/mechanics-of
-breathing.

163 . Pandirajan, “Mechanics.”

164 . Zugibe, The Crucifixion of Jesus, 85–87.

165 . Nicu Haas, “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv’at ha-Mivtar,” Israel Exploration Journal 20, no. 1/2 (1970): 38–59.

166 . David Ingham, Corinne Duhig, “Crucifixion in the Fens: life and death in Roman Fenstanton,” British Archeology (January–February 2022): 18–29, archaeologyuk.org/resource/free-access-to-crucifixion-in-the-fens-life-and
-death-in-roman-fenstanton.html.

167 . Emanuela Gualdi-Russo et al., “A multi- disciplinary study of calcaneal trauma in Roman Italy: a possible case of crucifixion?,” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (2018): 1–9, researchgate.net/publication/324496883_A
_multidisciplinary_study_of_calcaneal_trauma_in_Roman_Italy_a_possible
_case_of_crucifixion.

168 . Cook, “Crucifixion as Spectacle”; Grout, “Alexamenos Graffito.”

169 . Anderson Martelli, Fabiana Palermo Martelli, “The suffering of ‘MAN JESUS CHRIST’,” South Florida Journal of Development, Miami 1, no. 3 (July–September 2020): 68, ojs.southfloridapublishing.com/ojs/index.php/jdev/article/view/16/55.

170 . Tad Callister, The Infinite Atonement (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 146.

171 . Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 661.

172 . Bruce R. McConkie, “The Seven Christs,” Ensign, October 1982, 33, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1982/10/the-seven
-christs.

173 . Jeffrey R. Holland, “None Were with Him.” Ensign, May 2009, 88, churchof
jesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2009/04/none-were-with-him.

174 . Gary R. Habermas, Jonathan Kopel, Benjamin C. F. Shaw, “Medical views on the death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ,” Proceedings 34, no. 6 (2021): 748–52, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8545147/pdf/UBMC_34_1951096.pdf.

175 . William Stroud, A Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ (London: Hamilton & Adams, 1847), 156, archive.org/details/treatiseonphysic
00stro/page/156/mode/2up.

176 . Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 669.

177 . Lund, “What the Atoning Sacrifice Meant,” 36.

178 . Risdon Bennett, The Diseases of the Bible (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1887), 132, books.google.com.gt/books?id=9F0XAQAAMAAJ&pg
=RA1-PA117&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false.

179 . Stuart Bergsma, “Did Jesus die of a broken heart?,” Calvin Forum 14 (1948): 163–67, calvin.edu/library/database/crcpi/fulltext/calvinforum/CF1948-03.pdf.

180 . David A. Ball, “The crucifixion and death of a man called Jesus,” J Miss State Med Assoc 30, no. 3 (March 1989): 77–83, archive.org/stream/journalofmississ
30unse/journalofmississ30unse_djvu.txt.

181 . Joe E. Holoubek and Alice Baker Holoubek, “A Study of Death by Crucifixion with Attempted Explanation of the Death of Jesus Christ,” The Linacre Quarterly 61, no. 1 (1994): epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent
.cgi?article=1878&context=lnq.

182 . W. Reid Litchfield, “The Search for the Physical Cause of Jesus Christ’s Death,” BYU Studies Quarterly 37, no. 4 (1997): 93–109, byustudies.byu.edu
/article/the-search-for-the-physical-cause-of-jesus-christs-death/.

183 . C. Truman Davis, “The crucifixion of Jesus: The passion of Christ from a medical point of view,” Arizona Medicine 22 (March 1965): 187, dtodayarchive
.org/images/file/Crucifixion_Medical.pdf.

184 . Robert Bucklin, “The Medical Aspects of the Crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” The Linacre Quarterly 25, no. 1 (February 1958): 5–13, core.ac.uk
/reader/213070880.

185 . Le Bec, “Le Supplice,” 18.

186 . Cleveland Clinic, “Hypoxemia,” Health Library, Diseases & Conditions, 15 June 2022, my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/17727-hypoxemia.

187 . Rudolf M. Hynek, Science and the Holy Shroud: An Examination Into the Sacred Passion and the Direct Cause of Christ’s Death (Chicago: Benedictine Press, 1936), cited by Thomas W. McGovern, David A. Kaminskas, Eustace S. Fernandes, “Did Jesus Die by Suffocation?: An Appraisal of the Evidence,” The Linacre Quarterly 90, no. 1 (February 2023): 64–79, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc
/articles/PMC10009142/.

188 . Mödder, “Die todesursache.”

189 . Zugibe, The Crucifixion of Jesus, 84.

190 . Benjamin Brenner, “Did Jesus Christ die of pulmonary embolism?,” Journal of Thrombosis and Hemostasis 3, no. 9 (September 2005): 2130–31, online
library.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01525.x.

191 . Barbet, A Doctor at Calvary, Chapter 5. Chapter Twelve is as poignant a description of the passion of the Savior as can be found.

192 . Vassilios Tzaferis, “Crucifixion—The Archaeological Evidence,” Bible History Daily, Biblical Archeology Society, 16 August 2022, biblicalarchaeology
.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/a-tomb-in-jerusalem-reveals-the-history
-of-crucifixion-and-roman-crucifixion-methods/.

193 . Frans Wijffels, “Death on the cross: Did the Turin Shroud Once Envelop a Crucified Body?,” British Society of Turin Shroud Newsletter 52, no. 3 (2000): shroud.com/pdfs/n52part3.pdf.

194 . Tenney, “On death by crucifixion.”

195 . Zugibe, The Crucifixion of Jesus, 89.

196 . Tumanov Eduard, Ali Ali Al-Turki, and Tetyuev Andrey, “Death By Crucifixion: View of The Medicolegal Expert,” Journal of Forensic Science and Criminal Investigation 2, no. 3 (22 March 2017): scribd.com/document/410514478
/Death-by-Crucifixion-View-of-the-Medicolegal.

197 . Todd Gersten, “Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC),” Medline Plus, National Library of Medicine, 28 October 2021, medlineplus.gov/ency
/article/000573.htm.

198 . Weather Spark, “April 4 Weather in Jerusalem, Israel,” weatherspark
.com/d/98866/4/4/Average-Weather-on-April-4-in-Jerusalem-Israel
#Figures-Temperature.

199 . Richard Hollerman, “Was Jesus actually Naked on the Cross?,” Truediscipleship, truediscipleship.com/was-jesus-actually-naked-on-the-cross-2/.

200 . Michael Volker, “Hypothermia and Cold Weather Injuries,” USSARTF, 23 July 2021, ussartf.org/hypothermia_cold_weather_injuries.htm.

201 . Weather Spark, “April Weather in Jerusalem, Israel,” weatherspark
.com/m/98866/4/Average-Weather-in-April-in-Jerusalem-Israel.

202 . Weather Spark, “April 4.”

203 . M. Sruthi, “What Part of the Body Loses the Most Heat in Cold Water?,” MedicineNet, 6 April 2022, medicinenet.com/part_of_the_body_loses_the
_most_heat_in_cold_water/article.htm.

204 . Michael Volker, “Wind Chill Chart,” USSARTF, 29 July 2021, ussartf.org
/wind_chill_chart.htm.

205 . National Weather Service, “Wind Chill Calculator,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, weather.gov/epz/wxcalc_windchill.

206 . Ken Zafren, C. Crawford Mechem, “Accidental Hypothermia in Adults,” UpToDate, 13 April 2023, uptodate.com/contents/accidental-hypothermia
-in-adults.

207 . Biswadev Mitra et al., “Trauma patients with the ‘triad of death’,” Emergency Medicine Journal 29 (2011): 622–25, emj.bmj.com/content/29/8/622.long.

208 . Bernd Wallner et al., “Hypothermia-Associated Coagulopathy: A Comparison of Viscoelastic Monitoring, Platelet Function, and Real Time Live Confocal Microscopy at Low Blood Temperatures, an in vitro Experimental Study,” Frontiers in Physiology 11 (14 July 2020): 843, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles
/PMC7381250/pdf/fphys-11-00843.pdf.

209 . Boris Jung et al., “Severe metabolic or mixed acidemia on intensive care unit admission: incidence, prognosis and administration of buffer therapy. a prospective, multiple-center study,” Critical Care 15 (2011), doi.org/10.1186
/cc10487.

210 . Wikipedia, s.v. “Marathon fatalities,” last updated 28 August 2024, en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/List_of_marathon_fatalities.

211 . Philo Dibble, “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Juvenile Instructor 27, no. 10 (1892): 304.

212 . Nelson, “The Future of the Church.”

213 . Davis: “The crucifixion of Jesus,” 183–87.

214 . Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, “On the Physical Death,” 1455–63.

215 . Dennis E. Smith, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” JAMA 255, no. 20 (23 May 1986): 2755. jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract
/404284.

216 . Margie Olster, “Medical Journal Article Causes Stir,” Daily News Bulletin 64, no. 118 (20 June 1986), 4, pdfs.jta.org/1986/1986-06-20_118.pdf.

217 . George L. Bohmfalk, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” JAMA 255, no. 20 (23 May 1986): 2754, jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract
/404281.

218 . F. P. Retief and L. Cilliers, “The History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” South African Medical Journal 93, no. 12 (2003): 938–41, journals.co.za/doi
/pdf/10.10520/EJC67844.

219 . Matthew W. Maslen and Piers D. Mitchell, “Medical theories on the cause of death in Crucifixion,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99, no. 4 (April 2006): 185–88, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420788/pdf/0185.pdf.

220 . Nuri Sahib, “Jesus Christ did not Die on the Cross—A Cardiologist’s Perspective,” The Review of Religions, 3 March 2012, reviewofreligions
.org/11445/jesus-christ-did-not-die-on-the-cross-a-cardiologists-perspective
-2/. Syed Mashhood Ahmad, “Five proofs Jesus survived the cross, according to the Bible,” Al Hakam, 9 April 2021, alhakam.org/five-proofs-jesus
-survived-the-cross-according-to-the-bible/. M. Lloyd Davies, T. A. Lloyd Davies, “Resurrection or resuscitation?,” Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 25, no. 2 (1991): 167–70, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles
/PMC5377221/pdf/jrcollphyslond90352-0089.pdf. Sara James, “The mystery of ‘The Jesus Papers,’” NBCNews, 2 April 2006, nbcnews.com/id
/wbna12084683.

221 . Zahid Hussain Khan, Seyed Amir Hossein Javadi, “Jesus Christ; resurrection or resuscitation!” British Journal of Medical & Health Sciences 2, no. 11 (November 2020), 590–93, jmhsci.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11
/BJMHS450195.pdf.

222 . Jesse Borke, “CPR—Adult and Child after Onset of Puberty,” Medline Plus, National Library of Medicine, 2 January 2023, medlineplus.gov/ency
/article/000013.htm.

223 . Tim Chaffey, “Faking Death,” Answers in Genesis, answersingenesis.org
/jesus-christ/resurrection/faking-death/.

224 . The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Jesus Christ Saved Us from Sin and Death,” Liahona, April 2021, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona
/2021/04/jesus-christ-saved-us-from-sin-and-death.

225 . Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 613.

226 . Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 613.