Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, Volume 64 (2025)
Author: Daniel C. Peterson et al
Date: 2025-10-27T06:00:00+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 64 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 64

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

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

Editorial Management

Daniel C. Peterson, Editor

Allen Wyatt, Managing Editor

Godfrey Ellis, Executive Editor

Brant A. Gardner , Executive Editor

Rebecca Reynolds Lambert , Executive Editor

Tanya Spackman, Editorial Services Manager

Audio Production

Richard Flygare

Victor Worth

Source Checking

Eden Buchert

Eliza Jefferies

Deidre Marlowe

Elizabeth Wyatt

Copy Editing

Jonn Claybaugh

Verlanne Johnson

Julie Russell

Kaitlin Cooper Swift

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

© 2025 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

“Get Thou Up into the Temple”: Receiving Revelation and Becoming Holy in the House of the Lord

Matthew L. Bowen vii

The Literary Structure of Alma 23–27

Derek Squire 1

The Flimsiest Show on Earth

Blake T. Ostler 25

“When Ye Shall Rend That Veil of Unbelief”: A Typological Reading of Ether 3 and 4

Matthew Scott Stenson 37

The Lamb of God: A Note on the Significance of Meir Bar-Ilan’s Paper for Latter-day Saints

Jeff Lindsay 57

The Heavenly Lamb, Sacrifices on the Heavenly Altar, and the Song of the Lamb

Meir Bar-Ilan 65

Joseph and Oliver Told the Truth about the Translation: A Response to Brant Gardner’s and Jeff Lindsay’s Reviews

James W. Lucas 89

Responding to a Non-Responsive Response

Brant A. Gardner 107

Honorable Intentions with an Unreliable Methodology: Lucas’s Response Underscores the Problems

Jeff Lindsay 111

Wonder No More: A Review of Into Arabia

Brant A. Gardner 149

Through a Glass Darkly: Was There a Twentieth-Century Corruption of 1 Corinthians 13:12?

Charles Dike 157

The Covenant Path of the Ancient Temple in 2 Nephi 31:19–20

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw 177

Spiritual Implications of the Timing of the Death of Jesus Christ

C. Thomas Black 223

Easter as Threshold: Trauma, Transformation, and God’s Presence in Liminal Spaces

Joseph W. Green 251

Jeremiah “the Prophet”

Loren Spendlove 265

A Fitting Tribute to the Prophet of the Restoration

Steven L. Olsen 293

Chiasmus in the Book of Jarom

Stephen Kent Ehat 301

Joseph Smith Jr. as a Translator: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study

Stephen O. Smoot 345

Latter-day Saint Theology and the Problem of Evil

Val Larsen and Newell D. Wright 377

The Bands of Death, the Chains of Hell, and the Seed Motif

Noel Hudson 425

Seeing with a Hat: How Joseph Smith Used a Hat in Translating the Book of Mormon

Stan Spencer 451

“Get Thou Up into the Temple”: Receiving Revelation and Becoming Holy in the House of the Lord

Matthew L. Bowen

Abstract: Psalms 15:1–5, 24:2–3, and 48:1 [MT 2], as temple hymns of the Jerusalem Temple, are consistent with other texts such as Isaiah 2:2–3 and Genesis 22:14, which envision the holy temple as the “mountain of the Lord” into which one must ritually ascend. The examples of Moses, Nephi, Jacob, and others who ascended into this “mountain” demonstrate that this ascent facilitates the reception of divine revelation necessary in our mortal journey to become holy through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. This sacred ascent is necessary for our eventual, individual, and collective “perfection” in Christ, and it is one that he himself consistently made. Recently, President Russell M. Nelson and other Church leaders have emphasized the wealth of spiritual blessings that result from increased, meaningful service in the temple. If we, as Latter-day Saints, will more frequently and diligently ascend and worship in the temple, we will receive the personal revelation, instruction, and divine correction that we need to help us more fully come unto Christ. He will also console us there, endow us with the strength to endure, and make us more holy.

In the April 2025 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Russell M. Nelson stated:

Regular worship in the house of the Lord increases our capacity for both virtue and charity. Thus, time in the temple increases our confidence before the Lord. Increased time in the temple will help us prepare for the Second Coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ. We do not know the day or the hour of His coming. But I do know that the Lord is prompting me to urge us to get ready for that “great and dreadful day.”1

An increased capacity for charity and virtue reflect an increase in the personal and collective sanctification of the Latter-day Saints. (Saints means holy ones or sanctified ones.) In an earlier session of the same General Conference, Elder Ronald K. Rasband emphasized:

Today the Church has 367 temples in various stages of design, construction, or operation. And for what purpose? The answer is proclaimed on each temple: “Holiness to the Lord.” The temple opens the way to the highest blessings our Father in Heaven has for each one of us. Brothers and sisters, we are hastening our holiness as we live temple worthy, as we worship in the house of the Lord, and as we make covenants with God for ourselves and on behalf of our ancestors on the other side of the veil.2

In this essay, I will illustrate how ascending into the temple—the mountain of the Lord—facilitates the reception of divine revelation necessary in our mortal journey to become holy through the Atonement of Jesus Christ and why doing so is necessary for our eventual, individual and collective “perfection.”

“Who Shall Ascend into the Mountain of the Lord”?
True Temple Worthiness

The biblical psalms were “the hymns of the temple.”3 In ancient Israel and Judah, individual worthiness to enter the temple precincts and participate in worship there was self-assessed in the recitation of two particular psalms, Psalm 15 and Psalm 24, which have been described as “temple entrance hymns”4 or “entrance liturgy.”5 These two psalms prepose similarly formatted worthiness questions, answered in enumerations of qualifications. The first entrance hymn seems to have been composed exclusively for the purpose of self-evaluation:

Lord, who shall abide [mî-yāgûr, sojourn] in thy tabernacle [bĕʾohŏlekā]? who shall dwell [yiškōn] in thy holy hill [bĕhar qodšekā, holy mountain]? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned [or, in whose eyes the wicked are despised (NRSV)]; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not. He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved. (Psalm 15:1–5)

John S. Kselman and Michael L. Barré summarize the worthiness requirements of Psalm 15: “The person worthy to enter God’s presence is one who does no wrong to the neighbor (cf. Rom[ans] 13:10).”6 The qualifications for temple worthiness and temple entrance, then, align with what Jesus described as the “two commandments” upon which “hang all the law and the prophets” in Matthew 22:35–40. “The first and great commandment” is, of course, from the Shema, still one of Judaism’s most important credal recitations: “Hear [šĕmaʿ], O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord [or, Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one]: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deuteronomy 6:4–5). The first four commandments in the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) pertain to this principle. (See Exodus 20:2–11; Deuteronomy 5:6–15; Mosiah 13:12–19.) The “second . . . like unto it” is given in Leviticus 19:18: “But thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.” Like the last six commandments of the Decalogue (see Exodus 20:12–17; Deuteronomy 5:16–21; Mosiah 13:20–24), the worthiness requirements of Psalm 15 are subsumed in “the second” great commandment. This commandment constitutes part of the “holiness” legislation of Leviticus, where the Lord also declares and commands, “For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44). Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that true worthiness to enter the ancient temple and real personal holiness demanded wholeheartedly loving God and loving one’s neighbor.

In the second temple entrance hymn or entrance liturgy, the enumeration of qualifications becomes much more concise: “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord [bĕhar yhwh, mountain of the Lord]? or who shall stand in his holy place [bimqôm qodšô]? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully” (Psalm 24:3–4). In other words, individual worthiness to enter and remain in the Lord’s presence also required both ritual purity and ethical purity.

Alma the Younger used an inverted quotation7 of Psalm 24:4 when he asked the church members in Zarahemla, “Can ye look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands? I say unto you, can you look up, having the image of God engraven upon your countenances?” (Alma 5:19). For individuals to have “received his image in [their] countenances” (Alma 5:14), is for them to become “like” and “purified even as he is pure” (Moroni 7:48; see also 1 John 3:2–3). The privilege of ascending into the mountain of the Lord and standing in his holy place constitutes a powerful incentive to achieve and maintain personal worthiness precisely because it anticipates the time of return to the “presence of the Lord” to be judged—looking up to God.

Both temple entrance Psalms describe the Jerusalem temple as the Lord’s har, “mountain” (har qodšekā, har yhwh). Psalm 48:1 [MT 2] describes it this way: “Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness [har-qodšô].” Psalm 24:3 conceptualizes procession into the temple as an ascent (“who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord?”). This is consistent with the etiology for the Jerusalem temple’s future location on Mount Moriah—or Jehovah-jireh—the mount where Abraham ascended with Isaac as a type, “similitude” (Jacob 4:5), or “figure” (Hebrews 11:17–19) of the Father and the Son: “And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh [yhwh yirʾeh]: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen [bĕhar yhwh yērāʾeh]” (Genesis 22:14). The last part of that sentence could also be translated, “In the mount of Jehovah, it shall be provided.” The same words could also be understood as “in the mount, Jehovah shall be seen” or “in the mount, Jehovah shall be provided.” Indeed, the animal sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple afforded those offering them a kind of theophany or vision of God. In these sacrifices, they could see a preenacting of their own redemption—the supreme sacrifice of the Son of God and the sacrifice of their animal natures,8 both enabling them to “become holy, without spot” (Moroni 10:33).

“Arise, and Get Thee into the Mount”:
Obtaining Personal Revelation in the Temple

As preserved in the Book of Moses, the Lord commanded Enoch to ascend into the mountain to receive divine revelation: “There came a voice out of heaven, saying—Turn ye, and get ye upon the mount Simeon” (Moses 7:2). Enoch reports that a theophany immediately ensued:

And it came to pass that I turned and went up on the mount; and as I stood upon the mount, I beheld the heavens open, and I was clothed upon with glory; and I saw the Lord; and he stood before my face, and he talked with me, even as a man talketh one with another, face to face; and he said unto me: Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations. (Moses 7:3–4)

At this sacred vantage point, the Lord sanctified Enoch (he “was clothed upon with glory”) and gave Enoch a vision of how things would unfold for “many generations.” This magnificent vision was only a precursor for the greater vision Enoch would have within the divine embrace,9 “high and lifted up in the bosom of the Father”—arguably the greatest “temple” vision of which we have any record.

The divine commandment to ascend into the mountain also constituted a salient aspect of Moses’s divine tutoring. On one occasion, Moses was sanctified through transfiguration and taught: “Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain, and he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence” (Moses 1:1–2). Like Enoch prior to his own translation into heaven, Moses received the commandment “get thee up” into the mountain so the Lord could reveal his plans for the children of Israel. “Get thee up into this mount Abarim” (Numbers 27:12; Deuteronomy 32:49); “Get thee up into the top of Pisgah, and lift up thine eyes westward, and northward, and southward, and eastward, and behold it with thine eyes: for thou shalt not go over this Jordan” (Deuteronomy 3:27). When Moses first approached “the mountain of God” (Exodus 3:1), it was revealed to him that Israel would “serve God [taʿabdûn] upon this mountain,” an allusion to their future priestly “service” (ʿăbōdâ) within the temple.10

Like Enoch’s and Moses’s “temple” tutoring, Nephi’s divine tutoring involved visions on high mountains.11 One of the coastal mountains in the land Bountiful, almost certainly in modern-day Oman,12 served as a temple for Nephi during the Lehites’ sojourn in the land Bountiful. Nephi records that the Lord directed him to ascend into this mountain, to which Nephi responded promptly and affirmatively: “And it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had been in the land of Bountiful for the space of many days, the voice of the Lord came unto me, saying: Arise, and get thee into the mountain. And it came to pass that I arose and went up into the mountain, and cried unto the Lord” (1 Nephi 17:7). It is quickly evident that this mountain constituted a place of divine revelation:

And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Thou shalt construct a ship, after the manner [compare Hebrew tabnît] which I shall show thee, that I may carry thy people across these waters. And I said: Lord, whither shall I go that I may find ore to molten, that I may make tools to construct the ship after the manner [tabnît] which thou hast shown unto me? And it came to pass that the Lord told me whither I should go to find ore, that I might make tools. (1 Nephi 17:8–10)

During the wilderness period, the Lord had commanded Moses to ensure that the tabernacle (portable temple) and its appurtenances where made “after their pattern [bĕtabnîtām], which was shewed thee in the mount” (Exodus 25:40; compare 25:8–9).

Nephi’s revelatory experiences in the wilderness, especially at Bountiful, were extraordinarily like Moses’s wilderness revelations. Nephi subsequently states that he made a regular practice of going up into this mountain and that it remained for him a place of prayer and revelation for the duration of the family’s stay in Bountiful: “And I, Nephi, did go into the mount oft, and I did pray oft unto the Lord; wherefore the Lord showed unto me great things” (1 Nephi 18:3).

The young Nephi in the land Bountiful with its mountain-temple can be seen as a tabnît, a pattern or type. For many university-aged Latter-day Saints from Oceania, the Asian rim, and elsewhere in the world, Laie, Hawaii, and its temple represent a divinely prepared “Bountiful”—a place of spiritual recharging and divine tutoring, a place where “patterns” of holiness for future lives are often revealed, a place where men and women acquire more Christlike holiness in preparation “to be lifelong disciples of Jesus Christ and leaders in their families, communities, chosen fields, and in building the kingdom of God”13 and “to be an example to the world of intercultural peace and unity through living the teachings of Jesus Christ.”14

Living in Laie and worshiping in the temple uncounted times, not every visit has culminated with a Moses- or Nephi-like vision. Nevertheless, many of the experiences I have had in this temple have been too sacred to record. Here I will hazard sharing one instance of needed revelation that came to me while praying and pondering in the temple.

I first came to BYU–Hawai‘i as a visiting professor in July 2012 with no promise or expectation of employment beyond one academic year. I was still working on my doctoral dissertation. Toward the end of that academic year, to our great joy, our daughter Adele was born (our second son, Nathan, had died on 1 March 2011 after thirty-three days of life). Living in Hawai‘i on less than a visiting professor’s salary with a newborn left our family’s finances stretched to the breaking point. Having a newborn at home, teaching fulltime, and advancing the work on my doctoral dissertation evenings and weekends left little opportunity to bring in any extra money.

The one-year visiting professorship was unexpectedly renewed for a second year and then for a third. Toward the latter end of the second year, I was in the temple one evening pondering what I might do to earn enough extra money within the parameters of our family’s circumstances to enable us to make our financial ends meet during that third year. The impression came to my mind very clearly: approach university administration about teaching an evening, overload course (i.e., a course that exceeded the normal full-time allotment of courses), which was not normally allocated to visiting faculty. Following the divine prompting, the administration granted the course overload, and we had just enough to meet our family’s needs. At the end of the visiting professorship, I was hired into a vacated permanent full-time employment faculty slot. Our family has happily thrived in Laie ever since.

“Come Ye, Let Us Go Up to the Mountain of the Lord,
to the House of the God of Jacob”:
The House of the Lord as a House of Learning

Nephi’s experiences as a youth with the temple in Jerusalem, divine revelation, and perhaps a text akin to 1 Kings 6–7 on the brass plates, enabled him to build a temple “after the manner of the temple of Solomon.” He writes:

And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner [cf. Heb. tabnît] of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner [tabnît] of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine. (2 Nephi 5:16)

As in 1 Nephi 17, the term manner is probably to be understood in terms of Hebrew tabnît, the term used to describe the revealed pattern, manner, or type after which Israel’s tabernacle in the wilderness was constructed. The building of this temple must have been one of Nephi’s first and most important acts of state. He needed to build a temple to build a covenant people.15 A similar purpose underlies the urgency of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem as the exiles began to return (see, e.g., Haggai 1:7–15).

Nephi and his people evidently “likened”16 Nephi’s temple, constructed after the divinely revealed “manner” or “pattern” of Solomon’s temple and built in the highlands of the land of Nephi, to the latter-day temple—the “mountain of the Lord’s house”—that would be firmly fixed in “the tops of the mountains”:

And it shall come to pass in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us [wĕyōrēnû] of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law [tôrâ] and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. (2 Nephi 12:2–3; cf. Isaiah 2:2–3)

Like Psalms 15, 24, and 48, Isaiah’s text envisions the temple and temple entrance in terms of ascending a sacred mountain. He also envisioned it as a place of divine instruction, as beautifully emphasized by the polyptotonic wordplay of “teach us” [wĕyōrēnû] and “law” [tôrâ]. More than “law,” tôrâ means “teaching” or “instruction,” especially to “teach” by “pointing.”17 Like the Jerusalem temple and its sacrificial system under the “law of Moses” (compare Jacob 4:5; Alma 34:5), the latter-day temple “points” us to Christ. In other words, in the “house of the God of Jacob,” the God of Jacob teaches us about himself.

To this end, the Lord commanded the early members of his restored church to build a temple—a “house”—for the instruction of his people: “Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing; and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:119; cf. 109:8). In the same revelation, paraphrasing Psalm 24:4, the Lord also stated:

And I give unto you, who are the first laborers in this last kingdom, a commandment that you assemble yourselves together, and organize yourselves, and prepare yourselves, and sanctify yourselves; yea, purify your hearts, and cleanse your hands and your feet before me, that I may make you clean; that I may testify unto your Father, and your God, and my God, that you are clean from the blood of this wicked generation; that I may fulfil this promise, this great and last promise, which I have made unto you, when I will. Also, I give unto you a commandment that ye shall continue in prayer and fasting from this time forth. (Doctrine and Covenants 88:74–76)

The Lord’s words in this revelation have been associated with ritual washings and anointings since their latter-day inception. They have also long been associated with the temple endowment. As in Psalm 24:4, the concern is for both ritual and ethical purity. However, this revelation also looks ahead to eschatological purity and holiness necessary to remain eternally in the presence of God the Father. The ordinances and covenants of the temple all have our eventual eternal sanctification and perfection in view.

The Lord further commanded in the same revelation that the early saints were to instruct each other:

And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom. Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—that ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you. (Doctrine and Covenants 88:77–80)

This type of teaching still occurs, of course, daily in Latter-day Saint homes, weekly in Latter-day Saint meetinghouses, and semester-by-semester in Latter-day Saint high schools and universities throughout the world. However, such teaching is also administered through the endowment and other ordinances of the house of the Lord. As Elder David A. Bednar has taught, “An ordinance is a holy act performed in the authority of the priesthood that teaches us about the associated covenant.”18 For all that is revealed and taught in the temple as pertaining to God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, the divine council and the associated plan of salvation (compare Hebrew sôd), and to life and salvation, it is the “house of learning” par excellence.

“Get Thou Up into the Temple”: The House of the Lord as a Place of Divine Correction

Jacob, the son of Lehi and brother of Nephi, had his career as a temple priest foretold to him by his father: “Wherefore, thy soul shall be blessed, and thou shalt dwell safely with thy brother, Nephi; and thy days shall be spent in the service of thy God” (2 Nephi 2:3). Nephi confirms that after the death of Lehi, “it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people” (2 Nephi 5:26). Jacob’s personal record on the small plates also highlights the fulfillment of Lehi’s promise: “For I, Jacob, and my brother Joseph had been consecrated priests and teachers of this people, by the hand of Nephi” (Jacob 1:18).

Jacob mentions the temple as the locus of his priestly teaching at least three times (Jacob 1:17; 2:2, 11). Jacob’s recorded sermon’s,19 writings, and scriptural quotations20 are filled with temple images and language. Jacob understood that his own holiness and standing before God would be determined by how faithfully he discharged his priestly responsibilities:

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 1:19)

Jacob’s primary concern, however, seems to have been the holiness of his own people:

But behold, my brethren, is it expedient that I should awake you to an awful reality of these things? Would I harrow up your souls if your minds were pure? Would I be plain unto you according to the plainness of the truth if ye were freed from sin? Behold, if ye were holy I would speak unto you of holiness; but as ye are not holy, and ye look upon me as a teacher, it must needs be expedient that I teach you the consequences of sin. (2 Nephi 9:47–48)

Accordingly, Jacob uses the temple in the land of Nephi, his people’s central sanctuary, as a place of dispensing divine correction:

And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son. Yea, and they also began to search much gold and silver, and began to be lifted up somewhat in pride. Wherefore I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having first obtained mine errand from the Lord. (Jacob 1:15–17)

As Jacob begins his temple sermon, he states that his own holiness and his eternal standing before God were on the line in calling his people to repentance: “Now, my beloved brethren, I, Jacob, according to the responsibility which I am under to God, to magnify mine office with soberness, and that I might rid my garments of your sins, I come up into the temple this day that I might declare unto you the word of God” (Jacob 2:2). Jacob further reports that his errand to give them divine correction came directly from the Lord: “Wherefore, I must tell you the truth according to the plainness of the word of God. For behold, as I inquired of the Lord, thus came the word unto me, saying: Jacob, get thou up into the temple on the morrow, and declare the word which I shall give thee unto this people” (Jacob 2:11). Jacob received the divine message of correction to teach his people and then made the ascent into the temple and his people made the ascent to hear him.

Here we again recall the worthiness requirements of Psalm 24:3–4: “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.” Many of those who had “a pure heart” had ascended with Jacob into the temple (those who had “come up hither to hear the pleasing word of God, yea, the word which healeth the wounded soul,” Jacob 2:8) and that made his task more difficult: “But, notwithstanding the greatness of the task, I must do according to the strict commands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations, in the presence of the pure in heart, and the broken heart, and under the glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God.” (Jacob 2:10). As Jacob’s sermon progressed, he interrupted himself to offer the “pure in heart” encouragement and consolation:

But behold, I, Jacob, would speak unto you that are pure in heart. Look unto God with firmness of mind, and pray unto him with exceeding faith, and he will console you in your afflictions, and he will plead your cause, and send down justice upon those who seek your destruction. O all ye that are pure in heart, lift up your heads and receive the pleasing word of God, and feast upon his love; for ye may, if your minds are firm, forever. (Jacob 3:1–2)

As Elder Benjamin M. Z. Tai has recently highlighted, those who have been wounded by the choices of others can find relief by sincerely seeking to have burdens of bitterness and resentment removed through prayer and ascending into the temple to worship the Lord.21

But Jacob knew there were also those who had ascended into the temple that day who were unworthy to stand there, according to the self-assessment of Psalm 24:3–4. For them, Jacob reserved an emphatic woe oracle: “But, wo, wo, unto you that are not pure in heart, that are filthy this day before God; for except ye repent the land is cursed for your sakes” (Jacob 3:3). He prophesied that they would lose their promised land, which included the temple in which they were then standing: “And the time speedily cometh, that except ye repent they [the Lamanites] shall possess the land of your inheritance, and the Lord God will lead away the righteous out from among you” (Jacob 3:4). Amaleki, the son of Abinadom, records that this is exactly what happened (see Omni 1:12–19).

“He Went Up into a Mountain”: Jesus’s Temple Teachings

Like Jacob, Jesus ascended into the temple to worship and teach or used mountains as suitable substitutes. And like Jacob, he offered consolation to the “pure in heart.” According to Luke, Jesus’s temple teaching began long before his mortal ministry: “Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast” (Luke 2:41–42). The pilgrimage to “go up” to the temple from Nazareth was typically a family affair. Mary and Joseph assumed he was with other family members in the caravan before realizing he was missing, whereupon they returned to Jerusalem to search for him. Then Luke records, “And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers” (Luke 2:46–47). The Joseph Smith Translation of Luke 2:46 reverses the detail of who was teaching and who was being taught: “And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, and they were hearing him, and asking him questions.” In other words, on this occasion, Jesus was doing the teaching.

Twenty-one years later, in some of the closing scenes of his mortal life, Jesus is again teaching in the temple: “And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives. And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him” (Luke 21:37–38).

In no less than three monographs,22 John W. Welch has shown how the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) and its encore rendition, the Sermon at the Temple (3 Nephi 12–14), represent summa res of Jesus’s “temple” teaching. In the Beatitudes, Jesus echoed Psalm 24 when he averred, “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8; 3 Nephi 12:8). In a revelation given to the prophet Joseph Smith on 2 August 1833 as early Church members were being driven from Jackson County, Missouri, and in which he defined Zion as the “pure in heart,” the Lord promised:

And inasmuch as my people build a house unto me in the name of the Lord, and do not suffer any unclean thing to come into it, that it be not defiled, my glory shall rest upon it; yea, and my presence shall be there, for I will come into it, and all the pure in heart that shall come into it shall see God. (Doctrine and Covenants 97:15–16)

We can still claim that promise in the house of the Lord today, but we have to become pure in heart and we have to become more holy.

“Holiness unto the Lord, the House of the Lord”:
Becoming Holy and Eventually “Perfect”

The phrase “holiness to the Lord” or “holiness unto the Lord” that adorns Latter-day Saint temples today derives from the Hebrew expression qōdeš lyhwh, which originally marked, designated, or “sealed” the Aaronic high priest as uniquely belonging to the Lord: “And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet [ḥōtām], HOLINESS TO THE LORD [qōdeš lyhwh]” (Exodus 28:36); “And they made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote upon it a writing, like to the engravings of a signet [ḥôtām, seal], HOLINESS TO THE LORD [qōdeš lyhwh]” (Exodus 39:30). This plate with its seal-like engraving was worn on the forehead of the high priest and symbolized the holiness intended for all Israel.

From the wilderness period onward, the Lord had intended Israel to be holy. Jeremiah states, “Israel was holiness unto the LORD [qōdeš yiśrāʾēl lyhwh], and the firstfruits of his increase: all that devour him shall offend; evil shall come upon them, saith the LORD” (Jeremiah 2:3). The prophet Zechariah envisioned that Israel and Judah would once again be sanctified and elevated to this holy state:

In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD [qōdeš lyhwh]; and the pots in the LORD’s house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD [qōdeš lyhwh] of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts. (Zechariah 14:20–21)

The telos (or end purpose) of all divine commandments, ordinances, restrictions, and so forth, is to become holy as God is holy:

Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. (Leviticus 11:43–45)

The creation of humankind in the divine likeness and image (“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”) is not complete until it includes divine holiness.

In Genesis 17, the Lord charged Abram to “walk before me, and be thou perfect [tāmîm]” (Genesis 17:1). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus seems to have been paraphrasing both Leviticus 11:45 and Genesis 17:1, when he commanded, “Be ye therefore perfect [teleioi], even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect [teleios]” (Matthew 5:48). The temple dimension of this commandment is comprehended in the use of teleios as a technical term “of the mystery religions” of the Greco-Roman world, wherein it “refer[red] to one initiated into mystic rites” and thus connoted a “cult initiate,” or one “initiated.”23 However, this term meant much more. It could mean “perfect” in the sense of “being fully developed in a moral sense,”24 and this is certainly one of the senses intended by Matthew’s use of the term. The cognate verb teleioō could mean “bring to full measure, fill the measure of” something.25 The term teleios in this sense would mean someone who has been brought to full measure or someone who has filled the measure of his or her creation.

This understanding of the concept of “perfect” helps us understand why Jesus adjusted the wording of the “perfection” commandment slightly in his Sermon at the Temple to include himself, when he exhorted, “Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect” (3 Nephi 12:48). When he gave the Sermon on the Mount, he had not filled the measure of his creation as a resurrected, glorified, and fully divinized being. But when he gave the Sermon at the Temple, he had been resurrected, glorified, and fully divinized: he had filled the measure of his creation, just as the Father had and he enabled those who follow him do likewise (compare Philippians 2:5–11).

Moroni appears to have had this commandment in mind as he brought the Book of Mormon to a close:

Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. (Moroni 10:32–33)

The temple, by architectural and ritual design, helps us “come unto Christ and be perfected in him.” It gives us motivation to “deny [our]selves of all ungodliness” and to “love God with all [our] might, mind, and strength” (compare Deuteronomy 6:5). It helps us keep our baptismal covenant renewed through the sacrament to “always remember him” (3 Nephi 18:7, 11; Moroni 4:3; 5:2; Doctrine and Covenants 20:77, 79). As Elder Sergio R. Vargas has noted, “We also remember Him when we go to the temple—the house of the Lord. Temples give us a deeper knowledge of Jesus Christ as the center of the covenant that leads us to eternal life, ‘the greatest of . . . the gifts of God [Doctrine and Covenants 14:7].’”26 By the “grace of God” we become “perfect in Christ” and eventually “holy, without spot.”

None of this, however, is possible apart from our kindred dead. Joseph Smith introduced baptism and vicarious ordinances on behalf of the dead “as principles in relation to the dead and the living that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For,” said he, “their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation.” He then paraphrased Hebrews 11:40 in Doctrine and Covenants 128:15, “They without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect,” in connection with 1 Corinthians 15:29, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” (Doctrine and Covenants 128:16), as the scriptural and doctrinal basis for the work for the dead.

A passive form of the Greek verb, teleioō, is the key word in Hebrews: “And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect [teleiōthōsin]” (Hebrews 11:39–40). Regarding the mutual dependency of the dead and the living in “be[ing] made perfect,” Joseph Smith further taught:

For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times. Now, what do we hear in the gospel which we have received? A voice of gladness! A voice of mercy from heaven; and a voice of truth out of the earth; glad tidings for the dead; a voice of gladness for the living and the dead; glad tidings of great joy. How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those that bring glad tidings of good things, and that say unto Zion: Behold, thy God reigneth! As the dews of Carmel, so shall the knowledge of God descend upon them! (Doctrine and Covenants 128:18–19)

These words, dated 6 September 1842 in Nauvoo, offer an additional, profound, and beautiful way in which to understand Isaiah’s prophecy about the messenger(s) of glad tidings in Isaiah 52:7–10 and its “mountain”—a prophecy that in Hebrew begins with the words mah-nāʾwû (“how beautiful”), the source of the name Nauvoo. The greatest doctrinal and theological contributions of the Nauvoo period to the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ all pertain to the interrelated concepts of eternal marriage, eternal families and sealings (further clarified through Wilford Woodruff),27 and vicarious baptisms and ordinance work for the dead to be carried out in temples. Joseph Smith further taught and testified that these would be the “offering in righteousness” that would fulfill the prophecy of Malachi 3:2–3:

Behold, the great day of the Lord is at hand; and who can abide the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appeareth? For he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap; and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation. (Doctrine and Covenants 128:24)

Bishop Gérald Caussé helps us see the value of this “offering”: “The loving service we offer in holy temples reminds us that the Savior’s grace extends beyond this life. In the life to come, we may be given new opportunities to accomplish what we could not do in this mortal life.”28

All of this underscores the reality that the latter-day temple, perhaps even more than the ancient temple, is especially designed “for the perfecting [ton katartismon] of the saints . . . [tōn hagiōn, “holy ones”]: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man [andra teleion], unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12–13).

Ascending into the mountain-temples of the Lord enables the Latter-day Saints to unite families in increasingly sanctified and “perfect union[s]” until the time comes that the whole human family becomes “a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories” in Christ. The day of the Lord’s Second Coming—the day that will “leave” the wicked “neither root nor branch” is nearer with each passing second (Malachi 4:1; 3 Nephi 25:1; Doctrine and Covenants 133:64; Joseph Smith—History 1:37). We must be prepared to “abide the day” (Malachi 3:2; 3 Nephi 24:2; Doctrine and Covenants 35:21; 38:8; 45:57; 61:39; 128:24).

Conclusion

If we feel unworthy to ascend into the mountain of the Lord and worship in his house, we need to remember that Jesus Christ “hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light” (Colossians 1:12). None of us have any worthiness of ourselves—only in him. Sister Tamara W. Runia related what she has learned through experience: “I’ve learned that if you wait until you’re clean enough or perfect enough to go to the Savior, you’ve missed the whole point!”29 If we will ascend and worship in the temple, we will receive the personal revelation, personal instruction, and divine correction that we need to help us more fully come unto Christ. He will also console us there and endow us with the strength to endure, and we will become more holy.

Citing the rescues of the Willie and Martin handcart companies, whose harrowing and hallowing overland journeys are commemorated in the art of the Casper Wyoming Temple, Quentin L. Cook declared, “The temple provides a continuing remembrance of the Savior’s Atonement and what it overcomes. And, even more important, temple attendance allows us to provide a spiritual rescue for our deceased loved ones and more distant ancestors.”30 (Thinking of five direct ancestors31 who were in the Martin handcart company made Elder Cook’s message even more personal and poignant.)

Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:37 records that Jesus forewarned, “And whoso treasureth up my word, shall not be deceived, for the Son of Man shall come, and he shall send his angels before him with the great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together the remainder of his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” Certainly, this refers to meaningful scripture study and heeding the words of living prophets. Nevertheless, an important additional element in treasuring up the Lord’s “word,” is by going to the temple to be taught in his ways and to receive personal revelation that will enable us to walk in his paths (see Isaiah 2:2–3; 2 Nephi 12:2–3). We can do as Moses, Isaiah, Nephi, Jacob, and the Savior himself did. As Elder Dale G. Renlund recently taught, “We can also avoid deception by worshipping regularly in the temple. This helps us maintain an eternal perspective and protects us from influences that might distract or divert us from the covenant path.”32

At the conclusion of the October 2018 General Conference, President Russell M. Nelson pleaded with the Latter-day Saints to make temple worship a priority:

My dear brothers and sisters, the assaults of the adversary are increasing exponentially, in intensity and in variety. Our need to be in the temple on a regular basis has never been greater. I plead with you to take a prayerful look at how you spend your time. Invest time in your future and in that of your family. If you have reasonable access to a temple, I urge you to find a way to make an appointment regularly with the Lord—to be in His holy house—then keep that appointment with exactness and joy. I promise you that the Lord will bring the miracles He knows you need as you make sacrifices to serve and worship in His temples.33

Many of us—the present writer most certainly included—will do well to respond more often, more promptly, and more affirmatively to the Lord’s summons, “Arise, and get thee into the mountain” (1 Nephi 17:7) or “Get thou up into the temple” (Jacob 2:11). We should do so remembering, as Sister Runia recently reminded us, that “heaven isn’t for people who’ve been perfect; it’s for people who’ve been forgiven, who choose Christ again and again.”34 Worshiping in the temple will keep us in remembrance of him and of that fact. The Lord, through his living prophet, has promised us miracles. The greatest miracle might be our individual and collective sanctification and eventual perfection in Christ and our being prepared to meet him when he comes. As Elder Vargas testified, “We will stand as temples—holy, firm, and constant. We will weather the storms, and we will make it home, enduring to the end and rejoicing to the end.”35 As Jude testified, Jesus Christ is the one “that is able to keep [us] from falling, and to present [us] faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy” (Jude 1:24). May we trust this promise more perfectly.

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 a 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 (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2018) and 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). With Aaron P. Schade, he is the coauthor of The Book of Moses: From the Ancient of Days to the Latter Days (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021). He and his wife (the former Suzanne Blattberg) are the parents of three children: Zachariah, Nathan, and Adele.

1 . Russell M. Nelson, “Confidence in the Presence of God,” General Conference address, April 2025, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025
/04/57nelson.

2 . Ronald A. Rasband, “Right Before Our Eyes,” General Conference address, April 2025, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference
/2025/04/15rasband.

3 . Margaret Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), 45. See further Gary A. Rendsburg, “The Psalms as Hymns in the Temple of Jerusalem,” in Jesus and Temple: Textual and Archaeological Explorations, ed. James A. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 95–122, jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/images/documents/faculty/Rendsburg/psalms-hymns-temple.pdf.

4 . Donald W. Parry, “Who Shall Ascend into the Mountain of the Lord?”: Three Biblical Temple Entrance Hymns,” in Revelation, Reason, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen, ed. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS], 2014), 729–42, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/67/.

5 . John S. Kselman and Michael L. Barré, “Psalms,” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), 529.

6 . Kselman and Barré, “Psalms,” 529.

7 . Donald W. Perry, “Inverted Quotations,” in 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), 89–92.

8 . Elder Maxwell stated, “So it is that real, personal sacrifice never was placing an animal on the altar. Instead, it is a willingness to put the animal in us upon the altar and letting it be consumed! Such is the ‘sacrifice unto the Lord . . . of a broken heart and a contrite spirit,’ (D&C 59:8), a prerequisite to taking up the cross, while giving ‘away all [our] sins’ in order to ‘know God’ (Alma 22:18); for the denial of self precedes the full acceptance of Him.” Neal A. Maxwell, “Deny Yourselves of All Ungodliness,” Ensign, May 1995, 68, churchofjesuschrist
.org/study/ensign/1995/05/deny-yourselves-of-all-ungodliness.

9 . Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Encircled About Eternally in the Arms of His Love’: The Divine Embrace as a Thematic Symbol of Jesus Christ and His Atonement in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 59 (2023): 109–34, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/encircled
-about-eternally-in-the-arms-of-his-love-the-divine-embrace-as-a-thematic
-symbol-of-jesus-christ-and-his-atonement-in-the-book-of-mormon/.

10 . On “service” [ʿăbōdâ] as a temple term, see Donald W. Parry, “Service and Temple in King Benjamin’s Speech,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16, no. 2 (2007): 42–47, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent
.cgi?article=1428&context=jbms.

11 . 1 Nephi 11:1; 2 Nephi 4:25. See further Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Upon the Wings of His Spirit’: A Note on Hebrew rûaḥ and 2 Nephi 4:25,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 58 (2023): 19–32, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/upon-the-wings-of-his-spirit-a-note-on-hebrew
-rua%E1%B8%A5-and-2-nephi-425/.

12 . Warren P. Aston and Michaela Knoth, In the Footsteps of Lehi: New Evidence for Lehi’s Journey Across Arabia to Bountiful (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994); Warren P. Aston, “The Arabian Bountiful Discovered? Evidence for Nephi’s Bountiful,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7, no. 1 (1997): 4–11, 70, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1184&context=jbms.

13 . BYU Hawai‘i Mission Statement, about.byuh.edu/about-byuh/mission-and
-vision.

14 . BYU Hawai‘i Vision, about.byuh.edu/about-byuh/mission-and-vision.

15 . Psalm 144:12, “[T]hat our sons [bānȇnû] may be as plants grown up in their youth; that our daughters [bĕnôtênû] may be as corner stones [corner pillars], polished after the similitude of a palace [tabnît hêkāl, or, pattern of a temple].

16 . See 1 Nephi 19:23; 2 Nephi 11:2. On early Nephite polity and the associated practice of “likening” of the words of Isaiah to themselves in their circumstances, see Brant Gardner, “A Social History of the Early Nephites” (paper delivered at the third annual FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2001), fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2001/a-social-history-of-the-early
-nephites; John Gee and Matthew Roper, “‘I Did Liken All Scriptures unto Us’: Early Nephite Understandings of Isaiah and 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), 51–65; see especially the discussion on pp. 55–58, contentdm
.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/rsc/id/30504.

17 . Matthew L. Bowen, “Scripture Note: ‘Pointing Our Souls to Him,’” Religious Educator 20, no. 1 (2019): 165–71, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/re/vol20/iss1/11/. The Hebrew verb yry/yrh denotes both to “teach” and the idea of “stretching out the finger, or the hand, to point out a route.” See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden, NL: Brill, 2001), 710.

18 . Jon Ryan Jensen, “Elder Bednar Says ‘Power of Godliness’ in Covenants, Ordinances,” reporting on an address given to missionaries at the Missionary Training Center (Provo, UT) on 24 August 2021, newsroom.churchofjesuschrist
.org/article/elder-bednar-says-power-of-godliness-in-covenants-ordinances.

19 . See David E. Bokovoy, “Ancient Temple Imagery in the Sermons of Jacob,” in Temple Insights: Proceedings of the Interpreter Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, “The Temple on Mount Zion,” 22 September 2012, ed. William J. Hamblin and David Rolph Seely (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014), 171–186, reprinted at journal.interpreterfoundation
.org/ancient-temple-imagery-in-the-sermons-of-jacob/.

20 . See Matthew L. Bowen, “‘I Have Done According to My Will’: Reading Jacob 5 as Temple Text,” in The Temple Ancient and Restored: Proceedings of the 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Symposium, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and Donald W. Parry; Temple on Mount Zion Series 3; (Salt Lake City: Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2016), 235–72, reprinted at interpreterfoundation.org
/reprint-i-have-done-according-to-my-will-reading-jacob-5-as-a-temple
-text/.

21 . Benjamin M. Z. Tai, “The Love of God,” General Conference address, April 2025, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/04/56tai. Elder Tai relates the experience of a friend who had a great burden of resentment and bitterness removed while worshipping in the temple:

I have a friend who was blessed with a beautiful family and a promising career. This changed when an illness left him unable to work, which was followed by a divorce. The years since have been difficult, but his love for his children and the covenants he has made with God have sustained him. One day he learned that his former spouse had remarried and had requested a cancellation of their temple sealing. He was troubled and confused. He sought peace and understanding in the house of the Lord. The day after his visit, I received the following message from him:

“I had an amazing experience in the temple last night. I think it was obvious that I still held quite a bit of resentment. . . . I knew that I must change, and I have been praying all week to do so. . . . Last night in the temple I literally felt the Spirit remove the resentment from my heart. . . . It was such a relief to be freed from it. . . . An ominous physical burden bearing down on me has been lifted.”

22 . See John W. Welch, The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount: A Latter-Day Saint Approach (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/89/; John W. Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and Sermon on the Mount: An Approach to 3 Nephi 11–18 and Matthew 5–7 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), scholarsarchive.byu.edu
/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=mi; John W. Welch, The Sermon on the Mount in the Light of the Temple (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2009),
scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book/sermon-mount-light-temple.

23 . Walter Bauer, Fredrick William Danker, William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,ed. Fredrick William Danker, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 995. Hereafter cited as BDAG.

24 . BDAG, 996.

25 . BDAG, 996.

26 . Sergio R. Vargas, “Our Heavenly Guidance System,” General Conference address, April 2025, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025
/04/34vargas.

27 . President Woodruff declared:

When I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to (we were then being adopted to prophets and apostles,) the Spirit of God said to me, “Have you not a father, who begot you?” “Yes, I have.” “Then why not honor him? Why not be adopted to him?” “Yes,” says I, “that is right.” I was adopted to my father, and should have had my father sealed to his father, and so on back; and the duty that I want every man who presides over a Temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. When a man receives the endowments, adopt him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. That is the will of God to this people. I want all men who preside over these temples in these mountains of Israel to bear this in mind. What business have I to take away the rights of the lineage of any man? What right has any man to do this? No; I say let every man be adopted to his father; and then you will do exactly what God said when he declared He would send Elijah the prophet in the last days [Malachi 4:5]. Elijah the prophet appeared unto Joseph Smith and told him that the day had come when this principle must be carried out [Doctrine and Covenants 110:13–16]. Joseph Smith did not live long enough to enter any further upon these things. His soul was wound up with this work before he was martyred for the word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ. He told us that there must be a welding link of all dispensations and of the work of God from one generation to another. This was upon his mind more than most any other subject that was given to him. In my prayers the Lord revealed to me, that it was my duty to say to all Israel to carry this principle out, and in fulfillment of that revelation I lay it before this people. I say to all men who are laboring in these temples, carry out this principle, and then we will make one step in advance of what we have had before.

Wilford Woodruff, “Discourse 1894–04–08,” The Wilford Woodruff Papers (p. 3), wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/f2fe250d-7f7a-493c-a191-fc02c233
ea95/page/757b7959-4172-4556-916a-c370b91806f2. On the gradual unfolding understanding of the eternal family, see R. Devan Jensen, Michael A. Goodman, and Barbara Morgan Gardner, “‘Line Upon Line’: Joseph Smith’s Growing Understanding of the Eternal Family,” Religious Educator 20, no. 1 (2019): 34–59, rsc.byu.edu/vol-20-no-1-2019/line-upon
-line-joseph-smiths-growing-understanding-eternal-family.

28 . Gérald Caussé, “Compensating Blessings,” General Conference address, April 2025, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/04
/44causse.

29 . Tamara W. Runia, “Your Repentance Doesn’t Burden Christ; It Brightens His Joy,” General Conference address, April 2025, churchofjesuschrist.org
/study/general-conference/2025/04/43runia.

30 . Quentin L. Cook, “The Atonement of Jesus Christ Provides the Ultimate Rescue,” General Conference address, April 2025, churchofjesuschrist.org
/study/general-conference/2025/04/16cook.

31 . Mary (“Wee Granny”) Murray (Murdoch), John Briggs, Ruth Butterworth (Briggs), Eliza Briggs (Stratton), and George Peden Waugh. Murdoch died at Chimney Rock in Nebraska, only a few days short of age 72. Briggs died at age 44 at Devil’s Gate in Wyoming (two of his children also died due to the conditions there). John’s wife, Ruth, died nearly four years later. Their daughter, Eliza, despite having part of a foot frozen off, lived to marry and have a large family before dying due to complications from childbirth in 1871. Waugh, who had previously settled his daughter and granddaughter in Utah after an earlier overland journey to Utah, joined the Martin handcart company and assisted it on its westward journey upon his return from a mission to Canada and the British Isles. He died near the mouth of Emigration Canyon on 29 November 1856, at age 65.

32 . Dale G. Renlund, “Personal Preparation to Meet the Savior,” General Conference address, April 2025, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general
-conference/2025/04/25renlund.

33 . Russell M. Nelson, “Becoming Exemplary Latter-day Saints,” General Conference address, October 2018, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general
-conference/2018/10/becoming-exemplary-latter-day-saints.

34 . Runia, “Your Repentance Doesn’t Burden Christ.”

35 . Vargas, “Our Heavenly Guidance Systems.”

Figure 1. The Southern Stairs or Rabbi’s Stairs on the south side of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, over which the lead-sheeted dome of Al-Aqsa Mosque rises. These stairs were evidently used during the time of Jesus to ascend into and descend from the temple complex on the south side. Photo by the author.

Figure 2. Laie Temple, 2025. The most visited temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been the Salt Lake Temple. The second most-visited temple is in Laie, Hawaii. Photo by the author.

The Literary Structure of Alma 23–27

Derek Squire

Abstract: This article presents a macro-chiasm for Alma 23:16 through Alma 27:30 that covers the account of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi from the time they first take upon themselves that name to the time they relocate to the Nephite land of Jershon and are subsequently called the people of Ammon. The central element of this chiasm highlights the martyrdom of some Lamanite believers in the wilderness by the hand of the seed of Amulon in fulfillment of Abinadi’s prophecy in Mosiah 17:15. The meaning behind this puzzling prophecy may be illuminated by analyzing the structure of this macro-chiasm. It underscores the role Alma 26 plays as a strategic interruption in the narrative, much like how Alma 36–42 disrupts the story of the Zoramites. Events within the account of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi were carefully crafted by Mormon and purposefully placed within the narrative to form a memorable foundation story justifying the acceptance and integration of the people of Ammon into Nephite society both religiously and politically. The same criteria previously used to measure the strength of a proposed chiasm are employed here.

As a follow-up to a previous article, “The Literary Structure of Alma 17–20: A 14-unit Chiasm,”1 this article examines the literary structure of Alma 23–27. The chiasm presented here falls within two original chapters of the Book of Mormon, comprising Alma 23–26 and Alma 27–29, respectively.2 This new article focuses primarily on the proposed macro-chiasm within these chapters. The literary structure of each original chapter on its own is not explicated here, ensuring the chiasm itself is properly emphasized and examined.

In this article, I do the following:

- Provide a summary of the account shared in Alma 23–27.

- Present the nine-element chiasm for Alma 23:16–27:30.

- Analyze the matching elements from this chiasm and explain why this structure may have been deliberately formed by Mormon.

- Describe the role Ammon’s words in Alma 26 play both structurally and strategically in the narrative.

- Summarize key findings and insights gleaned from analyzing the chiastic structure of this account.

Summary of Alma 23–27

Alma 23 begins with the king over all the land (Lamoni’s father) sending a proclamation to his people that the sons of Mosiah and their brethren are to be kept safe from harm and given free access to preach the gospel among them. With the king’s support and protection, these missionaries go forth and preach to the Lamanites throughout the land and enjoy great success. Seven cities of the Lamanites are converted unto the Lord.

The narrative arc associated with the proposed macro-chiasm begins at Alma 23:16 and runs through Alma 27. The converted Lamanites want to be distinguished from their unbelieving brethren with a new name. After some consultation, the people decide to call themselves Anti-Nephi-Lehies. Lamoni’s father confers the kingdom upon his son (Lamoni’s brother) and calls his name Anti-Nephi-Lehi. Lamoni’s father subsequently dies.

The unbelieving Amalekites,3 Amulonites, and Lamanites prepare for war against the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi. Ammon and his brethren hold a council with Kings Lamoni and Anti-Nephi-Lehi about what they should do to defend themselves against these Lamanites. King Anti-Nephi-Lehi commands his people to never again shed the blood of their brethren, even in self-defense. They covenant with God to never use weapons again. They take all their weapons and bury them deep in the earth. If they then happened to be slain, King Anti-Nephi-Lehi promised they would go to their God and be saved.

The Lamanites come upon the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who offer no resistance. Weaponless, they go out to meet the Lamanites, prostrate themselves before them, and call on the name of the Lord, praising him even while they are being slain. One thousand five are massacred by the Lamanites in this manner. Many of the Lamanites are “stung for the murders which they had committed” (24:25). They repent, throw down their weapons of war, and join the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi upon the ground, “relying upon the mercies of those whose arms were lifted to slay them” (24:25). More Lamanites end up joining the people of God that day than the number who had been slain.

A series of battles and contentions then follows in the narrative. “Actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel” (24:29) are angry because the Amalekites and Amulonites were mainly responsible for the deaths of their brethren. They swear vengeance upon the Nephites and destroy the people in the city of Ammonihah, who were mainly after the order of Nehor. The Lamanites have more battles with the Nephites in which almost all the seed of Amulon are slain. The remainder of them flee into the wilderness and end up usurping power over Lamanites there. Many of these Lamanites remembered the words of Aaron and his brethren and are converted unto the Lord while in the wilderness. The seed of Amulon cause these Lamanite believers to be put to death by fire. This martyrdom causes many of their Lamanite brethren to be stirred up to anger against the seed of Amulon. They begin to hunt the seed of Amulon and slay them. When the Lamanites eventually return to their own lands, many of them join the people of God and bury their weapons of war.

There is a break in the narrative at this point. Alma 26 consists of Ammon’s words to his brethren in which he summarizes their labors among the Lamanites. He praises and thanks the Lord for the great blessings he had bestowed upon them. He rejoices in the Lord for his mercy and for the many mighty miracles wrought in the land. The inclusion of Ammon’s words here appears to serve distinct structural and strategic purposes that will be detailed in a separate section below.

The narrative resumes in Alma 27 with a second episode of Amalekites’ stirring up the Lamanites to anger against their brethren, the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi. They begin again to destroy them, and the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi again refuse to take up their arms and suffer themselves to be slain. Ammon and his brethren see this great work of destruction and tell King Anti-Nephi-Lehi that he should gather his people together and flee out of the land to avoid further destruction. Ammon inquires of the Lord and receives confirmation that the people should leave to be preserved. King Anti-Nephi-Lehi obeys the Lord’s command.

The people then depart out of the land and come to the borders of the land of Zarahemla. Ammon and his brethren go into the land of Zarahemla to see if the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi will be allowed to enter Nephite lands. They meet Alma along the way and have a joyous reunion after being separated for 14 years. Alma takes them to see the chief judge who sends a proclamation to the people about admitting the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi into their land. The Nephites offer to give them the land of Jershon for their inheritance and promise to provide protection in exchange for a portion of their substance. The people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi go down into the land of Jershon and take possession of it. The Nephites subsequently call them the people of Ammon, and they are distinguished by that name ever after.

Nine-Element Chiasm in Alma 23:16–27:30

The complete narrative episode of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi can be structured as a nine-element chiasm, highlighting key details from the storyline in Alma 23:16–27:30 as shown below:

A Lamanite converts desire to be distinguished (x2) by a new name; they call their names Anti-Nephi-Lehies; they open a correspondence with the Nephites; the Lamanites prepare for war; Lamoni’s father confers the kingdom upon his son and calls his name Anti-Nephi-Lehi (23:16–24:4).

B “Now when Ammon and his brethren . . . saw the preparations of the Lamanites to destroy” the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, they went to the land of Ishmael to hold a council with two kings; along the way, Ammon met all his brethren; King Anti-Nephi-Lehi speaks to his people; he thanks God for his forgiveness of the people’s sins and many murders committed; they bury their weapons and make a covenant with God (24:5–19).

C Lamanites come up to destroy the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi; 1,005 of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies are slain without offering any resistance (24:20–22).

D Many Lamanites repent and throw down their weapons of war; the people of God are joined by more than the number slain; those slain were righteous people; the Lord worketh in many ways to the salvation of His people (24:23–27).

E Lamanites destroy the city of Ammonihah; Nephites slay almost all the seed of Amulon; many Lamanites in the wilderness begin to believe in the Lord and are converted; they are put to death by the seed of Amulon because of their belief; in anger, Lamanites hunt the seed of Amulon; Abinadi is the first to suffer death by fire for his belief in God; Abinadi’s prophecy is fulfilled (25:2–12)

D' Many Lamanites come over and join the people of God; they bury their weapons of war; they begin to be a righteous people; they retain a hope through faith in Christ unto eternal salvation (25:13–16)

C' The Amalekites again go against the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi and destroy them; the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi again refuse to take up their arms and suffer themselves to be slain (27:1–3)

B' “Now when Ammon and his brethren saw this work of destruction” they go to speak with the king in hopes of fleeing to the land of Zarahemla for protection; King Anti-Nephi-Lehi worries about the many murders and sins his people committed against the Nephites; Ammon inquires of the Lord; the people depart out of the land; along the way, Ammon and his brethren met Alma; they speak with the chief judge; the Anti-Nephi-Lehies are given the land of Jershon and protection if they give of their substance (27:4–24)

A' The people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi take possession of the land of Jershon and are called by the Nephites the people of Ammon; they are distinguished (x2) by this name and by their zeal towards God; they are a highly favored people of the Lord (27:25–30)

Correlation Between Matching Elements

Correlations between the matching elements of this chiasm are detailed below. Notably, Ammon’s words in Alma 26 are excluded from the chiasm, but his words are a beautiful and significant addition which summarizes the 14-year mission of the sons of Mosiah among the Lamanites. A section in this article is devoted to Alma 26 to consider the role it plays in the literary structure of these chapters and why it is not included in the chiasm. It is titled “The Role of Alma 26 in the Narrative” and follows the section titled “Analyzing the Chiasticity of the Proposed Chiasm.”

Correspondences between A and A' (Alma 23:16–24:4 and 27:25–30)

The chiasm fully covers the account of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi. The strongest link between these two elements is the double use of the word distinguished in each element and the naming of the converted Lamanite people (23:16; 27:26, 27). This functions as part of an inclusio framing the entire account along with the positive attributes of the people enumerated in both elements. In element A, those Lamanites who are converted unto the Lord are “desirous that they might have a name, that thereby they might be distinguished from their brethren” (23:16). The king consults with others “concerning the name that they should take upon them, that they might be distinguished” (23:16), and “they called their name Anti-Nephi-Lehies” (23:17). In A', the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi take possession of the land of Jershon in Nephite territory, and “they were called by the Nephites the people of Ammon; therefore, they were distinguished by that name ever after” (27:26). The second use of distinguished in A' emphasizes a quality that made the people distinct even from their Nephite brethren: “And they were also distinguished for their zeal towards God and also towards men” (27:27). These are the only instances of the word distinguished in these chapters. The word distinguished comes after the word name in both instances in A, whereas this ordering is inverted in A' with the word name coming after the word distinguished in 27:26. In both elements, the people are “called” a “name” (23:17; 27:26), which strengthens the link even further. In A, the keywords name, distinguished, and called appear in inverted order in A'. Other inversions occur between the matching elements B and B', C and C', and D and D', respectively. Such inversions strengthen the likelihood that this macro-chiasm was intentionally formed.

In both elements, the people’s relationship with the Nephites is highlighted. In A, the people “were no more called Lamanites . . . yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites. Therefore they did open a correspondence with them” (23:17–18). In A', the people were said to be numbered “among the people of Nephi” (27:27), suggesting that they were now connected with the Nephites, not just geographically but relationally as well.

Positive attributes of the people are enumerated in both elements. In A, the people are described as “a very industrious people friendly with the Nephites . . . and the curse of God did no more follow them” (23:18). In A', the people are “distinguished for their zeal towards God and also towards men, for they were perfectly honest and upright in all things. And they were firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end” (27:27). Their faith in Christ is described in terms of their “hope and views of Christ and the resurrection” (27:28). They are also known for being “a zealous and beloved people, a highly favored people of the Lord” (27:30).

There is an antithetical parallel in these elements between the Lamanites who “took up arms against the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi” (24:2) in A, and the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi (known as the people of Ammon at this point) who “never could be prevailed upon to take up arms against their brethren” (27:28) in A'.

Correspondences between B and B' (Alma 24:5–19 and 27:4–24)

These are the only two elements in which King Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s words are recorded. The king shares a key phrase that occurs only in these two elements, but the key terms sins and murders are in inverse order in B'. This inverted ordering of terms may be additional evidence of chiastic intent. In B, King Anti-Nephi-Lehi mentions three times the “sins” and “murders” that his people “committed” (24:9, 10, 11). In B', he twice mentions the “murders” and “sins” the people “committed” (27:6, 8). These are the only five instances in which these three keywords appear in the Book of Mormon. Strikingly, four out of the five references use the descriptor many before the word murders (24:9, 11; 27:6, 8). The other verse also uses the descriptor many, but before the word sins instead (24:10).

Both elements use the same lengthy phrase to introduce their respective episodes. Element B begins in the following manner: “Now when Ammon and his brethren . . . saw the preparations of the Lamanites to destroy their brethren” (24:5). Element B' begins in the same manner: “Now when Ammon and his brethren saw this work of destruction” (27:4). Further down in this same verse, there is an example of repetitive resumption using a similar phrase: “Therefore when Ammon and his brethren saw this great work of destruction . . .” The first two references are the only two instances in the Book of Mormon of the phrase now when Ammon and his brethren coupled with the keywords saw and destroy/destruction. Such a lengthy and significant repeated phrase as this one suggests that these two accounts are connected in some way.

There are two meetings noted in these elements. In B, “Ammon met all his brethren” (24:5) in the land of Midian.4 In B', “[Ammon] and his brethren met Alma” (27:16) as they were going forth to the land of Zarahemla. These are the only two occurrences of the word met within the chiasm.

In each element, Ammon and his brethren discuss the welfare of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi with King Anti-Nephi-Lehi and one other important political leader. In B, they hold a council with Kings Lamoni and Anti-Nephi-Lehi about how the people will defend themselves against the Lamanites (24:5). In B', they first speak with King Anti-Nephi-Lehi about fleeing out of the hands of their enemies to avoid destruction (27:5). Once Ammon and his brethren arrive in the land of Zarahemla, they discuss the plight of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi with the chief judge, Nephihah (27:20).

Many other keyword parallels exist between these two elements. Both elements include a reference to angels. In B, King Anti-Nephi-Lehi expresses his gratitude that “in [the Great God’s] mercy he doth visit us by his angels” (24:14). In B', Ammon and his brethren are said to have been treated by the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi “as though they were angels sent from God to save them from an everlasting destruction” (27:4). The word angels is not used anywhere else within these chapters. The phrase commit sin is only found in these two elements (24:19; 27:23). Both instances illustrate the deep disdain the Anti-Nephi-Lehies held toward sin.

The phrase take up arms against their brethren is also found in both elements (24:6; 27:23). The people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi refuse to take up arms against their brethren in 24:6; and the Nephites see that the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi will not take up arms against their brethren because of their fear to commit sin in 27:23. This phrase also occurs in 27:28 in the final narrative summary highlighting the people’s firmness and resolve to never take up arms against their brethren but nowhere else within the chiasm. A similar phrase, took up arms, is used in 24:2, but it relates to the Lamanites taking up arms against the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi instead of the other way around.

Repentance is another shared theme. In B, King Anti-Nephi-Lehi speaks three times of the repentance of his people (24:10–11). The two references in 24:11 are coupled with the phrase all we could do, accentuating the heartache the people felt during the repentance process. In B', the Nephites recognize the “sore repentance” (27:23) the Anti-Nephi-Lehies experienced. The only other time repentance is mentioned in these chapters is in 24:24, in which many Lamanites “repented of the thing which they had done” when they saw the Anti-Nephi-Lehies perish without offering any resistance.

There is a significant thematic parallel that also deserves mention. Both elements describe a covenant or agreement into which the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi enter. In both elements, people put their lives on the line. In B, the people covenant with God “that rather than to shed the blood of their brethren, they would give up their own lives” (24:18). In B', the Nephites promise to guard the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi with their armies, which essentially puts the lives of these guards on the line as well. In both elements, people give up a possession as part of the covenant/agreement. In B, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies bury their weapons deep in the earth. In B', the Nephites agree to give the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi land for their inheritance, and the Anti-Nephi-Lehies agree to give the Nephites a portion of their substance to help maintain their armies.

There is also an antithetical parallel regarding the heart. In B, God gives the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi a portion of his Spirit to soften their hearts (24:8), and he takes away the guilt and sins from their hearts (24:10, 11). In B', the Amalekites’ hearts are portrayed in stark contrast to the hearts of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi. In this case, “Satan hath great hold on the hearts of the Amalekites” (27:12).

Correspondences between C and C' (Alma 24:20–22 and 27:1–3)

These two matching elements consist of episodes in which the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi are martyred by the Lamanites without retaliation. In C, “without meeting any resistance [the Lamanites] did slay a thousand and five of them” (24:22). In C', “this people again refused to take their arms; and they suffered themselves to be slain” (27:3). Both elements include the combination of key terms the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi and destroying/destroy, but they are in inverted order in C'. Again, this inverted ordering is an indication that these elements were intentionally paired as elements in the proposed macro-chiasm. In C, the Lamanites come down to the land of Nephi for the purpose of “destroying the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi” (24:20). In C', the Amalekites “stir up the people in anger against their brethren, the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi. Therefore they began again to destroy them” (27:2). This combination of key terms is only found in these two verses.

Correspondences between D and D'
(Alma 24:23–27 and 25:13–17)

Elements D and D' share the common theme of Lamanites converting to the Lord and throwing down or burying their weapons. In D, many Lamanites who fought against the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi see them praise God “even in the very act of perishing under the sword” (24:23). They stop fighting and “repented of the thing which they had done” (24:24), and “threw down their weapons of war” (24:25). In D', many Lamanites join the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi and “did also bury their weapons of war according as their brethren had” (25:14). Element B involves the original group of Anti-Nephi-Lehies burying their weapons, whereas in these two elements, subsequent groups of Lamanites give up their weapons to follow the Lord.

Another connection between these elements involves the narrator using wording from Deuteronomy 5:31–33. In element D, the Lamanites observed the following: “Neither would [the Anti-Nephi-Lehies] turn aside to the right hand or to the left” (Alma 24:23). Grant Hardy notes that this phrase “refers not to the prostrate Anti-Nephi-Lehies’ flinching, but rather to covenant language from Deuteronomy 5:32–33.”5 This phrase from Deuteronomy reads: “Ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.” Grant Hardy also notes the return to this covenant language in Alma 25:14 (in element D').6 In this verse, more Lamanites join the people of God and are described in the following manner: “And they began to be a righteous people, and they did walk in the ways of the Lord and did observe to keep his commandments and his statutes.” Much of this wording also comes from the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy. “Walk in the ways of the Lord” comes from verse 33, “observe” comes from verse 32, and “commandments” and “statutes” come from verse 31.

The key terms join/joined and people of God occur in both elements. However, in D', the order of these two key terms is inverted. This provides further support that these elements were intentionally paired in the proposed macro-chiasm. In D, it is noted that “the people of God were joined,” whereas in D', other Lamanites “did join themselves to the people of God” (24:26; 25:13). This combination of key terms only occurs in these two verses. The phrase righteous people is used in each element to describe converted Lamanites (24:26; 25:14) and is not used anywhere else in the chiasm. Both elements also mention “salvation” (24:27; 25:16). The only other instance of the word salvation in the chiasm is in 24:14, in which it is a part of the term plan of salvation.

Element E (Alma 24:28–25:12)—The weighty theme of martyrdom

The verses in this element are filled with battles and events affecting numerous, and often overlapping, groups including Nephites, Lamanites, the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, Amalekites, Amulonites, and people after the order of the Nehors. Abinadi is also mentioned. What is so important about these verses to justify their placement at the center of the chiasm? What ties them all together into a cohesive unit?

So much information is packed into this part of the narrative that it can be easy to get lost in all the details. With so many different groups involved, it can be difficult at times to keep them all straight and to know which group is being identified by certain pronouns and possessive pronouns. Despite such complexity, the theme of martyrdom is evident throughout these verses and ties them all together. In the middle of this literary unit, many of the Lamanites who had fled into the wilderness begin to remember Aaron’s and his brethren’s preaching. They begin to believe in the Lord and are converted. These courageous Lamanites perish by fire at the hands of the seed of Amulon because of their belief in God. This is significantly referred to as a “martyrdom” in Alma 25:8. The word martyrdom only occurs twice in the Book of Mormon, here and in Alma 14:9, in reference to the women and children who were consumed by fire for their beliefs at “the place of martyrdom” in the city of Ammonihah.

This theme continues with the explicit mention of Abinadi. In 25:11, Abinadi is duly recognized as the first martyr in the Book of Mormon narrative: “And now Abinadi was the first that suffered death by fire because of his belief in God.” Abinadi’s prophecy in Mosiah 17:15 that the seed of the priests of Noah would cause many to be put to death for their beliefs “in the like manner as [Abinadi] was” (25:12) is fulfilled in this central element. This prophecy demands closer inspection. As Abinadi is suffering from the flames, he prophecies, “Behold, even as ye have done unto me, so shall it come to pass that thy seed shall cause that many shall suffer the pains that I do suffer, even the pains of death by fire—and this because they believe in the salvation of the Lord their God” (Mosiah 17:15).

In context, one would expect Abinadi to be cursing the people who are killing him. So, why is Abinadi prophesying that the priests’ descendants will martyr other believers just as Noah and the priests were martyring Abinadi? Logically, it doesn’t make much sense. Noah and his priests could have even accepted this prophecy as something positive when they first heard it. Their seed would follow in their footsteps and execute those they deemed to be troublesome heretics, too. The fulfillment of this prophecy is placed at the heart of the macro-chiasm for a reason and provides a possible answer to the above question. At this point, it is worth remembering that Lamanites had been killing Nephites, and Nephites had been killing Lamanites, for hundreds of years. So when we get to the end of this episode, when Ammon leads the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi to the borders of the land of Zarahemla and says he will go forth into the land to “try the hearts of our brethren, whether they will that [the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi] shall come into their land” (27:15), this request for asylum was anything but trivial. Surely, the Nephites would have been suspicious, at the very least, of these new converts. It was a monumental decision to allow them into their lands and to adopt them into their people, both religiously and politically.

The text does not say what was said to Alma, Nephihah, and the rest of the Nephites that convinced them to accept the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi as fellow citizens and saints. The narrative simply states, “And they went and told the chief judge all the things that had happened unto them in the land of Nephi” (27:20). The Nephites would certainly have been told about how the seed of Amulon burned to death some of these Lamanites because of their shared belief in God. This would have immediately resonated with the Nephites. The founder of their church was martyred in a similar fashion. These Lamanite deaths at the hand of the seed of the priests that killed Abinadi strongly mark this people’s worthiness to be incorporated into the religious polity that had as its wellspring the martyrdom of Abinadi. It may have been viewed as an important indication of their worthiness to be included among those who traced their faith back to the life and death of Abinadi.

The structure of the macro-chiasm puts the focus on this central element and underscores emphatically the equation of Abinadi to the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi. One of the subunits from this central element, Alma 25:9–12, has a nine-element chiasm that will be presented below. For now, it is worth noting that the matching elements D and D' equate Abinadi’s death by fire with the death by fire of the Lamanite believers.

Martyrdom is featured in this central element in another meaningful way. The people responsible for each of these martyrdoms suffer the consequences of their behavior and are themselves destroyed. The people in the city of Ammonihah who martyred so many women and children are themselves destroyed (25:2). The seed of Amulon who martyred Lamanite believers in the wilderness are themselves hunted and slain, just as Abinadi had prophesied (25:8–12). Abinadi’s martyrdom by King Noah and his wicked priests, which occurred much earlier and is recorded in Mosiah 17, is also brought to the fore in this element. King Noah, responsible for Abinadi’s death, suffered death by fire just as Abinadi had suffered earlier (Mosiah 19:20). And while the priests of Noah avoided a similar fate, their seed were not so fortunate. The fact that the seed of Amulon are scattered and slain fulfills Abinadi’s prophecy and completes the retribution cycle for his martyrdom. “Almost all the seed of Amulon and his brethren” (25:4) were slain by the Nephites in this central element. These are the people largely responsible for the deaths of the 1,005 Anti-Nephi-Lehi martyrs in Alma 24:20–22.

By definition, a martyr is someone killed because of her or his religion, that is religious beliefs.7 The words belief, believe, or believed appear four times in this unit (25:5, 6, 7, 11). More specifically, belief in God or the Lord is mentioned twice (25:6, 11). Two subunits within these verses can be structured chiastically with conversion or belief in the Lord highlighted in their respective central elements. These chiasms are shown below.

Nine-element micro-chiasm in Alma 25:5–8 (within Element E)

This subunit within element E depicts the martyrdom of Lamanite believers in the wilderness by the seed of Amulon and can be organized into a nine-element micro-chiasm. These martyrs’ belief in the Lord is prominently displayed at the center of the chiasm as shown below:

A The seed of Amulon “fled into the east wilderness” (25:5)

B The seed of Amulon usurped power and authority over the Lamanites and caused many of them to perish by fire because of their belief (25:5)

C Many were stirred up in remembrance of the preaching of Aaron and his brethren and to disbelieve the traditions of their fathers (25:6)

D They began to believe in the Lord (25:6)

E There were many of them converted in the wilderness (25:6)

D' Rulers of the seed of Amulon caused Lamanites to be put to death who believed in these things (25:7)

C' Many Lamanites were stirred up in anger, and there began to be contention in the wilderness (25:8)

B' The Lamanites began to hunt and slay the seed of Amulon (25:8)

A' The seed of Amulon “fled into the east wilderness” (25:8)

This chiasm is distinctly framed in elements A and A' by the repetition of the seed of Amulon having “fled into the east wilderness” in verses 5 and 8. This phrase is unique to these two verses in the Book of Mormon. Elements B and B' describe the killing of Lamanites and the seed of Amulon. In B, the Lamanites are put to death by the seed of Amulon, whereas in B', the roles of the two groups are reversed and the seed of Amulon are slain by the Lamanites. Elements C and C' share the distinctive phrase stirred up, although it is used in very different contexts. In C, the Lamanites had “suffered much loss and so many afflictions” (25:6), which caused them to be “stirred up in remembrance of the words which Aaron and his brethren had preached to them” (25:6). On the other hand, in C', the martyrdom of many of their brethren caused other Lamanites to be “stirred up to anger” (25:8). Elements D and D' highlight the very definition of martyrdom. In D, belief in the Lord is countered by the death of those who believed (D'). Element E provides a powerful center for this chiasm. Many of the Lamanites were converted in the wilderness.

Nine-element micro-chiasm in Alma 25:9–12 (within Element E)

This second subunit highlights Abinadi’s martyrdom and the fulfillment of his prophecy concerning the seed of the priests of Noah. It can be organized into another nine-element micro-chiasm with Abinadi’s belief in God highlighted in the central element as shown below:

A Hunted by the Lamanites (25:9)

B Words of Abinadi were brought to pass (25:9)

C Concerning the seed of the priests who caused that he should suffer death by fire (25:9)

D A type of things to come; Abinadi was the first that suffered death by fire (25:10–11)

E Because of his belief in God (25:11)

D' This is what he meant—many should suffer death by fire according as he had suffered (v. 11)

C' He said unto the priests of Noah that their seed should cause many to be put to death in the like manner as he was, and that they should be scattered abroad and slain (25:12)

B' These words were verified (25:12)

A' They were driven by the Lamanites, hunted, and smitten (25:12)

The chiasm is framed by the key terms hunted and by the Lamanites in elements A and A'. The ordering of these key terms is inverted in A'. In elements B and B', Abinadi’s words are “brought to pass” (25:9) and “verified” (25:12). Elements C and C' both include references to the seed of the priests causing people to die. In C, Abinadi suffered “death by fire” (25:9). In C', many Lamanites would suffer the same fate. They are “put to death in the like manner as he was” (25:12). Additional details from Abinadi’s prophecy are also provided in C'. He prophesied that the seed of the priests of Noah would be scattered abroad and slain. Elements D and D' both include the phrase suffer(ed) death by fire (25:11). In D, Abinadi is explicitly named. In D', he is again referred to in the phrase according as he had suffered (25:11). There is also a parallel between “a type of things to come” (25:10) announced by Abinadi in D, and “this is what he meant” (25:11), which begins an explanation of this type in D'. The central element in this chiasm indicates “belief in God” (25:11) as the reason why Abinadi was slain. This parallels the central element from the chiasm in Alma 25:5–8 above.

Analyzing the Chiasticity of the Proposed Chiasm

The same six criteria identified by Neal Rappleye to evaluate the strength of proposed chiasms, which were used for the macro-chiasm in Alma 17–20,8 will be used here.9 These six criteria include the following:

- Chiasms should conform to natural literary boundaries.

- A climax or turning point should be found at the center.

- Chiasms should display a relatively well-balanced symmetry.

- The structure of chiasms should be based on major keywords, phrases, or themes.

- Chiasms should manifest little, if any, extraneous repetition or divergent materials.

- Chiastic order should typically not compete with other strong literary forms.

The proposed chiasm for Alma 23:16–27:30 exhibits many characteristics that fulfill the above criteria and thus contribute to its overall strength as a chiasm. First, the chiasm does indeed conform to natural literary boundaries but not in the way one might initially suspect. The chiasm is a part of two original chapters of the Book of Mormon, Alma 23–26 and Alma 27–29, respectively. Also, the chiasm does not start at the beginning of an original chapter, nor does it end at the close of another original chapter. How, then, does this chiasm conform to natural literary boundaries? Strong and clear framing is necessary to justify boundaries that do not fit within the chapter breaks provided by Mormon. In this case, the chiasm is framed by the converted Lamanites naming themselves the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi in 23:16–17 and then being given a different name by the Nephites in 27:26—the people of Ammon. Therefore, the chiasm includes the entire account of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi while they are known by this name. Literarily, an inclusio makes the outer boundaries of the chiasm even more clear. The keyword distinguished is used twice in 23:16 and twice more in 27:26–27.

As detailed above in the “Correlation Between Matching Elements” section under “Element E (Alma 24:28–25:12)—The Weighty Theme of Martyrdom,” martyrdom is the main theme of the central element of the chiasm. Repetition, allusion, and chiasmus are all used to highlight the important themes of martyrdom and belief in God. Three martyrdom accounts are alluded to or explicitly identified in this unit. Lamanite believers in the wilderness and Abinadi are two parties explicitly identified as being slain for their belief in God. The narrative also describes the destruction of the city of Ammonihah in this unit. This event is not placed in this unit by accident. The word martyrdom in 25:8 alludes back to Alma 14:9 in which women and children are consumed by fire for their beliefs at “the place of martyrdom” in Ammonihah. This unit is also surrounded by two more martyrdom episodes in which some of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi are slain (24:20–22; 27:1–3).

This central element also functions as a turning point in the sense that the next martyrdom report in Alma 27:2–3 leads to additional action by the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi besides nonresistance. The people depart from their homeland to Nephite lands with the promise that the Lord will preserve them from further destruction (27:12).

There is much to be appreciated in this central unit. Mormon does a masterful job of adding greater depth and meaning to so few verses by using various literary devices. Martyrdom for a person’s belief in God is key, but the demise of the Amulonites is another critical part of the narrative. The Amulonites, or seed of Amulon, are never mentioned again in the Book of Mormon after these verses.10

The chiasm is relatively well-balanced. There are 80 verses within the chiasm (not counting Alma 26 as explained in the section on that chapter below). There are 30 verses before and 35 verses after the central element of the chiasm. The central element itself consists of 15 verses. Matching units are also of relatively similar lengths.

The structure of the chiasm is based on major keywords, phrases, and themes found within Alma 23:16–27:30. Throughout the analysis on the matching elements above, extraneous repetition has been identified and considered. However, most of the keywords and phrases included in the chiasm are unique to their matching elements. There are also multiple key terms and phrases that appear in inverted order in matching elements within the chiasm, increasing the likelihood that the chiasm was intentionally formed.

The chiasm does not compete with other strong literary forms. Donald Parry has identified some simple and extended alternates and a short chiasm within these verses, but not an overarching structure for these chapters.11 There do not appear to be any published studies dealing with the chiastic structure of these verses on a macro level.

The Role of Alma 26 in the Narrative

Alma 26 plays an interesting and significant role in the overall layout of these chapters. The placement of Ammon’s words appears to serve as a strategic interruption of the narrative. This is like Alma 36–42, which breaks up the narrative of the Zoramite rebellion that is first referenced in Alma 35:13 but not reported until Alma 43:3. Grant Hardy wrote the following about the calculated positioning of Alma 36–42 in the narrative:

Mormon inserts Alma’s instructions to his sons in the middle of the Zoramite War, where it represents a significant break in the narrative. . . . Mormon could have recounted the Zoramite affair from beginning to end and then added Alma’s document without upsetting the chronology at all. . . . The surprising placement seems designed to disrupt a smooth reading of the Zoramite story, which, taken as a whole, did not go so well. By the time readers go back to the war, they may have forgotten the rather awkward truth that Alma’s preaching to the Zoramites not only did not prevent hostilities but was itself a major catalyst for the fighting.12

Preceding Ammon’s report in Alma 26 of his labors among the Lamanites and his great rejoicing and praise for God, the narrative in the original chapter consisting of Alma 23–26 details the slaughter of over a thousand converted Anti-Nephi-Lehies, the complete destruction of the city of Ammonihah, many battles with the Nephites, the destruction of almost all the seed of Amulon, and the martyrdom of even more Lamanite believers in the wilderness. Lamanites return to their own lands and many of them join the people of God, who were the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi. At this point, the narrative is interrupted with Ammon’s words of rejoicing he shares with his brethren. Positive moments within these chapters are limited and quickly followed by destruction and suffering. The positive news provided in Alma 25:13–16 becomes a suitable springboard for Ammon’s words of rejoicing in Alma 26.

Ammon’s words are heartfelt, riveting, and joyous. They are a great summary of the fourteen years the sons of Mosiah spent preaching to the Lamanites. After reading such a stirring account, it is easy to forget exactly where the narrative left off. The narrative resumes in Alma 27 with yet another heartbreaking episode of martyrdom as the Amalekites again stir up the people in anger against the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi and begin to massacre them a second time. The remaining believers had to leave their homeland as a result. In these chapters, we get agonizing account after agonizing account of Lamanite converts who are slain because of their newfound beliefs, not exactly the type of success the sons of Mosiah had envisioned.

Alma “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). Alma and his brethren went to preach to the Zoramites, in part, to keep this from happening. Unfortunately, their efforts did not keep the Zoramites from later joining with the Lamanites to go to war against the Nephites. In fact, their preaching served as a catalyst for the war that broke out in Alma 43–44. Similarly, the sons of Mosiah did not achieve all their objectives when they set out for the land of Nephi to preach to the Lamanites. They had hoped to “cure [the Lamanites] of their hatred towards the Nephites” (Mosiah 28:2). Although Ammon rejoices in his dearly beloved brethren who “would still have been racked with hatred against us” (Alma 26:9) without receiving the word of God, many others became even more hardened because of their preaching (Alma 24:30) and continued to fight against the Nephites.

The people of Ammon settled in the Nephite land of Jershon with Nephite armies around about the land to protect them. The armies of the Lamanites had followed the people of Ammon into the wilderness and began to attack the Nephite armies. “And thus there was a tremendous battle, yea, even such an one as never had been known among all the people in the land; . . . yea, and tens of thousands of the Lamanites were slain and scattered abroad. Yea, and also there was a tremendous slaughter among the people of Nephi” (28:2–3). The sons of Mosiah wrought “many mighty miracles” (26:12) among the Lamanites, but their impact on minimizing wars and contentions in the land turned out to be minimal at best.

The positioning of Alma 26 also serves to strengthen the structure of the chiasm. In elements C and D of the chiasm, the Lamanites slay over a thousand of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies “without meeting any resistance” (24:22). Many of the Lamanites see that the Anti-Nephi-Lehies dramatically choose not to fight back, so they repent of the things they have done and join the people of God. The obvious parallel episode to element C in these chapters is the second instance of the Lamanites going against the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi in which they again refuse to take up their arms against the Lamanites and more of them are slain in Alma 27:2–3. However, this episode does not have a corresponding account of Lamanite conversion at the end of it. Instead, Alma 26 breaks up the ordering of the elements of the chiasm in such a manner that Alma 25:13–16 functions as the matching element to element D. In D', Lamanites return to their own lands after many battles with the Nephites. Many of these Lamanites decide to join themselves to the people of God. The inverted ordering of “join . . . the people of God” (25:13) in D' compared with “the people of God . . . joined” (24:26) in D suggests that these elements should be paired together.

Alma 26 also functions as a frame of the theme of joy for Alma 26–29. John Welch provided the following instructive insight:

Notice that the word “joy” appears in Ammon’s ecstatic reflection seven times. . . . Another seven–fold expression of complete joy will show up again in Alma 27:17–19, and yet a third time in Alma 29:5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 14, 16. These triple-expressions of joy to the seventh power, along with the many precise word choices in these deeply personal chapters seem far too literarily purposeful and symbolically meaningful to be accidental or unintentional.13

This structuring can be taken a step further when Alma 28 is taken into consideration. The three seven-fold expressions of joy in Alma 26, 27, and 29 surround a seven-fold use of the words mourning/mourn in Alma 28. The tremendous battle described in Alma 28 was greater than any battle the people had ever known since the time Lehi left Jerusalem, with tens of thousands slain. This resulted in overwhelming mourning, sorrow, and lamentation among all the people. The repeated expressions of joy surrounding this devastating account attempt to soften the grief and sorrow recounted in this episode.

Summary and Conclusions

The macro-chiasm has several characteristics that add to its artistic appeal, including distinct framing, multiple inverted parallels, significant repeated phrases only found in matching elements, and an illuminating center that can deepen readers’ appreciation for the legacy left by the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi. It focuses upon their incomparable zeal towards God and their heroic willingness to “suffer death in the most aggravating and distressing manner which could be inflicted by their brethren” (Alma 27:29) because of their faith in Christ.

The chiasm has readily distinguishable borders in the first matching pair of elements (A and A') formed by the double use of the word distinguished and by the naming of the group of converted Lamanites in each element. Each of the first four matching pairs of elements (A and A', B and B', C and C', and D and D', respectively) have an inverted ordering of key terms in their second occurrence. Multiple such inversions in multiple matching elements strengthen the possibility that these verses were intentionally structured into a chiasm. These inverted phrases include the following:

- “Name . . . distinguished . . . called”/ “called . . . distinguished . . . name” (in 23:16–17 and 27:26, in elements A and A', respectively)

- “Sins and murders . . . we have committed”/ “murders and sins we have committed” (three times in 24:9–11 and twice in 27:6,8, in elements B and B', respectively)

- “Destroying the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi”/ “the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi . . . to destroy them” (in 24:20 and 27:2, in elements C and C', respectively)

- “The people of God were joined”/ “join . . . the people of God” (in 24:26 and 25:13, in elements D and D', respectively)

The repeated phrase, “Now when Ammon and his brethren . . . saw . . . to destroy/destruction” in 24:5 and 27:4, is another significant structural marker of the chiasm. It serves to introduce two matching literary units and functions as a signal to the reader to look for parallels in these respective accounts. In the first episode, the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi choose not to make any preparations for war to defend themselves against the soon-to-attack Lamanites. In the second episode, the people decide to flee their homeland to avoid further destruction at the hands of the attacking Lamanites.

Considering that the center of a chiasm usually represents the climax or turning point, the literary unit at the center of this chiasm at first glance is not the obvious or expected candidate to serve this purpose. Other events transpire within these pages that many would judge more memorable or impactful. There are stirring sermons shared by both King Anti-Nephi-Lehi and Ammon. The people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi are perhaps most well-known for two things—burying their weapons as part of their covenant with God and their willingness to die rather than to commit sin. It makes sense that the theme of martyrdom, this willingness to die for belief in the Lord, would take center stage in the account of this people’s history. A thread of this theme runs throughout the narrative, but it is most concentrated in the central element of the chiasm. This justifies the preeminent position of these verses in the chiasm.

The acceptance of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi by the Nephites both politically and religiously is another theme woven into the narrative. One role of the central unit is to highlight the parallel experiences of Abinadi and Lamanite believers in the wilderness. This would have provided the Nephites with incredibly strong evidence that the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi were sincere and worthy of being incorporated into the religion Abinadi founded. Once this theme is identified within these chapters, other significant connections become apparent. One such connection is found in Alma 23:18. In this verse, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies are described as “a very industrious people.” The word industrious occurs in only four verses in the Book of Mormon. It is used in 2 Nephi 5:17 to describe Nephi’s people after they separated themselves from Laman and Lemuel. It is also used in Mosiah 23:5 to describe Alma’s people after they separated themselves from Noah. By using this word to describe the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, Mormon intentionally links them to the Nephites in general and to fellow believers specifically.14

Another significant connection comes at the end of the episode in Alma 27:27. The people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, now called the people of Ammon, are now “numbered among the people who were of the church of God.” The phrase church of God is key. It first appears in the Book of Mormon in Mosiah 18:17. Alma had baptized over 200 people in the waters of Mormon, “and they were called the church of God.” This phrase next appears in Mosiah 21:30. Limhi’s people “did mourn for the death of Abinadi and also for the departure of Alma and the people that went with him, who had formed a church of God.” By using the phrase church of God, Mormon is linking the people of Ammon with Alma and his followers who first established the church.

Considerable care and attention have been given to the structure of this unit as shown by the two chiasms it contains that have corresponding central elements. The two chiasms, in Alma 25:5–8 and 25:9–12, respectively, both consist of martyrdom accounts that highlight in their central elements the person or persons’ conversion or belief in the Lord. Mormon also effectively uses the literary device of allusion to pack even more meaning and insight into these verses. Multiple allusions to other martyrdom accounts are provided, both explicitly in the case of Abinadi, and implicitly in the case of what occurred in Ammonihah. In Alma 25:5–7, many Lamanites are converted in the wilderness and are put to death by the remnant of the children of Amulon. These Lamanite martyrs may not have even had the chance to be called or known as people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi since they were slain in the wilderness, but they surely would have thought of themselves as Anti-Nephi-Lehies. Belief in God is the thrice-stated fundamental reason behind the deaths in this central account (25:5, 7, 11), making for a fitting center to the overall chiasm as well. Of the five martyrdom accounts referenced or alluded to in these chapters, either implicitly or explicitly, Lamanite converts are martyred in the first, middle, and last accounts.

The dramatic account of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi helps readers see the Lord’s great mercy in allowing and helping people to change. King Anti-Nephi-Lehi described his own people as “the most lost of all mankind” (24:11), yet they were not beyond hope in the Lord’s eyes, nor beyond the reach of His merciful arm.

Ammon saw himself and his brethren in a similarly awful situation before being rescued by the Lord. He exclaimed, “Who could have supposed that our God would have been so merciful as to have snatched us from our awful, sinful, and polluted state? Behold, we went forth even in wrath with mighty threatenings to destroy his church” (26:17–18). Yet the Lord did not “consign [them] to an awful destruction” nor “doom [them] to eternal despair” (26:19).

The sons of Mosiah completely changed their lives. They suffered many afflictions, but they endured their suffering well and became instruments in the Lord’s hands in bringing many of the Lamanites to the knowledge of the truth. This was the first great missionary success that the Nephites had enjoyed among the Lamanites in over 500 years. Their converts, both those who were martyred and those who lived “firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end” (27:27), left an indelible legacy of faith and sacrifice unparalleled in scripture.

Derek Squire was born and raised in Orem, Utah. President Ezra Taft Benson’s call to make the study of the Book of Mormon a lifetime pursuit changed his life when Derek was a teenager. Derek graduated from BYU with a master’s degree in accounting and has been a CPA, nursing home administrator, and business owner of a home health and hospice company with his brother. He is currently a real estate investor. He and his brother, Ryan, are the authors of the book A Christlike Heart: A Study of the Heart in the Book of Mormon (CFI, 2019). Derek served a mission in the Russia Rostov-na-Donu Mission. He and his wife, Elizabeth, are the parents of three girls and a boy. They currently reside in Bountiful, Utah.

1. 1 . Derek Squire, “The Literary Structure of Alma 17–20: A 14-Unit Chiasm,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 60 (2024): 87–136, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-literary-structure-of-alma-17-20
-a-14-unit-chiasm/.

2. 2 . When I use original in this article to describe chapters of the Book of Mormon, I mean the chapters or sections as broken out and clearly delineated on the original and printer manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. For referencing in this article, I will use the Book of Mormon’s current chapters and verses. I will use The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, edited by Royal Skousen, for all wording and grammar in the text unless otherwise specified.

3. 3 . I will use the word “Amalekites” throughout this article instead of “Amlicites” as shown in The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, edited by Royal Skousen. Most people are more familiar with the term Amalekites for this portion of the text. Hopefully, such treatment will avoid unnecessary confusion that might occur if the term Amlicites were used throughout this article.

4. 4 . This is the only mention of a Nephite land called the land of Midian. This may have been a scribal error for the land of Middoni instead.

5. 5 . Grant Hardy, The Annotated Book of Mormon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023), 383n23.

6. 6 . Hardy, Annotated Book of Mormon, 385n14.

7. 7 . Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993), s.v. “martyr.”

8. 8 . Squire, “14-Unit Chiasm,” 109–10.

9. 9 . Neal Rappleye, “Chiasmus Criteria in Review,” in Chiasmus: The State of the Art, ed. John W. Welch and Donald W. Parry (Provo, UT: BYU Studies; Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central, 2020): 296, 301–2, scholarsarchive
.byu.edu/byusq/vol59/iss5/15/.

10. 10 . The priests of Noah are mentioned once more in Alma 43:13, but that is the last we hear of them.

11. 11 . Donald W. Parry, Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text Reformatted (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, 2007): 286–96, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/61/.

12. 12 . Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 149.

13. 13 . John W. Welch, “Alma 23–29: John W. Welch Notes,” in Verse by Verse Thoughts on the Book of Mormon (Springville, UT: Scripture Central, 2020), 649, archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/alma-23-29.

14. 14 . The other reference of the word industrious does not relate to the current point being made and comes later in the Book of Mormon. It is found in Ether 10:22.

The Flimsiest Show on Earth

Blake T. Ostler

Review of Lars Nielsen, How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass: The Second Greatest Show on Earth (Minnetonka, MN: self-pub., 2024). 390 pages. $19.95.

Abstract: Every so often an anti-Mormon book comes along that lowers the bar for attacks on the faith. How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass is one such work. It relies on speculation, conjecture, and tenuous connections to render, out of whole cloth, a hypothesis for the Book of Mormon’s creation that is almost laughable.

For those who prefer to jump to the bottom line, I believe it would be a vast understatement to say that How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass1 is one of the worst attempts to explain the existence of the Book of Mormon ever written. Strong words? Perhaps, but the assessment is compounded by it being the most banal book I have ever come across. After reading the book, my first inclination was to conclude that it really doesn’t deserve a formal review. That reaction, however, must be tempered by the glowing reviews and reports by fawning fans evident in some quarters of the online world. Thus, my final decision was to pen this review, in the hopes of helping some unsuspecting reader who may be tempted to invest in the book. (Hint: save your money for something more valuable. Perhaps a ham sandwich.)

Nielsen is not shy in declaring how amazing his book is. Nielsen presents his “theory” with expansive, unqualified declarations that what he gives us is indisputably true. On the back cover he confidently asserts that his book is the “most comprehensive, evidence-based” explanation and that it is the “true story” of how the Book of Mormon was created. Nielsen even includes an ominous trigger warning:

Trigger Warning: This book is not written for true-believing Mormons (TBMs). If you are a TBM and you do not yet have a robust support system outside of the Mormon church, do not read this book. If you continue to read it, you accept the responsibility of managing your immediate or eventual faith crisis in a way that will not result in harm to yourself or others. (Back cover)2

Duly forewarned by this amazing and brazen assessment of the persuasiveness of his own work, Nielsen presents a theory of how the Book of Mormon was created:

Nephi in The Book of Mormon was to some degree intentionally modeled on (or named after) Kircher’s Barachias Nephi. . . . More than one hundred years after Kircher had passed away, memes from his life and works got into the mind of Dartmouth’s Professor of Oriental Languages (the second link in the Kircherism chain) as he read, translated, and studied the works of the immortal encyclopaedist. Professor [John] Smith transmitted some of those memes to his student, Solomon Spalding (the third link) as part of his graduate-level research and in the form of a fiction that Professor Smith had started but did not publish, fearing that it might injure his reputation as a theological writer. Professor Smith was therefore both a source and an influence on what eventually became The Book of Mormon. After finishing his master’s work, Spalding served as a Dartmouth missionary for ten years, after which he deconstructed his faith and became an atheist. When Professor Smith died in 1809, Spalding decided to finally finish what I now call Stories from Lost Manuscripts Found, which consisted of several nested storylines, including the F, N, J, and M texts. Some or all of these sources ended up in the possession of Sidney Rigdon (the fourth link). (pp. 245–46)

What we can say definitively is that there is absolutely no evidence at all for any of these supposed “links.” But we can say much more than that. It is demonstrable that the claimed links are extremely improbable given more solid evidence. There is no evidence that John Smith ever heard of Kircher, read Kircher, or even had access to anything written by Kircher. Indeed, Kircher (1751–1809) was almost unknown in scholarship during John Smith’s lifetime and copies of Kircher’s works were extremely rare. Nielsen speculates that perhaps Sidney Rigdon accessed Kircher through John Smith, who was at Dartmouth. But the catalogues of Dartmouth’s library holdings in 1775 and 1825 don’t list any works by Kircher.3 Dartmouth College Library didn’t contain Kircher’s three-volume Oedipus Aegyptiacus or any other works by Kircher during Smith’s lifetime. There were no books by Kircher in the library in 1775, when Smith started teaching at Dartmouth, and there were no books by Kircher in the library in 1825, years after his death. The student society libraries didn’t have any books by Kircher either. Further, the Dartmouth student library also didn’t have any Kircher works.4

Nielsen relies solely on an 1850 reference in Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review as the sole evidence to link John Smith to Kircher (p. 139).5 But Nielsen had access to the 1809 Dartmouth library catalogue showing that Kircher’s works were not present in the Dartmouth library at the time. He claims, without substantiation, that John Smith owned the book and not the library, but allows that his 1850 source may be mistaken:

It may be that other New England professors mistakenly assumed that the book belonged to Dartmouth when in reality Professor Smith retained ownership, which would explain why it appeared in the census but not in the catalogues. Alternatively, it may have been donated or sold to the school sometime after [Smith’s] second wife died in 1845. Could there be marginalia in this copy (or some other copy of Oedipus Aegyptiacus that would show beyond peradventure that Professor Smith himself had studied it intimately? Further research into the whereabouts and contents of Professor Smith’s personal collection of books is required. (p. 139)

In other words, Nielsen built his “link” on speculation and, in the process, has fudged the facts and sources. Nielsen fills in historical facts with fictional narratives or “gap filling narrative” to pretend to give us a cozy relationship between John Smith and Solomon Spaulding.6 There is no evidence for Nielsen’s theory except for his sheer creative imagination.

Further, it is unlikely in extremis that John Smith wrote an unpublished novel about Native American civilizations because no one—except apparently Lars Nielsen—ever knew about it. John Smith’s immediate family and contemporaries clearly knew nothing about any such alleged works. There was not a single work by Kircher in John Smith’s library at the time of his death.7 If he had such a passion for Kircher’s works, as Nielsen posits, then we would expect Smith to at least have something from Kircher. But there is nothing. Nielsen doesn’t provide one iota of evidence to the contrary.

Moreover, there is no link between Spaulding and John Smith. Solomon Spalding did not engage in “graduate-level research” at Dartmouth as Nielsen claims (p. 246). Spalding’s 1875 AM degree (in modern times, equivalent to an MA degree) was “conferred in course upon a bachelor of science of three years’ standing or more, on payment of $5.”8 But Nielsen doesn’t let a few facts get in the way. He even approvingly cites the work of Rick Behrens, speculating that there is a link between Dartmouth College and Hyrum Smith, who attended Moor’s Indian Charity School, which was associated with Dartmouth (p. 136). No matter how tenuous the link, Nielsen is not above adopting it to fit his narrative.

There is no evidence that Sidney Rigdon ever knew about either Kircher or John Smith. Nielsen posits that perhaps Rigdon obtained a copy of a missing Spalding manuscript from Patterson’s printing press (pp. 247–50). However, the suggestion that Sidney Rigdon accessed a Spalding manuscript at Patterson’s printing office in Pittsburgh is tenuous; there is simply no evidence that Rigdon was ever there.

Suggesting that Sidney Rigdon met Joseph Smith before or during the translation process in 1829 is an even greater stretch. The John Whitmer history written in 1831 tells us how Sidney was introduced to the Book of Mormon by Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, and Ziba Peterson in 1830.9 John Whitmer was there when Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon and certainly would have known if Sidney Rigdon had been milling about. The history of Rigdon receiving the Book of Mormon is buttressed by Rigdon’s son, John Wickliffe Rigdon, in a lecture composed shortly after his father’s death in 1876:

Along came Parley Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, and one Ziba Peterson with the Book of Mormon. It was a bound volume and it was the first time Sidney Rigdon ever saw it or ever heard of the man called Joseph Smith. Parley Pratt presented the book to my father in the presence of my mother and my oldest sister, Athalia Rigdon Robinson, who was a young girl of ten years of age. Parley Pratt used to be a Baptist minister and was somewhat acquainted with Sidney Rigdon.10

John Rigdon, after recounting the conversion and baptism of his father, tells how his father moved to Hiram and then met Joseph Smith. (This occurred in December 1830.)

[Rigdon] took his family and his little belongings and went to a little town called Hiram, about two and a half miles from Kirtland, and then lived with those people who had been baptized by Parley Pratt and his associates at Kirtland.

When he had got there with his family, they wished him to go to Palmyra to see Joseph Smith, and he went and saw Joseph at that time, being the first time he ever had seen or met him, and he never saw the Book of Mormon until Parley Pratt presented it to him at Mentor, Ohio. He did not see the plates from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, but he talked with him and also the witnesses who saw the plates and helped to write the book as translated by Joseph Smith from the plates. After spending a few days with Joseph Smith, he came back to Hiram firmly convinced that he had found the everlasting gospel to preach to the children of men.11

Nielsen purports to overcome this gaping hole in his posited chain of transmission by referring to an 1887 article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer written by Ethan Smith’s grandson, Ethan Sanford Smith, speculating about a manuscript that was written by John Smith.12 Nielsen relies on this double hearsay within hearsay by Ethan Smith’s grandson:

It is true that Spalding was deeply impressed with Professor Smith, but by the time that Spalding received a copy of his unpublished manuscript, neither professed to believe in the pet doctrines that Wheelock had advocated concerning the genealogy of the Native Americans. To be sure, Professor Smith treasured Wheelock as a friend, as an employer, and as a de facto family member (he even named his firstborn son John Wheelock Smith)—and he duly stayed in his academic lane like the humble and obedient servant that he said he was in the closing of his letters. But that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t something of an inside joke between the professor and his star graduate student that Wheelock, too, had a bit too much of the same orthodox scholasticism mediated by dogmatic faith that had doomed both Kircher and Mather.

Spalding’s story will be told in his own upcoming chapter, but it is enough for now to say that Spalding’s true passion was to be a writer and a storyteller; Professor Smith knew it, and he could not deny it. He believed that Spalding had the laudable and emulous industry that would, with divine grace, qualify him for eminent utility to mankind as both a Dartmouth missionary and as an author, which gave him an inexpressible pleasure. (113–14)

The problem with Nielsen’s unadulterated speculation is that Ethan Smith and Solomon Spalding were not classmates. Spalding was a student from 1781–1785 and Smith was a student from 1786–1790. Moreover, Nielsen asks us to assume, without evidence, that Ethan Sanford Smith knows all his grandfather’s associations and has detailed knowledge of information passed between them as some sort of family tradition passed down by Ethan Smith, or his son Lyndon, who was at Dartmouth.

The biggest problem with the John Smith manuscript theory is that John Smith had written in his lectures that he didn’t believe the Americas were peopled by Jews:

It is almost certain the aboriginal inhabitants of America are not the descendants of Jews, Christians, or Mahometans because no trace of their religions have ever been found among them.13

It is improbable in extremis that John Smith would pass on a secret and unpublished manuscript describing Jews in America when he held no such belief. John Hamer does a good job showing why the Spaulding theory is not accepted by any recognized historian.14

Nielsen purports to offer two previously unknown items in his book (the rest is a bad rehash, at best, of theories regarding Solomon Spaulding and Ethan Smith): (1) The supposed use of the name Nephi in Kircher’s writings and (2) supposed parallels between Kircher’s writings and the Book of Mormon. Neither item, when it comes to explaining the Book of Mormon, has even one iota of merit.

The problem with Nielsen’s assertion that Joseph Smith cribbed the name Nephi through the bewildering maze of “links” that he constructs is that it is impossible. The only place that Kircher uses the name Nephi is in (until recently) unpublished letters to Pietro della Valle between 1628 and 1632, which are now only located in the Vatican archives.15 In published books, the reference is, without exception, to Abenephius the Arab. Nielsen relied on recently published sources that refer to the name “Rabbi Barachias Nephi.” However, the name was not available to Joseph Smith or any other reader in the nineteenth century from anything related to Kircher. As Jason Colavito, the translator of “The Fragments of Abenephius (Rabbi Barachius Nephi),” stated in his introduction to the 2017 translation:

The Renaissance polymath Athanasius Kircher (1602–1680) was a pioneer in what would become fringe history, exploring Egyptian mysteries, the lost continent of Atlantis, the bones of the Nephilim, and many other extraordinary topics that continue to make up the backbone of the unusual edges of history today. Kircher was enormously learned but not always rigorous in his scholarship. In the 1630s, he claimed to possess a manuscript by Rabbi Barachias Nephi of Babylon (the old name for Cairo) in which the mysteries of Egypt were treated and the key to deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphs could be discovered. No one ever saw the complete manuscript, and so its authenticity cannot be evaluated. No information about the author’s identity has ever been uncovered. Indeed, many have suggested that Kircher was himself the author, fabricating the excerpts from the text.16

Nielsen apparently ran across the name Nephi and jumped to the conclusion that somehow, somewhere, sometime, knowledge of the manuscript (or concept) of a “Nephi” who had authored a manuscript of the mysteries of Egypt made its way to Joseph Smith. Nielsen thus creates out of whole cloth a tortuous chain of connections to make his case. Unfortunately for Nielsen, the manuscript referring to Nephi from Kircher never existed in print. As Colavito states:

By the time excerpts from the manuscript saw print in Kircher’s works, the author’s name had been transformed first to Barachias Abenephi and then to Abenephius the Arab, by which name he is conventionally known today. Of the contents of the book, very little is known. A contemporary account said that it was “a little volume by the Rabbi Barachias Nephi, a tract on the history, antiquity, origins, characters, hieroglyphics, religion, and obelisks of the Egyptians.” According to Kircher, the text was called The Book of the Mysteries of Egypt, but at times Kircher refers to excerpts on Judaica as coming from a Book of the Servitude in Egypt and those on religion as deriving from a Book of the Egyptian Religion. The antiquary and astronomer Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc, who was allowed to see only a page of the manuscript, reported that it contained a section comprising a lexicon of hieroglyphic symbols.17

Thus, Nielsen’s primary “find” simply falls apart. The use of the name Nephi is completely coincidental. Nielsen intentionally misleads his readers by referring to the speculated translation by Kircher as the “translation of the record of Nephi” (p. 75). But there was never a printed work by Kircher that referred to the name Nephi, nor by Ethan Smith or Spaulding. No writer before Kircher makes reference to Abenephius, and no one after Kircher has ever found the non-existent book or translation speculated into existence by Nielsen.

Moreover, Abenephius’ identity is not consistent in Kircher’s own work. Originally, he referred to the writer as Rabbi Barachias Nephi of Babylon, and in time he became Abenephius the Arab, a scholar. The only thing that actually remained consistent was the claim that an Arab scholar wrote a treatise on the hieroglyphs of Egypt divining how to interpret them. The interpretations were, in the fragments Kircher preserved, Neoplatonic musings.

That leaves us with the supposed parallels as the only new relevant information provided by Nielsen. But even the most overactive pattern recognition ability could not identify anything suggested by Nielsen as something constituting either direct or indirect influence. Moreover, the “parallels” are simply contrived. Here are the six “Kircherisms” in the Book of Mormon, as fashioned by Nielsen:

1. The first character in The Book of Mormon is Nephi, a Jew from a prior millennium, who journeys through Arabia and sails to the promised land of America.

2. Nephi is guided by a spiritually magnetic compass, which is a spherical ball made of brass that has pointers, spindles, and writing on its sides. It only works when its holder maintains a state of personal righteousness, which idea is clearly based on Kircher’s concept of spiritual magnetism. The text calls this instrument “the Liahona,” which is undeniably the most well-known magical object in Mormonism.

3. Nephi makes use of brass and golden plates, chiseling into them the untold religious history of the New World going back to the Tower of Babel.

4. This rather Kircherized history also includes a “rediscovered message of Christianity in the hieroglyphic writings of the Aztecs”—with Jesus Christ showing himself to white Native Americans, who are referred to as Nephites in the text.

5. The entire narrative presents itself as having been written in a reformed Egyptian language (due to its supposed efficiency relative to Hebrew).

6. Mormon is the eponymous prophet-historian who serves as the chief architect of The Book of Mormon. (p. 46)

Each of these supposed parallels is contrived and rather dishonest. I will address them in order:

1. There is no Nephi in any work by Kircher that Joseph Smith could have even conceivably had access to. There is no mention of Arabia in the Book of Mormon. Further, Abenephius is not a Jew but an Arab. The entire parallel is based on misrepresenting Kircher as referring to Nephi.

2. There is no “spiritually magnetic compass” anywhere in the Book of Mormon. In fact, there is no magnetic anything in the Book of Mormon. The only supposed connection suggested by Nielsen is to a “spiritual magnetism” that simply doesn’t exist anywhere in the Book of Mormon. The Liahona is not regarded as a magical object in the Book of Mormon.

3. Kircher doesn’t posit or anywhere suggest a Nephi who utilized gold or brass plates—and his only discussion of anything related to the Tower of Babel is an effort to prove that the notion of Babel is scientifically defensible. Kircher’s treatment of the Tower of Babel never made it in any written source in America other than a footnote.18

4. There are no hieroglyphic writings of Aztecs in the Book of Mormon. There is no visit of Christ in any of Kircher’s writings. There are no Nephites in Kircher’s writings.

5. Nothing written by Kircher suggests that Hebrews wrote in reformed Egyptian. Indeed, Hebrew is regarded as the primal language by Kircher.

6. Neilsen wastes numerous pages musing about references anywhere in Europe, Greece, or America that have anything that sounds like “Morm.”19 There is literally no connection between Mormon and anything written by Kircher. Even Neilsen, who assures that his evidence is so solid that it is faith shaking, admits that: “The antiquated derivation of Mormon . . . may be deemed only a coincidence” (p. 215). Given that Joseph Smith didn’t know Greek or French, it is really all but certain that any such connection is contrived.

Conclusions

What can we conclude from Nielsen’s self-vaunted work? Absolutely nothing—except perhaps that flights of fancy, speculation, sheer bravado, and self-aggrandizement are not a substitute for actual evidence. Reading the book is a sheer waste of time. Neilsen leads us through supposed connections to explain the existence of the Book of Mormon, connections that are based on a lack of evidence and leaps of logic so great that not even Mike Powell, the world-record long jumper, could make the leap.

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 . Lars Nielsen, How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass: The Second Greatest Show on Earth (Minnetonka, MN: self-pub., 2024). In his book, Nielsen chooses to always refer to the Book of Mormon as The Book of Mormon, in italic. In choosing to do so, he indicates his belief that the book is a fiction, as opposed to the Bible, which he never italicizes and, presumably, views as holy scripture. In this review, I have chosen to not refer to the Book of Mormon in the same way as Nielsen does, at least in the title of the book. In any direct quotes from Nielsen’s work, I use his preference of capitalization and italic.

2 . The same trigger warning also appears in the front of Nielsen’s book, right under his dedication (p. v).

3 . See the relevant library catalogues: for 1775: exhibits.library.dartmouth.edu/s
/CurriculumVitae/item/541; and for 1825: babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1
.cu55873677&seq=1

4 . A Catalogue of Books in Dartmouth College Library (Hanover, NH: C. & W. S. Spear, 1809). Catalogue of the Books Belonging to the Social Friends’ Library at Dartmouth College, October 1831 (Hanover, NH: Thomas Mann, 1831).

5 . Nielsen provides a link to the volume: google.ca/books/edition/Bibliotheca
_Sacra_and_Theological_Review/CfkRAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq
=oedipus+aegyptiacus&pg=PA405&printsec=frontcover.

6 . Nielsen, How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass, chapters 12 (pp. 157–79) and 18 (pp. 272–89).

7 . See drive.google.com/file/d/1_Bsfz2ZnL3qsyvL4_ozIqF7WTqYEoSvs/view.

8 . George Ripley and Charles A. Dana, The American Cyclopaedia: A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge (New York: D. Appleton, 1874), s.v. “Dartmouth College,” archive.org/details/americancyclopd00unkngoog/page
/694/mode/2up. See also, Charles H. Whittier and Stephen W. Stathis, “The Enigma of Solomon Spaulding,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 10, no. 4 (Fall 1977): 70–73, dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-enigma-of
-solomon-spalding-2/#pdf-wrap.

9 . “John Whitmer, History, 1831–circa 1847,” p. 1, The Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/john-whitmer-history-1831
-circa-1847/5.

10 . See Karl Keller, “’I Never Knew a Time When I Did Not Know Joseph Smith’: A Son’s Record of the Life and Testimony of Sidney Rigdon,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 1, no. 4 (1966): 23, dialoguejournal.com
/articles/i-never-knew-a-time-when-i-did-not-know-joseph-smith-a-sons
-record-of-the-life-and-testimony-of-sidney-rigdon/.

11 . Keller, “’I Never Knew a Time When I Did Not Know Joseph Smith,’” 24–25.

12 . “The Book of Mormon: A Puritan Minister Partly Responsible for Its Production,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (24 April 1887), 10, solomonspalding.com
/Lib/Smth1887.htm.

13 . John Smith, Lecture 13, Natural Philosophy Lectures, Dartmouth College, 6 January 1779, quoted in Richard Lyman Bushman, Jospeh Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 95. “Smith thought the Indians were most likely descended from Phoenicians . . . and from Scythians and probably others.” Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 584n47.

14 . John Hamer, “The Spaulding Fable,” By Common Consent (website), 18 July 2009, bycommonconsent.com/2009/07/18/the-spaulding-fable/.

15 . See R. Buonanni and A. Kircher, Musaeum Kircherianum sive musaeum a p. Athanasio Kirchero in Collegio Romano Societatis Jesu [. . .] (Rome: Typis Georgii Plachi Caelaturam, 1709), archive.org/details/musaeumkircheria00coll/mode/2up.

16 . Jason Colavito, “The Fragments of Abenephius (Rabbi Barachias Nephi),” Jason Colavito (website), 2017, jasoncolavito.com/fragments-of-abenephius
.html.

17 . Colavito, “The Fragments of Abenephius (Rabbi Barachias Nephi).”

18 . See Athanasius Kircher, Turris Babelonia Sive Archontologia, archive.org
/details/turrisbabelsivea00kirc/page/n5/mode/2up.

19 . For musings on the French basis for Mormon, see Nielsen, How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass, 48, 89, 174, 214–16, 220–26, 231. For the Greek basis for the word Mormon, see pp. 214, 222, 225–31.

“When Ye Shall Rend That Veil of Unbelief”: A Typological Reading
of Ether 3 and 4

Matthew Scott Stenson

Abstract: In the book of Ether, the prophet Moroni “Christianizes” the Jaredite story, inserting extensive Christian elements into an original text that predates the house of Israel, the Nephite nation, and the Christian era. In this paper, a typological and intertextual method is used to show how Moroni uses the words of Christ in Ether 3 and 4 to exhort his Gentile readers to embrace the Nephite record when it is manifest to them that they might receive even greater things (divine truths). Specifically, Moroni uses the brief account of the brother of Jared atop Mount Shelem to illustrate how Gentiles may “rend the veil of unbelief” and gain perfect knowledge of all things ever revealed. As the Lord revealed his finger to the brother of Jared, so also the Book of Mormon, itself a portion of the word of the Lord, will come forth to try their faith. Those Gentiles who believe and come to know with perfectness of its truthfulness are positioned to lay hold of even greater things than these through Christ. The value of this reading is to clarify Moroni’s effort to adapt the early Jaredite history to a later event—the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and its implications.

Most Latter-day Saints are familiar with the account of the brother of Jared in the book of Ether. At the time of the Tower of Babel and the confusion of the languages, the Jaredites were led by the Lord through a wilderness across the raging deep and into a western land of promise. In order to light the vessels in which they would travel over (and under) these seas, the brother of Jared “molten out of a rock sixteen small stones” (Ether 3:1). With these stones, he approaches the Lord in prayer and obtains an unparalleled theophany of Jehovah. The brother of Jared, the spiritual leader of this pre-Israelite remnant, enters into the veil and is taught about all things pertaining to Earth and its inhabitants. This event speaks to the character of this man. The brother of Jared is an example of profound humility and mighty faith. His story is taught to our children and elsewhere rehearsed in our Sunday School classrooms. Many laymen and scholars view the account as a temple text. What may be less well understood is how Moroni creatively may use this story of one man’s efforts to obtain the help of the Lord, in order to make a significant point about the sacred record that he and his father have spent their lives preparing. Moroni uses the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in the brother of Jared’s story in Ether 3 and 4 to exhort the Gentiles (and all those who would have the record) to receive the Book of Mormon in faith that they might also come to a knowledge of the Lord and even greater divine truths than those contained in the part or portion of the word of the Lord synonymous with the Nephite record. In Moroni’s conception, the finger of the Lord, which was made manifest to the brother of Jared, may be seen as a type of the Nephite record manifest to the Gentiles.

Many persons who study and teach about the brother of Jared’s journey to the promised land like to consider his unusual faith and his mountaintop encounter with the pre-mortal Christ. Elder Jeffery R. Holland has notably written about these matters.1 Others have taken a more symbolic and devotional approach to the general story, including the mountaintop theophany.2 Additionally, scholars such as Joseph M. Spencer,3 Charles Swift,4 Frank Judd,5 and Rosalynde Frandsen Welch6 have also discussed, from their various academic perspectives, the special mountaintop encounter and the account of the brother of Jared in Ether. It is not surprising that some of these commentators find it fascinating that this nameless man of unusual faith received such an unparalleled revelation of the Lord, one apparently greater than any before him (see Ether 3:9, 15). What this bold claim accompanying the narrative may mean is yet unclear given that Adam, Enoch, and likely Noah all walked and talked with God face-to-face. One wonders how the brother of Jared’s experience could rival or even surpass theirs. Of those astute readers who have examined the story’s theological implications and the book of Ether more comprehensively, Welch’s work intersects most directly with this current project.

In 2020, as part of a larger set of theological works sponsored by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, Welch published a brief but thoughtful book on the writings of Ether as abridged by the prophet Moroni. In it she makes a number of observations in her elegant prose style. Following Grant Hardy’s earlier conclusions, she demonstrates that Moroni “overwrites” or transforms Ether’s record.7 That is, without much regard for the Jaredite history per se, Welch asserts that Moroni employs the Jaredite writings to his later Christian purpose. According to her, Moroni’s purpose is to Christianize those former Jaredite writings in his effort to invite a later Gentile audience to faith in Christ. Welch explores the ethics of scriptural appropriation and authority and other related theological concerns in her larger argument. In the end, she advocates for a “reader-centered theology of scripture.”8 Where her project overlaps with my own is atop Shelem. Welch reads the story of the brother of Jared metaphorically, much as I do. She describes the sixteen stones presented to the Lord to represent the weakness and luminosity of the Book of Mormon itself. There is some warrant for this reading in the general Nephite record (see Ether 12:27; Mormon 8:16). However, her claims seem to break down as she discusses the suggestive nature of the finger of the Lord in the repurposed Jaredite account.

In chapter 4 of her work on Ether, Welch develops her reading of the sixteen stones and finger of the Lord, laying emphasis on the readers’ role in ultimately receiving the Book of Mormon in the spirit of faith and charity. She attempts to reframe how we see the brother of Jared’s encounter with the Lord by wishing to compare it (and its narrative elements) to the “sufficiency of scripture.”9 It is in this context that Welch compares stones to scripture. The small stones, she explains, are suggestive of Moroni’s weak offering of his writing that can and will be made strong by receptive readers (see Ether 12:27). Even though this, in theory, is justified by the text as she notes, the stones in this case seem to me not to convey what she supposes. My greater concern, since stones and scripture can be and are associated in the larger Nephite record (see Jacob 4:15–18; Alma 37:23; Mormon 8:16), has to do with Welch’s reading of the veil-encounter atop Mount Shelem as it pertains to the divine finger of the Lord. Welch extends her original stone-book metaphor to include the finger of the Lord and its equivalency with the Nephite record itself. She posits that the divine finger of the Lord may also be suggestive of weakness, although this does not appear to be borne out by the text. Welch’s reading of the physical elements in the account—stones and finger—is interesting but ultimately seems to be somewhat off target.

In the present study, a slightly different approach will be taken to the story of the brother of Jared. Instead of taking a devotional/symbolic or a metaphorical/theological approach to the important Jaredite story, the account will be read intertextually and typologically. The primary distinction between the devotional approach and this approach is that the first is an example of eisegesis (importing into the text a personal application or meaning) while the second is an example of exegesis (an attempt to extrapolate from the text the author’s intended meaning). And the primary distinction between the metaphorical or theological approach and this approach is that this reading is not only comparative or contingent but time bound. I will take no interest in the sixteen small stones mentioned in the account, but will provide a new reading of the divine finger of the Lord that seems borne out by the story itself, by Moroni’s editorial commentary, and other scriptures from elsewhere in the Nephite record that bear on it. In contrast to Welch’s thoughtful reading, I will attempt to demonstrate that the finger of the Lord, rather than being suggestive of divine weakness (i.e. incarnation), and the Nephite record may be seen as a divine part or portion of a larger promised fulness of scripture and sacred experience.

To proceed with this endeavor, I will primarily depend on the words of Jesus Christ as recorded by Moroni in Ether 3 and 4. Using an intertextual and typological approach, the hope is to suggest that Moroni includes this specific history of the brother of Jared to enable him, in part, to make a larger point about the reception of the Book of Mormon and the reception of still much greater things. Moroni apparently undertakes this project to repurpose the Jaredite account at the behest of the Lord who has commanded him to do so. Accordingly, the brother of Jared’s personal encounter with Jehovah is presented in a creative way to assign it general implications for the receipt of the Nephite record by the Gentiles. In brief, Welch and I have a similar understanding of why the mountaintop encounter was included, but understand the narrative detail of the divine finger of the Lord distinctly and, thus to a degree, the story’s purpose differently.

Intertextuality and Typology as Exegetical Methods

Before proceeding, it may be helpful to clarify my choice of diction before defining intertextuality and typology. In this study, I will deliberately refer to lesser and greater things, not to be vague, but because the words thing or things are, as Welch points out, consistently deployed in the Nephite record when referring to their sacred writings.10 That said, both intertextuality and typology rely on sequence, unlike metaphor, which does not depend on sequence. Intertextuality represents the interplay that exists between two or more texts, whether of the same general time period or across dissimilar time periods. When an earlier text seems to influence either a later one or one contemporary with it, their interplay is said to be intertextual. However, intertextuality may not require the influence of only one text upon another. It could be that a more remote or obscure third text may influence both, or one or both may be shaped apart from each other by translation or redaction to be similar by intent or even without intent. In the most straightforward interactive exchange, the associations of the former text are by implication transferred and recast in the light of the new text. When intertextuality occurs within a single work, then technically the relation may be characterized as intratextual. I will not make a distinction here between intertextual and intratextual, however, to keep the substance of this study accessible. An example of an intertextual relationship that may be familiar to the reader is when Nephi directly or indirectly alludes to, comments upon, and even overwrites or repurposes Isaiah’s writings. In short, and simply put, intertextuality describes “the relationship between texts.”11

Like intertextuality when concerned with the question of sequence and influence, typology is time-bound, but it works differently. That is, broadly speaking, typology describes how one person, place, or thing foreshadows another person, place, or thing. The original person, place, or thing is called the type. The later person, place, or thing that the type anticipates is the antitype. To read typologically is then to consider how one person, place, or thing is suggestive of another earlier or later in time. For instance, the law of Moses foreshadowed the redemption of Jesus Christ. The law of Moses in this case was the type and the Redeemer’s sacrifice for us was the antitype. Usually, the antitype is understood to be greater in value than the type.12 As this last example demonstrates, a type in biblical text “foreshadow[s] the substance of Christian realities.”13 Typology usually culminates in Christ, a figure greater in value than those types and shadows that only suggest his redemptive work. However, as indicated, a broader sort of type may be a “person or thing symbolizing or exemplifying the defining characteristics of something.”14 It is this broader and less specific definition of typology (devoid of the question of relative value and messianism) that will be of most use going forward. I do not wish to complicate Moroni’s repurposing of Ether’s writings any more than is necessary.

One might wonder what the usefulness of these standard methods of reading literature/scripture would be in understanding the Jaredite record and the editorial commentary of Moroni. First of all, Grant Hardy has shown that Moroni has a strong propensity to borrow from earlier prophets when he develops his own message.15 His authorial habit is often to invoke directly or indirectly the words and teachings of those who came before. Sometimes Moroni explicitly signals the integration of another’s words/voice. When reading Moroni, the student of the scriptures must be alert to his tendency to allude to or echo his prophetic predecessors. As for the presence of typology in the Book of Mormon, and especially in Moroni’s writings, there is ample evidence that the Nephites were aware of this kind of written representation. Nephi (2 Nephi 11:4), Abinadi (Mosiah 13:10), and Alma (Alma 37:45) all understand salvation history and scriptural typologically, as does Moroni. For instance, in Ether 13, Moroni enters into a typological comparison:

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. (Ether 13:6–7)

In this comparison, Moroni paraphrases Ether’s prophecies. He associates Joseph’s bringing Jacob into Egypt so he would not perish (the type) to the “seed of Joseph” being brought out of Jerusalem so that they would not perish (the antitype). The typological relationship is established by Moroni when he employs parallel ideas (i.e. “Joseph brought his father down” = “the Lord brought a remnant of the seed of Joseph out”). These parallel words and ideas are signaled in this case when Moroni uses words and phrases such as as and even as, hence they are in italic above. (Since we have no way of knowing otherwise, I assume that these ultimately unnecessary words—a type need not be signaled by the use of such words—are Moroni’s words and not his translator’s words). This one example (there are others) suggests that reading history and scriptural accounts of that history typologically came naturally enough to Moroni, as it did to others centuries before him.16 Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that he may also in his own writings and editorial shaping of Ether develop an intertextually sophisticated and typologically interesting account of the brother of Jared in Ether 3 and 4.

The Words of Jesus Christ in Ether 3

Ether 3 begins with the brother of Jared fashioning “white and clear” stones which he did transport by hand “upon the top of the mount” (Ether 3:1). Once at the summit of Shelem, the brother of Jared, with the stones presumably before him, offers a humble but bold intercessory prayer. In the prayer, he acknowledges the great distance between heaven and earth and between his people and God, and yet he confidently requests that the Lord collapse that distance and touch the stones he prepared. The brother of Jared says, “I know that thou canst do whatsoever thou wilt for the benefit of man; therefore touch these stones, O Lord, with thy finger, and prepare them that they may shine forth in darkness” (Ether 3:4). He follows this request with another statement affirming his strong confidence in the Lord’s capacity: “Behold, O Lord, thou canst do this. We know that thou art able to show forth great power, which looks small unto the understanding of men” (v. 5).

It is here, when the brother of Jared speaks these words in faith,17 that the “Lord stretches forth his hand and touches the stones one by one with his finger” (v. 6). In order for this man to behold the finger of the Lord, “the veil was taken from off [his] eyes” (v. 6). What follows in Moroni’s account is a dialogue between this man and his Maker. Ultimately, the brother of Jared learns through this encounter (and other subsequent encounters) of greater things than he ever had. His soul is redeemed, and he sees the Lord and the inhabitants of the earth. Thus, he receives by stages a revelation of all things. These visions are recorded and will yet come forth (see 2 Nephi 27:7–8, 10–11, 21–22).18

In Ether 3, the brother of Jared does not only receive a special personal blessing but, crucially to Moroni’s project, he learns from Christ that the Lord has a work to do for the benefit of future generations. Christ announces to this man, “Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. . . . In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even as many as shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters” (3:14; see also Moroni 7:19, 26, 48). Following his instruction to the brother of Jared, the Lord therefore commands him to “treasure up the things which ye have seen and heard, and show it [the record] to no man” (3:21). The Lord promises this man that he “will cause in [his] own due time that these stones shall magnify to the eyes of men these things which ye shall write” (v. 24). The Lord emphatically exhorts the brother of Jared to “Write these things and seal them up; and I will show them in my own due time unto the children of men” (v. 27).19 Here, it seems clear that the record that Moroni abridges for his audience (Ether’s writings) suggests to Moroni’s mind a type of his own mission to add to and conclude his father’s record.

Accordingly, Moroni gives his readers just enough of the Lord’s words to the brother of Jared to perceive his (Moroni’s) own story. As the brother of Jared prayed for his people (vv. 2–3), he was visited by the Lord and learned that he should “seal . . . up” that record which would come forth in a later generation, including its interpreters (vv. 22–23, 27). Due to the details of chapter 3, it would be hard to imagine that Moroni would not perceive a connection to his predecessor, since Moroni’s commission was to also seal up a record with its interpreters. Hence, it seems reasonable to suggest that Moroni uses the parallel to teach his readers about the role of the Book of Mormon as a harbinger of greater things to come.

Moroni’s commentary on the Lord’s words to the brother of Jared atop Shelem is instructive, edifying, and typologically rich. He establishes at least two important points. First, Moroni apparently sees a typological relationship between the brother of Jared’s significant personal experience and his own people’s collective experience as recounted in 3 Nephi. The Lord, Moroni explains, “ministered unto [this man,] even as he ministered unto the Nephites” (vv. 17–18). The Lord did this and also showed “many great works” unto him that he might know that “he [Christ] was God” (v. 18). Second, Moroni appears to frame his larger discussion about the brother of Jared’s encounter with the Lord using concepts similar to those found in the writings of Alma, the son of Alma (see Alma 32:21).

Moroni explores in the account the relationship between the word of knowledge (the word of promise), faith, and “perfect knowledge.” These same terms are of interest to Alma. For him, faith is exercised in the word and then, if nourished, the word can become perfect knowledge of all things. Moroni’s words have two similarities with Alma’s account: 1) both speak of the dormancy of faith, a rather unusual concept (Alma 32:34; Ether 19); and 2) both speak of the relationship between faith and “perfect knowledge.” The phrase perfect knowledge is mostly unique to the Book of Mormon (though it is used in a different sense in Acts 24:24, speaking of the “more perfect knowledge”). The phrase perfect knowledge appears twelve times in that record, but faith and perfect knowledge only appear in proximity to each other in the writings of Alma and Moroni (Alma 32:21, 26, 29; Ether 3:20; and Moroni 7:15–17). Jacob’s earliest uses of the phrase perfect knowledge do not appear in the same epistemological context. That is, only Alma and Moroni demonstrate how faith in truth/promises leads to the acquisition of perfect understanding.

In Ether 3, Moroni, as mentioned, extracts a typological lesson for his Gentile readers to be gleaned from the man’s encounter with the pre-mortal Jehovah. Moroni’s framing language is as follows:

And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew [with perfectness] that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting,20

Wherefore, having this perfect knowledge of God, he could not be kept from within the veil21; therefore he saw Jesus; and he did minister unto him. . . .

For he had said unto him [brother of Jared] in times before, that if he would believe in him [or on his words] that he could show unto him all things—it [all things] should be shown unto him; therefore the Lord could not withhold anything from him, for he knew that the Lord could show him all things. (3:19–20, 26)22

In Moroni’s commentary, which is placed between the Lord’s speeches in Ether 3, he focuses his Gentile reader on the question of epistemology: how the brother of Jared went from having little—a word of promise—to receiving an abundance of actual revelation and knowledge. Moroni suggests that faith (or belief) is based on knowledge of the promises of God (which are also obtained through faith). Once the brother of Jared beheld the “finger of the Lord,” his knowledge of that thing (the Lord’s basic reality) became “perfect,” which enabled the brother of Jared ultimately to behold Jesus Christ and receive instruction from him in “all things” (Ether 3:25–26). Thus, whereas Jesus pointed the brother of Jared to his (Jesus’s) redemptive work and his (the brother of Jared’s) recordkeeping, Moroni similarly seeks to describe how redemption can come by means of one nation’s revelation,23 particularly if that portion of revelation is according to earlier promises. The “finger of the Lord” in Moroni’s typological formulation may represent the Book of Mormon, a revealed portion of the Lord’s word. That which follows will lay out why that may be.

In that connection, it may be helpful to say something about the associations between the Holy of Holies and its covering veil as well as the word of God. As indicated, many laymen and scholars have seen a relationship between the brother of Jared’s encounter and the Latter-day Saint temple experience. For instance, M. Catherine Thomas has connected the name of the mountain called Shelem to temple ritual and fellowship with God. She has also compared the sixteen stones to the Urim and Thummim and speculated that two of them were instrumental in bringing forth additional “spiritual light” as the Jaredite interpreters.24

It may be instructive to consider the Hebrew word debir. This word has associations with terms such as oracle, shrine, and the “innermost part of the sanctuary,” places from which divine words originate.25 Further, dabar, closely related to debir, has associations with terms such as speech, discourse, sayings, commandments, prophecy, utterance, sentence, discourse, event, way, manner, cause, act, book, communication, message, oracle, part, portion, power, promise, sign, spoken, talk, tidings, or work.26 In the New Testament, we also learn that Christ, John’s “Word . . . made flesh” (see 1:14), is likened to the temple veil itself (see Hebrews 10:20). These connections suggest that Moroni may have conceived of the finger of the Lord reaching from the Holy Place (on Shelem) through the veil as not distinct from the coming forth of the word of God to his audience and their subsequent ability to “rend [the] veil of unbelief” (Ether 4:15).

Additionally, it appears that Moroni—a careful student of 2 Nephi 3 as Grant Hardy has demonstrated27—would have linked the phrase “by the finger of mine own hand” (v. 17) to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. This is plausible because in 2 Nephi 3, a typological comparison is fashioned by Joseph of Egypt between the record that Moses was to bring forth from Sinai to his displaced people and the Nephite record that would yet come forth as a “spokesman” unto showing forth the power of God unto future generations. It turns out that not only power, but judgment and spokesman are yet other associations with the Hebrew term dabar (see 2 Nephi 3:17–18). Accordingly, Ether 12 (a chapter that also interacts with the account of the brother of Jared) treats the word of God—the forthcoming Nephite record—and the privilege, after receiving that “trial of . . . faith,” of entering into his full divine presence within the veil (Ether 12:6).

In summary, then, Moroni finds many parallels between past events and texts with his own project. The suggestiveness of his project can be complexly understood, as demonstrated, but primarily he appears to see himself as preparing a record that anticipates the reception of greater things, including divine truths and sacred experiences.

The Words of Jesus Christ in Ether 4

These seemingly disparate threads of thought—the Lord’s focus on the brother of Jared and his forthcoming record, and Moroni’s focus on the Gentiles and his forthcoming record—come together in Ether 4, where we receive yet more of the words of Jesus Christ. About five verses into Ether 4, Moroni recounts the likely source of his typological conception. The “greater things” of the brother of Jared’s record once held in reserve from the world, “until after Christ should show himself unto his people,” were, after their “dwindle[ing] in unbelief,” to be withheld from the Gentiles. This withholding would be “until the day that they shall repent of their iniquity, and become clean before the Lord” (Ether 4:3). Here are the words of Jesus Christ as recorded by Moroni:

They [writings of the brother of Jared] shall not go forth unto the Gentiles until the day that they shall repent of their iniquity and become clean before the Lord.

And in that day that they shall exercise faith in me, saith the Lord, even as the brother of Jared did, that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them, all my revelations, saith, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and earth, and all things that in them are. (Ether 4:6–7)

At this point, the Lord transitions from speaking of the coming forth of the writings of the brother of Jared and concentrates on the lesser portion of the word that would come in and through the Nephites. In other words, if the Lord has just said that the greater things will come forth when the Gentiles develop faith like unto the brother of Jared, he now describes the instrument to try their faith before that greater revelation opens. Here are the Lord’s words:

And he that will contend against the word of the Lord, let him be accursed; and he that shall deny these things [Nephite record], let him be accursed; for unto them will I show no greater things, saith Jesus Christ; for I am he who speaketh.

And at my command the heavens are opened and are shut; and at my word the earth shall shake; and at my command the inhabitants thereof shall pass away, even so as by fire.

And he that believeth not my words believeth not my disciples; and if it so be that I do not speak [in and through this record], judge ye; for ye shall know that it is I that speaketh, at the last day. (Ether 4:8–10)

This final verse returns us to Ether 3:19, a verse that focuses Moroni’s readers on the process of going from faith in the Lord’s promises to perfect knowledge of a portion of the Lord’s body (his finger) and a full and complete revelation of himself or his body. It is here where we see Moroni typologically equating the finger of the Lord with the Nephite record.

And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer for he knew, nothing doubting.

Wherefore having this perfect knowledge, he could not be kept from within the veil; therefore he saw Jesus; and he did minister unto him. (Ether 3:19–20)

The Lord’s words in Ether 4:6–12 suggest that Moroni equates the Nephite record, the initial and smaller part of the “word of the Lord” that would bring his people to “repent of their iniquity, and become clean before [him],” with the finger of the Lord. Whereas he appears to equate their sanctification and their receiving his vision of all things with the more full and complete record of the brother of Jared (see also Moroni 10:32–33; Doctrine and Covenants 10:52).

For the Lord said unto me [Moroni]: They [greater things] shall not go forth unto the Gentiles until the day that they shall repent of their iniquity, and become clean before the Lord.

And in that day that they shall exercise faith in me, saith the Lord, even as the brother of Jared did, that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God. . . .

And he that will contend against the word of the Lord, let him be accursed; and he that shall deny these [lesser] things, let him be accursed; for unto them will I show no greater things, saith Jesus Christ, for I am he who speaketh. (Ether 4:6–8)

It is significant that those who receive that lesser part of the whole—the scriptural equivalent of the finger of Jesus and a witness of it (Ether 4:11)—are promised in the above passage a more complete and perfect knowledge: “then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations” (Ether 4:7).

Similarly, the finger of the Lord in the account recorded in Ether was seen as a result of faith in earlier promises and it, once seen, emboldened the man, standing at the veil, to ask for a greater measure of light and truth. It is as if the finger was the fulfillment of promises and the harbinger of the opening of the temple veil. The lesser portion prepared the brother of Jared for the greater fulness. It will be remembered that the brother of Jared first boldly asked for the Lord to condescend to touch the stones and then upon his doing so with his finger he courageously asked the Lord to show himself in full measure. He received that which had been promised (part) and only then dared to ask for more (whole), according to the further promises of the Lord.

With this particular reading of the brother of Jared’s encounter at the veil, there are at least two additional items to keep in mind. First, it is Mormon, Moroni’s father and mentor, who said that Jesus commanded him to write only the “lesser part” of the Nephite history in his account to “try [the] faith” of his latter-day audience (3 Nephi 26:8–11). He says in 3 Nephi 26 that “according to the words of . . . Jesus” that when “these things” would come forth among the Gentiles they would, in effect, act for them as a trial of faith. But, he says, if they believe these things then the “greater things [would] be made manifest unto them”:

And these things have I [Mormon] 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 unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus has spoken.

And when they shall receive this [Nephite record], which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.

And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.

Behold, I was about to write them all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people. (3 Nephi 26:8–11)

It is seemingly with this in mind and Jesus’s other instructions to Mormon that Moroni ingeniously conceives of using the history of the brother of Jared to teach the concept that lesser part leads to greater whole. The brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord. When he did, he was then asked, “Believest thou the words which I shall speak?” (Ether 3:11). He responded in the affirmative and, as mentioned, was shown all things. This appears to be a type for us. If we receive the Book of Mormon in faith, though it represents a “lesser portion of the word,” and believe in Christ as revealed through it, we will become emboldened to ask for and receive additional light and knowledge as we figuratively stand before the veil (see Alma 12:9–11).28 With this book before us that is figuratively “flesh and blood” (Ether 3:6–9), or physical evidence of the work of the Lord in our day, we will learn to be purified and sanctified. In other words, we will obtain power to “rend that veil of unbelief” as did the brother of Jared (Ether 4:15).

Finally, this reading of Ether 3 and 4 seems acceptable for one other reason. When Moroni first invokes the faith-unto-perfect-knowledge framework that we associate with Alma 32 to help us understand how we may lay hold of more, he uses the phrase, “nothing doubting” (Ether 3:19). The phrase represents the perfect knowledge obtained by the brother of Jared suggesting that the Lord had tangibly kept his former promises and therefore would yet fulfill all his words to him (3:20). The phrase nothing doubting is rare in scripture and appears, in the context of the Book of Mormon, to be unique to Moroni.29 The inverse of the phrase, doubting nothing is also rarely used in scripture (Ether 3:19; Acts 11:12). However, it is used twice within the space of a few chapters by Moroni when discussing how one may come to know that the Nephite record is true (Mormon 9:21, 25, 27). Upon seeing the “finger of Jesus,” Moroni tells us, the brother of Jared “knew, nothing doubting.” Moroni uses the inverse phrase, doubting nothing, a few pages earlier when he admonishes his Gentile reader to “ask the Father in the name of Christ” if these things are not true (Mormon 9:21; see Moroni 10:3–5). Turns out that this promise in Mormon 9:21 is Moroni’s adaptation of Jesus’s earlier words to his Nephite disciples: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. . . . And whosoever shall believe in my name, doubting nothing, unto him will I confirm all my words, even unto the ends of the earth” (Mormon 9:22, 25; see also Mark 16:15).

Conclusion: Jesus’s Final Invitation Focuses on the Name of Christ

This brings us full circle since Jesus’s words in Ether 3 went well beyond blessing the brother of Jared personally. Similar to how they are recorded, Jesus had in mind much more when he visited the brother of Jared atop Shelem than bestowing a blessing on one man. After blessing him he said, “Behold, I am Jesus Christ. . . . In me shall all men have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and daughters” (Ether 3:14). Jesus points out in Ether 4 that in our Gentile context to believe on his name is to receive him through the Book of Mormon. Hence his final invitation to all those who would receive the Nephite record:

At my command the heavens are opened and are shut. . . . He that will not believe my words [Nephite record] will not believe me—that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe my Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and truth of the world. (Ether 4:9, 12)

Then the Lord makes this passionate invitation to all people:

Come unto me [through this record first], O ye Gentiles, and I will [then] show unto you the greater things, the knowledge which is hid up because of unbelief.

Come O ye house of Israel [through this record] and it shall [then] be made manifest unto you how great things the Father hath laid up for you, from the foundation of the world; and it hath not come unto you because of unbelief.

Behold when ye shall rend the veil of unbelief which doth cause you to remain in your awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart, and blindness of mind, then shall the great and marvelous things which have been hid up from the foundation of the world from you [be manifested]—yea when ye shall call upon the Father in my name, with a broken heart and contrite spirit, then shall ye know that the Father hath remembered the covenant which he made unto your fathers, O house of Israel.30

[W]hen ye see these things, ye shall know that the time is at hand when they shall be manifest in very deed.

Therefore, when ye receive this record ye may know that the work of the Father has commenced upon all the face of the land. (Ether 4:13–17)

According to Moroni’s account, Jesus ends his words of invitation in Ether 4—teaching his gospel (repentance, faith, and baptism) as contained throughout the prophesied record—“unto all [the] ends of the earth” (vv. 18–19). The Lord in these final authoritative remarks returns to his earlier declaration where he announced that “who[soever] shall believe in my name . . . shall become my sons and daughters” (Ether 3:14). Again, in Ether 4:17–18, the Lord’s focus is on believing in and being faithful unto his name and receiving his gospel covenant that the believer might “be lifted up to dwell in the kingdom prepared for him from the foundation of the world” (4:18–19). The Lord’s powerful teachings end with this authoritative seal: “And behold it is I that hath spoken it. Amen” (4:19).

The Lord’s words in Ether 3 and 4 may be intertextually and typologically understood. The type appears to have originated with the Lord himself. It also has some support in the writings of Alma and Mormon. However, it is the story of the brother of Jared that makes it clear that as the Lord blessed him first with the sight of his finger (a part or portion of his body)31 and later with the sight of his whole body and of all things, even so the Lord has commenced his work in the last days. He has done so by revealing a smaller portion of his word first that the ends of the earth might, through increased faith and because of the revealed record, be encouraged to seek for even greater things than these.32 And significantly, that initial smaller portion of the word of the Lord that has come forth, as in the brother of Jared’s account, is according to the previous promises of the Lord.

The Book of Mormon both came by faith and also constitutes evidence that the Lord has “set his hand again a second time to recover his people” (2 Nephi 21:11). It is a sign that all the covenants, promises, and prophecies that have not yet come to pass are soon to be fulfilled (3 Nephi 15:6–8; 29:1–3). If the Book of Mormon and its central figure, Jesus Christ, are received and believed in, the day will come when the Holy Spirit confirms to the heart of the believer that the record (antitype) is true (Ether 4:11). Through the Holy Spirit this perfect knowledge will tend to increase our faith in the remaining promises, and we will have power with God to “rend the veil” that the day of salvation will be fully ushered in and Satan will be bound (2 Nephi 30:18). This anticipated day of more perfect knowledge will come in stages and only as we, as did the brother of Jared, exercise strong faith and seek for greater blessings. In that day, “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Lord as the waters cover the sea” (2 Nephi 30:15–18). The commencement of this flood of perfect knowledge is the sudden appearance of the Book of Mormon as a divine, material reality to this dispensation to try each individual’s faith.

Matthew Scott Stenson holds a PhD in English from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. His dissertation work centered on John Milton’s intertextuality in Paradise Lost. Scott teaches Composition and Literature at Tennessee Tech University and serves on his stake’s high council. In addition to his articles published in Interpreter, he has published articles in such journals as BYU Studies Quarterly, Christianity and Literature, Dialogue, and The Religious Educator.

1 . Jeffery R. Holland, “Rending the Veil of Unbelief,” in Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 13–29.

2 . Breck England, “Come, Follow Me for Sunday School: ‘Rend That Veil of Unbelief,’ Ether 1–5,” Meridian Magazine, 5 November 2020, latterdaysaintmag.com
/come-follow-me-for-sunday-school-rend-that-veil-of-unbelief-ether-1-5/. Also see Tyler J. Griffin, “The Jaredite Journey: A Symbolic Reflection of Our Own Journey along the Covenant Path,” in Illuminating the Jaredite Records, ed. Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University [BYU], 2020), 273–93, rsc.byu.edu/illuminating-jaredite-records
/jaredite-journey-symbolic-reflection-our-own-journey-along-covenant-path.

3 . Joseph M. Spencer, “Christ and Krishna: The Visions of Arjuna and the Brother of Jared,” in The Anatomy of Book of Mormon Theology, vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2021), 269–90.

4 . Charles Swift, “Upon Mount Shelem: The Liminal Experience of the Brother of Jared,” in Illuminating the Jaredite Records, ed. Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2020), 85–128, rsc.byu.edu/illuminating
-jaredite-records/upon-mount-shelem-liminal-experience-brother-jared.

5 . Frank F. Judd Jr., “Moroni’s Six Commentaries in the Book of Ether,” in Illuminating the Jaredite Records, ed. Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2020), 157–82, rsc.byu.edu/illuminating-jaredite-records
/moronis-six-commentaries-book-ether.

6 . Rosalynde Frandsen Welch, Ether: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute, BYU, 2020).

7 . Welch, Ether, 14, 19–20.

8 . Welch, Ether, 76, emphasis in original.

9 . Welch, Ether, 78.

10 . Welch, Ether, 72–77.

11 . Judy Pearsall, ed., The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 741.

12 . Here is an alternative definition of typology: “Typology . . . relates the past to the present in terms of historical correspondence and escalation in which the divinely ordered prefigurement finds a complement in the subsequent and greater event.” Daniel J. Treier, “Typology,” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 823.

13 . Treier, “Typology,” 824n11.

14 . Pearsall, Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 1551.

15 . Grant Hardy, “Allusion,” in Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 248–67.

16 . I acknowledge that the typology employed by figures such as Nephi, Abinadi, and Alma may not suggest a full-blown system of understanding. The New Testament writers used the typological method, but its circulation and application before them is uncertain. Perhaps the Book of Mormon’s use of the term type may be seen from one point of view as anachronistic, but in light of the Hebrew word oth that is translated in the KJV as sign, token, miracle, ensign, and mark, the concept of a type in the Nephite record is not likely to be anachronistic. What cannot be disputed is that the Nephites used the method in some sense in their teachings and writings before the first century.

17 . Faith is exercised through words. Hence, the Lord in the beginning spoke, “Let there be light: and there was light” (Genesis 1:3; see also Hebrews 11:3).

18 . It is not uncommon to see the encounter at the veil as progressive or, to use Swift’s word, “liminal.” Swift, “Upon Mount Shelem,” 85–128.

19 . We know that these writings were revealed at the time of Jesus’s appearance to the Lehites and that in a day of faith they will be revealed yet again.

20 . Moroni used this rare phrase, nothing doubting (or a variant of it), earlier in Mormon when he first attempted an ending to the overall Nephite record (Mormon 9:21, 25, 27). Grant Hardy has observed that the Book of Mormon has three endings and this phrase (“nothing doubting”) from Moroni pertains to the first of them. Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 248–67.

21 . Or this might be rendered: he could not be kept from passing through the veil into the Lord’s presence.

22 . Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote that knowledge precedes faith. What he meant by this is that faith (or belief) is exercised in the testimony of those who know the truth of God. So, knowledge does not precede faith in the same person, but faith in God is exercised in the words of one who is authorized and bears witness of him and his truths. In the scriptures, faith leads to knowledge. For instance, Peter says to the members of the church in his day, “Add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge” (2 Peter 1:5). Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985), 166–70.

23 . A nation’s revelation may be composed of parts of the whole of revelation to the world. See 2 Nephi 29:7–10; Doctrine and Covenants 10:46, 52.

24 . M. Catherine Thomas, “The Brother of Jared at the Veil,” in Temples of the Ancient World, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS 1994), 390–93.

25 . James Strong, ed., New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 1995), pg. 30, numbers: 1687–88.

26 . Strong, New Strong’s Concordance, pg. 30, numbers: 1696–97.

27 . Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 249–54.

28 . Elder Bruce R. McConkie has written that the Book of Mormon is an initial “portion of the [Lord’s] word.” He explained, “Those who believe the witness it bears and obey the doctrines it teaches will be led to that further light and knowledge revealed in this day, and to the mysteries of the kingdom that the saints alone can receive.” He continues, “The portion we have received is to try our faith and prepare us for that which is to come.” McConkie, New Witness, 413–18.

29 . The phrase only appears one other time in scripture. It appears in Acts as does its inverse phrase.

30 . This is an early iteration of the promise we find in Moroni 10:3–5.

31 . Doctrine and Covenants 10 teaches that the prophets and disciples prayed that “this part of [the] gospel [would come forth] to the knowledge of my people” (10:46–52).

32 . As indicated earlier, Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught that the Book of Mormon was the first part of many things the Lord intended to reveal in our day. It is but an introduction to the gospel; it is a first step.

The Lamb of God: A Note on the Significance of Meir Bar-Ilan’s Paper
for Latter-day Saints

Jeff Lindsay

Abstract: Dr. Meir Bar-Ilan’s paper, “The Heavenly Lamb, Sacrifices on the Heavenly Altar, and the Song of the Lamb,” appearing concurrently in Interpreter, is a welcome contribution from a noted Jewish scholar. Bar-Ilan has called the world’s attention to a remarkable Hebrew manuscript with origins in antiquity, Words of Gad the Seer. Those interested in the relationship between Jewish texts and Latter-day Saint scriptures may also wish to compare the findings in Bar-Ilan’s paper with treatments of the Lamb of God in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses.

The Interpreter Foundation is pleased to publish, immediately following my comments, an article by Professor Meir Bar-Ilan,1 a widely recognized scholar from a noted Israeli university, Bar-Ilan University. The university, founded in 1955, was named after his grandfather, Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan, a prominent figure in Jewish education and in the rise of Israel. Professor Bar-Ilan’s work on an ancient Hebrew text, the long-overlooked manuscript known as Words of Gad the Seer,2 may be of particular value to Latter-day Saints. It has resonance with many themes of interest to the Restoration and to students of the Book of Mormon. Words of Gad the Seer has roots in antiquity and was preserved by a colony of Jews in Cochin, India. I have previously reviewed Bar-Ilan’s translation of the text and offered reasons why it ought to be considered a blessing by Latter-day Saints.3

After learning of potential Latter-day Saint interest in Words of Gad the Seer through Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, Professor Bar-Ilan kindly contributed an article on a particular aspect of Words of Gad the Seer—the role of the Lamb of God mentioned in the first of fourteen chapters, including the significance of the “song of the Lamb.” It was a genuine delight to work with Dr. Bar-Ilan during our peer-review process. I was deeply touched that he spent time to bring this paper to us while living in adverse circumstances in Israel with regular rocket attacks and tragedies suffered by people in his community. He has continued with courage and hope as he seeks to help us appreciate the value of an important Hebrew text. I am greatly thankful for this kindness.

The term Lamb of God occurs thirty-five times in the Book of Mormon, mostly from Nephi1, far more often than the two occurrences in the King James Bible (John 1:29, 36). A shorter form, The Lamb, occurs as a divine title twenty-four times in the book of Revelation and twenty-seven times in the Book of Mormon, mostly but not exclusively from Nephi1. Is the abundant use of this term in the Book of Mormon the result of Joseph Smith’s familiarity with the New Testament, or was it a more ancient term that may have been used by ancient Jews? Could that term even have been on the Brass Plates (a sacred compilation of scripture that Nephi1 acquired in 600 B.C. in Jerusalem, including various texts that became lost to the world)?

Students of the Book of Mormon may have noted that the Lamb of God in Nephi1’s writings centuries before Christ may seem out of place since that term has long been assumed to originate in the writings of John in the New Testament. Meir Bar-Ilan reminds us that this term was not an innovation from John, but something older that John may have been alluding to. Some students of the Book of Mormon may have encountered a short note by John Welch that mentioned the occurrence of this title in another old Hebrew manuscript, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,4 also discussed in Bar-Ilan’s paper. Bar-Ilan notes that the occurrence of the Lamb of God could be a Christian intrusion into the text, though Welch offers reasons why he thinks that to be unlikely. But the occurrence of the Lamb of God in a Hebrew manuscript that has been in the care of a remote colony of Jews in India seems to clearly rule out a Christian intrusion for Words of Gad the Seer, and points to the antiquity of that concept. In fact, in his new paper, Bar-Ilan observes that the song of the Lamb in the text may indicate that the Words of Gad the Seer predates the writings of John or is at least contemporaneous. (However, as noted in the Hebrew critical edition, the text shows indication of coming from the same milieu as Revelation, so by “predates” Bar-Ilan is not thinking of many centuries.5)

The Book of Moses, the canonized initial portion of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible which may have a relationship to a text on the Brass Plates that influenced the Book of Mormon,6 also makes a Messianic reference to “the Lamb . . . slain from the foundation of the world” (Moses 7:47). Perhaps Dr. Bar-Ilan’s paper may help us better understand such references in both the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon.

There are other connections with the extrabiblical ancient scriptures of the Restoration to consider. For example, the concept of removing impurity in chapter one of Words of Gad the Seer is also reflected in Nephi1’s prophecy of the Lamb of God, through whose power people were not only healed, but “devils and the unclean spirits were cast out” (1 Nephi 11: 31).

The Book of Moses may offer further parallels. In Moses 7, for example, a text that includes revelation received by Enoch, there are several concepts that may merit comparison with the section on the Lamb of God in Words of Gad the Seer, as shown in table 1.

Table 1. Comparing Moses 7 to Words of Gad the Seer, chapter 1.

Moses 7

Words of Gad the Seer, chapter 1

A complaint over the wickedness of man (v. 48, spoken by the earth).

Complaint of the Lamb over impurity (v. 15, echoed by a man dressed in linen, v. 18).

Yearning for cleansing from filthiness (v. 48).

The Lamb’s shepherd, apparently God, expresses a desire for purity (vv. 20–24).

Themes of grace, sacrifice, purification, redemption, and expiation:
The Lord’s Chosen suffers for the sins of the wicked (v. 39). The blood of the Righteous is shed that the penitent may have eternal life (v. 45). The Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world (v. 47). Blessed are those who accept the Messiah (v. 53).

“Intelligence is stopped up until I do greatly in keeping grace” (vv. 25–26). Impurity is driven out with the aid of the Lamb who offers a peace-offering on the altar (vv. 27–30). “And the lamb took of the pure, that had been mixed with the impure, and brought it as a peace-offering sacrifice on the altar before El Shaddai Jealous Lord of hosts” (v. 30). “For God has saved one who had strayed and obliterated the impurity from the Earth” (v. 38). “He fought my fight and brought into the light my righteousness by His help” (v. 39). “For in your shadow lived all these and by thy wounds they were healed!” (v. 51).

The redeemed come in at the gate (v. 53).

The “gates of intelligence” are mentioned (v. 24, they have been “turned around”).

Songs of everlasting joy (v. 53).

The song of the Lamb is sung, which mentions the delivery of his people, the obliteration of impurity, and the saving of one who has strayed (vv. 31–37 ff.).

Enoch prays to God “in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ” (v. 50).

“You are My son, you are My firstborn, you are My first-fruit” (v. 47).

The metaphor of the Messiah as the Lamb is a powerful one in Christianity and in the scriptures of the Restoration. David Rolph Seely and Jo Ann H. Seely discuss various aspects of the metaphor of the Lamb employed by Enoch when he said, “The Righteous is lifted up, and the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world” (Moses 7:47).7 They note that the concept of a sacrificial lamb is related to the experience of Adam and Eve who offered sacrifice as commanded, but did not understand the significance until an angel explained to them that, “This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth” (Moses 5:7). In addition to the sacrificial lamb, they also consider the “suffering servant and Passover lamb” and the “apocalyptic lamb” of the book of Revelation, aspects that involve a paradox:

There is a profound paradox regarding the image of the meek and lowly Lamb, who has now become victorious and has the power to conquer and cast out the beast. The paradox is the same as the Suffering Servant—that the victory over sin, death, and hell could only be accomplished through humility and submission to the will of the Father and self-sacrifice on behalf of others.8

This is consistent with the humble, sacrifice-offering Lamb of God in Words of Gad the Seer who, rejected and despised (v. 13), when pained over the impurity of the world, cries out with a voice “like the voice of a lion roaring over his prey” (v. 15), showing his great power.

Other issues to consider in Bar-Ilan’s paper include the notion of prayers of the righteous being offered up on the Heavenly Altar, which may resonate with the modern Latter-day Saint practice of placing names on the temple prayer roll.9 Further, the concept of sacrifices of the souls of the righteous or their prayers and deeds mentioned by Bar-Ilan could be compared to the statement of Christ to Book of Mormon peoples after his Resurrection:

And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings.

And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not. (3 Nephi 9:19, 20)

The sacrifice of humility and contrite obedience to the Lord instead of burnt offerings results in an even more efficacious “burning” as the Holy Ghost purifies us, cleansing us of impurity and preparing us to serve and worship the Lamb of God, the Lamb that is also our Shepherd who laid down his life for us, his sheep. There is much to contemplate as we consider the subtle allusions, echoes, and imagery related to the Lamb of God in the vision of Gad the Seer and in other passages of Words of Gad the Seer.

I am extremely grateful to Professor Meir Bar-Ilan for making this possible and for sharing his insightful paper with us. I trust you will find his contribution to Interpreter both fascinating and illuminating.

Jeffrey D. Lindsay has been providing online materials defending the Church for more than twenty years, primarily at JeffLindsay.com. His Mormanity blog on Church topics began in 2004 and was recently converted to ArisefromtheDust.com. He is currently on the Board of Directors for The Interpreter Foundation. Jeff has a PhD in chemical engineering from BYU and is a US patent agent. Jeff has been a Fellow of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers since 2014. Every year since 2015 he has been named as one of the world’s leading intellectual property strategists on the IAM 300 Strategy List by IAM Media Group in the UK. He is currently president of Planet Lindsay, LLC, assisting a variety of clients with intellectual property and innovation. From 2011 to 2019 he was the head of Intellectual Property for Asia Pulp and Paper in Shanghai, China, one of the world’s largest forest product companies. Formerly, he was associate professor at the Institute of Paper Science and Technology (now the Renewable Bioproducts Institute) at Georgia Tech, then went into R&D at Kimberly-Clark Corporation, eventually becoming corporate patent strategist and senior research fellow. Jeff served a mission in the German-speaking Switzerland Zurich Mission. He and his wife, Kendra, are the parents of four boys and have fifteen grandchildren. They are both serving as ministering specialists for African immigrants in their community and are learning Swahili. Jeff also serves as a board member for Hope and Help Together, a community organization in Appleton, Wisconsin, which works to assist refugees and immigrants in the Fox Cities region.

1. 1 . Meir Bar-Ilan, “The Heavenly Lamb, Sacrifices on the Heavenly Altar, and the Song of the Lamb,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 64 (2025): 65–88, interpreterfoundation.org/the-heavenly-lamb
-sacrifices-on-the-heavenly-altar-and-the-song-of-the-lamb/.

2. 2 . For information on Bar-Ilan’s works on Words of Gad the Seer, see Bar-Ilan, “Heavenly Lamb,” 65n1.

3. 3 . Jeff Lindsay, “The Words of Gad the Seer: An Apparently Ancient Text With Intriguing Origins and Content,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 54 (2022): 147–76, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the
-words-of-gad-the-seer-an-apparently-ancient-text-with-intriguing-origins
-and-content/.

4. 4 . John W. Welch, “‘The Lamb of God’ in Pre-Christian Texts,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS], 1999), 40–42, scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter
/the-lambofgodinpre-christiantexts.

5. 5 . Meir Bar-Ilan, email correspondence to author, 14 November 2024.

6. 6 . Jeff Lindsay, “Further Evidence from the Book of Mormon for a Book of Moses-Like Text on the Brass Plates,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 61 (2024): 415–94, interpreterfoundation.org
/further-evidence-from-the-book-of-mormon-for-a-book-of-moses-like-text
-on-the-brass-plates/; and Jeff Lindsay and Noel B. Reynolds, “‘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,” 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/.

7. 7 . David Rolph Seely and Jo Ann H. Seely, “Behold the Lamb of God,” in Behold the Lamb of God: An Easter Celebration, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Frank F. Judd Jr., and Thomas A. Wayment (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2008), 17–48, rsc.byu.edu/behold-lamb-god/behold-lamb
-god.

8. 8 . David Rolph Seely and Jo Ann H. Seely, “Behold the Lamb of God,” 41.

9. 9 . The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Temple Prayer Roll Submission,” churchofjesuschrist.org/tools/temple-prayer-roll-submission.

The Heavenly Lamb, Sacrifices on the Heavenly Altar, and the Song of the Lamb

Meir Bar-Ilan

Abstract: The symbolic image of the Lamb of God is well-known in the New Testament and The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. This image derives from the Old Testament, later adopted by early Christians. Words of Gad the Seer is an apocalyptic pseudepigraphal book written in pseudo-biblical Hebrew from a manuscript copied in the eighteenth century. After over thirty-three years of investigation, many aspects of this recently discovered text are coming to light. There are more than twenty similarities between this largely unknown book and the book of Revelation, though one was written by a Jewish man who became Christian and the other by a (non-rabbinic) Jew. This old yet newly discovered book will be presented briefly, and the concept of the Heavenly Altar and the song of the Lamb will be discussed. Some esoteric traditions’ pseudepigraphic, rabbinic, and Hekhalot literature will be presented concerning what is sacrificed on the Heavenly Altar or goes up to God, giving the heavenly world a new look. The relationship of the Song of the Lamb to Revelation 15:3 and Jewish liturgy is also explored.

This paper discusses the role of the Heavenly Lamb as presented in Words of Gad the Seer, a long unknown Jewish Apocalypse,1 which may be compared or contrasted to the Heavenly Lamb in the book of Revelation on the one hand, and Rabbinic and Hekhalot literature parallels on the other. It will be shown that while the role of the Lamb seems to be passive in the book of Revelation, in Words of Gad the Seer, the Lamb is active because he sacrifices on the Heavenly Altar and praises the Lord in a song. Parallel traditions originating in Jewish tradition are presented, and the souls of the pious under the throne are discussed, as is the significance of the song of the Lamb and its implications for the dating of Words of Gad the Seer relative to the book of Revelation.

Part 1: Sacrifices on the Heavenly Altar

Generations of husbandry relationships between man and his animal stock made sheep a natural symbol for man, as is evident in the Bible more than once or twice: Israel are sheep while God is the shepherd (e.g., Numbers 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; Isaiah 53:6; Jeremiah 50:17; Psalm 23:1; 44:23).2 This idea appears also in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Joseph 19; Benjamin 3),3 though it looks like a Christian intrusion into the text.4 This metaphor of sheep or flock as symbolizing the people of Israel was in constant use in Jewish liturgy until this very day, whether by quoting biblical psalms or by several Paytanim (composers of liturgical songs), as is evident many times in the Jewish prayer book.5 However, from a theological point of view, no philosopher took the burden of composing a tractate, or even a small discussion, on this symbol.

Unlike Jewish sources, Christian theologians from the very beginning employed the motif of sheep and lambs in particular. Instead of, or in addition to, sheep in plural, there appeared one single lamb, “the Lamb of God,” referring to Jesus (John 1:29, 36; 1 Peter 1:19; Revelation 17:14, 19:9; 21:22–27; 22:3). This shift from plural to singular was probably intended to express the sacrificial aspect of the Lamb, since this metaphor can express the abstract idea of sacrifice and devotion until death.6

The book of Revelation was written towards the end of the first century, and endless books and papers are written about it. The author, John, was a seer who grew up as a Jew familiar with Jewish traditions and writings, mainly in Aramaic.7 Later in his life he converted to Christianity (presumably after the destruction of the temple). In the visions of John the Seer, the lamb became a kind of protagonist in a heavenly scene, waiting for his marriage with Jerusalem. This probably symbolized union with God, the foremost goal of any mystic. Any believer in Jesus is expected to achieve such a state.

In the book of Revelation 5:9, it is explicitly stated that the lamb is already slaughtered. Before we continue to discuss the Heavenly Lamb, it should be stressed that the sacrificial aspect of the lamb is already known from biblical writings that refer to a slaughtered sheep as a symbol of the Jewish people (Psalm 44:23): “Nay, but for Thy sake are we killed all the day; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter,” similar to another verse (Zechariah 11:4): “the flock of slaughter.” Hence, the entire Jewish people was considered to be a slaughtered (if not sacrificed) sheep. Hence, several ideas, old and new, are intermingled together; real became symbolic, the mundane became heavenly, and a whole people was projected in one slaughter, the slaughter of Christ. Thus, the Lamb of God originated as a symbol in the first century, if not earlier.

However, this Heavenly Lamb was not alone; he was part of a scene in which many earthly artifacts, which played a major role in the Jewish tradition, became heavenly, such as Heavenly Jerusalem, the Heavenly Temple, the Heavenly Altar, and others.8 In a way, this heavenly scene involved multiple Platonic ideals interacting with each other.

Having considered the evolution of the Heavenly Lamb in the book of Revelation, we now turn to, until recently, an unknown book and the role of the heavenly beings in Jewish traditions and compare them to other rabbinic concepts.

Words of Gad the Seer

Words of Gad the Seer is a unique book in many ways. It is an apocalyptic book written in pseudo-biblical Hebrew and was copied in Cochin, India, in the eighteenth century. After many years of studying the text, I published the Hebrew text of 5,227 words in my 2015 critical edition9 (and also translated the text into English10). The critical edition has a historical literary introduction, with fourteen introductions (one for each chapter). The manuscript is published with a full commentary, in which I strive to consider every aspect of the text (linguistically, historically, philosophically, geographically, and more). For now, it may be sufficient to say that there is no other document like Words of Gad the Seer in the entire Jewish tradition. Moreover, its first chapter has more than twenty parallels to the Book of Revelation, again without a precedent.

The hero of the book is King David, and in many aspects, this book is a hagiography, a genre unknown to Jews until the Middle Ages. The seer identified himself with Gad the Seer, a private prophet to King David, in a pseudepigraphic manner, as if the book was composed in the tenth century BCE, though a modern critical eye can say, after a glance, that this date is impossible. In my book the problems of dating the text are discussed, showing that the text might be composed at the end of the first century, or maybe even several centuries later. The exact time of this unique composition is still waiting for a decision.

The heavenly lamb sacrifices and praises the Lord

There are three visions in the book, but here we will concentrate on the part of the first vision that should be taken as a good presentation for the whole book (the Hebrew text and English translation are in an appendix at the end of this paper). In his vision, the seer describes a heavenly scene where the Lord carries a lamb on his shoulder, like a shepherd, and the lamb is mourning what had happened to him: “Woe unto me! Woe unto me! Woe unto me!” Later, an angel puts a crown on the head of the lamb, and he gives the lamb “three branches of vine and twelve palms in his hand.” The lamb is then described as follows (v. 30):

And the lamb took of the pure, that had been mixed with the impure, and brought it as a peace-offerings sacrifice on the altar before El Shaddai Jealous Lord of hosts.11

The seer was notably short in his description as to what exactly were these peace-offerings of the lamb, but the scene is explicit: a Heavenly Lamb is sacrificing on the Heavenly Altar. This scene will be examined later, but we have to look at another act of the Lamb: praising the Lord. Unlike the few words that were devoted to the heavenly sacrifice, the seer gives an incredibly detailed description of the Song of the Lamb in not less than 135 words. The song begins with Isaiah 12:1–2, which resembles parts of Exodus 15:1–18, known as Shirat Hayam, or the Song of the Sea.

The wording of the song and its relation to the praise of the Heavenly Lamb in the book of Revelation12 will be discussed below in “Part 2: The Song of the Lamb.” For now, suffice it to say that in the temple in Jerusalem, the sacrificing was accompanied with songs by the Levites.13 Moreover, praising the Lord in heaven is nothing new, since this concept is rooted in the Bible (Isaiah 6:3), later to become known as the Qedusha (or Sanctus).14 In sum, Gad the Seer had a vision where a Heavenly Lamb mourns over his loss, which, though it is not explicitly stated,15 presumably was the destruction of the temple. Then he sacrifices on the Heavenly Altar and praises the Lord, a typical ritual of the earthly temple.

It is not clear what the exact sacrifices were, for we do not know what was in the seer’s mind who described the sacrifices as “the pure, that had been mixed with the impure” (v. 30). At least two explanations fit the description: 1) the pure is Israel, and the impure are non-Jews, hence, the sacrifices will be of or from the Jewish people;16 and 2) the pure are the pious people, and the impure are the non-pious, those who are not committed to God.

Without trying to solve the exact meaning of the vision with respect to what the sacrifices were, let us look at other parallels of this scene that might help us see the whole picture.

Babylonian Talmud

In b. Menachot 110a, there is a discussion regarding the words of King Solomon to Hiram, King of Tyre, relating to the temple he was about to build, where he said, “This is an ordinance for ever to Israel” (2 Chronicles 2:3). The Talmud asked how it could be that the temple is “forever” since it was already destroyed and then gives an answer: “Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav17: Altar is built, and Michael, the Great Prince, is standing and sacrificing a sacrifice on it.”18 In other words, if eternity is not seen on earth, it appears in heaven. Now, since Rav came to Babylon from the Land of Israel around 220 CE, it is highly probable that this is a Palestinian tradition resembling that of Gad the Seer, though instead of a lamb the one who sacrifices is the archangel Michael, who is already known from the Bible as the Minister of Israel (Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1).19 Hence, Michael became a protagonist of Israel. According to this tradition, since there are no sacrifices on earth, Michael sacrifices on the Heavenly Altar (nothing is said about praising). However, what Michael is sacrificing, we do not know.

On that issue, in Tosafot Shantz (literally: “Addenda,” but it is an exegesis), written by Rabbi Shimshon ben Abraham (c. 1150 – c. 1230) of Sens, France, disciple of Rabbenu Tam, we read, “There are different Midrashim [on this]: some say these are souls of the pious, and some say these are lambs of fire.”20 That would seem to be because there are no flesh and blood animals in heaven; in any event, we are talking about symbolic sacrifices. According to one tradition, souls of the pious are sacrificed, as will be discussed thoroughly later, while the other tradition says they are lambs of fire. It is clear that every tradition is a bit different, and though “lambs of fire” can be taken as an allusion to chapter one of Words of Gad the Seer—in both cases, the sacrifices are of lambs—the imagery does not come from any common repository. Though we know of about twenty heavenly artifacts made of fire in ancient Jewish sources,21 I could not find any Midrash that discusses heavenly lambs of fire (maybe the lost Midrash was lost to fire itself). The closest allusion to the text appears in the Testament of Levi 3:6, where it is said that in the second heaven, angels will bring “a sacrifice without blood.” Be that as it may, in the Talmud, the heavenly proficient is an angel, while in Words of Gad the Seer, it is a Heavenly Lamb. In both cases, the protagonist is a symbol for the Jewish people; they both became priests that serve the Lord in Heaven.22

One more comment should be added. In Hebrew, the root of “sacrifice” is QRB (קרב), which also means “(come) close/near,”23 hence the sacrifice is a means of Israel getting close to God. All these traditions agree that the Jewish people are close to the Lord even when there is no earthly temple, and they all stress the idea that sacrifices are still occurring on the Heavenly Altar.

Souls of the pious are “sacrificed” on the Heavenly Altar

As already noted, Rabbi Shimshon of Sens was aware of two traditions, the second with lambs of fire that resemble the account in Words of Gad the Seer, though different, and the other that identifies the heavenly sacrifices as the souls of the pious. This idea appears in the Ten Martyrs narrative, which is part of Hekhalot literature, and already been subject of study.24 While the narrative of the Ten Martyrs is well known for its role in the liturgy of Yom Kippur, the specific text was not known until recently, and it is worth dwelling on.

The seer in this account is called, as a literary device, by the name of Rabbi Ishmael (a historical figure who lived in the second century). While the seer is in heaven, the angel Gabriel is his guide, similar to other accounts of mystical experiences, and then the seer sees something and then receive the explanation by the angel as follows:25

And when R. Ishmael heard that, at once, he calmed down, and he was walking in Heaven to and fro and saw an altar near the Throne of Glory. He said to Gabriel: What is it? He answered: It is an altar. He said to him: And what are you sacrificing on it every day, are there bulls and fire above? He said to him: Souls of pious we sacrifice on it every day. He said: who sacrifices them? He said: Michael the Great Minister.26

This tradition answers the basic question facing the Talmudic tradition: What does it mean that Michael sacrifices in heaven since there are no bulls or fire in heaven? Hence, this tradition has the features of a commentary and seems to be later than the Talmud, as the whole Hekhalot literature is.27 The final answer to the question here is that in Heaven, souls are sacrificed, that is, impalpable things (just as fire is).

At any event, this unknown Midrash assures Shimshon of Sens that there is a Midrash where it is said that on the Heavenly Altar pious souls are “sacrificed.” This may be understood not as slaughtering or destroying them or their prayers but offering them up to the Lord to make them close to Him. The idea behind this tradition is that the pious people are the most beloved by the Lord, and hence, they are brought to His presence as close as possible, while the non-pious people’s souls are a bit remote from God. Lex Talionis: those who were close to God on earth are (will be) close to God in heaven, and those that are remote from God on earth are (will be) remote from God in heaven, in eternity.

Offerings of souls, rights, and prayers of the pious

While Rabbi Shimshon of Sens was aware of pious souls only, there is another Midrash that elaborates the issue with two “additives” to those sacrifices. In the Midrash named “Hashem Behokhma Yasad Aretz” (from presumably the sixth to the ninth century), named after Proverbs 3:19 (“The Lord by wisdom founded the earth”), we read:

God said to Michael: Michael, since I have ruined my house and burnt my shrine and deserted my temple and destroyed my altar, do not sacrifice before me images of bulls nor images of lambs. Said he: Master of the World, and your children, what about them? Said He: Sacrifice before me the rights and the prayers of the souls of pious [people] concealed under the Throne of Glory,28 and [souls of] schoolchildren, and I atone the sins of Israel.29

It is clear that the darshan (a qualified expounder of Scripture) here considered sacrificing bulls or lambs on the Heavenly Altar to be impossible. Either he had never heard the tradition in the Babylonian Talmud (in two different tractates), or perhaps he rejected it. With no bulls and lambs on the altar, according to this Midrash, the sacrifices in heaven are much more subtle: they are made of pious people’s souls and their rights and prayers in addition, seemingly three different “objects.”30 However, close reading of the text and realizing the background of the Midrash leads one to understand that this description is not about three different “objects” but rather to the sacrifice or offering of pious people’s souls together with their earthly rights, or deeds. This becomes clearer after considering Tractate Semachot 8:7 (literally “joys,” a euphemism for mourning), presumably from the fourth to sixth centuries. Two stories tell how pious people were buried:

[When one is buried] they put [in the grave] his ink well and his pen side by side of him, and one should not be worried about following the ways of the Amorites. . . .

When Shmuel the young passed away, they put in his coffin his key and his Pinax [a tablet for writing] since he had no son.31

Here, we see that the sages used to bury their comrades with their very intimate possessions, without being worried that they seem to be following a heathen practice.32 Such objects showed identity or character of the deceased.33 This evidence should be taken as a kind of “parallel” to the belongings of the pious souls. That is to say, the idea behind the tradition in midrash “Hashem Behokhma Yasad Aretz” is that when one prays, his prayer becomes a heavenly object. In the same line of thought, when one does a divine command, it does not fall into oblivion, rather it creates its counterpart in Heaven, just as the whole issue under discussion: Jerusalem, Temple, and Altar in Heaven. Hence, Michael sacrifices pious people’s souls, the heavenly parts of one’s body, and the heavenly “objects” that testify of their piety, the prayers of the pious and certain rights.

A similar tradition, with different phrasing, appears in b. Shabbat 32a: “And with regard to divine judgment, these are a person’s advocates: Repentance and good deeds.”34 This tradition was enhanced by a later darshan in Masechet Semahot of Rabbi Hiya 1:5:

One about to go to court should bring an advocate (paraklētos). If one goes to a flesh and blood court, he needs to bring himself lawyers, all the more one who is about to go to court of the King of Kings, the Holy Blessed be He. And what are those lawyers that man should bring? Repentance and charitable deeds that are like a shield against calamity.35

In all, here is the same idea that good deeds go to heaven, though there is no altar mentioned and the deeds come to heaven when one goes to heaven only.

This idea seems to be rather old, as one can read from another source. In the vision of Baruch (3 Baruch 11–12), the seer goes to the fifth heaven, where he sees Michael with a huge bowl in his hand. He asked the angel that escorted him: what is in the hand of Michael the archangel, and where does it go? In the end, he answered: “This is where the virtues of the righteous and the good works which they do are carried, which are brought by him before the heavenly God.”36 True, there is no altar, but the idea is that an earthly good deed has its counterpart in heaven, and it comes before the Lord as a flower.37

A similar idea concerning prayers that become heavenly objects is found in rabbinic tradition (Shemot Rabbah 21:4):

R. Pinhas, by the name of R. Meir, and R. Irimia, by the name of R. Hiyya bar Abba, said: when Israel prays, you do not find all of them pray together. Instead, every congregation prays on its own; this congregation comes first and then comes another. And after all the congregations end, the angel who is in charge over the prayers takes all the prayers that have been prayed in all the congregations and makes them diadems, and put them at the head of the Holy, Blessed be He, as is written (Psalm 65:3) “O Thou that hearest prayer, unto Thee doth all flesh come,” etc.

In this tradition from the third century, prayers are carried to the Lord not as flowers, as in 3 Baruch, but as diadems (such as a crown of interlaced flowers), similar to the tradition that God is crowned by His Angels.38 At any event, it becomes evident that any mundane object has its counterparts in heaven, if not simultaneously (like in a Platonic world of ideas), and then certainly after its death or destruction. So, after death, there is a human soul in heaven, and after Jerusalem was destroyed, there is a heavenly Jerusalem with the same line of thought: Temple and the Heavenly Altar. Moreover, pious souls are sacrificed on the Heavenly Altar before the Lord and come together with their deeds and rights, which attest to the piety of the souls. All this, and more, happening in heaven with the assistance of angels, is a similitude of closeness to the Lord.39

Souls of schoolchildren

As already noted, in Midrash “Hashem Behokhma Yasad Aretz,” it appears that not only the souls of pious people are “sacrificed” on the Heavenly Altar but the souls of schoolchildren also, and a note on this will not be out of place. In Jewish tradition (as well as in more cultures), schoolchildren are considered pure beings without sin. Therefore, when a child passes away, it is clear that God did not punish him but instead wanted the child’s soul to be next to him,40 (or to punish the child’s parents).41 It seems that this tradition is the way one may be comforted. Both souls, of a schoolchild as well as the pious, are pure, so they are “sacrificed” or offered to the Lord on the Heavenly Altar to show their closeness.

In Midrash Alpha-Betoth (presumably from the eighth to ninth centuries), Qof-Het, it is stated:

In the future, He (the Lord) will take the Throne of Glory from its place to the next world, and will bring from its underneath thousands of thousands and myriad of myriads all the souls of abortive children that passed away while being in the bellies of their mothers, for sins of their fathers and mothers, and show them to the pious, and tell them: My children, would you like that these souls will resurrect?42

This tradition goes hand in hand with the former one: souls of pious and souls of schoolchildren are sacrificed on the Heavenly Altar, and the remnants are under the Heavenly Throne. No wonder that, according to other Midrashim, it is told that: “Every day Metatron is sitting three hours in Heaven and gathers all the souls of abortive children . . . and brings them underneath the Throne of Glory, and makes them sit, class by class, and teaches them Torah,” etc.43

A contradictory tradition

There is yet another tradition, or may it be called a contra-tradition of a text that is very strange, from more than one aspect. According to Pseudo Ben-Sira, version B (assumed to be composed in Southern Italy around the ninth to tenth centuries):

During the time that this [the earthly temple] was built, a priest sacrificed and burned incense, and Michael, who is in charge, also was sacrificing and burning incense up-there souls of pious. But now, because of sins that caused, and there are no sacrifices down-there, as if [truly] there are no sacrifices up there, and God in the future will bring them back.44

Who invented this tradition and why is unclear, but one should recall that the tales of Ben Sira are already known as subversive under rabbinic tradition, and this is another example of the character of this book.

Pious people’s names on the Lord’s cloak

For completeness, let us look at another tradition, different and similar to the former. In a Midrash on Psalms 9, there is this derasha (a sermon):

R. Abbahu, in the name of R. Elazar, said: Every pious that the nations of the world kill, the Holy, blessed be He, writes on his porphura (cloak),45 as is written (Psalm 110:6): “He will judge among the nations, He filleth it with dead bodies.” And the Holy, blessed be He, tells the nations of the world: Why have you killed my pious? (such as R. Hanina son of Teradyon) and all those who are killed over my Holy Name? And they (the nations) deny and say: We have not killed them! Immediately the Holy, blessed be He, brings his porphura, and judges them, and gives their verdict (of execution), that is (Psalm 9:13): “For He that avengeth blood hath remembered them.”46

Formerly we saw the pious souls on the Heavenly Altar that is beneath the Throne of Glory, but now we see that their names are close to the Lord since they are embroidered on His cloak.47 Almost the same idea appears in 1 Enoch 104:1–2, where Enoch tells the pious people that their names are written before the Lord.

In sum, the idea that the pious are close to the Lord—either as their souls being sacrificed on the Heavenly Altar, or they are underneath the Throne of Glory, or their names are written on the Lord’s cloak (or else)—originated in early times. However, these traditions died out for more than one reason.

Gad the Seer and the pure vs. impure sacrifice

In twelfth to thirteenth century France, Rabbi Shimshon of Sens, when commenting on the Talmud, knew two different traditions: one is attested in esoteric Jewish tradition and the other, so it seems, reflects Words of Gad the Seer in a way. In the Ashkenaz (southern Germany and northeast France) tradition, it was known that lambs of fire are sacrificed in Heaven by Michael, while in Words of Gad the Seer, some animal is sacrificed (without the designation “of fire”) not by an angel but rather by a Heavenly Lamb.

Now let us go back to the text of Words of Gad the Seer that initiated the whole discussion:

And the lamb took off the pure, that had been mixed with the impure, and brought it as a peace-offering sacrifice on the altar before El Shaddai Jealous Lord of hosts. (v. 30)

In the text, it is not clear what was in the mind of the seer. My assumption has been that he was thinking of Jews who are sacrificed in Heaven resembling those who were sacrificed (i.e., who were killed on earth). However, that may not be the only explanation.

The dichotomy between the pure and the impure might be related not to the differences between Jews and non-Jews but rather to the differences between pious and impious people (all Jews). In light of the aforementioned sources, it might be that the seer saw the Heavenly Lamb who sacrificed peace offerings that were nothing else but the souls of the pious.

Having considered the Heavenly Altar and the sacrifices of the Heavenly Lamb, we now consider the connections of the Song of the Lamb that is sung with ancient Jewish liturgy and the book of Revelation.

Part 2: The Song of the Lamb

In Revelation 15:3, we read, “And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb.” What is the common denominator between the Song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb?

In Words of Gad the Seer vv. 32–45, the Heavenly Lamb praises the Lord in what the text identifies as “the song of the lamb” (v. 31). In addition to citing two verses from Isaiah 12, Words of Gad the Seer draws upon three verses in Exodus 15 that clarify Revelation 15:3 (see table 1).

Table 1. The Lamb praises the Lord.

Words of Gad the Seer

KJV Exodus 15

For the Lord is my strength and song, and He is become my redeemer. (33)

The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation. . . . (2)

I will sing unto the Lord, for He is highly exalted; The horse and his rider hath He thrown into the Sea of Reeds. (34)

Pharaoh’s chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea. (4)

Verily, who is like unto Thee, O Lord? Verily, who is like unto Thee, glorious in holiness?—but not in impurity! (40)

Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness. . . . (11)

This common language suggests that the Heavenly Lamb and Moses share a common liturgical practice, especially when we consider the citation of Exodus 15:11. This verse is particular in Jewish liturgy since it is recited daily, morning and evening, before the Amidah, the Jewish main liturgy.48 The text says that Moses and the children of Israel exclaim in unison, “Who is like unto thee,” etc., and although there is no Rabbinic source that calls for reciting this verse nor the related verse that concludes the “Song of the Sea” (15:1–18) (“The LORD shall reign for ever and ever” [v. 19]), it is obvious that the text is a kind of Qedusha, or Sanctus, that deserves to be called “the hidden Qedusha.”49 When one recalls that in the Bible and post-biblical sources, the people of Israel are called “sheep,” it becomes evident that Moses, as a shepherd, and his sheep praised the Lord, as did the Heavenly Lamb in Words of Gad the Seer, with a doxology: “Who is like unto thee,” etc.

Moreover, this specific verse has another liturgical role that should not be overlooked in an enigmatic text named Pereq Shira (or “Chapter of Song”). The text of about 1,500 words has no specific role in Jewish liturgy and appears in a few prayer books only.50 The date of this text is unknown, but it looks like a post-Talmudic text, and one may guess it comes from the eighth to tenth centuries. The text lists some eighty items (or their Platonic ideals) created by the Lord, and each recites a biblical verse that praises the Lord, mostly from Psalms and Isaiah. The list begins with cosmological objects, such as Sky, Earth, Day, and Night, while each praises the Lord with a different verse. After “natural” beings finish their praises, there are floral items and some fifty different animals. There is no room here to discuss how Donkey or Elephant praise the Lord, but it suffices to say that the “Thin Cattle,” a generalized name for goats and sheep, praise the Lord as in Exodus 15:11: “Who is like unto thee?”

Without trying to solve the riddle of Pereq Shira,51 it is enough to note that in two different Hebrew sources, each enigmatic in its way, Pereq Shira and Words of Gad the Seer, a Heavenly Lamb praises the Lord with “Who is like unto thee?,” a verse used by Moses and the children of Israel in the Song on the Sea, akin to daily Jewish liturgy.

The above leads to the realization that John the Seer was likely thinking of a song from Moses, and the Heavenly Lamb in Words of Gad the Seer sang out in accordance with a Jewish tradition where a Heavenly Lamb recites, “Who is like unto thee?” My commentary to Words of Gad the Seer noted that there are more than twenty similarities to the Revelation of John, though I made no determination regarding who took from whom and offered no definite date of the book. However, after viewing Song of the Lamb in Words of Gad the Seer and its connections to Exodus, Jewish liturgy, and Revelation 15:3, the situation is much more straightforward: Words of Gad the Seer predates (or at least is contemporary with) John the Seer. This is because Revelation 15:3 makes more sense if it is alluding to a known Song of the Lamb such as that found in Words of Gad the Seer. (Evidence suggesting a common milieu is considered in my critical edition of Words of Gad the Seer.52)

Not less important, in the Palestinian Talmud (Berachot 1:5, 3d) it was stated that there were Jews who recited Isaiah 12:6: “Cry aloud and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion” in their prayer. This statement is verified in the Genizah fragments, which show that this verse was used as a doxology.53

In antiquity, Jews used verses from Isaiah 12 and Exodus 15 in their liturgy, and according to Words of Gad the Seer, not only Jews but the Heavenly Lamb praise the Lord with verses from Exodus 15. Gad the Seer confirms Revelation 15:3 and clarifies it: both Moses and the Lamb sang the same verses, such as, “For the Lord is my strength and song” (v. 2) and “Verily, who is like unto thee, O Lord?” (v. 11).

Conclusion

Gad the Seer did not live isolated from the world. His vision, at least to some degree, likely reflects his history and background. The author’s visions as well as his way of handling biblical texts, such as blocks of text from the Bible, reflect antiquity. However, a few words in the text are an obstacle to making a definitive date.54 After studying this text for more than forty-three years, I still cannot give its date as a definite conclusion, though consideration of the Song of the Lamb points to an origin prior to the book of Revelation. The dating is only one of the enigmas that surround this text.

This paper began by studying the scene described in Words of Gad the Seer where the Heavenly Lamb offers a sacrifice on the Heavenly Altar and several other traditions were put forward to explain that scene.

According to Words of Gad the Seer, on the Heavenly Altar, peace-offerings are sacrificed, and in rabbinic esoteric traditions, other “artifacts” are sacrificed, such as pious people’s credits, prayers, and souls. In passing, we learned that these pious people are buried under the Throne of Glory.

Also, according to Words of Gad the Seer, we learn that the Heavenly Lamb sings a song that connects to Jewish liturgy and Exodus, helping us to better understand the meaning of “the song of the lamb” mentioned in Revelation 15:3. The ancient Words of Gad the Seer, though enigmatic, is shedding light on the Lamb of God and John the Seer’s allusion to the Lamb’s song.

Appendix:
Words of Gad the Seer, vv. 13–45
(part of the first chapter)

Table 2. The Lamb of God in the first vision.

Original Hebrew

English translation

והנה השמש יצא מתוך הרקיע כתואר אדם ונשא שה נדח ונבזה על כתפו הימין וכתר על ראשה

And, lo, the Sun came out of Heaven in the shape of a man, with a crown on his head, carrying over his right shoulder, a lamb, rejected and despised.55

13

ועל הכתר למעל בראשה נראה רועים שלשה נצמדים בשנים עשר צמידים

And on the crown on his head three shepherds are seen, shackled with twelve shackles

14

וצמידים זהב מצופים בכסף ונשמע קול השה גדול ונורא כקול הארי השאג על הטרף אוי לי אוי לי אוי לוי נחסרתי מתוארי נאבד מנוסי מנת חלקי וגורלי נתנני ביד משוסי ונטמאתי בנגיעות הטומאה עד ערב

and these shackles were of gold coated with silver. And the voice of the lamb was heard, great and dreadful like the voice of a lion56 roaring over his prey: “Woe unto me! Woe unto me! Woe unto me! My image has been diminished, my refuge has been lost, my lot and destiny has turned me over to my spoilers, and I was defiled until evening by the touch of impurity.”

15

ויהי כאשר תם קול השה והנה זה בא איש לבוש בדים ובידו שלשה שריגי גפן ושנים עשר תמרים

And it came to pass when the voice of the lamb was over, and, lo, a man dressed in linen came with three branches of vine and twelve palms in his hand.

16

ולקח את השה מיד החרס וישם את הכתר בראשו והשריגים ותמרים על לבו

And he took the lamb from the hand of the Sun and put the crown on its head, and the vine branches and palms on his heart.

17

והאיש לבוש בדים קרא כקול שופר ואמר מה לך פה טומאה ומי לך פה טומאה כי חצבת לך מקום בטהרה ובבריתי

And the man, dressed in linen, cried like a ram’s horn, saying: “What hast thou here, impurity, and who hast thou here, impurity, that thou hast hewed thee a place in purity, and in my covenant

18

אשר הקמתי עם השריגים ותמרים

that I have set with the vine-branches and palms.”

19

ואת אשר אמרתי לרועה השה לאמור הנה המקום אתי לטהור ולא לטמא כי אלהי קדוש אני ואין לי חפץ בטמא כי אם בטהור

And I have heard the lamb’s shepherd saying: “There is a place for the pure, not for the impure, with me, for I am a holy God, and I do not want the impure, only the pure.

20

האף שזה וזה מעשי ידי ועיני פקוחות על שניהם בכלל

Though both are creations of my hands, and my eyes are equally open on both.

21

אבל יש יתרון משפעות טמא לשפעות טהור כיתרון הצל מהאדם

But there is an advantage to the abundance of purity over the abundance of impurity just like the advantage of a man over a shadow.

22

כי הצל אינה באה אם על יד אדם ומתוך כח האדם ניתן הצל לעיף ויגע לטהור וטמא ולולי הכח אין הצל כן הדבר הזה

For the shadow does not come except by man, and only by the existence of the man is the shadow given to the tired and exhausted, to pure and impure, this matter is even so.

23

כי כל שערי בינה נהפכים מיום מות חית אב הגפן

For all gates of intelligence have been turned around since the death of the eight branches of the vine.

24

כאשר נמצא בדברי יושר בספר האמת ובמסעות הצאן ובמנוחותם ובמחלקותם הבינה נסתם

As is found in words of righteousness, in the true book but because of the wanderings of the sheep and their rest and divisions—intelligence is stopped up

25

עד שאגדול לעשות בנצירות החסד כאשר קראתי לרועה לאמור

until I do greatly in keeping grace.”

26

ראיתי שהטומאה נדחפת מהירח ונתנה ליד המכלה והמקציף נטחנת דק לעפר ונפזרת ברוח היום

I saw that impurity was driven from the Moon and was given to the hand of consuming wrath, ground finely to dust and scattered by the daily wind.

27

והיום בוער כתנור להעביר הטומאה ולהסיר החטאות

And the day burneth as a furnace to transfer impurity and to erase the transgressions.

28

והשה ניתן בהירח עד עולמי עולמים

And the lamb was put on the (moon) [Sun] for ever and ever.

29

והטהור אשר נבלל בתוך הטמא לקח השה והביא ממנו זבח שלמים ליהוה על מזבח אשר לפני קנאות אל שדי צבאות

And the lamb took of the pure, that had been mixed with the impure, and brought it as a peace-offerings sacrifice on the altar before El Shaddai, Jealous Lord of hosts.

30

ושמעתי קול שירות השה לאמר

And I heard the sound of the song of the lamb, saying:

31

אודך יהוה כי אנפת בי ותשוב

“I shall give thanks unto Thee, O Lord, for though Thou wast angry with me, You relented.

32

עזי וזמרת יה ויהי לי לישועה

For the Lord is my strength and song, and He is become my redeemer.

33

אשירה ליהוה כי גאה גאה סוס ורוכבו רמה באין סוף

I will sing unto the Lord, for He is highly exalted; The horse and his rider hath He thrown into the Sea of Reeds.

34

קום בינה קום גבורה קום מלכות קום הוד ותפארת

Rise up, Intelligence; Rise up, Power; Rise up, Kingship; Rise up, Majesty and Glory!

35

קומו לעזרת יהוה

Rise up to help the Lord!

36

כי אלהים הושע הנדח והסר הטומאה מהארץ

For God has saved one who had strayed and obliterated the impurity from the Earth.

37

הוא רב ריבי והוצא לאור צדקתו ועזרתי

He fought my fight and brought into the light my righteousness by His help.

38

עזרי מעם שדי קונה שמים וארץ

My help cometh from Shaddai who made heaven and earth.

39

אבל מי כמכה באלים יהוה אבל מי כמכה נאדר בקדש ולא בטומאה

Verily, who is like unto Thee, O Lord? Verily, who is like unto Thee, glorious in holiness? – but not in impurity!

40

כי כל הגדלת כל רוממת דברת ועשית

For You are great over all, raised over all, You spoke and acted.

41

כי הגדת האחרון מראשית וחתמת דבריך בכל והפכת ללב

For You declared the end from the beginning, and You sealed everything with Your words and turned my heart and tormented me.

42

ויסרת אותי בך כי ביה אדני חותמי ואלה שלושה שריגי ושנים עשר תמרי אשר על לבי

For Your seal is on me, my Lord, and these are three branches of vine and twelve palms that are on my heart.

43

נתת לי פאר הסרת הבל לערוץ אנוש ולב טהור נתת בי עד עולם

You gave me grandeur, You erased vanity to fear man, and You gave me a pure heart forever.

44

על כן אזמרך בכל עת ואודך בגוים כי הגדלת ישועתי במלכי ועשית חסד למשיחי לדוד ולזרעו עד נצח נצחים

For that I will praise Thee at all times, and thank You among the nations, for You have redeemed me greatly for my King and did favor to David the anointed and his seed for ever and ever.”

45

[Author’s Note: I deeply thank Jeff Lindsay and the anonymous reviewers who took care of this paper more than one could expect.]

Meir Bar-Ilan is an Emeritus Professor of Jewish Studies at Bar-Ilan University (BIU, named after his grandfather) in Ramat Gan, Israel, where he has made significant contributions to the study of Jewish history and culture, particularly focusing on the biblical and talmudic periods. Born in New York in 1951, he moved to Israel, earned his BA (cum laude) and PhD in Jewish History from BIU, and began his academic career there as a student in 1976 before rising to full professor in 2000. With a rich career that includes serving as chair of the Talmud Department (2008–2009) and visiting scholar positions at prestigious institutions like Hebrew University, Harvard, and Vienna University, Bar-Ilan has explored topics such as ancient Jewish society, literacy, Pseudepigrapha, and mysticism, publishing numerous books and articles. A veteran of two wars (1973 and 1982), where he was severely wounded in Lebanon, he resides in Rehovoth, Israel, with his wife Miriam, their five children, and twenty grandchildren. He continues to influence the field through his editorial roles in journals like JSIJ [Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal] and Moreshet Israel.

1 . The English translation of Words of Gad the Seer is found in Meir Bar-Ilan, ed. and trans., Words of Gad the Seer (self-published, 2016). The critical edition exploring many details of the text and its relationship to other documents is found in the 390-page Hebrew publication, Meir Bar-Ilan, :הזוחה דג ירבד
18-ה האמב O0.1.20 ’גדירבמייק די-בתכ ךותמ ןי’צוקב קתעוהש [The Words of Gad the Seer: From the Cambridge Manuscript O0.1.20 Copied in Cochin in the 18th century] (Rehovot, Israel: Shorashim, 2015). Several reviews of this book have appeared: 1) Ephraim Nissan, “A Few Considerations on the Critical Edition of The Words of Gad the Seer” review of “Words of Gad the Seer, ed. Meir Bar-Ilan, academia.edu/28793977/A_Few_Considerations_on_the_Critical_Edition_of_The_Words_of_Gad_the_Seer, a shorter version also appears in Fabula 57, nos. 3–4 (2016): 295–302, doi.org/10.1515/fabula-2016-0042; 2) Jose Faur, “Review of: Meir Bar-Ilan, ed., Words of Gad the Seer,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 19, no. 2 (2016): 301; 3) Simcha Rosenberg, “Book Review: The Words of Gad the Seer,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 45, no. 1 (2017): 59–60, jbqnew.jewishbible.org/uncategorized/book-review-words-gad-seer/; 4) Jeff Lindsay, “The Words of Gad the Seer: An Apparently Ancient Text with Intriguing Origins and Content,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 54 (2022): 147–76, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-words
-of-gad-the-seer-an-apparently-ancient-text-with-intriguing-origins-and
-content/.

2 . Unless otherwise indicated, biblical citations are from The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text, Tanakh 1917 edition (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1917), biblehub.com/jps/.

3 . James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 824, 826, archive.org/details/the-old
-testament-pseudepigrapha-vol.-1-charlesworth-1983/page/823/mode
/2up. See also R. H. Charles, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 354, 356, archive.org/details/Charles_The-Apocrypha
-of-the-Old-Testament-vol-2_1913/page/354/mode/2up.

4 . J. C. O’Neill, “The Lamb of God in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (1979): 2–30.

5 . The concept that Israel is symbolized by sheep appears in a very figurative way in a unique Piyyut (from Byzantine times), set in the High Holidays, in which there is a description of Israel as a flock that goes one by one under the rod of the Shepherd. See Daniel Goldschmidt, ed., Machzor Leyamim Noraim: Rosh Hashanah [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Koren, 1970), 169–72.

6 . Ingvild Sælid Gilhus, Animals, Gods and Humans: Changing Attitudes to Animals in Greek, Roman and Early Christian Ideas (New York: Routledge, 2006), 173–75.

7 . Martin MacNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), archive.org/details
/martinmcnamarathenewtestamentandthepalestiniantargumtothepent
ateuch/page/n1/mode/2up. See also Johannes C. de Moor and Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, “The Aramaic Song of the Lamb,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 24, no. 2 (December 1993): 266–79, jstor.org/stable/24659938; Johannes C. de Moor and Wilfred G. E. Watson, eds., Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (Neukirchen-Vluyn, DE: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1993): 265–92; Rimon Kasher, Targumic Toseftot to the Prophets [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1996): 109–11, 254; C. T. R. Hayward, “The Aramaic Song of the Lamb (The Dialogue between David and Goliath): A new translation and introduction,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, ed. R. Bauckham, J. R. Davila, and A. Panayotov, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 272–73.

8 . This idea appears in b. Hagigah 12b; b. Menahoth 110a; p. Berakhot 4:5, 8c; A. Aptowizer, “The Heavenly Temple in the Aggadah” [in Hebrew] Tarbiz 2, no. 2 (1931): 137–53, 250, academia.edu/42266982/Avigdor_Victor
_Aptowitzer_The_Heavenly_Temple_in_the_Agada_Tarbiz_vol_2_no_2
_January_1931_137_153_250_Hebrew_; A. Grossman, “The Role of Jerusalem in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” ed. J. Prawer, in Jerusalem Book: The Early Islamic Period 638–1099 [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Yad Yitshak Ben-Zvi, 1987), 236–48; J. A. du Rand, “The Imagery of the Heavenly Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9–22:5),” Neotestamentica 22, no. 1 (1988): 65–86.

9 . Bar-Ilan, דברי גד החוזה [The Words of Gad the Seer].

10 . Bar-Ilan, Words of Gad the Seer.

11 . Each of the epithets of the Lord is known in Jewish tradition, though this list has no precedent.

12 . John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1998), 269–79.

13 . 2 Chronicles 29:27; 2 Maccabees 1:30; m. Tamid 5:6, 7:3; m. Middot 2:5; m. Rosh Hashana 4:4.

14 . Meir Bar-Ilan, “Major Trends in the Formation and Crystallization of the Qedusha” [in Hebrew] Da‘at: a Journal of Jewish Philosophy & Kabbalah 25 (1990): 5–20, jstor.org/stable/24193170?seq=1.

15 . For mourning in the temple, see Joel 1:13–14; Meir Bar-Ilan, “The Significance and the Source of Megillat Ta‘anit” [in Hebrew] Sinai 98 (1986): 114–37.

16 . The idea that Israel is pure is relatively late, see m. Yoma 8:9 (and still the dichotomy is not there).

17 . Rav (also known as Abba Arikha) was a prominent third-century Jewish scholar in Babylonia. He founded an important academy in Sura, which became a major center of Jewish learning. Rav Giddel was Rav’s disciple and also a respected scholar. Both were part of a group of Jewish sages called Amoraim, who interpreted and expanded upon earlier rabbinic teachings, contributing significantly to the development of the Babylonian Talmud.

18 . In Ein Yaakov to Hagigah, R. Yaakov ibn Habib (fifteenth to sixteenth century) quotes a version where there is an addendum: “every day.” This version is attested also in the Wad Alhagara print (Spain, around 1480) and Ms. Oxford 366, Vatican 171. The comparison can be done at bavli.genizah.org/..

19 . R. Margaliot, Malakhei Elyon [in Hebrew], 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1964), 108–35; Ellen White, Thomas Römer, “Michael (Angel),” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception 18 (2020):1123–24, hal.science
/hal-03819188v1.

20 . The English quotation is available in Otzar Midrashim, “The Wise One of Secrets,” Sefaria (website), sefaria.org/Otzar_Midrashim%2C_The_Wise_One_of_Secrets.2?ven=english|Sefaria_Community_Translation&lang=bi.

21 . M. Bar-Ilan, “The Throne of God: What is Under It, What is Opposite It, What is Near It” [in Hebrew] Da‘at: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy & Kabbalah 15 (1985): 21–35, jstor.org/stable/24185816. In note 18 are mentioned tens of artifacts made of fire.

22 . Exodus 19:6 already states that Israel among the nations is like priests among the laity (teachers of God’s will, elected by God).

23 . Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1907), s.v. “קָרֵב,” archive.org/details/browndriverbrigg0000brow/.

24 . Ra‘anan Boustan, From Martyr to Mystic (Tübingen, DE: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Ra‘anan S. Boustan, “Confounding Blood: Jewish Narratives of Sacrifice and Violence in Late Antiquity,” in Ancient Mediterranean Sacrifice, ed. Jennifer W. Knust and Zsuzsanna Várhelyi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 265–86, rboustan.scholar.princeton.edu/publications/confounding
-blood-jewish-narratives-sacrifice-and-violence-late-antiquity.

25 . The role of an angel as “angelus interprets” has been evident in apocalyptic works since the prophet Zecharia (1:9, 2:2, 2:4. 4:4, 4:13, 6:4), later to be found in 1 Enoch and other apocalyptic works. Though angels are mentioned thousands of times in rabbinic literature, this role of angel interpreter cannot be found in rabbinic literature.

26 . G. Reeg, Die Geschichte von den Zehn Märtyrern [The Story of the Ten Martyrs], ed. Gottfried Reeg (Tübingen, DE: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985), 40–42 (version 1).

27 . G. Scholem and S. Lieberman believed that the Hekhalot literature, or part of it, comes from the days of the Tannaim. However, philological and literary analysis shows that this literature is later than the Amoraim, or at least partly overlaps them. See M. Bar-Ilan, “The Chain of Tradition in the Hekhalot Literature” [in Hebrew] Da‘at: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy & Kabbalah 56 (2005): 5–37, academia.edu/attachments/53285778/download_file?st=MTcyOTAxNTMwMCw3NC4xMzUuMTkyLjQ1LDQ0MjgyMzY%3D&s=
work_strip.

28 . This idea is explicit in b. Shabbat 152b. In a lost Midrash, it was stated that the souls are concealed in a chest. See Goldschmidt, Machzor Leyamim Noraim: Rosh Hashanah [in Hebrew], 83.

29 . Adolph Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash, 2nd ed., vol. 5 (Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 1938), 63. See also Tractate Semachot: Hibut Haqeber, ch. 1.

30 . Prayers near the throne resemble prayers in the temple, an idea deeply rooted in any temple’s role (1 Kings 8:54; 2 Chronicles 7:1).

31 . Tractate Semachot 8:7, Sefaria (website), sefaria.org/Tractate_Semachot
.8.7?lang=bi.

32 . The expression is “Ways of the Amorites” (those who inhabited the Land of Canaan before Israel and followed idolatry). See: Y. Avishur, “’Ways of the Amorites’—The Kanaan-Babylonian Background and its Literary Structure” [in Hebrew] in Chaim Rabin, ed., Studies in the Bible and the Hebrew Language, Offered to Meir Wallenstein on the Occasion of his Seventy-fifth Birthday (Jerusalem: Jewish Society for Bible Research in Israel, 1979), 17–47.

33 . Gedalia Alon, Studies in the History of Israel [in Hebrew] vol. 2 (Tel-Aviv: Hakkibuts Hameuhad, 1970), 99ff.; Y. L. Biyaler, “Broken Oil-Lamps in Graves from the Mishnah and Talmud Periods” [in Hebrew] in S. Belkin, ed., The Abraham Weiss Jubilee Volume: Studies in His Honor Presented by His Colleagues and Disciples on the Occasion of His Completing Four Decades of Pioneering Scholarship (New York: Yeshivah University, 1964), 145–65.

34 . Shabbat 32a, Sefaria (website), sefaria.org/Shabbat.32a.7?lang=bi.

35 . Michael Higger, ed., Masechet Semachot (New York: Bloch, 1932), 214.

36 . Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, 674–75, archive.org
/details/the-old-testament-pseudepigrapha-vol.-1-charlesworth-1983/page
/673/mode/2up.

37 . The idea that flowers decorate the heavenly realm has presumably no source, though in the temple the golden lamp was engraved with flowers (of almonds), see Exodos 25:31–40, while the almond tree was a priestly emblem, Numbers 17:23. There were also engraved lilies at the top of the pillars in the temple (1 Kings 7:19) and a lily on the “sea of water” in the temple (1  Kings 7:26), which the massive bowl in 3 Baruch resembles. Beyond that, no organic flowers decorated the temple, hence the throne. In rabbinic Judaism, there are never flowers in synagogues. See also Pamela R. Frese, “Flowers,” in Encyclopedia of Religion, ed., Lindsay Jones, 2nd ed., vol. 5 (New York: Thomson Gale, 2005), 3135–37, for a general discussion of uses of flowers in various religions.

38 . Meir Bar-Ilan, “The Idea of Crowning God in Hekhalot Mysticism and the Karaitic Polemic” [in Hebrew], in J. Dan, ed., Early Jewish Mysticism: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism (Jerusalem: Mandel Institute for Jewish Studies,1987), 221–33, jstor
.org/stable/23363661?searchText=&searchUri=&ab_segments=&searchKey=&refreqid=fastly-default%3A871255be55d6793c126a2741a7e2cb3e.

39 . See also Meir Bar-Ilan, “Observations on the Mahzor concerning the Angels” [in Hebrew] Or Hamizrach 35 (1986): 7–12.

40 . It should be noted that in Mishnaic Hebrew, young priests are called “priestly flowers.” See m. Middot 1:8, m. Sukkah 5:2, and more. For example, while m. Middot 1:8 (see Mishnah Middot 1, Sefaria (website), sefaria.org
/Mishnah_Middot.1.8?lang=bi) has the Hebrew phrase “פרחי כהונה,” which is often translated as “priestly initiates,” it literally is “priestly flowers.” Flowers or “פרחי” (pirchei) is metaphorically used in rabbinic Hebrew to denote young initiates or novices.

41 . This idea appears in b. Shabbat 32b, but it concerns fathers only who do not fulfill their vows. According to other sages, the death of a child is caused because the father did not study the Torah. Compare Deuteronomy 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, Ezekiel 18, and 2 Chronicles 25:4.

42 . S. A. Wertheimer, Batei Midrashoth [in Hebrew], vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Machon Ktav Va-Sefer, 1980), 452.

43 . For this tradition in four different sources, see Bar-Ilan, “The Throne of God,” 21–35, esp. note 46.

44 . Eli Yassif, The Tales of Ben Sira in the Middle-Ages [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984), 288.

45 . Porphura derives from the Greek πορφύρα, which means royal purple. This expensive color became a royal emblem from antiquity to the high Middle Ages and beyond.

46 . Translation is that of the author based on the Hebrew of Midrash Tehillim 9.14, in Solomon Buber, ed., Midrash Tehilim ha-mekhuneh Shoher tov (Vilna, Lithuania: Ha-Almanah veha-Ahim Romm, 1891); also see Midrash Tehillim 9.14, Sefaria (website), sefaria.org/Midrash_Tehillim.9.14?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en.

47 . See G. Scholem, Demons, Spirits and Souls: Studies in Demonology [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Machon Ben-Zvi, 2004), 235n61; G. Scholem, Devarim Bego [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1976), 277.

48 . The Amidah, also known as the Standing Prayer or the Shemoneh Esrei (“Eighteen Benedictions,” though it now contains nineteen), is traditionally recited during daily prayer services (morning, afternoon, and evening) and on Shabbat and holidays (though with only seven benedictions), with some variations.

49 . Bar-Ilan, “Major Trends in the Formation and Crystallization of the Qedusha.”

50 . Seligman Baer, Seder Avodat Israel (Rödelheim, 1868; rep. Tel-Aviv, 1957), 547–52, archive.org/details/Seder_Avodat_Yisrael_Polin_1868/page/n571
/mode/2up.

51 . Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Perek Shira,” An early Response to Psalm 151,” Revue de Qumran 9, no 4 (December 1978): 575–78; Ephraim Nissan, “Animals Calling Out to Heaven: In Support of the Hypothesis of an Alexandrine Egyptian Connection to the Animals Praising Heaven in Pereq Shirah (A Chapter of Hymns). Some Evidence from Egypt’s Greek Magical Papyri,” MHNH [International Journal of Research on Ancient Magic and Astrology] 14 (2014): 167–96.

52 . Bar-Ilan, דברי גד החוזה [The Words of Gad the Seer], 39–43.

53 . See Naphtali Wieder, The Formation of Jewish Liturgy in the East and the West: A Collection of Essays [in Hebrew], vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1998), 285–89.

54 . Meir Bar-Ilan, “The Date of The Words of Gad the Seer,” Journal of Biblical Literature 109, no. 3 (1990): 477–92, jstor.org/stable/3267053.

55 . Compare to the Servant of the Lord who is despised and then characterized as a lamb (Isaiah 53:3–7).

56 . The symbolic figure of the lamb is “reinforced” by the figure of the lion (which does not appear in Words of Gad the Seer), and this leads to rethink the idea of O’Neill (above, n. 1) about the origin of the Testament of Joseph 19 (though, no doubt, the symbol of the virgin is Christian).

Figure 1. The Adoration of the Lamb, detail from the Ghent Altarpiece,
1432 by Jan van Eyck.

Joseph and Oliver Told the Truth about the Translation: A Response to Brant Gardner’s and Jeff Lindsay’s Reviews

James W. Lucas

Abstract: Two recent reviews of By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration by Jeff Lindsay and Brant Gardner seriously misrepresent the book’s argument. Perhaps most significantly, they largely sidestep the book’s central thesis that the statements by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates using the “Urim and Thummim” interpreters which God provided with the plates should be at the center of any account of the Book of Mormon’s production. Prioritizing problematic and unreliable seer stone accounts conflicts with the testimonies of these primary eyewitnesses, and thus is not a useful basis for formulating any faithful understanding of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

[Editor’s note: We are pleased to present this response to two recent book reviews in the pages of Interpreter. Consistent with practice in many academic journals, we are also publishing a rejoinder from the authors of those reviews immediately following this response.]

Volume 63 (2025) of the Interpreter includes two reviews of the book By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration by Jonathan E. Neville and me. These are “Trust Us, We’re Lawyers: Lucas and Neville on the Translation of the Book of Mormon” by Brant A. Gardner (pp. 135–68) and “Through a Glass Darkly: Restoring Translation to the Restoration?” by Jeff Lindsay (pp. 169–202).

Both reviews are so replete with misunderstandings and misrepresentations of our book that I find myself chagrined to be in the position of authors I previously would have chuckled at, wondering if the reviewers actually read the book as opposed to skimming through it just to find points to attack. On point after point, despite sixty-seven combined pages, they ignore the book’s explicit responses to issues they raise, leaving the reader with an inaccurate and distorted misinterpretation of the book’s argument.

I appreciate the Interpreter’s editors’ willingness to allow me to: (1) succinctly summarize the book’s argument since readers would not be able to garner that from these reviews, and (2) lay out how going forward we might better construct a faithful narrative of the Book of Mormon’s production. (My co-author and I have posted a detailed commentary on the reviews elsewhere.1)

The Key Question: Joseph and Oliver’s Honesty in the Shadow of Royal Skousen’s Honesty

In what is called the Wentworth Letter, Joseph Smith gave the following particulars on the source of the Book of Mormon:

These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long, and not quite so thick as common tin. They were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters and bound together in a volume, as the leaves of a book with three rings running through the whole. . . . With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breast plate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God.2

Oliver Cowdery, principal scribe for the Book of Mormon we have today, gave a similar account:

These were days never to be forgotten to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, “Interpreters,” the history or record called “The book of Mormon.”3

By Means of the Urim & Thummim includes an appendix with thirty written or other reliably sourced statements from Joseph and Oliver attributing the translation to the use of the “Urim and Thummim” interpreters which were deposited with the plates, but neither Gardner nor Lindsay mentioned this in their reviews. Instead, both reviews studiously avoid any material references to Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery as historical sources. This is disappointing but expected as it is the common practice of all advocates of the stone-in-the-hat narrative.

As we suggest in the book, the quantity of these statements from Joseph and Oliver on this specific point may be due to the appearance of the stone-in-the-hat narrative in 1834 in the first anti-LDS book, E. B. Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed. Howe states that Joseph produced the Book of Mormon using “the old ‘peep stone,’ which he formerly used in money-digging [which was] placed in a hat, or box, into which he also thrust his face.”4 Decades later other accounts relating to Joseph’s use of a scrying stone with the Book of Mormon appeared. (I use the term scrying stone rather than seer stone for the rock Joseph may have used in his possible folk magic related activities to distinguish it from the two stones in the interpreters which some also refer to as seer stones.) The longest chapter of By Means of the Urim & Thummim provides a critical analysis of these accounts, which scholars have largely accepted at face value, i.e., without detailed examination as to their credibility. Our chapter 2 examines the most frequently used stone-in-the-hat accounts and finds them to be of questionable reliability.

For example, both reviews refer to the “Last Testimony of Sister Emma” as an authoritative source for their arguments. The “Last Testimony” is an account published on 1 October 1879 by Joseph Smith III of an interview of his mother, Emma Smith, that he conducted in February 1879, not long before her death on April 30. The “Last Testimony” includes a claim ascribed to Emma that Joseph Jr. used a seer stone in a hat when Emma was scribing for the Book of Mormon.5 However, we discovered that only seven years later, in 1886, after performing his own extensive research, Joseph III repudiated the stone-in-the-hat narrative.6 This undermines the credibility of the “Last Testimony,” whether or not Emma actually stated what Joseph III reported. This 1886 document from Joseph III was not hidden; it did not come out of an attic. It was sitting in The Saints’ Herald for 137 years, but neither Gardner nor Lindsay inform their readers about this key previously unrecognized source. To the contrary, they promote Emma’s “Last Testimony” as fully credible.

In By Means of the Urim & Thummim, we argue that the conflict between the stone-in-the-hat narrative and Joseph and Oliver’s testimonies is fundamental and irreconcilable. For example, the source of the largest number of stone-in-the-hat accounts, David Whitmer, repeatedly claimed that the reason Joseph had to use the scrying stone was because the Urim and Thummim interpreters were not returned to him after the 116 pages entrusted to Martin Harris were lost (despite David not even being in Harmony when these events occurred). According to Whitmer, this punishment was due to Joseph’s “transgressions.”7 However, Joseph specifically claimed that, although he was rebuked for the fiasco with the lost pages, the interpreters were, in fact, returned to him and he used them for the rest of the translation.8 Both accounts cannot be true. Either Joseph got the interpreters back, or he did not. We each must decide whether to believe either David or Joseph (and Oliver) on what, for believers, is a critical factual matter.

For non-believers this is not a critical question, since they generally do not believe that either the plates or interpreters existed, and think that Joseph and Oliver were lying about them entirely. That he was contradicting Joseph Smith was not an issue for David Whitmer either, as he came to believe that Joseph was a fallen prophet in all respects except for the Book of Mormon.9

However, this should present a dilemma for believers who want to accept E. B. Howe’s stone-in-the-hat narrative. David Whitmer is the most prominent corroborator for the stone-in-the-hat narrative, and he was adamant that Joseph never got back the interpreters. To argue otherwise—that the interpreters were returned to Joseph but then he never or almost never used them—is unsupported by, and indeed contradicts, both sources. Yet this is what Lindsay argues (p. 170).

Supporters of the stone-in-the-hat narrative have also tried to dodge this dilemma by obfuscating the term “Urim and Thummim.” They argue that in all instances where Joseph and Oliver used the term, they meant the scrying stone as well as the interpreters. This contradicts the historical record.10 Mormonism Unvailed clearly distinguished between the two on a single page. Joseph and Oliver almost always qualify their use of the term by indicating that these were the instruments which came with the plates. Even those who claimed to be witnesses of the translation who are used to support the stone-in-the-hat narrative, such as Emma Smith and David Whitmer, always use the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer only to the interpreters, and referred to the scrying stone as a separate object.

For example, Edward Stevenson recorded the following in his journal about a visit with David Whitmer in December 1886:

David Whitmer says that the Josephites was displeased with him because he maintained that the 116 pages which were translated & written by Martin Harris was translated by the Urim & Thummim or Interpreters as he preferred calling them, but after the loss of the 116 pages the remainder of the translation was done with the Seer stone.11

By Means of the Urim & Thummim includes a number of other quotes along these lines, and an entire subchapter addressing the issue. However, again, no one would learn that from the reviews, even though both resort to this effort to obfuscate the term in order to dodge the unavoidable conflict between Joseph and Oliver’s testimonies and the stone-in-the-hat narrative.

Which brings us to Royal Skousen.

The historical record gives stone-in-the-hat advocates a clear choice for how we received the Book of Mormon we have today. Either accept that Joseph and Oliver were telling the truth about the plates being translated using the interpreters, or follow Howe, Whitmer, and a few other late, largely secondhand reports that Joseph used the scrying stone without the plates. Believers in the Book of Mormon accept claims by David Whitmer (and one attributed to Emma Smith) that the interpreters were used for the lost pages. However, that is largely irrelevant as this narrative makes the scrying stone, rather the plates and interpreters, the source for the entire Book of Mormon as published in 1830.

Those who profess belief in the Book of Mormon have not wanted to acknowledge this dilemma, and have instead resorted to historically untenable dodges as described above. However, in the final weeks of 2024, one of the most prominent LDS Book of Mormon scholars courageously confronted the issue straight-on and acknowledged that accepting the stone-in-the-hat narrative means that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery lied about the translation of the Book of Mormon.

I assume that readers of Interpreter need no introduction to Royal Skousen. Although not a named author of either review, he is listed as having commented upon Lindsay’s review, and indirectly figures significantly in Gardner’s as well. Thus, it is relevant that in the newest volume of his work on the Book of Mormon manuscripts Skousen plainly concludes that

Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading.12

Just to quickly unpack this, Skousen, like Gardner and Lindsay, is basing this on David Whitmer. Joseph’s claim is partially true only because he did use the Urim and Thummim for the lost pages whereas Oliver’s claim is entirely false because, according to David Whitmer, the entire Book of Mormon Oliver scribed came from the scrying stone and not from the plates using the Urim and Thummim interpreters.

Skousen’s courageous clarifying confession allows us to finally set aside several decades of muddled speculation from “trained LDS historians” (Gardner’s term, pp. 144, 165) who, driven by their acceptance of the stone-in-the-hat narrative and unacknowledged rejection of Joseph and Oliver’s plates-and-interpreters narrative, have generated many theories about the Book of Mormon’s translation. These theories are, unfortunately, unmoored from the primary eyewitness’ testimonies and the rest of the historical record. (In the interest of space, I will only address translation theories directly relevant to the reviews. See By Means of the Urim & Thummim for fuller discussion of the broader topic.)

Translation and the Stone-in-the-Hat Narrative

As Richard Bushman has pointed out, many people in Joseph’s time had visions of Jesus.13 It was launching his ministry by declaring himself a translator that set Joseph apart.14 The Lord gave “Joseph to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer and prophet” (Doctrine and Covenants 124:125). And the foundation upon which the Restored Gospel was presented to the world was the translation of the Book of Mormon. This was the testimony born to proselytes from the beginning. Testimony of ancient prophets and scribes who struggled to preserve their nation’s sacred history for a millennium on metal plates, those plates being passed by angelic labor to Joseph, who risked his and his family’s life and safety to protect them and the even more ancient instruments provided for the plates’ interpretation (Joseph Smith—History 1:35).

Yet modern advocates of the stone-in-the-hat narrative have made the entire divine saga of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon largely irrelevant. At the end of his book on the plates, Bushman asks,

Why the plates at all? So long as it was believed Joseph read from the plates through the Urim and Thummim, their purpose was clear. But if he read the text from a seer stone while the plates lay covered on the table, as many now believe, . . . why the effort to preserve them through the centuries, why the trouble to recover and protect them, why their presence?15

Just as the stone-in-the-hat narrative makes the plates and interpreters superfluous, it also renders the concept of Joseph as translator meaningless. Joseph and his fellow early Saints understood perfectly well that the word translate meant “to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another.”16 To their south lay the largest non-English speaking immigrant group of the early United States, the Germans of Pennsylvania (progenitors of the Whitmers) and to their north were French Canadians. Many New York Knickerbockers like the Roosevelts still spoke Dutch at home and western New York was home to many Native Americans of the Iroquois Confederacy who still spoke their tribal languages. These Protestants all knew the history of their Reformation forebearers’ struggle to have the Bible “translated out of the original tongues” as the first page of every one of their Bibles declared. Christian ministers who had formal training typically studied those original tongues.

Joseph explained in History, circa 1841:

The title page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation taken from the last leaf on the left hand side of the collection of plates which contained the record which has been translated; the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writings; and that said title page . . . [of the English version of the Book of Mormon] . . . is a genuine and literal translation of the title page of the Original Book of Mormon recorded on the plates.17

Unlike the rest of the Book of Mormon, the title page is a series of sentence fragments rather than full (if run-on) English sentences, suggesting that this “literal translation” was different from the more functional translation of the rest of the record. Joseph appears well-acquainted with the nature of translation and of the text and document he was working with. As well, it was under his purview that every copy of the Book of Mormon printed after 1830 bears the legend “Translated By Joseph Smith, Jun.” The 1840 edition reads “Carefully revised by the translator.” Obviously, he differed from traditional translators in that he did not go to school to learn the source language. This is why he (and Oliver) so emphasized the role of the Urim and Thummim interpreters, which gave him some kind of rendering of the text in English to work with.

While I am working on a longer paper on how the widespread acceptance of the stone-in-the-hat narrative has derailed study of the translation of the Book of Mormon, the reviews by Gardner and Lindsay illustrate some of the damage. They take somewhat different approaches (although they end up in the same place), so I will discuss them separately.

Lindsay openly tracks Royal Skousen’s theory. Skousen argues that Joseph was lying not only about the translation process, but in his claim to be a translator as well. Briefly, Skousen and his colleague Stanford Carmack contend that the entire Book of Mormon was not only given through the scrying stone, but that the text Joseph saw in the scrying stone “must have involved serious intervention from the English-language translator, who was not Joseph Smith.”18 Skousen and Carmack have never identified who this real translator is, but claim that he or they, for some unexplained reason, wrote their translation in the Early Modern English of the 1400s and 1500s.

By Means of the Urim & Thummim devotes two subchapters to the problems with this theory. But again, one would not know that from Lindsay’s review. Instead of addressing our critique of his preferred translation theory, Lindsay devotes a third of his review (pp. 175–86, 11 of 32 pages) not to our book, but rather to attacking B. H. Roberts. And this even though our translation theory is quite different from Roberts’s and that we do not cite him as authority for our views. (He is only referenced in footnotes for thoroughness as Roberts was a prominent LDS thinker who did write about the translation.)

I am not going to reproduce those rather long subchapters here. For purposes of this response, I note just that Skousen’s Early Modern English theory (and those who support it like Lindsay) are arguing not only that Joseph Smith lied about the translation process, but about being a translator altogether. I do not see rejecting the testimony of the primary eyewitness and first prophet of this dispensation as helpful in coming to a faithful understanding of the Book of Mormon’s origins.

Initially, Gardner appears to take a different approach. The abstract of his review declares that he agrees “Joseph was an active participant in the translation,” although he disagrees with our explanation (p. 135). However, in the end Gardner effectively rejects Joseph as an active participant in the translation almost as much as Skousen and Lindsay. Gardner does not share his theory of the translation process in his review but, as one of the more elaborate stone-in-the-hat-based explanations, it merits a brief review as it underlies the problems with Gardner’s review of By Means of the Urim & Thummim.

Briefly, Gardner adopts a proposal from Steven Pinker (which in turn is based on Noam Chomsky’s theories on the origin of human language) to argue that Joseph received some sort of awareness of the text’s meaning in a part of the mind that precedes linguistic formation.19 Pinker calls this “mentalese.”20 We unconsciously think something before forming it into language. In Gardner’s theory, God put the meaning of the text into this subconscious mentalese faculty of Joseph’s brain, which then was filtered through Joseph’s conscious language faculty. The difficulty of this argument that God skipped the plates and interpreters (after all the effort to get them to Joseph) and just put the meaning directly into Joseph’s brain is that such a process does not account for how Joseph came up with Hebraisms and other non-English grammatical structures, as well as the Book of Mormon’s very complex and detailed narrative and literary framework.

Of course, it could be that God put all of those into Joseph’s brain as well, but it would then be hard to see what might be left to make Joseph an “active participant” in the translation, as it is this unconscious mentalese precognition which controls the mind, not our linguistic faculties. In that case, Gardner ends up the same place as Skousen, with Joseph having no real involvement with the formation of the Book of Mormon, despite Gardner having written entire books arguing otherwise.21 I would also note that Gardner presents this mentalese concept as settled science, but fails to inform readers of his review or his books that the concept is, in fact, highly controversial and far from universally accepted in linguistics and cognitive science.22

At some point Gardner (among other LDS apologists) has come across the term “functional equivalence,” although it is unclear whether he (or they) understand what it really is supposed to mean. In LDS apologetics it generally means that “Joseph used his own words,” which is useful in explaining issues such as anachronisms and poor grammar in the Book of Mormon. This is not inaccurate as such, but the term is part of a much larger understanding of translation which Gardner seems to not have processed, even after reading our book where we try to explain it at length and use it as the center pole of our theory of the translation.

Briefly, that theory is based on the work of the dean of modern Bible translation, Eugene Nida, who served for decades as the chief linguist of the American Bible Society, overseeing hundreds of Bible translations. In Nida’s framework, translation can run on a spectrum from “formal” equivalence to “functional” equivalence. Formal equivalence is not a word-for-word translation; it is a translation which hews as closely as possible to the source text given the grammatical and semantic requirements for it to be coherent in the receptor language. Functional equivalence is not just the translator using his own words. Even a formal translation uses the translator’s own words; he has no others. Functional equivalence rather centers on translating meaning, allowing the translator greater range in conveying ideas within not just the receptor language but its host culture as well.

Our theory uses this framework to propose that the interpreters provided Joseph a more formally equivalent translation, giving him a direct sense of the voice of the Nephite writers (including linguistic structures like chiasmus, etc.). Joseph then rendered this into a functionally equivalent text which would be better understood by his contemporaries, including the use of language and style from the KJV and the sermons and speech he knew from his culture. This two-step process can account for the peculiar double nature of the English translation of the Book or Mormon. The interpreters supplied Joseph with a formally equivalent text preserving ancient linguistic forms and an elaborate narrative structure. Joseph then adapted this text (while preserving much of the ancient substrata from the interpreters) into a functionally equivalent text which reflected Joseph’s linguistic and cultural environment.

Yet again, no reader would understand this from either review. Both reviewers misrepresent what we say Joseph received from the interpreters. Lindsay calls it “a crude, possibly literal translation—I prefer the term ‘fractional translation’” (p. 173) and a “crude or literal translation . . . word-for-word translation . . . crudely translated” (p. 187). Even Gardner, who I thought would know the term “formal equivalence,” instead calls it a “literal translation” (p. 158) and a “deficient translation” (p. 161). He even becomes quite testy when discussing our discussion of his own terminology (pp. 166–67).

After reading Gardner’s review and rereading his books on translation, I now think that we have been talking past each other, so to speak. Given the widespread influence and acceptance of Nida’s framework in modern translation scholarship, and Gardner’s use of the term “functional equivalence,” which was coined and first explicated by Nida, I assumed Gardner was familiar with this scholarship.23 However, I now realize he is not, even after supposedly reading By Means of the Urim & Thummim where it is discussed at some length. Instead, I now realize that Gardner is working within his own idiosyncratic framework and definitions developed in opposition to Royal Skousen’s ironclad/tight/loose translation framing.24 (Note that neither Gardner’s nor Skousen’s terminology would fit into current translation scholarship.) However, even Gardner’s definition of “literal translation” allows that “there are times when syntax or semantics might require changes in the target language to retain sense.”25 First, Gardner does not even allow that much flexibility in describing our translation theory. Second, and more important, Nida’s concept of formal equivalence which we use in the book is much broader and more supple than what Gardner labels as “literal translation.”

Both Gardner and Lindsay ask why the interpreters would give such translations, but ignore our book’s extensive response to that very question. Basically, we argue that Joseph’s translation of the plates is another example of God working through humans to help them learn and grow. God does not hand us learning on a gold platter—we need to search and study first, and the translation of the Book of Mormon followed this process. This is the same process which modern scholars (including LDS scholars) see in the production of the Bible—the word of God passed through the minds and cultures of the prophetic and apostolic writers (see Doctrine and Covenants 1:24). The reviewers are certainly free to disagree with the book’s explanation that this same process applied to the translation of the Book of Mormon. However, to criticize the book for not addressing the issue of why God tasked Joseph with reframing the formally equivalent text from the interpreters while ignoring the response the book does give is a serious disservice to readers. Similarly, neither reviewer uses the term “formal equivalence” in the correct sense, even though it is carefully defined and regularly used in the book. The reviewers’ refusal to do so appears to be deliberate misrepresentation intended to bias readers against the book’s translation explanation.

Gardner offers one more critique of the book’s translation theory. He states that there was not enough time for Joseph to study out text in his own mind before conveying it to the scribe. Gardner’s basis for this is an amalgamation of sources apparently drawn from his most recent book.26 These include a David Whitmer quote that Gardner acknowledges is both late and includes details Whitmer could not have seen, a writing experiment by Jeannie and John Welch, and Royal Skousen’s surmises about the number of words written at a time. These sources simply do not add up to support Gardner’s conclusion that “Joseph would dictate to the scribe who wrote it down. No historical account ever hints at any time passing as Joseph worked out what to dictate. Instead, it seemed to be a flow of words” (p. 157). The Welches’ experiment shows how fast the manuscript could be written, but not that it was actually written so quickly. Royal Skousen was not present for the dictation and, like Gardner, his claims to know how the translation took place all, in the end, rely on David Whitmer.27

However, there is no direct evidence that David Whitmer ever saw the actual translation process. As discussed more fully in our book, I agree with Richard Lloyd Anderson that decades of bitter enmity against Joseph led David Whitmer to reform his secondhand and hearsay memories in a way that fit his belief that Joseph was a fallen prophet.28 As Professor Anderson points out, David had an inerrantist view of scripture and could not conceive of a human, especially a fallen prophet as he considered Joseph to be, as having any input into the text of the Book or Mormon. For his part, Gardner seems to be of two minds on this last issue. At one point in his review he says that Joseph was “an active participant in the translation” (p. 135) yet then also argues against our agreement with this point by claiming that Joseph did not have time “for any pondering or working out of the translation” (p. 158).

Fortunately, the historical record does resolve this contradition. While we argue that David Whitmer was not a witness to the translation itself, we certainly can agree that he was around his family home while Joseph and Oliver were working on translating the small plates of Nephi. Contrary to Gardner’s assertion that no “historical account ever hints at any time passing as Joseph worked out what to dictate” (p. 157), E. C. Briggs reported that David told him that Joseph and Oliver “worked hard, early and late, while translating the plates. It was slow work, and they could only write a few pages a day.”29 This would certainly accommodate Joseph carefully and prayerfully studying out in his mind how to express in his contemporary English the sacred words of the ancient text God entrusted to him.

Translation and the Restoration

The explanations of Gardner, Skousen, and Lindsay are not the only ones for the production of the Book of Mormon. LDS scholars’ rejection of Joseph and Oliver’s testimonies has engendered a free-for-all on this question. In addition to Gardner and Skousen, Blake Ostler, Samuel Brown, Michael Ash, Michael Mackay, and Gerrit Dirkmaat, among others, have all seized the opportunity to travel back in time two centuries to tell us with great confidence exactly what was going on in Joseph Smith’s head (and hat) as he dictated the Book of Mormon. And, as illustrated by the analysis above of Gardner’s mentalese translation model, these prolific theories raise more issues than they solve.

Moreover, there is another team on the field. They contend that Joseph and Oliver lied not only about the translation of the Book of Mormon, but about the restoration of the priesthood and temple keys as well. As with the translation process, these key elements of the Restored Gospel are also only sourced in the historical record from Joseph and Oliver, and are far more sparsely documented than their claims about translating from the plates using the interpreters. By discarding the testimonies of the first and second elders of the restored Church of Christ, pro-stone-in-the-hat Book of Mormon defenders at best turn it into a Quran instead of a Bible, something poured into the prophet’s brain (or scrying stone) rather than the product of a man’s struggle to understand the mind and will of God. From an objective external point of view, it is these real physical objects—the plates and interpreters—which distinguish the Book of Mormon from the ephemeral spiritual origins of other worthy texts. These stone-in-the-hat based theories about the Book of Mormon unloose the sacred book from this mooring in reality. Furthermore, what is the reason for the Witnesses if nothing they saw was used for the translation sent out into our modern world?

I would extend two invitations to these defenders of the Book of Mormon. First, examine the stone-in-the-hat accounts critically rather than just accepting them at face value like Skousen, Mackay, and Dirkmaat. The stone-in-the-hat sources do exist in the historical record, but they are all late, secondhand, and/or contradictory, and all are unreliable.30 They were well-known to Joseph’s contemporaries and successors in Church leadership who dismissed them and repeatedly emphasized that Joseph translated from the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim. Most importantly, as discussed in By Means of the Urim & Thummim, there are several satisfactory alternative explanations for the origins of the stone-in-the-hat accounts. These explanations show how these sources could have mistaken what they saw for the actual translation. (Note that the Demonstration Hypothesis, discussed in the reviews, is only one of these, and that that hypothesis is based upon an interview with the stone-in-the-hat advocates’ favorite source, David Whitmer, yet another point unmentioned in either review.31)

Second, please reconsider your rejection of the testimony of the two primary eyewitnesses in favor of these unreliable stone-in-the-hat accounts. Such a rejection is inherent in the stone-in-the-hat narrative and has been so since E. B. Howe first presented it (although only Royal Skousen has had the gumption to openly say so). With the exception of Skousen (and apparently Jeff Lindsay), I believe that most Book of Mormon defenders, like Gardner, think their theories leave room for Joseph’s engagement with the production of the Book of Mormon beyond simple dictation of someone’s else’s translation.32

In addition to the afore-mentioned, I believe I have seen this view advanced by many others, such as Stephen Ricks, Dan Peterson, and Brian Hales. They may not use the specific term “functional equivalence,” but I think that there may even be a consensus that Joseph had conscious input into the English translation of the Book of Mormon he dictated (making Skousen the outlier33). There are many good reasons for this position in addition to its usefulness in rebutting most criticisms of the Book of Mormon. It helps explain why the text is the way it is, reenforces the idea that the Book of Mormon speaks to our times, and shows its deep kinship with the Bible.

Yet, that argument is fatally debilitated if it relies on speculative historical mind-reading, stone-in-the-hat accounts which contradict the primary eyewitnesses, and otherwise lacks support in the historical record. Joseph himself told us how he was engaged in helping produce the Book of Mormon. He translated (as he and his contemporaries understood the term) the engravings from the plates using the Urim and Thummim interpreters, supplied by God for that purpose (Joseph Smith—History 1:35), studying it out in his mind as guided and confirmed by the Holy Spirit (Doctrine and Covenants 9:8). Would not the argument that Joseph had conscious input in the Book of Mormon be far stronger if it was grounded in this eyewitness testimony of the translator himself and his chief scribe?34

James W. Lucas is an attorney who has lived in New York City most of his adult life but is now living in Utah. He received his undergraduate degree from BYU and law degree from Columbia University. In recent years he has written both books and articles on constitutional and public policy matters. In the field of LDS history, he has presented at several conferences, co-authored (with Warner Woodworth) Working Toward Zion: Principles of the United Order for the Modern World, and done research on the history of the Latter-day Saints in New York City. The latter has included writing the entry on Mormons for the Encyclopedia of New York City and a chapter in New York Glory: Religion in the City (NYU Press). He is co-author with Jonathan E. Neville of By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration (Salt Lake City: Digital Legend, 2023).

1 . Jonathan E. Neville, “Review of Jeff Lindsay’s Review of By Means of the Urim and Thummim,” Interpreter Peer Reviews (blog), 16 December 2024, interpreter
peerreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/review-of-jeff-lindsays-review-of-by
.html; and James W. Lucas, “Review of Brant Gardner’s Review of By Means of the Urim and Thummim,” Interpreter Peer Reviews (blog), 3 December 2024, interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/review-of-brant-gardners
-review-of-by.html.

2 . “Church History,” Times and Seasons, 1 March 1842, josephsmithpapers
.org/paper-summary/church-history-1-march-1842/2, emphasis added.

3 . “History, 1834–1836,” p. 47, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org
/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/49?p=49, emphasis added. Also in Joseph Smith—History 1:71, footnote, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp
/js-h/1.

4 . Eber B. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed: Or, A Faithful Account of That Singular Imposition and Delusion, from Its Rise to the Present Time [ . . . ] (Painesville, OH: Eber D. Howe, 1834),18, archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe. On the same page, Howe referred to the Urim and Thummim as an alternative narrative.

5 . Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” The Saints’ Herald 26, no. 19 (1 October 1879), 289, archive.org/details/TheSaintsHerald_Volume_26_1879
/page/n288; and latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100130.pdf.

6 . Joseph Smith III, “David Whitmer Reviewed,” The Saints’ Herald 33, no. 45 (13 November 1886), 707, catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/3182cac9
-6923-46c2-a228-769e6421db1d/0/2.

7 . Zenos H. Gurley, Questions asked of David Whitmer at his Home in Richmond, Ray County, Missouri, 1885, questions 20 and 25, catalog.churchofjesus
christ.org/assets/cbff7497-0764-4f7d-9aec-702b5f9b8f27/0/5; and Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Provo, UT: Grandin Book, 1991), 156–58. Other statements by Whitmer asserting that the plates and interpreters were never returned to Joseph are at Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 53–56, 62–63, 72, 174–75, 200, 210. However, Whitmer appears to contradict this in statements at Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 143, 191–92, 211. On Whitmer’s inconsistent and changing views generally see H. Michael Marquardt, “David Whitmer: His Evolving Beliefs and Recollections,” in Newell G. Bringhurst and John C. Hamer, eds., Scattering of the Saints: Schism within Mormonism (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2007), 46–77.

8 . Joseph Smith, Jr., “History, circa June 1839–circa 1841 [Draft 2],” p. 11, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-june
-1839-circa-1841-draft-2/13, and Lucy Mack Smith, “History 1845,” p. 138, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/145.

9 . See David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, MO: self-pub., 1887), archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/mode/2up.

10 . The earliest reference stone-in-the-hat advocates can point to is a garbled entry in Wilford Woodruff’s journal of a meeting with Joseph in 1841. However, even this is problematic, as Brigham Young’s description of the same meeting makes clear that Joseph continued to use the term in connection with the translation of the Book of Mormon only to refer to the interpreters, while referring to other seer stones separately. Brigham recorded that Joseph “explained to us the Urim and Thummim which he found with the plates, called in the Book of Mormon the Interpreters. He said that every man who lived on the earth was entitled to a seer stone, and should have one, but they are kept from them in consequence of their wickedness, and most of those who do find one make an evil use of it; he showed us his seer stone.” “History of Brigham Young,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 26, no. 8 (20 February 1864), 118–19, archive.org/details/MStarVol26/page/n133/mode/2up; and Elden J. Watson, ed., Manuscript History of Brigham Young 1801–1844 (Salt Lake City: Smith Secretarial Service, 1968), 112a.

11 . Edward Stevenson, Journals of Edward Stevenson (1820–1897), Book 4, 1886 January 14 to 20 August 1887, Volume 28, 52, catalog.churchofjesuschrist
.org/assets/bc546251-522d-430a-a259-964bd8bde02f/0/0. Some spelling and punctuation corrected. The “Josephites” refers to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints led by Joseph Smith III. This interview was after Joseph III had repudiated David’s stone-in-the-hat accounts.

12 . Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Part Seven, The Early Transmission of the Text (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Studies, 2024), 62.

13 . Richard Lyman Bushman, “The Visionary World of Joseph Smith,” BYU Studies 37, no. 1 (1997): 138–204, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol37/iss1
/10/.

14 . Richard Lyman Bushman, “Joseph Smith as Translator,” in Bryan Waterman, ed., The Prophet Puzzle: Interpretive Essays on Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999), 69–86.

15 . Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith’s Gold Plates: A Cultural History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2023), 181.

16 . Webster’s Dictionary of American Language (1828), s.v., “translate,” websters
dictionary1828.com/Dictionary/translate.

17 . “History, circa 1841, fair copy,” p. 60, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers
.org/paper-summary/history-circa-1841-fair-copy/60.

18 . Royal Skousen, Critical Text of the Book of Mormon, Volume 3, The History of the Text, Part Five, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2019), 6.

19 . Brant A. Gardner, Engraven Upon Plates, Printed Upon Paper: Textual and Narrative Structures of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2023), 61–67; Brant A. Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2011), 264–77.

20 . Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language (New York: Harper Collins, 1994), 44–73.

21 . I should also note that Skousen and Carmack do not acknowledge this connection, as Carmack has derided Gardner by name as following the “underinformed consensus” in a recent BYU Studies article on the Early Modern English theory. Stanford Carmack, “Book of Mormon Grammar and Translation,” BYU Studies Quarterly 63, no. 3 (2024): 21n69, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol63/iss3/4iry.

22 . See Nicholas Evans and Stephen C. Levinson, “The Myth of Language Universals: Language Diversity and its Importance for Cognitive Science,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (2009): 429–92; Vyvyan Evans, The Language Myth: Why Language Is Not an Instinct (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014); Morten H. Christiansen and Nick Chater, The Language Game: How Improvisation Created Language and Changed the World (New York: Basic Books, 2022).

23 . On Nida’s influence, see Philip C. Stine, Let the Words Be Written: The Lasting Influence of Eugene A. Nida (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004).

24 . Gardner, The Gift and Power, 155–56.

25 . Gardner, The Gift and Power, 156.

26 . Gardner, Engraven Upon Plates, 53–55.

27 . Unlike Skousen, who is fairly forthright about prioritizing David Whitmer over Joseph as a source, Gardner sometimes obscures this reliance on Whitmer by using secondary sources. For example, see The Gift and the Power, 291n24–25, where he adopts Whitmer’s claim about the angel not returning the interpreters after the lost pages episode, but cites other, more authoritative-looking sources that are just repeating Whitmer.

28 . Richard Lloyd Anderson, “David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness by Lyndon W. Cook” (book review), Journal of Mormon History 20, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 191, jstor.org/stable/23286328.

29 . E. C. Briggs, letter dated 4 June 1884, The Saints’ Herald 31, no. 25 (21 June 1884): 396, sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/ia/sain1882.htm. Although he was not a scribe and therefore only a secondhand hearsay witness to the actual translation process, David was in his family home while the later translation was happening, and thus would be a firsthand witness as to the length of Joseph and Oliver’s workdays, and how they appeared as a result of their labors. We also note that Briggs presented this as a direct quote from David (and we have no reason to doubt Briggs’ report) but says David said Joseph and Oliver were “translating the plates,” which contradicts David’s claim that Joseph was no longer using the plates during the later translation work at the Whitmer home. I would also note that another report of a David Whitmer interview David says the translation took eight months, which corroborates what Joseph said; i.e., that he began translating in the fall after he received back the plates and the interpreters in September 1828. This expands the translation beyond the traditional 90-day framework, at least with respect to the Book of Mosiah. “The Book of Mormon,” The Chicago Daily Tribune XLV (17 December 1885): 3, en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Daily_Tribune,_December_17,_1885.

30 . Note that our book does not argue that they are unreliable because the sources were hostile to Joseph. Indeed, some appear to have been motivated by a desire to defend the Book of Mormon against the then-prevalent Spalding theory. Their problems are based on neutral, widely accepted criteria for evaluating the reliability of historical sources.

31 . “Book of Mormon,” Chicago Daily Tribune.

32 . Focusing for this article on Gardner, see The Gift and Power chapters 16, 17, 19 and 20.

33 . See Gardner, The Gift and Power, 155, 163–65, 252–58; and Engraven Upon Plates, 5–16, for Gardner’s critique of Skousen’s theory.

34 . There seems to be a recent tendency to contrast translation against revelation, asserting that the Book of Mormon is the latter rather than the former. However, this is a distinction without a difference since (1) Joseph and all early Saints saw it as a translation of another language into English as that term is commonly understood and (2) the revelation describing the translation process, Doctrine and Covenants 9, clearly contemplates spiritual guidance and confirmation as an integral part of the process. The distinction only makes sense if one rejects Joseph’s narrative and instead adopts the stone-in-the-hat narrative which eliminates the inspired translation process described in Doctrine and Covenants 9. I will be discussing this further in an upcoming paper.

Responding to a Non-Responsive Response

Brant A. Gardner

Abstract: James Lucas had the opportunity to respond to the review of the book that he and Jonathan Neville wrote, By Means of the Urim & Thummim. He elected not to really respond to the issues I brought up but rather summarized his essential points. That doesn’t leave much to respond to. However, there is a continuing misunderstanding of how historians work that I feel must be underscored.

In an earlier volume of Interpreter, Jeff Lindsay and I provided independent reviews of By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration, a book by James Lucas and Jonathan Neville.1 In response to that review, Lucas notes the following:

I appreciate the Interpreter’s editors’ willingness to allow me to: (1) succinctly summarize the book’s argument since readers would not be able to garner that from these reviews, and (2) lay out how going forward we might better construct a faithful narrative of the Book of Mormon’s production. (My co-author and I have posted a detailed commentary on the reviews elsewhere.)2

Clearly, the purpose of the piece provided as a response to the reviews in Interpreter is not to respond to the reviews, so I don’t have much to respond to in this rejoinder. I will simply state that my objections to the positions presented in By Means of the Urim & Thummim are not resolved (and not really addressed) by Lucas’s response.

I must highlight one aspect of his book summary. Lucas perpetuates the fundamental argument of the book, which is that the term “Urim and Thummim” must refer exclusively to the interpreters. I need to emphasize that “Urim and Thummim” is not a Book of Mormon term; it appears nowhere in the volume. It is borrowed from the Bible and was, after the translation of the Book of Mormon, applied to the instruments used in that translation. Further, the biblical Urim and Thummim had no known use as an instrument of translation.

Lucas and Neville are correct that “Urim and Thummim” could refer to the interpreters; no scholar denies this. The evidence demonstrates that the term was used much more broadly. There are historical statements where the label “Urim and Thummim” is clearly used to describe a seer stone. There are zero historical statements that suggest that it exclusively referred to the interpreters. Scholars who point this out are not calling Joseph or Oliver dishonest as Lucas and Neville assert.

Perhaps a few more modern parallels will help make the issue clear. “Levis” can refer to the product from the Levi Strauss brand. However, it is also commonly used to reference other kinds of denim jeans. “Kleenex” certainly can refer to a specific brand of tissue, but common usage often has “Kleenex” meaning brands of tissues offered by other vendors. “Xerox,” as a verb, has come to be synonymous with photocopying, regardless of who manufacturers the photocopy machine. “Coke” is a well-known brand, of course, yet in many southern states it is also a generic term for any carbonated drink.

“Urim and Thummim” had a similar range of usage. If I ask someone in the south if they had a Coke earlier in the day, and they say yes, does that necessarily mean they drank Coca-Cola? No. Could it? Yes. Basing a book on the idea that the response could only mean Coca-Cola would be folly. It is likewise folly to insist that “Urim and Thummim” must only refer to the interpreters.

I hope that the continued employment of this fallacy by Lucas and Neville results from their misunderstanding and not an intentional misrepresentation. Either way, the understanding of their readers is not enlarged.

Brant A. Gardner did his undergraduate work at Brigham Young University. He received a Master’s in Anthropology from the State University of New York at Albany, specializing in Mesoamerican ethnohistory. He is an executive editor for Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. He is the author of the six-volume Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, as well as Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon As History and The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon. His most recent books are Engraven Upon Plates, Printed Upon Paper: Textual and Narrative Structures of the Book of Mormon and The Plates of Mormon: A Book of Mormon Study Edition Based on Textual and Narrative Structures in the English Translation, each published by Kofford Books. Gardner has also contributed a Book of Mormon Minute to the ScripturePlus app, a condensed commentary on two or three verses at a time from the Book of Mormon.

1. 1 . See Brant A. Gardner, “Trust Us, We’re Lawyers: Lucas and Neville on the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 63 (2025), 135–68, journal.interpreterfoundation.org
/trust-us-were-lawyers-lucas-and-neville-on-the-translation-of-the-book-of
-mormon/; and Jeff Lindsay, “Through a Glass Darkly: Restoring Translation to the Restoration?,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 63 (2025), 169–202, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/through
-a-glass-darkly-restoring-translation-to-the-restoration/. For the book that Lindsay and I reviewed, see James W. Lucas and Jonathan E. Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration (Cottonwood Heights, UT: Digital Legend Press & Publishing, 2023).

2. 2 . James W. Lucas, “Joseph and Oliver Told the Truth about the Translation: A Response to Brant Gardner’s and Jeff Lindsay’s Reviews,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Faith and Scholarship 64 (2025), 81–98, journal
.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-and-oliver-told-the-truth-about-the
-translation-a-response-to-brant-gardners-and-jeff-lindsays-reviews/.

Honorable Intentions with an Unreliable Methodology: Lucas’s Response Underscores the Problems

Jeff Lindsay

Abstract: James Lucas has made a passionate response to the negative review I offered for his and Jonathan Neville’s book By Means of Urim & Thummim. Though we agree on many important issues, there are some troubling gaps that readers of their book need to understand. Some of these issues may be illustrated in the methodology of Lucas’s response. In general, the unreliable methodology and its often extreme, unnuanced approach to dealing with complex, unclear issues must be challenged, as painful as that has been. The complaints in my review remain intact if not further underscored by Lucas’s response. The basic concern remains that the approach taken in the book not only represents inadequate scholarship, but may improperly stir disrespect for the modern Church and its leaders.

I thank James Lucas for sharing his response1 to my review of his book.2 I appreciate his efforts to clarify his views and share his reactions to my review. I felt more empathy for his work after reading his response, better recognizing how easy it is even for people agreeing on many issues to talk past each other. I also know the frustration of having a negative reaction to a work that took a great deal of time to prepare. And I know the pain of having a reader seem to completely miss the point of something I’ve written, almost as if they hadn’t read it or didn’t try to understand it. We are apparently both experiencing this pain right now.

Before addressing Lucas’s response, I first wish to acknowledge key issues that I believe we both agree on, though Lucas may feel I don’t share some of these views:

- There is no question that the Nephite interpreters—a pair of stones set in a frame—were received by Joseph with the gold plates.

- There is no doubt that these interpreters, years later called the Urim and Thummim, were used in at least the initial translation of the gold plates.

- There is also no question that Joseph had at least one seer stone.

- There is no controversy that Joseph had been widely mocked and even faced legal trouble over his alleged use of a seer stone before translating the Book of Mormon.3

- There are multiple witnesses who reported seeing Joseph using a seer stone for translation. Lucas and Neville obviously recognize this because such reports were the motivation for developing their “Demonstration Hypothesis” in which Joseph pretended to translate in the sight of others using a stone in a hat.

- There is also no question that many accounts provided by Joseph, Oliver, and other figures in the Church referred to the use of the Urim and Thummim to translate without mentioning seer stones.

- But we also have clear evidence—even canonized evidence in Doctrine and Covenants 130:8–11—that a single stone rather than the two stones of the Nephite interpreters could be called a Urim and Thummim.

- However the Book of Mormon was translated, the translation was done by a seer, Joseph Smith, through the power of God.

- The Book of Mormon was the divine translation of an ancient record written on gold plates in a script that had long since been lost. The plates were real, as testified by many witnesses under various circumstances, including the powerfully miraculous and the fully mundane. Those many witnesses never denied their testimony of the reality of the gold plates.

- The Book of Mormon is a powerful witness for Jesus Christ, a source of divine truths about His role and His Gospel, and evidence for the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ. It is a marvelous work and a wonder, and we should respect the seer and prophet, Joseph Smith, for his sacrifice and faithful work in bringing this sacred scripture to the world.

With all the things that unite us, it is painful to write a negative review of a book written by brothers in the gospel, but in my view, there are things that must be said. This is due in in part to the need for peer review of works seeking to provide scholarship on important matters, but also because some of the erroneous claims made may be harmful to some, in my opinion. More specifically, By Means of Urim & Thummim takes such a harsh black-and-white view of complex events with nuanced factors behind them, as to bring condemnation upon the Church and its current prophet while seeking to defend a prior prophet.

I am grateful for Lucas’s thoughtful response, though the problems I detailed in my review have not been resolved. Indeed, my concerns over their methodology have only been fortified, for several issues in the response seem to demonstrate in a nutshell my broader concerns about the book. Please note that I am not saying that the thesis of the book is absolutely wrong. It is possible that only the Nephite interpreters were used to translate and that all those who witnessed the use of a non-Nephite seer stone were wrong or deliberately deceived. However, I find that argument very unlikely and certainly not demonstrated as plausible by the authors. My primary concern is not with their thesis, but with the poor methodology that makes the book and its conclusions unreliable, with potentially harmful consequences.

Turning now to the details of Lucas’s response, I’ll first point out some of what it fails to consider.

Neglecting Lessons from B. H. Roberts’s Efforts to Overthrow the Traditional Model of Translation

Lucas complains that one-third of my review dealt with B. H. Roberts (more accurately, with B. H. Roberts and a common misunderstanding of Doctrine and Covenants 9). His response was to simply say that it was all irrelevant. He then moves on, abandoning any further engagement:

Lindsay devotes a third of his review (pages 175–86, 11 of 32 pages) not to our book, but rather to attacking B. H. Roberts. And this even though our translation theory is quite different from Roberts’s and that we do not cite him as authority for our views. (He is only referenced in footnotes for thoroughness as Roberts was a prominent LDS thinker who did write about the translation.)4

Lucas and Neville reject the translation model of Joseph seeing a translated text that he could simply dictate to his scribes without having to perform significant mental work to develop the finished words he would dictate. They also reject the idea that part of the translation was done with a seer stone. In making these rejections, they feel that they are restoring the proper original model of translation. They oppose what they see as a perversion by modern academics who recently developed questionable theories in which Joseph saw and dictated the completed translation, and in which some of the translation included use of a seer stone.

Surely it is relevant to recognize that the model opposed by Lucas and Neville is actually the model opposed by B. H. Roberts over a century ago. He felt the then-common understanding was embarrassing (how could so much “bad grammar” have been given by God?) and that it did not give sufficient honor to Joseph Smith for the hard work of “studying out” the translation in his mind, per Doctrine and Covenants 9:7–9. The reigning model that so concerned Roberts in 1905 included Joseph seeing the finished text and using both the Nephite Urim and Thummim and a seer stone over the course of the translation. Ironically, the translation model now opposed by Lucas and Neville is essentially the traditional model Roberts opposed, not a new-fangled perversion by modern academics. Both Roberts and our two authors misapply Doctrine and Covenants 9:7–9 as a foundation for their translation theories. In effect, our authors seek to restore Roberts’s translation model.

This context is vital for understanding the project of Lucas and Neville and how it fits into Book of Mormon studies. Good scholarship must not ignore related work, especially related work that entirely reshaped popular understanding of Book of Mormon translation in the Church. The unwillingness to even engage with the issue reflects a basic weakness in the methodology of the authors, though not as severe as some of the other flaws.

An important part of my section on B. H. Roberts that also went completely unanswered in Lucas’s response is the argument that Roberts as well as Lucas and Neville have misapplied Doctrine and Covenants 9:7–9, as if the “burning in the bosom” statement on the need to “study it out” and ask “if it be right” was referring to how the translation was done. This confusion regarding “it” in that passage is a common one, but in this case the error undermines a key motivation for Lucas’s and Neville’s theories of translation, as it did for Roberts. Thanks to careful scholarship exploring that passage, today we can make much better sense of the meaning. As Stan Spencer concludes, “the Lord was not telling Oliver Cowdery how to translate but rather how to know whether it was right for him to translate and how to obtain the faith necessary to do so.”5

A variation of Spencer’s approach, shared with me by Kendra Lindsay, my wife, is that ultimately Oliver’s need was to have the faith and power to translate, which required more than looking into a stone or stones. It required prayerful preparation that he might be able to receive the revelation needed for the translation. Being attuned with God may have been the key to the translation, and only then would he be able to look into a Urim and Thummim to see the written translation. If so, what he should have studied out in his mind was how to act as a seer, or rather, to verify that he had the faith and closeness to God required to perform as a seer. Based on Spencer’s approach, we might summarize the “it” of Doctrine and Covenants 9:8 as, “Is it right for me to translate now?,” while my wife’s approach might frame the question as, “Am I right before God and ready to translate?”6 Perhaps the two can be united with the question, “Is the time right and the translator ready?”

Viewing the question that faced Oliver in this way makes more sense in understanding the miraculous translation of the Book of Mormon. For example, there seems to be a lack of evidence for use of the impractical “study it out” method when Joseph was confronted with an unknown script in translating the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham (see the overlooked evidence cited in my review), and whatever may have been on the parchment behind Doctrine and Covenants 7 or behind the translation of the Book of Moses, etc.

Further, the remarkable speed of translation seems more practical with a “Joseph read the text” model rather than the much slower process of studying out a foreign script and coming up with a proposed meaning to verify in prayer. With about 269,000 words in the dictated text for the published Book of Mormon7 and with “not many more than the equivalent of about 60 actual working days [that] would have been available in April, May, and June 1829” for translation, as John Welch has determined,8 we can estimate that about 4,500 words on average per day of translation were dictated, a pace well above that of many professional writers.9 In fact, that pace is also above typical professional translation rates, which are often said to be around 2,500 words per day.10 But this can vary, as clearly noted by one translation firm:

The number of words a translator can produce per day can vary significantly depending on various factors such as the translator’s experience, language pair, subject matter, complexity of the text, and the translator’s working speed and efficiency. The use of Computer Aided Translation (CAT) tools can also increase a translator’s productivity, especially if there are large numbers of repeated or fuzzy matches compared to completely new translations.

It is difficult to provide an exact figure, as translation productivity can vary greatly from person to person. On average, a professional translator can typically translate around 2,000 to 3,000 words per day for general content. However, this number can be higher or lower depending on the factors mentioned above. Some experienced and efficient translators may be able to handle larger volumes, translating 4,000 to 5,000 words or even more per day. On the other hand, when dealing with highly technical or specialized content, the translation speed might be slower, and the translator may produce fewer words per day.11

One thing that could certainly cause a drop in professional translation rates would be the challenge of facing an unknown language in an unknown script. Even if they had a Urim and Thummim that worked according to the model proposed by Lucas and Neville, I don’t think Joseph could possibly maintain the normal professional rate if he needed intense mental effort to study out each word or phrase, seek spiritual impressions, propose a translation based on those impressions, and then seek confirmation in prayer before dictating a few words. It’s hard to see any way to reconcile the model proposed by Lucas and Neville with the prodigious rate of not just translation but translation plus dictation and longhand writing with quill and ink. The speed of Book of Mormon translation is a marvelous work in its own right.

Assuming extremely rapid translation provided by revelation, in which the time-consuming work was reading the dictation and then writing it down, John Welch conducted trials with other people to see if a practical pace of speaking and writing could fit the data. He determined that rates between 10 to 20 words per minute were practical and would require from about 4 to 8 hours per day.12 The pace that Welch considered did not include estimates of time for studying out characters in Joseph’s mind, changing the translated words and their order to get a better translation, and then getting confirmation in prayer before dictating the final, confirmed text. Such steps would considerably slow down the translation process. With fast work, fast revelation, and great endurance, the Lucas and Neville model might theoretically be possible, but still seems unrealistic. Just speaking and writing displayed text is challenge enough for a sixty-day project.

The mechanics that we can infer from the flow of text in the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon suggests that Joseph saw the text in discrete chunks of around twenty words at a time, not a couple of carefully pondered and prayed-about characters.13 To quote the title of a compelling paper by Stanford Carmack, “Joseph Smith Read the Words.”14 That’s not an ironclad conclusion, but it is a reasonable one. This is consistent with the Lord’s statement, enshrined in scripture, that says three times that Joseph will “read the words” that would be given him (see 2 Nephi 27:20, 22, 24). The authors have not overcome the multiple problems with their theory, which means I am most comfortable with the model of Joseph, as seer, simply reading revealed words—with or without some mental tweaking at times, a possibility I do not rule out since Joseph obviously was comfortable with making what seemed like necessary adjustments for clarity or grammatical purposes after the dictation.

B. H. Roberts, and now Lucas and Neville, have pursued a similar trajectory. The latter authors are ironically seeking to cast out what they view as a new-fangled model from apostates that was actually the traditional model in Roberts’s day that he wished to revise. Roberts, Lucas, and Neville are motivated by a noble desire to save the reputation of Joseph and defend the Book of Mormon, but all of them are wrong in an insistence that it was not enough for the seer to see the text, but that he needed to do slow, heavy lifting in his own mind to meet the improperly applied constraints thought to be in Doctrine and Covenants 9. Evaluating Roberts’s story in the light of Lucas’s and Neville’s current work adds important historical context. I am surprised that three short sentences of dismissal was all the evaluation received by Lucas. My evaluation still applies.

Roberts’s objection was the “bad grammar” and poor wording in the dictated text, which he felt would shame the Church if such imperfection came from the divine revelatory tools. At that time, we did not have the data showing that these irritants (to Roberts) were likely not from Joseph’s bad grammar, but from a strong vein of acceptable grammar from the Early Modern English (EModE) era, as the extensive work of Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen demonstrates. We don’t really yet know why EModE structures exist in the Book of Mormon, though they provide benefits of clarity and ease of translation to other languages. We also cannot answer Lucas’s objection as to who prepared such a translation apart from the fact that the translation is of divine origin, regardless of who may have been tasked with preparing whatever was actually shown to Joseph.

Another relevant but ignored aspect of the B. H. Roberts section was that a reader in 1906 responded to Roberts’s new theory by proposing that the apparent flaws in the translated text could be accounted for if the Urim and Thummim only provided an incomplete literal translation that required Joseph to study it out in his mind and rework the text to make it acceptable. Roberts strongly objected to the notion that a divine instrument could give imperfect results if it were displaying text to read. He found this illogical and offensive. That proposal is certainly similar to the translation model of Lucas and Neville. The objections Roberts raised may still be appropriate today. I was hoping (apparently in vain) for a response to this as well.

About that Overlooked Gospel Topics Essay

I was further disappointed to see no discussion of my comments regarding the Church’s Gospel Topics Essay, “Book of Mormon Translation,” a publication with scholarly input and approved by the Church.15 It’s not scripture, but it’s a meaningful discussion of the issues. It proposes that a seer stone was sometimes used, directly clashing with the position held by Lucas and Neville. More recently, Church-provided content for the 2025 Come, Follow Me program addresses Book of Mormon translation by stating:

We don’t know many details about the miraculous translation process, but we do know that Joseph Smith was a seer, aided by instruments that God had prepared: two transparent stones called the Urim and Thummim and another stone called a seer stone.16

It is puzzling that in urging Latter-day Saints to understand Joseph’s statements their way—an understanding that rules out the possibility of a seer stone being used, let alone the seer stone being an instrument “that God had prepared”—they are directly clashing with Church publications and another prophet’s remarks. I was hoping to understand how the authors resolve that tension.

The Gospel Topics Essay also quotes Wilford Woodruff in what should be considered meaningful evidence that a seer stone can be called a Urim and Thummim, for when Joseph showed his seer stone in 1841, Elder Woodruff (at the time) replied, “I had the privilege of seeing for the first time in my day the URIM & THUMMIM.”17

Defense of the Demonstration Hypothesis?

To me one of the key weaknesses and ironies of By Means of Urim & Thummim is explaining the seer stone as the result of deliberate deception by Joseph. Since Lucas and Neville take the extreme position of claiming that those who think a seer stone was used in the translation are saying that Joseph Smith was a liar, I would expect them to give a thorough defense when those troubled by their Demonstration Hypothesis fret over how that unnecessary speculation would make a deliberate deceiver out of Joseph. Lucas dismisses my response by saying that David Whitmer, the man they attack as uncredible and unfaithful, was the source of their idea. I don’t see how that responds to the concerns I raised.

Responding to the Body of the Response

We now turn to some of the details of Lucas’s response, where I feel some serious errors were made, leaving more gaps in the methodology and thesis of By Urim and Thummim.

The strange case of the “Last Testimony of Sister Emma”

Despite some gaps in missing major aspects of my review, Lucas was thorough in other areas, even so thorough as to criticize a part of my paper that I thought wasn’t there.

While it’s possible that many parts of the authors’ thesis are correct, the methodology of By Means of Urim and Thummim remains on shaky ground as evidence is force-fit into favored theories or extracted from sources that sometimes don’t really agree with the authors’ claims. We get a vivid example of such methodology problems in Lucas’s comments on an issue he feels is critical—the purported unreliability of Emma’s “Last Testimony” given in 1879 in an interview with her son, Joseph Smith III:

For example, both reviews refer to the “Last Testimony of Sister Emma” as an authoritative source for their arguments. The “Last Testimony” is an account published on 1 October 1879 by Joseph Smith III of an interview of his mother, Emma Smith, that he conducted in February 1879, not long before her death on April 30. The “Last Testimony” includes a claim ascribed to Emma that Joseph Jr. used a seer stone in a hat when Emma was scribing for the Book of Mormon. However, we discovered that only seven years later, in 1886, after performing his own extensive research, Joseph III repudiated the stone-in-the-hat narrative. This undermines the credibility of the “Last Testimony,” whether or not Emma actually stated what Joseph III reported. This 1886 document from Joseph III was not hidden; it did not come out of an attic. It was sitting in The Saints’ Herald for 137 years, but neither Gardner nor Lindsay inform their readers about this key previously unrecognized source. To the contrary, they promote Emma’s “Last Testimony” as fully credible.18

Let’s enumerate the key points here:

1. I relied on what Emma said in 1879 as if Emma’s “Last Testimony” were an authoritative source favoring the use of a seer stone in a hat used by Joseph in translation.

2. Seven years later, the interviewer, Joseph Smith III, conducted “his own extensive research” and “repudiated” the seer stone and hat narrative as published in a prominent “key source.”

3. This undermines his mother’s statement.

4. I was irresponsible if not deceptive in refusing to let readers know about the repudiation.

5. Instead, I promoted a questionable source as fully credible.

This really sounds bad.

For a moment, I seriously wondered how I could have been so careless as to cite, rely on, and promote Emma’s “Last Testimony”19 when in fact, I believed that I had deliberately avoiding discussing that source. Why avoid it? Because after reading Lucas’s and Neville’s extensive attacks on her 1879 statement in their book, I chose not to rely on and promote that source since it appeared to be so problematic. In fact, I didn’t even read it in preparing my review. Puzzled, I went back and searched my essay to see how I might have carelessly let it slip in.

Readers of my essay may be equally puzzled at Lucas’s charge, for there is no mention of Emma’s “Last Testimony” in my paper nor any citation of that work. How, then, had I fallen for its deceptive lure? Ah, there it is: a mention of Emma on p. 173 of my review, where I parenthetically note that “other scribes such as Emma also made statements supporting Joseph’s use of a seer stone.” Emma is also mentioned twice in a quote from Royal Skousen, but I only mentioned her in passing once.

Still, if Emma’s only mention of a seer stone were in the 1879 interview, then Lucas might be correct to believe that my paper and the Skousen quote implicitly drew upon Emma’s 1879 statement. Fortunately, there is no basis to see my mention of Emma’s viewpoint as some kind of ethical breach, for in an earlier letter to Emma Pilgrim, Emma Smith affirmed that Joseph used a seer stone after initially using the Urim and Thummim itself. Her 1870 letter supports the Church’s modern position that Joseph transitioned from the Nephite interpreters to the seer stone in the translation work:

Now the first that my <husband> translated, [the book] was translated by the use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly, black, but rather a dark color.20

Brant Gardner was also condemned for promoting the 1879 “Last Testimony,” yet I also fail to see it mentioned or relied upon in his review.21 I believe the accusation of deceiving readers on this point was improper. This is an unfortunate misreading of our reviews, but our reviews are not the only sources that were misread.

A repudiation? Misreading Joseph Smith III

Given how my article was misread regarding my alleged promotion of Emma’s “Last Testimony” as authoritative, I was reminded of the related mishandling of sources that so irritated me while reading By Means of Urim & Thummim. As a result, I felt a need to check what Joseph Smith III actually said that so “repudiated” the use of a seer stone and, by association, Emma’s “Last Testimony.” Did his repudiation really undermine his mother’s comments?

The astute reader might be wondering, “When a mother shares her personal beliefs and observations to her son in a published interview, what difference does it make if that son later expresses disagreement?” Seven years after he published his interview, if Joseph Smith III decided that he disagreed with his mother on how the Book of Mormon was translated, does that erase her testimony? This would not be the first time that a child differed with a parent (and not the first time that a child’s difference of opinion had no bearing on the veracity of a parent’s testimony).

Here the context and agenda for the later 1886 statement referenced by Lucas needs to be considered. At this time, David Whitmer had become a threat to Joseph Smith III by claiming that his father was a fallen prophet. In the 1886 article, Joseph III strongly criticizes Whitmer and many of his claims. It is natural that under the circumstances and with the need to attack Whitmer’s credibility that the seer-stone theory, so frequently espoused by Whitmer, would also come under attack. But does Joseph III’s critique constitute a repudiation that undermines Emma’s “Last Testimony?” Let’s look at what Joseph III actually wrote and see how well it fits Lucas’s characterization:

It must be allowed that these men [Joseph and Oliver] best knew by what means the Book of Mormon was translated. If the stone of which Mr. Whitmer speaks was used in translating, it was in effect a Urim and Thummim, yet it was evidently not the chief instrument, nor did its use detract from the Seeric powers of Joseph Smith. It rather confirms and exalts them, showing that the gift of translation and revelation was bestowed of God upon the Seer in person, and was of first importance and virtue.22

There seems to be a major discrepancy here. Joseph Smith III may prefer emphasizing the Nephite interpreters and may not be completely convinced that a seer stone was used, but this is far from a repudiation of what Emma said in his 1879 interview. In fact, he makes no mention of her “Last Testimony” in his 1886 critique of Whitmer. If a seer stone was used by the seer instead of the dual-seer-stone Nephite interpreters, Joseph III did not seem to have a fundamental problem with that. Rather, he recognized that such a stone would, in effect, be a Urim and Thummim. Joseph’s purported use of a seer stone would not detract from his role as seer, but would “confirm and exalt” his seeric powers.

In my view, Lucas’s statement in his response, similar to related statements in By Means of Urim & Thummim regarding Joseph Smith III, lacks the needed nuance for a scholarly work and strikes me as abusing a cited source. This is a critical flaw in the book’s methodology. Lucas sees an article where the author, while suspicious of Whitmer’s claims, still leaves the door open for the possibility that a seer stone could have been used by the Seer. That constitutes a repudiation of the seer-stone theory? One that demolished Joseph III’s earlier report of Emma’s testimony? To me, this is an example of Lucas and Neville occasionally making overreaching claims that are not adequately supported by the documents cited. I remain concerned about their overly aggressive methodology and questionable claims.

To be fair to the authors, though, I think I can explain what may have led Lucas and Neville to feel justified in what I see as a mistaken reading of Joseph III’s statement such that Emma’s “Last Testimony” appeared to be “repudiated.” In their book, they are troubled by that testimony to the degree that they pursue many paths to undermine it. Most interesting is the “new perspective” they propose that suggests that Emma’s “Last Testimony” may have been a “summary, interpretation, or characterization” of Emma’s “answers” by Joseph III.23 In other words, the “Last Testimony” was not authored by Emma, but was composed by or largely “ghostwritten” by Joseph III to serve his agenda at the time of distancing his father from polygamy. In this speculative theory, he might have been largely sharing his views and possibly a few of his mother, they argue24—all this despite the article’s mention of a third party, Emma’s second husband, who was there as witness:

It was decided to present to her a few prominent questions, which were penned and agreed upon, the answers to which might, so far as she was concerned, settle these differences of opinion. In accordance with this understanding the Senior Editor of the Herald visited Nauvoo, in February last, arriving on the 4th and remaining until the 10th. Sister Emma answered the questions freely and in the presence of her husband, Major Lewis C. Bidamon, who was generally present in their sitting-room where the conversation took place. We were more particular in this, because it had been frequently stated to us: “Ask your mother, she knows.”25

To me it’s inconceivable that this interview might not have happened or that the answers provided were falsified given that they appeared in a public record likely to be seen by Emma’s family and peers, and published in the same year while Lewis Bidamon was still alive (he passed away years later in 189126). This makes no sense to me. Solving the problems of the unwanted testimony by making Joseph III a deceiver without evidence in order to defend preconceived notions is much like the “Demonstration Hypothesis” that makes a deceiver of Joseph Smith in the name of honoring him. I enjoy irony, but this is untenable.

In what I would call “The Strange Case of the ‘Last Testimony of Sister Emma,’” we find an accusation of promoting a questionable source when the source was not cited, discussed, or relied upon. We are told that the interviewer who published Emma’s “Last Testimony” repudiated the stone-in-the-hat theory that Emma mentioned, when the 1886 source does not really support that claim. Strong and sometimes very harsh claims are improperly made while evidence is mangled to comply with pet theories, even if it means unjustly painting others as deceivers. This is not the approach of reliable scholarship.

Did I ignore Eugene Nida’s work? Yes! Here’s why

Lucas, with reasonable cause, is frustrated that I disregarded their treatment of Eugene A. Nida’s work on the nature of translation, particularly Bible translation. Here I must admit to being guilty. Why would I neglect that part of the book? Because I considered it an irrelevant distraction already made moot by other gaps in their approach. It was one of several dozen minor issues (in my opinion) that would be best to ignore for a review that was already growing too long.

While Nida’s work has been of profound importance for translators of the Bible and has helped them better recognize the decisions they need to make to better select and achieve the goals of their translation work, what Joseph did is a world apart from the work of modern Bible translators. Modern translators begin with a profound knowledge of the ancient language, an awareness of how words are used throughout the text and how those words are used in documents outside the Bible, and knowledge of how other translations have rendered those words and phrases. They are also aware of ancient cultural issues that help clarify the meaning of many passages and may even know related words in other languages that may have influenced a Greek or Hebrew passage.

Joseph, on the other hand, was faced not just with an unknown language and culture, but with an undeciphered script. Nida’s principles might be relevant once a script is fully deciphered and an initial translation has been completed that could reveal apparent meaning and intent. Then that preliminary work could be revised iteratively in the context of the whole text and other relevant texts by determining what parts of the translation-in-development might now best employ formal translation or more functional translation. But the idea of Joseph receiving a few words of a nearly literal translation and deciding whether it needed to be kept nearly literal for formal translation purposes or more functional makes no sense. How can Joseph make that decision in his own mind if he does not yet know where the section being translated is going? Is this the beginning of a chiasmus or part of a word play or meaningful Hebraism where specific words need to be strictly employed for a highly formal translation? Is it an allusion to a biblical passage (or “impossibly,” a yet-to-be-translated text like the Book of Moses) that had best closely follow other translated language? Or does it cover minor details or historical information without significant rhetorical features that are best given a loose functional translation? One needs to understand the context and agenda of the passage and how it fits in with surrounding or even distant text or other sources before such decisions can be properly contemplated.

Based on how Joseph actually did the translation without rewrites or major revisions, but with a continuous flow of dictated text, the intricate intertextuality and consistency of the result only makes sense if Joseph were being provided the finished text or something very close to it in most cases, not a literal translation that needed to be reworked every time in his own words without any of the knowledge and context that Nida presumes.

Nida, as important as his work may be, is simply irrelevant to the impossible task of decipherment and translation that Joseph faced, and of no value in explaining the miraculous output from that project. The result of Joseph’s revelatory process was miraculously dictating an ancient text from an unknown script and unknown language in a continuous manner at high speed, without notes, without massive rewrites, and without first learning the language and coming to terms with internal word usage, tone, and authorial agenda. This miracle cannot be the fruit of a human composing a translation on the fly.

I came to the section on Nida right after making the surprising realization that Lucas and Neville were not willing to seriously consider the implications of the evidence-based proposals of Carmack and Skousen on the abundant non-biblical Early Modern English influences in the Book of Mormon. They dismissed it as an apologetic attempt “to deflect evidence of Joseph Smith’s active involvement in the creation of the Book of Mormon,”27 which does not fit the history of Carmack and Skousen’s work at all. Without providing any evidence, Lucas and Neville assume that the archaic pre-KJV features in the dictated Book of Mormon text were part of Joseph’s dialect or something he could have picked up from his environment. The most glaring problem with such an assumption is that documents that Joseph either wrote himself or dictated to others do not show that unusual syntax—it is only in the Book of Mormon.

Lucas and Neville assert that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon in his own dialect, perhaps influenced by old books he had read as well, so that could explain the Early Modern English features, and they assume that his written documents don’t reflect his speech because “speaking and writing are two different skills; people do not write the way they talk.”28 When people write a formal document, they first conceive of a statement and then express it in formal language, which often differs from casual speech in part because more time is spent on coming up with the words to use. But how is this different than the mental processes used when dictating a formal text to a scribe? The text is literally “spoken,” yes, but it differs from casual speech in essentially the same way that writing by hand differs. In fact, even more time may be spent in mentally forming the dictated text because of hearing the text spoken aloud and then pausing for the next phrase to be written before moving forward, giving both time and audio feedback to assist in formulating the words.

The dictated translation of the Book of Mormon has a syntax far different from Joseph’s dictated or handwritten letters or from what we know of Yankee dialect. The literary fingerprint of the dictated Book of Mormon text cannot fairly be ascribed to his efforts to imitate KJV style or to a few remnants of archaic features in Yankee dialect. The serious scholarship of Skousen and Carmack cannot be dismissed with such casual ad hoc arguments. Mountains of evidence weigh against Joseph serving as the primary composer, though he did feel free to revise some portions later (sometimes adjusting awkward grammar, even when doing so might obscure what would later be recognized as evidence of antiquity). I am also open to the possibility of some functional revision on the fly if he felt it necessary. It’s not for us to impose rules on what he could or could not do, but we are free to seek to understand what happened.

But if Joseph read the text in finished or nearly finished form, the kind of choices Nida refers to had already been made by someone else before being displayed to Joseph—whether it was God himself or divine agents whom he may have asked to prepare an English translation. Nida’s discussion of translation strategies, then, doesn’t apply to Joseph and the issue of what tools he used. But even if Joseph were doing the heavy lifting, Nida still doesn’t seem to apply in any useful way except as a pedantic tool to characterize the output if we think we know what input was being processed, which we don’t. The whole discussion of Nida seems irrelevant without providing real support for Lucas’s and Neville’s thesis, but perhaps I should have taken the time to point out my objections more clearly.

The mistake of using “literal” to describe Lucas’s and Neville’s translation theory

Lucas complains that both Gardner and I make a critical mistake in sometimes using “literal” or related terms to characterize the kind of translation that Lucas and Neville propose Joseph received from the Urim and Thummim. (I also referred to it as a “fractional” or “crude” translation.) We are said to be guilty of another ethical breach:

Similarly, neither reviewer uses the term “formal equivalence” in the correct sense, even though it is carefully defined and regularly used in the book. The reviewers’ refusal to do so appears to be deliberate misrepresentation intended to bias readers against the book’s translation explanation.29

Had we paid more attention to their discussion of Nida’s work, Lucas seems to feel that we would not have made such a fundamental mistake. That may be true, but in defense, I can say we are not alone.

As a newcomer to the terminology in Lucas’s and Neville’s work, I hope that I and other readers like Gardner might be forgiven for confusion regarding their terminology. This confusion begins with the very first words in the book related to their thesis on the copyright page as it describes the image on the cover:

As Joseph turns the leaf of the plates, he is studying out in his mind the best way to express in English the meaning of the literal translation of the characters provided by the Urim and Thummim, which he will then dictate to Oliver Cowdery to write down.30

That discussion of the “literal translation” from the Urim and Thummim is provided by Lucas and Neville, who now accuse us of “deliberate misrepresentation” for similar terminology. Please note that the text being studied in the image on the book’s cover is in the middle of the gold plates. It is not the last plate with the title page, for which Joseph once spoke of a having provided a “literal translation”—a term to which I think Lucas and Neville give unjustified emphasis. Joseph had not yet studied foreign language and may not have realized how often a strictly literal translation of individual words may be a terrible and quite unusable translation of the actual meaning, an important point to keep in mind with respect to the translation theory of the authors. I think Joseph used “literal” to mean a “real and precise” translation of the very words on that last plate, just as today we might say, “I literally translated it from the last page” without saying how the translation was done or how strictly it follows the meaning of the original words or their word order. Likewise, if asked, Joseph may have said that the first page of the lost 116 pages was a “literal” translation of the first plate in the book of Lehi, etc.

The copyright page is not the only place that might have misled me into using the word “literal.” The authors also variously speak of the hypothesized translation system being “literalistic,”31 “close-to-Nephite literal English,”32 “close to literal,”33 and “a more literal English.”34 I sense that the authors may misunderstand how great the gap is between anything close to a literal translation and an intelligible, finished English translation—especially in translating from languages in distant language families. Such linguistic remoteness makes it unlikely that a literal or close-to-literal translation could be a suitable basis for Joseph to then render it into a finished translation, whether it was a mostly formal or functional translation. Such a displayed incomplete translation could not reasonably sustain the fluent intertextuality and textual consistency of the Book of Mormon if significant work remained to be done to make sense of what was revealed. Converting a literal or close to literal translation to meaningful English scripture requires skills similar to those of modern Bible translators—skills that Joseph lacked.

Reading Lucas’s response, it seems that he is distancing his model from anything associated with the word “literal” to a much more usable formal translation that a genuine bible scholar might render for a biblical text. But that is not what I found in his and Neville’s book when their translation theory was finally proposed:

We propose a translation model which we believe resolves these apparently conflicting lines of evidence. We suggest that the interpreters did display English, as all the witnesses said, but that the text displayed on the two “stone” screens was not a complete, final interpretation of the engravings. Instead, the interpreters provided a literalistic English rendition of the Nephite characters. In some cases, it may have been transliterated phonetic spellings of proper names and foreign words untranslated in the Nephite text such as cureloms.

The isolated meanings for each character given by the interpreters would rarely transfer directly word-for-word into contemporary English. [This sure sounds like a literal translation.] Even the Title Page, which Joseph said was a literal translation, includes English pronouns and conjunctives to make the text flow coherently.

Carrying on the analogy to modern technology from Chapter 5(C), software on our smartphones can already “look” at foreign language characters and instantly display them in English. In that sense, the software literally “translates” the characters, but does not interpret the meaning in a fully useful way. . . .

The important comparison is that the English read-out displayed on the interpreters’ double screens was not a final translation. It was left to Joseph to render the close-to-Nephite literal English presentation displayed on the interpreters into English which would be meaningful to modern readers, a deliberative process that involved myriad word and grammar choices he had to study out in his mind using his own learning and linguistic resources. Further, as with any literary work, the translator continued to refine his work as his spiritual understanding and language skills grew.35

The incomplete translation that supposedly required intense mental work and sorting through a myriad of complex possibilities to get an English translation really doesn’t seem to fit the concept of intelligible formal equivalence. If a true “formal equivalence” was provided, it would be an intelligible result and an essentially finished product when formal equivalence made sense. The authors seem to insist on something far less finished, and so I can see why they so frequently used forms of “literal” in describing the translation. I hope the authors will have some sympathy for my error.

I can accept that the finished text of the Book of Mormon may have a spectrum of translation approaches ranging from formal to functional equivalence, in ways that could be consistent to some degree with functional examples proposed in Gardner’s works.

The question to me is who generated the more functional translations? At least some of them could have been already provided in the text displayed to Joseph Smith. The existence of apparently relatively functional phrasing in some places does not require Joseph Smith to have composed that text nor to have been sorting through a myriad of word, grammar, and style choices each time he confronted a short new chunk of nearly literal text, unaware of what followed, unaware of what rhetorical or literary tools it was employing, and unaware of what allusions to other scripture it might be making. Had he been sorting through all the possibilities in his own mind, we might not have much more than a fraction of 1 Nephi after sixty days of translation and would likely have a text rife with rewrites to account for what he learned later.

Making the plates of no value?

Lucas quotes Richard Bushman to challenge the idea of seeing a translation in a seer stone, as if this would devalue the golden plates and the history of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Here there may be a subtle problem in a quotation:

Yet modern advocates of the stone-in-the-hat narrative have made the entire divine saga of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon largely irrelevant. At the end of his book on the plates, Bushman asks,

Why the plates at all? So long as it was believed Joseph read from the plates through the Urim and Thummim, their purpose was clear. But if he read the text from a seer stone while the plates lay covered on the table, as many now believe, . . . why the effort to preserve them through the centuries, why the trouble to recover and protect them, why their presence?36

Upon checking this source, a minor gripe is that Bushman does not present this as his question, but as his characterization of how lay Latter-day Saints may react to the debates on the translation. He is expressing how the details of translation remain unsolved and puzzling, not necessarily railing against a theory he rejects. Here is the context:

The puzzle of translation has not been solved. How the words came to flow from Joseph Smith’s mouth into the ears of the scribes and then on to paper remains unresolved. We have plenty of hypotheses and no agreement. Among lay Latter-day Saints, the question is, Why the plates at all? So long as it was believed Joseph read from the plates through the Urim and Thummim, their purpose was clear. But if he read the text from a seer stone while the plates lay covered on the table, as many now believe, what part did they play? Why the effort to preserve them through the centuries, why the trouble to recover and protect them, why their presence? Sometimes it looks as if the plates were both essential to translation and useless. And so their story begins and ends in a puzzle.37

The question about the value of the plates that might occur to some members of the Church is a fair question to raise, but it has long been answered. The plates contain tangible, remarkable evidence for the existence of an ancient sacred record, showing that Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, and the ancient Nephites were a real people with a sacred record. The Testimony of Three Witnesses and The Testimony of Eight Witnesses are precious documents providing powerful evidence of the ancient and divine origins of the record. They not only bear witness of the role of Joseph Smith as a prophet and seer and of the reality of the Book of Mormon, but they even provide tangible evidence of the reality of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, as Elder Mark E. Petersen has noted.38

The power of the plates as a witness of Christ and the Restoration is not diminished by the details of any translation process. Today ancient documents are often translated by first scanning them and then having scholars examine digitized images. This does not diminish the physical reality of the manuscript from which the images came or from which computer-aided enhancements of text and even translation of text came. The important thing is that the translation was created from an authentic, tangible manuscript. How a translation process worked is irrelevant when it is divine—unless one creates an excessively narrow definition of the flexible word translation.

Mistranslating “translate”

Like B. H. Roberts rejecting the traditional model of translation where Joseph saw the text in both the Nephite interpreters and a seer stone, Lucas and Neville reject a modern form of that traditional model because it doesn’t demand enough from Joseph to make him a “translator” doing the intense mental effort of translating a foreign language (in an unknown script, for the record). Part of their problem is an overly narrow scope for what translate can mean. In his response, Lucas insists that one particular definition for translate is what the word obviously means. With Nida’s teachings being so important to his work, I might have thought that he would consider how Joseph applied the word translate in a variety of contexts before assuming that a standard modern dictionary definition is what Joseph always meant when speaking of translating the Book of Mormon. While I think the specific definition might be OK, it’s how Lucas “translates” that definition that creates the problem:

Just as the stone-in-the-hat narrative makes the plates and interpreters superfluous, it also renders the concept of Joseph as translator meaningless. And Joseph Smith and his fellow early Saints understood perfectly well that the word translate meant “to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another.”39

Lucas gives us definition #6 from Webster’s 1828 dictionary.40 There is no reason this does not fit either the use of a Urim and Thummim or the seer stone to translate. There is not even a requirement to first decipher a script or to have mastered the grammar and vocabulary of the language or to exert great mental effort in providing the translation. There is no reason this does not fit Joseph acting as a composer who creates words from impressions to his mind or from near-literal text displayed to him, or as a seer who gains revelation that enables him to see a finished translation in a revelatory device or even just in his mind. There are many possible technical details for a translation to be made, but if there is a foreign text and a human agent is able to “to render” that text “into another language” such as English, then we are in the realm of Webster’s sixth definition of “translate.” As Lucas continues, he doesn’t seem to recognize that this definition does not really bring the perceived victory of ruling out the seer stone or a vision of a finished translation versus an imperfect one.

This was a difficult part of his argument for me to grasp, but I think the point is that “everyone knows” that translating means heavy mental lifting to create a translation (from the known script of a known language, I must add), while “merely” miraculously seeing the finished divine translation (as opposed to the incomplete or literal translation proposal that B. H. Roberts found to be offensive) is just not good enough to count—it’s not enough work on Joseph’s part. That’s not what Webster said, though, and it’s not what Joseph or the Lord said.

I feel that if Lucas and Neville had begun with the question of “What did ‘translate’ mean to Joseph?,” they might have developed a more reasonable theory. Better still, they might have realized that translating without studying a script or even staring at it could still occur with divine aid, as it did repeatedly, with intelligible English sometimes given right away.

An important clue on the meaning of translate is found in the scriptures. In Doctrine and Covenants 45, the Lord reminded Joseph of the need to have the New Testament be “translated” (v. 60) and said, “Wherefore I give unto you that ye may now translate it” (v. 61). This was part of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible, a divinely appointed project in which he had no original Greek nor Hebrew text to work with, and still no knowledge of Greek nor Hebrew as he began. Rather, he would ponder the English text and create interpretations, revisions, or new material. This was all translation according to the Lord and as understood by Joseph. There is no record of using either the Urim and Thummim or a seer stone for this project. The first part of the work was the miraculous delivery of the “Vision of Moses,” a document given purely by revelation. It was followed by further revelations that build on Genesis 1–6, apparently with a recently purchased Bible before Joseph, to give us our current Book of Moses and the rest of his translation of the Bible.

Before that, in April 1829, Joseph inquired through the Urim and Thummim and was shown the translation of a hidden parchment written by John. Here Joseph saw a translation without having the source document before him. If divine translation could occur of a lost manuscript on another continent, if it even still exists, then why the strident objections to translating gold plates that might be a couple of feet away or covered on the table? Likewise for the Book of Abraham, we aren’t sure if the Joseph Smith papyri contained the text that was given to Joseph as the Book of Abraham. Joseph and his peers were obviously interested in studying out the meaning of the Egyptian script, but that was an apparently unsuccessful process which appears to have begun after the translation was done, not as a precursor to translation.41

Clearly there was great diversity in Joseph’s role as a translator. We must not reject divinely approved modes of translation using narrow definitions to exclude unliked theories.

Misreading Brigham Young’s statement

In Lucas’s reply, he discussed a statement of Brigham Young as if it rebuts the allegedly muddled statement of Wilford Woodruff in 1841 that calls a seer stone a Urim and Thummim:

The earliest reference stone-in-the-hat advocates can point to is a garbled entry in Wilford Woodruff’s journal of a meeting with Joseph in 1841. However, even this is problematic, as Brigham Young’s description of the same meeting makes clear that Joseph continued to use the term in connection with the translation of the Book of Mormon only to refer to the interpreters, while referring to other seer stones separately. Brigham recorded that Joseph “explained to us the Urim and Thummim which he found with the plates, called in the Book of Mormon the Interpreters. He said that every man who lived on the earth was entitled to a seer stone, and should have one, but they are kept from them in consequence of their wickedness, and most of those who do find one make an evil use of it; he showed us his seer stone.” “History of Brigham Young,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 26, no. 8 (20 February 1864), 118–19, archive.org/details
/MStarVol26/page/n133/mode/2up; and Elden J. Watson, ed., Manuscript History of Brigham Young 1801–1844 (Salt Lake City: Smith Secretarial Service, 1968), 112a.42

Lucas makes it sound as if Brigham were supporting his and Neville’s theory, when his statement is showing that both devices can be sacred visionary tools. After mentioning the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates (the Nephite interpreters with two stones), Brigham immediately moves to the topic of the seer stone that all should have were it not for wickedness. Then he displayed his seer stone. The concept of a single, sacred, visionary stone that can be called a Urim and Thummim fits perfectly with Doctrine and Covenants 130:8–11:

The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim. This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s.

Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known; And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word.

These single stones or other objects, each called a Urim and Thummim, can reveal visions of sacred things, including sacred writing (“a new name written”), clearly related to the role of divine seer stones used by seers to see sacred things and translate sacred writing. Thus, canonized scripture teaches that there is not just one and only one Urim and Thummim that can be used for revelatory purposes, but that a single stone can also serve that purpose and bear that epithet.

This brings me to an overall objection to Lucas’s reply: he seems to insist on making all issues purely black and white, with no middle ground. Thus, Lucas writes that “we argue that the conflict between the stone-in-the-hat narrative and Joseph and Oliver’s testimonies is fundamental and irreconcilable.”43 We either fully accept a quote from the Prophet or make him a liar. Likewise, the Urim and Thummim can only be the Nephite interpreters, two clear stones set in a frame; to suggest otherwise is an “effort to obfuscate.”44 Such a polarized, extreme view verges on a fundamentalism that cannot consider a nuanced argument and the unavoidable conflicts that arise in complex matters of which we know very little. But at least we should recognize that scripture teaches us that there has been more than one Urim and Thummim in antiquity and that there will be many in the future, not all having the same form. Recognizing this helps us appreciate the potential for “Urim and Thummim” to refer to more than one object over the years. This is hardly obfuscation. It’s necessary nuance for approaching a complex issue.

Mischaracterizing Royal Skousen

In an offensively sarcastic mistreatment of one of the most dedicated and careful Book of Mormon scholars, Lucas offers feigned praise for Royal Skousen’s “courage” in coming out and declaring what stone-in-the-hat supporters allegedly really believe about the honesty of Joseph Smith: that he “lied about the translation of the Book of Mormon.” Lucas hypes the implications of Skousen’s new declaration made in the final weeks of 2024 (actually Skousen’s document, as mentioned in footnote 33 of my review, has been online on The Interpreter Foundation website since 2021), in which Skousen notes that Joseph’s statement about translating the Book of Mormon by means of the Urim and Thummim “is only partially true”45 since he also used a seer stone that is not mentioned. “Only partially true” here could equally well be expressed as “incomplete” or even “deliberately incomplete.” The data seem to indicate that a seer stone was used, in addition to the Urim and Thummim. Yes, the seer stone could be called a Urim and Thummim and sometimes was, but Joseph’s statement includes the context of the Nephite interpreters, so “partially true” seems a reasonable expression.

For Oliver, Skousen suggests that claiming to translate with the Urim and Thummim “appears to be deliberately misleading” since he understands that there was a transition to the seer stone by the time Oliver translated. While we don’t have statements from others supporting the use of the Urim and Thummim while he was translating, it’s possible that there were episodes since both revelatory tools were apparently available. We just don’t know. I think this is why Skousen uses the cautious phrasing that his statement “appears” to be deliberately misleading. But perhaps it was not. (See the following section for another perspective.)

In this matter, we see the “problem” with careful scholars: when the data point to something uncomfortable for us, such as tensions between details and general statements, they discuss it, warts and all. Skousen lets us know that there were strong incentives for both Joseph and Oliver to downplay the seer-stone issue for the public given the harmful harassment and even legal threats previously experienced. As noted earlier, there will be some tension on this issue no matter what we say or what creative new theories we devise (like the Demonstration Hypothesis) to try to cancel what irritates us. Instead, I recommend considering the context and the pressures faced and not be too quick to judge good people dealing with complex issues. That includes leaders like Joseph, Oliver, or Russell M. Nelson and modern scholars like Royal Skousen.

Failure to consider Joseph’s and Oliver’s statements

While Lucas accuses me of ignoring Joseph’s and Oliver’s statements indicating that the Urim and Thummim was used to translate, the conflict between those statements and the seer stone theory was certainly addressed in my review:

At the same time, we have statements from Joseph and Oliver (these are included and discussed in Skousen’s chapter, along with many other witness statements) that don’t mention the seer stone and only speak of the Urim and Thummim. Skousen proposes that both men felt a need to downplay the role of the seer stone given the trouble Joseph had already faced in that area. There’s no way to eliminate tension here: either many witness statements need to just be disregarded, or we must accept incomplete or inaccurate reporting on some details of the translation from Joseph and Oliver. Again, I appreciate the desire of Lucas and Neville to create a tidy scenario, but I feel they create more problems than they believe they have solved.46

As noted previously, one can say that Joseph was incomplete or only “partially true” and that Oliver appears to have been misleading to avoid causing trouble with respect to the public’s misunderstanding of seer stones. However, the possibility certainly arises that during the time that Oliver served as a scribe, both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone were employed at different times, as the Church’s Gospel Topics Essay states. Both can be called the “Urim and Thummim” or “interpreters”—after all, the Nephite interpreters were really two seer stones set in a frame.47 Thus, the statements of both Joseph and Oliver, even when also referencing the Nephite interpreters, could be understood to mean that the translation was done by interpreters or by Urim and Thummim, whether the Nephite interpreters/seer stone provided with the plates or the interpreters/seer stones that Joseph had found (a white one and a brown one).

Despite the failure to specifically mention the seer stone, the affirmation that the translation was done by the Urim and Thummim may be more defensible than Lucas allows. A seer stone can be “in effect” a Urim and Thummim if used to translate, as Joseph Smith III observed in his alleged repudiation of the seer stone theory.48 Oliver does not say that the tools Joseph used were limited to the Nephite interpreters. It’s possible that both were used (an added reason for this follows). Here are the two key statements of Oliver:

Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, “Interpreters,” the history, or record, called “The book of Mormon.”49

I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it is called by that book, “Holy Interpreters.”50

These statements associate the translator aids that Joseph used with the Nephite interpreters, but is it an association of exact identity or of the class and function of the device? A reasonable reading might be that he was saying, perhaps with deliberate lack of specificity, that Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim, a tool identical to or equivalent to the tool known to the Nephites, who called this kind of tool “interpreters.” There is the issue of saying “the Urim and Thummim” rather than “a Urim and Thummim,” which may make Oliver’s statement still incomplete or “partially true.”

This prepares us to understand the real gap that Lucas is seeking to widen. In light of what we learn from Lucas’s objections, I propose that the use of one vs. two seer stones is not the source of the visceral reaction against the “stone-in-a-hat” theory. Rather, the real issue may be the hat.

Facing the real gap: Looking in a hat or at the plates?

Whether a revelatory aid that would gradually be called a Urim and Thummim employed one or two seer stones may be a minor detail. The real fundamental gap in the physical details of the clashing theories is whether a hat can be used versus staring openly at the plates while translating, as depicted in some paintings and drawings that many of us often saw years ago. On this issue, Lucas’s and Neville’s insistence that we consider Doctrine and Covenants 9 to understand the translation leads to a meaningful advance in approaching the problem of what Oliver experienced and how translation was done.

Part of the divide that Lucas and Neville offer is the insistence that the only way to translate with the Urim and Thummim is as shown in the questionable image on their cover, namely, studying and trying to make sense of a “close-to-Nephite literal” translation while peering directly at the visible plates through the dual stones of the Nephite interpreters to engage with the specific passage being translated. This is strictly a hat-free process. But, as I pondered Lucas’s reply and his insistence on a fundamental and irreconcilable gap between his preferred method and theories involving a seer stone, an important new gap emerged in light of Doctrine and Covenants 9, a key factor motivating Lucas’s and Neville’s work.

The context for the revelation about the burning of the bosom in Doctrine and Covenants 9:7–9 is an episode in April 1829 when Oliver sought to translate. In fact, he attempted translation but failed. As Stan Spencer notes, “Doctrine and Covenants 9:5 observes that Oliver Cowdery ‘began to translate,’ which suggests that he actually did translate and must have known how to do so.” (This important verse is not treated by Lucas and Neville.) Understanding that Oliver had attempted to translate helped Spencer identify the antecedent context behind the “it” of vv. 7–9, which likely refers to the issue of whether it was right for Oliver to translate then, not the basic question of how to translate in the first place.

A key question now is how did Oliver attempt to translate? There are two reasonable possibilities: (1) he looked into the Nephite interpreters, as Joseph may have been doing at the time or certainly had done, or (2) he looked into a seer stone. But it seems that we can be certain he was not looking through the Nephite Urim and Thummim at the plates in an attempt to decipher a foreign script and come up with proposals to test in prayer. Why? Because Oliver had not yet become a witness to the plates, which would not happen until June 1829—he did not yet have permission to look at the plates. Thus, whichever form of a seer stone Oliver was attempting to use, one or two from the Nephite interpreters or one of Joseph’s non-Nephite seer stones, he wasn’t looking at the plates.

So, what was Oliver doing? If he were using the Nephite seer stones, perhaps he was following the method that faithful Latter-day Saint Joseph Knight Sr. described regarding Joseph’s work:

Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes then he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters then he would tell the writer and he would write it then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on.51

Whether it was the Nephite dual-seer-stone Urim and Thummim (of which only one seer stone might have been used at a time) or a single seer stone, the only way that seems to work for an attempted translation was for Oliver to be looking into a seer stone. How? If he was not able to look at the plates, then what? Then he may have done what so many witnesses saw Joseph doing: looking at the seer stone(s) in a hat. I don’t know that for sure, but I think it seems clear he was not staring at the plates that he was still forbidden to see, trying to work out a translation of what he saw.

Since this was Oliver’s first attempt at translation, it would make sense that Joseph allowed him to use the “premier” translation tool, the original Nephite Urim and Thummim, to have the best shot at success, but that’s just speculation. Either way seems possible. But if Joseph was using the Nephite interpreters at the time and shared them with Oliver (with divine permission, of course), then Oliver would have been translating while the Nephite tool was in use. Joseph may have started relying on the seer stone shortly after this, accounting for the witnesses statements about the seer stone. If so, Oliver’s statements are less objectionable than the alternative possibility of only having translated with the seer stone.

Here it seems that canonized scripture gives us an important clue that may rule out some of the strident claims made by Lucas and Neville about how the translation must have been done and mitigates their denouncements of those who believe a seer stone was used. It also makes the possibility of a hat being used even more plausible, for the other option of necessarily staring at the plates was certainly not required.

Doctrine and Covenants 9 turns out to be more important that I previously appreciated.

Minor Issues

Lucas claims that I said Joseph never used the Nephite Urim and Thummim after they were returned, citing my article at p. 170. To say that the seer stone was used after the Urim and Thummim was returned does not indicate that the Urim and Thummim was never used. Thereafter I quote the Church’s Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon translation which says “Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable.”52 This suggests that both could be used. I did not intend to provide any speculation on exactly when the two instruments were used. But see Emma’s 1870 letter to Emma Pilgrim discussed earlier.

I also disagree with the claim that those of us who think a seer stone was used for some of the translation believe that “all instances where Joseph and Oliver used the term [Urim and Thummim], they meant the scrying stone as well as the interpreters.”53 That’s certainly not what I said. Even noting that the term Urim and Thummim can be used to describe both items does not mean that a dual reference was always or even regularly meant.

A Final Note on Terminology

I’m frustrated by the insistence of using pejorative terminology to cast emotional shade on the established term “seer stone.” Calling it a “scrying stone” highlights the folk magic controversy that had caused so much trouble for Joseph. “Scrying stone” is a rarely used term except in some fantasy games. Why not use the term that significant witnesses used (including Wilford Woodruff and Brigham Young), that modern leaders of the Church have used, that the Church’s Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon translation used—seer stone? Yes, “scrying stones” or peep stones were part of Joseph’s environment, but in the translation work, he was acting as a seer and the stones he used—whether in the Nephite interpreters or the single stone he placed in a hat—should be called seer stones. To call them “scrying stones” is to echo the hostile critics who attacked Joseph and demeaned his role as a seer, just as the authors’ pejorative term “SITH” associates the use of a seer stone with forces of evil in the Star Wars tradition. Cute, but inappropriate.

Conclusions

When it comes to the details of how the translation was done, if they really matter, there is room for a variety of theories that faithful people may hold. For those who care about the details, debate is inevitable because of the lack of definitive statements that clarify exactly how the translation process worked and because of gaps and conflicts in some of the evidence.

What we have are a mountain of clues including:

- recorded statements of Joseph, his scribes, his peers, observers, and others;

- the written manuscripts themselves, especially the Original Manuscript and the Printer’s Manuscript, which provide intriguing details about the oral dictation;

- hints from scripture;

- the analysis of scholars and students of the Book of Mormon who examine various aspects of the evidence, sometimes introducing additional arguments from further considerations (e.g., analogies to modern translation methods and tools or consideration of historical context and its impact on the motivations for or potential agenda behind various statements); and

- official statements from the Church, such as the Gospel Topics Essay, “Book of Mormon Translation,” which remains strongly at odds with the thesis of Lucas and Neville.

Unfortunately, our ignorance of the details of how the divine translation was done is not easily overcome by considering the mountain of clues, for there is no simple, satisfying, unifying theory that neatly resolves the apparent clashes in some of the evidence. No matter which theory one selects for whatever reason, there is a need for nuance and a recognition of tension between one’s preferred theory and the evidence.

I can respect the desire of Lucas and Neville to defend the prophetic role of Joseph Smith in their approach. Their approach, however, so often seems to force the evidence to fit their agenda, sometimes at the cost of poorly characterizing the evidence. While it is possible that their overall theory is correct, their methodology is not, and that is the fundamental shortcoming in their work. Unfortunately, Lucas’s response to my book review provides further examples of this problem in addition to those I previously detailed. I hope the authors will redirect their efforts or revise their theories to not be as extreme and inflexible as they seem to me, often leading to ironic and undesirable results like the Demonstration Hypothesis.

It’s time we recognize the real miracle of Joseph’s translation as the work of God in marvelous ways that gave us such a consistent, rich, and powerful text. The Book of Mormon is majestic, the fruit of a marvelous translation process through a great Seer. Whatever the translation aids and whatever mental processes were involved in the remarkably swift pace of translation, the result required no massive rewrites as each new dictated phrase from an unknown language and unknown script could fit into complex rhetorical structures including chiasmus, make subtle textual allusions even to text not yet translated (both in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses), maintain remarkable consistency in terminology, provide powerful poetry, and be able to touch the hearts and change the lives of millions in its witness of Jesus Christ. We can squabble over the cloudy details of the translation, but let’s focus on the marvelous work and a wonder that has yet many miracles to work if we will take it seriously.

Jeffrey D. Lindsay has been providing online materials defending the Church for more than twenty years, primarily at JeffLindsay.com. His Mormanity blog on Church topics began in 2004 and was recently converted to ArisefromtheDust.com. He is currently on the Board of Directors for The Interpreter Foundation. Jeff has a PhD in chemical engineering from BYU and is a US patent agent. Jeff has been a Fellow of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers since 2014. Every year since 2015 he has been named as one of the world’s leading intellectual property strategists on the IAM 300 Strategy List by IAM Media Group in the UK. He is currently president of Planet Lindsay, LLC, assisting a variety of clients with intellectual property and innovation. From 2011 to 2019 he was the head of Intellectual Property for Asia Pulp and Paper in Shanghai, China, one of the world’s largest forest product companies. Formerly, he was associate professor at the Institute of Paper Science and Technology (now the Renewable Bioproducts Institute) at Georgia Tech, then went into R&D at Kimberly-Clark Corporation, eventually becoming corporate patent strategist and senior research fellow. Jeff served a mission in the German-speaking Switzerland Zurich Mission. He and his wife, Kendra, are the parents of four boys and have fifteen grandchildren. They are both serving as ministering specialists for African immigrants in their community and are learning Swahili. Jeff also serves as a board member for Hope and Help Together, a community organization in Appleton, Wisconsin, which works to assist refugees and immigrants in the Fox Cities region.

1 . James W. Lucas, “Joseph and Oliver Told the Truth about the Translation: A Response to Brant Gardner’s and Jeff Lindsay’s Reviews,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 64 (2025): 81–98, journal
.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-and-oliver-told-the-truth-about-the
-translation-a-response-to-brant-gardners-and-jeff-lindsays-reviews/.

2 . The book is James W. Lucas and Jonathan E. Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration (Cottonwood Heights, UT: Digital Legend Press & Publishing, 2023). My review is Jeff Lindsay, “Through a Glass Darkly: Restoring Translation to the Restoration?,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 63 (2025): 169–202, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/through-a-glass-darkly-restoring
-translation-to-the-restoration/.

3 . Russell Anderson, “The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith” (presentation, 2002 FAIR Conference, Utah Valley State College, Orem, UT), fairlatterdaysaints.org
/conference/august-2002/the-1826-trial-of-joseph-smith.

4 . Lucas, “Joseph and Oliver Told the Truth about the Translation,” 90.

5 . Stan Spencer, “The Faith to See: Burning in the Bosom and Translating the Book of Mormon in Doctrine and Covenants 9,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 219, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-faith
-to-see-burning-in-the-bosom-and-translating-the-book-of-mormon-in
-doctrine-and-covenants-9/.

6 . Kendra Lindsay, personal communication, 17 January 2025.

7 . “Word Count,” Scripture Central, Evidence 254, 13 October 2021, scripture
central.org/evidence/word-count.

8 . John W. Welch, “Timing the Translation of the Book of Mormon: ‘Days [and Hours] Never to Be Forgotten,’” BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 4 (2018): 16–30, byustudies.byu.edu/article/timing-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon
-days-and-hours-never-to-be-forgotten.

9 . “Average Daily Word Count for Writers,” The Novelry, 14 August 2017,
thenovelry.com/blog/word-counts.

10 . For example: “the average professional translator can translate somewhere between 1,500 to 2,500 words per day,” per Flor Dimassi, “How Long Does It Take To Deliver A Professional And Quality Translation?,” LinkedIn.com, 17 August 2021, linkedin.com/pulse/how-long-does-take-deliver-professional-quality
-flor-dimassi/. Also see the discussion at “How many words per day can you translate on a day-to-day basis?,” Proz.com, 2–3 April 2008, proz.com/forum
/getting_established/101263-how_many_words_per_day_can_you
_translate_on_a_day_to_day_basis.html; and “How many words does a professional translator translate per day?,” Pangeanic.com, 10 May 2015, blog
.pangeanic.com/how-many-words-does-a-professional-translator-translate
-per-day.

11 . “How many words can a translator produce per day?,” AZ World, 12 October 2023, a-zworld.ca/translation-services-canada-blog/how-many-words-can-a
-translator-produce-per-day/.

12 . Welch, “Timing the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” 37–39.

13 . Royal Skousen, “The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon,” in The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, vol. 3, part 7 (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2024), 68–69. A pre-print of this article has been available for over three years at “Update of the Pre-Print of a Discussion of the Book of Mormon Witnesses,” Interpreter Foundation Blog, 25 August 2021, pp. 28–29, interpreterfoundation
.org/blog-update-of-the-pre-print-of-a-discussion-of-the-book-of-mormon
-witnesses-by-royal-skousen/.

14 . Stanford Carmack, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 41–64, journal.interpreterfoundation.org
/joseph-smith-read-the-words/.

15 . “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics Essays, churchofjesuschrist
.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-translation.

16 . “Voices of the Restoration: Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Doctrine and Covenants 2025, Come, Follow Me—For Home and Church: Living, Learning, and Teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2024), churchofjesuschrist.org/study
/manual/come-follow-me-for-home-and-church-doctrine-and-covenants
-2025/06a-voices-of-the-restoration-translation. The “Voices of the Restoration” vignettes are available in the online version of Come, Follow Me, not in the printed versions of the manual.

17 . “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics Essays, n21.

18 . Lucas, “Joseph and Oliver Told the Truth about the Translation,” 84.

19 . Interview of Emma Smith by Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saint’s Herald 26, no 19. p. 289 (1 October 1879): 289, archive.org
/details/TheSaintsHerald_Volume_26_1879/page/n287/mode/2up.

20 . Emma Smith Bidamon, letter to Emma Pilgrim, 27 March 1870, in the Emma Smith Papers, Library-Archives, Community of Christ, Independence, MO, bhroberts.org/records/0iSghu-CyqXGc/emma_smith_reports_that_joseph
_used_the_urim_and_thummim_before_the_lost_pages_and_a_dark_seer_stone_afterwards.

21 . Brant A. Gardner, “Trust Us, We’re Lawyers: Lucas and Neville on the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 63 (2025): 135–68, journal.interpreterfoundation.org
/trust-us-were-lawyers-lucas-and-neville-on-the-translation-of-the-book-of
-mormon/.

22 . Joseph Smith III, “David Whitmer Reviewed,” Saints Herald 33, no. 45 (13 November 1886): 707, latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100821.pdf, emphasis added.

23 . Lucas and Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim, 51.

24 . Lucas and Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim, 51–52.

25 . Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” 19.

26 . Gracia Jones, “In Memory of Major Lewis Crum Bidamon—1806–1891,” The Joseph Smith Jr and Emma Hale Smith Historical Society, 16 August 2020, josephsmithjr.org/in-memory-of-major-lewis-crum-bidamon-1806-1891/.

27 . Lucas and Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim, 89.

28 . Lucas and Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim, 90.

29 . Lucas, “Joseph and Oliver Told the Truth about the Translation,” 94, emphasis added.

30 . Lucas and Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim, copyright page, emphasis added.

31 . Lucas and Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim, 186, 190, 196.

32 . Lucas and Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim, 186.

33 . Lucas and Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim, 189, 190.

34 . Lucas and Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim, 196.

35 . Lucas and Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim, 186–87, emphasis (bold) added; italic in original.

36 . Lucas, “Joseph and Oliver Told the Truth about the Translation,” 94. Lucas is quoting Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith’s Gold Plates: A Cultural History (New York: Oxford University, 2023), 181.

37 . Bushman, Joseph Smith’s Gold Plates, 181, emphasis added.

38 . Mark E. Petersen, “Evidence of Things Not Seen,” Ensign, May 1978, 61, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1978/04/evidence-of
-things-not-seen.

39 . Lucas, “Joseph and Oliver Told the Truth about the Translation,” 88–89.

40 . Noah Webster, ed., An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. “translate,” webstersdictionary1828.com
/Dictionary/translate.

41 . John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017).

42 . Lucas, “Joseph and Oliver Told the Truth about the Translation,” 85n10.

43 . Lucas, “Joseph and Oliver Told the Truth about the Translation,” 84.

44 . Lucas, “Joseph and Oliver Told the Truth about the Translation,” 86.

45 . Skousen, “The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon,” 62 (or p. 22 of the preprint in “Update of the Pre-Print of a Discussion of the Book of Mormon Witnesses,” Interpreter Foundation Blog.)

46 . Lindsay, “Through a Glass Darkly,” 197–98.

47 . Note that the frame was too large to work as dual-lensed “spectacles,” contrary to the image Lucas and Neville employ on the cover of their book showing Joseph viewing “the literal translation,” per the caption on their copyright page, of some passage within the gold plates while he has both stones over his eyes like eyeglasses.

48 . Smith III, “David Whitmer Reviewed,” 707.

49 . Oliver Cowdery, letter to W. W. Phelps, 7 September 1834, published the next month in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, as cited by Skousen, “The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon,” 62.

50 . Oliver Cowdery, as recorded by Reuben Miller in his journal, 21 October 1848, published in 1859 in the Deseret News, as cited by Skousen, “The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon,” 62.

51 . Joseph Knight Senior, reminiscence in his own hand dated between 1835 and 1847 (the year of his death), as cited by Skousen, “The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon,” 62, emphasis added.

52 . “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics Essays.

53 . Lucas, “Joseph and Oliver Told the Truth about the Translation,” 85.

Wonder No More: A Review of Into Arabia

Brant A. Gardner

Review of Warren P. Aston, Godfrey J. Ellis, and Neal Rappleye, Into Arabia: Anchoring Nephi’s Account in the Real World (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2024). 298 pages. $44.99 (hardback), $39.99 (paperback).

Abstract: Into Arabia is a collected reprint of six articles. The first chapter reprints an article that first appeared in BYU Studies. The other five appeared in Interpreter. Both BYU Studies and Interpreter are peer-reviewed academic journals, which means that all these articles were examined and reviewed prior to publication. Thus, my review is more of a synopsis of the importance of each chapter rather than a detailed critique.

Internet conversations on diverse forums frequently repeat the idea that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. The charge is almost always directed to the New World portion of the Book of Mormon. Both those asking the questions, and too frequently those Latter-day Saints who respond, are solely focused on the New World. That focus ignores the fact that there is significant archaeological evidence supporting the Old World portion of the Book of Mormon. Specifically, the journey Lehi’s family took from Jerusalem to the Old World Bountiful provides the best archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.

One of the specific reasons that there is a difference in the quality of archaeological research in the Old World versus the New World is the availability of writing, and particularly names, that trace to the appropriate time. The New World geography of the Book of Mormon continues to be debated because there is no specific named place where one might begin. That isn’t the case for most of the book of 1 Nephi. That book begins in Jerusalem, a known place with a known history. It is linked to the Babylonian conquest, which is known and dated in non-biblical sources. The overall directions of travel are given in the text, and importantly, there is a named place that fits in both time, space, and text with archaeological evidence.

The book Into Arabia1 collects several articles published at different times and in different venues (one from BYU Studies and the rest from Interpreter). This volume examines different aspects of the research into this most promising archaeological connection between the Book of Mormon and the known Old World setting. It is very much a response to the idea that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.

This volume is specific, detailed, and comprehensive. Even though each article is available separately, there is great convenience in collecting them in one place. It makes it easier for most of us to discover anew this important elucidation of the best-known geographical information available for the Book of Mormon. An additional subliminal advantage is that the collected articles are presented generally in the order of the journey, allowing for a greater conceptualization of the whole that is created by the sum of the ordered chapters.

Chapter 1: Lehi and Sariah’s Escape from Jerusalem

In the first chapter, Warren Aston suggests that: “The unfolding of Nephi’s detailed travel account in recent decades, showing that plausible real-world locations exist for the journey he recorded, should engender confidence as we consider the other events and settings he describes” (p. 3). He begins with a note on the tents the family took on their journey (1 Nephi 2:4). He uses that information to note that transporting those tents required the use of camels, and that the use of camels forms one of the types of evidence available for determining the route the family took as they left Jerusalem and headed toward the Red Sea (p. 4).

There have been multiple theories presented for the route that the Lehites took from Jerusalem to the Red Sea. Each is viable in that it is legitimately a historical path. The question becomes one of selecting among the possibilities that best fit the data. It is at this point that Aston demonstrates that his assertion that Nephi left a detailed travel account is modified. There is enough information that external information can be tested against the text, but the text itself cannot be the deciding factor. When Aston argues for his preferred route, through the Negev wilderness, much of the argumentation is based on how the known geography and topography would have affected the travelers—information imputed to the text and not extracted from the text. That is not to say that Aston’s analysis is incorrect. It is simply noting that he was a little too expansive in his attribution of detail to Nephi’s account.

After suggesting the route from Jerusalem to the Red Sea, now more commonly referred to as the Gulf of Aqaba, he turns to the camp in the valley of Lemuel. He notes that this is likely not on the shore, as it is logical that Nephi would have clearly described a shore encampment as he later did with Bountiful. Aston provides a background on the previous suggestions for the location of the valley, and he explains that he conducted on-the-ground research to see if there were alternatives. He settles on Wadi Tayyib al-Ism, which has been previously suggested. Aston’s contributions are in his discussion of the nature of the river in the valley. He notes that while a previous commenter had suggested that there were very few perennial streams in this area, there is, indeed, only one and it is found in Wadi Tayyib al-Ism (p. 22). Aston also provides evidence that wear patterns on the granite valley walls suggests that there was once a much larger and consistent flow of water to create that erosion pattern (pp. 26–28). Unfortunately, there is no way to know if that erosion was due to a continuous flow in Lehi’s time. It is perhaps plausible, but it is currently beyond the evidence.

Chapter 2: Nephi’s Eight Years in the “Wilderness”

In spite of the excellent clues Nephi left that help identify the Lehites’ journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful, there is one problem that Nephi created with no obvious answer—he indicates that they spent “many years, yea, even eight years in the wilderness” (1 Nephi 17:4). The problem with that statement is that a journey covering the distance and general location they covered should only take months, not a year. Certainly not eight years.

In the second chapter, Godfrey Ellis examines those eight years and begins by looking at what the text might have meant by “wilderness.” He suggests:

The alternative reading for Nephi’s comment is that the word wilderness might not have referred only to a desert environment, but to any undeveloped area. If that is the case, then the eight years “in the wilderness” could have included the time spent in the lush but uninhabited oasis/inlet of Bountiful. If the concept of wilderness could include more habitats than just a desert, that would change everything. Most specifically, it would allow Nephi’s eight years to represent the total time on the Arabian Peninsula, not just the time from leaving Jerusalem to entering Bountiful. (p. 34)

Ellis makes a good case for a more open reading of the text rather than the assumptive literalist reading that may try to extract more data than is available in the travel statement. Allowing the eight years to cover the entire journey makes some sense, but of course still doesn’t explain the eight years.

What Ellis does is to spread the delays across the various stops. By including the time in Bountiful and what might be needed to build a ship from scratch, it creates a much longer time than would be required simply by travel. I state that fully realizing that my sentence is so dramatically reductive that it really ignores much of the value of Ellis’s chapter. Much of the value lies in the detailed analysis of events, people, and places that lead to the longer timeframe. This is a chapter rich in detailed examinations. One of them that should be required reading is Ellis’s reading of Laman and Lemuel, which contradicts the all-too-easy interpretation of the brothers as evil.

Chapter 3: Nephi’s Shazer

In the first chapter of Into Arabia, Warren Aston discussed the evidence supporting a real-world location for the valley of Lemuel. Linked to that location is the information that leads to this chapter, a discussion of a real-world location for the location of Shazer. Here Aston begins with an examination of the meaning of the name. The two proposals, from Sperry (twisting and intertwining) and Nibley (trees) are examined. Nothing about the region fits a description of twisting and intertwining, leading Aston to accept Nibley’s suggestion that it meant “trees.” With that touchpoint, Aston suggests:

the leading candidate for Shazer is notable for three reasons: its distance from the valley of Lemuel, its proximity to mountains where game could be hunted, and its profusion of trees. All these features can be readily discerned in satellite imagery, although they are best appreciated at ground level. (p. 111)

The chapter examines previous proposals and settles on the identification made by George Potter and Richard Wellington. They suggested Wadi Agharr, now commonly called Wadi esh Sharma. Aston discusses the reasons that this region fits the requirements and concludes: “Shazer can now be identified with a high degree of certainty” (p. 124).

Chapter 4: The Nahom Convergence Reexamined

It was Hugh Nibley who first suggested that “the place which was called Nahom” (1 Nephi 16:34) was likely a location that already had that name when the Lehite entourage arrived. That suggestion appeared to have been corroborated by the discovery of altars indicating that there was such a place, and that it existed during Lehi’s lifetime. That link between place and text would be the closest thing possible (besides, of course, Jerusalem) to an archaeologically demonstrated tie between the Book of Mormon and the world it describes.

That correlation has not come without challenge. A principal contraindication is that the connection is derived from Semitic texts that do not use vowels. Hence, finding NHM might mean Nahom, but also could be other words, including words more likely in the language of those who created the inscriptions.

The potential of Nahom and the best-attested convergence between known history and the Book of Mormon is therefore extremely important to understanding the historicity of the Book of Mormon text. Chapter 4, Neal Rappleye’s contribution to Into Arabia, is currently the standard for the accumulation of evidence supporting that correlation.

Rappleye begins with the history of the linguistic issues, emphasizing the plausibility of the reading of Nahom for the NHM consonants. From that beginning, he dives into the geography and history of the region. Rappleye lays out four elements that he suggests provide the convergences to corroborate the Book of Mormon Nahom with the real world:

1. The plausible route the Lehites would have taken to arrive at Nahom.

2. Nahom as a place of burial.

3. A review of textual details that define the location.

4. An examination of the historical geography of the region.

The examination is detailed and well done. For this particular connection to the Book of Mormon, this discussion is the most comprehensive examination of this historical context of the Old World portion of the Book of Mormon. Including this chapter in Into Arabia continues to strengthen the argument that we have solid Old World evidence demonstrating that the Book of Mormon descriptions can be attached to real-world places and times with a high degree of confidence.

Chapter 5: Accessing Nephi’s Bountiful

The placement of this chapter by Warren Aston is appropriate for understanding the sequence of the Lehite journey, but is conceptually dependent upon the next chapter, which discusses the candidates for the Old World Bountiful named in the Book of Mormon. Without an understanding of which location the trail should go to, finding the way it was approached seems like putting the cart before the horse.

While that is technically true of the placement of the chapter, the reader should be assured that the author has an argument for the Bountiful in question. Indeed, the next chapter is also by Aston. In original publication order, the next chapter appeared the year before this one, and this one is built upon it. It should be remembered that the placement in this book is conceptual and not based on original publication dates.

The specifics of this chapter are based upon the identification of Bountiful as Khor Kharfot, in present-day Oman. This chapter examines the two options of how the final destination was reached. As Aston explains, “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” (p. 212).

The examination of the two is detailed and the arguments important. While it is a very small portion of the story of the journey of the Lehites, it is a reminder that these descriptions of the Book of Mormon are sufficient to create a rather explicit map of the path that the Lehites traveled. Aston concludes:

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. (p. 220)

Chapter 6: Nephi’s Bountiful

There have been two proposed candidates for the Old World Bountiful in the Book of Mormon. In this chapter, Warren Aston provides a close examination of the textual evidence and the physical features of the two proposed candidates.

Aston begins, as he should, with the text itself. Most Book of Mormon readers will assume that there is little to go on, but close reading of the text describing the whole of the journey provides clues. Aston begins with the travel from Nahom to Bountiful and then discusses the textual requirements for Bountiful.

Against those requirements, Aston tests the two proposed locations in remarkable detail. In addition to information on the location itself, Aston also provides information on the possibility of shipbuilding in that region, and what kind of ship might have been possible.

Conclusion

Most good reviews provide a critical assessment of the book in question. This review, as indicated at the outset, is more a general assessment of the value of the book rather than a critique. What, then, is the suggested value? Tremendous. For anyone interested in understanding how the Book of Mormon fits into history, it is indispensable. This book provides the best evidence that the criticism that the Book of Mormon has no archaeological evidence is based solely on issues relevant to the New World portion of the text.

The Book of Mormon cannot be split into two different historical issues, however. Regardless of any issues in discussing the historicity of the text after the arrival of the Lehites in the New World, assessment of the convergence between 1 Nephi and its real-world setting is highly detailed and conforms to known geographies, locations, and time periods.

Brant A. Gardner did his undergraduate work at Brigham Young University. He received a Master’s in Anthropology from the State University of New York at Albany, specializing in Mesoamerican ethnohistory. He is an executive editor for Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. He is the author of the six-volume Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, as well as Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon As History and The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon. His most recent books are Engraven Upon Plates, Printed Upon Paper: Textual and Narrative Structures of the Book of Mormon and The Plates of Mormon: A Book of Mormon Study Edition Based on Textual and Narrative Structures in the English Translation, each published by Kofford Books. Gardner has also contributed a Book of Mormon Minute to the ScripturePlus app, a condensed commentary on two or three verses at a time from the Book of Mormon.

1. 1 . Warren P. Aston, Godfrey J. Ellis, and Neal Rappleye, Into Arabia: Anchoring Nephi’s Account in the Real World (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2024), interpreterfoundation.org/books/into-arabia/.

Through a Glass Darkly: Was There a Twentieth-Century Corruption of 1 Corinthians 13:12?

Charles Dike

Abstract: This paper considers the well-known account of Paul having been struck blind on the road to Damascus and his equally well-known statement that “for now we see through a glass darkly.” Both are examined in light of a solar eclipse that occurred across the Mediterranean in AD 49. It is possible that Paul could have been referring to an experience of viewing the solar eclipse through a filter. The article provides an exploration of potential astronomical aids that may have been available to first-century viewers of the eclipse. Views of solar phenomenon are shown and then Jewish and Christian thoughts are discussed regarding glass, crystals, clouds, and the veil. At the end of the nineteenth century, a conflict arose among commentators about whether 1 Corinthians 13:12 was referring to looking at a reflection in a cloudy mirror or viewing an eclipse through darkened glass. Ultimately those advocating for an interpretation of his words as referring to a reflection in a blurry mirror prevailed. However, based on new information and on the religious context, the darkened-glass interpretation appears to be the correct one. The paper concludes with the presentation of a Jewish perspective of the darkened glass, which, typologically, equates to a veil.

This article explores Paul’s letters to the Corinthians from several perspectives. First, that he was temporarily blinded by looking upon the resurrected Christ. Second, that he was steeped in Jewish traditions, having been trained by Gamaliel, a well-respected Jewish Pharisee and rabbi. Third, that he lived in a Roman- and Greek-influenced world. Fourth, and most significantly, that the whole of the Ancient Near East had witnessed a “ring of fire” solar eclipse on 20 May AD 49 approximately four years before he wrote his letter to the Corinthians.

A Brief Overview of Saul/Paul’s Blindness

When travelling to Damascus to persecute the believers of Christ, Saul was interrupted when “suddenly there shined about him a bright light from heaven: and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?’” (Acts 9:3–4).1 Paul learned that day the cost of looking at the resurrected Lord face to face—he went blind and remained so for three days (v. 9:9).2 Paul appears to have been exhausted by his experience. This is suggested by verse 22 where he “increased the more in strength.” Finally, Ananias was instructed of the Lord to lay his hands on Paul and heal his blindness.

In about AD 57, while addressing a hostile mob in Jerusalem, Paul stated,

I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. (Acts 22:3)

Paul then proceeded to relate his experience on the road to Damascus (Acts 22:6–17). Moreover, everyone who had heard of Paul would have known of the cause of his blindness and his miraculous healing. Paul is said to have suffered from some infirmity throughout the rest of his life (2 Corinthians 12:7, Galatians 4:13, 14). What that infirmity consisted of is a matter of speculation. One possibility is that Paul’s eyes never completely recovered from his experience. In his epistle to the Galatians he uses his eyes as evidence that Jesus Christ lives and was crucified: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?” (Galatians 3:1).3 Later he wrote, “I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me” (Galatians 4:15). This suggests that Paul’s eyes may have been allowed to remain somewhat damaged after the laying on of hands by Ananias to serve as a reminder and as a witness to Paul’s audience that he had seen the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus.4

Paul’s Solar Eclipse

On 20 May AD 49, an annular eclipse of the sun occurred. This eclipse has been documented by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), who show that the path of the eclipse ran across Africa through the ancient Levant and on to Asia as can be seen in figure 1.5 Figure 2 shows a close-up of this path, which ran just north of Jerusalem and right over Antioch. The eclipse allowed observers to see the edge of the sun around the moon, which is known as a “ring of fire” eclipse (figure 3).6 It was not a total eclipse because the moon was unable to block the sun completely—the moon was simply too far from the earth. This made it particularly dangerous to look at without some form of eye protection.7 Observers would have watched as darkness descended and would have been aware of a sharp drop in temperature. For those in the center of the eclipse path, the event would have lasted over four minutes. As it ended, they would again feel the heat of the day as the moon no longer blocked the sun.

Is it possible that this commonly shared event may have been on Paul’s mind when he wrote to the Corinthians and that many in his audience would have understood any allusions to the eclipse?8 Modern readers of his letters do not have the benefit of considering this possibility if they are not aware of the eclipse having occurred in that location and at that time just four years earlier.

Paul’s First Letter to the People at Corinth

As an apostle, Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians in about AD 52 or 53.9 It was intended to correct some improper behavior among the Corinthians, instruct them in proper behavior, and expound on general Christian principles. Paul is speaking on practical matters and pulling on both personal and shared experiences. Paul reminds the listeners that he has seen Jesus Christ and been tasked to instruct them: “Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1). This verse provides an authoritative context based on his experiences and sets the stage for his later comments in this same letter. He offers his well-known, but widely less understood, metaphor: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Many of the people could recall Paul’s face-to-face experience with Christ and also their experience seeing a ring-of-fire solar eclipse some four years earlier.

Paul makes one last comment regarding seeing the resurrected Christ as he works toward the conclusion of the letter: “And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time” (1 Corinthians 15:8). He then tells his audience that “there are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another” (1 Corinthians 15:40). Paul’s audience can conclude that the resurrected Christ is as bright as the sun and that Christ is the “Sun of righteousness” (Malachi 4:2).

Whether Paul was in Jerusalem or Antioch in May AD 49 when the ring of fire occurred, he would have experienced the impact of the event. The Corinthians would only have experienced a partial eclipse.10 Paul, the Corinthians, and the population in the path of the eclipse would have needed some kind of eye protection to look toward the sun. One possibility is that some may have used either polished obsidian or deeply colored glass to protect their eyes. When Paul later mentioned the darkened glass, most of the Corinthians would have already been familiar with that glass. Pliny described just how popular the darkened glass was.

Materials Available to Paul for Solar Observation

Pliny the Elder (AD 23/24–79) was a contemporary of Paul and an astute observer of science and nature. Among his other works, he produced an encyclopedia known as Natural History.11 Pliny wrote of obsidian, a naturally occurring volcanic glass that he called a stone, and darkened man-made glass which he called “obsian”:

In our classification of glass we include also “obsian” ware, so named from its resemblance to the stone found by Obsius in Ethiopia. This stone is very dark in colour and sometimes translucent, but has a cloudier appearance than glass, so that when it is used for mirrors attached to walls it reflects shadows rather than images. Gems are frequently made of it, and we have seen also the solid obsidian statues of the deified Augustus, for the substance can yield pieces bulky enough for this purpose. Augustus himself dedicated as a curiosity four elephants of obsidian in the temple of Concord, while the Emperor Tiberius for his part restored to the cult of the Sun-god at Heliopolis an obsidian statue of Menelaus which he found included in a legacy from one Seius who had been governor of Egypt. This statue proves that the origin of the stone, which is nowadays misrepresented because of its similarity to the glass, is of an earlier date. . . . There is also the artificial “obsian” glass which is used as a material for tableware, this being produced by a coloring process, . . . There is, furthermore, opaque white glass and others that reproduce the appearance of fluorspar, blue sapphires or lapis lazuli, and, indeed glass exists in any color. There is no other material nowadays that is more pliable or more adaptable, even to painting. However, the most highly valued glass is colourless and transparent, as closely as possible resembling rock-crystal. But . . . for making drinking vessels the use of glass has indeed ousted metals such as gold and silver.12

What Pliny was telling the world was that two different materials were available, obsidian and glass, either of which could have been used for eye protection. Evidence points to the ancients using eye protection when looking at the sun. There is also evidence, presented below, that the people used obsidian for windows. Further, Pliny claimed that “obsian” (certainly glass colored black) was so common as to be used for tableware (figure 4) and glass had, in fact, replaced gold and silver for making drinking vessels. Pliny, in a few words, demonstrates that while artists in his day worked complex designs in obsidian (figure 5), that material was confused with darkened glass.

It has been documented that there were many dark obsidian objects that were essentially flat and had been polished on both sides.13 Through experimentation I have determined that they were thick enough to block out much of the sun’s light. A claimed obsidian revetment slab fragment (first century), currently held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, has properties that argue it is a panel designed to block most of the sunlight (see figure 5). The obsidian is black and about 5/8 inches thick—typical of solar filters. The depth of the carved pattern is constant, something that one would prefer if sunlight was designed to pass through it. The museum describes the obsidian in this manner:

Obsidian, a natural volcanic glass, was used by the Romans for sculpture, vessels, and—as here—decorative panels. The ivy and vine tendrils originally may have been filled with inlays in contrasting colors, as in the case of the obsidian cup with Egyptianizing ritual scenes found at Stabiae and now in the Archaeological Museum, Naples.14

This is a piece of art; it is a backlit decorative panel designed to enhance the carved pattern using sunlight. Any artisan would be constantly checking for the proper thickness of the block while it was being polished because obsidian transparency is variable. The artisan must polish the obsidian to a depth that is comfortable for viewing. Whether the design is carved first or last, an object is created that incidentally protects one’s eyes from harsh sunlight, as seen in figure 6.

Sophisticated Solar Observations

There is evidence that observations of sunspots and eclipses were common among ancient astronomers. F. Richard Stephenson commented that “many valuable observations of [solar] eclipses—both timed and untimed—are extant in the history of certain early cultures: almost exclusively Babylon, China, Europe and the Arab dominions.”15 In particular, the Babylonians frequently recorded lunar and solar eclipses. Zoltan Simon speculates that kings may have been observing solar eclipses using dark glass as early as the Old Babylon Dynasty (roughly beginning in 1900 BC).16

A Babylonian eclipse

One Babylonian astronomical tablet contained a record of the solar eclipse of 15 April 136 BC. Stephenson also stated that the following example is “without parallel over the whole of the pre-telescopic period. Not only did the astronomers time its various phases, they also noted that the eclipse was total.”17

(Year) 175, month XII2. The 29th (day), at 24 time-deg after sunrise, solar eclipse; when it began on the south-west side, in 18 time-deg of daytime it was entirely total; Venus, Mercury and the Normal Stars were visible; Jupiter and Mars, which were in their period of invisibility, were visible in that eclipse. It threw off (the shadow) from south-west to north-east; 35 time-deg (duration) of onset, maximal phase and clearing, (trans. H Hunger).18

The Babylonian astronomers knew where to expect four planets in the daytime. (Jupiter on this day was so close to the sun as to appear to be nearly touching it.) This shows a good deal of knowledge about the observable solar system, and one can be sure they anticipated the solar eclipse based on their studies. They also lived in a time and place where obsidian and darkened glass were available to them and artists were working in those mediums. It is a short and plausible step to produce an obsidian disk to protect their eyes while observing the sun (see figure 6).

Sunspot observation

“The first clear mention of a sunspot in Western literature is circa 300 BC, by ancient Greek scholar Theophrastus, student of Plato and Aristotle and successor to the latter.”19 By 28 BC, Chinese astronomers regularly recorded sunspot observations in official imperial records.20 Sunspots can sometimes be seen without a telescope and eye protection through the haze of the day.21 Clearly, over time, this could lead to eye damage. Unfortunately, the method used to see the sunspots by the ancient professionals on a regular basis has not been found, although some have suggested that using reflecting pools as eye protection could be possible. This seems unlikely because water is highly reflective.22

Altogether, there is significant evidence of an understanding that filters were needed and were available in the Ancient Near East.23 If so, this might have influenced Paul’s writing, providing a common experience that would have resonated with his readers or listeners.

Jewish Thought on Dark Glass and a Veil

Because Paul was “a Jew . . . brought up in [Jerusalem] at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers” (Acts 22:3), it is important to see what may have influenced him from a Jewish perspective.

The tractate Yevamot (Brother’s Widow) 49b:10 in the Babylonian Talmud reads:

The Gemara [a rabbinical commentary on the Mishnah] resolves the first contradiction: “I saw the Lord” is to be understood as it is taught in a baraita [ancient Jewish tradition]: All of the prophets observed their prophecies through an obscure looking glass [aspaklaria], i.e., their prophecies were given as metaphoric visions but were not a direct perception of the matter. However, Moses our master observed his prophecies through a clear looking glass, i.e., he gained a direct and accurate perception of the matter.24

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote in 2009 that “the midrash, in the deceptively simple way that it teaches its deepest and most subtle insights, is suggesting that truth on Earth can never aspire to the pristine clarity of truth in heaven. We see ‘as through a glass, darkly.’”25 Further, Sacks indicates that “in Aramaic, Be’ispaklaria she’einah me’ira: Yevamot 49b, Sanhedrin 97b . . . seems to be the source of the famous phrase used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:12.”26

Regarding the Sanhedrin 97b:11, Rabbi Steinsaltz states:

The Gemara answers: It is not difficult; this statement of [Rabbi] Abaye refers to the thirty-six righteous people who view the Divine Presence through a luminous crystal [be’ispaklarya], and that statement of [Rabbi] Rava refers to the multitudes who view the Divine Presence through a crystal that is not luminous.27

If so, that introduces another possible meaning for the Koine Greek word katoptron. Paul may have been mentioning a specific type of crystal in 2 Corinthians 3:18 and considered katoptron a reasonable Greek substitute for his Aramaic word. This verse, in context, is:

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Corinthians 3: 12–18)

We see in the Corinthian letters similar parallel themes wherein observers need an object interposed between them and an intense light:

- Paul looking toward the Lord was blinded without eye protection from the Lord’s glory (Acts 9:8–9).

- A sinner looking toward the Lord is unable to see him clearly as if through darkened glass (1 Corinthians 13: 12).

- The minds of the children of Israel were blinded and required a veil to look on Moses (2 Corinthians 3: 13).

- The hearts of the children of Israel were veiled so they could not see Christ in the writings of Moses (2 Corinthians 3: 15).

We see these parallel themes in Jewish traditions as mentioned in the Gemara:

- All the Israelite prophets observed their prophecies through an obscure looking-glass.

- Multitudes view the Divine Presence through a crystal that is not luminous.

- Thirty-six righteous people view the Divine Presence through a luminous crystal.

For a Jew, the multitudes would look through a crystal to view the Divine Presence. For the eclipse, if my hypothesis is correct, some of the observers would look through a darkened glass to see the sun.

The Kefer Malkat is a prayer in poetic form that contains praises of God and requests for forgiveness. It is recited by some communities on Yom Kippur after the evening service. Chapter 7:1 reads, “Thou art Light celestial, and the eyes of the pure shall behold Thee But the clouds of sin shall veil Thee from the eyes of the sinners.” This prayer was put into poetic form between c. 1040–c. 1060 CE by Solomon ibn Gabirol.28 Compare this to Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 3:12–16, above.

We have seen the obscure looking-glass in Jewish tradition, the clouds of sin, unrighteousness, and the veil serving a similar purpose. Paul states of the Israelites with Moses that “their minds were blinded” (2 Corinthians 3:12). This obliged Moses to temporarily wear a veil after meeting God. Similarly, the cloud hides God from sinners precisely so that they will not be destroyed by his glory. Even Moses could not look on the full glory of God (Exodus 33:18–23). But if we have enough faith, like the brother of Jared, the cloud/veil will be removed (Ether 3:6–13—see especially verse 9). Paul refers to these clouds in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. (1 Corinthians 10:1–2)

This verse may be a lead-in to Paul’s theme of ultimately seeing God face to face in 1 Corinthians 13:12. Matthew, Mark, and Luke also mention the cloud at the transfiguration. Each story is somewhat different, which confuses what exactly is happening. One might suspect that Peter, James, and John were able to traverse part of the cloud (Luke 9:34) in order to see Moses, Elias, and the transfigured Christ. But this speculation is beyond the scope of the article. The three scriptures cited below show that the Father remained in the cloud and was not visible to the disciples:

While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (Matthew 17:5)

And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. (Mark 9:7)

While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. (Luke 9:34–35)

It is the cloud that hides the glorified Jesus from those with a lack of faith. Matthew states, “Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64; see also Acts 1:9). Angels, too, pass through the clouds that block our view of the heavenly realms.

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians before he wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

The idea that summarizes the latter book, that we shall be raised incorruptible, is reflected in 1 Thessalonians. What we see is a barrier through which we must pass in order to see the Lord face to face. The temple veil appears to represent the clouds of sin that obscure our view of the Lord. In a parallel fashion, the darkened glass of 1 Corinthians 13:12 appears to be a representation to Paul of the clouds—for now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face. This is that parallel that Paul draws in 2 Corinthians 3:12–18.

Commentators on Mirrors Versus Glass

Having argued that Paul was aware of darkened glass being available to view the sun, I now turn to commentators referring to 1 Corinthians 13:12. A debate began in the nineteenth century as to whether Paul was mentioning darkened glass or if he was writing about a mirror.

Nineteenth-century commentators on mirrors

Barnes’s Notes on the Bible from 1884,

Many have supposed . . . that the idea here is that of seeing objects by reflection from a mirror, which reflects only their imperfect forms. But this interpretation does not well accord with the apostle’s idea of seeing things obscurely. The most natural idea is that of seeing objects by an imperfect medium, by looking “through” something in contemplating them. . . .

It is, therefore, probable that [Paul] refers to those transparent substances which the ancients had, and which they used in their windows occasionally; such as thin plates of horn, transparent stone, etc. Windows were often made of the “lapis specularis” described by Pliny (XXXVI, 22), which was pellucid, and which admitted of being split into thin “laminae” or scales, probably the same as mica. Humboldt mentions such kinds of stone as being used in South America in church windows—Bloomfield. It is not improbable, I think, that even in the time of Paul the ancients had the knowledge of glass, though it was probably at first very imperfect and obscure.

Barnes then rather oddly, in the same paragraph, states,

It is known that glass was in quite common use about the commencement of the Christian era. In the reign of Tiberius an artist had his house demolished for making glass malleable. About this time drinking vessels were made commonly of glass; and glass bottles for holding wine and flowers were in common use. . . . There is, therefore, no impropriety in supposing that Paul here may have alluded to the imperfect and discolored glass which was then in extensive use; for we have no reason to suppose that it was then as transparent as that which is now made. It was, doubtless, an imperfect and obscure medium, and, therefore, well adapted to illustrate the nature of our knowledge here compared with what it wilt be in heaven.29

I agree with Barnes’s assessment of the functionality of the imperfect medium. Obsidian is a natural glass that was readily available to people in Paul’s time, and they could shape it as they desired. Glass was also readily available. Barnes quoted XXXVI, 22, but did not reference XXXVI, 67, which is a superior chapter in regard to available transparent materials. See my earlier Pliny quote and the excellent glass work shown in figure 4.

In 1889, Marcus Dods captures the cultural context of what would be expected of a Jew in Paul’s day. Paul was, after all, a well-schooled Jew. Dods is arguing in favor of Barnes’s opinion. Significantly, Dods uses a statement by rabbis in defense of Paul’s darkened glass.

[T]here is a great difference of opinion as to what Paul means by seeing now “through a glass, darkly.” The word here rendered “glass” is used either for the dim metallic mirror used by the ancients, or for the semi-translucent talc which was their substitute for glass in windows. Of these two meanings it is the latter which in this passage gives the best sense. It was a common figure among the rabbis to illustrate dimness of vision. If they wished to denote direct and clear vision, they spoke of seeing a thing face to face; if they wished to denote uncertain and hazy vision, they spoke of seeing through a glass—that is, through a substance only a little more transparent than our own dimmed glass, through which you can see objects, but cannot tell exactly what they are or who the persons are who are moving. . . . The rabbis, too, had another saying . . . . “Even as a king, who with common people talks through a veil, so that he sees them, but they do not see him, but when his friend comes to speak to him, he removes this veil, so that he might see him face to face, even so did God speak to Moses apparently, and not darkly.”30

G. G. Findlay, in 1897, missed a crucial Pliny reference and so he assumed that Paul was discussing a poor-quality mirror. “[A]ncient mirrors made of burnished metal—a specialty of [Corinth}—were poor reflectors . . . εσοπτρον = κατοπτρον [esoptron = katoptron].”

That “esoptron equals katoptron” may be specious reasoning. Findlay complains that several other commentators “adopt[ed] the local sense of διά, ’through a mirror’ in allusion to the appearance of the imaged object as behind the reflector: but it is the dimness, not the displacement, of the image that [Paul] is thinking of.” Findlay’s anecdotal knowledge causes him to prefer a mirror (a logical fallacy) wherein he opines that displacement is somehow relevant and that usage of the local sense of διά must be wrong. He might have been familiar with Barnes’s work in support of darkened glass produced more than thirty years before his own work, but Dods’s work was later, so he did not see the rabbinical comments.31

Twentieth-century opinions regarding the mirror

F. F. Bruce adopted Findlay’s opinion about the poor mirror and used the terms dimly and dim in his commentary. Bruce again copied him by stating that katoptron is synonymous with esoptron.32

N. T. Wright writes,

Paul wants the Corinthians, above all, to learn to think in terms of God’s future and its relation to the present. This, in part, is a matter of getting them to think Jewishly, instead of in the pagan thought-forms they tend so easily to lapse into.33

He then states, “The second image is of the mirror. Mirrors were made in Corinth.”34 This is the Findlay argument. That mirrors were made in Corinth in no way demands that mirrors were being referred to in Paul’s writings.

Thomas R. Schreiner has little more to offer. He also uses the mirror imagery.35 As pointed out above, the early commentators seem to have overlooked Pliny’s comments on obsidian and glass. Apart from Marcus Dods, the Jewish connection was lost. The idea of those who were interpreting Paul’s glass as something to look through has disappeared from commentaries. The commentators above are in chronological order, though that may have little to do with the ultimate outcome of the glass versus mirror debate. In the end, the mirrors won out. The New King James Version of 1 Corinthians 13:12 reads, “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face” (emphasis added).

Those commentators who equate esoptron with katoptron may not be correct. The problem lies in them claiming these are terms for mirror. Esoptron is more likely a term for glass. Compare James 1:23, “a man beholding his natural face in a glass.” James is discussing a mirror. Paul, while using the same word, appears to be describing a different function. Paul uses both—while discussing glass (ἔσοπτρον) in 1 Corinthians 13:12 and then using the other (κάτοπτρον) in 2 Corinthians 3:18. One has to question why Paul would use two obscure words if they meant precisely the same thing. I believe that esoptron (glass?) was used in a profane, worldly context in viewing the sun whereas katoptron (crystal?) was being used in a sacred context in looking upon God. This accords with Paul’s Jewish heritage.

That doesn’t complete the challenge that these early commentators had. Not only did they not demonstrate knowledge of obsidian and darkened glass, but they could also not have had knowledge of the solar eclipse passing directly over Israel on 20 May AD 49. A century would pass after Findlay’s commentary before that critical piece of information would be available from NASA. The issue appears to be that the commentators did not sufficiently investigate what Paul, a Jew who recognized the Messiah, could mean by the darkened glass statement.

Over the years, commentators have drifted toward the view that Paul was talking about a mirror. It may well be that this was done without considering additional information unavailable to the commentators in the late nineteenth century. Unfortunately, some versions of 1 Corinthians 13:12 have changed the word glass to mirror, which destroys the typology of experiencing God through a veil. See, for example, the following Bible editions:

- American Standard Version: For now we see in a mirror, darkly;

- English Standard Version: For now we see in a mirror dimly,

- New International Version: For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror;

- New King James Version: For now we see in a mirror, dimly,

- New Living Translation: Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror.

Paul’s message aligns the glass to a veil rather than a mirror, draws comparisons to Moses in 2 Corinthians 3:12–18, and agrees with rabbinical thought. This new information may clarify the meaning of 1 Corinthians 13:12 and change the perceived meaning of a couple of obscure Koine Greek words.

Summary and Conclusion

Having personally witnessed the solar eclipse that travelled across the United States on 21 August 2017 and viewing it through a dark filter, I wondered if Paul had also seen one and used darkened glass to protect his eyes. I was surprised to discover that Paul had an opportunity to experience a ring-of-fire eclipse just a few years before writing 1 Corinthians. Indeed, the whole of the Mediterranean world witnessed that eclipse on 20 May AD 49.

Paul being blinded on the road to Damascus left an imprint on his letters to the Corinthians. The Corinthians would have seen a partial eclipse and would have been aware of the ring of fire in 49 AD. When Paul spoke of darkened glass in 1 Corinthians 13:12, his audience could relate that glass to both obsidian and the other colored glass common within the Roman empire. Moreover, Paul pulled from the traditions of the Jews in equating the glass to the veil in the temple. And so, his argument was that, for now, we cannot abide the full glory of God (or his complete knowledge), but that someday we will be able to see the Lord face to face and comprehend the full brightness of his glory.

Charles E. Dike joined the Navy to see the world and joined the Church just as he was being discharged after six years of active service. He attended BYU and received a BSEE in 1977, then while raising a family, completed an MSEE degree (1984). He spent roughly thirty-five years in design and research of integrated circuits. Much of his later work entailed on-chip security for microprocessors. He retired in 2014 and has been exploring technical details in scriptures since then with his primary focus on the Book of Mormon.

1 . It is often believed that Saul received a change of name to Paul. In reality, the two are the same name, Saul being the Hebrew form and Paul the Roman form. See, for example, “Why Did God Change Saul’s Name to Paul?,” Catholic Answers, catholic.com/qa/why-did-god-change-sauls-name-to-paul.

2 . Saul also went without food or drink at that time. This has a parallel to Moses on Sinai (Exodus 34:28). There was opportunity for Saul to receive instruction from the Lord, much like Moses did on Sinai.

3 . In Ephesians 1:18 Paul uses the phrase, “The eyes of your understanding being enlightened.” This may be an allusion to his eye damage as a witness to Christ’s calling.

4 . N. T. Wright suggests that plucking out eyes could have been a well-known metaphor in the first century that has been lost to us. If so, it is impressively apropos. N. T. Wright, Paul: A Biography (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2018), 123. Regarding Paul’s ailment, Jerald C. Joersz states, “The proposals are numerous, such as epilepsy, hysteria, depression, severe eye trouble, malaria, leprosy, a speech impediment and rheumatism. The sheer number and variety of these speculations suggest that we probably will never be able to identify with certainty what Paul’s problem was.” Jerald C. Joersz, “What was Paul’s Ailment?,” Lutheran Witness, 4 April 2011, witness.lcms.org/2011/what
-was-pauls-ailment-4-2011/.

5 . Fred Espenak and Jean Meeus, Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses: -1999 to + 3000 (NASA TP-2006-214141, October 2006), eclipse.gsfc.nasa
.gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Maps-05.pdf.

6 . The eclipse in the United States on 21 August 2017 completely blocked out the sun because the moon was closer to the earth on that day than on 20 May AD 49. The 8 April 2024 eclipse was similar to Paul’s eclipse.

7 . See Mark Littmann, Fred Espenak, and Ken Willcox, Totality: Eclipses of the Sun (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 153–60, google.com/books/edition
/Totality/u3iPPc7Q9b0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA153. The authors explain the dangers of viewing the sun during partial and annular eclipses, noting that it requires special eye protection or indirect viewing to avoid eye damage.

8 . Frank F. Judd Jr., “The Epistles of the Apostle Paul: An Overview,” in New Testament History, Culture, and Society, ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2019), 424–25.

9 . There was at least one letter to the Corinthians prior to the letter labelled 1 Corinthians. See 1 Corinthians 5:9.

10 . Corinth was approximately 750 miles west of Antioch and 630 miles from the edge of totality (defined here as the moon being 100% within the perimeter of the sun’s photosphere). Even so, they would have been aware of the eclipse, though they would not have experienced totality. See figure 1, where NASA marks 50% visibility of the eclipse with dotted green lines. Anyone within this very wide area would have been aware of the eclipse.

11 . Pliny, Natural History, Book II: 24, www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D24.

12 . Pliny, Natural History, Book XXXVI: 67, attalus.org/translate/pliny_hn36b.html.

13 . Elizabeth Healey, “Not Only a Tool-Stone: Other Ways of Using Obsidian in the Near East,” Journal of Lithic Studies 8, no. 3 (2021): 43, academia
.edu/85772831/Not_only_a_tool_stone_Other_ways_of_using_obsidian
_in_the_Near_East. Healey mentions that mirrors have been around for 9,000 years. She points out that “Objects with a flat, smooth and very highly polished, reflective surface, usually circular or sub-circular in shape, are often described as mirrors even though they do not reflect an image in the same way as a silvered glass mirror does. . . . There seem to be two types, one on chunky blanks, the other with two more-or-less parallel surfaces, a sub-variety of which has a strap handle.” Mirrors don’t need polished parallel surfaces—these would have an additional use as a light filter.

14 . “Obsidian Revetment Slab Fragment,” Greek and Roman Art, The Collection, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, metmuseum.org/art/collection/search
/250493.

15 . F. Richard Stephenson, “Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation,” Astronomy & Geophysics 44, no. 2 (April 2003): 2.24, doi.org/10.1046/j.1468
-4004.2003.44222.x.

16 . Zoltan A. Simon, “Astronomy and Ancient Eclipse Art—Is It a Science?,” Art & Humanities Open Access Journal 2, no. 5 (2018): 283, medcraveonline.com/AHOAJ/astronomy-and-ancient-eclipse-artndashis-it-a-science.html.

17 . Stephenson, “Historical Eclipses,” 2.24. Probably the reason this report was “without parallel” was because the eclipsing moon was at perigee—the closest distance to the earth that the moon ever comes. The ancients recognized this as a unique solar eclipse. My Starry Night® Enthusiast 7 program (Simulation Curriculum Corp., Minnetonka, MN) allows me to see the sky in 136 BC on my computer. That day Jupiter was so close to the sun (about 2 arcminutes) that it was partly occluded by the moon during the eclipse (subject to the accuracy of the program).

18 . Stephenson, “Historical Eclipses,” 2.24–25.

19 . “Sunspot,” Wikipedia, wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot.

20 . Robert K. G. Temple, “The Observation of Sunspots,” UNESCO Courier 41, no. 10 (1988): 9, unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000081672.

21 . J. E. Mossman, “A Comprehensive Search for Sunspots Without the Aid of a Telescope, 1981–1982,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 30 (March 1989): 59–64, adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989QJRAS..30...59M.

22 . Rosdi Kasim, “Is it safe to watch solar eclipse’s reflection in water?” StackEchange, last updated 2 March 2016, astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/13948/is-it-safe-to-watch-solar-eclipses-reflection-in-water.

23 . Polished “mirrors” of obsidian are known to have existed at least seven centuries before Christ. Stuart Campbell et al., “The Mirror, the Magus and More: Reflections on John Dee’s Obsidian Mirror,” Antiquity 95, no. 384 (December 2021): 1547–64, doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.132.

24 . Yevamot 49b:10, The William Davidson Talmud (Koren-Steinsaltz), Sefaria, sefaria.org/Yevamot.49b.10?lang=bi.

25 . Jonathan Sacks, “Vayechi, The White Lie,” in Covenant and Conversation; Genesis; The Book of the Beginnings (2009), 28, sefaria.org/Covenant_and_Conversation%3B_Genesis%3B_The_Book_of_the_Beginnings%2C_Vayechi%2C_The_White_Lie.28?lang=bi.

26 . Sacks, “Vayechi, The White Lie,” 28n10.

27 . William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, Sanhedrin 97b:11, sefaria
.org/Sanhedrin.97b.11-12?ven=english|William_Davidson_Edition_-_English&lang=bi. Ether 3:1 has the brother of Jared producing sixteen small stones “white and clear, even as transparent glass” in anticipation of the Lord turning them into luminous stones.

28 . Israel Zangwill, trans., Selected Religious Poems of Solomon Ibn Gabirol, (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1923), Keter Malkhut 7, sefaria.org/Keter_Malkhut?tab=contents.

29 . Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1857), 274, books.google
.com/books?id=P5csAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover.

30 . Marcus Dods, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1889), 305–6, babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b5421133&seq
=317.

31 . G. G. Findlay, “St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians,” in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 2 (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897), 901, archive.org/details/expositorsgreekt02nico/page/900
/mode/2up and babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101075386480&seq=
901.

32 . F. F. Bruce, The New Century Bible Commentary: I & II Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 128–29, archive.org/details/12corinthians0000bruc/page/128/mode/2up?view=theater. On p. 193, Bruce again follows Findlay by stating that katoptron in 2 Corinthians 3:18 is synonymous with esoptron in 1 Corinthians 13:12.

33 . N. T. Wright, 1 Corinthians for Everyone (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2023), 121.

34 . Wright, 1 Corinthians for Everyone, 122.

35 . Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 281–82.

Figure 1. Path of the annular eclipse on 20 May AD 49. Image from NASA, eclipse.gsfc.nasa
.gov/5MCSEmap/0001-0100/49-05-20.gif.

Figure 2. Close-up of the path of the eclipse as drawn by the author. The area between the two bands is the ring-of-fire area. The bands mark where the Moon’s coverage remains within the perimeter of the Sun’s photosphere. Those outside the bands would see a partial eclipse.

Figure 3. Ring-of-fire annular eclipse at Canton, Ohio, 8 April 2024. Photograph by Whitney Zunic Deich.

Figure 4. Roman 1st half of first century AD. Left to right: mosaic glass ribbed bowl (millefiori bowl), bluish-green ribbed glass bowl, dark-blue ribbed glass bowl. Metropolitan Museum of Art, metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/245190.

Figure 5. Roman first century AD obsidian. Metropolitan Museum of Art, metmuseum.org
/art/collection/search/250493.

Figure 6. The Sun just above a tree line seen through an obsidian disk on a hazy day. The green tint is indicative of magnetite in the obsidian. Photo by the author.

The Covenant Path of the Ancient Temple in 2 Nephi 31:19–20

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw

Abstract: In this article, I discuss how the ancient analogue to what President Nelson has called “the covenant path” might be seen in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere in scripture not so much as a journey of covenant-keeping that takes us to the temple but as a journey that takes us through the temple. Throughout the Book of Mormon, observant readers will find not only the general outline of the doctrine of Christ but also corresponding details about the covenant path as represented in temple layout and furnishings. Nowhere is this truth better illustrated than in 2 Nephi 31:19–20 where Nephi summarizes the sequence of priesthood ordinances that prepare disciples to enter God’s presence. In doing so, he masterfully weaves in related imagery—guiding readers on an end-to-end tour of the temple while reminding them of the three cardinal virtues of faith, hope, and charity. The doctrinal richness of these two verses is a compelling demonstration of the value of President Nelson’s encouragement to study the biblical context of modern temples as a source of enlightenment about the meaning of the ordinances. This essay also suggests that the foundational elements of Latter-day Saint temple rites are ancient and were given to Joseph Smith very early in his ministry as he translated the Book of Mormon. It is hoped that a closer look at the beautiful imagery in 2 Nephi 31 will provide profitable reflection for readers.

From the time of his first public address to the Church after becoming president of the Church, Russell M. Nelson highlighted the importance of personal progression on the “covenant path.”1 Latter-day Saint temple symbolism reflects the idea that the nature of progress on the covenant path is incremental. It employs an invariable succession of covenants,2 names,3 relationships,4 roles,5 virtues,6 ordinances and priesthoods,7 and types of clothing8 as figurative signposts9 corresponding to different stages of existence and their associated glories. These signposts are accompanied by a series of tokens, signs, names, and key words. Symbolism of this sort is not modern in origin but was once employed in a range of religious settings throughout the ancient Near East and in early Christianity.10

President Nelson has also taught that temple worship is ancient. Going further he said that knowing that “temple rites are ancient . . . is thrilling and another evidence of their authenticity.” Temple worship is a “sacred and ageless work.”11

Figure 1 shows, at the left, an illustration of the covenant path from a Church magazine.12 It represents the path as a modern highway that passes through milestones representing priesthood ordinances. Such illustrations, conveying as they should the central role of ordinances in our progression toward eternal life, can be helpful teaching aids for modern readers. However, since the ordinances go back to the beginning of time, it may be useful to think about how the covenant path was envisioned anciently. The ancient analogue to the covenant path would not have been imagined as something that resembles a modern drive on a highway to the temple. Instead, what clues we possess indicate that it was often seen as a walking journey through the temple.

For instance, John W. Welch has pointed attention to the research of Old Testament scholar Mary Douglas.13 In a brilliant leap of imagination, Douglas realized that the exposition of the laws contained in the book of Leviticus could be best understood when read as if they provided a tour through the ancient Israelite temple. The tour, illustrated in the center and right portions of figure 1, begins with a counterclockwise movement through the courtyard. Then it is followed by movement through the first veil into the Holy Place and then through the second veil into the Holy of Holies. Through this journey, temple worshippers who study Leviticus are exposed to the setting and context for the laws that were given to God’s people anciently. Thus, in this instance, the covenant path leads through the temple rather than to the temple.

One of the most important features of progress through the different spaces of sacredness in the endowment (whether represented as separate rooms or as different phases of existence within the same room) is that movement from one place to another is carefully controlled. The sequence of movement is always the same and is closely regulated by the temple workers, essentially “human cherubim,”14 who are assigned to lead temple worshipers in and out of each sacred space.

Following the example of Adam and Eve after the Fall, members of the endowment company are required to make covenants to keep the laws that apply to the next space they are preparing to enter before they are allowed to move there. For example, only those who have covenanted to keep the law of obedience and sacrifice are allowed to enter the space representing the mortal world, for those “who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:24). Likewise, only those who make a covenant to keep the law of the gospel while they are in the space representing the mortal world are allowed to enter the terrestrial world.

The principles of order that govern progress in the endowment are applicable to all ordinances, from baptism to the highest rites of the temple and beyond. Summarizing the progressive nature of the Nauvoo temple ordinances as they were introduced on 4 May 1842, Elder Willard Richards wrote that they included15
washings, anointings, endowments, and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which anyone is enabled to secure the fulness of those blessings which have been prepared for the Church of the Firstborn, and come up and abide in the presence of the Elohim in the eternal worlds.

Faith, Hope, and Charity as the Principal Rungs
on the Ladder of Exaltation

The orderly progression of Saints toward eternal life was often symbolized as a ladder of exaltation, drawn in part from the story of Jacob’s ladder in Genesis.16 Faith, hope, and charity—what eventually came to be known as the three theological virtues—were associated in the writings of early Christian teachers such as John Climacus, Saint Augustine, and Saint Bernard of Clairvaux with the three principal rungs on Jacob’s ladder. The ladder was a symbol of the general process of spiritual progression by which the disciple, enabled by the grace of God, climbs to perfection. Depictions such as the one in figure 2 also showed the fate of those who failed to hold firmly to the ladder as they continued their ascent. As in Lehi’s vision of the Tree of Life, some, “after they had tasted of the fruit . . . fell away into forbidden paths and were lost” (1 Nephi 8:28).17

Table 1 illustrates how graphical depictions of the three principal rungs of the ladder in medieval times correspond to textual illustrations in the New Testament and in modern scripture. The table demonstrates that scriptural catalogs of virtues, far from being a randomly assembled laundry list, were usually deliberately structured to form an ordered progression leading to a culminating point.18 In Greek, Jewish, and Christian literature, this rhetorical device is called sorites, climax, or gradatio.19 Bible scholar Harold Attridge explained the incremental, ladder-like property of the personal qualities given in such lists:20

In this “ladder” of virtues, each virtue is the means of producing the next (this sense of the Greek is lost in translation). All the virtues grow out of faith, and all culminate in love.

Though some elements of the four lists differ,21 the qualities of faith, hope (or its equivalents, patience and endurance), and charity are always present, forming, as Joseph Neyrey puts it, “the determining framework in which other virtues are inserted.”22 The idea of three key virtues embedded within a varying list of secondary attributes appears to be very old. Although the biblical triad of faith, hope, and charity is, strictly speaking, a New Testament construct, older Old Testament analogues have also been proposed.23

Figure 2. The Ladder of Virtues of St. John Climacus, north façade detail, Sucevita Monastery, Romania, 1602–1604. (Public domain.) The words above each rung of the ladder refer to Christian virtues. Angels hold a crown above the head of each ascending individual in anticipation of their being crowned as kings. The individual at the top of the ladder has already received his crown. The Lord greets him with a firm clasp of the wrist while displaying a parchment with writing in Old Slavonic that reads: “Come unto me all ye who labor and are heavy laden.”24

In each of the instances shown in table 1, the promised reward is the same: personal fellowship with Deity—as also symbolized in the illustrations shown in figures 2, 10, and 11. Specifically, in Romans 5:2 disciples are told that they will “rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” This means they can look forward with glad confidence, knowing they “will be able to share in the revelation of God—in other words, that [they] will come to know Him as He is.”25

Similarly, in 2 Peter 1:4, 8, 10, disciples are promised that they will become “partakers of the divine nature” and that they will ultimately be fruitful “in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ”—thus, in Joseph Smith’s reading, making their “calling and election sure.”26 This is similar to the promise given in 2 Nephi 31:19–20, a passage we will discuss in more detail later below.

Table 1. Table illustrating how faith, hope, and charity—usually listed in this order—form the determining framework in which other personal qualities are inserted within longer lists of scriptural virtues.

Romans 5:1–5

2 Peter 1:5–7

2 Nephi 31:19–20

Doctrine and Covenants 4:6

faith

faith

faith

faith

virtue

virtue

peace

knowledge

knowledge

temperance

temperance

hope [patience27]

patience

hope

patience

godliness

brotherly kindness

brotherly kindness

godliness

love

charity

love

charity

humility

diligence

Finally, the promise given to faithful Saints in Doctrine and Covenants 4:7 echoes the words of Jesus that outline requirements for entrance into the kingdom of heaven: “Ask, and it shall be given you. Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you”28—a threefold promise that Matthew L. Bowen correlates to faith, hope, and charity.29

Note that, as discussed in more detail elsewhere,30 there are exactly ten virtues in the list and that, exceptionally, the last item is not charity.

2 Nephi 31–32 Traces the Covenant Path
Through the Temple

Joseph Smith’s prophetic gifts enabled him to reveal things that were both old (that is, rooted in antiquity) and new (that is, newly revealed). As one of many examples of such revelations, we will now examine 2 Nephi 31–32, where Nephi provides “a few words . . . concerning the doctrine of Christ” (2 Nephi 31:2, 21; 32:6). 2 Nephi 31–32 is part of a set of significant scriptural passages in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon that describes the intimate relationship of the doctrine of Christ to the virtues of faith, hope, and charity (expressed, in this case, using the word love). These chapters and related passages are discussed in more detail elsewhere.31

In 2 Nephi 31–32, the relationship between the doctrine of Christ and faith, hope, and love is defined as a progression that successively highlights the different areas of the temple in which the ordinances and covenants relating to the three virtues are introduced:

- faith leads to justification through repentance, baptism, and the initial gift of the Holy Ghost in the temple courtyard

- hope and a capacity to “endure all things”32 increases through the enlightening influence of the Spirit until it leads to complete sanctification33 (“a fulness of the Holy Ghost,” Doctrine and Covenants 109:15), symbolized by, among other things, the illumination of the menorah in the Holy Place

- love qualifies the disciple for the presence of God in the Holy of Holies and, eventually, exaltation.

Note that faith, hope, and love are similarly highlighted in an exhortation to disciples to approach the temple veil in the book of Hebrews.34

To fully grasp Nephi’s teachings, we need to understand that the course taken by the Israelite high priest through the temple symbolized the journey of the Fall of Adam and Eve in reverse (see figure 3). Specifically, as BYU professor Donald W. Parry has observed, just as the route of Adam and Eve’s departure from Eden led them eastward past the cherubim with the flaming swords and out of the sacred garden into the mortal world, so in ancient times the high priest would return westward, that is, from the mortal world, past the consuming fire, the cleansing water, the woven images of cherubim on the temple veils, and, finally, back into the presence of God.35 “Thus,” according to Parry, the Israelite high priest has returned “to the original point of creation, where he pours out the atoning blood of the sacrifice, reestablishing the covenant relationship with God.”36

The Two-Way Temple Journey Reflected in the Layout of Nephite and Modern Temples.37 Some Book of Mormon scholars believe that Nephite temple activities would have not only included the Aaronic priesthood ordinances of sacrifice just described, but also rites originally associated with Israelite royal priesthood “after the order of Melchizedek.”38 The Melchizedek priesthood rites seem to have differed in at least three respects.

1. Two-Way vs. One-Way Temple Journey. In line with Parry’s proposal that Israelite high priest’s westward journey of atonement represents a reversal of the Fall of Adam and Eve is evidence from elsewhere in antiquity that a story of creation and of the victory of the god over primordial adversaries (an analogue to the story of the Fall) were standard elements of temple ritual.39

Figure 3. Adapted from Michael P. Lyon, Sacred Topography of Eden and the Temple, 1994.40 The outbound journey of the Creation and the Fall at left is mirrored in the inbound journey of the temple at right. Each major feature of Eden (the river, the cherubim, the tree of knowledge,41 the tree of life) corresponds to a symbol in the Israelite temple (the bronze laver, the cherubim, the veil, the menorah). Likewise, the high priest is “cultic Adam.”42

Consistent with this idea, both Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint scholars have proposed that the creation account of Genesis 1 may have been used within Israelite temple ceremonies.43 Going further, Louis Ginzberg has reconstructed ancient Jewish sources to argue that the results of each day of the Creation are symbolically reflected in temple furnishings.44 From this perspective, when God finished the Creation, what came of it was an earthly temple that was laid out and furnished in symbolic likeness to the heavenly temple. That earthly temple, the result of Creation, was none other than “Eden.” Its Holies of Holies was the celestial top of the figurative mountain of God, and its Holy Place was a Garden of terrestrial glory located on its “eastern” slope.

Carrying this idea forward to a later time, Exodus 40:33 describes how Moses completed the Tabernacle. The Hebrew text exactly parallels the account of how God finished creation (Moses 3:1).45 Genesis Rabbah comments on the significance of this parallel: “It is as if, on that day [on which the Tabernacle was raised in the wilderness], I actually created the world.”46 With this idea in mind, Hugh Nibley famously called the temple “a scale-model of the universe,”47 a place for taking bearings on the cosmos and finding one’s place within it.

The idea that the process of creation provides a model for subsequent temple building and ritual48 is found elsewhere in the ancient Near East. For example, this is made explicit in Nibley’s reading of the first, second, and sixth lines of the Babylonian creation story, Enuma Elish: “At once above when the heavens had not yet received their name and the earth below was not yet named. . . .The most inner sanctuary of the temple . . . had not yet been built.”49 Consistent with this reading, the account goes on to tell how the god Ea founded his sanctuary (1:77),50 after having “established his dwelling” (1:71, an analogue to the Creation account), “vanquished and trodden down his foes” (1:73, an analogue to God’s victory over the devilish serpent after the Fall of Adam and Eve51), and “rested” in his “sacred chamber” (1:75, an analogue to the Sabbath).

In the modern endowment—as also, it seems, in Nephite and early Christian equivalents of the temple ordinances—an explicit retelling of the Fall of Adam and Eve was the natural follow-on to the narrative of Creation. One purpose of relating the events of the Fall in modern temple ordinances is to make clear the absolute necessity of the later rites of atonement and investiture that are part of the bestowal of the fulness of the Melchizedek priesthood. However, even in the truncated Aaronic-priesthood version of the Israelite temple rites, the story of Adam and Eve seems to have implicitly informed the understanding of temple worshipers in ancient Israel.

For example, agreeing with Donald Parry’s proposal that Israelite temple rites were a reflection and reversal of the Fall, Leviticus scholar L. Michael Morales sees the Day of Atonement as an event that, for the children of Israel, “called upon both memory and faith: memory, a looking back to the first Adam’s failure and expulsion from divine Presence in Eden; faith, a looking forward to the remedy for that expulsion.”52

In summary, while the Old Testament description of the Day of Atonement depicts a one-way journey by priests into the temple, the (older) text of the Book of Mormon hints that the Melchizedek priesthood ordinances of the Nephites could have mirrored in a general way the two-way journey of modern temple worshipers.

Figure 4 makes it clear how some early Latter-day Saint temples both reflected and adapted the overall layout of Israelite temples. In these temples, the rooms representing “celestial”53 (Holy of Holies), “terrestrial”54 (Holy Place), and “telestial” (baptismal) areas of sacredness of the endowment are doubled. This facilitates both the downward, “outward bound” journey of Adam and Eve from the Creation room to the Garden room to the World room (celestial to terrestrial to telestial) and their upward, “inward bound” return to the presence of

Figure 4. Layout of the Salt Lake Temple and Israelite temples.55

God, starting with baptism and the Aaronic priesthood in the telestial or World room, and then progressing from the terrestrial to the celestial areas of the temple.

The two-way journey that involves turning away from the sinful world and back toward one’s heavenly origins is mirrored in the layout of ordinance rooms.56 The process of repentance and return to God is beautifully reflected in the change in physical orientation of movement as the endowment progresses. For example, when we leave the telestial glory of the world room and enter the terrestrial room in the Salt Lake Temple, we make a 180-degree U-turn from west to east. After making the turn, we are no longer moving away from God but instead drawing near to Him again. In other modern temples, the change in orientation after leaving the telestial world is represented symbolically rather than literally.

Figure 5 shows how a “two-way” temple journey in Nephite temples and the temple of Solomon—outward-bound followed by inward-bound—could have been accommodated without requiring a doubling of sacred spaces. In trying to imagine such a scenario, Latter-day Saint scholar David Calabro has argued, speculatively, that specific narrative features of Moses 2–6 could have been linked to architectural features of Solomon’s temple (or, for that matter, Nephite temples) in ways that reflect its relevance to the outward-bound sequence of the endowment.57 In this conception, something like an earlier version of Moses 2–4, a narrative relating the Creation and the Fall, would have been dramatized as part of an outward-bound progression within the temple. Likewise, something like an earlier version of Moses 5 could have been staged near the altar of sacrifice, and Moses 6 near the laver. Going further, although Calabro did not explicitly discuss the possibility, it could be easily imagined that an older text roughly analogous to Moses 7 could have been used after that point to accompany the culminating inward-bound endowment sequence.58

The journey of the inward-bound sequence would have begun with faith and repentance (symbolized at the altar of sacrifice) and baptism (symbolized by the laver). This prepared worshipers who had been thus justified to enter the temple through its first curtain or “gate.” As they approached the veil by traversing the Holy Place, they would have encountered symbols of sanctification in the light of the lampstand, the temple shewbread, and the incense altar. Finally, having consecrated their all and called upon the Lord in prayer, worshipers would have been prepared to figuratively enter the presence of the Lord and continue their ritual preparations for exaltation.

2. Melchizedek Priesthood Investiture and “Second Sacrifice” at the Altar of Incense. While the initial blessing of justification comes exclusively by means of a substitutionary offering on the altar of sacrifice in the temple courtyard—“relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save” (2 Nephi 31:19)—the culminating step of the process of sanctification in Melchizedek priesthood temple rites can be viewed as a joint effort,59 symbolized by a “second sacrifice”60 made on the altar of incense that stands before the veil.61 While that second sacrifice is no less dependent on the “merits, and mercy, and grace” of Christ (2 Nephi 2:8) and the ongoing endowment of His strengthening power, it requires in addition that individuals grow in their capacity to meet the stringent measure of self-sacrifice62 enjoined by the law of consecration as exemplified by Nephi and his companions in their soul-saving labor on behalf of their “children” and “brethren”—“for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23, emphasis added).63

3. Conversing with the Lord at the Veil. In Hugh Nibley’s interpretation of the Septuagint version of Exodus 29:42, the Lord promises that at the tent of meeting: “I shall make myself known to you that I might converse with you.”64 The mention that God would “converse” with His people is reminiscent of Doctrine and Covenants 124:39, which speaks of similar encounters that were to take place in the Nauvoo Temple. These are described by the Lord as “oracles in your most holy places wherein you receive conversations.”65

However, as part of the general withdrawal of the Melchizedek priesthood ordinances from Israelite temples that is documented in ancient sources and modern revelation,66 there was a loss of narrative, signs, and tokens relating to the higher priesthood that included the final atoning rites at the veil. According to Nibley, “the loss of the old ceremonies occurred shortly after Lehi left Jerusalem” and “the ordinances of atonement were, after Lehi’s day, supplanted by allegory.”67 By way of contrast, in describing the temples that the Nephites built “after the manner of the temple of Solomon” (2 Nephi 5:16). Nibley wrote,68

Let us recall that Lehi and his people who left Jerusalem in the very last days of Solomon’s temple were zealous in erecting altars of sacrifice and building temples of their own. It has often been claimed that the Book of Mormon cannot contain the “fulness of the gospel,” since it does not have temple ordinances. As a matter of fact, they are everywhere in the book if we know where to look for them, and the dozen or so discourses on the Atonement in the Book of Mormon are replete with temple imagery.

From all the meanings of kaphar and kippurim69 [Hebrew words relating to the atonement in Israelite temples] we concluded that the literal meaning of kaphar and kippurim is a close and intimate embrace, which took place at the kapporeth or the front cover or flap of the Tabernacle or tent [“later the veil of the temple”70].71 The Book of Mormon instances are quite clear, for example, “Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you” (Alma 5:33). “But behold the Lord hath redeemed my soul from hell; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled eternally in the arms of his love” (2 Nephi 1:15). To be redeemed is to be atoned. From this it should be clear what kind of oneness is meant by the Atonement—it is being received in a close embrace of the prodigal son, expressing not only forgiveness but oneness of heart and mind that amounts to identity.

Taken together, the scant, allusive, but suggestive evidence in the Book of Mormon72 and the book of Hebrews73 seem to confirm Nibley’s description of the older culminating rites of the Melchizedek Priesthood at the veil that symbolized sanctification through the once-and-for-all atonement of Jesus Christ rather than through the annual Day of Atonement rites of the Aaronic priesthood that were performed at the mercy seat. Similar ordinances constitute the ultimate symbolism of atonement we encounter in the culminating rites of the modern temple endowment as well as in some ancient Near East kingship ceremonies that go back four millennia (Doctrine and Covenants 84:33–48).74

The relevant imagery in Hebrews 6:18–20, which suggests a literal encounter between the initiate and the Lord at the veil, should also be noted:75

Here, then, are two irrevocable acts . . . to give powerful encouragement to us, who have claimed his protection by grasping the hope set before us. That hope we hold. It is like an anchor for our lives, an anchor safe and sure. It enters in through the veil, where Jesus has entered on our behalf as a forerunner, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

The terse prose of this verse bears some unpacking, in which we will draw largely on commentary from non-Latter-day Saint scholars. Anticipating the blessings described in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood,76 the author of Hebrews assures the Saints of the firmness and unchangeableness of God’s promises. The “two irrevocable acts” mentioned are “God’s promise and the oath by which He guarantees that promise,”77 the latter constituting the means by which one’s calling and election is made “sure.”78 In reading verses 18–20, we are meant to understand that so long as we hold fast to the Redeemer, who has entered “through the veil on our behalf . . . as a forerunner,” we will remain firmly anchored to our heavenly home, and the eventual realization of the promise “that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:3).79 Undoubtedly, there is also the sense that “Jesus, the high priest, [stands] behind the veil in the Holy of Holies to assist those who [pass] through.”80 “The anchor would thus constitute the link that ‘extends’ or ‘reaches’ to the safe harbor of the divine realms . . . providing a means of access by its entry into God’s presence.”81 As Jesus was “exalted” . . . above the entire created order—to the heavenly throne at God’s right hand,” so “humanity will be elevated to the pinnacle of the created order”82 as sons and daughters of God.83 And as the Son received “all the glory of Adam,”84 so “his followers will also inherit this promise if they endure . . . testing.”85

It is apparent that Joseph Smith anticipated a conversation of God’s elect with the Lord at the “veil” of the “heavenly temple” long before he got to Nauvoo. This heavenly assurance of exaltation, “confirmed . . . by an oath” (Hebrews 6:17), is described in a letter he wrote to his uncle Silas on 26 September 1833:86

Paul said to his Hebrew brethren that God being more abundantly willing to show unto the heirs of his promises the immutability of his council “confirmed it by an oath” (Hebrews 6:17). He also exhorts them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

“Notwithstanding we (said Paul) have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us, which hope we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil” (Hebrews 6:18–19). Yet he was careful to press upon them the necessity of continuing on until they as well as those who then inherited the promises might have the assurance of their salvation confirmed to them by an oath from the mouth of Him who could not lie, for that seemed to be the example anciently and Paul holds it out to his brethren as an object attainable in his day.

And why not? I admit that, by reading the scriptures of truth, saints in the days of Paul could learn beyond the power of contradiction that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had the promise of eternal life confirmed to them by an oath of the Lord, but that promise or oath was no assurance to them of their salvation. But they could, by walking in the footsteps and continuing in the faith of their fathers, obtain for themselves an oath for confirmation that they were meet to be partakers of the inheritance with the Saints in light.

Later, on 14 May 1843, the Prophet gave a Nauvoo sermon similarly describing how one’s calling and election is made sure. Though more detailed in its descriptions, Joseph Smith’s teachings in this sermon are entirely consistent with his 1833 letter to Silas.87

The Nephite (and Temple) Manner of Teaching the Plan of Salvation. Throughout the Book of Mormon and in other places in modern scripture the plan of salvation is often taught using the same general three-part outline that is given in the temple endowment, namely Creation, Fall, and the Atonement of Jesus Christ.88 In describing this teaching approach, Elder Bruce R. McConkie liked to speak of its emphasis on the “three pillars” of eternity.89 This “Christ-centered” presentation of the plan of salvation is a stark contrast to the “location-centered” diagram that is used widely in classroom settings to illustrate the sequence of events that chart the journey of individuals from premortality to the resurrection. Nathan Richardson observed that in the location-centered diagram there is no mention of Jesus Christ and His role as Savior and Redeemer—thus leaving out the very heart of the Plan.90

Going further, in a brilliant article entitled “Lehi’s Dream, Nephi’s Blueprint,”91 Noel B. Reynolds argues that Lehi and Nephi received the same vision and that the teachings of what they learned about the covenant path that leads to the tree of life echoed for a thousand years throughout the rest of the Book of Mormon.92 Building on insights from Reynolds, as well as Joseph Spencer93 and Neal Rappleye,94 one might straightforwardly conclude that the elements of the vision constituted a sort of heavenly endowment for Lehi and Nephi—analogous to the experiences of Moses and Abraham at formative junctures in their respective ministries.95

Significantly, the three major themes of Lehi’s and Nephi’s dreams are the “three pillars of eternity” (see figure 6) correspond to the three phases of the modern endowment:

1. the blueprint of Creation revealed in the presence of God and His angels as described in greatest detail in Lehi’s dream;96

2. a sketch of “salvation history” as acted out in the telestial world—apostasy and dispensational restoration through the labors of God’s servants as summarized in Lehi’s and Nephi’s visions (1 Nephi 12–14)97 and graphically illustrated in all its phases in Jacob’s allegory of the olive tree (Jacob 5);

Figure 6. The three pillars of eternity as reflected in the dream of Lehi and vision of Nephi. Left, Gustave Doré, The Empyrean, 1857.98 Center, Brad Teare, Allegory of the Olive Tree.99 Right, Jachoon Choi, Tree of Life.100

3. the covenant path in the terrestrial world that parallels an iron rod that leads to the Tree of Life in the celestial world. This theme is most thoroughly outlined in Lehi and Nephi’s dreams (1 Nephi 8, 11)101 and the accompanying personal explanations given to him by the Father and the Son.102

Mapping the three cardinal virtues, the three degrees of glory, and the three progressive stages of discipleship to the journey through the three areas of the temple. In our scan of 2 Nephi 31:19–20, the first thing we notice is that three important Christlike attributes or virtues—faith, hope, and charity—have been unobtrusively inserted into the text in their natural order, suggesting a progression that can be seen as successively highlighting the different areas of the temple in which the ordinances and covenants relevant to each virtue are introduced.103

Going further, Joseph Smith related the three cardinal virtues of the ladder of exaltation to the three different areas of the temple when he taught that “the three principal rounds [or rungs] of Jacob’s ladder are the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial glories or kingdoms."104 Because these three kingdoms are represented in the temple, Joseph Smith also equated the symbolism of Jacob’s ladder to the “mysteries of godliness.”105

Finally, the three different areas of ancient temples are symbolized in different kinds of sacrifices that relate to the three progressive stages of justification, sanctification, and, ultimately, exaltation. This is explained in the following excerpt from the Latter-day Saint Bible Dictionary:106

It is noteworthy that when the three offerings were offered together, the sin always preceded the burnt, and the burnt the peace offerings. Thus, the order of the symbolizing sacrifices was the order of atonement [justification], sanctification [culminating in complete consecration at the altar of incense in front of the second veil107], and fellowship with the Lord [exaltation].

Nephi’s description of the inbound temple journey. Now let’s look at 2 Nephi 31:19–20 in more detail.108 In prior verses, Nephi has already exhorted his readers to “follow the Son, with full purpose of heart” (2 Nephi 31:13) and to enter the gate of “repentance and baptism by water” (2 Nephi 31:17). The altar of sacrifice and the laver that sit in the courtyard, outside the temple door, evoke these two themes. Nephi teaches that baptism, in turn, prepares his readers to receive “a remission of . . . sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost” (2 Nephi 31:17). Then, Nephi weaves the single mention of faith, hope, and love within these chapters into a masterful description of the culminating sequence of the pathway to eternal life that leads through the ancient temple (please refer to the numbered annotations in figure 8):

1. Nephi begins with a description of the “gate of baptism” that most of his readers have probably already entered. They have “come thus far” through “unshaken faith” in Christ, being justified through “relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.” The gate of baptism, the last requirement governing entrance through the temple door, brings us out of the telestial world (Doctrine and Covenants 76: 81–90, 98–106) and into the terrestrial glory that fills the Holy Place of the temple.

2. Nephi says that we must “press forward”—which evidently means that we are to advance steadfastly along the high priestly way of the Holy Place toward greater light and knowledge. The same phrase about “pressing forward” is used earlier by Nephi’s father in his account of the vision of the tree of life (1 Nephi 8:21, 24, 30; see figure 9). He said that “multitudes” were “pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree” (1 Nephi 8:30). Lehi is very particular about his description, writing twice that the people “caught hold of the end of the rod of iron” (1 Nephi 8:24,

Figure 9. Jachoon Choi, The Tree of Life.109

30). To me, the language about catching hold of the “end” of the rod of iron suggests the necessity of beginning the covenant path by entering in at the gate of baptism. This could be taken as implying that people couldn’t begin their journey by grabbing hold of the rod at a random spot in the middle, but instead “caught hold of the end of the rod of iron.”

3. The lamp in the Holy Place symbolizes our quest to attain a “perfect brightness of hope,” the culmination of a lifelong increase of the enlightening and sanctifying influence of the Spirit that culminates in “a fulness of the Holy Ghost” (Doctrine and Covenants 109:15).

4. Faithfulness to the last and most difficult law of consecration, symbolized by the incense offering at the altar in front of the second veil,110 requires the development of charity, “a love of God and of all men.”

5. The complete sanctification that is required of all who would enter the kingdom of heaven requires “feasting upon the word of Christ” and is symbolized by the temple shewbread that was eaten by the temple priests and their family each week. Non-Latter-day Saint scholars have compared this symbol to the eucharist (the counterpart to the Latter-day Saint sacrament of bread and water)111 a “repeated maintenance ritual”112 associated symbolically with the bread and wine of the table of shewbread.

6. In scripture, “the end” usually refers to the end of one’s probation, the moment when Saints will have been prepared to meet God at the veil.113

7. In a divine face-to-face encounter at the heavenly veil, those who have endured faithfully to the end of their probation will receive the sure oath of the Father: “Ye shall have eternal life.” An essay analyzing Joseph Smith’s 21 May 1843 discourse on 2 Peter 1—the context in which the Prophet’s mention of the three principal rounds of Jacob’s ladder appeared—identifies the oath described in 2 Nephi 31:20 (“Ye shall have eternal life”; compare Psalm 110:4114) as the “more sure word of prophecy” (defined in the discourse as being “the voice of Jesus saying my beloved thou shalt have eternal life”).115 By equating these concepts, the teachings of Joseph Smith confirm that not only sacred gestures (such as those shown in figure 10 and described in Hebrews 6:18–20116) but also sacred words are exchanged at the top of the ladder of exaltation. Thus, the Prophet endowed ritual teachings of temple ordinances with literal significance in the context of actual heavenly ascent.117 With the ritual atonement being symbolically represented at the veil rather than in the Holy of Holies, the symbolism of the celestial room of modern temples is transformed from the solemn, solitary locus of annually repeated atoning ritual described in the Old Testament into a joyful meeting place that represents eternal “fellowship with the Lord.”118

Nephi paints a stunning word picture of exactly what this moment looks like in his anguished psalm of deliverance: “O Lord, wilt thou encircle me around in the robe of thy righteousness!” (2 Nephi 4:33). The moment suggests the loving embrace of the prodigal son, illustrated in figure 11. In the words of his plea for deliverance, Nephi drew on the culture of the desert. Fleeing to the tent of a sheikh who will defend him against his enemies, the weary fugitive humbly kneels and tells his would be protector, “I am your suppliant.” Honor impels the

Figure 10. Three mutually illuminating images shed light on the significance of Christian conceptions of the culminating step of ritual ascent and its counterpart in actual heavenly ascent. Left: Greek Orthodox icon depicting the ladder of virtues.119 In many depictions of the ladder of virtues, Christ is positioned at the top of the ladder taking the ascending disciple by the wrist. Center: The Woman at the Tomb and the Ascension, ca. 400. (Public domain.) A similar grasping gesture is shown where Christ is welcomed to heaven after his ascension. Right: Anastasis, Daphni Monastery, near Athens, Greece, ca. 1080–1100.120 Nicoletta Isar brilliantly concludes that the gesture of the hand of Christ grasping the wrist of Adam, “an anchor . . . sure and steadfast” (Hebrews 6:19) that binds them together in unbreakable fashion, represents not only the “meeting ground of both life and death,” but also serves as a “visual metaphor of the . . . nuptial bond,”121 an equally indissoluble union, “the conjugal harness by which both parts are yoked together.”122 This metaphor is visually highlighted by the stigma on the hand of the Savior that is carefully positioned at the center of the image to overlay both the cross of Christ and the wrist of Adam.123
sheikh to put the hem of his great hooded robe over the suppliant’s shoulder with a promise of protection, “This is your tent, this is your family. We’ll make a place for you.”124

Nephi’s eloquent two-verse exposition in 2 Nephi 31:19–20 provides strong support for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the idea that it contains the fulness of what Jacob 7:6 calls “the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ,” including detailed descriptions of the significance and sequence of temple ordinances. These teachings were not withheld until Joseph Smith and the Saints arrived in Nauvoo but rather were made available the Prophet very early in his ministry as he translated the Book of Mormon.125

Figure 11. Pompeo Batoni (1708–1787): The Return of the Prodigal Son, 1773.126

[Author’s Note: This essay expands on an earlier version of this paper that was published in Meridian Magazine (https://latterday
saintmag.com/the-covenant-path-in-2-nephi-3119-20/) as well as material from my book on Freemasonry and the Origins of Latter-day Saint Temple Ordinances. Thanks to the many friends, both explicitly mentioned below and unnamed, who made helpful suggestions on earlier versions of some of this material, including Rebecca Lambert, who offered many helpful comments and shepherded final changes to this version for journal publication.]

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw (PhD, Cognitive Science, University of Washington) is a Senior Research Scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) in Pensacola, Florida (www.ihmc.us/groups/jbradshaw). His professional writings have explored a wide range of topics in human and machine intelligence (www.jeffreymbradshaw.net). Jeff has been the recipient of several awards and patents and has been an adviser for initiatives in science, defense, space, industry, and academia worldwide. Jeff has written detailed commentaries on the Book of Moses and Genesis and on temple themes in the scriptures. For Church-related publications, see www.TempleThemes.net. Jeff was a missionary in France and Belgium from 1975 to 1977, and his family has returned twice to live in France. He and his wife Kathleen are the parents of four children and sixteen grandchildren. They served two missions in the DR Congo and currently live in Nampa, Idaho. As a church service missionary for the Church History Department, Jeff is writing histories of the temples in the DR Congo and the Republic of the Congo. For The Interpreter Foundation he is working to document the history of the Church in Africa on film (NotByBreadAloneFilm.com).

Figure 1. Left: Covenant path as a modern highway to the temple, passing through milestones representing required priesthood ordinances. Center and right: Mary Douglas’s correspondence of chapters in Leviticus to a counterclockwise movement through the temple.

Figure 5. Conjectural layout of Nephite temples showing outbound and inbound directions. Nephite temples seem to have differed from Israelite temples in their two-way journey (1), Melchizedek priesthood investiture (2), and meeting at the veil (3).

Figure 7. The three cardinal virtues, the three degrees of glory, and the three progressive stages of discipleship mapped to the three areas of the temple.

Figure 8. Correlation of faith, hope, and love in 2 Nephi 31:19–20 to the different areas of the temple.

Notes

1. “A Message from the First Presidency (16 January 2018),” churchofjesuschrist
.org/bc/content/ldsorg/church/news/2018/01/19/2018-01-1000-a-message
-from-the-first-presidency.pdf. See also, more recently, a message on the same general theme from Elder David A. Bednar in David A. Bednar, “Temple Ordinances: Preparing to Return to God’s Presence,” Liahona, July 2022. Much of this section has been adapted from Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Freemasonry and the Origins of Latter-Day Saint Temple Ordinances (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2022), 157–59.

2. See “The Book of Moses as a Temple Text,” in Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses: Inspired Origins, Temple Contexts, and Literary Qualities, ed. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw et al. (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation: Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central; Redding, CA: Faithful Answers, Informed Response [FAIR]; Tooele, UT: Eborn Books, 2021).

3. For example, Truman G. Madsen, “’Putting on the Names’: A Jewish-Christian Legacy,” in By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1990); Bruce H. Porter and Stephen D. Ricks, “Names in Antiquity: Old, New, and Hidden,” in By Study and Also by Faith; Jeffrey Bradshaw and Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Made Stronger Than Many Waters’: The Names of Moses as Keywords in the Heavenly Ascent of Moses,” in Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses, 239–96.

4. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, “God turns tools into servants, [servants into friends,] and [friends] into sons” (C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters [New York: Touchstone, 1996], Preface, 9). Lewis’s original statement reads: “God turns tools into servants and servants into sons, so that they may be at last reunited to Him in the perfect freedom of a love offered from the height of the utter individualities which he has liberated them to be.” For more on this topic, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014), 75–79.

5. See Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and Matthew L. Bowen, “‘By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified’: The Symbolic, Salvific, Interrelated, Additive, Retrospective, and Anticipatory Nature of the Ordinances of Spiritual Rebirth in John 3 and Moses 6,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 24 (2017): journal.interpreter
foundation.org/by-the-blood-ye-are-san0ctified-the-symbolic-salvific
-interrelated-additive-retrospective-and-anticipatory-nature-of-the
-ordinances-of-spiritual-rebirth-in-john-3-and-moses-6/.

6. See Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Faith, Hope, and Charity: The ‘Three Principal Rounds’ of the Ladder of Heavenly Ascent,” in “To Seek the Law of the Lord”: Essays in Honor of John W. Welch, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson and Daniel C. Peterson (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation, 2017), 60–61, journal.interpreterfoundation
.org/faith-hope-and-charity-the-three-principal-rounds-of-the-ladder-of
-heavenly-ascent/.

7. Doctrine and Covenants 84:33–34. Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Oath; Bradshaw and Bowen, “By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified.”

8. See Bradshaw, “Book of Moses as a Temple Text.”

9. These signposts might aptly be described with the term hermae. “Foreword,” in Name as Key-Word: Collected Essays on Onomastic Wordplay and the Temple in Mormon Scripture, ed. Matthew L. Bowen (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2018), xiiˆ.

10. See, for example, “What Did Joseph Smith Know About Modern Temple Ordinances by 1836?,” in The Temple: Ancient and Restored, Proceedings of the 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Symposium, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and Donald W. Parry (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2016); Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and Ronan J. Head, “The Investiture Panel at Mari and Rituals of Divine Kingship in the Ancient near East,” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 4 (2012); Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “The Ezekiel Mural at Dura Europos: A Tangible Witness of Philo’s Jewish Mysteries?,” BYU Studies 49, no. 1 (2010), scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol49/iss1/2/; Hugh W. Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005).

11. Russell M. Nelson, “Becoming Exemplary Latter-Day Saints,” Ensign, November 2018, 113, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2018/11/sunday
-afternoon-session/becoming-exemplary-latter-day-saints.

12. “Your Covenant Path,” New Era, March 2015, 12, churchofjesuschrist.org/study
/new-era/2015/03/be-a-missionary-now/your-covenant-path.

13. John W. Welch, “Experiencing the Presence of the Lord: The Temple Program of Leviticus,” in Sacred Time, Sacred Space, and Sacred Meaning, Proceedings of the Third Interpreter Foundation Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, 5 November 2016, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2020). See Mary Douglas, Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 221–23.

14. See the comparison to human temple workers and cherubim in Avram R. Shannon, “‘Come near Unto Me’: Guarded Space and Its Mediators in the Jerusalem Temple,” in Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament, ed. David Rolph Seely, Jeffrey R. Chadwick, and Matthew J. Grey (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013), 67

15. Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1969), 237. For the original of the description by Elder Richards, see Joseph Smith, Jr. et al., The Joseph Smith Papers, Journals: December 1841-April 1843, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2011), 54n198, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume
-c-1-2-november-1838-31-july-1842/502.

16. For a more extensive discussion of the ladder of exaltation in ancient thought and the teaching of Joseph Smith, see Bradshaw, “Faith, Hope, and Charity”; Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Understanding the doctrine of election: A closer look at Joseph Smith’s 21 May 1843 discourse on the ‘more sure word of prophecy’” in Joseph Smith: A Life Lived in Crescendo, ed. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2024), 173–83; Bradshaw, Freemasonry and the Origins of Latter-Day Saint Temple Ordinances, 71–88.

17. Thanks to Steve Whitlock for this reference.

18. Bradshaw, “Revelatory Origins,” 371–78s.

19. Henry A. Fischel, “The Uses of Sorites (Climax, Gradatio) in the Tannaitic Period,” Hebrew Union College Annual 44 (1973). An earlier, Israelite form of sorites was used, for example, in Joel 1:3; Genesis 36:31–43; 1 Chronicles 1 and 2. Matthew 1:1–17 and Moshe Lieber, The Pirkei Avos Treasury: Ethics of the Fathers. The Sages’ Guide to Living, with an Anthologized Commentary and Anecdotes, Artscroll Mesorah Series (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1995), 1:1, 6–11 are famous examples of the classic form of sorites in use during the Hellenistic period as applied to lists of genealogy and transmission of authority. As to the use of ethical or ethico-metaphysical sorites similar to Romans 5:3–5 and 2 Peter 1:5–7 in Jewish and Roman literature, see Herbert Marks, Gerald Hammond, and Austin Busch, The English Bible: King James Version, a Norton Critical Edition, 2 vols. (New York City, NY: W. W. Norton, 2012), Wisdom 6:17–20, 2:739; Jacob Neusner, ed. The Mishnah: A New Translation (London: Yale University Press, 1988), Sotah, 9:15:III:MM, 466; Lucius Annaeus (the younger) (ca. 5 BCE-65 CE) Seneca, Ad Lucilium, Epistulae Morales, trans. Richard M. Gummere, vol. 2, The Loeb Classical Library (London: William Heinemann, 1962), 85:2, 286–87; Marcus Tullius (106–43 BCE) Cicero, “De Legibus,” in On the Republic; on the Laws, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928), 1:7:22–23, 320–23. For an example of sorites in modern revelation, see Doctrine and Covenants 84:6–17. Sorites arguments have been studied extensively by philosophers since the late nineteenth century because of logical paradoxes that can arise in some formulations. See Dominic Hyde, “Sorites Paradox,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive, 6 December 2011, plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/sorites-paradox/.

20. Harold W. Attridge et al., eds., The Harpercollins Study Bible, rev. ed. (New York City: HarperOne, 2006), 2068n1:5–7.

21. Joseph Neyrey points out that 2 Peter 1:5–7, unlike Romans 5:1–5, supplements the group-specific qualities of faith, hope, and charity with more properly Greco-Roman virtues. He compares the combination of vertically and horizontally oriented virtues within the list to the division in the Ten Commandments between the laws that govern relationship with God and fellow man. Moreover, citing Philo, “On the Special Laws (De Specialibus Legibus),” in Philo, ed. F. H. Colson, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937), 2:211–13, 438–41, he sees the numerical count of eight virtues as “suggesting a certain wholeness or completeness. . . . All of the specifically Christian virtues are joined with the more popular ones to suggest a completeness of moral response. . . . Wholeness, moreover, is found in attention to virtues in regard to body (self-control) and spirit, as well as thought and action. In this wholeness, then, holiness is urged, a completeness of moral excellence to all” (see Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ed. William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible [New York City: Doubleday, 1993], 154–55).

22. 2 Peter, Jude, 155. I have substituted the King James Bible terms for these virtues where they differ from Neyrey’s list. I have also corrected the ordering of these lists where it differed from scripture.

23. See Bradshaw, “Faith, Hope, and Charity,” 226–28.

24. Matthew 11:28. Thanks to Samuel Zinner for his translation of the parchment. Zinner notes that there are seven words shown and that “it may be significant for some reason that the scroll text omits the final clause of Matthew 11:28, ‘and I will give you rest’” (Samuel Zinner, Personal communication, 7 August 2022.).

25. James E. Faulconer, The Life of Holiness: Notes and Reflections on Romans 1, 5–8 (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, 2012), 209. See 1 John 3:2; Doctrine and Covenants 38:8; 50:45; 76:94; 93:1. Faulconer continues: “Since the word ‘glory’ can also be taken to mean ‘perfection,’ as in Romans 3:23, Jesus Christ has brought us into a place where we can rejoice in a hope that we will see the perfection of the Father in its brightness and majesty. We will see the Father in the Son, and we will see Him by being in His presence.”

26. See Bradshaw, “Understanding the doctrine of election.”

27. The relationship between hope and patience is complex and multivalent. Matthew L. Bowen observed that the Hebrew word for hope (tiqvah), often equated with “patience” in the New Testament, comes from a root that means to “wait” (Matthew L. Bowen, E-mail message, 7 March 2016.). He suggested that this may reflect the process of approaching the veil and being prepared in all things into enter the presence of the Lord (compare Doctrine and Covenants 136:31). Romans 5:3–4 defines hope as the result of patience/endurance (= steadfastness; Greek hupomene) and experience (= character, proof, testing; Greek dokime), developed in tribulation. See also 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Timothy 3:10; Titus 2:2; Hebrews 6:12; 2 Peter 1:6; Revelation 2:19; Alma 7:23; Doctrine and Covenants 4:6; 6:19; 107:30 where patience either complements or replaces hope in the list. Bailey writes the following with respect to the Greek verb for endure: “Paul uses a compound word. In this case the term he chooses is hupo-meno. Hupo has to do with ‘under’ and meno means ‘to remain.’ As a compound, this word describes ‘the affliction under which one remains steadfast.’ If makrothumia is the patience of the powerful, hupomene is the patience of the weak who unflinchingly endure suffering. The example of Mary standing silently at the foot of the cross is a matchless demonstration for every Christian of this crucial form of patient love. Mary can do nothing to change the horrible events taking place around her. Her only choice is to exercise hupomene and at great cost remain rather than depart that scene of suffering. Jesus Himself is the supreme example of the same virtue (Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011], 368). Elsewhere in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, the similar quality of “longsuffering” (Greek makrothymia) is mentioned, often in conjunction with patience. See Ephesians 4:2; 1 Corinthians 13:4; 2 Corinthians 6:6; Galatians 5:22; Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 1:11; 3:12; 2 Timothy 3:10; Alma 7:23; 13:28; 17:11; 38:3; Moroni 7:45; Doctrine and Covenants 107:30; 118:3; 121:41.

28. Matthew 7:7. Just as the verse in the 1833 Book of Commandments corresponding to Doctrine and Covenants 4:6 originally contained a truncated version of the list of virtues from 2 Peter 1:5–7 (see Joseph Smith Jr., The Joseph Smith Papers, Vol. 2: Revelations and Translations, Published Revelations, ed. Robin Scott Jensen, Richard E. Turley Jr., Riley M. Lorimer [Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2011], 2:2, 21, 9), so Doctrine and Covenants 4:7 contains a truncated version of Matthew 7:7 (compare Luke 11:9; 3 Nephi 14:7; 3 Nephi 27:29).

29. See 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: The 39th Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, ed. Gaye Strathearn, Thomas A. Wayment, and Daniel L. Belnap (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 243.

30. The verse in the 1833 Book of Commandments corresponding to Doctrine and Covenants 4:6 originally contained a truncated version of the list of virtues from 2 Peter 1:5–7 (Smith, Published Revelations, 3:2, 21, 9). Later, it was expanded to ten virtues with a reversal in the order of “brotherly kindness” and “godliness.” Rather than ending with “charity,” the list ends with “humility” and “diligence.” For Latter-day Saint views on the idea of ten degrees of holiness, see John W. Welch, “Counting to Ten,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 2 (2003), scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol12/iss2/6/; Bradshaw, “Faith, Hope, and Charity,” 74–75. See also Marc-Alain Ouaknin and Éric Smilévitch, eds., Chapitres De Rabbi Éliézer (Pirqé De Rabbi Éliézer): Midrach Sur Genèse, Exode, Nombres, Esther, Les Dix Paroles (Lagrasse, FR: Éditions Verdier, 1992), 3, 33–34 and n20.

31. Some of the ideas and wording in the remainder of this paper have been adapted and expanded from Bradshaw, Freemasonry and the Origins of Latter-Day Saint Temple Ordinances, 78–87. For an extended discussion of scripture passages about the Doctrine of Christ and their implications, see “Faith, Hope, and Charity”, 81–90. David Calabro has suggested that it may be fruitful to look at the first part of 2 Nephi 31 “as Nephi listening to the ‘sod’ (divine council), perhaps even words spoken in the premortal council in heaven. Also, 2 Nephi 32, with the integration of the language (or speech) of angels teaching people to pray and access the Holy Ghost, could be seen as Nephi’s teachings about angelic ministry as reenacted in a Nephite endowment. Nephi is here expanding on what he lays out in chapter 31, and we do get a sense that Nephi is cautious about sharing too much, and even frustrated with his (future) audience not ‘getting it,’ which they would if they thought to ‘knock,’ ask for knowledge, or ‘search/understand great knowledge’” (David Calabro, e-mail message, 2 July 2022.).

32. Articles of Faith 1:13. See note 32. Bradshaw, “Faith, Hope, and Charity,” 111:

In his careful paraphrase of Paul’s description of faith, hope, and charity within the thirteenth Article of Faith, Joseph Smith pointedly distinguished between the early Saints’ previous attainments with respect to the first ladder rungs of faith (“We believe all things”) and hope (“we hope all things”), and their unfulfilled aspirations as they climbed toward the last, hardest rung of charity: “we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things.” With happy anticipation, the last Article of Faith looks forward to the brighter day when the Saints will be able to endure all things—to complete the climb of the ladder of heavenly ascent “by the patience of hope and the labor of love” (“Come, Let Us Anew,” Hymns (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1985), 217, stanza 1. See 1 Thessalonians 1:3).

33. The hope experienced in the terrestrial state of existence is not a “natural hope” for “bodily and worldly matters—the hope that our job will be rewarding, that our children will do well in school, that we will get a raise. Christian hope is the hope for salvation” (Faulconer, Life of Holiness, 207). Moreover, Christian hope is a palpable divine gift, not simply a vague and wistful longing. Those who have proven faithful are chosen or elected to inherit the kingdom “according to a preparatory redemption” (Alma 13:3; Bradshaw and Bowen, “By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified”, 158–59, 172–73, 268–69n260) and obtain an initial hope of attaining it when God grants them the “earnest of the Spirit in [their] hearts” (2 Corinthians 1:22). By receiving and keeping all the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, this first, dim hope will be replaced by a “perfect brightness of hope” (as described by Nephi, 2 Nephi 31:20), “a more excellent hope” (as described by Mormon, Ether 12:32), or “the full assurance of hope” (as described in Hebrews 6:11). Thus, step by step, disciples are brought “unto the end” (Hebrews 6:11), at which point, according to Moroni, they “receive an inheritance in the place which [the Lord has] prepared” (Ether 12:32).

34. After explaining that because of the blood of Jesus they now have reason to enter with “boldness . . . through the veil, that is . . . his flesh” (Hebrews 10:19–20), the author exhorts the Saints to “approach . . . in an abundance of faith” (v. 22), “hold fast to the confession of . . . hope” (v. 23), with an “aim of provoking love” (v. 24). Harold W. Attridge and Helmut Koester, eds., Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 283. The development of the themes of faith, hope, and love is taken up more extensively in Hebrews 11–13.

Note that Joseph Smith could not have been aware of the triad of virtues that appeared in Hebrews 10:22–24, as the King James Bible, unlike most modern translations, uses “faith” in place of “hope” in v. 23.

35. See Donald W. Parry, “Garden of Eden: Prototype Sanctuary,” in Temples of the Ancient World, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994), 135. Compare L. Michael Morales, Exodus Old and New: A Biblical Theology of Redemption, ed. Benjamin L. Gladd, Essential Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, InterVarsity Press, 2020), 99–101.

36. Parry, “Garden,” 135. See also Morales, Who Shall Ascend, 175–78.

37. Though the upward journey of individuals and families along the covenant path comports well with the imagery of a two-way journey or a ladder, Elder Dale G. Renlund has provided a different and seemingly richer perspective by comparing lifelong conversion to a spiral ascent that leads to the top of a mountain. Each time a round of the upward spiral is repeated, individuals ascend by building on preceding steps (Dale G. Renlund, “Lifelong Conversion,” BYU Devotional, 14 September 2021, speeches.byu.edu/talks/dale-g-renlund/life
long-conversion/). For more on this topic, see Bradshaw, “Revelatory Origins,” 371–78.

38. See, for example, Don Bradley, The Lost 116 Pages: Reconstructing the Book of Mormon’s Missing Stories(Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2019), 199. See also 2 Nephi 5:16 referring to Nephite temples being patterned after Solomon’s temple.

39. For example, Nicolas Wyatt, “Arms and the King: The Earliest Allusions to the Chaoskampf Motif and Their Implications for the Interpretation of the Ugaritic and Biblical Traditions,” in ‘There’s Such Divinity Doth Hedge a King’: Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on Royal Ideology in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature, ed. Nicolas Wyatt (Aldershot, GB: Ashgate, 2005).

40. Published in Parry, “Garden,” 134–35. I have modified Lyon’s original drawing by moving the Tree of Life to the top of the mountain. It was originally placed slightly downhill. For the rationale of this modification, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “The Tree of Knowledge as the Veil of the Sanctuary,” in Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament, ed. David Rolph Seely, Jeffrey R. Chadwick, and Matthew J. Grey (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City; Deseret Book, 2013).

41. For correspondences between the Tree of Knowledge and the veil, see Bradshaw, “Tree of Knowledge”

42. L. Michael Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord? A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: Apollos, InterVarsity Press, 2015), 175.

43. For example, Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of Sitz Im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” in Mélanges Bibliques Et Orientaux En L’honneur De M. Henri Cazelles, ed. André Caquot and Mathias Delcor, Alter Orient Und Altes Testament (Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker, 1981), 508–10; Stephen D. Ricks, “Liturgy and Cosmogony: The Ritual Use of Creation Accounts in the Ancient near East,” in Temples of the Ancient World; Peter J. Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Exodus 25–40,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89, no. 3 (1977); Jeff Morrow, “Creation as Temple-Building and Work as Liturgy in Genesis 1–3,” Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies (JOCABS) 2, no. 1 (2009).

44. Louis Ginzberg, ed. The Legends of the Jews (1909; repr., Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 1:51. See also William P. Brown, The Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 40–41; Kearney, “Creation”; Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, “The Cosmology of P and Theological Anthropology in the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira,” marquette.edu/maqom/Sirach1.pdf, marquette.edu/maqom/Sirach2.pdf, 10–11. According to Walton, “the courtyard represented the cosmic spheres outside of the organized cosmos (sea and pillars). The antechamber held the representations of lights and food. The veil separated the heavens and earth—the place of God’s presence from the place of human habitation” (John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009], 82).

Note that in this conception of creation the focus is not on the origins of the raw materials used to make the universe, but rather their fashioning into a structure providing a useful purpose. The key insight, according to Walton, is that: “people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material proportion, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system . . . Consequently, something could be manufactured physically but still not ‘exist’ if it has not become functional. . . . The ancient world viewed the cosmos more like a company or kingdom” that comes into existence at the moment it is organized, not when the people who participate it are created materially (Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 26, 35. See Smith, Teachings, 181, Abraham 4:1).

Walton continues:

It has long been observed that in the contexts of bara’ [the Hebrew term translated “create”] no materials for the creative act are ever mentioned, and an investigation of all the passages mentioned above substantiate that claim. How interesting it is that these scholars then draw the conclusion that bara’ implies creation out of nothing (ex nihilo). One can see with a moment of thought that such a conclusion assumes that “create” is a material activity. To expand their reasoning for clarity’s sake here: Since “create” is a material activity (assumed on their part), and since the contexts never mention the materials used (as demonstrated by the evidence), then the material object must have been brought into existence without using other materials (that is, out of nothing). But one can see that the whole line of reasoning only works if one can assume that bara’ is a material activity. In contrast, if, as the analysis of objects presented above suggests, bara’ is a functional activity, it would be ludicrious to expect that materials are being used in the activity. In other words, the absence of reference to materials, rather than suggesting material creation out of nothing, is better explained as indication that bara’ is not a material activity but a functional one (Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, pp. 43–44).

In summary, the evidence . . . from the Old Testament as well as from the ancient Near East suggests that both defined the pre-creation state in similar terms and as featuring an absence of functions rather than an absence of material. Such information supports the idea that their concept of existence was linked to functionality and that creation was an activity of bringing functionality to a nonfunctional condition rather than bringing material substance to a situation in which matter was absent. The evidence of matter (the waters of the deep in Genesis 1:2) in the precreation state then supports this view” (Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, p. 53).

45. See Jon D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” The Journal of Religion 64, no. 3 (1984), 287; Arie C. Leder, “The Coherenece of Exodus: Narrative Unity and Meaning,” Calvin Theological Journal 36(2001), 267; Morrow, “Creation.” Levenson also cites Blenkinsopp’s thesis of a triadic structure in the priestly concept of world history that described the “creation of the world,” the “construction of the sanctuary,” and “the establishment of the sanctuary in the land and the distribution of the land among the tribes” in similar, and sometimes identical language. Thus, as Polen reminds us, “the purpose of the Exodus from Egypt is not so that the Israelites could enter the Promised Land, as many other biblical passages have it. Rather it is theocentric: so that God might abide with Israel. . . . This limns a narrative arc whose apogee is reached not in the entry into Canaan at the end of Deuteronomy and the beginning of Joshua but in the dedication day of the Tabernacle (Leviticus 9–10) when God’s Glory—manifest Presence—makes an eruptive appearance to the people (Leviticus 9:23–24)” (Nehemia Polen, “Leviticus and Hebrews . . . and Leviticus,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009], 216).

In another correspondence between these events, Mark Smith notes a variation on the first Hebrew word of Genesis (bere’shit) and the description used in Ezekiel 45:18 for the first month of a priestly offering (bari’shon): “‘Thus said the Lord: ‘In the beginning (month) on the first (day) of the month, you shall take a bull of the herd without blemish, and you shall cleanse the sanctuary.’ What makes this verse particularly relevant for our discussion of bere’shit is that ri’shon occurs near ’ehad, which contextually designates ‘(day) one’ that is ‘the first day’ of the month. This combination of ‘in the beginning’ (bari’shon) with ‘(day) one’ (yom ’ehad) is reminiscent of ‘in beginning of’ (bere’shit) in Genesis 1:1 and ‘day one’ (yom ’ehad) in Genesis 1:5” (Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010], 47).

Hahn notes the same correspondences to the creation of the cosmos in the building of Solomon’s Temple (Scott W. Hahn, “Christ, Kingdom, and Creation: Davidic Christology and Ecclesiology in Luke-Acts,” Letter and Spirit 3 [2007], 176–77. See Morrow, “Creation”; Levenson, “Temple and World”, 283–84; Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls [Leiden, NL: Brill, 2002), 62–65; Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of Sitz Im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” 506, 508):

As creation takes seven days, the Temple takes seven years to build (1 Kings 6:38). It is dedicated during the seven-day Feast of Tabernacles (1 Kings 8:2), and Solomon’s solemn dedication speech is built on seven petitions (1 Kings 8:31–53). As God capped creation by “resting” on the seventh day, the Temple is built by a “man of rest” (1 Chronicles 22:9) to be a “house of rest” for the Ark, the presence of the Lord (1 Chronicles 28:2; 2 Chronicles 6:41; Psalm 132:8, 13–14; Isaiah 66:1).

When the Temple is consecrated, the furnishings of the older Tabernacle are brought inside it. (R. E. Friedman suggests the entire Tabernacle was brought inside). This represents the fact that all the Tabernacle was, the Temple has become. Just as the construction of the Tabernacle of the Sinai covenant had once recapitulated creation, now the Temple of the Davidic covenant recapitulated the same. The Temple is a microcosm of creation, the creation a macro-temple.

46. Jacob Neusner, ed. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis, a New American Translation, vol. 1: Parashiyyot One through Thirty-Three on Genesis 1:1 to 8:14, Brown Judaic Studies (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985), 35.

47. Hugh W. Nibley, “The Meaning of the Temple,” in Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, ed. Don E. Norton (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 14–15. See “The Greatness of Egypt,” in Eloquent Witness: Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple, ed. Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2008), 301; T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2008), 37–42. Speaking of the temple and its furnishings, Josephus wrote that each item was “made in way of imitation and representation of the universe” (Flavius Josephus, “The Antiquities of the Jews,” in The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish Historian, Translated from the Original Greek, According to Havercamp’s Accurate Edition [1737; repr, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1980], 3:7:7, 75). Levenson has suggested that the temple in Jerusalem may have been called by the name “Heaven and Earth,” paralleling similar names given to other Near East temples (see Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 180–81n12).

48. Nibley, “Return to the Temple”, 71–73. See also John H. Walton, Ancient near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 123–27; Hugh W. Nibley, “Meanings and Functions of Temples,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York City: Macmillan, 1992), 1460–61; S. D. Ricks, Liturgy. For more on the structure and function of the story of Creation found in Genesis 1 and arguably used in Israelite temple liturgy, see Walton, Lost World of Genesis One; Smith, Priestly Vision. Brown, Seven Pillars provides perspectives on other biblical accounts of creation. See John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 17–22 for a useful table that highlights similarities and differences among creation accounts in the ancient Near East. See Brown, Seven Pillars, 21–32.

49. Hugh W. Nibley, Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS], 2004), 122. The term giparu, rendered by Nibley as “inner sanctuary” (Teachings of the Pgp, 122; compare Ephraim A. Speiser, “The Creation Epic [Enuma Elish],” in Ancient near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B. Pritchard [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972], 1:1, 2 6b, 60–61), has been translated variously in this context by others as “bog,” “marsh,” or “reed hut.” The latter term more accurately conveys the idea of an enclosure housing the sanctuary or residence of the en(t)u priest(ess) of the temple. For more about the temple connotation of the Babylonian reed hut and its significance for the story of the flood in the Bible and other ancient flood accounts, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and David J. Larsen, In God’s Image and Likeness 2: Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel (Salt Lake City: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2014), 216–21.

50. See Speiser, “Creation Epic”, 61n4.

51. See, for example, Wyatt, “Arms.”

52. Morales, Who Shall Ascend, 184. For Christians, of course, a complete and permanent remedy to the consequences of the Fall could be made possible only through “the last Adam’s [that is, Jesus’s] re-entry into God’s abode with His own blood for Atonement” (Who Shall Ascend, 184).

53. See Doctrine and Covenants 76: 51–76, 92–95.

54. See Doctrine and Covenants 76: 71–80, 97.

55. Image adapted from Nathan Richardson, “Six doctrines taught in the five temple rooms (Temples and the Atonement, Part 3),” (presentation, BYU-Idaho Education Week, Rexburg, ID, 2019), unpublished presentation in the possession of the author.

56. For a more detailed discussion of the processes of repentance and homecoming, as reflected in ancient sources, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and Matthew L. Bowen, “Jacob’s Temple Journey to Haran and Back,” in The Temple: Plates, Patterns, & Patriarchs, Proceedings of the Sixth Interpreter Foundation Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, 4–5 November 2022, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2024), 179–82.

57. See David Calabro, “Joseph Smith and the Architecture of Genesis,” in The Temple: Ancient and Restored, Proceedings of the 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Symposium, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and Donald W. Parry (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2016). For more on the general idea of the Book of Moses as a temple text, see Bradshaw, “Book of Moses as a Temple Text.”

Narrative features of the Book of Moses described by Calabro that would have been relevant to its use as a temple text include lamination of discourse frames; verbs of motion, repeated themes, and wordplays that relate to temple architecture; and narrative displacement.

As a specific example, consider that the mention that “the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam” occurs in Moses 5:9, while the story of his baptism is “put in the mouth of Enoch, several pages later” (Calabro, “Joseph Smith and the Architecture,” 173). Calabro hypothesizes that its “position in chapter 6 conforms to the setting of the ritual, near the laver, where instruction about baptism is appropriate.” Similarly, Adam and Eve are taught the law of sacrifice only after they have been driven out of the Garden, allowing those who, according to Calabro’s conjecture, were participating in temple ritual to be situated near the altar of sacrifice before the presentation of that law.

58. Complicating the picture somewhat, Calabro has argued eloquently (primarily on the basis of New Testament ideas and language in the Book of Moses) for the intriguing suggestion that the Book of Moses, as we have it today, may be rooted in a first- or second-century Christian baptismal liturgy (David Calabro, “An Early Christian Context for the Book of Moses,” in Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses, 505). Going further, however, Calabro suggests that the early Christian source for our modern Book of Moses may have been adapted from even more ancient sources that could have been used in a different performative context— for example, within early Israelite temples. In brief, the idea is that just as Joseph Smith restored the text in modern times, an early Christian text may also have been a restoration of an earlier temple text, although reformulated in language appropriate to its use in a later setting. Calabro’s intriguing hypothesis still leaves open the possibility that the Book of Moses, in an earlier form could be conceived as a temple text for ritual use in royal investiture, analogous to temple rites restored by the Prophet Joseph Smith (Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, David J. Larsen, and Stephen T. Whitlock, “Moses 1 and the Apocalypse of Abraham: Twin Sons of Different Mothers?,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38 (2020), 2:861n52, journal.interpreterfoundation.org
/moses-1-and-the-apocalypse-of-abraham-twin-sons-of-different-mothers/).

59. Although we enter the gate of repentance and baptism by exercising “unshaken faith,” “relying wholly upon the merits” of Christ (2 Nephi 31:19), it is intended that we grow spiritually through a combination of our efforts and His strengthening power in gradual fashion until, someday, we come to “be like him” (1 John 3:2; Moroni 7:48). Certainly, there is truth in Stephen Robinson’s emphasis on the difference in magnitude between the “61 cents” we contribute toward our salvation and the unfathomably costly contribution that Jesus Christ made on our behalf (Stephen E. Robinson, Believing Christ [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992], 31–34). However, there are major differences between Latter-day Saint beliefs and extreme versions of “grace-alone oriented” theologies—as exemplified by Charles Spurgeon’s famous line: “If there be but one stitch in the celestial garment of our righteousness which we ourselves are to put in, we are lost” (cited in Benjamin B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation: Five Lectures Delivered at the Princeton Summer School of Theology, June 1914, rev. ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1915], 59, archive.org/details
/planofsalvation00warf/mode/2up.)

Just as Jesus Christ will put all enemies beneath his feet (1 Corinthians 15:25–26), so Joseph Smith taught that each person who would be saved must also, with His essential help, gain the power needed to “triumph over all [their] enemies and put them under [their] feet” (Smith, Teachings, 297. See also 301, 305), possessing the “glory, authority, majesty, power, and dominion which Jehovah possesses” (Larry E. Dahl and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., The Lectures on Faith in Historical Perspective, Religious Studies Specialized Monograph Series [Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1990], 7:9, 98. See 7:16—note that it is not certain whether Joseph Smith authored these lectures).

As Chauncey Riddle explains (Chauncey C. Riddle, “The New and Everlasting Covenant,” in Doctrines for Exaltation: The 1989 Sperry Symposium on the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989], 228), “the covenant of baptism is [not only ] our pledge to seek after good and to eliminate all choosing and doing of evil in our lives, [but] also our receiving the power to keep that promise,” that is, through the gift of the Holy Ghost. For Latter-day Saints, Jesus Christ is not only their Redeemer but also their literal prototype, the One who demonstrates the process of probation that all people must pass through as they follow Him (Matthew 4:19; 8:22; 9:9; 16:24; 19:21; Mark 2:14; 8:24; 10:21; Luke 5:27; 9:23, 59, 61; 18:22; John 1:43; 10:27; 12:26; 13:36; 21:19, 22).

60. Bruce C. Hafen, Spiritually Anchored in Unsettled Times (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2009), 22. On the idea of the “second sacrifice” that is represented in a later part of the temple endowment, Elder Hafen writes in “A Disciple’s Journey,” in Brigham Young University 2007–2008 Speeches (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2008), speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-c-hafen
/disciples-journey/ (See also Anchored, 22–23, 82):

As we approach the second barrier of sacrifice, we move symbolically from the moon to the sun. All of the moon’s light is reflected from the sun—it is borrowed light [See Book of Abraham, explanation of Facsimile 2, Figure 5].

Heber C. Kimball used to say that when life’s greatest tests come, those who are living on borrowed light—the testimonies of others—will not be able to stand (Orson F. Whitney, The Life of Heber C. Kimball, 2nd ed. [Salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, 1945], pp. 446, 449–50; J. Golden Kimball, “Discourse, 8 April 1906, Overflow Meeting in the Assembly Hall,” in Seventy-Sixth Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, ed. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1906], pp. 76–77; “Discourse, 4 October 1930,” in One-Hundred and First Semi-Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, ed. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1930], pp. 59–60; Harold B. Lee, “Watch! Be Ye Therefore Ready,” Improvement Era 68, no. 12 [1965]: 1152. Compare Brigham Young, “Necessity for a Reformation a Disgrace; Intelligence a Gift, Increased by Imparting; Spirit of God; Variety in Spiritual as Well as Natural Organizations; God the Father of the Spirits of All Mankind, Etc. [Discourse Delivered in Great Salt Lake City, 8 March 1857],” in Journal of Discourses [repr. 1853–1886; Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966], 265–66; Amasa M. Lyman, “Mormonism and Its Results; Internal Light and Development; Decrease of Evil; the Fountain of Light [a Discourse by Elder Amasa Lyman, Delivered in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, July 12, 1857],” in Journal of Discourses, 36–38; Orson Hyde, “The Way to Eaternal Life; Practical Religion; All Are Not Saints Who Profess to Be; Prison-House of Disobedient Spirits [a Discourse by Elder Orson Hyde, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, March 8, 1857],” in Journal of Discourses, 71–72; Charles W. Penrose, “Sincerity Alone Not Sufficient; the Gathering Foretold; Inspired Writings Not All Contained in the Bible; Province of the Holy Ghost; the Reformers; Confusion of Sects; Apostate Condition of the World Foretold; How the Apostles Were Sent out; Authority Required; What the Saints Should Do; Opposition to the Gospel, Ancient and Modern; Testimony (Discourse by Elder Chas. W. Penrose, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, May 20th, 1883),” in Journal of Discourses, 41. See also Matthew 25:1–13). We need our own access to the light of the Son.

Baptism represents the first sacrifice. The temple endowment represents the second sacrifice. The first sacrifice was about breaking out of Satan’s orbit. The second one is about breaking fully into Christ’s orbit, pulled by His gravitational power. The first sacrifice was mostly about giving up temporal things. The second one is about consecrating ourselves spiritually, holding back nothing. As Elder Maxwell said, the only thing we can give the Lord that He didn’t already give us is our own will. Neal A. Maxwell, “Jesus, the Perfect Mentor,” Ensign, February 2001, 17.

Seeking to be meek and lowly, disciples gladly offer God their will. As our children sing, “I feel my Savior’s love. . . . / He knows I will follow him, / Give all my life to him” (Children’s Songbook, “I feel my Savior’s love,” 74–75). And then what happens? In President Benson’s words, “When obedience ceases to be an irritant and becomes our quest, in that moment God will endow us with power” (cited in Donald L. Staheli, “Obedience—Life’s Greatest Challenge,” Ensign 28, May 1998, 82).

61. See Bradshaw and Bowen, “By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified”, 176–79, 183–85.

62. Those who have been “ordained priests, after his [the Lord God’s] holy order, which was after the order of his Son” are commanded to “teach . . . the people” so that “the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption” (Alma 13:1–2). I would suggest that this teaching was intended to be not only by precept but also by their personal example of self-sacrifice in likeness of the Son, who is described Himself as a “great high priest” in Hebrews 4:14. As Harold Attridge notes (Attridge and Koester, Hebrews, 284):

Before [the author of Hebrews] sounds the familiar note of Christ’s exalted status [which is, incidentally, the theme of the first verses of Alma 13], our author reverts to the results of the self-sacrificial act by which that status is achieved.

It is in this sense that the Lord can say, despite the fact that it is His sacrifice that ultimately makes us holy, “sanctify yourselves” (for example Exodus 19:22; Leviticus 11:44, 20:7; Numbers 11:18; Joshua 3:5, 7:13; 1 Samuel 16:5; 1 Chronicles 15:12, 14; 2 Chronicles 29:5, 15, 34; 30:3, 8, 15, 24; 31:18; 35:6; Isaiah 66:17; Doctrine and Covenants 43:11, 16; 88:68, 74; 133:4, 62. See also John 17:19; 2 Timothy 2:21).

63. Compare Moroni 10:32–33. In my view, the word “after” should not be read mistakenly in a temporal sense, but rather in line with the atemporal Old English sense of “more away, further off” (See Greek apotero)—meaning essentially that “all we can do” is always necessary but never sufficient. We are saved by grace despite all we can do. This is similar in spirit to Stephen E. Robinson’s line of thinking (Robinson, Believing, 91–92):

I understand the preposition “after” in 2 Nephi 25:23 to be a preposition of separation rather than a preposition of time. It denotes logical separateness rather than temporal sequence. We are saved by grace “apart from all we can do,” or “all we can do notwithstanding,” or even “regardless of all we can do.” Another acceptable paraphrase of the sense of the verse might read, “We are still saved by grace, after all is said and done.”

For additional discussion of this verse in the context of general discussions of divine grace, see Bruce C. Hafen, The Broken Heart (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), 155–56; Brad Wilcox, “His Grace Is Sufficient,” speeches.byu
.edu/talks/brad-wilcox/his-grace-is-sufficient/; Joseph M. Spencer, “What Can We Do? Reflections on 2 Nephi 25:23,” Religious Educator 15, no. 2 (2014), rsc.byu.edu/vol-15-no-2-2014/what-can-we-do-reflections-2-nephi-2523. Two excellent studies by Jared Ludlow and Daniel O. McClellan have gone further to place the scripture in its required literary context: Daniel O. McClellan, “2 Nephi 25:23 in Linguistic and Rhetorical Context” (Presentation, ‘Book of Mormon Studies: Toward a Conversation’ Conference, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, October 12–13, 2018),”; McClellan, “Despite All We Can Do,” LDS Perspectives, 18 March 2020, interpreterfoundation.org
/ldsp-despite-all-we-can-do-with-daniel-o-mcclellan/).

Although Alma 24:10–11 defines “all we could do” [note the past tense, emphasis added] solely in terms of repentance, I believe that one of the purposes of the process of sanctification is to allow us to grow in holiness, gradually acquiring a capacity for doing “more”—specifically, becoming “good” like our Father (see Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19) and “doing good” (Acts 10:38, emphasis added) like the Son, an evolution of our natures jointly enabled by the Atonement and our exercise of moral agency.

Despite all this, of course, it must never be forgotten that even repentance itself, which is “all we can do” at the time we first accept Christ, would be impossible had not the merciful plan of redemption been laid before the foundation of the world (Alma 12:22–37). And, of course, it is His continuous grace that lends us breath, “preserving [us] from day to day, . . . and even supporting [us] from one moment to another” (Mosiah 2:21).

64. Hugh W. Nibley, “The Meaning of the Atonement,” in Approaching Zion, ed. Don E. Norton (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), 560. For an extensive and insightful study of this and related verses, see Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Where I Will Meet You’: The Convergence of Sacred Time and Sacred Space as the Etiological Function of the Tent of Meeting,” in Sacred Time, Sacred Space, and Sacred Meaning, vv. 6–9.

65. In the Latter-day Saint Bible Dictionary, the “oracle . . . for the most holy place” is said to describe “the innermost room of the temple of Solomon; the Holy of Holies.” Taken together with Hugh Nibley’s translation of LXX Exodus 29:45, this biblical language suggests that “oracles in your most holy places wherein you receive conversations” may refer to intimate conversations with the Lord that take place symbolically at the veil of earthly temples, prefiguring an analogous “conversation” with the Lord that will someday take place for the righteous at the “veil” of the “heavenly temple.”

66. See, for example, Doctrine and Covenants 84:19–26. For more on this topic, see Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Oath, 99–109.

67. Nibley, “Atonement”, 567.

68. Nibley, “Atonement”, 567–68. Compare the ritual embrace in Egyptian temple rites (Message (2005), 445–49). See Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, In God’s Image and Likeness 1: Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve (Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014), 504n6-38.

69. See, for example, Nibley’s discussion of the meaning of these terms, in Nibley, “Atonement”, 558–62.

70. “Assembly and Atonement,” in King Benjamin’s Speech: ‘That Ye May Learn Wisdom’, ed. John W. Welch and Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 124. Justifying his interpretation, Nibley writes (“Atonement”, 560):

The kapporeth is usually assumed to be the lid of the Ark, yet it fits much better with the front, since one stands before it.

Nibley gives further arguments for his interpretation in “Atonement”, 610n13.

71. For related material from Egyptian, Jewish, and Christian sources, see Bradshaw, In God’s Image 1, 503n6-37.

72. Not only in 2 Nephi 31–32, but also, for example, the experience of the brother of Jared (see M. Catherine Thomas, “The Brother of Jared at the Veil,” in Temples of the Ancient World) and in the visionary experience with veil symbolism that, according to an account by Fayette Lapham, took place in a Nephite tabernacle that was apparently described in the lost pages of the Book of Mormon (see Bradley, Lost 116 Pages, 252–53).

73. See, for example, Hebrews 6:18–20; 10:19–23, discussed in more detail in Bradshaw, Freemasonry, 71–88.

74. Yasin M. al-Khalesi, The Court of the Palms: A Functional Interpretation of the Mari Palace, ed. Giorgio Buccellati, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica (Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1978), 67. More broadly, see Bradshaw, “Investiture Panel,” 23–42.

75. In the translation of Samuel Sandmel, M. Jack Suggs, and Arnold J. Tkacik, eds., The New English Bible with the Apocrypha, Oxford Study Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 280. See also Ether 12:4.

76. See also Marion G. Romney, “The Oath and Covenant Which Belongeth to the Priesthood,” Conference Report, April 1962, 17.

77. Kevin L. Barney, ed. Footnotes to the New Testament for Latter-Day Saints (2007), 3:82. See also Romney, “Oath”, 17.

78. For Joseph Smith’s teachings on this topic, see Bradshaw, “Understanding the Doctrine of Election.”

79. See also Hebrews 4:14; Attridge and Koester, Hebrews, 118–19.

80. Margaret Barker, The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 42–43. See also Gregory Nazianzen, “Oration 39: Oration on the Holy Lights,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (1894; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 16, 358; Origen, Homilies on Luke: Fragments on Luke, trans. Joseph T. Lienhard (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), Homily 24 on Luke 3:15–16, 103; 1 Corinthians 3:13.

81. Attridge and Koester, Hebrews, 184. See 185, 222–24. See also Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, ed. C. Clifton Black and John T. Carroll (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 172–73.

Comparing the symbol of the anchor to an image in Virgil, Witherington concludes that he was “thinking no doubt of an iron anchor with two wings rather than an ancient stone anchor” (Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007], 225). The shape of the anchor recalls both the covenant and the oath by which the former is “made sure” (2 Peter 1:10).

The symbol of the anchor evokes the tradition of pounding nails into the Western Wall of the Jerusalem Temple. Daniel Rona writes: “Older texts reveal a now forgotten custom of the ‘sure nails.’ This was the practice of bringing one’s sins, grief, or the tragedies of life to the remains of the temple wall and ‘nailing’ them in a sure place. The nails are a reminder of Isaiah’s prophecy [22:23–25] that man’s burden will be removed when the nail in the sure place is taken down” (Daniel Rona, Israel Revealed: Discovering Mormon and Jewish Insights in the Holy Land [Sandy, UT: The Ensign Foundation, 2001], 194). Christian use of anchor imagery goes back to “the first century cemetery of St. Domitilla, the second and third century epitaphs of the catacombs” (“Christian Symbols,” FishEaters [website], fisheaters.com/symbols.html). Although the anchor is frequently depicted in connection with a figure representing the Hope afforded by Jesus Christ, it is, from the perspective of those who aspire to a place in God’s presence, an even more appropriate companion to the crowning blessings associated with the requirement of Charity, as shown in a stained glass panel by Ward and Hughes from the cathedral in Lichfield, England (Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, Figure 6–13, 472). In 2 Nephi 31:20, Nephi associates this “love of God and of all men” with the ultimate attainment of both a “perfect brightness of hope” and the sure promise of the Father (“Ye shall have eternal life”).

82. David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. M. M. Mitchell and D. P. Moessner (Leiden, NL: Brill, 2011), 300–1.

83. See John 1:12; Doctrine and Covenants 11:28–30; 39:4; 42:52.

84. This phrase, applied by Moffit to Jesus Christ and His followers, originated with the Jews in Qumran. See, for example, Geza Vermes, ed. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, rev. ed. (London, England: Penguin Books, 2004), Rule of the Community (1QS), 4:22–26, 103. For a more detailed study of the meaning of this concept in the context of the theology of the Qumran Community and of early Christians, see Fletcher-Louis, Glory.

85. Moffitt, Atonement, 301. Wherefore,” says Moroni, “whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God” (Ether 12:4, emphasis added). Note that these ordinances provide only a “hope for a better world,” and not yet the actual entrance into it.

86. Joseph Smith, Jr., “Letter to Silas Smith, 26 September 1833,” in The Joseph Smith Papers: Documents, Volume 3: February 1833–March 1834, ed. Steven E. Snow et al. (Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2014), 301–8, 305–6, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-silas-smith
-26-september-1833/1, spelling and punctuation modernized.

87. See Bradshaw, “Understanding the Doctrine of Election.”

88. See, for example, 2 Nephi 2:22–26; Alma 18:36, 39; 22:13; Mormon 9:12, Doctrine and Covenants 20:17–18, 20–25; Moses 6:54–59; Articles of Faith 1:1–3. Compare James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1971), 83.

89. Bruce R. McConkie, “The Three Pillars of Eternity,” BYU Devotional, 17 February 1981, speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/three-pillars-eternity/.

90. Nathan Richardson, “Two Views of the Plan of Salvation,” Latter-day Saint Philosopher (blog), 23 December 2010, ldsphilosopher.com/two-views-of
-the-plan-of-salvation/; see also Nate Richardson, “Creation Fall & Atonement Narrative,” RichardsonStudies (blog), 3 November 2018, richardsonstudies
.com/2018/11/03/creation-fall-atonement-narrative/. See also Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Oath, 7–10.

91. Noel B. 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), 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/.

92. Reynolds summarizes as follows (“Lehi’s Dream, Nephi’s Blueprint”, 231–32):

While literary and visual artists continue to find inspiration in the human dramas retold throughout the book, the text itself features visualizations of its basic doctrinal messages: (1) God on his throne in heavenly council, (2) the tree of life with the straight and narrow path, the iron rod, and the great and spacious building, and (3) the allegory of the olive tree. As I will explain below, those three visual images are part of Lehi’s and Nephi’s great vision and provide the blueprint for the complex of covenant history and doctrinal teaching recorded by multiple authors throughout the entire book.

Speaking specifically of the importance of 2 Nephi 31, Reynolds writes in “The Gospel According to Nephi: An Essay on 2 Nephi 31,” Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Resotred Gospel 16, no. 2 (2015), 53–54, 69, rsc.byu.edu
/vol-16-no-2-2015/gospel-according-nephi-essay-2-nephi-31:

Second Nephi 31 is . . . the earliest comprehensive statement of the gospel message in the Book of Mormon—even though several previous passages make it clear that Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob knew the gospel—as it clearly sets forth all six elements of that message as it is recognized in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today, including:

1. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

2. Repentance.

3. Baptism of water.

4. Gift of the Holy Ghost.

5. Enduring to the end.

6. Eternal life.

These same six elements are included in both of the other Book of Mormon presentations of the gospel or doctrine of Christ that were given by Christ himself. . . .

This passage may have served the Nephite dispensation in much the same way that Joseph Smith’s First Vision has served this last dispensation by providing the highest possible authority for its central claims—including the prophetic claims of the first leader. We find the Nephite prophets across 1000 years of ministry staying true to the concepts and phraseology introduced by Nephi in this passage. This is most clearly reflected in their teachings on the gospel, baptism, and charity. Although we cannot know the extent to which later prophets had access to Nephi’s small plates, it is clear that his phrasing and teachings persist through their writings to the very end of Mormon’s volume.

93. Joseph M. Spencer, An Other Testament: On Typology (Salem, OR: Salt Press, LLC, 2012), 45–49.

94. Neal Rappleye, “‘With the Tongue of Angels’: Angelic Speech as a Form of Deification,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21 (2016): 303–23, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/with-the-tongue-of-angels-angelic-speech
-as-a-form-of-deification/.

95. See Bradshaw, Larsen, and Whitlock, “Moses 1 and the Apocalypse of Abraham (Journal).”

96. At left in figure 6, we see Gustave Doré’s famous illustration of the “empyrean heaven.” The Greek term empyros (fiery) is derived from pyr (fire) and is not to be confused with the unrelated term “imperial” (see, for example, Rosa Giorgi, Anges Et Démons, trans. Dominique Férault [Paris, FR: Éditions Hazan, 2003], 63–65). This is a representation of the highest heaven as a realm lighted by the pure fire of God’s glory (see, for example, Margaret Barker, “The Holy of Holies,” in The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy, ed. Margaret Barker [London: T & T Clark, 2003], 185). Since, in this instance, the sacred center is in heaven rather than earth, it is shown as a circle rather than a square. The heavenly throne is, in the words Lehi used to describe his dream, “surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God” (1 Nephi 1:18). Hugh Nibley points out: “A concourse is a circle. Of course, [numberless] concourses mean circles within circles and reminds you of dancing. And what were they doing? Surrounded means ‘all around’. . . It was a choral dance” (Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 17, 211. See also Barry Robert Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity [Ben Lomond, CA: FAIR, 1999], 304–6; Nicoletta Isar, “The Dance of Adam: Reconstructing the Byzantine Choros,” Byzantino-Slavica: Revue Internationale des Études Byzantines 61 [2003]; Frederick M. Huchel, The Cosmic Ring Dance of the Angels: An Early Christian Rite of the Temple [North Logan, UT: The Frithurex Press, 2009]).

97. See also 1 Nephi 10, 15.

98. Illustration for Paradiso Canto 31, Divine Comedy (1308–1321) by Dante Alighieri, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Paradiso_Canto_31.jpg.

99. Book of Mormon 2024, Come, Follow Me—for Home and Church: Living, Learning, and Teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2024), 72, churchofjesuschrist.org/study
/manual/come-follow-me-for-home-and-church-book-of-mormon-2024/15.

100. DGraphicArtsDesign, “Tree of Life,” etsy.com/listing/1476437684/tree-of-life
-digital-download-jesus-art.

101. See also Nephi’s explanation to his brothers in chapter 15.

102. On the roles of the Father and the Son’s in explaining the dream to Nephi, see Reynolds, “Lehi’s Dream, Nephi’s Blueprint,” 53, 72–73.

103. See Bradshaw, “Faith, Hope, and Charity,” 83–90 for a discussion of four exemplary scriptural passages on faith, hope, and charity, and the doctrine of Christ—Ether 12, Moroni 7, Hebrews 6, and 2 Nephi 31–31. 90–111 describe in depth conjectured relationships of these three cardinal virtues to different areas of the temple.

104. Smith, Teachings, 305. Elsewhere I have argued that although this wording is not explicitly included in notes by witnesses of the 21 May 1843 discourse, it should not be dismissed simply as an unwarranted elaboration by later Church historian (see Bradshaw, “Understanding the Doctrine of Election,” 173–79).

105. Smith, Teachings, 12–13: “They are they who saw the mysteries of godliness . . . they saw angels ascending and descending upon a ladder that reached from earth to heaven.” Compare 1 Timothy 3:16; Doctrine and Covenants 19:10; 84:19–21. Speaking of Jacob’s dream of the heavenly ladder in Genesis 28, Marion G. Romney, said: “Jacob realized that the covenants he made with the Lord were the rungs on the ladder that he himself would have to climb in order to obtain the promised blessings—blessings that would entitle him to enter heaven and associate with the Lord” (Marion G. Romney, “Temples—the Gates to Heaven,” in Look to God and Live [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1971], 239–40). See also Hugh W. Nibley, “On the Sacred and the Symbolic,” in Temples of the Ancient World, 579–81.

106. Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Sacrifices,” churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd
/sacrifices. Compare Morales, Exodus Old and New, 97–98. President Nelson suggested that members study the Bible Dictionary entry on sacrifices, among others, to prepare for the temple (Russell M. Nelson, “Personal Preparation for Temple Blessings,” Ensign, May 2001, 32) in Hope in Our Hearts, ed. Russell M. Nelson (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2009):

Spiritual preparation is enhanced by study. I like to recommend that members going to the temple for the first time read short explanatory paragraphs in the Bible Dictionary, listed under seven topics: “Anoint,” “Atonement,” “Christ,” “Covenant,” “Fall of Adam,” “Sacrifices,” and “Temple.” Doing so will provide a firm foundation.”

107. See Bradshaw and Bowen, “By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified”, 176–79, 183–85.

108. This section updates and summarizes ideas that were previously proposed in Bradshaw, “Faith, Hope, and Charity”, 81–111.

109. DGraphicArtsDesign, “Tree of Life.”

110. Bradshaw and Bowen, “By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified”, 92–99.

111. See, for example, April D. DeConick, “The True Mysteries: Sacrementalism in the ‘Gospel of Philip’,” Vigilae Christianae 55, no. 3 (2001), 239 (see, further, 239–45):

The eucharist sacrament is another ritual activity referred to by Philip. It seems to correspond to the Holy of the Holy shrine, the shrine closely tied to “redemption” (69:23). Accordingly, this shrine is to be associated with the second room in the Temple, the hekhal or holy place. In the hekhal stood a golden altar for incense offerings (1 Kings 7:48. See 1 Kings 6:20–21), ten lampstands (1 Kings 7:48–49), shulchan ha-panim or the table of the Countenance (1 Kings 7:48–49) upon which was ritually offered lechem ha-panim, the bread of the Countenance. Every Sabbath twelve loaves of unleavened bread were placed on the table before the face of Yahweh (Leviticus 24:5–9). After a week, the loaves were eaten by the priests (Leviticus 6:7–9; 24:5–9). There seems also to be evidence that the priests placed jugs of wine on the Table along with the loaves and then partook of beverage and bread when the time came for them to participate in the weekly meal.

See also Exodus 25:22–29; 37:9–12; Numbers 4:7; 1 Samuel 21:7; 1 Kings 7:34–35; 2 Chronicles 4:19.

112. According to Einar Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the Valentinians (Leiden, NL: Brill, 2006), 345, the eucharist
unfolds a soteriological symbolism that is parallel to and overlaps with that of baptism–anointing [confirmation, in Latter-day Saint tradition]. . . . The fact that the eucharist has soteriological significance autonomously of the baptism-anointing sequence is probably related to the nature of the eucharist as a repeated maintenance ritual, which makes it functionally distinct from the initiation ritual performed only once for each candidate.”

113. This verse from the Book of Mormon, of course, refers to the actual blessing of eternal life at the end of one’s probation rather than to the symbolic representation of that blessing that is experienced in earthly ordinances. Regarding the process of enduring to the end, Hafen and others observe:

Sometimes . . . we refer to the first principles as if they represented the entire process of discipleship. When we do that, “endure to the end” can sound like an afterthought, as if our baptism and confirmation have hooked us like a trout on God’s fishing line, and so long as we don’t squirm off the hook, He will reel us safely in. Or some assume that “endure to the end” simply describes the “no worries” stage of life, when our main job is to just enjoy frequent trips to our cozy retirement cottage while refraining from doing anything really bad along the way. (Bruce C. Hafen and Marie K. Hafen, The Contrite Spirit: How the Temple Helps Us Apply Christ’s Atonement [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015], 57–58)

But there is more. As President Russell M. Nelson has said, “Enduring to the end . . . means the endowment and sealing ordinances of the holy temple” “Begin with the end in mind,” Seminar for New Mission Presidents, June 22, 2014. For a summary of Elder Nelson’s talk, see S. J. Weaver, “Begin Missionary Work.” Also Noel and Sydney Reynolds have taught that “endure to the end” is a gospel principle that is paired with the temple endowment, just as repentance is paired with baptism (personal communication, May 17, 2014). Nephi offered a similarly expansive view of “enduring”: we should “endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God” (2 Nephi 31:16). The first principles will always be first—yet they are but the foundation for pressing on toward the Christlike life: “Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, . . . [and] baptisms” (JST Hebrews 6:1–2; emphasis added).

114. To see how Joseph Smith wove together Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 6:19–20, and 1 Peter 1 in alluding to the ritual grasp and actions associated with the oath of the Father, see Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Oath, 60–62.

115. See Bradshaw, “Understanding the Doctrine of Election”, especially 190–92. In his comments relating to 2 Peter 1, Joseph Smith further explained that (Smith, Teachings, 298–99):

Though [the Saints addressed by Peter] might hear the voice of God and know that Jesus was the Son of God, this would be no evidence that their election and calling was made sure (2 Peter 1:10), that they had part with Christ, and were joint heirs with Him. Then they would want that more sure word of prophecy (2 Peter 1:19), that they were sealed in the heavens and had the promise of eternal life in the kingdom of God.

Then, having this promise sealed unto [us is] an anchor to the soul, sure and steadfast. Though the thunders might roll and lightnings flash, and earthquakes bellow, and war gather thick around, yet this hope and knowledge would support the soul in every hour of trial, trouble, and tribulation. Then knowledge through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the grand key that unlocks the glories and mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. . . .

Then I would exhort you to go on and continue to call upon God until you make your calling and election sure for yourselves, by obtaining this more sure word of prophecy, and wait patiently for the promise until you obtain it.

116. Joseph Smith explicitly tied the imagery of Hebrews 6:18–20 to the idea of making one’s calling and election sure (Letter to Silas Smith, 305–6; Joseph Smith, Jr., Andrew F. Ehat, and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph [Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center, 1980], 14 May 1843, 201; Smith, Teachings, 298–99).

117. In 2 Nephi 33:9, following an expression of charity for all people, Nephi reiterates that there is no other way than the one he has just outlined: “But behold, for none of these can I hope except they shall be reconciled unto Christ, and enter into the narrow gate [through the faith that leads to repentance and baptism], and walk in the strait path [of hope] which leads to life [eternal life, conferred at the veil], and continue in the path until the end of the day of probation [the requirement to endure to the end].”

118. Bible Dictionary, s.v. Sacrifices.

119. Found in Thessaloniki, Macedonia. Licensed from Alamy.com. Image ID: BM2KC6.

120. Nicoletta Isar, Choros, the Dance of Adam: The Making of Byzantine Chorography (Leiden, NL: Alexandros Press, 2011), plate 65. Reproduced with permission of the author.

121. Isar, Choros, 73.

122. Isar, Choros, 73. Compare the first century Odes of Solomon 42:8: “Like the arm of the groom over the bride So is my yoke over those who know me” James H. Charlesworth, “Odes of Solomon,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983, 42:8, 771.

123. Compare Isar, Choros, 52.

124. Hugh W. Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004), 16, 1:199.

125. For additional arguments that Joseph Smith was aware of many details of temple-related teachings and ordinances near the beginning of the Restoration, see Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. “The revelatory origins of temple ordinances,” in Joseph Smith: A Life Lived in Crescendo, 339–426; Bradshaw, “What Did Joseph Smith Know”; Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and K-Lynn Paul, “’How Thankful We Should Be to Know the Truth’: Zebedee Coltrin’s Witness of the Heavenly Origins of Temple Ordinances,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21 (2016), journal.interpreterfoundation.org/how-thankful-we-should
-be-to-know-the-truth-zebedee-coltrins-witness-of-the-heavenly-origins-of
-temple-ordinances/; Bradshaw, Freemasonry and the Origins of Latter-Day Saint Temple Ordinances, 41–54.

126. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, with the assistance of Florian Kugler and Christa Hummel.

Spiritual Implications of the Timing of the Death of Jesus Christ

C. Thomas Black

Abstract: Centuries-long speculation continues regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of the Savior. Whether he died sooner than would have been expected, as some scholars believe, or lived longer than expected, statements from the scriptures and modern-day prophets indicate that the Lord died at the exact moment of his choice. According to the Gospels and historical accounts, that moment coincided with the sacrifice of the later of the two daily tamid sacrifices. The tamid had been instituted by Jehovah and symbolized the future atoning sacrifice of the Savior. Each of the other offerings throughout the sacrificial day between the two tamid sacrifices symbolized other qualities of the Lord. The proximity of his death to the Passover suggests an additional association between the two. Ritual prayers offered as the final tamid was being offered coincide further with the missions of the Savior. Jesus Christ chose the moment of his death to synchronize with these events as he symbolically fulfilled the ancient law of sacrifice.

Few attempts have been made to integrate the spiritual aspects of the Savior’s Atonement with the physical. God leaves nothing to chance, so the physical aspects must be inextricably intertwined with the spiritual. As Tad Callister notes of the Atonement, “Contrary to the thoughts of some, it was not mental suffering alone; it was intense, prolonged anguish, ‘both body and spirit’ (D&C 19:18; emphasis added). It was physical, intellectual, and emotional pain of the highest order, all wrapped into one.”1

This article is a companion to a previously published article regarding some pathophysiological aspects of the Lord’s suffering as he completed his Atonement.2 This article focuses on why the Lord died exactly when he did and offers some additional thoughts regarding how he may have manipulated his metabolism so that could happen. I will do so by addressing the following points:

- Significant and spiritually symbolic reasons linked to the sacrifices being carried out in the temple during his crucifixion gave symbolic meaning to Christ dying at the moment he did.

- The Lord’s persecutors were powerless to take his life. With his command over life and death, Christ allowed his spirit to depart his mortal body only at the moment of his choosing.

- Despite his inherent ability to do so, Christ made no effort, either overt or covert, to mitigate his suffering from the effects of the trauma he sustained.

- It was necessary for Christ at some point during his ordeal to either hasten or prolong his time on the cross so that his death would occur at the appropriate moment.

Why the Lord Chose That Specific
Moment to End His Mortal Life

Symbolic text alludes to the Savior throughout the Old Testament in laws, temple sacrifices, and prophecies. These are most clearly stated in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 but also occur in numerous places elsewhere.3 Innumerable animals were sacrificed to foreshadow the ultimate sacrifice by the Lord. We may reasonably assume that the manner of his death would resemble in some fashion the centuries of sacrifices decreed by the Savior himself.

How sacrificial offerings portend the Atonement of Jesus Christ

The first death after the Fall of Adam was of an animal or animals, sacrificed by Jehovah to fulfill the Father’s request that he make garments of skins to clothe Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21, Moses 4:27). “They received this clothing in a context of instruction on the Atonement, sacrifice, repentance, and forgiveness.”4 Adam and Eve continued the practice of offering sacrifices by the shedding of blood. The Lord commanded that “they . . . should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord . . . [and they were informed that it was] a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father” (Moses 5:5, 7). The specific details by which sacrifices were to be offered became standardized later as part of the Law of Moses. Unfortunately, the tendency is that the more standardized a procedure becomes, the more people tend to forget its significance. Common symbols of our devotion, such as wearing the holy garment or partaking of the weekly Sacrament, must never be allowed to become rote. Mosiah lamented, “And many . . . types, and shadows showed he unto them, concerning his coming; and yet they hardened their hearts, and understood not that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood” (Mosiah 3:15). The Lord reprimanded the Israelites for dutifully carrying out sacrifices but forgetting their meaning.

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. . . . Bring no more vain oblations. . . . And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. (Isaiah 1:11, 13, 15)

With few exceptions, the Israelites had forgotten the why of sacrifice but were meticulously immersed in the how.

Each of the sacrifices observed by the ancient Jews pointed toward Christ and his Atonement. An examination of these sacrificial offerings will better our understanding of the timing of the Lord’s death because the Savior symbolically fulfilled each of these sacrifices as he died at the moment that ended the day of pre-Paschal sacrifices.

The paschal lamb

Paul clearly identified the Lord as the paschal lamb and recognized the association of Christ’s death with the annual Jewish Passover: “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7). Christ is embodied in the Passover observance. The bitter herbs of the Passover Seder are reminiscent of the bitterness of the Israelites’ bondage, but more especially the bondage of sin in general, and that Christ drank that bitter cup on our behalf. The unleavened bread is a reminder that Christ is the Bread of Life, without blemish (e.g., leaven). The blood on the lintels signified that because of the blood of Christ, the first-born lamb without blemish, death will pass over us.5 The paschal lamb is traditionally killed and consumed in its entirety the evening before the beginning of Passover, again symbolic of the death of the Savior. Initially, the sacrifice of lambs the evening before the Israelites left Egypt was performed out of obedience; those who chose not to be obedient lost their first-born sons to the destroying angel. From that time forward, however, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb was performed out of gratitude, but the death of the Savior was a “propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). As Bruce R. McConkie states, and as Callister reaffirms, “The atonement of Christ, being literally and truly infinite, applies to an infinite number of earths.”6

The Savior’s death and Atonement signified more than a commemoration of the Passover, however, since the paschal lamb did not constitute an offering for sin. Other sacrifices were performed daily at the temple. An examination of these sacrifices reveals at least three additional symbolically significant reasons for Christ to have died, not only on the specific date, but also at the precise time of day that he did—the two obligatory daily tamid offerings, the voluntary sacrifices, and the Eighteen Benedictions.

The continual (tamid) sacrifice (korban olah)

The paschal lamb and all temple sacrifices and oblations have reference to the Lord’s Atonement, but the tamid is most comparable and of particular significance.

A communal atoning sacrifice

The commandment to perform the tamid was first given to Moses as recorded in Exodus 29:39, 41, 42 and repeated in Numbers 28:3, 4, 6, as follows:

This is the offering made by fire which ye shall offer unto the Lord; two lambs of the first year without spot day by day, for a continual burnt offering. The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even. . . . It is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained in mount Sinai for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord.

The tamid was a public offering intended as a communal rather than individual atoning sacrifice. Hasdai Crescas, a medieval Jewish theologian, compared the entire nation of Israel to her progenitor, Isaac, who had nearly been the prototypic sacrifice:

It appears that the intention of the two daily offerings, the morning offering and the evening offering, which take place at the times of change (from night to day and from day to night), is to indicate that this is an atonement for all Israel, so as to remove them from the governance of the servants [i.e., the constellations] and to distinguish them as governed by God. It is as if these daily offerings are in exchange for all Israel and, in offering them, the entirety of the people are drawn nearer to the worship of God. Therefore the daily offerings were lambs, which come from the ram, just as the nation as a whole is a descendant of Isaac. They were therefore purchased with the finances of the Temple treasury, which were public funds, as is recorded in tractate Shekalim.7

Rabbi Rabinowitz explains that the burnt sacrifice offered at Mount Sinai following the episode of the golden calf was the initial offering of the tamid (Numbers 28:6).8 Rashi, a medieval commentator on the Talmud and the Hebrew Bible, suggested that the tamid represented the continual covenant between Israel and Jehovah prior to the children of Israel receiving the Torah.9

Rabbi Pinchas Winston explains,

The Korban Tamid, the Continual Offering, [was] brought twice a day during Temple times. It was brought in the morning to atone for sins done the previous night, and at sunset, to atone for the sins since the morning Tamid.

It was 24-hour coverage, seven days a week. Whatever sins built up during the night, they were gone the next morning, each day. Whatever sins built up during the day were gone by sunset, each day.10

Despite possible assertions that the tamid was not intended for atonement, Jewish scholars assert that there is a clear element of atonement inherent in the rite.11 The tamid represented both the complete submission of the people to the will of God and a collective expiation of their sins.12 Its primary purpose was certainly to demonstrate the desire of the people to commune with God continually. Because, however, it is impossible to commune with God while tainted with sin, it was recognized that the tamid must also expiate sin.13

The most important sacrifice

The significance of the tamid cannot be overestimated. It was the most important atoning sacrifice performed at the temple.14 The other (musaf) sacrifices were clearly secondary.15

The tamid was so significant that Numbers 28:4, a one-verse summation of the ordinance, has been identified by some Jewish scholars as the single verse in the Torah that best defines the essence of Judaism.16

The tamid could be offered only within a temple.17 Between the destruction of the First Temple in 587 BC and the completion of the Second Temple in 516 BC, the tamid could not be performed.18 For the Jews, this loss was catastrophic.19 After the Second Temple was constructed, a 500-year reinstatement of the tamid ended with the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70, a second catastrophic loss foretold by the Lord himself (Matthew 25:15). Jews believe that both temples were destroyed on the same day of the year, the ninth of the month of Av (Tisha B’av). This is considered to be the saddest day of the year for Jews and is observed annually as a day of mourning for these and other calamities that occurred on the same day. Since the destruction of the Second Temple, the Jews have been unable to offer the tamid, but its restitution is devoutly prayed for multiple times daily by Orthodox Jews.20

Daniel prophesied of both suspensions of the daily sacrifice.

And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. (Daniel 11:31)

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Daniel 12:11)

In doing so, he mentioned only the loss of the daily sacrifice, emphasizing the importance of the tamid over all others.

Lichtenstein points out that five calamities that befell ancient Israel are commemorated on the seventeenth of Tammuz. He then argues that, of the five,
most people [today] would have little difficulty in declaring the cessation of the daily sacrifice as the least terrible. After nearly two millennia we are used to living without the daily sacrifice and do not feel its absence. But even if we were to try to imagine ourselves in the situation of the people of Jerusalem at the time of the Destruction, there is no comparison between the cessation of the daily sacrifice—the halting of a positive practice—and the other four tragedies.21

The timing of the tamid

One section of the Mishnah explains how the tamid was to be carried out.22 Two lambs without blemish were slain daily and offered as burnt sacrifices. “Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually” (Exodus 29:38).23 The first lamb was bound to the altar at about 6:00 am24 and slain at 9:00 am.25 The second was bound to the altar at noon and slain at about 3:00 pm26 every day of the year without exception. As related by the New Testament writers, the timing of the Lord’s crucifixion and death corresponds exactly to the timing of these two tamid sacrifices.

The traditional Sefard Shabbat liturgy contains the following in relation to the morning prayers and the Korban tamid:

The Tamid-offerings, two daily offerings of one lamb at a time, were offered once in the morning and once in the afternoon. The former was the first public-offering brought on the Altar each day. And the latter terminated the day’s offerings. These animals were purchased from the annual half-shekel gifts of the people and were offered on behalf of the entire Jewish People.

A brief prayer was offered:

May it be Your will, Adonoy, our God and God of our fathers, to have compassion on us, to forgive us all our sins, [done unknowingly], to atone all our iniquities, [done knowingly], to pardon all our [malicious] transgressions, and may You build the Holy Temple quickly, in our days, that we may offer, before You, the daily burnt-offering to atone for us, as You wrote for us in Your Torah by the hand of Moses, Your servant, from the mouth of Your Reverence, as it is said: [Numbers 28:1–8 is then quoted].27

Lisle G. Brown followed the service of Zacharias the day he was struck dumb while officiating (Luke 1:5–23). He describes in detail how the priests who administered the tamid were chosen and what their duties entailed.

The priest’s principal responsibility during the day was to conduct the sacrifices of two unblemished lambs, which were required to be offered continually under the law of Moses:

Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even: . . . for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the Lord. This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee. (Exodus 29:38–42)

This sacrifice was called the tamid, a Hebrew word that means “standing,” “continual,” or “daily.” Clearly, the first tamid commenced the daily ministrations in the temple; the second ended the day’s service.28

From the Christian point of view, Jesus Christ was the prophesied lamb without blemish (1 Peter 1:19) who was slain for the sins of the world. In referencing the manner of his death, Nephi used the term slain (1 Nephi 10:11) as did others (Isaiah 53:7 [“slaughter”], Revelation 5:9, 12; 13:8). Slain is the past participle of the verb to slay, whose literal meaning is “to be killed violently or brutally,” and whose synonyms are “to butcher” or “to slaughter,” as were the sacrificial lambs and other animals each day. The tamid sacrifices of innocent lambs without blemish, which were violently killed, were a clear type of the Savior, who was sacrificed, just as the lambs were, for the sins of the people.

Christ, as Jehovah, instituted the practice of sacrifice by the shedding of blood when he made garments of skin for Adam and Eve and concluded the practice through the shedding of his own blood.

An all-encompassing burnt offering

The Encyclopaedia Judaica states, “Tamid is an abbreviated form for olat tamid (‘daily burnt-offering’).”29 While other sacrifices were only partially burned, the tamid was entirely burned (“olah”), symbolizing sanctification of the whole man in surrender to the Lord and complete submission to God’s will.30 No other sacrifice that was performed at the temple did this.31 Christians recognize this sanctification through surrender and submission as a symbolic type of Christ’s submission to the will of his Father.

The tamid signified complete submission of the people to the Lord. Inasmuch as it was completely burned, it symbolized the totality of the Lord’s sacrifice. Following his ordeal in the Garden, the Lord would have been left with insufficient readily available energy to maintain even basic body functions. Throughout his subsequent ordeals, he would have been oxidizing—burning—predominantly muscle and fat. In a highly symbolic fashion, Jesus himself became a “burnt offering,” with the combustion occurring internally rather than externally. Perhaps the way the priests had been instructed to perform the tamid sacrifice for centuries was a type of the way the body of the Lord would itself be consumed.

No other sacrifices could begin until the morning tamid had been offered and no additional sacrifices were performed after the evening offering.32 As such, the two tamid sacrifices represented the all-encompassing nature of God, in the words of Rabbi Osher Chaim Levene:

What matters is for the totality of the experience—from start to finish—to be constant. To be a continual and an unchanging whole. G-d is the Start of Everything. . . . “You are the First. And you are the Last. And there is nothing except for our King, Redeemer and Savior” (Morning Prayers). The beginning and end of the Jewish day are signposted by reference to the tamid offering.33

Christians will appreciate that these are a few of the many names or descriptions of the comprehensive nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, the “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending,” as referred to in the New Testament (Revelation 1:8).

Other (Musaf) Sacrifices

The following four other korbanat sacrifices took place between the morning and afternoon tamid sacrifices. These represent additional aspects of the Lord and his love for his people.

The gift, meal, or grain offering (korban minchah)

Leviticus 2:1–16 and 6:14–23 describe a bloodless offering of “the finest flour,” oil, frankincense, and salt. This offering was a portion of the fruit of an individual’s personal labor and property, acknowledging that all belongs to God in the first place and all that we can offer is our own labor (Exodus 23:16, Leviticus 22:25).34 It is reminiscent of the sacrificial and personal nature of Christ’s Atonement having “[trod] the winepress alone” (Isaiah 63:3).

Flour and oil represented an offering of the daily sustenance of life but had additional spiritual connotations. Flour represented the Lord, who sustains life and is himself the Bread of Life (John 6:47–51, 58). Anointing with oil is a common biblical symbol of the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Corinthians 1:21, 22; 1 John 2:20). Frankincense was included to give a “sweet savor” to an otherwise distinctly unsavory smell when non-animal offerings are burnt.35 Salt was a required addition to a grain offering (Leviticus 2:13) and is elsewhere noted to be a symbol of the covenant (Numbers 18:19, 2 Chronicles 13:5; also Doctrine and Covenants 101:39).

The peace offerings (korban shelamim)

The three types of peace offerings, seen in Psalm 23:5, Matthew 22:1–14, and Luke 14:15, were the thank-offering, which was a response to acts of divine beneficence; the votive-offering, which was prompted by a feeling of gratitude for the fulfillment of a petition; and the free-will offering, given completely voluntarily with the sole motive of spontaneous piety.36

Peace offerings, as the name indicates, presupposed that the sacrificer was at peace with God; they were offered for the further realization and enjoyment of that peace. The characteristic rite was the sacrificial meal. A feast symbolized fellowship and friendship among all its partakers and providers, and also a state of joy and gladness. 37

Peace offerings were an expression of gratitude to Jehovah for his kindness and mercy, which are divine characteristics that Christ displayed throughout his earthly ministry and particularly through his unselfish sacrifice (Leviticus 3:1–17, 7:11–34).

The sin offering (korban chatat)

This offering was meant to atone for and to purge an unintentional or careless sin (Leviticus 4:1–35). It was an expression of sorrow for the error and a desire to be reconciled with God. The sin offering is reminiscent of the restitution that must be made for sins committed in ignorance (2 Nephi 9:25), by those lacking the capacity to distinguish right from wrong (Mosiah 3:11), and by those who have not reached the age of accountability (Mosiah 3:16). All such sins are covered by the Savior’s Atonement.

The type of animal to be sacrificed for a sin offering depended on the social and economic status of the sinner offering the sacrifice:

- A high priest (Leviticus 4:3) or the entire community (Leviticus 4:14; Numbers 15:2–3) required a young bullock.

- A ruler required a young male goat (Leviticus 4:22–23).

- “Common people” required a female kid (Leviticus 4:27–28; Numbers 15:27) or a lamb (Leviticus 4:32).

- Individuals too poor to afford these options could substitute two turtle doves or young pigeons, one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering (Leviticus 5:7).

- Those too poor to afford even turtle doves could offer a tenth of an ephah of fine flour without perfume instead of an animal (Leviticus 5:11).

These and all other animals sacrificed on the altar were required to be without blemish.

The presumptuous sin, however, committed defiantly and without remorse, is specifically not covered by this offering (Numbers 15:30–31). The sin offering described in Leviticus 6:24–30 accomplished this cleansing.38

The guilt or trespass offering (korban asham)

This offering was made to redress either a breach of trust or when one was unsure whether a sin had been committed (Leviticus 5:14–6:7, 7:1–7). It was made by someone who had committed a grievance against another but had since then developed the honest intent of reconciling with the wronged person.39 Fulfilling this offering is a poignant conciliation made by the Lord to reunite himself with wayward humanity when we—and not he—were the cause of the initial estrangement.

The economics of sacrifice

The means of gathering funds to procure the sacrificial animals for the tamid, which was a communal offering, were based on Exodus 30:11–16 as an annual tax of one-half shekel for each male beginning at the age of twenty years.40 This tax was the same for all men regardless of financial situation.41

The cost of the sacrifices of the privately owned animals or goods for musaf sacrifices was borne individually. Regardless of their failure to appreciate the full meaning of the tamid and other burnt offerings, one must marvel at the willingness of these ancient people to sacrifice particularly precious animals that they had nurtured and fed and maintained unblemished. It is one thing for us in our day to donate tithing when we know that there are temples to be built and numerous other expenses for which the Church is necessarily responsible. It is quite another to place valuable goods on the altar and watch them simply burn. Imagine that in our day tithing is paid by throwing a cash donation into a flaming incinerator outside the meetinghouse and watching as it is consumed by fire. It might seem utterly senseless and wasteful to us, but these people accepted it as God’s will. Their obedience is to be admired although their comprehension of the meaning of their actions was often lacking.

The Eighteen Benedictions

According to Jewish tradition, the performance of the tamid was accompanied by the recitation of blessings, one series of which was commonly known as the “Eighteen Benedictions.” These were recited while the sacrifices were being offered in the temple.42 According to Instone-Brewer, it is likely that these prayers, as we know them today, are very nearly the same as those that were recited by the priests at the time of the Savior’s death.43

The fulfillment of prophecy sometimes borders on irony, and this is never more clearly demonstrated than in the case of the crucifixion and death of the Savior. With the exception of Prayers 4, 9, 14, and 16, each of the Eighteen Benedictions is directed toward Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, who we know is Jesus.44 Most of the fourteen prayers speak directly of his attributes.45 It is supremely ironic that the high priest was praising the Lord and beseeching him for favor at the very moment that this same Lord was completing his Atonement on behalf of those same priests, who had just condemned him and demanded his crucifixion.

- Prayer 1 acknowledged Jehovah as he who bestows goodly kindness and is “the Creator” of all; it also acknowledged that he will send a Redeemer.

- Prayer 2 acknowledged the resurrection promised by the Messiah.

- Prayer 3, despite the derisive sign affixed to the cross above Christ’s head (Luke 23:38), sanctified the name of the Lord.

- Prayer 5 implored that their repentance would be accepted.

- Prayer 6 begged for forgiveness.

- Prayer 7 acknowledged the Lord as their Redeemer.

- Prayer 8 asked for the healing of their own wounds (reminiscent of the words in Isaiah 53:5, “with his stripes we are healed”), perhaps most poignantly, while they were in the middle of inflicting what may be the most grievous wounds imaginable upon their Lord.

- Prayer 10 pleaded for the Jews—the remaining remnant of the once large but now dispersed Israelites—to be gathered again into one body from the four corners of the earth.46

- Prayer 11 pleaded for relief from the afflictions the Jews were suffering and for justice to be served. They also asserted their innocence.

- Prayer 12, conversely, pleaded for the destruction of the wicked.47

- Prayer 13 begged for favor to be granted to the righteous and the pious, which the Jews imagined to be themselves, as they affirmed their trust in God.

- Prayer 15 beseeched the Almighty for the speedy appearance of the sprout (branch) of David (Jeremiah 23:5–6), who is the Messiah,48 and for the salvation he would bring.

- Prayer 17 begged the Lord to accept their sacrifices to him and to make Jerusalem his abode.

- Prayer 18 summarized the previous prayers.

The Eighteen Benedictions would have been followed by additional praise to the Lord on the day before Christ’s Sunday resurrection. The following words, spoken by the high priest in commemoration of the annual Passover Sabbath on that day, are particularly applicable to the Savior, who was symbolized by the paschal lamb:

And Thou hast given us, O Lord our God, in love [Sabbaths for rest,] set times and seasons for joy, [this Sabbath-day, the day of our rest, and] this day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the season of our deliverance, a holy convocation, a memorial of the exodus from Egypt.49

On that same Passover Sabbath, the Lord visited the righteous ancestors of his accusers, who had languished in spirit prison:

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah. (1 Peter 3:18–20)

Modern-day revelation informs us that he brought to these captives the joyous news that they had finally been ransomed:

The hosts of the dead, both small and great . . . were gathered together . . . the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality; And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer’s name. . . . While this vast multitude waited and conversed . . . the Son of God appeared, declaring liberty to the captives who had been faithful; . . . But his ministry among those who were dead was limited to the brief time intervening between the crucifixion and his resurrection. (Doctrine and Covenants 138:1–60, see especially 11–19, 27)

The long-awaited and jubilant deliverance from Egypt through the Exodus mentioned in the Passover prayer was a type of this even longer-awaited and immensely more exultant spiritual deliverance. It was a fitting conclusion to the symbolic sacrifice by the Savior, excruciatingly wrought over the preceding days.

Why the Lord died when he did

The Lord was fully cognizant of when the appropriate moment had arrived for him to die because he said, “It is finished” (John 19:30). Talmage wrote, in other words, “[The Lord] lived until all things were accomplished as had been appointed.”50 As the final tamid sacrifice was being offered, and as Christ was approaching death, he could justifiably say: “It is finished.” In Greek, the word is “tetelestai.”

“It is finished!” is one word in the Greek text— tetelestai. The word was a common one and was used by merchants to mean “The price is all paid!” Shepherds and priests used it when they found a perfect sheep, ready for sacrifice; and Christ died as the perfect lamb of God. Servants, when their work was completed, would use this word when reporting to their masters. Christ, the obedient Servant, had finished the work the Father gave Him to do. Christ willingly and deliberately gave up His life; He laid down His life for His friends. 51

In his Bible commentary, Matthew Henry summarized what the Lord may have been referring to when the Lord spoke of It as being finished:

Tetelestai—It is finished, a comprehensive word, and a comfortable one. (1.) . . . the malice and enmity of his persecutors had now done their worst; . . . (2.) . . . the counsel and commandment of his Father concerning his sufferings were now fulfilled; . . . (3.) . . . all the types and prophecies of the Old Testament, which pointed at the sufferings of the Messiah, were accomplished and answered. . . . (4.) . . . the ceremonial law is abolished, and a period put to the obligation of it. The substance is now come, and all the shadows are done away. . . . (5.) . . . sin is finished, and an end made of transgression, by the bringing in of an everlasting righteousness. . . . (6.) . . . his sufferings were now finished, both those of his soul and those of his body. . . . (7.) . . . his life was now finished, he was just ready to breathe his last, (8.) . . . the work of man’s redemption and salvation is now completed, at least the hardest part of the undertaking is over; a full satisfaction is made to the justice of God, a fatal blow given to the power of Satan, a fountain of grace opened that shall ever flow, a foundation of peace and happiness laid that shall never fail.52

Henry’s eight points of fulfillment may be more succinctly stated as:

1. The persecution directed against him.

2. His Father’s will.

3. All Old Testament prophecies.

4. The sacrificial rituals that were shadows of his sacrifice.53

5. The release of all who had been held captive by sin.

6. His mortal suffering.

7. His mortal ministry.

8. His Atonement.

The Lord met each of these eight aspects of completion sometime between entering the Garden of Gethsemane and his death. The fourth point, however, was so time-dependent that it could be fulfilled only at one particular moment. According to the law, the tamid could be offered at only two specific times of the day, the beginning and the conclusion of all daily sacrifices. To symbolically encompass all of the sacrifices that had for centuries been types of his ultimate sacrifice, timing was critical. The Lord was placed on the cross at the third hour (9:00 am), the moment at which the first atoning tamid sacrifice was slain. He then voluntarily prolonged his agony while all other sacrificial offerings were being carried out at the temple throughout the day. When these sacrifices had been completed for the day, at the ninth hour (3:00 pm, Matthew 27:46, 50, Mark 15:34, 37, Luke 23:44, 46), the second and final tamid sacrifice was slain. At that moment, the Lord allowed his spirit to depart his ruined body. This was the final thing of “all things” that had to be accomplished. By his suffering throughout the entire day of sacrifices, Christ symbolically fulfilled each of the five korbanot offerings, finally exclaiming, “It is finished” as the final tamid offering concluded the day of sacrifices.

It appears that it was important enough to the Lord that his death occur simultaneously with that final tamid sacrifice that he was willing to prolong his suffering to place a stamp of fulfillment on sacrifice by the shedding of blood.

When Should the Lord Have Died?

Evidence presented in my previous article suggests that Christ’s physical body was brought to the verge of death in Gethsemane and that he survived only because he knew how to support a dying physical body.54 Subsequently, he could have succumbed at any point during the scourging, while carrying the patibulum, or during the crucifixion—particularly when the agony of Gethsemane returned. His body had been pushed unimaginably beyond the limits of normal mortal endurance. I believe that intense physical exertion, hemorrhage, hypovolemia, hypothermia, hypoventilation, and any of numerous other physiologic extremes to which the Lord’s body had been subjected, could have caused him to die before the symbolically appointed time without his own divine intervention.

The Lord was the creator of the universe, including perhaps the most intricate creation of all, the human central nervous system. He had recently demonstrated his mastery of human physiology by raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11:43–44). We may reasonably assume that Christ was fully cognizant of physiologic methods by which he could assuage his suffering. Physicians have long known that certain pharmacologic agents will inhibit the transmission of pain along the entire sensory pain pathway, and these agents are easily administered at any of several points, commencing at the nerve endings in the skin and other tissues, and ascending through the peripheral nerves to the spinal cord and on to the brain.55 Likewise the areas of the brain that process the pain signals that reach them, including the somatosensory cortex, the thalamus, the hypothalamus, and the cerebral cortex,56 are amenable to pain reduction by internally synthesized neurotransmitters including the opioid neuropeptides, endorphins, dynorphins, and enkephalins.57 Although Christ could have caused the synthesis and secretion of such endogenous analgesic agents to attenuate his pain—and no mortal would have known he had done that—he and his Father would have known, and the measure of his Atonement would not have been full. The Lord would not have “drained the cup fully” and his Atonement would have been short of infinite. How immensely sobering it is to realize the restraint demonstrated by the Savior by not attenuating his suffering in the least.

Referring to the Lord’s final utterances moments before his death, John wrote enigmatically “Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled[,] . . . said, ‘It is finished’ and gave up the ghost” (John 19:28). It would be of immense value to understand what John meant by “all things” that were of such importance that the Lord should time his death to occur at that moment. Brown infers that Christ’s injuries were not severe enough for him to have died after only six hours on the cross so he purposely hastened his death after having fulfilled all Old Testament prophecies regarding his mission.58 The Lord may have been talking about ending the practice of animal sacrifices (Hebrews 9:12). Many assume it meant “all that is required for the Atonement.”59 His words may have signified the completion of his earthly mission.60 His final act immediately before stating that “all things were now accomplished” was to arrange for his mother’s care (John 19:27).

The Lord could have precisely timed his death in three possible ways:

- He died sooner than his condition warranted (e.g., hastened his death).

- He died at the moment one would expect for his degree of injuries.

- He should have died later than he did (e.g., prolonged his suffering).

Each of these possible ways will now be considered.

The Lord hastened his death

The soldiers who came to expedite the deaths of the cruciarii by breaking their legs reported to Pilate that Christ was already dead while the two malefactors still lived (John 19:31–33). Pilate, an experienced observer of scourging and crucifixion, marveled that Christ had died as soon as he had (Mark 15:44).

And Pilate marveled if, etc. — Wondered if he was dead, or wondered that he was so soon dead. It was not common for persons crucified to expire under two or three days, sometimes not until the sixth or seventh. Joseph had asked for the “body,” implying that he was dead. That he was, had been ascertained by the soldiers.61

Some commentators on the Lord’s death agree with Pilate’s surprise and believe that Christ did die sooner than a normal human being would have been expected to die under similar circumstances.62 The inherent insinuation is that the Lord decreased the length of time he would spend on the cross to shorten the time of his suffering. The Lord, however, did nothing to mitigate his suffering. He conspicuously and repeatedly refused any means whereby the amount of agony he had to endure would be lessened. Mark records, “And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not” (Mark 15:23), and Matthew concurs (Matthew 27:34). Talmage reported,

Preparatory to affixing the condemned to the cross, it was the custom to offer each a narcotic draught of sour wine or vinegar mingled with myrrh and possibly containing other anodyne ingredients, for the merciful purpose of deadening the sensibility of the victim.63

Christ’s refusal to drink indicated his intention not to diminish the suffering he was already experiencing and what he knew he was yet to endure even more severely. Of course, on the march to Golgotha, Christ was physically unable to continue carrying the patibulum, so it was given to Simon to carry. It appears that the Lord used his divine power to sustain his life but not to reduce his suffering in a non-life-threatening situation.

Brown suggests that Christ’s injuries were not severe enough for him to have died after only six hours on the cross, so he purposely hastened his death—but only after having fulfilled all Old Testament prophecies regarding his mission.64

The Lord died at the expected moment

Perhaps Christ died at the precise moment at which the physical body of an equally traumatized mortal would have died, but that would be an improbable coincidence. Assuming that his death was foreordained to occur at the precise moment that it did, it is conceivable that circumstances could have been arranged such that the Lord would sustain precisely the amount of injury that would cause him to die at the exact moment he did. Holoubek and Holoubek believe that Christ died sooner than an observer might have expected but at the appropriate moment based on his injuries, both apparent and hidden.65 This idea is impossible either to verify or to disprove based on current scriptural and scientific information. It is, however, rather incongruent with the self-determinative nature the Lord displayed in all other instances in his life.

Alternatively, the Father may have orchestrated the Savior’s death to occur at the moment it did. One online ministry proclaims, “This was no accident but was sovereignly arranged by God to show that Christ was the Passover Lamb once and for all.”66 We know, however, that the power to lay down and take up his own body was given to Christ and he “[trod] the winepress alone.”

The Lord should have died sooner than he did

Christ did nothing partway during his life; on the contrary, he encouraged his followers to do more than the minimum so all doubt would be removed regarding their motivation. It was he who advised that “ye shall not resist evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also; And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also; And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain” (3 Nephi 12:39–41). To be efficacious, his sacrifice had to have surpassed anything imaginable. As Neal A. Maxwell described in unfathomable terms, it was “enormity multiplied by infinity.”67

The Lord’s Atonement has been termed infinite (2 Nephi 9:7, 25:16; Alma 34:10, 12, 14).68 Infinite may refer to many different aspects of what he experienced, but one very important aspect is the degree of suffering that he was required to endure before he could say, “It is finished” (John 19:30; JST Matthew 27:54). Callister says,

Not once did he don the bulletproof vest of divinity. That he also had godly powers did not make his suffering any less excruciating, any less poignant, or any less real. To the contrary, it is for this very reason that his suffering was more, not less, than his mortal counterparts could experience.69

Less than the full measure demanded by the law of justice would not have sufficed, but perhaps he suffered even more.

The Lord Determined When His Spirit
Would Leave His Body

John clearly states that Jesus’s life was not taken from him; rather he yielded it up voluntarily (John 10:11, 15, 17–18). Despite the terminology generally used by commentators, neither the Jews nor the Romans “killed” the Savior. No one had that ability. According to the Lord’s statement, “No man taketh [my life] from me” (John 10:18). The Lord alone controlled his fate. Although they did not cause his death, it was their intention to do so, they thought they had been successful, and they were unrepentant (Matthew 27:62–66).

We have no record that anything occurred to the Lord that was against his will. The New Testament records numerous occasions when religious and political leaders and Satan attempted to exert control over his actions, but the Lord always deftly assumed control. When the mob came to apprehend him, the Lord readily identified himself, boldly enough that “they went backward, and fell to the ground” (John 18:6). He then defused a tense situation by healing the severed ear of the high priest’s servant (Luke 22:49–51). We would expect that, as a God, the Lord would never be taken by surprise but would always act and never be unwillingly acted upon. His physical death was always under his control.

Both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas stressed that Jesus died exactly when he intended.70 Brown stated that Jesus did not die until all prophecies had been fulfilled.71 Jeffrey R. Holland agreed, saying, “When the uttermost farthing had then been paid, when Christ’s determination to be faithful was as obvious as it was utterly invincible, finally and mercifully, it was ‘finished.’”72 Christ had power over his own life and death, his body had already been mortally wounded, all prophecies had been fulfilled, and “all things were now accomplished,” so he was free to allow his spirit to depart his physical body and “give up the ghost.” How he may have done so was discussed previously.

Summary and Conclusions

Evidence has been presented to support the following points:

1. Christ had sufficient cause to synchronize his death with a particular event. All symbolism of the Old Testament, particularly that associated with the temple, had reference to the Savior’s atoning sacrifice. It is therefore appropriate that Christ intentionally timed his death to occur at the moment of the second tamid sacrifice on the evening prior to Passover, thus ending the 1,500-year practice of sacrifice by the shedding of blood. Since other sacrifices of various types, all of which had reference to the Savior, were performed throughout the sacrificial day, it was a singularly appropriate moment to fulfill the objectives for which sacrifices were offered, as well as to exemplify the sacrifice of the paschal lamb. The first and second tamid sacrifices powerfully bookended the totality of the symbolic fulfillment of all the sacrifices.

2. Because Christ received no external assistance in carrying out the Atonement, any prolongation of his life was due to his own intervention. The evidence suggests that not until the appropriate moment had arrived, the price had been fully paid, and his redeeming mission was complete, did the Savior voluntarily, actively, and abruptly withdraw his internal “life support” and “[give] up the ghost.” He then rapidly succumbed to one, or more likely all, of the accumulating physiologic abnormalities he had been so tenaciously keeping at bay for many hours.

3. The Lord’s death occurred in two stages. First, the Lord’s body was severely injured, both metabolically in the Garden of Gethsemane and soon after by physical torture. At some point, it became necessary for the Lord to consciously choose to support his failing physical body. Second, after a prolonged period of voluntary subjugation to cruel mistreatment, the Lord released his spirit when the appropriate moment arrived.

4. Christ did not mitigate his suffering. During his ordeal in Gethsemane, the trials, his cruel mistreatment, or on the cross, Christ did not lessen his suffering. Although fully capable of doing so, he refrained from manipulating his internal pain mechanisms. Because of the Lord’s nature, teachings, and past behavior, we may likewise be confident that he did not hasten his death but instead drained the bitter cup in its entirety.

5. No mortal body could have survived what the Lord experienced. Instead, as the designer of human physiology, and being capable of altering it at will, Christ prolonged his life by manipulating metabolic functions to the time of his choosing.

6. Medical science can provide descriptions of the trauma the Lord likely experienced. We may also gain some idea of the means by which he might have kept himself alive beyond the expectations of knowledgeable observers.

Christ had always been fully aware of the prophesied manner in which he must die, but he proceeded willingly regardless. We have a clearer understanding of why he did so, but we now also have a clearer understanding of how he may have accomplished it and when it would have occurred.

Contemporary forensic parlance uses the terms “means, motive, and opportunity” to suggest the likelihood that an observed event was intentional—in this case, the prolongation of his life.

- Christ possessed the means to do so because of his knowledge as creator of the world of how to preserve life by manipulating physiology.

- He had the unique opportunity as the only being capable of dying as a sinless sacrifice.

- He had the motive to coincide his death with the ancient Jewish symbolic ritual sacrifices, signifying their fulfillment, and ending the practice of sacrifice by the shedding of blood.

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 . Tad R. Callister, The Infinite Atonement (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 117.

2 . C. Thomas Black, “The Pathophysiology of the Death of Jesus the Christ,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 62 (2024): 439–506, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-pathophysiology-of-the-death-of
-jesus-the-christ/.

3 . For a more exhaustive list, see Donald W. Parry, “The Atonement of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament,” Liahona, April 2022, 40–43, churchofjesus
christ.org/study/liahona/2022/04/come-follow-me/18-the-atonement
-of-jesus-christ-in-the-old-testament.

4 . Carlos E. Asay, “The Temple Garment: ‘An Outward Expression of an Inward Commitment,’” Ensign, August 1997, 18–23, churchofjesuschrist
.org/study/ensign/1997/08/the-temple-garment-an-outward-expression
-of-an-inward-commitment.

5 . Valerie Durrant, “6 Passover Symbols That Might Change How You Look at Easter,” Ensign, April 2018 (in digital version only), churchofjesuschrist
.org/study/ensign/2018/04/6-passover-symbols-that-might-change-how
-you-look-at-easter.

6 . Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 46, 87.

7 . Hasdai Crescas, Light of the Lord (Or Hashem), trans. Roslyn Weiss (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 162, download link: noachideblog.wordpress
.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/light_of_the_lord.pdf.

8 . Yitzchak Zev Rabinowitz, “Thoughts for Your Table – Parshas Pinchas 5782 – Enthusiastic & Consistent,” Beth Israel Malden (website), 23 Tammuz 5782 [22 July 2022], bethisraelmalden.org/2022/07/thoughts-for-your-table-parshas
-pinchas-5782-enthusiastic-consistent/.

9 . “Bamidbar 28:6,” The Torah with Rashi’s Commentary, ed. and trans. Yisrael Herczeg (Rahway, NJ: Artscroll / Mesorah, 1999), chabad.org/library/bible
_cdo/aid/9956/showrashi/true#lt=primary.

10 . Pinchas Winston, “Devarim – Chazon,” Perceptions, Torah.org, 3 August 2022, torah.org/torah-portion/perceptions-5782-devarim-chazon/.

11 . R. Gidon Rothstein, “Making Meaning of Sacrifice,” Torah Musings (website), 24 November 2015, torahmusings.com/2015/11/making-meaning-of-sacrifice/.

12 . Tracey R. Rich, “Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings,” Judaism 101 (website), 2023, jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm.

13 . “Jewish Practices & Rituals: Sacrifices and Offerings (Karbanot),” Jewish Virtual Library (website), jewishvirtuallibrary.org/sacrifices-and-offerings
-karbanot.

14 . “Zevachim,” Mishnah, 89a, sefaria.org/Zevachim.89a.3.

15 . Harav Aharon Lichtenstein, “The Daily Sacrifices,” Torat Har Etzion (website), 25 March 2018. etzion.org.il/en/holidays/17th-tammuz/daily-sacrifices
#:~:text=Owing%20to%20its%20special%20nature,Temple%20and%20outside%20of%20it.

16 . An apocryphal but widely quoted Midrash (see Rabbi Doron Perez, “The Most Important Passuk in the Torah,” Mizrachi (website), mizrachi.org/festivals/the-most-important-passuk-in-the-torah/) cites an anecdote attributed to Rabbi Ya’akov Ben Haviv from the sixteenth century. In summary, the Rabbi is purported to have asked, “What is the most important passuk [verse] in the Torah?” One sage, Ben Azai, said, “This is the book of the generations of Adam—on the day that G-d created man, He made him in His Image.” Another, Ben Zoma, stated that it must surely be, “Shema Yisrael [Hear, Israel].” Ben Nanas believed it to be “Love your fellow man as yourself.” Shimon Ben Pazi then offered his choice, “One lamb shall you offer in the morning, and the other lamb shall you offer at evening,” which was accepted over the other suggestions since it points us to intentional, daily, consistent behavior—in this case, the offering of a sacrifice both morning and evening, day in and day out. Although the validity of the original source of this anecdote cannot be substantiated, it has been repeated often enough by Jewish scholars that its acceptance is warranted.

17 . Rich, “Qorbanot.”

18 . Rich, “Qorbanot.”

19 . “17th of Tammuz-5 Tragic Events that Befell the Jewish People,” Torah
-Box.net (website), 23 August 2021, torah-box.net/jewish-life/jewish-holidays
/fast-of-the-17th-of-tammuz/17th-of-tammuz-5-tragic-events-that-befell-the
-jewish-people_309.html.

20 . Rich, “Qorbanot.”

21 . Lichtenstein, “Daily Sacrifices.”

22 . “Tamid,” Mishnah, 1–7, sefaria.org/Mishnah_Tamid?tab=contents.

23 . Matthew Henry, “A Commentary on the Holy Bible” (London: The London Printing and Publishing Company, 1761), google.com/books/edition/Commentary_on_the_Holy_Bible_by_the_Rev/6xnGvrLWeD0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+daily+service+appointed%22+Henry&pg=PA233&printsec=frontcover.

“The daily service appointed. A lamb was to be offered upon the altar every morning, and a lamb every evening, each with a meat-offering, both made by fire, as a continual burnt-offering throughout their generations, v. 38–41. Whether there were any other sacrifices to be offered or not, these were sure to be offered, at the public charge, and for the benefit and comfort of all Israel, to make atonement for their daily sins, and to be an acknowledgement to God of their daily mercies. This was that which the duty of every day required.”

24 . Sunrise in Jerusalem varies from 0630 in early April to 0600 in late April. The moment of dawn, when “there is light” or “the entire eastern sky [is] illuminated as far as Hebron” occurs is subjective. Mishnah: Tamid 3:2, sefaria.org/Mishnah_Tamid.3.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en.

25 . Flavius Josephus. “Antiquities of the Jews,” in The Works of Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, trans.(1895), XIV.4.3, gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h
/2848-h.htm#link142HCH0004.

26 . Alfred Edersheim, “A Night in the Temple,” The Temple: Its Ministry and Services as They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ (London: Religious Tract Society, 1874), 7:143. classicchristianlibrary.com/library/edersheim_alfred/Edersheim-Temple.pdf. Although the time designated for the binding of the evening lamb is not stated, the times of the sacrifices are said to occur at the 3rd and the 9th hours. The first lamb was bound at least two hours beforehand, so it is assumed that the evening lamb was bound about the same length of time prior to the sacrifice, which would be during the 6th hour, or about noon.

27 . Avraham Davis, “The Morning Prayers, Korban Tamid (Daily Offering),” Shabbat Siddur Sefard Linear, The Metsudah Siddur (Brooklyn, NY: Metsudah Publications, 1981). sefaria.org/Shabbat_Siddur_Sefard_Linear%2C_The
_Morning_Prayers%2C_Korban_Tamid_(Daily_Offering).2?lang=bi.

28 . Lisle G. Brown, “Tamid: Zacharias and the Second Temple,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 48 (2021): 347, journal
.interpreterfoundation.org/tamid-zacharias-and-the-second-temple/.

29 . Arnost Zvi Ehrman, “Tamid,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Keter, 2007), 19:495, ketab3.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/encyclopaedia-judaica-v-19-som-tn.pdf.

30 . C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 2, trans. James Martin (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1885), 331–32, archive.org/details/BiblicalCommentaryOldTestament.KeilAndDelitzsch.6/01.BCOT.KD.PentateuchMoses.vol.1.Law./page/n847/mode/2up.

31 . Tracey R. Rich, “Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings,” Judaism 101 (website), 2023, jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm.

32 . Lichtenstein, “Daily Sacrifices.”

33 . Rabbi Osher Chaim Levene, “Tamid: From Start to Finish,” Parshas Pinchas, Torah.org (website), July 5, 2023, torah.org/torah-portion/livinglaw-5767
-pinchas/.

34 . See N.R. Davies, “Korban Minchah: The Finest Flour (March 2011),” Jewish Contemplatives (blog), jewishcontemplatives.blogspot.com/2011/03/korban
-minchah-finest-flour-march-2011.html.

35 . Jonathan Grossman, “The Significance of Frankincense in Grain Offerings,” Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 2 (2019): 285–296. dx.doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1382.2019.516371.

36 . Louis Grosman, “Peace Offering,” JewishEncyclopedia (website), jewish
encyclopedia.com/articles/11966-peace-offering.

37 . The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Sacrifices,” Bible Dictionary, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/sacrifices.

38 . Joseph Jacobs, George A. Barton, M. Seligsohn, Emil G. Hirsch, “Sin Offering,” JewishEncyclopedia (website), jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13764-sin
-offering.

39 . Kaufmann Kohler, “Atonement,” JewishEncyclopedia (website), jewish
encyclopedia.com/articles/6934-guilt-offering.

40 . Mishnah Shekalim, 4:1, sefaria.org/Mishnah_Shekalim.4.1?lang=bi.

41 . “The Half-Shekel Offering,” Temple Institute (website), templeinstitute.org/half-shekel-offering/.

42 . Cyrus Adler, Emil G. Hirsch, “Shemoneh ’Esreh,” JewishEncyclopedia (website), jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13561-shemoneh-esreh.

43 . David Instone-Brewer, “The Eighteen Benedictions and the Minim before 70 CE,” Journal of Theological Studies 54, no. 1 (April 2003): 25–44, jstor.org/stable/23968967?seq=1.

44 . The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued a doctrinal statement on the relationship between the Father and the Son, which states repeatedly that Jesus Christ is Jehovah: “The Father and the Son,” Improvement Era, Aug. 1916, 934–42, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng. This is not a concept unique to the Church of Jesus Christ as many Christian denominations believe the same thing. Referring to the Israelites being led by Moses from Egypt to the promised land, Paul states: “And [they] did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them [Jehovah]: and that Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4).

45 . Adler, “Shemoneh ’Esreh.”

46 . This prayer recalls Luke 13:34, in which Christ laments the unwillingness of the Jews to be gathered by their Lord.

47 . This despite the statement that they were “among those who are the more wicked part of the world” and that there was “none other nation on earth that would crucify their God” (2 Nephi 10:3).

48 . Russell M. Nelson, “Why This Holy Land?” Ensign, December 1989, 15, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1989/12/why-this-holy-land.

49 . Adler, “Shemoneh ’Esreh.”

50 . James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1915), 662, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-35.

51 . Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books,1992), 264, archive.org/details/wiersbesexposito
0000wier_y6r0/page/264/mode/2up.

52 . Matthew Henry, “Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible,” (1706), at Bible Study Tools (website), biblestudytools.com/commentaries
/matthew-henry-complete/john/19.html.

53 . Such terminology suggests to some a supersessionistic belief that the Lord has repudiated the ancient Israelite ceremonies and sacrifices, has rejected the Jews as his covenant people, and has replaced them with one or more Christian sects. The Church of Jesus Christ does not subscribe to this so-called “replacement theory.” Neither the former laws nor rites were renounced, but they were fulfilled and amplified. The descendants of Abraham were and still are the Lord’s chosen people, and he will reclaim as many of them as are willing, when he returns to earth as their—and our—Messiah.

54 . Black, “Pathophysiology,” journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-pathophysi
ology-of-the-death-of-jesus-the-christ/.

55 . Danielle Reddi, Natasha Curran, Robert C.M. Stephens, “An introduction to pain pathways and mechanisms,” British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 74 Suppl 12:C188– 91 (December 2013), ucl.ac.uk/anaesthesia/sites/anaesthesia
/files/IntrotoPainPathwaysandMechanisms.pdf.

56 . A.I. Basbaum, H.L. Fields, “Endogenous pain control mechanisms: review and hypothesis,” Annals of Neurology vol. 4 (November 1978): 451, online
library.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.410040511.

57 . Cassidy Vuong, et al., “The Effects of Opioids and Opioid Analogs on Animal and Human Endocrine Systems,” Endocrine Reviews, vol. 31, no. 1 (1 February 2010): 98, academic.oup.com/edrv/article/31/1/98/2354848.

58 . Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 1078, archive.org/details/deathofmessiahvo00raym/page/1078/mode
/2up.

59 . See for example, Alain A. Petion, “Words of Jesus: On the Cross,” Ensign, June 2003, 35, archive.org/details/ Ensign_Magazine-2003-06/page/n35
/mode/2up; and Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 4:227–28.

60 . John H. Groberg, “It Is Finished,” in My Redeemer Lives!, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 1–26, rsc.byu
.edu/my-redeemer-lives/it-finished.

61 . Albert Barnes, “Mark 15:44,” Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1962), 177n44, archive.org/details/barnesnotes
onnew0000unse/page/176/mode/2up.

62 . J. Warner Wallace, “Why Jesus Died So Quickly On The Cross,” Cold-Case Christianity (blog), 5 April 2019, coldcasechristianity.com/2014/why
-jesus-died-so-quickly-on-the-cross/. See also: “Crucifixion,” The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, ed. James Strong and John McClintock (New York: Haper and Brothers, 1880), biblicalcyclopedia
.com/C/crucifixion.html; Brown, “Death of the Messiah.”

63 . James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1915), 654–55, archive.org/details/jesusthechrist1915.

64 . Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1078.

65 . Joe E. Holoubek, Alice Baker Holoubek, “A Study of Death by Crucifixion with Attempted Explanation of the Death of Jesus Christ,” The Linacre Quarterly 61, no. 1 (February 1994): 18, epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/view
content.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1878&context=lnq.

66 . “Faith Lesson from Gethsemane to Golgotha,” point 5, Holy Land Site (website), holylandsite.com/jesus-path-to-the-cross.

67 . Neil A. Maxwell, “Willing to Submit,” Ensign, May 1985, 73, churchofjesus
christ.org/study/general-conference/1985/04/willing-to-submit.

68 . Callister, Infinite Atonement, 58–60.

69 . Callister, Infinite Atonement, 119.

70 . Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 119:4, 6, New Advent (website), newadvent.org/fathers/1701119.htm; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q 47, A 1, Reply 2, New Advent (website), newadvent.org/summa
/4047.htm.

71 . Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1078.

72 . Jeffrey R. Holland, “None Were with Him,” Ensign, May 2009, 88, churchof
jesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2009/05/none-were-with-him.

Easter as Threshold: Trauma, Transformation, and God’s Presence in Liminal Spaces

Joseph W. Green

Abstract: Using the context of Easter, this personal essay explores perceptions of God’s presence and absence during human suffering. There is a theological thread that ties Christ’s suffering for our griefs and sorrows during his Atonement directly to his ability to succor us as we enter into despair due to our own trauma. Our suffering occurs during moments of transition and vulnerability known as “liminal spaces.” It is in these moments that the Savior meets us at the threshold, helping us move through trauma toward transformation in Christ. Our ability to move forward openly in liminal spaces will help us to recognize God’s presence in these moments as well as to discern the reflection of his presence in those who minister to us in our grief.

Today begins that sacred transitional space just before Easter that we refer to as Good Friday, the day on which Christians worldwide commemorate the Crucifixion of the Savior on Calvary. Good Friday is a threshold through which we enter a period of darkness, grief, and despair that is only overcome by the burst of light that arrives with the Resurrection on Easter Sunday.

During this time, I am thinking about Easter in the context of how Christ’s Atonement can lead to divine comfort and presence during sickness and sorrow. This is because, in my work as a chaplain in clinical settings, I often visit patients who have experienced significant trauma due to health issues, from amputations to open-heart surgeries, post-traumatic stress disorders, or perhaps the death of a loved one. As we sit together to process their grief, some of them turn to me, tears in their eyes, asking, “Where is God in my suffering?”

In my experience, this pleading usually addresses not the question of God’s existence but rather the timing of his perceived absence. In many instances, the patients I sit with have experienced a connection with the divine in the past but now feel alone and abandoned. This is a theme often explored in the Hebrew Bible. During several festivals throughout the year, Israelites were expected to gather at the temple to stand in God’s presence, often expressed as seeing (or seeking) God’s face.1 When they felt his absence, they would often cry out in distress, “Why do you hide your face?”2 Joseph Smith, experiencing prolonged suffering in a jail in Liberty, Missouri, had a similar plea: “O God, where art thou? And where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place?” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:1).

Like the petitioners in the Psalms, and like Joseph Smith, I too have asked this question in similar moments of distress. Just over a year ago I found myself attending, within the space of a few days, the funerals of two different soldiers who had died by suicide. After the second service had finished, I found myself leaving the chapel and driving to my father’s grave. Once there, I stood by his headstone, tears flowing like a river, looking for comfort, and attempting to understand and process the wave of grief and sorrow that I felt. But more than that, I wanted to know where God’s presence was during the communal suffering that had spread through distraught families and our military formations like the far-reaching roots of an aspen grove.

If there is any time where it is appropriate to begin a conversation about our perceptions of God’s presence and absence in our moments of grief, then it is surely now during this time when we reflect on Jesus’s own journey of pain and suffering as he left the upper room to first visit Gethsemane and then to tread the “Way of Sorrow” that led to Calvary and the cross. I would like to open that discussion here by offering a few theological observations about how Christ’s Atonement impacts human suffering, how this applies to the psychology that informs our understanding of vulnerability and transformation during moments of transition, and how I have internalized these concepts as I have acted as a spiritual guide for those on journeys of grief and loss.

There is a strong theme running through many scriptural texts that affirms God’s presence in our suffering. For example, speaking of our “many afflictions,” the psalmist proclaims, “God is near/close to those whose hearts have shattered” (Psalm 34:18–19[19–20]). But many New Testament authors understood this promise of the Lord’s presence during our sorrow to be connected to his own suffering and sacrifice. A key text in this tradition is Isaiah’s fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13–53:12), which speaks of a servant of the Lord who “lifted up our sickness and carried our suffering” (Isaiah 53:4).3 Additionally, this figure “was wounded for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5). In its context in Second Isaiah, this hymn spoke of an intense suffering that overcame sin and iniquity for a multitude or nation.4 Several New Testament authors would use this as a framework in which to explain Jesus’s death and Resurrection as a victory over sin and death.

These same authors, however, would also apply this passage not just to redemption from sin but to Christ’s mercy and love during moments of physical sickness and suffering. The author of the Gospel of Matthew, for example, tells us how Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law, as well as many others that were brought to him (Matthew 8:14–16), deliberately connecting these actions to Isaiah’s suffering servant: “This in order to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our illness’” (Matthew 8:17).5 In the Book of Mormon, Alma also referenced this Isaianic passage in a similar way: “And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people” (Alma 7:11).6 But Alma’s reading of these lines is slightly different from Matthew’s. Here it is not solely about Christ healing the sick but rather about his ability to understand their grief and sorrow in a way that leads to a ministry of divine presence. He took upon himself their pain and sickness “that his bowels may be filled with mercy,” so that he would know “how to succor his people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:12). In fact, Alma’s reading of Isaiah uses parallel lines of poetry to argue that Christ “will take upon him death” and “will take upon him their infirmities” (Alma 7:12), a summary of the Atonement that emphasizes death and suffering more than death and sin.7 This is a powerful idea that needs to be explored more fully in Latter-day Saint conceptions of sin, grace, and atonement.

From a human perspective, this trauma and suffering occurs when we navigate transitional periods that are known as liminal moments (from the Latin limen, “threshold”). Liminality refers to those times when we have already left one state (physically, mentally, or emotionally), but have not yet arrived at our destination because we are still standing on the threshold of change. Anthropologist Victor Turner refers to this as being “neither here nor there” and “betwixt and between.”8 Franciscan theologian Richard Rohr describes liminality as when “the old world is left behind, but we’re not sure of the new one yet.”9 That sensitive, vulnerable moment of transition between sleep and waking is liminal space, as is a loss or change in employment, the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, missionary service, military deployments, serious injury and illness, and many other periods of change and transition that we navigate in our lives. Much of my childhood was characterized by these moments of transition, like when our family fled from Taiz, Yemen, to Cairo, Egypt, in the wake of a military coup. On the day I left the funeral of a service member to stand at my father’s grave, I traded one liminal space for another, trying to make sense of a new heartbreak through the lens of a known prior grief.

According to what we know from human psychology, liminality is a threshold that divides the known from the unknown. It is “characterized by ambiguity and uncertainty of identity but also as having the potential to transform the person.”10 And because of the volatile and explosive nature of this space, the potential for transformation is far greater than when we are in safe, non-liminal moments.11 But when standing on this threshold beset by uncertainty, we are often presented with two options: to defensively retreat backwards, away from the change towards the safety of known and hardened identities and spaces, or to begin an open and transforming movement forward across the threshold into “an area of accessibility and multiplicity of possibilities, a virtual place for new connections.”12

It is this liminal space filled with uncertainty in which scripture identifies the Lord providing presence, healing, and transformation. This is why he is often pictured at the threshold while inviting us forward toward transformation. In John, Jesus is the door (or gate) through which the sheep enter the fold (John 10:7, 9); in the epistle to the Hebrews, he is the curtain/veil through which we pass into the holy of holies in the temple (Hebrews 10:20); in Revelation, he stands at the door and knocks, waiting for us to hear his voice and open the door (Revelation 3:20). Channeling the language of Isaiah, Jacob tells us that we must press forward on a path towards transformation but that the Holy One of Israel is “the keeper of the gate” (2 Nephi 9:41). In these instances, the Savior is the threshold, or he stands at the threshold.

Good Friday, followed by Easter Sunday, comprise the ultimate threshold, the single greatest transitional journey of suffering followed by the single greatest transformation, symbolized by the familiar liminal imagery of a threshold. Only this doorway leads to an empty tomb, a discarded white linen shroud lying on the bench inside. Jesus is not there; he is risen; he is transformed. He has crossed over that threshold in order to stand at our own doorways of uncertainty and sorrow and offer comfort and grace. Given all of this, why is it that when we enter these vulnerable liminal moments we sometimes perceive that we experience a divine absence instead of a redemptive presence?

I suggest that some of the answers to this question will come as we explore how these liminal moments force us to stumble into the unknown inside our own minds and hearts as well as in our relationships with those around us. During Holy Week, Jesus taught that the great commandment consists of loving God with all of our heart, soul, and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:37, 39). Heart, soul, and mind are images that reflect internal systems, the crossing of thresholds into the unknown inside of ourselves. This is also implied in loving your neighbor as yourself, which also points to internal thresholds. When we add God and our neighbor, then this means that there are also external, interpersonal thresholds, where we need to act in faith and trust with the divine and with those around us. And these internal and external liminal horizons are connected. Poet and philosopher David Whyte has said that the “foundation of mystical experience” is bringing what lies beyond the threshold of what we know inside of us into conversation with what lies beyond the threshold of what we know in the outer world outside of us.13

There are times, however, when the intensity of our suffering has us moving away from these internal and external thresholds, blocking our awareness of the unknown both within and without. This is a natural and very human reaction; however, in these moments we sometimes tune everything else out except for our own trauma. One patient I visited struggled intensely with pain while her husband held her hand, worried about her condition. I held her other hand and sat with her for a while, providing another presence. As I allowed myself to hold space for her suffering, I felt an aura or reflection of the divine in her countenance. This was a remarkable woman who radiated spiritual goodness. In between deep breaths, she told me that she had recently felt completely alone because her focus had been on the intensity of the pain. As she defensively moved back from this threshold within, it impacted her ability to see external thresholds as well. She said that as she shrank back in fear of her pain, she wasn’t even aware of her husband holding her hand. Then she made a decision—she described it as an act of faith—to let go, to accept that she was in pain, to stay with it, and then to move forward to see what was beyond it. At that point, she said that she became aware not only of those around her, like her husband, but of the Savior’s presence, of his love and grace in her suffering. While she was still in pain, she knew that she was being supported by her husband and by God’s presence.

Others I have visited only became aware of this divine comfort as they reflected back on their suffering. When one patient told me that he was looking for God’s presence, I asked him about his experiences with the divine in the past. He thought about this for a while and then talked in detail about several times where he had felt God’s love and comfort. As he related these moments to me, he became emotional as he realized that in these experiences he had indeed felt God’s love during his suffering but had only become aware of this presence later, when he was looking back on them. He saw a pattern, and this pattern moved him to begin to try to increase his awareness of God’s love in his current moment of grief. This patient lived Richard Rohr’s observation that “we tend not to see the pattern, and how God is our transformer, until after the fact.”14

There are other factors that can limit our ability to move forward in openness toward internal thresholds of transformation, including unrealistic expectations. I have visited with some who have felt abandoned because they were not being given the outcome of complete healing that they both wanted and expected. While complete physical healing, an end to suffering, and a return to prior health status is certainly a possibility, just as likely is the probability that we need to transition into a new health status where conditions have changed. This reality can create an ambiguity or disorder at the frontier of our emotions, and this messiness is both natural and acceptable. Faced with unfathomable trauma that lay ahead, Christ, praying in Gethsemane, also looked for a different outcome: “Father if you will, take this cup from me” (Luke 22:42). Our own willingness to sit at this frontier of ambiguity allows us to enter vulnerable liminal space where neither continued suffering nor complete healing are either assured or certain.

Feelings of shame and unworthiness can also limit our journey towards liminal threshold moments. These are basic human emotions that lead us to believe “that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of love, belonging, and connection.”15 Jungian psychoanalyst James Hollis has observed that “the experience of abandonment is often internalized as an implicit statement about our worth or value to the other.”16 Yet this cause and effect works the other way as well, with many of us starting with feelings of unworthiness or shame and then concluding from this that we have been abandoned by God. One patient I visited, trembling in her suffering, insisted that God had abandoned her because she had not been diligent (in her own judgment, not God’s) in reading her scriptures, praying, or attending church services. She had projected her sense of unworthiness onto God, making her believe that she had been rejected by him.

This kind of thinking is debilitating and leaves no room for God’s grace, infused with love and the ability to succor us after taking on himself our pains and sickness. As Elder D. Todd Christofferson has stated, “We do not need to achieve some minimum level of capacity or goodness before God will help—divine aid can be ours every hour of every day.”17 Yet many of us within Latter-day Saint culture are not hearing this and have judged ourselves based on some idea of minimum worthiness and as a result then move to feelings of abandonment or even anger. When we do this, we move defensively away from the threshold toward prior hardened positions, feeling that we are being punished. Latter-day Saint philosopher Adam Miller has argued that the idea of suffering as a form of God’s punishment likely stems from the protestant notion of original sin and that Latter-day Saints, who reject this theology, should leverage restored scripture instead to show that it is God’s grace and not sin that is original, and that this grace is an expression of Christ’s Atonement where he suffers with us.18 This idea sounds a lot like Alma’s application of Isaiah’s suffering servant text to the Atonement, where the focus is on trauma and not on transgression. Christ suffered our pains precisely so that he could succor us while we experience those pains, and we do not need some minimum level of “personal righteousness” to receive that grace. If we are truly to love our neighbor as ourselves, then we should also think of loving God as God loves us. This means that when the Lord says that “the worth of souls is great in the sight of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 18:10), we should accept that he is talking about us personally.

Another reason why we are sometimes unaware of God’s presence in our suffering is that we can overlook the reflection of the divine in those who succor us. Each of our patient’s rooms contained a white board on the wall that lists important things about the patient’s care, including the nurse’s name, contact information for the patient’s family members, and the medications the patient is taking. Additionally, one area of the board was dedicated to the patient’s “plan of care,” consisting of the goals that the patient must accomplish before being discharged. One day I was visiting with a lovely lady who had experienced a good deal of suffering and trauma in her recent health journey. However, she routinely exhibited an optimistic and joyful attitude, and so I asked about her sources of comfort and hope, and how she found meaning in the midst of her affliction. Pointing to the goal section of the white board on her wall, she smiled and said, “Every morning I look at the phrase ‘plan of care,’ and I think of it as ‘God’s plan of care for me.’ And when I do that, I know that every person who comes through that door to help me is representing God as they carry out his plan.”

We need to practice becoming more aware of those who come to our aid while reflecting the divine image. One of the things I love about Lehi’s dream (1 Nephi 8) is that he begins his journey in liminal space, a “dark and dreary wilderness” (v. 4), and then moves forward in openness (in spite of his suffering) toward transformation in Christ at the tree. Wilderness (Hebrew מִדְבָּר) in biblical texts generally refers to “the area between fertile settled areas and the true desert,”19 so Lehi is inhabiting in-between threshold space here. But during his moment of trauma, someone appears, a man “dressed in a white robe” (v. 5), who tells Lehi to “follow him.” No other dialogue is noted, and I wonder about the interpersonal connection that is developed between them. The white robe is reminiscent of the linen dress worn by temple priests who entered the presence of God, so this person reflects the presence of the Lord to Lehi as he stands in his threshold of suffering. In fact, the “presence of the Lord” is the exact interpretive lens Lehi uses to understand this dream (v. 36).20

According to Matthew’s timeline, it is during Jesus’s own liminal journey of suffering during Holy Week that he tells his disciples that they are to see the presence of the Lord in those who are suffering: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger and you received me as a guest” (Matthew 25:35). We usually think of this from our own vantage point, attempting to see a reflection of the Savior in those we succor, but from the perspective of those who are suffering, this means that they also have the opportunity to experience God’s presence when someone arrives to succor them. In other words, they should see God’s reflection in us as we help them. One afternoon a few months ago, I sat with a Muslim patient who was in a good deal of pain. I held his hand and helped him recite from a Surah in the Qur’an that brought him comfort and relief. Afterward, tears in his eyes, this wonderful man told me, “I think we have both felt God’s presence here today,” summarizing precisely how I also felt. The educator of our Clinical Pastoral Education seminar, the Reverend Dr. Mariclea Chollet, often asks us what reflection of the divine we are sharing with our patients. As we enter liminal moments of suffering, then, recognizing the “presence of the Lord” in others who come to assist us involves moving forward in openness toward the threshold between us and them. At the same time we are in dialogue with what lies beyond the threshold inside of us, allowing our neighbors to minister to us and looking for God’s presence in the liminal space as they do.

A final thought in this discussion about the presence or absence of the Lord in our suffering is the observation that there are times when we really are alone, as modeled by Christ himself. Just before Jesus’s death on the cross, the authors of Mark and Matthew both use the words of Psalm 22:1 to articulate Christ’s agony at being alone: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:4; Matthew 27:46).21 However brief our moments of aloneness may be, we can look to the Lord’s experience for perspective and understanding. I suspect that for us, we are often granted this space in order to fully identify the contours of the threshold lines between what is us and what is the divine grace that supports us. As the noted Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung observed, “The patient must be alone if he is to find out what it is that supports him when he can no longer support himself.”22 This dialogue with aloneness is an act of faith where we can move forward in openness to become aware of exactly how God’s love operates in our suffering. In Lehi’s dream, after he wanders “for the space of many hours in darkness” (1 Nephi 8:8), he does not mention the presence of the man in white anymore. Has this man left and is Lehi now alone? In any case, Lehi chooses here to move forward, praying to the Lord for his mercy and grace, revealing the edges between Lehi’s aloneness and the divine support for which he is looking.

In the scriptures, this aloneness is always followed by a divine presence. It is a pattern that is repeated throughout the biblical narratives relating the last days of Christ’s mortal journey during Holy Week and culminating in the Resurrection on Easter Sunday. But it is especially prominent in the Gospel of John, whose author reserves approximately half of his entire gospel to discuss these liminal days of Christ’s last week. The author prefaces this with the story of Lazarus, which in the final form of this gospel, appears to occur in the month or two just before Holy Week begins.23 Here Mary Magdalene and Martha send Jesus a message that Lazarus is ill, but Christ delays his visit to them by several days. When he arrives and calls for Mary, she kneels at his feet, weeping, saying, “Lord, if you had been here…” (John 11:32). Mary had been with Martha and those who had come to console them, but in another sense, she had felt entirely alone, looking for Christ’s presence. He had been absent, and then, as she weeps, he appears, weeping with her (v. 35). He is about to bring Lazarus back to life, yet in this moment he holds space to sit with her in her sorrow, “to mourn with those that mourn” and to “comfort those that stand in need of comfort“ (Mosiah 18:9). Absence, followed by a presence that fully comprehends our pains and sickness because he took upon himself our grief and sorrow.

We see this same pattern at the end of Christ’s journey of suffering on Good Friday. Mary Magdalene is “standing near the cross” (John 19:25) as Jesus is in pain. Earlier we had seen the disciples in Gethsemane struggle to stay awake as Jesus asked them to sit with him in his anguish. Yet here is Mary at the cross, holding a presence for him at the very end, while likely suffering immensely herself. And then he is gone, and she is now alone. It is in the darkness that she comes on Sunday morning to the garden tomb, approaching this liminal space in what had to have been considerable trauma. Weeping, she looks through the threshold of the doorway and sees the angels, and then turns around and encounters the risen Lord. “Mary,” he says to her. There was an absence and now there is a presence that encompasses her suffering.

As we stand on the threshold of this precious time in Christ’s journey of suffering and transformation that includes this incredible liminal space from Good Friday until the joy of Easter Sunday, this is the time to consider our own periods of transformation and God’s purpose for these liminal journeys. As David Whyte says, “Sometimes with the bones of the black sticks left when the fire has gone out, someone has written something new in the ashes of your life. You are not leaving, you are arriving.”24 God is waiting for us to arrive at these thresholds of change, and this is the whole point behind his suffering and his Resurrection, so that his grace and love can permeate our lives during our liminal moments filled with fear, anguish, longing, hope, and faith. As Richard Rohr put it during his 2012 Easter homily, “What the Resurrection is saying more than anything else is that love is stronger than death.”25 This love that is stronger than death is God’s presence that awaits us at the threshold.

This is Easter.

Brigadier General Joseph W. Green (US Army, Retired) is a chaplain resident employed by Episcopal Community Services, providing clinical spiritual care to patients, their families, and hospital staff at both St. Mark’s Hospital in Millcreek, UT, and Lone Peak Hospital in Draper, UT. His military service includes deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as assignments as Commander, 300th Military Intelligence Brigade (Linguist); Chief, Intelligence Disciplines Division at the Headquarters, Department of the Army (Pentagon); and Commander, Utah Army National Guard. His military decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal and the Bronze Star Medal. He received a BA in Spanish Translation and Interpretation from Brigham Young University, a Master of Strategic Studies from the US Army War College (Distinguished Graduate), and a Master of Divinity (Concentration in Biblical Languages) from Regent University.

1 . E.g., Psalms 17:15; 27:8. For a treatment of this idea, see Andrew C. Skinner, “Seeing God in His Temple: A Significant Theme in Israel’s Psalms,” in Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament (2013 Sperry Symposium), ed. Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Matthew J. Grey, and David Rolph Seely (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013), 270–90, scholars
archive.byu.edu/facpub/3497/.

2 . E.g., Psalms 13:1[2]; 88:14[15]; Job 13:24). The numbers in brackets represent the versification in the Hebrew Bible. All biblical quotations are the author’s own translations.

3 . The familiar KJV has “he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.”

4 . See, for example, Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2012), 398, 404.

5 . While I agree with the many scholars that see this as a commentary about Christ’s compassion for physical illness and trauma, some have argued that Matthew’s point here focuses rather on spiritual healing instead. For a review of different perspectives on this passage, see G.K Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), s.v. “Matthew 8:17.”

6 . Here I concur with Thomas Wayment’s argument that Alma is quoting from Isaiah’s fourth servant song, in Thomas A. Wayment, “The Hebrew Text of Alma 7:11,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 1 (2005): 98–103, 130, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol14/iss1/10/.

7 . Doctrine and Covenants 18:11 also summarizes Christ’s Atonement with similar parallel ideas about death and trauma instead of death and sin: “the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh; wherefore he suffered the pain of all men.”

8 . Victor W. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969), 95. Turner himself nodded to the French folklorist Arnold van Gennep’s use of the word limen to describe a crucial phase of rites of passage in various cultures, where the individual separates from their cultural context, enters a transitional period, then reintegrates back into society (p. 94).

9 . Richard Rohr, Everything Belongs: The Gift of Contemplative Prayer (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1999), 132, archive.org/details/everythingbelong
0000rohr_l8e5/page/132/mode/2up.

10 . Matías Barros et al., “Private Speech and Imagination: The Liminal Experience Between Myself and Others,” Human Arenas 3 (2020): 458, doi
.org/10.1007/s42087-020-00110-0. Here they cite research from P. Stenner, M. Greco, and J. Motzkau, “Introduction to the Special Issue on Liminal Hotspots,” Theory & Psychology 27, no. 2 (2017):141–46.

11 . Raffaele De Luca Picione and Jaan Valsiner, “Psychological Functions of Semiotic Borders in Sense-Making: Liminality of Narrative Processes,” Europe’s Journal of Psychology 13, no. 3 (2017): 536, ejop.psychopen.eu/index.php/ejop/article/view/1136/1136.pdf.

12 . De Luca Picione and Valsiner, “Psychological Functions of Semiotic Borders in Sense-Making,” 539.

13 . Where Shall we Meet, “On Consolations with David Whyte,” YouTube video, 40:38, 26 November 2024, youtu.be/OZ-Xm4KMh2s. Whyte here uses the vocabulary of internal and external horizon lines to refer to thresholds, or liminality.

14 . Rohr, Everything Belongs, 20, emphasis in original.

15 . Brené Brown, The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You’re Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are (Center City, MN: Hazelden Publishing, 2010), 52.

16 . James Hollis, Why Good People Do Bad Things: Understanding our Darker Selves (New York: Gotham Books, 2007), 98, emphasis in original.

17 . Elder D. Todd Christofferson, “Free Forever to Act for Themselves,” Ensign, November 2014, 19, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2014/11/saturday
-morning-session/free-forever-to-act-for-themselves.

18 . Adam S. Miller, Original Grace: An Experiment in Restoration Thinking (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: BYU Maxwell Institute, 2022), 59.

19 . Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 20 (Dallas: Word Books, 1998), 56–57.

20 . See Jennifer C. Lane’s exposition of “presence of the Lord” here, in “The Presence of the Lord,” in The Things Which My Father Saw: Approaches to Lehi’s Dream and Nephi’s Vision (2011 Sperry Symposium), ed. Daniel L. Belnap, Gaye Strathearn, and Stanley A. Johnson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 119–34, rsc
.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/The_Presence_of_the_Lord
.pdf.

21 . I’m grateful for my conversations with the Rev. Nancy J. Cormack-Hughes, Director of Spiritual Care at St. Mark’s Hospital, for this part of the discussion.

22 . Carl Jung, “Psychology and Alchemy,” The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, vol. 12: Psychology and Alchemy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953), para. 32, as cited in Hollis, Why Good People Do Bad Things, 87.

23 . There is widespread agreement that the story of Lazarus has been moved within John’s gospel during editing. For a summary of the discussion, see Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I–XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 29, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 427–30.

24 . David Whyte, The House of Belonging (Langley, WA: Many Rivers Press, 1997), 38, emphasis in original.

25 . Center for Action and Contemplation, “Easter Sunday (2012) | Homilies with Richard Rohr | CAC Podcasts,” YouTube video, 5:35, 11 June 2023, youtu.be/s4BTjyl91_w?si=beaiq-bwtYDXW3Lm.

Jeremiah “the Prophet”

Loren Spendlove

Abstract: This article, which focuses on the role of Jeremiah as a prophet, is based on a study of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Septuagint. It also analyzes references to Jeremiah in the Book of Mormon and connects those references to current scholarly research on the book of Jeremiah. Consistent with the general consensus among biblical scholars today, as well as Nephi1’s own references to Jeremiah in the Book of Mormon, the author proposes that even though Jeremiah embodied the office of a prophet, he was not recognized as being “among the prophets” during his lifetime. This is a subtle yet significant difference. If this view is correct, it would further substantiate the alignment between the Book of Mormon and contemporary scholarly perspectives on the historical reception of Jeremiah’s identity as a prophet in antiquity.

The book of Jeremiah is the longest book in the entire Bible, and it also “has a complex redaction history. Few books in the Hebrew Bible exist in recensions [revised editions of a text] that preserve such profound transformations.”1 Much of the evidence for these “transformations” are readily observable when we compare the received text (Hebrew Masoretic Text, hereafter MT) and the Greek Septuagint (hereafter LXX) of the book of Jeremiah. For centuries, theologians believed that the differences between the MT and LXX could be ascribed to the translation process from Hebrew to Greek. However, two hundred years ago, German biblical scholar Johann Eichhorn brought this assumption into question and proposed an alternate theory that has greatly impacted scholarship of the book of Jeremiah to this day:

The modern discussion of the relationship between M [MT] and G [LXX] in Jeremiah begins with Eichhorn, who proposed that the two text traditions originated in successive editions of the book by Jeremiah himself. According to his hypothesis, a first edition was composed in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, augmented in Egypt with subsequent oracles, and in this form was sent to Babylon for the use of the exiles there. An identical copy was kept in Egypt, not in one continuous document, but in a series of smaller booklets. From this copy Jeremiah prepared a second edition, whose various additions were typical of the elaborations, retouching, and up-dating which go into any revision. This revised edition was sent to Palestine, where it entered the Hebrew canon and became the prototype of the received text. Meanwhile, the copy of the first edition, which remained in Egypt, was transmitted in its unrevised form (though in somewhat different order because of reshuffling of the small booklets in which it was contained) and eventually was translated into Greek. Eichhorn thus explained the divergence not as a textual, but as an editorial phenomenon.2

While Eichhorn’s theory opened the possibility of understanding LXX Jeremiah in new ways, the discovery of Jeremiah manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls (hereafter DSS) has enabled modern biblical scholars to update Eichhorn’s theory with information that was unavailable to him. Following the trail illuminated more clearly by the DSS, this paper explores the complicated transmission history of the book of Jeremiah from the perspective of the MT and the LXX, as well as noting Jeremiah’s limited, but potentially meaningful, mentions in the Book of Mormon text. These differences between the MT and LXX versions of Jeremiah are significant, as they reveal how Jeremiah’s prophetic role was perceived over time. Understanding these textual disparities also helps validate the Book of Mormon’s depiction of Jeremiah as someone whose prophetic status was not fully recognized during his lifetime.

What is a Prophet?

Words often carry diverse and biased connotations, and this is particularly true for the term prophet, especially within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The English word prophet originates from the Greek προφήτης (prophetes), “a proclaimer or expounder of divine matters or concerns,”3 or alternatively, a “spokesman for another” or “interpreter for a deity.”4 Following these interpretations, a prophet is someone who speaks authoritatively on behalf of someone else, and especially for God.

Prior to the Exodus, Moses was told to “go, and gather the elders of Israel” (Exodus 3:16) and speak the words of God to them.5 Moses, however, complained that he was “not eloquent” and that he was “slow of speech, and of a slow tongue” (Exodus 4:10). The Lord corrected Moses, saying: “Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say” (Exodus 4:11–12). Unconvinced, Moses begged the Lord to choose another spokesperson. At this, “the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses,” and he replied, saying:

Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well (דבר ידבר, daber yedaber). And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak (דברת, dibarta) unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman (דבר, diber) unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God. (Exodus 4:14–16)

Though Moses remained God’s spokesman or “mouth,” Aaron was appointed as Moses’s spokesman. The Hebrew noun for “spokesman” in this passage, דבר (diber), originates from the same root as the verb “to speak,” דבר (dabar). A few chapters later, God added to these instructions: “See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet (נביאך, neviecha)” (Exodus 7:1). In other words, Aaron’s role as a spokesman for Moses was synonymous with the role of prophet; Aaron was the person designated by God as the official mouthpiece for Moses.

Ernest Klein stated that the Hebrew word for prophet, נביא (navi), is probably “derived from base נבא (= to call, proclaim); accordingly the original meaning of נביא probably was ‘the man who calls or proclaims.’”6 In addition to meaning to call or proclaim, Klein added that the related verb, נבא (nava), found its way into Hebrew from the Akkadian loanword nabū, which carries the same basic meaning as its Hebrew descendant. So, though a prophet can and does at times foretell future events, the primary role of a prophet is to proclaim or communicate messages on behalf of another person, especially messages from God.7 Foretelling future events falls more under the biblical role of ראה (roeh, see 1 Samuel 9:9) or חזה (chozeh, see 1 Chronicles 21:9), both translated as seer in English.

Saul the Prophet

In 1 Samuel 10, we are confronted with the interesting and perplexing story of Saul’s anointing as the first king of Israel. Following his anointing by Samuel, we are told that the Spirit of God came upon Saul and that he began to prophesy:

And it was so, that when [Saul] had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day. And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets [נבאים, neviim] met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied [ויתנבא, va’yitnave] among them. And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he prophesied [נבא, niva] among the prophets [נבאים, neviim], then the people said one to another, What is this that is come unto the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets [נבאים, neviim]? And one of the same place answered and said, But who is their father? Therefore it became a proverb, Is Saul also among the prophets [נבאים, neviim]? (1 Samuel 10:9–12)

Several questions arise from this passage that will be relevant as we study the prophetic role of Jeremiah in the Hebrew Bible:

- What does it mean that Saul “prophesied among the prophets”?

- Why is the proverb “Is Saul also among the prophets?” worded as a question? Does this express, doubt, surprise, or some other emotion?

- How is one counted “among the prophets”?

- Are being a “prophet” and being “among the prophets” different things?

The Books of Jeremiah

The book of Jeremiah, as we have it in our western, protestant translation of the Bible (KJV, for example), perhaps more than any other biblical book, bears the stretch marks and scars of a difficult and prolonged childbirth. Though most Christians and Jews today are familiar with the book that eventually found its way into our Bibles, many are unfamiliar with the alternative scriptural traditions of the book. I am principally speaking of the book of Jeremiah in the LXX translation. Compared with the MT, the source of most English translations of the book of Jeremiah, H. G. M. Williamson noted the following:

The Greek translation [of Jeremiah] in the Septuagint is approaching 20% shorter than the Hebrew text, and in addition some of the chapters occur in a different order. While in the past it could in theory (though against the usual state of affairs) be argued that the shorter text was the result of the work of the translator, some very small fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls now demonstrate adequately that the translation was based on a Hebrew original.8

Although some biblical scholars in the past had expressed an opinion that the shorter book of Jeremiah in the LXX was the result of editing by the translator from Hebrew into Greek, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the middle of the twentieth century, we can now confidently assert that the LXX and MT texts grew out of two separate Hebrew versions of Jeremiah, similar to what Eichhorn proposed two hundred years ago. Rather than referring to the “book of Jeremiah,” C. L. Crouch uses the phrase “books of Jeremiah,” because the Greek and Hebrew versions of Jeremiah likely reflect two separate textual traditions.9 In support of this conclusion, Williamson states:

There can now be no doubt that copies of books of the Hebrew Bible varied from one another in innumerable different ways in the pre-stabilization period, some of the differences minor but others, as we shall see, being far more substantial. This is not, in fact, new knowledge since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as is sometimes implied. It was recognized by most serious textual critics long before that on the basis of the Septuagint, the pre-stabilization translation which in the case of some books reflects an alternative tradition (or should we call it edition?) from what eventually became the Masoretic Text. The cases of Samuel and Jeremiah are the most celebrated of the examples, though they are not in fact alone. What the Dead Sea Scrolls did was, for the first time, to give us Hebrew versions of (parts, sometimes only fragments of) these alternative traditions, thus finally burying the notion that was sometimes voiced that these differences in the Septuagint were to be ascribed entirely to the work of the translator.10

As Williamson noted above, the Dead Sea Scrolls have helped us clearly discern distinct textual traditions in Hebrew underlying both the LXX and the MT that we have today. As it turns out, the shorter LXX text is not the result of editing by the translator. Hermann-Josef Stipp added:

JerAlT [the Alexandrian version of Jeremiah] is neither the first edition of the book nor even its “Urtext,”11 a concept that is not applicable to the book of Jeremiah anyway, in light of its multistage development history. In fact, JerAlT already looked back on a sizable number of prior editions. Furthermore, the Vorlage of JerG* [LXX version] was not a direct ancestor of JerMT. Rather, the textual tradition of the book split into two strands, culminating in the Vorlage of JerG* and JerMT, respectively, with JerAlT experiencing far fewer alterations than JerMT. As a result, of the two text-types, JerAlT stands much closer to the condition of the book at the point of bifurcation, without, however, being identical to it.12

So, according to Stipp, the LXX represents a related but distinct textual tradition that developed alongside, and likely prior to, the MT. Williamson, in agreement with Stipp, observes:

There were two versions or editions of Jeremiah in circulation in the pre-Christian centuries. Although they each have their own integrity, they also overlap in sufficient measure to conclude that one probably developed from the other or at the least from a common ancestor which closely resembled one version or the other. It is thus a reasonable question to ask which was the earlier. The answer of most scholars today would be that the version which underlies the Greek translation came first and that the version which became the Masoretic text developed from it or from something very like it.13

As noted above, Williamson is not the only biblical scholar to claim that the version of Jeremiah underlying the LXX is earlier than the version that became the MT. Leslie Allen also observed, “For a long time scholars could write off the shorter [Jeremiah] text of LXX with different explanations, but most now accept that it bears witness to an older Hebrew text than that of MT.”14 In addition, Andrew Shead wrote that “there are many reasons to see m [Masoretic Text] as resulting from additions to an LXX-like Vorlage, particularly the preponderance of evidence for this when individual variants are examined on a case-by-case basis.”15 Finally, Emanuel Tov notes:

Jeremiah underwent a complex literary history, in the course of which elements of the original words of the prophet (stratum A) were combined with a biographical stratum (B), or were edited by B; subsequently a third, Deuteronomistic, stratum was added to the book, or the book was edited by a Deuteronomistic reviser (C). . . .

MT reflects the last stage in the development of the book as we know it from the Hebrew canon. On the other hand, several scholars believe that the textual form extant in the LXX and 4QJerb,d reflects an earlier stage in the literary development of the book.16

4QJerb,d are two fragments of Jeremiah found at Qumran (Cave 4) that agree with the text of the LXX against the MT. The fragments are written in Hebrew rather than Greek and support the wording and chapter organization of the LXX. As Marvin Sweeney observed, “Apart from the expanded form of the MT, both versions [LXX and MT] are substantially the same through Jeremiah 25:15a, but they differ markedly after this point.”17 Tov asserts that the editor of the text underlying our current MT (editor II)18 made significant, but mostly benign, additions:

When inserting his own words and thoughts in a book that was transmitted under the name of the prophet Jeremiah, editor II took considerable liberty. Indeed, pseudepigraphal authorship and revision were common practice in antiquity. Editor II did not distort significantly the message of the prophet as handed down to him. True, he added a great deal and inserted significant changes, but these changes were not radical.19

Tov also makes a distinction between “new information” and “new details” added by editor II:

When analyzing the nature of the added elements, one must pay attention to the amount of “new information” contained in them. Many of the added elements somehow derive from the context, but others contain such data as cannot have derived from the context. It is the latter that we term new details.20

In other words, some of the information that editor II added to his text was likely derived from the context of the passage—new information—while new details would refer to information that could not be understood from context and must have been gleaned from a separate source text. Jeremiah 29:1 provides us with an example of a passage with many added elements from editor II that were likely appended to more “properly” clarify the text (the added text has been bolded). Following Tov, we can refer to this as “new information”:

LXX: And these are the words of the book, which Ieremias sent from Ierousalem to the elders of the exile and to the priests and to the pseudo-prophets, as a letter to the exile in Babylon and to all the people,21

KJV: Now these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders which were carried away captives, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon;22

Editor II added the title prophet to Jeremiah’s name as well as including that it was Nebuchadnezzar who carried away the captives from Jerusalem. Referring to Jeremiah as “the prophet” is consistent with editor II’s description of Jeremiah. Editor II also must have felt a need to educate his readers concerning the name of the Babylonian king responsible for the exile, and that the captives were specifically carried away from Jerusalem. While these additions do not “distort significantly the message of the prophet as handed down to him,” editor II certainly felt comfortable altering the original text to add new information that he felt made the text more informative.

An excellent example of Tov’s “new details” that were added by editor II can be found in Jeremiah 25:26:

LXX: And all the kings from the east wind, those far and those near, each with his brother, and all the kingdoms that are on the surface of the earth.

KJV: And all the kings of the north, far and near, one with another, and all the kingdoms of the world, which are upon the face of the earth: and the king of Sheshach shall drink after them.

As shown above, we find the added phrase “and the king of Sheshach shall drink after them.” This “new detail” in the MT is significant because it contains a type of secret writing in Hebrew known as an atbash.23 The word rendered Sheshach in the KJV is ששך (sh-sh-kh) in Hebrew, and it is a code word for Babel (בבל, b-b-l). So “the king of Sheshach” should actually be written “the king of Babel (Babylon),” as clarified in most modern English translations of the Bible.24 Where did editor II get this new detail? Likely from a separate Hebrew edition of Jeremiah. Since the atbash only works in Hebrew, and not in Greek, it would not have been present in its ciphered form in the LXX. It is also unlikely that the editor would have added this atbash independently as a way of disguising the identity of the king of Babylon, especially since editor II created his version of Jeremiah during the Persian period, well after the kingdom of Babylon had ceased to exist. The most logical conclusion is that this atbash existed in a separate Hebrew source edition of Jeremiah that was used by editor II.

The textual history of the book of Jeremiah, like a difficult childbirth, reveals the evolving recognition of Jeremiah’s prophetic role during and after his lifetime, reflected in both the biblical account and in the Book of Mormon. The full recognition of Jeremiah’s prophetic role was delayed during his own lifetime, which, as we will see, appears to align with the text in the Book of Mormon.

Priests and Prophets during the time of Jeremiah

Who was Jeremiah? What was his lineage within the tribes of Israel? And what did he teach about the priests and prophets during his time?

The historical Jeremiah was a Levite of northern heritage with roots in the region of Benjamin and ties to the old Elide priestly clan once stationed at Shiloh. His primary place of activity was Jerusalem, where he became a fixture of the Deuteronomistic group who shared similar northern Levite lineage roots. This group also had gained some access to both the royal court and the Jerusalem temple on an elite level by the late seventh-century BCE; nevertheless, and consistent with the Deuteronomistic worldview, Jeremiah was a vocal critic of the Jerusalem cult and royal patronage.25

We also know that Jeremiah was commanded not to marry: “Thou shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt thou have sons or daughters in this place.” (Jeremiah 16:2) William Schniedewind adds that Jeremiah was “from a priestly family that came from outside of the Jerusalem Temple priestly community.”26 As such, he would have been viewed as an outsider among the temple priests. And of course, his open and vocal criticism of them did not help matters:

For, behold, I have made thee [Jeremiah] this day a defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brasen walls against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land. (Jeremiah 1:18)

Schniedewind observed that “Jeremiah, as a priest, showed an intimate concern for the priesthood and the temple, but mostly as a critique of the Jerusalem priesthood.”27 And it was not only the rulers, priests, and people that he openly criticized; the “prophets” were also held up to ridicule:

The priests said not, Where is the LORD? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit. (Jeremiah 2:8)

In fact, Jeremiah specifically targeted the temple priests and supposed “prophets” in his strong invectives against them:

A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof? (Jeremiah 5:30–31)

For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet [נביא (prophet) in MT, ψευδοπροφήτου, pseudo-prophet in LXX] even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. (Jeremiah 6:13)

As noted above in 6:13, while the MT has the word נביא (navi, or prophet), the LXX has pseudo-prophet, or false prophet. This appellation is found nine times in JerLXX and helps confirm Jeremiah’s low regard for the “prophets” of his time. In Jeremiah 5:13, there is even a pun in Hebrew that can be understood as declaring that the role of “spokesman” for God (as we saw earlier with Aaron in Exodus 4:16) no longer belonged to the prophets of his day: “And the prophets shall become wind, and the word [דבר, diber] is not in them.” Not only is the word not in them, but the spokesmanship is also not in them any longer. Following standard biblical Hebrew, the wordדבר in this verse should be pronounced davar (see Exodus 14:12), but the Masoretes,28 likely to create the pun mentioned above, voweled it to sound like the word for spokesman, diber. This, of course, adds to the indictments against the prophets of Judah. Just as was true with Saul, the prophets during the time of Jeremiah did not have the prophetic mantle and were not worthy to be counted “among the prophets,” as spokesmen for God.

Jeremiah “the prophet”

Was Jeremiah considered “among the prophets” during his own lifetime? Not likely. Tov states that editor II (MT) frequently added the appellation the prophet to Jeremiah’s name:

When the names in editions I and II are compared, some interesting details come to light. In ed. I, Jeremiah is usually referred to by his name only; the fuller description, “Jeremiah the prophet,” occurs but four times in this edition (42:2; 43:6; 45:1; 51:59). In ed. II this title is frequently added to Jeremiah’s name (twenty-seven times in all), but the filling in is systematic only in chapters 28–29.29

As noted by Tov, editor II was very free-handed with the title “Jeremiah the prophet.”30 Editor I, by contrast, was not (see Appendix). In fact, editor I never refers to Jeremiah as “the prophet” anywhere within the first 25 chapters, while editor II does. It is very likely that the original conclusion to the book of Jeremiah was what we now recognize as Jeremiah 25:13 in both the LXX and MT.31 Not only does this verse seem to mark a final ending in both the LXX and MT, but it is also where the two textual traditions begin their bifurcation:

LXX: I will bring upon that land all my words that I have spoken against it, everything written in this book.

MT: And I will bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book, (which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations).

William Schniedewind asserts that the addition of the prophet to Jeremiah’s name by editor II was intended to transform him from a mere priest into a prophet during the early Persian period (late sixth century BCE):

From this consistent titling of Jeremiah, it becomes clear that the priest Jeremiah has been systematically changed into the prophet Jeremiah in the longer version. This refashioning of Jeremiah from a priest into a prophet was likely done by a priestly scribal community in Jerusalem during the early Persian period. They did not want Jeremiah to be identified by his priestly heritage but rather as a prophet.32

The question we need to ask is how and why the “longer” version of the book of Jeremiah reimagined him as a prophet rather than a priest? Schniedewind answers:

The key to understanding the two new additions of Jeremiah is understanding that one retains the identity of Jeremiah as a peripheral priest and the other retitles Jeremiah as “the prophet.” Jeremiah himself does not have the “right” priestly heritage—namely, he is not an Aaronite priest. His family comes from the village of Anathoth, and they have no connections with Jerusalem and the temple. This Jeremiah gets taken into exile into Egypt. We must assume that the “short” Jeremiah, which retains his identity as a priest from Anathoth (and not a prophet), is an edition that gets updated among the Egyptian exilic community. The Egyptian “short” Jeremiah originally and appropriately settled with those in Egypt (see LXX, “short” Jer 51 [“long” Jer 44]). . . .

Both the “long” Babylonian and the “short” Egyptian books of Jeremiah return to Jerusalem in the early Persian period (i.e., late sixth century BCE). There, the two versions of Jeremiah—the “long” Babylonian and the “short” Egyptian—were partially harmonized by later copyists in Jerusalem, but not systematically. For example, the two versions would get the same introductions and conclusions to make the “short” and “long” versions seem similar, but they also retained the unique characteristics of their different scribal communities.33

Of course, following the “partial harmonization” of the two versions of Jeremiah, one of the unique characteristics that was retained in the longer Babylonian version was the title of prophet. While we can only speculate on many of the logistical details involved in the creation and editing of the “long” and “short” scrolls of Jeremiah, Schniedewind’s explanation seems quite plausible:

In sum, Jeremiah himself was a peripheral priest. He survived the first (597 BCE) and second (586 BCE) exiles, but he ended up in Egypt with various refugees at the time of the third Babylonian campaign against Judah (581 BCE). At that time there was already a first scroll of Jeremiah that included an early version of Jeremiah reflected in 1:1–25:13a. This first edition of Jeremiah then had two different fates—one ended up in Egypt (with the priest Jeremiah) and another in Babylon with the royal family and its scribal community. The book of Jeremiah itself gives hints about a Babylonian version: “These are the words of the scroll that the prophet Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the remaining elders among the exiles . . . whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon” (Jer 29:1 MT; 36:1 LXX). This would become the basis for the “long” Jeremiah that would transform him into “the prophet.” The two scrolls of Jeremiah tell the story of two different scribal communities—the peripheral priests that reflect the original figure of Jeremiah, a priest from Anathoth, and the royal administration that was exiled to Babylon and survived in a palace in the Babylonian capital supplied by rations from the royal table. The scrolls will eventually make their way back to Jerusalem to the library of the rebuilt Temple. They are updated, even partially harmonized, but the two Jeremiah editions continue to have their own lives. These two editions were preserved by the scribal community that would survive the Babylonian Exile—namely, the Jerusalem Temple priestly scribal community.34

According to Schniedewind, Jeremiah, a “peripheral priest” from an insignificant village near Jerusalem was transformed into “the prophet” by the Jerusalem Temple priests in the early Persian period. During their editing of the two Hebrew Jeremiah scrolls, the temple priests retained many of the unique characteristics from each, including renaming Jeremiah as a “prophet” in version II, the text that made its way back from Babylon.

Jeremiah sent a letter to the exiles in Babylon advising them to settle down in Babylon and to ignore the counsel of the false prophets among them:

Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed. For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 29:5–9)

As can be imagined, this letter did not go over well with the leaders and “prophets” who exercised influence among the captives in Babylon. One of them, ironically named Shemaiah (שמעיהו, shemayahu, or “heard by Jehovah”), sent a letter to the acting high priest in Jerusalem, Zephaniah, chastising him for not punishing Jeremiah:

The LORD hath made thee priest in the stead of Jehoiada the priest, that ye should be officers in the house of the LORD, for every man that is mad, and maketh himself a prophet, that thou shouldest put him in prison, and in the stocks. Now therefore why hast thou not reproved Jeremiah of Anathoth, which maketh himself a prophet to you? (Jeremiah 29:26–27)35

In this letter, the pseudo-prophet Shemaiah ridiculed Zephaniah for his failure to punish Jeremiah, or more fully, ירמיהו הענתתי המתנבא לכם (yirmejahu ha’annetoti ha’mitnave lakhem), or “Jeremiah the Anathothite who makes himself a prophet to you.” Two observations can be made from Shemaiah’s label for Jeremiah:

1. Shemaiah highlights Jeremiah’s “otherness.” Jeremiah was not a Jerusalemite priest; he was from Ananthoth. In other words, his priestly lineage was defective.

2. Jeremiah was a self-declared prophet; he did not speak for the Lord. In his letter to the captives in Babylon, Jeremiah, speaking for the Lord, had claimed that the prophets in Babylon “prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD.” Shemaiah, speaking from his own authority rather than for the Lord, responded that Jeremiah was the false prophet, and that by implication he, Shemaiah, was the one who spoke for the Lord.

Shemaiah’s denouncement of Jeremiah likely reflected a broader skepticism of Jeremiah’s prophetic authority and status among the people during his lifetime, evidenced by his imprisonment on charges of treason for allegedly supporting the Babylonians. This historical context, where Jeremiah’s authority was doubted, becomes essential when we turn to the Book of Mormon’s portrayal of him.

Jeremiah in the Book of Mormon

Jeremiah is mentioned on three different occasions in the Book of Mormon, twice by Nephi1 and once by Nephi2. His first mention occurs following the acquisition of the brass plates by Nephi1 and his brothers. After their return to the family’s camp in the wilderness, Nephi1 informed us that his “father, Lehi, took the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, and he did search them from the beginning” (1 Nephi 5:10).36 Following this perusal, Nephi1 gave us an abbreviated account of what was on the plates:

And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world and also of Adam and Eve, which was our first parents, and also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, and also the 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 5:11–13)

Interestingly, this summary account given by Nephi1 only provides us with the names of two contributors to the plates, Moses and Jeremiah. Nephi1 appears to identify the Torah with “the five books of Moses,” the introductory books of the Hebrew Bible. It concludes by stating that the plates also included “many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah,” presumably the final writings found on the brass plates. In essence, naming Moses and Jeremiah was a way for Nephi1 to bookend the contents of the brass plates.

It is also noteworthy that Nephi1 tells us that these prophecies were “spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah” rather than written by him. While nuanced, this language could inform us that whoever was responsible for the final updates to the brass plates was not working with an account written by Jeremiah, or Baruch, in his possession, but was writing from memory or from an oral account. As a result, we cannot be sure in what form these “many prophesies” of Jeremiah would have taken on the plates. Did the brass plates record summaries of some of his prophesies, perhaps only highlights, or were the writings on the plates similar to what we encounter in the MT or LXX? Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing, since neither Nephi1 nor any other authors of the Book of Mormon seem to have cited any of Jeremiah’s prophecies from the brass plates.

It is also significant that Nephi1 did not include Jeremiah when he mentioned “the prophecies of the holy prophets.” Rather, Nephi1 placed Jeremiah in a category apart from the prophets. As suggested by modern scholarship, Jeremiah had not yet achieved the title of “prophet” during his lifetime. Although Jeremiah was a priest, and even highly revered by some residents of Jerusalem, this passage from 1 Nephi can be seen as confirming that he was not yet included “among the prophets,” meaning that his status as a prophet was still in question by a large part of the population of Jerusalem, and especially by its priests and rulers.

After securing the brass plates from Laban, Nephi1 and his brothers were again instructed to go up to Jerusalem and bring Ishmael and his family down into the wilderness to join Lehi’s group. However, during the return trip into the wilderness we read:

Laman and Lemuel and two of the daughters of Ishmael and the two sons of Ishmael and their families did rebel against us, yea, against I Nephi and Sam and their father Ishmael and his wife and his three other daughters. And it came to pass that in the which rebellion they were desirous to return unto the land of Jerusalem. (1 Nephi 7:6–7)

Nephi1, as he was wont to do, chastised his rebellious brothers for their lack of faith, and in the process provided us a little more information about Jeremiah. Book of Mormon chronology informs us that Lehi and Jeremiah were contemporaries in Jerusalem, and that their prophesying overlapped, perhaps by as much as a decade.37 We also know from both the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Mormon that the lives of Jeremiah and Lehi were threatened, and that Jeremiah was imprisoned on at least one occasion.38 In the following passage, Nephi1 confirmed that he was aware of Jeremiah’s imprisonment, but not of his release:

For behold, the Spirit of the Lord ceaseth soon to strive with [those remaining in Jerusalem]. For behold, they have rejected the prophets, and Jeremiah have they cast into prison, and they have sought to take away the life of my father, insomuch that they have driven him out of the land. (1 Nephi 7:14)

As with the previous passage, Nephi1 appears to place Jeremiah in a separate category from “the prophets.” It is also noteworthy that Nephi1 does not refer to him as “Jeremiah the prophet” in either passage as editor II frequently does in the “long” version of Jeremiah. Both passages from Nephi1 lend credence to Schniedewind’s observation that it was only during the early Persian period, well after the destruction of Jerusalem, the death of Jeremiah, and Lehi’s escape from Jerusalem, that he was transformed from priest to prophet.

Interestingly, we find a related passage in the book of Matthew:

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. (Matthew 16:13–14)

As with the passages from the Book of Mormon, in this New Testament verse Jeremiah is also not included among “the prophets.” The translators of the NASB, perhaps believing there to be an omission in the NT text, inserted a word: “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets.” The word other in this translation is italicized to clarify that it is not found in the Greek. This does not presuppose that Jeremiah was not a prophet, only that he may not have been included “among the prophets,” at least according to the author of the book of Matthew, even as late as the first century CE.

The third mention of Jeremiah in the Book of Mormon is found in Helaman, where Nephi2 is preaching of the coming of Messiah and using the words of the prophets as support:

And behold, also Zenoch and also Ezaias and also Isaiah and Jeremiah, Jeremiah being that same prophet which testified of the destruction of Jerusalem—and now we know that Jerusalem was destroyed according to the words of Jeremiah. (Helaman 8:20)

In this passage, more than five centuries after Nephi1’s mention of Jeremiah, Nephi2 clearly portrays Jeremiah as a prophet, in the company of Isaiah and others. We do not know how long it took for the Nephites to recognize Jeremiah as a prophet, as God’s mouth and spokesman, but it is possible that this recognition came only after they had arrived in the promised land.

Jeremiah and Lehi both prophesied an identical message: if the people did not repent, Jerusalem would be destroyed, many of its inhabitants would be killed, and the remainder would be taken captive into Babylon. While Jeremiah was told to write these words in a scroll (see Jeremiah 36), Lehi was given a scroll to read with these prophecies:

And the first came and stood before my father and gave unto him a book and bade him that he should read. And it came to pass that as he read, he was filled with the Spirit of the Lord. And he read, saying: Woe woe unto Jerusalem, for I have seen thine abominations. Yea, and many things did my father read concerning Jerusalem, that it should be destroyed and the inhabitants thereof; many should perish by the sword and many should be carried away captive into Babylon. (1 Nephi 1:11–13)

Lehi apparently preached a message of choice to the inhabitants of Jerusalem—a choice between repentance and salvation, or intransigence and destruction. As with Jeremiah, Lehi was mocked and rejected by the people for his prophecies (see 1 Nephi 1:19). And like Jeremiah, it seems clear that Lehi’s prophetic status was also not recognized or accepted by those at Jerusalem. However, as a vindication of his prophetic role, after arriving in the promised land, Lehi told his family that he had seen a vision of the destruction of Jerusalem:

How merciful the Lord had been in warning us that we should flee out of the land of Jerusalem. For behold, saith he, I have seen a vision, in the which I know that Jerusalem is destroyed; and had we remained in Jerusalem, we should also have perished. (2 Nephi 1:3–4)

Although this vision is not the type of concrete evidence that the editors of the book of Jeremiah possessed after their return from captivity during the early Persian period, it did confirm Lehi’s prophetic message to his family. Interestingly, unlike Jeremiah who was called a prophet by Nephi2, Lehi himself is never given the title of “prophet” in the Book of Mormon, even though his prophecies aligned with those of Jeremiah.

Immediately following the passage where Nephi2 referred to Jeremiah as a prophet, he added the following as evidence that Jeremiah’s prophecies were fulfilled:

And now will ye dispute that Jerusalem was not destroyed? Will ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not slain, all except it were Muloch? Yea, and do ye not behold that the seed of Zedekiah are with us and they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem? But behold, this is not all. Our father Lehi was driven out of Jerusalem because he testified of these things. (Helaman 8:21–22)

Although Nephi2 accepted that “Lehi was driven out of Jerusalem because he testified of these things,” meaning the coming of Christ, he refrained from calling him a prophet and chose instead the title “our father.” Jesus said that a “prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house” (Mark 6:4). This proverb certainly applies to Jeremiah during his own lifetime. However, it does not appear to apply to Lehi since his descendants seem to honor and esteem him, even though he is not called a prophet by them.

Beyond these three instances, the only other mention of the name Jeremiah in the Book of Mormon is found in 3 Nephi 19, where we are given the names of the twelve disciples. These disciples bear the names of several noteworthy men from the Hebrew Bible, including Jeremiah, Zedekiah, Isaiah, and two named Jonah (Jonas). Unfortunately, since the name Zedekiah is also included in the list, we cannot conclude that these men were named after prophets, only that they were named after prominent men from the brass plates.

Summary and Conclusions

The LXX (edition I) and MT (edition II) versions of Jeremiah are similar to each other for the first half of the book, roughly through chapter 25, but they differ significantly in the second half. A rising consensus among biblical scholars identifies the vorlage underlying edition I as the earliest of the two textual traditions. The principal difference between these two books is the additional material that has been appended to edition II of Jeremiah, including naming Jeremiah “the prophet” multiple times. This is not to say that Jeremiah was not a prophet, nor does it deny that he was called of God to act as a prophet to the house of Israel. The intended point in this article is that Jeremiah was not recognized as being “among the prophets” during his lifetime. It was likely only in the early Persian period that the identity of Jeremiah migrated from priest to prophet. Regarding the title of prophet given to Jeremiah so freely in the MT, Schniedewind noted:

This title is fundamentally a reflection of the Masoretic Text as opposed to the earlier, shorter version of the book of Jeremiah. And here we are fortunate to have objective and concrete evidence of the transformation of the figure of Jeremiah in the process of the editing of the book, as evidenced by the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Masoretic Text. The conclusion must be that Jeremiah was not originally known as a prophet at all. This was not one of his titles. He was simply from a priestly family that came from outside of the Jerusalem Temple priestly community. This observation must be the beginning for a reflection on “The Invention of the Prophet Jeremiah.”39

This conclusion is also supported by, and consistent with, Nephi1’s depiction of Jeremiah in the Book of Mormon. In the two passages where he mentions Jeremiah, Nephi1 does not include Jeremiah among “the prophets.” Had Nephi1 viewed Jeremiah as “among the prophets” he could have written, “For behold, the Spirit of the Lord ceaseth soon to strive with them; for behold, they have rejected the prophets, including Jeremiah whom they have cast into prison.” (1 Nephi 7:14, modified). But he did not. Rather, he wrote, “For behold, the Spirit of the Lord ceaseth soon to strive with them; for behold, they have rejected the prophets, and Jeremiah have they cast into prison.” Nephi1 uses similar language in 1 Nephi 5:11–13. In other words, it would likely have been an anachronism for Nephi1, during his lifetime, to refer to Jeremiah as “the prophet.”

It is not until the book of Mosiah that we read that Nephi2 accepted Jeremiah as a prophet on equal footing with Isaiah and others. This is not to say that it took more than five centuries for Jeremiah to be accepted “among the prophets” in Nephite society; this is likely not the case. What we can say is that Jeremiah eventually was included “among the prophets” by the Nephites even though during Jeremiah’s own lifetime, which closely aligned with the lifetime of Lehi and Nephi1, he likely was not included “among the prophets.”

Appendix

All passages from the book of Jeremiah (MT) that include the phrases “Jeremiah the prophet” or “the prophet Jeremiah” are listed in the left-hand column below. The corresponding passages from the Septuagint (LXX) are shown in the right-hand column. While the KJV translation of the MT presents twenty-eight occurrences of these phrases—one was added by the KJV translators that is not extant in the MT—the LXX only contains four such occurrences. None of the LXX passages are found prior to Jeremiah 25:13a (the presumed ending of the initial book of Jeremiah).

MT (KJV)

LXX (NETS)

Jer 20:2 Then Pashur smote Jeremiah the prophet, and put him in the stocks that were in the high gate of Benjamin, which was by the house of the LORD.

Ier 20:2 And he struck him and put him into the sluice, which was by the gate of a house designated “the upper,” which was in the house of the Lord.

Jer 25:2 The which Jeremiah the prophet spake unto all the people of Judah, and to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying,

Ier 25:2 which he spoke to all the people of Iouda and to the inhabitants of Ierousalem, saying:

Jer 28:5 Then the prophet Jeremiah said unto the prophet Hananiah in the presence of the priests, and in the presence of all the people that stood in the house of the LORD,

Ier 35:5 And Ieremias said to Hananias in the sight of all the people and in the sight of the priests who stood in the house of the Lord,

Jer 28:6 Even the prophet Jeremiah said, Amen: the LORD do so: the LORD perform thy words which thou hast prophesied, to bring again the vessels of the LORD’S house, and all that is carried away captive, from Babylon into this place.

Ier 35:6 and Ieremias said, “Truly, thus may the Lord do; may the Lord establish the word which you prophesy, to bring back to this place from Babylon the vessels of the house of the Lord and all the exile.

Jer 28:11 And Hananiah spake in the presence of all the people, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon from the neck of all nations within the space of two full years. And the prophet Jeremiah went his way.

Ier 35:11 And Hananias said in the sight of the people, saying, “Thus did the Lord say: Thus I will crush the yoke of the king of Babylon from the necks of all the nations.” And Ieremias went on his way.

Jer 28:12 Then the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah the prophet,40 after that Hananiah the prophet had broken the yoke from off the neck of the prophet Jeremiah, saying,

Ier 35:12 And a word of the Lord came to Ieremias after Hananias had crushed the collars from his neck:

Jer 28:15 Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie.

Ier 35:15 And Ieremias said to Hananias, “The Lord has not sent you, and you have made this people trust wrongly.

Jer 29:1 Now these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders which were carried away captives, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon;

Ier 36:1 And these are the words of the book, which Ieremias sent from Ierousalem to the elders of the exile and to the priests and to the pseudo-prophets, as a letter to the exile in Babylon and to all the people,

Jer 29:29 And Zephaniah the priest read this letter in the ears of Jeremiah the prophet.

Ier 36:29 And Sophonias read the document in the ears of Ieremias.

Jer 32:2 For then the king of Babylon’s army besieged Jerusalem: and Jeremiah the prophet was shut up in the court of the prison, which was in the king of Judah’s house.

Ier 39:2 And the force of the king of Babylon raised a barricade against Ierousalem, and Ieremias was being confined in the court of the guard that was in the house of the king.

Jer 34:6 Then Jeremiah the prophet spake all these words unto Zedekiah king of Judah in Jerusalem,

Ier 41:6 And Ieremias spoke all these words to King Sedekias in Ierousalem,

Jer 36:8 And Baruch the son of Neriah did according to all that Jeremiah the prophet commanded him, reading in the book the words of the LORD in the LORD’S house.

Ier 43:26 And the king commanded Ieremeel the king’s son and Saraias son of Esriel to arrest Barouch and Ieremias. And they were hidden.

Jer 37:2 But neither he, nor his servants, nor the people of the land, did hearken unto the words of the LORD, which he spake by the prophet Jeremiah.

Ier 44:2 And he and his servants and the people of the land did not obey the words of the Lord that he spoke by the hand of Ieremias.

Jer 37:3 And Zedekiah the king sent Jehucal the son of Shelemiah and Zephaniah the son of Maaseiah the priest to the prophet Jeremiah, saying, Pray now unto the LORD our God for us.

Ier 44:3 And King Sedekias sent Ioachal son of Selemias and the priest Sophonias son of Maasaias to Ieremias, saying, “Pray for us to the Lord.”

Jer 37:6 Then came the word of the LORD unto the prophet Jeremiah, saying,

Ier 44:6And a word of the Lord came to Ieremias, saying:

Jer 37:13 And when he was in the gate of Benjamin, a captain of the ward was there, whose name was Irijah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Hananiah; and he took Jeremiah the prophet, saying, Thou fallest away to the Chaldeans.

Ier 44:13 And he was at the gate of Beniamin, and there was a person with whom he used to lodge, Sarouia son of Selemias son of Hananias, and he arrested Ieremias, saying, “You are fleeing to the Chaldeans.”

Jer 38:9 My lord the king, these men have done evil in all that they have done to Jeremiah the prophet, whom they have cast into the dungeon; and he is like to die for hunger in the place where he is: for there is no more bread in the city.

Ier 45:8–9 And he went out to him, and he spoke to the king and said, “You acted wickedly in what you did to kill this person from before the famine, because there is no longer any bread in the city.”

Jer 38:10 Then the king commanded Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, saying, Take from hence thirty men with thee, and take up Jeremiah the prophet out of the dungeon, before he die.

Ier 45:10 And the king commanded Abdemelech, saying, “Take in hand thirty persons from here, and bring him up out of the cistern so that he may not die.”

Jer 38:14 Then Zedekiah the king sent, and took Jeremiah the prophet unto him into the third entry that is in the house of the LORD: and the king said unto Jeremiah, I will ask thee a thing; hide nothing from me.

Ier 45:14 And the king sent word and called him to himself at the house of Aselisela, which is in the house of the Lord. And the king said to him, “I will ask you a matter, and do not hide any dictum from me.”

Jer 42:2 And said unto Jeremiah the prophet, Let, we beseech thee, our supplication be accepted before thee, and pray for us unto the LORD thy God, even for all this remnant; (for we are left but a few of many, as thine eyes do behold us:)

Ier 49:2 the prophet Ieremias and said to him, “Let mercy for us come about before you, and pray to the Lord, your God, for these that remain, because there are a few of us left out of many, as your eyes see.

Jer 42:4 Then Jeremiah the prophet said unto them, I have heard you; behold, I will pray unto the LORD your God according to your words; and it shall come to pass, that whatsoever thing the LORD shall answer you, I will declare it unto you; I will keep nothing back from you.

Ier 49:4 And Ieremias said to them, “I have heard; behold, I shall pray to the Lord, your God, according to your words, and it shall be, the word whichever the Lord will answer, I will tell you; I will not hide from you what is said.”

Jer 43:6 Even men, and women, and children, and the king’s daughters, and every person that Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard had left with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah.

Ier 50:6 the mighty men and the women and the rest and the daughters of the king and the souls whom Nabouzardan had left with Godolias son of Achikam and the prophet Ieremias and Barouch son of Nerias.

Jer 45:1 The word that Jeremiah the prophet spake unto Baruch the son of Neriah, when he had written these words in a book at the mouth of Jeremiah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying,

Ier 51:31 The word that the prophet Ieremias spoke to Barouch son of Nerias, when he would write these words in a book from the mouth of Ieremias, in the fourth year of Ioakim son of King Iosias of Iouda:

Jer 46:1 The word of the LORD which came to Jeremiah the prophet against the Gentiles;

Ier 26:1 In the beginning when King Sedekias reigned, this word came concerning Ailam.

Jer 46:13 The word that the LORD spake to Jeremiah the prophet, how Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon should come and smite the land of Egypt.

Ier 26:13 What the Lord spoke by the hand of Ieremias that the king of Babylon would come to smite the land of Egypt:

Jer 47:1 The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet against the Philistines, before that Pharaoh smote Gaza.

Ier 29:1 Regarding the allophyles.

Jer 49:34 The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet against Elam in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, saying,

Ier 25:14 What Ieremias prophesied against the nations of Ailam.

Jer 50:1 The word that the LORD spake against Babylon and against the land of the Chaldeans by Jeremiah the prophet.

Ier 27:1 A word of the Lord, which he spoke regarding Babylon.

Jer 51:59 The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah into Babylon in the fourth year of his reign. And this Seraiah was a quiet prince.

Ier 28:59 The word that the Lord commanded Ieremias the prophet to speak to Saraias son of Nerias son of Maasaias, when he was going with King Sedekias of Iouda to Babylon, in the fourth year of his reign. And Saraias was ruler of gifts.

Loren Spendlove has earned the following degrees: MA, Jewish Studies, PhD, Education, and Master of Business Administration (MBA). He is currently working on a MA in Christian Scripture. He has worked in many professional fields, including academics and corporate financial management. A student of languages, his research interests center on linguistics and etymology. Loren and Tina are the parents of five children and twelve grandchildren.

1 . Michael Langlois, “The Book of Jeremiah’s redaction history in light of its oldest manuscripts,” in Jeremiah in History and Tradition, ed. Jim West and Niels Peter Lemche (New York: Routledge, 2019), 9.

2 . J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 2.

3 . “A proclaimer or expounder of divine matters or concerns that could not ordinarily be known except by special revelation.” Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021), 789.

4 . Greek Dictionary at Bill Mounce.com, (website), s.v. “προφήτης,” billmounce
.com/greek-dictionary/prophetes.

5 . Unless otherwise noted, all English biblical passages are from the KJV translation.

6 . Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (Jerusalem: Carta Jerusalem, 1987), s.v. “נביא,”
sefaria.org/Klein_Dictionary%2C_%D7%A0%D6%B8%D7%91%D6%B4%
D7%99%D7%90?ven=english|Carta_Jerusalem%3B_1st_edition,_1987
&lang=bi.

7 . “In certain cases prophets [in antiquity] predicted future events, such as the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah’s kingdom; but as a rule a prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller.” Bible Dictionary, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, s.v. “prophet,” churchofjesus
christ.org/study/scriptures/bd/prophet.

8 . H. G. M. Williamson, “Do We Need a New Bible? Reflections on the Proposed Oxford Hebrew Bible,” Biblica 90, no. 2 (2009): 167.

9 . C. L. Crouch, “The Historical Contexts of the Books of Jeremiah” in The Oxford Handbook of Jeremiah, ed. Louis Stulman and Edward Silver (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 25–39.

10 . Williamson, “Do We Need a New Bible?,” 160–61.

11 . Urtext is a German word meaning “primordial text,” or in our case, the text that preceded both the LXX and the MT.

12 . Hermann-Josef Stipp, “Two Ancient Editions of the Book of Jeremiah,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jeremiah, ed. Louis Stulman and Edward Silver (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 97. “The book of Jeremiah has been handed down from antiquity in two separate editions that differ markedly from each other: MT and the Alexandrian version (JerAlT), which is represented by the original Greek translation (JerG*) and certain Qumran fragments. The Alexandrian edition is about one-seventh shorter than its Masoretic counterpart, and it deviates from JerMT both in its macro-structure and in some traits of its microstructure. A growing and well-founded consensus holds that the two editions derive from a common ancestor, with JerAlT still closely resembling this predecessor, whereas JerMT has been enlarged and restructured.” Stipp, “Two Ancient Editions,” 93.

13 . Williamson, “Do We Need a New Bible?,” 167–68.

14 . Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 7.

15 . Andrew G. Shead, “The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX)” in The Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, ed. Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2018), 264.

16 . Emanuel Tov, “The Last Stage of the Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jeremiah, ed. Louis Stulman and Edward Silver (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 134.

17 . Marvin A. Sweeney, The Prophetic Literature (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2005), 89, books.google.com/books?id=9nppHCywauIC&pg=PA3&
source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false.

18 . Tov refers to the editor of the text underlying the LXX as “editor I” consistent with his belief that the editing of the LXX had its beginnings prior to the work of editor II (MT).

19 . Emanuel Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of its Textual History,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 1999), 365.

20 . Tov, “Literary History,” 368.

21 . All LXX verses in this paper are from A New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS], ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, 2nd printing, electronic ed., rev. 2014 and 2021 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/.

22 . “Editor II was in the habit of mentioning personal names in their full form, mainly in the prose sections, including the name of the father, sometimes also the grandfather, the title (‘king’ or ‘prophet’), and so on. E.g., 21:2, etc. (Nebuchadrezzar) the king of Babylon; 28:4, etc. Jeconiah (son of Jehoiakim king of Judah); 28:5, etc. Jeremiah (the prophet) answered Hananiah (the prophet); 36:8, etc. Baruch (son of Neriah) did just as Jeremiah (the prophet) had instructed him.” Tov, “Literary History,” 374.

23 . The word atbash is a type of acronym that describes the process of pairing the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (א, alef) with the last letter (ת, tav). The second letter (ב, bet) is likewise paired with the second to the last letter (ש, shin), and so on. If we string together the first letter (in English) of each of these four Hebrew letters we get a-t-b-sh, or atbash.

24 . The New American Standard Bible (NASB) contains the following note for Sheshach in Jeremiah 25:26: “Cryptic name for Babylon,” biblegate
way.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2025%3A26&version=NASB.

25 . Mark Leuchter, “The Historical Jeremiah,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jeremiah, ed. Louis Stulman and Edward Silver (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 88.

26 . William M. Schniedewind, Who Really Wrote the Bible: The Story of the Scribes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2024), 222.

27 . Schniedewind, Who Really Wrote the Bible, 225.

28 . The Masoretes were Jewish scribal scholars who created a pronunciation system in the form of vowel points (נקודות, niqqudot) to standardize the pronunciation of the biblical text.

29 . Tov, “Literary History,” 375.

30 . The MT mostly renders this phrase ירמיהו הנביא (yirmeyahu ha’navi), but less frequently ירמיה הנביא (yirmeyah ha’navi). The KJV mostly translates the Hebrew as “Jeremiah the prophet,” but sometimes “the prophet Jeremiah.”

31 . “The differences [between the two textual traditions] also highlight that the first half of the book of Jeremiah follows the same order, which suggests that an early version of the book of Jeremiah existed up through the middle of chapter 25. And that is the way Jeremiah 25 presents itself, concluding in verse 13a as follows: ‘I will bring upon the land all the words written in this scroll.’ This seems to be the ending to an early scroll of the priest Jeremiah, but it is not the end of the story of the book of Jeremiah.” Schniedewind, Who Really Wrote the Bible, 219.

32 . Schniedewind, Who Really Wrote the Bible, 221.

33 . Schniedewind, Who Really Wrote the Bible, 221–22, 223.

34 . Schniedewind, Who Really Wrote the Bible, 225.

35 . The Hebrew verb translated as “maketh himself a prophet” in the KJV is מתנבא (mitnavve) and is variously translated as “considers himself a prophet” (NKJV), “acts like a prophet (NIV), “prophesies” (NASB), “pretends to be a prophet” (NET), and “self-made prophet” (DBY).

36 . All Book of Mormon citations are from The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, ed. Royal Skousen (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009).

37 . Randall Spackman argues that Lehi likely left Jerusalem in either 588 or 587 BCE. If Lehi “began to prophesy” (1 Nephi 1:18) in “the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah” (1 Nephi 1:4), in 598/597 BCE, then Lehi would have prophesied for a ten-year period prior to his departure. See Randall P. Spackman, “The Jewish/Nephite Lunar Calendar,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7, no. 1 (1997): 57, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol7/iss1/8/.

38 . See Jeremiah 38:6 (MT) or Ieremias 45:6 (LXX).

39 . Schniedewind, Who Really Wrote the Bible, 222.

40 . The KJV translators added “the prophet” in the first part of this verse. It is not present in the MT.

A Fitting Tribute to the Prophet of the Restoration

Steven L. Olsen

Review of Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, ed., Joseph Smith: A Life Lived in Crescendo, 2 vols. (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2024). 1,101 pgs., $24.95 per vol. (softback), $69.95 per vol. (hardback).

Abstract: Joseph Smith: A Life Lived in Crescendo is one of the most extensive and ambitious scholarly works on the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its twenty-one essays address various issues relating to the culmination of the Prophet’s ministry. They provide diverse and profound insights worthy of examination by serious students of the latter-day Restoration.

The project that resulted in Joseph Smith: A Life Lived in Crescendo1 began in 2020 as a series of virtual firesides sponsored by The Interpreter Foundation to supplement the Church’s Sunday School curriculum. Thereafter, the authors refined and expanded their presentations for publication. Rounding out the collection are several previously published and unpublished studies, one posthumously.

Contributors come from diverse disciplines—historical studies, legal studies, humanities, religious studies, cultural studies, medical studies, and technology studies—and represent a range of academic, professional, and technical careers. The essays are well written and target an educated but non-specialist audience. That is, they use the accepted rhetorical and analytical tools of their respective fields but with minimal jargon. While authors are universally faithful to the restored gospel, none speaks officially and authoritatively for the Church of Jesus Christ.

Because authors speak for themselves, readers may question or disagree with some conclusions and perspectives—in several noteworthy cases, authors respectfully adopt contrasting perspectives with one another. In academic discourse, as in many other arenas of human inquiry, across-the-board agreement is not the prime objective of this publication, but rather informed dialogue, shared information, and the pursuit of understanding. Thus, readers will encounter much new information and many new insights to enrich their lives in and broaden their appreciation of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. To this end, the publication succeeds admirably.

Individual essays vary considerably in length, ranging from less than ten to nearly 140 pages, averaging about fifty pages, which is rather long for this genre of publication. Much of the length of the essays, however, is devoted to appendices, references, notes, and indexes. More than one-third of the 1,100 pages in these two volumes is devoted to metadata, enabling readers to “fact check” claims made by authors and confidently delve into areas that pique their interest. In short, besides being well written and full of new insights, the essays are thoroughly researched and documented. In addition, several are amply and appropriately illustrated with photographs, artworks, illustrations, maps, tables, and diagrams.

Students of Latter-day Saint history will recognize most authors by reputation, if not by personal acquaintance. Unfortunately, a few members of the most well-respected class of Nauvoo-period scholars are noticeably absent from the table of contents, and their “voices” are missed. However, readers may discover one or more previously unfamiliar authors whose contributions compensate for those not represented.

Essays in the collection address four key issues of the final years of the Prophet’s ministry. Volume 1 explores “Doctrinal Developments in Nauvoo” and “Temple, Priesthood, and the Relief Society,” while volume 2 takes up “The Martyrdom” and “Succession in Church Leadership.”

A summary of the individual essays in each volume follows.

Volume 1

Elder Kyle S. McKay honors his current assignment as Church Historian and Recorder by bearing an informed witness of Joseph Smith as the faithful mouthpiece of God to open the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times and to give his life for his sure testimony of the Savior (pp. 1–6).

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw offers four quite different scholarly perspectives of the Prophet of the Restoration:

- Reflecting on twelve crucial but diverse challenges that are inherent in students’ efforts to interpret the extensive and now-accessible documentary record of Joseph Smith. These challenges will thus allow students to come to a more authentic and defensible assessment of his life and ministry. These twelve are representative of the host of challenges facing those who hope to draw responsible conclusions about the Prophet from a variety of academic and professional perspectives (pp. 7–44).

- Providing a deep dive into the doctrine of election that was featured in a public discourse of the Prophet given in the unfinished Nauvoo Temple on 21 May 1843. After summarizing writings on the doctrine of election by Christian theologians from antiquity onwards and referencing numerous treatments of the subject by the Prophet himself, Bradshaw reviews and comments on eleven salient phrases and concepts from the most reputable period accounts of the sermon (pp. 147–240).

- Tracing, with K-Lynn Paul, the emergence of temple-related doctrines and practices from Joseph Smith’s extensive documentary record. The thesis of this study is: “temple themes are not merely present throughout every phase of Joseph Smith’s ministry, but, further . . . they constitute a golden thread that weaves through every other doctrinal development from his earliest visions, translations, and revelations to the crowning culmination of his life’s teachings in Nauvoo” (pp. 339–426; quote from p. 343).

- Curating and annotating a document dictated by Dennison Lott Harris in 1881 giving crucial details of the conspiracy against Joseph Smith’s life and the transmission to the Twelve of the keys of the Kingdom of God just before his martyrdom. Despite its delayed dictation, this document is significant in that Harris was a first-hand witness to these key events in Church history, some details of which are relayed in no other historical source (pp. 883–976).

Three BYU scholars—R. Devan Jensen, Michael A. Goodman, and Barbara Morgan Gardner—distill the emergence of the doctrine and practice of sealing extended families together in Joseph Smith’s revelations and public discourses. Specifically, their audience for this study is those entrusted to educate the “rising generations” (Doctrine and Covenants 69:8) of Latter-day Saints (pp. 45–74).

Terryl L. Givens illustrates the latter-day restoration of the doctrine of pre-mortal existence by thoroughly comparing relevant writings by early Christian theologians with those by Joseph Smith, his successors, and other Latter-day Saint thought leaders. As we have come to expect from Givens, this study is a scholarly tour de force (pp. 75–122).

Alexander L. Baugh’s study fills a crucial gap in our understanding of the early history of temple ordinances by documenting the origins of the doctrine and authorized practice of proxy baptisms and confirmations outside the Nauvoo Temple and before temples in Utah were dedicated (pp. 123–46).

James E. Faulconer and Susannah Morrison address the cultural significance of Joseph Smith’s 7 April 1844 funeral sermon for King Follett, based on subsequent reconstructions by editors from contemporary accounts of the sermon. Rather than examining what the Prophet may have meant by the sermon’s eight (by their measure) main doctrines, the authors trace the historical trajectory of (perhaps) the five most enigmatic of these doctrines. They do this to assess the enduring significance of the sermon for Latter-day Saints (pp. 241–63).

John S. Thompson distills several earlier presentations and publications to make an important contribution to the on-going scholarly conversation about how Latter-day Saints, especially Joseph Smith, understood priesthood—its orders, divisions, authorities, and spheres of operation—in the early Church (pp. 267–338).

Brian C. Hales contributes to his abundant scholarship on plural marriage in the Nauvoo period with a focus on the provenance, contents, and role of Doctrine and Covenants 132. In support of the widely held thesis that the text of the revelation was an “amalgamation”2 of at least three previously unpublished revelations to Joseph Smith, Hales addresses with considerable insight several abiding issues in the literature on the subject (pp. 427–56).

Rachel Cope and Lisa Olsen Tait provide separate but complementary reflections on the relationship of the priesthood and Relief Society in the development of Joseph Smith’s understanding of gender in the Kingdom of God. For her part, Cope illustrates how four past general presidents of the Relief Society—Emma Smith, Eliza R. Snow, Emmaline B. Wells, and Julie B. Beck—encouraged the preservation of its history in view of its enduring significance for the Church of Jesus Christ and women in their efforts to live the gospel of Jesus Christ (pp. 457–70). By contrast, Tait traces the changing relationship of Relief Society (female) and priesthood (male) organizations in the Church of Jesus Christ through six historical periods—1840s, 1850–1900, 1900–1940, 1960s, 1970–2000, and twenty-first century—using four analytical criteria—individual/institutional dynamics, formal/informal power relations, ecclesiastical (church)/ritual (temple) programs, and language as a symbol of self-identification (pp. 471–506).

Jacob D. Hawkins and Matthew J. Grow summarize the spiritual significance of historical events that occurred in Joseph Smith’s Red Brick Store in Nauvoo, including translating the Book of Abraham, organizing the Relief Society, administering Church and community business, introducing sacred practices whose performance eventually became restricted to the House of the Lord, holding early meetings of the Council of Fifty, and hosting Joseph’s “last charge” to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Personally, I welcome and especially appreciate a contribution to this publication that focuses on one of the sacred historical sites of the Restoration.

Volume 2

Acknowledging the complex legal, political, social, and religious context of 1840s Nauvoo—Joseph I. Bentley offers a detailed and insightful assessment of under-appreciated legal cases against Joseph Smith in May–June 1844 that led to his incarceration and martyrdom in Carthage Jail. His analysis benefits from superb training and experience in the law and the extensive database of the Joseph Smith Papers legal series. Of particular interest to many students of Latter-day Saint history will be Bentley’s reassessment of the case involving the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor (pp. 539–624).

John W. Welch contributes significantly to our understanding of Joseph’s motivation to cross the Mississippi River four days before his martyrdom. Welch’s thesis is that a principal reason for the crossing was to secure legal counsel for his upcoming trial in Carthage. Supporting this claim is the existence of correspondence between the Prophet and prominent lawyers in Iowa Territory with whom he was familiar. Welch expertly articulates the previously under-appreciated legal purpose of the well-known crossing (pp. 625–84).

R. Jean Addams contributes two different but insightful studies of the conclusion of Joseph Smith’s prophetic ministry:

- A detailed chronology of the Prophet’s final weeks in mortality, including his martyrdom in Carthage Jail. Addams concludes his narrative with four tributes to the Prophet, one by Joseph himself (an excerpt from the King Follet discourse), two by faithful contemporary associates of the Prophet, and the fourth by Hugh B. Brown, a later Apostle and counselor to President Spencer W. Kimball (pp. 685–741).

- A systematic inventory of the major “expressions” of Joseph Smith’s religious legacy that are distinguished by respective doctrines, practices, authorities, and leadership styles. If not the best, this article is certainly one of the best summaries of the various traditions that trace their pedigrees to Joseph Smith (pp. 977–1050).

Ronald K. Esplin enlarges and refines an earlier study of the succession of leadership in the Church of Jesus Christ following the premature death of Joseph Smith. He reframes the “succession crisis” based on a thorough review of all relevant historical documents and traces step-by-step its complex but certain development from the martyrdom to the leadership of Brigham Young as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Esplin’s essay is historical scholarship at its best: thoroughly researched, well documented, and reasonably concluded (pp. 745–882).

Hugh W. Nibley completes the collection with insightful reflections on the enduring legacy of Joseph Smith’s prophetic ministry. This tribute, undated and previously unpublished, was recovered from a typescript copy in the Harold B. Lee Library at Brigham Young University and prepared for publication in this volume. In typical Nibley-esque fashion, he forecasts a tribute to the Prophet in three areas of his prophetic legacy: scriptural, institutional, and doctrinal; however, Nibley’s rhapsody on the first area is so eloquent and poetic that the other two receive short-shrift. Nevertheless, Nibley’s is a fitting conclusion to a collection of tributes that begins with the testimony of the current Church Historian and Recorder of the man “who communed with Jehovah” (pp. 1051–76).

I found all essays worthy of perusal, if not in-depth examination. I found some more compelling than others, but mostly for personal reasons. Other readers will likely have different preferences. The publication’s diverse perspectives and broad appeal are strengths. I hope this worthy work finds its way onto the physical or virtual bookshelves of many students of Latter-day Saint history.

Concluding Thoughts

By way of conclusion, I reflect on the title of the publication. Its frontmatter indicates that the phrase, “a life in crescendo,” was coined by Elder B. H. Roberts in his introduction to a published edition of the seven-volume History of the Church.3 The term crescendo especially characterizes Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo-period ministry. While fewer sections of the Doctrine and Covenants (ten) were issued in 1839–44 than any other comparable era of his ministry, these and temple-related revelations (also received in Nauvoo) are as sublime and far-reaching as he or any other prophet has ever uttered. They provide a capstone to the gospel’s restoration by introducing the doctrines and establishing the method whereby all mankind can avail themselves of the blessing of life eternal, “the greatest of all the gifts of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 14:7).

In its literal sense, crescendo describes the gradual increase of volume and intensity of a particular theme of music.4 Metaphorically, the term refers to the apex of other processes or developments. Some synonyms include pinnacle, zenith, climax, summit and, as a verb, escalate.5 Crescendo is an apt word to describe Joseph’s life, ministry, teachings, and initiatives, all gradually emerging “out of obscurity and out of darkness” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30) in view of extending the blessing of the gospel of Jesus Christ to “all the families of the earth” (Abraham 2:11).

Joseph’s Nauvoo revelations use a term that relates to crescendo and defines the unique Latter-day Saint plan of eternal life. In this connotation, exaltation appears a dozen times in Doctrine and Covenants 124 and 132 but nowhere else in the Church’s Standard Works.6 Thus, as a possible synonym for exaltation, crescendo is a fitting word to title a publication that honors the prophet Joseph Smith and his earthly ministry that was completed in Nauvoo.

Steven L. Olsen (BA, Brigham Young University, 1975; AM, PhD, University of Chicago, 1978, 1985) is Master Curator of the Church History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where he has worked his entire career (four plus decades) creating museum exhibits, restoring historic sites, and leading organizational change. He has also been president or board member of a variety of state, regional, and national professional service organizations. He publishes widely in the fields of Latter-day Saint studies and museums studies and frequently presents at scholarly and professional conferences.

1. 1 . Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, ed., Joseph Smith: A Life Lived in Crescendo, 2 vols. (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2024).

2. 2 . Danel W. Bachman, “New Light on an Old Hypothesis: The Ohio Origins of the Revelation on Eternal Marriage,” Journal of Mormon History 5 (1978), 26, digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=mormonhistory.

3. 3 . See History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 6 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1973), xlii.

4. 4 . The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), seventeenth printing, s.v., “crescendo.”

5. 5 . Merriam-Webster Thesaurus, s.v., “crescendo,” merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/crescendo.

6. 6 . R. Gary Shapiro, comp., An Exhaustive Concordance to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Hawkes Publishing, 1977), s.v., “exaltation”; James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, thirty-first printing (Nashville: Abington Press, 1973), s.v., “exaltation.”

Chiasmus in the Book of Jarom

Stephen Kent Ehat

Abstract: Jarom strongly evidences the use of chiasmus to structure his short book. This paper seeks to uncover, display, and discuss the chiastic patterning of the book and hopefully suggests an enhanced understanding of the hidden beauty and deep meaning of this brief but important text. The book of Jarom indeed offers more than what may otherwise be revealed by only a cursory reading of its fifteen verses. Awareness of the chiastic pattern of the text reinforces an understanding of Jarom’s important message.

Jarom evidently employed chiasmus to structure his short one-chapter book, a book that stands in our modern-day printings of the Book of Mormon as a text of only fifteen verses. Since 16 August 1967, when John W. Welch first discovered the existence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, he and other analysts have proposed the existence of both short and long chiastic structures for various texts within that book of scripture, especially in texts derived from the small plates of Nephi. The book of Jarom is one of those books.

Four prior analysts—Welch (1967 and 1972, both unpublished), Donald W. Parry (1992 and 2007, both published), the author (1995 and 1996, both unpublished), and John Kenton Wyatt (2005, unpublished)—have independently depicted an overall chiasm for that fifteen-verse text. One depiction (mine in 1996) was accompanied by a discussion on which this present paper expands. All seven depictions are largely equivalent in their fundamentals, but each has unique observations.1 All but one of the depictions are available in the John W. Welch Chiasmus Papers collection at Brigham Young University. Welch’s initial 1967 discovery is discussed for the first time in this paper. The depiction by only one of the analysts has previously been published (Parry 1992 and 2007).

Preliminary Observations

Many of the words, phrases, and ideas that correspond between the two halves of Jarom’s text are easily discovered within the text, especially the correspondences at the extremes (in vv. 1–2 and 14–15). Major chiastic correspondences appear throughout, such as, for one example, the dual references to the law of Moses. And the text of the central v. 8 can be seen as synonymia, as Parry terms it, though Welch adds an even more impressive numerical count of the items mentioned in that v. 8, by means of a “2 4 2 4” enumeration that he supplies in the left margin near his depiction of the text of that v. 8 in his 1972 typescript. Wyatt draws attention to the repeated use of the word and in the items he lists from that verse. Welch is the only analyst who offers labels for the conceptual elements of the proposed chapter-wide chiasmus. I recognize here, discuss, and give him credit for preliminarily defining some of those conceptual chiastic elements.

A good starting point in approaching the prospect of bringing together and perhaps harmonizing the various proposals made by the four separate analysts might be to offer here a cogent observation made recently by Welch as he reviewed an earlier draft of this paper. Though the book of Jarom mentions God (vv. 3 and 10), the Holy Spirit (v. 4), the Lord (vv. 5, 7, 9, and 10), and the Messiah (v. 11), we should also observe, as Welch notes, that Jarom only twice mentions his own name (vv. 1 and 14). Says Welch of this feature of the text:

The name Jarom in Hebrew would have been understood anciently as already invoking the name of the Lord, since Ja (Ya) means Yahweh or Jehovah, and rom means high or exalted. So Jarom means “Jehovah is Exalted.” See Ricks, Hoskisson, Smith and Gee, Dictionary of Proper Names and Foreign Words in the Book of Mormon, p. 161.2

Regarding the meaning of Jarom’s name and the correctness (or not) of the rendering Joram that appears in the Printer’s Manuscript (at our v. 14), Robert F. Smith notes the following:3

It is not clear how Jarom/Joram should be vocalized:

Jarom title, verse 1, and Omni 1:1 all read Jarom in the Printer’s Manuscript, whereas at Jarom 1:14 the Printer’s Manuscript reads Joram. We do not know what the reading was in the Original Manuscript. Both forms are well-attested Hebrew names, which mean the same thing. Royal Skousen considers verse 14 a scribal error.4

Hebrew ירם Yārōm or ירום Yārûm means “He is exalted” (Isaiah 52:13, Psalms 18:47, 61:3),5 and may be a hypocoristic form6 of Jeremiah ירמיהו yirmiyyāh(û) “Yahu exalts,” from Hebrew root רום rûm; John A. Tvednes cites that short-form’s appearance in several Hebrew inscriptions: “a seventh-century B.C.E. seal found in Egypt, a jug inscription from Tel esh-Shariˁah, and an ostracon and bulla in the Moussaieff collection.7

KJV Joram MT Hebrew personal name יורם yôrām (2 Samuel 8:10, 2 Chronicles 25:5; Matthew 1:8 iōram), which is short for יהורם Jehoram “Yeho-exalts” (1 Kings 22:51), just as Jonathan is short for Jehonathan, and Joash for Jehoash. The Hebrew orthography and meaning would be the same in either case, although יו JO- would likely be the Northern Hebrew dialectical variant of the theophoric name of the Lord. Since such variants occur biblically, they ought to be respected and allowed within the Book of Mormon as well.

Clearly Smith’s observation differs from Skousen’s on this account. Skousen’s reasoning regarding the spelling “Joram” in Jarom 1:14 is as follows:

Here Oliver Cowdery spelled Jarom as Joram. The three other occurrences of the name are consistently spelled as Jarom (including the first one, found in the title of the book):

title of the book The book of Jarom

Jarom 1:1 Now behold I Jarom write a few words

Omni 1:1 I Omni being commanded by my father Jarom that . . . .

Two of these correct spellings precede Jarom 1:14 in the text. Thus the spelling in P of Joram is undoubtedly an error, a simple switching of the vowels, perhaps under the influence of the name Jordan. (It is doubtful that the considerably less familiar biblical name Joram led to this error.)8

I take no position regarding the analysis whether the Joram of v. 14 is or is not an error or an acceptable variant. I do note, however, that regardless of whether Joram is an error or an acceptable variant, apparently both Joram and Jarom have the same meaning: Jehovah is exalted or He is exalted. The two appearances of the name are chiastically related to one another.

I will discuss immediately below both (1) a proposal based on themes, analyzing the ideas or concepts that form the chiasm of the book and (2) a proposal based on the full text, analyzing the chiasm in light of all of the words and phrases from the full text of the book.

Verbal and thematic chiasmus

Chiasms feature comparisons between words, phrases, and ideas that appear twice in a text, with words, phrases, and ideas stated earlier in the text being repeated in reverse sequence in the latter part of the text. Depictions of chiasms generally represent correspondences by setting forth words, phrases, or ideas, known as “elements” of the chiasm, with letters of the alphabet attached to them and commonly depicted with indented left margins (for texts analyzed in left-to-right English-language translation). In the samples in table 1, a chiasm founded on ideas or concepts developed within a text (thematic chiasmus) appears on the left and a chiasm founded on words (verbal chiasmus) appears on the right.

Table 1. Two examples of chiasmus in the KJV, thematic left, verbal right.

Leviticus 20

Matthew 29:30

A the people deliver punishment (v. 2)

B God delivers punishment (vv. 3–6)

C the people deliver punishment (vv. 9–16)

B′ God delivers punishment (vv. 17–21)

A′ the people deliver punishment (v. 27)

A But many that are first

B shall be last;

B′ and the last

A′ shall be first

Basic thematic proposal

Table 2 depicts a basic chiastic pattern of the ideas in the book of Jarom, reflected in a reversal in the sequence of the repetition of the book’s themes. The depiction reflects an overall A B C D E F G H H′ G′ F′ E′ B′ D′ B′ C′ A′ skewed concentric structure.9 The proposed basic structure is supported by reference to the corresponding words and phrases of the full text of the book itself.

Table 2. Proposed basic structure depicting a thematic chiasmus in Jarom.

A Jarom begins his writing on the plates (vv. 1–2)

B The merciful lord spares the spiritually deaf, spiritually blind, stiffnecked Nephites (vv. 3–4)

C The time of the Nephites waxing strong in the land (v. 5a)

D The Nephites obey the law of Moses (v. 5b)

E The Nephites are scattered upon the face of the land; the Lamanites are wicked (v. 6)

F Taught by righteous leaders the Nephites withstand the Lamanites (v. 7a–d)

G Five forms of societal prosperity (v. 7e–8a)

H Six forms of material prosperity (v. 8b)

H′ Six forms of material prosperity (v. 8c)

G′ Five weapons of war for societal protection (v. 8d)

F′ Threatened by the prophets, the Nephites prevail over the Lamanites (v. 9–10b)

E′ If disobedient, the Nephites will be destroyed from off the face of the land (v. 10c)

B′(2) The prophets, priests, and teachers exhort the Nephites to diligence (v. 11a)

D′ Prophets, priests, and teachers teach Nephites why they obey the law of Moses (v. 11b)

B′ (1) The teachings of the prophets spare the Nephites (v. 12)

C′ The time of wars, contentions, and dissentions (v. 13)

A′ Jarom completes his writing on the plates (vv. 14–15)

Detailed full-text proposal

Table 3 shows both linguistic (word-based, phrase-based) correspondences and thematic (ideas-based, concepts-based) correspondences. The linguistic correspondences are labeled with lowercase alphabetic characters (a, b, c, etc.) and shown in bold. The thematic (topical) correspondences are labeled with uppercase alphabetic characters (A, B, C, etc.) followed by a statement of the theme conveyed by the verses involved. The division of the Jarom text into five major chiastic elements based on ideas or themes was first made evident in Welch’s 1972 unpublished analysis. Here I expand upon his thematic labeling and supply a division of the book into sixteen elements. His proposed five elements (reviewed later in this paper) and my proposed sixteen thematic elements complement one another; it is merely a matter of the degree of granularity in the analysis. We both accommodate a full analysis of the entire text of the book, with slightly different analysis of some of the underlying details.

Table 3. Proposed detailed structure depicting thematic and linguistic chiasmus in the book of Jarom, quoting the full text of the book and depicting the topics.

A Jarom begins his writing on the plates (vv. 1–2):

a Now behold, I, Jarom (1a)

b write a few words according to the commandment of my father, Enos, (1b)

c that our genealogy may be kept. (1c)

d And as these plates are small, (2a)

e and as these things
f are written (2b)

g for the intent of the benefit of our brethren the Lamanites, (2c)

h wherefore, it must needs be that I write a little; but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. (2d)

i For what could I write more than my fathers have written? (2e)

j For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me. (2f) [unanswered element]

B The merciful lord spares the spiritually deaf, spiritually blind, stiffnecked Nephites (vv. 3–4):

k Behold, it is expedient that much should be done among this people, (3a)

l because of the hardness of their hearts, and the deafness of their ears, and the blindness of their minds, and the stiffness of their necks; (3b)

m nevertheless, God is exceedingly merciful unto them, and has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land. (3c)

n And there are many among us who have many revelations, for they are not all stiffnecked. And as many as are not stiffnecked and have faith, have communion with the Holy Spirit, which maketh manifest unto the children of men, according to their faith. (4)

C The time of the Nephites waxing strong in the land (v. 5a):

o And now, behold, two hundred years had passed away, and the people of Nephi had waxed strong in the land. (5a)

D The Nephites obey the law of Moses (v. 5b):

p They observed to keep the law of Moses and the sabbath day holy unto the Lord. And they profaned not; neither did they blaspheme. And the laws of the land were exceedingly strict. (5b)

E The Nephites are scattered upon the face of the land; the Lamanites are wicked (v. 6):

q And they were scattered upon much of the face of the land, and the Lamanites also. And they were exceedingly more numerous than were they of the Nephites; and they loved murder and would drink the blood of beasts. (6)

F Taught by righteous leaders the Nephites withstand the Lamanites (v. 7a–d):

r And it came to pass that they came many times against us, the Nephites, to battle. (7a)

s But our kings and our leaders were mighty men in the faith of the Lord; (7b)

t and they taught the people the ways of the Lord; (7c)

u wherefore we withstood the Lamanites and swept them away out of our lands, (7d)

G Five forms of societal prosperity (v. 7e–8a):

v and [1] began to fortify our cities, or [2] whatsoever place of our inheritance. (7e) And [3] we multiplied exceedingly, and [4] spread upon the face of the land, and [5] became exceedingly rich (8a)

H Six forms of material prosperity (v. 8b):

w [1] in gold, and [2] in silver, and [3] in precious things, and [4] in fine workmanship of wood, [5] in buildings, and [6] in machinery, (8b)

H′ Six forms of material prosperity (v. 8c):

w′ and also in [1] iron and [2] copper, and [3] brass and [4] steel, [5] making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and [6] weapons of war (8c)

G′ Five weapons of war for societal protection (v. 8d):

v′1 —yea, [1] the sharp pointed arrow, and [2] the quiver, and [3] the dart, and [4] the javelin, and [5] all preparations for war. (8d)

F′ Threatened by the prophets, the Nephites prevail over the Lamanites (v. 9–10b):

r′ And thus being prepared to meet the Lamanites, they did not prosper against us. (9a)

t′1 But the word of the Lord was verified, which he spake unto our fathers, (9b) saying that: Inasmuch as ye will keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land. (9c)

s′ And it came to pass that the prophets of the Lord (10a)

t′2 did threaten the people of Nephi, according to the word of God, (10b)

E′ If disobedient, the Nephites will be destroyed from off the face of the land (v. 10c):

u′3 that if they did not keep the commandments, but should fall into transgression they should be destroyed from off the face of the land. (10c)

B′(2) The prophets, priests, and teachers exhort the Nephites to diligence (v. 11a):

n′ Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers,
k′ did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to diligence; (11a)

D′ Prophets, priests, and teachers teach Nephites why they obey the law of Moses (v. 11b):

p′ teaching the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was. And after this manner did they teach them. (11b)

B′ (1) The teachings of the prophets spare the Nephites (v. 12):

m′ And it came to pass that by so doing they kept them from being destroyed upon the face of the land; (12a)

l′ for they did prick their hearts with the word, continually stirring them up unto repentance. (12b)

C′ The time of wars, contentions, and dissentions (v. 13):

o′ And it came to pass that two hundred and thirty and eight years had passed away—after the manner of wars, and contentions, and dissensions, for the space of much of the time. (13)

A′ Jarom completes his writing on the plates (vv. 14–15):

a′ And I, Jarom, (14a)

i′1 do not write more, (14b)

d′ for the plates are small. (14c)

g′ But behold, my brethren, ye can go to the other plates of Nephi; (14d)

h′ for behold, upon them the records of our wars are engraven,
i′2 according to the writings of the kings,
f′ or those which they caused to be written.(14e)

e′ And I deliver these plates into the hands of my son Omni, (15a)

c′ that they may be kept (15b)

b′ according to the commandments of my fathers. (15c)

Discussion

Consider that the fifteen-verse book opens and ends with an inclusio in the first and last verses (vv. 1 and 14–15),10 consisting of a statement to the effect that he, Jarom, writes on “these plates” that “are small” (v. 2a), on “the plates” that “are small” (v. 14c), on which “the genealogy” is “written” (v. 2b), on which the “writings of the kings” are “written” (v. 14c), in order that the things so written “may be kept” (v. 1), that they “may be kept” (v. 15), all “according to the commandment of my father” (v. 1) and “according to the commandments of my fathers” (v. 15).

The correspondences continue: What he writes is intended to benefit the Lamanites, whom he refers to as “our brethren” (v. 2) and as “my brethren” (v. 14). Providing contrasting correspondences, Jarom states that instead of engraving on the small plates the things of his “prophesying” and “revelations” (v. 2), he directs his reader to something different—namely, the “records of our wars,” engraven on the large plates (v. 14). He speaks of what is “written” by the “fathers” (v. 2) and tells of “the writings of the kings” (v. 14). It is “I Jarom” who writes “a few words” (v. 1) and “I, Jarom” who does “not write more” (v. 14b).

Reviewing a prior draft of this present paper, John W. Welch observes that Jarom asks a rhetorical question concerning his contribution on the small plates of Nephi: “What could I write more . . .?” (v. 2e), and at the end of his short text he states, “I . . . do not write more” (v. 14b).11 Regarding this rhetorical question and the apparent chiastic relationship between the repeated phrase “write more” appearing in vv. 2 and 14, Welch further observes:

By asking the question “what could I write more?,” with the implied answer being “nothing more,” Jarom alerts his readers that he does, in fact, not plan to write more on this topic, thus tightening the connection between that very question and the precise words he uses in concluding by saying, “I do not write more” (v. 14).12

Concerning the proposed chiastic parallel between “taught” and “threaten” (in Jarom 1:7a and 10a), highlighted in elements s and s′ in table 3, Robert F. Smith remarks:

I cannot find a Hebrew parallel. However, note Egyptian sbȝ “teach, teaching; teacher, tutor”; sbȝyt “written-teaching, instruction; book”; sbȝyt “punishment, chastisement”; > Coptic sbō “doctrine, teaching”; tisbō “teach; chastise.”13 All from same root word. This suggests the Egyptian notion that “The ear of the boy is on his back and he hearkeneth when he is beaten.”14

The remaining correspondences (detailed further below) surround a central message: the blessings of righteousness include an ability to face and defend against attacks made by the unrighteous; God-given prosperity may exist without war but also it may exist in preparations for righteous war.

As Lehi before him quoted the Lord in both positive and negative terms—“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 Nephi 1:20)—and as Jarom’s grandson, Amaron, would quote the Lord in negative terms only—“Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall not prosper in the land” (Omni 1:6)—Jarom reveals that the prosperity granted by the Lord in answer to righteous obedience embraces not solely material prosperity to aid in overcoming the physical and spiritual enemies of poverty and despair (vv. 4–8a) but also material prosperity to repel the spiritual and physical enemies of war and possible destruction (vv. 8b–13). The book neatly balances around v. 8, where Jarom notes the material blessings that God supplies (gold, silver, iron, copper, brass, steel, and precious things) and the things that can be made with those materials and uses to which those materials can be put (fine workmanship of wood, buildings, machinery, and the making of tools to till the ground and even weapons of war in preparation for war). Verse 8 hearkens back meaningfully to what his granduncle,15 Nephi, taught the people:

I did teach the people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance. (2 Nephi 5:15)

That hearkening back involves what is called a “distant chiasm,” conforming with “Seidel’s law” (discussed further below). And yet in connection with that hearkening back, in Nephi’s day the buildings built included a temple (2 Nephi 5:16) but in the bleaker days of Jarom’s era no mention is made of the building of a temple.

The prophet Jarom omits from his record his own “prophesying” and his own “revelations” (Jarom 1:2), speaking in the third person of the other prophets among his people “as if he were not one of them.”16 Jarom uses the third person in referring to the prophets, priests, and teachers among his people, identifying them as “our kings and our leaders” (v. 7) and as “the prophets of the Lord” (v. 10), stating that “after this manner did they teach” (v. 11). Even when Jarom speaks of the righteous among the people of Nephi he somewhat distances himself from them, speaking of “many among us who have many revelations” (v. 4), “they” who “are not stiffnecked” (v. 4), even speaking sometimes of his own people in the third person—using such phrases as “they of the Nephites” (v. 6), “the people of Nephi” (v. 10), “the people” (v. 11), and “them” (vv. 11–12). Yet at the same time, in the central passages of the book, he identifies himself as a Nephite using first-person plural, with such words and phrases as “us, the Nephites” (v. 7), “we” (v. 8), and “us” (v. 9).

Jarom does experience his own “prophesying” and his own “revelations” (Jarom 1:2) but he does not share them with his reader. Nevertheless, he does record on the small plates of Nephi a significant spiritual insight, apparently structuring his text with a chiastic or concentric pattern in mind to emphasize his spiritual lesson. In an attempt to satisfy both the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion on the issue whether a chiastic pattern does indeed derive from the text of the book,17 there will be presented below the following four items:

1. A simplified view of the general diagram of the proposed overall chiastic structure of the book of Jarom, identified by reference to the paragraphing of the complete text of the book.

2. An analysis of the paired proposed sections of the suggested chiastic pattern, evaluating both the repetitions between the paired sections and the repetitions within each of the paired sections.

3. A discussion and analysis of some factors that give unity of idea and progression of narrative to the paired sections.

4. An assessment of the text of the book in light of the criteria recognized by Welch and others for evaluating the presence and quality of proposed chiastic patterns.

Overview of the proposal

The outline of my proposal shown in tables 2 and 3 displays strengths as well as supposable but not evidenced weaknesses. As for strengths, the overall proposed chiasm can be viewed in an even more simplified form, as a concentric pattern having one central element rather than as a chiasm proper with two matching central elements, the one central element being element D in the following depiction:

A Jarom keeps the record (vv. 1–2)

B The merciful Lord spares the spiritually blind Nephites (vv. 3–4)

C Spiritual condition of the Nephites (vv. 5–6)

D The Nephites prosper and thus are prepared to meet the Lamanites (vv. 7–9)18

B′ The prophets of the Lord threaten the people of Nephi (vv.10–11)

C′ Spiritual condition of the Nephites (v. 12)

A′ Jarom keeps the record (vv. 13–15)

The division of the text into the above simplified seven elements (eight if the central element were to be divided into two elements) is founded on the paragraphing suggested by the first five printings of the Book of Mormon, each of which divides the book of Jarom into six paragraphs but could have divided it into seven. As originally understood by the typesetter, John Gilbert, in preparing the type for the 1830 original edition, he introduced six paragraphs. His paragraphing was based on his perception of the sense of the text. Those first five printings of the Book of Mormon were all produced during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and consist of the following printings: 1830 (printed in Palmyra, New York),19 1837 (printed in Kirtland, Ohio),20 1840 (printed in Nauvoo, Illinois),21 1841 (printed in Liverpool, England),22 and 1842 (printed in Nauvoo, Illinois).23 Each printing divides the text of the book of Jarom into the very same six paragraphs. Using for reference here the versification of later editions of the Book of Mormon, the six paragraphs in the first five editions begin with text found at the start of each of the following later-designated verses:

- v. 1: “Now, behold, I, Jarom . . .”

- v. 3: “Behold, it is expedient . . .”

- v. 5: “And now, behold two . . .”)

- v. 7 “And it came to pass that they . . .”)

- v. 10: “And it came to pass that the prophets . . .”

- v. 13: “And it came to pass that two . . .”

Those phrases often serve as the opening phrases of paragraphs in the text of the Book of Mormon and at times the paragraphs that begin with those phrases also often form complete elements of a conceptual chiasm, such as the A B C D C′ B′ A′ chiasm proposed for the book of Enos, where each of the seven paragraphs of that book constitutes an element of a seven-part concentric structure giving rhetorical form to that text.24

In the book of Jarom, however, seven common introductory phrases appear, six identified by John Gilbert to begin paragraphs he introduced into the 1830 edition and one that he did not utilize. That phrase, omitted by Gilbert in his paragraphing of the text (“And it came to pass,” v. 12), is listed here, in italic, among the seven I identify as the beginning words of seven paragraphs:

- v. 1: Now behold . . .

- v. 3: Behold . . .

- v. 5: And now, behold . . .

- v. 7: And it came to pass . . .

- v. 10: And it came to pass . . .

- v. 12: And it came to pass . . .

- v. 13: And it came to pass . . .

As for potential weaknesses, some of the features of the proposal suggest weakness if not analyzed properly. For example, though the proposal set forth in tables 2 and 3 relies on key words and key phrases set forth in the very sequence in which they appear in the text, some of those key words and some of the words within those key phrases do appear elsewhere in the text, and thus some of them may be construed to constitute what are called “mavericks.”25 This risks a potential accusation of selectivity and confirmation bias on the part of the analyst. For example, the following key words and key phrases appear only twice in the text, each of these ten pairs remarkably being found only within their respective proposed corresponding chiastic elements:

1. “Jarom” (vv. 1, 14)

2. “according to the commandment(s) of my father(s)” (vv. 1, 15)

3. “may be kept” (vv. 1, 15)
4. “plates are small” (vv. 2, 14)
5. “our/my brethren” (vv. 2, 14)
6. “I write more” (vv. 2, 14)
7. “their hearts” (vv. 3, 12)
8. “have faith” and “believe” (vv. 4, 11)26

9. “two hundred years had passed away”/“two hundred and thirty and eight years had passed away” (vv. 5, 13)

10. “law of Moses” (vv. 1, 11)

Yet, some of the words within some of those key phrases may appear elsewhere in the text and thus may be misinterpreted to be “mavericks.” For example, the word commandments (one of the words in the suggested key phrase “commandment(s) of my father(s)” of vv. 1 and 15) does appear elsewhere, in vv. 9 and 10. But it is not the word commandment alone that is relied upon to serve as an element of the overall chiasm proposed; rather, it is the phrase “according to the commandment[s],” repeated only twice, in vv. 1 and 15, that constitutes the language of the matching elements of the chiasm. It is the entire phrase “according to the commandment[s]” that is considered a key phrase for the chiastic analysis. The phrase “according to the commandment[s]” appears nowhere else in the Book of Mormon, only in these two proposed elements of the overall chiasm of the book of Jarom.

Similarly, the word kept in the phase may be kept (vv. 1, 15) is a word that also appears elsewhere, in v. 12, though there again it is not part of the full phrase may be kept. The rare phrase may be kept appears only in vv. 1 and 15. It appears only two other times in the Book of Mormon—in Alma 24:15, regarding swords that “may be kept” bright, and in 1 Nephi 19:5, regarding “the more sacred things” (the writings on the small plates of Nephi) that they “may be kept” (meaning recorded or preserved) for the knowledge of the Nephite people). The word kept, alone, is not considered a key word in this analysis; rather, it is the key phrase may be kept. Though in vv. 1 and 15 the phrase may be kept refers to “keeping and preserving the plates and what is engraven on the plates,” the word kept in v. 12 refers to the avoidance of destruction of the Nephites, keeping them from destruction.

However, a maverick appearance of the entire key phrase the face of the land does apparently occur in v. 8a. Analysis of the proposed corresponding elements of the overall chiasm suggests that the text of vv. 3, 6, 10c, and 12a, which all employ the phrase the face of the land, do so as part of the overall thematic chiasm. The phrase face of the land in v. 8 is a maverick appearance of the phrase. (More on this apparent maverick is discussed below.)

The paired elements analyzed

The correspondences in the proposal set forth in tables 2 and 3 are evident in the rewritten format shown in those tables: A to A′, B to B′, etc., for the main elements, and a to a′, b to b′, etc. for the linguistic correspondences. The following discussion attempts further to elucidate the comparisons that can be seen in the major elements of the basic proposal set forth in table 2, which depicts the proposed basic chiastic pattern of the book of Jarom with capital letters (A, B, C, etc.).

A and A′ reflect Jarom’s only two uses of his own name, once in A (v. 1) and once in A′ (v. 14). Whereas in A, he asks, “what could I write more?” (v. 2), in A′ he remarks “I . . . do not write more” (v. 14). In both places he gives his reason for this: “these plates are small” (v. 2), “the plates are small” (v. 14). In A (v. 1), he states that he writes “according to the commandment of my father” that his genealogy “may be kept” and, in A′ (v. 14), he states that he delivers the plates that they “may be kept” “according to the commandments of my fathers.” His reference to these plates in v. 1 balances with his reference to these plates in v. 15. He addresses his remarks to the Lamanites, whom he refers to in v. 2 as our brethren and in v. 14 as my brethren. Instead of engraving on the small plates the things of his “prophesying” and “revelations” (v. 2), he directs his reader to something different—namely, the “records of our wars” engraven on the large plates (v. 14). In v. 2 he mentions what is “written” by the “fathers” and in v. 14 he mentions what is “written” by the “kings.” Elements A and A′ are indeed complementary:

A Now behold, I, Jarom, write a few words according to the commandment of my father, Enos, that our genealogy may be kept. (1) And as these plates are small, and as these things are written for the intent of the benefit of our brethren the Lamanites, wherefore, it must needs be that I write a little; but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me. (2)

A′ And I, Jarom, do not write more, for the plates are small. But behold, my brethren, ye can go to the other plates of Nephi; for behold, upon them the records of our wars are engraven, according to the writings of the kings, or those which they caused to be written. (14) And I deliver these plates into the hands of my son Omni, that they may be kept according to the commandments of my fathers. (15)

B and B′ feature a bifurcated B′ element with correspondences between elements B, B′(1), and B′(2). The B elements set forth Jarom’s sole references to the phrase their hearts (see vv. 3 and 12), referring in both places to the hearts of the people of Nephi. In B, speaking of the Nephites, Jarom states that God in his mercy “has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land” (v. 3) and in B′ Jarom notes that the prophets, priests, and teachers, by diligent exhortation, teaching, and persuasion, kept the people of Nephi “from being destroyed upon the face of the land” (v. 12). The reference in B (v. 4) to those many among the Nephites who have faith and have “communion with the Holy Spirit” is answered in B′ (v. 12) by the reference to the prophets who continually have stirred the people up to repentance. The two sections seem, indeed, to be complementary to one another:

B Behold, it is expedient that much should be done among this people, because of the hardness of their hearts, and the deafness of their ears, and the blindness of their minds, and the stiffness of their necks; nevertheless, God is exceedingly merciful unto them, and has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land. (3) And there are many among us who have many revelations, for they are not all stiffnecked. And as many as are not stiffnecked and have faith, have communion with the Holy Spirit, which maketh manifest unto the children of men, according to their faith. (4)

B′(2) Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers, did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to diligence; (11a)

B′(1) And it came to pass that by so doing they kept them from being destroyed upon the face of the land; for they did prick their hearts with the word, continually stirring them up unto repentance. (12)

C and C′ share the only two time-related references in the text: “two hundred years had passed away” (v. 5a) and “two hundred and thirty and eight years had passed away” (v. 13).27 Those elements contrast the conditions under which the Nephites were living in those two times: earlier “the people of Nephi had waxed strong in the land” (v. 5a) and later the people experienced “wars, and contentions, and dissensions, for the space of much of the time” (v. 13):

C And now, behold, two hundred years had passed away, and the people of Nephi had waxed strong in the land. (5a)

C′ And it came to pass that two hundred and thirty and eight years had passed away—after the manner of wars, and contentions, and dissensions, for the space of much of the time. (13)

D and D′ share the book’s only two references to the law of Moses, in element D (v. 5b) and in element D′ (v. 11). Whereas in the earlier time (element D, v. 5b) observance of the law of Moses is characterized by keeping the sabbath day holy, not profaning, and not blaspheming, in the later time (element D′, v. 11) the deeper more profound observance of the law is found in learning the intent for which the law was given, to point the people unto the Messiah:

D They observed to keep the law of Moses and the sabbath day holy unto the Lord. And they profaned not; neither did they blaspheme. And the laws of the land were exceedingly strict. (5b)

D′ teaching the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was. And after this manner did they teach them. (11)

E and E′ reflect the fate of the murderous Lamanites and the fate of the Nephites if they do not keep the commandments: scattering and destruction. In element E Jarom states that the Nephites “were scattered upon much of the face of the land” (v. 6) and in element E′ he states that the threats of the prophets served as a warning that transgression would result in the people of Nephi being “destroyed from off the face of the land” (v. 10):

E And they were scattered upon much of the face of the land, and the Lamanites also. And they were exceedingly more numerous than were they of the Nephites; and they loved murder and would drink the blood of beasts. (6)

E′ that if they did not keep the commandments, but should fall into transgression they should be destroyed from off the face of the land. (10c)

F and F′ correspond. Whereas in F, Jarom says the Lamanites “came many times against us” (v. 7), in F′ he states that “they did not prosper against us” (v. 9), the only two uses of the phrase against us. In F, Jarom mentions that the “ways of the Lord” were taught (v. 7) and in F′ he states that the “word of the Lord” was verified (v. 9). In F Jarom indicates that the Nephites “withstood the Lamanites” who “did not prosper” against them (v. 7) and in F′ he states the Nephites were “prepared to meet the Lamanites” (v. 9). The mention later in F′ that the Nephites should prosper in the land (v. 9) correlates well with the earlier mention in F that the Nephites swept the Lamanites out of our lands (v. 7d). In F′ the leaders “taught the people” (v.7c) and in F the prophets did “threaten the people” (v. 10b):

F And it came to pass that they came many times against us, the Nephites, to battle. (7a) But our kings and our leaders were mighty men in the faith of the Lord; (7b) and they taught the people the ways of the Lord (7c); wherefore we withstood the Lamanites and swept them away out of our lands, (7d)

F′ And thus being prepared to meet the Lamanites, they did not prosper against us. (9a) But the word of the Lord was verified, which he spake unto our fathers, saying that: (9b) Inasmuch as ye will keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land. (9c) And it came to pass that the prophets of the Lord (10a) did threaten the people of Nephi, according to the word of God, (10b)

G and G′ each enumerate forms of societal prosperity. In G the focus is on five forms of prosperity experienced by the people, in their cities and places of inheritance, in the favorable size of their population and its dissemination in the land, and in the fact they are “exceedingly rich.” In G′ the focus is on five forms of weapons of war for societal protection—arrows, quivers, darts, javelins, and “all preparations for war”:

G and [1] began to fortify our cities, or [2] whatsoever place of our inheritance. (7e) And [3] we multiplied exceedingly, and [4] spread upon the face of the land, and [5] became exceedingly rich (8a)

G′ —yea, [1] the sharp pointed arrow, and [2] the quiver, and [3] the dart, and [4] the javelin, and [5] all preparations for war. (8d)

H and H′ likewise each set forth significant enumerations. In H (v. 8b) Jarom identifies six forms of riches. First among them are gold, silver, precious things, and wood. Then he mentions two things made with those materials: buildings and machinery. Then, in H′ he again mentions six forms of prosperity. First among them are iron, copper, brass, and steel, and then he mentions two things made with those materials: tools to till the ground and weapons of war. All eight of these forms of riches (natural and man-made) are mentioned also by Nephi (2 Nephi 5:15). This will be further discussed below under the topic of “distant chiasmus.” John A. Tvedtnes discusses this enumeration as one of many examples he gives of “word groups” in the Book of Mormon.28 Proposed elements H and H′ are complementary to one another:

H [1] in gold, and [2] in silver, and [3] in precious things, and [4] in fine workmanship of wood, [5] in buildings, and [6] in machinery . . . (8a)

H′ and also in [1] iron and [2] copper, and [3] brass and [4] steel, making all manner of [5] tools of every kind to till the ground, and [6] weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war. (8c)

Factors unifying the narrative

The book of Jarom is, in the end, a positive book, notwithstanding its concern both with the then-existing conditions of war and of ongoing preparations for war. In Jarom’s earliest comments, he immediately shies away from telling of his prophesying and his revelations (v. 1). He speaks instead of the spiritual deafness and blindness and stiffneckedness of his people. Though he writes portentously of the fact that his people have “not as yet” been swept off the face of the land, nevertheless, by the end of his writing he continues to account for a people who have indeed at least been kept from destruction. He directs his readers to the other (large) plates of Nephi for an account of the wars of his people. Notwithstanding his is described as a time of conflict caused by the Lamanites coming against his people, it is also a time of a good measure of obedience among the Nephites, accompanied by prophetic warnings of potential destruction, warnings that apparently are welcomed and effective among the people. In v. 4 (preceding the central section), Jarom refers to those who “have many revelations,” and in v. 11 (following the central section), he refers to “the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers” among the people. Righteousness largely exists among the Nephites in Jarom’s day.

In v. 5 (preceding the central section), Jarom specifies that the people observed to keep the law of Moses, and in v. 11 he observes that not only was the law of Moses the object of the teaching by the prophets, priests, and teachers, but also that what was taught was “the intent for which it [the law] was given,” namely, to point the people to the Messiah. This appears to be an entirely positive progression of mood, from the mere mention in the former verses that the law of Moses was observed and that the laws of the land were “exceedingly strict” (v. 5) to mention in the latter verses that instructions were given and accepted bearing on the spiritual reasons underlying such observance (v. 11).

Jarom clearly shows that obedience to the law of Moses prompted two results among the Nephites—the first outward or preparatory in nature (described in the first half of the book) and the second inward and full (described in the second half of the book): (1) the law of Moses led the people to sabbath-day observance and an absence of profanity and blasphemy (v. 5), and yet even better than that, (2) it led them to a looking forward unto the Messiah and “a belief on him to come” “as though he already was” (v. 11). There appears a positive direction in the flow of the narrative, progressing from the first half to the second half.

The first half of the book introduces a need that is apparently fulfilled in the second half. In v. 3, Jarom indicates that it is expedient “that much should be done among this people”; in v. 12, Jarom reflects what needed to be (and was) done, namely, the preaching of the word to prick the hearts of the Nephites and to stir them up unto repentance. What is stated as a need in the first half of the book is reflected as accomplished actions in the latter half of the book. In the first half, the people of Nephi are reported to have not been destroyed from the face of the land and to have been scattered, even though they had waxed strong in the land (vv. 3, 5). In the latter half of the book, the fate of destruction from off the face of the land resulting from disobedience (v. 10) is averted by the preaching of the prophets (v. 12). This clearly is central to the flow of the narrative. Whereas, in the first half of the book, Jarom states that the “ways of the Lord” were taught (v. 7), in the corresponding element in the latter half of the book, he confirms that the “word of the Lord” was verified (v. 9)—what was promised earlier was fulfilled later.

Assessment in Light of Criteria for Evaluating
the Presence and Quality of Chiasmus

Between 1942 and 2017 various scholars—namely, Nils W. Lund,29 Paul Gaechter,30 Joanna Dewey,31 David J. Clark,32 R. Alan Culpepper,33 David Noel Freedman,34 Wilfred G. E. Watson,35 John W. Welch,36 Craig Blomberg,37 George Michael Butterworth,38 John Breck,39 Ian H. Thomsen,40 Mark J. Boda,41 Bernard M. Levinson,42 Wayne Brouwer,43 David P. Wright,44 Steven R. Scott,45 James E. Patrick,46 and Jonathan Burnside47—have identified or proposed various features, characteristics, or rules that would have guided authors in ancient days in composing chiastic or concentric texts, and supplied guidance for us in our day in evaluating, analyzing, and proving the existence or quality of chiastic or concentric structures in scriptural and other texts.48

I here will assess the book of Jarom and the proposed overall, chapter-length chiasm in light of the criteria advanced by Welch.49 They are defined and discussed in the sections that follow, namely, the criteria of objectivity, purpose, boundaries, competition with other forms, length, density, dominance, mavericks, reduplication, centrality, balance, climax, return, stylistic compatibility, aesthetics, and intentionality.

A. Objectivity

The book of Jarom seems to be shaped by conceptual elements forming the first and second halves of the text (A B C D E F G H H′ G′ F′ E′ B′ D′ B′ C′ A′). When the full text is analyzed in some detail, the first half seems to reveal fourteen matching elements based on words and phrases (a to w) and the second half on fourteen more (w′ to a′). In these sections appear a number of key words and key phrases that complement one another in the correlative sections of the proposed chiasm of the book, mostly by way of synonymy or perfect identity and sometimes by way of contrast or antithesis. The number of parallel correspondences found in the text itself would militate against a conclusion that the parallels are contrived by the modern analyst-reader.

B. Purpose

Jarom clearly desires to tell of the struggles between his people and the Lamanites, and he clearly desires to do so without telling of his own prophecies and revelations. He clearly portrays a portentous mood, notwithstanding his people survive the thirty-eight or more years about which he writes. Though the people are saved both by obedience to the prophesies of the prophets and by enjoyment of the rich blessings of the Lord, they seem to be flirting with disaster, with destruction somehow just over the horizon. Christ—and the law of Moses that directs their attention to Christ—seem, as it were, only as central to their experience as the wars, contentions, and dissensions that surround them. Jarom states that he is satisfied with what others (his fathers) have written concerning the plan of salvation; hence, one should expect his central focus to be elsewhere. Absent from the posited chiastic pattern is a central reference to Christ, which otherwise is typical in, though not necessarily essential to, confirmation of the existence of a chiastic pattern.50 Perhaps that absence aids in conveying the sense of foreboding implicit in the text. And Jarom seems to put his focus where it suits his purpose, which appears to be dictated by a desire to elucidate that societal preservation was enhanced for the Nephites not only through constructive uses of the blessings of the Lord but also preparations for the defense of their society with weapons of war. The people would prosper, spiritually and physically, only through obedience to the commandments of God. The blessings of obedience included material blessings through what they could build, manufacture, or make, though unlike in Nephi’s day, their efforts at building did not include the building of any new temple.

C. Boundaries

Jarom’s book is one complete unit in itself. It is set apart as a separate book in the Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon and in all printed editions. The references to Jarom’s father (1:1) and to his son (1:15; Omni 1:1), together with disposition of the plates from respective fathers to sons, clearly establish the boundaries of the book.

D. Competition with other forms

No competing rhetorical structure appears to manifest itself in the text of the book of Jarom. Chiasmus alone seems to be the only device by which the book shows structure.

E. Length

As stated earlier, the first half of the book apparently reveals numerous key-word/key-phrase elements preceding and numerous matching elements following its middle. In these sections appear a number of key words and key phrases repeated in the two halves of the book in roughly reverse order from the order in which they are stated in the first half. With a detailed chiastic pattern made up of about twenty-three such elements (a to w and w′ to a′), the length of the system seems wholly satisfactory to qualify it as significant.

F. Density

According to my count of the printed words,51 the book of Jarom comprises 733 words.52 Although this is merely an estimate, looking solely at the key words and key phrases placed in bold font in the above “Paired Elements Analyzed” discussion, the first half of the book (before the word machinery), comprises 101 key words and words in key phrases, and the second half of the book, about 100 such words. These 201 key words and words within key phrases appears to be an entirely acceptable density factor, with about 28% of the words (201 ÷ 706 = 0.2847), thus serving the role of key words or words within key phrases.

G. Dominance

The words serving as key words or as words in key phrases are dominant ones. They are listed in the chart set forth in the following section.

H. Mavericks

Table 4 shows the dominant words and phrases that it is proposed give structure to the book of Jarom, the respective proposed elements in which they appear, and the instances in which they appear elsewhere outside those respective elements.

Table 4 confirms the relative rarity of maverick appearances of the key words and phrases that otherwise are proposed to give structure to the book. The occurrences of some of the mavericks are amenable to reasonable explanation. For example, the maverick appearance of commandments in D and C′(2) (vv. 9 and 10) refers to the keeping of the commandments of God, in contradistinction to the two corresponding, parallel, non-maverick appearances of commandment in the phrase “according to the commandment[s]” of my “father[s],” referring to Jarom acting “according to the commandment” of his father (v. 1) and acting “according to the commandments” of Jarom’s fathers (v. 15), elements A and A′.

Table 4. Key elements of the book of Jarom.

Key Words and Phrases

Related Sections where They Appear

Maverick Appearances

Jarom

A, A′

according to the commandment(s) of my father(s)

A, A′

commandments [of God]

F, E′

may be kept

A, A′

kept

H′ (not a maverick)

plates are small

A, A′

our brethren/my brethren

A, A′

write/engraven

A, A′

write more

A, A′

their hearts

B, B′(1)

the face of the land

B, B′; C(2), C′(2)

G (a maverick)

destroyed/scattered/swept

B, B′; C(2), C′(2)

E

hundred . . . years had passed away

C(1), C′(1)

Law of Moses

C(1), C′(1)

people of Nephi/Nephites

C(1), C′(1)

D

came to pass

–

D, C′(2), B′, C′(1)

Lord

C(2), C′(2); D, D′

ways of the Lord/word of the Lord

D, D′

Lamanites

D, D′

A, C(2)

meet/withstood

D, D′

Similarly, though on the one hand, uses of the word Nephites in C(2) and D (vv. 6 and 7) and the phrase people of Nephi in C′(2) (v. 10) both denote the people of Nephi, the apparent maverick appearance of the word Nephi in A′ (v. 14) forms part of a reference to the plates of Nephi, which is the meaning of the phrase these plates in element A (v. 1), even without use of the word Nephi to describe them. Thus, only the appearance of Nephites in D is a maverick.

Though in elements A and A′ (vv. 1 and 15) use of the word kept in the phrase may be kept denotes retained or preserved—the genealogy is to be kept and the plates are to be kept—in element H′ (v. 12), the word kept there makes a maverick appearance but only in the sense of the word kept having the meaning of protected or guarded—the prophets, priests, and teachers protected (kept or guarded) the Nephites from destruction.

Though the phrase it came to pass seems to be employed irregularly (more commonly in the second half of the text), its functionally equal companions are used quite regularly otherwise and, importantly, each and all as opening phrases for each of the elements of the proposed multi-part thematic chiasm. As noted above, those companion phrases are “Now behold . . .” (v. 1); “Behold” (v. 3); “And now behold” (v. 5); “And it came to pass” (v. 7); “And it came to pass” (v. 10); “And it came to pass” (v. 12); and “And it came to pass” (v. 13).

I. Reduplication

Random repetition of words is not prevalent in the book of Jarom. Except for the non-significant words and, are, as, be, did, for, I, in, it, my, not, of, our, that, the, their, them (not referring to the large plates of Nephi), they, to, and unto, and except only for the significant word land, no word appears more than five times in the entire book. The repetition of words in the book of Jarom is summarized in table 5.

Table 5. Word repetition in the book of Jarom.

Description

Number

Words appearing once in the book

16353

Words appearing twice in the book

41

Words appearing three times in the book

23

Words appearing four times in the book

7

Words appearing five times in the book

11

Words appearing more than five times in the book

19

This data corroborates the assertion that random repetition does not account for the chiastic structure of the text.

J. Centrality

The central message of the book seems to stand out because of a stark contrast appearing at its center. As Lehi had said before him in both positive and negative terms—“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 Nephi 1:20)—and as his grandson, Amaron, would later say in negative terms—“Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall not prosper in the land” (Omni 1:6)—Jarom reveals that the prosperity granted by the Lord due to righteous obedience embraces not solely material prosperity to aid in overcoming the physical and spiritual enemies of poverty and despair (Jarom 4–8a), but also material prosperity to repel the spiritual and physical enemies of war and destruction (vv. 8b–13). The book neatly balances around v. 8. Although the book does not employ a feature of many extended chiastic structures, that of placing a reference to Christ at the crossover point, the center of the book nonetheless manifests a repetition that draws attention to a focus of the text. In E (v. 8b) the precious metals (gold and silver) and the precious things and wood subject to the Nephites’ workmanship are paired with the more common metals of “iron and copper, and brass and steel” (v. 8b) and they, in turn, are accompanied by the four weapons of war also subject of the Nephites’ workmanship—“the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin” (v. 8c). At the center is the reminder that obedience brings blessings that enrich physically and also provide physical means for defense.

It should be noted importantly that the elements of the chiasm as here proposed draw attention to chiastically arranged references to Christ that envelop the chiastic center, forming a p-s-t || t′-s′- t′-p′ chiasm surrounding the central verses (vv. 7e–8d):

p keep the law of Moses and the sabbath day holy unto the Lord (5b)

s But our kings and our leaders were mighty men in the faith of the Lord (7b)

t and they taught the people the ways of the Lord (7c)

Chiastic center (vv. 7e–8d)

t′1 But the word of the Lord was verified (9c)

s′ the prophets of the Lord (10a)

t′2 according to the word of God (10b)

p′ persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah (11b)

K. Balance

The book of Jarom manifests balance when one counts the number of words from the conceptual center of the text back to the beginning and from that conceptual center to the end. All texts, of course, have a physical middle point. But when the conceptual center closely coincides with the physical center, a certain measure of balance can be said to exist. In the above full-text proposed chiasm for the book of Jarom the conceptual middle of the text is identified as the point between the word machinery and the word and in v. 8. The following calculation is useful in noting the measure of balance between the two flanks of the proposed chapter-long chiasm. Using Skousen as a guide,54 the count of the total number of words in the chapter is 733 words and the count from the beginning of the chapter through the mid-point shift in the book (the conceptual center)—between the word machinery and the next word and (v. 8)—is 394 words (53.75% of the chapter’s text). The number of words from that mid-point shift through the word fathers, the last word of the book, is 339 (46.25% of the text). Though word count balance is not determinative of the presence of a chiastic pattern, it is a characteristic that often presents itself in balanced chiasms.55

L. Climax

The phrase not as yet (v. 3) sets up an anticipatory mood: Jarom gives his reader grounds to immediately suppose that the Nephites are headed for destruction, for he reports that God “has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land” (v. 3). Although his description of the Nephite people as a whole bluntly speaks of their hard hearts, deaf ears, blind minds, and stiff necks (v. 3), at least he also says that “many” among them “have many revelations” and some number of them are not stiffnecked, are faithful, and enjoy communion with the Holy Spirit (v. 4). Not having been swept off from the face of the land (v.3), they, like the more numerous, warring Lamanites, are nonetheless “scattered upon much of the face of the land” (v. 6). Jarom does not at first tell—when the Lamanites come against them to battle (v. 7)—how the Nephites are to survive, if at all. He mentions that in the hardness of their hearts and in their scattered condition, they have some number of faithful among them (v. 4), that they as a people “observed to keep the law of Moses and the sabbath day holy unto the Lord,” neither profaning nor blaspheming (v. 5), and that their leaders “were mighty men in the faith of the Lord” who “taught the people the ways of the Lord” (v. 7). But just before the climax, Jarom expressly connects righteousness with societal preservation, stating, “Wherefore, we withstood the Lamanites and swept them away out of our lands” (v. 7). The wherefore establishes the causal relationship between righteous living and societal preservation. Then, in a climactic juxtaposition, Jarom enumerates, on the one hand, the ingredients of their God-given material wealth, both natural and manufactured, enjoyed in an exceedingly rich lifestyle (v. 8a), and, on the other hand, the articles they manufacture from those God-given materials, used for societal defense (v. 8b). In their righteousness, not only would the blessings of the Lord enrich them and enable them to make “all manner of tools to till the ground” but also to make “weapons of war . . . and all preparations for war” (v. 8).

M. Return

The second half of the book returns to the first half in numerous ways. The mention of those who “have many revelations” (v. 4) presages the listing of the “prophets, and the priests, and the teachers” (v. 11). The mention that the people observed to keep the law of Moses (v. 5) finds answer where Jarom observes that the prophets, priests and teachers even taught “the intent for which it [the law of Moses] was given” (v. 11). The hardness of hearts, deafness of ears, and blindness of minds (v. 3) in the first half of the book is resolved by mention in the second half of the book of the successful efforts of the prophets in stirring the people up to repentance (v. 11). Jarom’s report of his receipt of the plates from his father Enos (v. 1) naturally anticipates mention of his delivery of the plates to his own son, Omni (v. 15). And of course, the latter half of the book answers what is anticipated in the former half concerning potential destruction: the early remark that God “has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land” (v. 3) is happily balanced against mention that the prophets had indeed “kept them from being destroyed upon the face of the land” (v. 12). Although in the first half of his book Jarom describes the Nephite people, as a whole, as hard hearted, spiritually deaf, mentally blind, and stiffnecked (v. 3), in the latter half of the book he mentions their pricked hearts and repentant souls (v. 12). They as a people, though subject to the attacks made on their society, were able to survive, and Jarom leaves no doubt what it is that accounts for their survival: the prophets taught and threatened, the people listened, the Lord blessed, and the people used their blessings not only to enrich their surroundings but also to be prepared to defend themselves in war. In the dénouement (vv. 12–13) Jarom returns the reader to the place whence taken by the story’s complication (v. 3).

N. Stylistic compatibility

Jarom appears to have written only what we presently have as the book of Jarom; his writing does not appear to be quoted by any later prophet56 nor do his teachings appear to be mimicked by later writings. There seems to be no opportunity to evaluate whether the chiastic formulation for the book of Jarom is consistent or inconsistent with any other writings he himself may have produced. His writing does correlate with Nephi’s earlier writing in one respect (discussed below under the heading “Distant Chiasmus”). And his writings were influential. Says Welch, “The book of Jarom, we now can see, was more influential on king Benjamin than we have previously noticed, and, moreover, the writing style of Benjamin was, in turn, very influential on Alma the Younger.”57 From this insight, one can glean that king Benjamin’s teachings and Jarom’s writings are comparable. Jarom notes that the Nephites “observed to keep the law of Moses” (Jarom 1:5) and Mormon notes that in preparation for hearing the speech by king Benjamin, Mosiah’s proclamation brought the people “to the temple to hear the words which king Benjamin should speak” and they offered “sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses” (Mosiah 2:3; see also Alma 30:3). Most impressive is Jarom’s point about believing in the Messiah “to come as though he already was” (Jarom 1:11), for, importantly, king Benjamin says that “whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins, and rejoice with exceedingly great joy, even as though he had already come among them” (Mosiah 3:13). And of course Alma, too, heard Abinadi’s teaching on this very point—that “the time shall come when all shall see the salvation of the Lord” (Mosiah 16:1) and that “if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they had already come, there could have been no redemption” (Mosiah 16:6)—and Alma believed (Mosiah 17, etc.). In all of this, any chiastic style later modeled on Jarom’s book may have been modeled by others but not by Jarom himself. He apparently authored, on these plates, only this one book of Jarom.

O. Aesthetics

The rising action and falling action of the book, the climax in the middle, the disposition of the plates at the beginning and at the end, all combine to provide a neat, well-crafted unit. The turning point of the text provides a pleasing emphasis on the nature of the blessings given by a God who watches after obedient children. The book performs well the function of teaching that societal preservation requires not only obedience to God with the resulting rich blessings of the Lord attendant thereto, but also the creative efforts of those who are so blessed to take charge of their defense and efforts in self-protection. The use of the chiastic form appears to have aided the presentation of this message, doing so in a fitting way.

P. Intentionality

The criteria for confirming the chiastic nature of the text and evaluating the quality of the chiastic pattern seem to militate in favor of the conclusion that Jarom did not write a haphazard account. The repetitions seem to be balanced between the respective halves of the book. The building blocks for understanding his message are available in the first half of the book; but what is anticipated in the first half is not brought to fruition except by the text found in the second half. It seems that Jarom modeled his entire text in a way to make the two halves purposefully repeat one another in reversed sequence and to draw attention to the role that righteousness and God-given blessings play in the security of a society, the theme at the center, of societal preservation prompted by good use of the blessings of the Lord in response to righteousness.

Distant Chiasmus

One other feature of chiasmus that may reinforce the importance of Jarom’s central message is that of distant chiasmus. At the center of the book of Jarom is one of what appears to be two flanks of a distant chiasm. A distant chiasm exists where the two halves of the chiasmus are far removed from each other in separate texts. Such distant inversions appearing in a second text are sometimes said to conform to what has come to be called Seidel’s law when they involve “inverted quotations” and “inverted citations.”58 The existence of distant chiasmus in two texts, one of them being a text by Nephi and the other a text by Jarom may suggest a further measure of intentionality in Jarom’s use of chiasmus as well as an increased level of meaningfulness of the central message he apparently seeks to convey. Distant chiasmus is discussed by a number of scholars of chiasmus, including Yehuda T. Radday,59 Kieran J. O’Mahony,60 Nachman Levine,61 and Shemaryahu Talmon.62 It is manifested by Bernard M. Levinson, Professor of Classical and Near Eastern Studies and of Law at the University of Minnesota, where he holds the Berman Family Chair in Jewish Studies and Hebrew Bible. He shows,63 for example, that a distant chiasm exists between a legal passage in the book of Deuteronomy and its “reuse” or its quotation in the book of Ezekiel:

A Fathers shall not be put to death on account of sons

B nor sons be put to death on account of fathers;

C each shall (only) be put to death for his own offence.

(Deuteronomy 24:16)

* * * *

C′ The person who sins, (only) he shall die;

B′ a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,

A′ nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.

(Ezekiel 18:20)

O’Mahony identifies a distant chiasm formed within the inclusio of 2 Corinthians 8:1–2 and 9:11–14 (transliteration here given in the footnote64):

2 Cor. 8:1 τἠυ χάριv τoύ Θεoῦ A

2 Cor. 8:2 είς τὀ πλoῦτoς τῆς ἁπλότητoς αύτῶυ B

2 Cor. 9:11 έv παvτἱ πλoυτιζόμεvoι είς πᾶσαυ ἁπλότητα, B′

2 Cor. 9:14 διἁ τἠv ὺπερβάλλoυσαυ χάριυ τoῦ Θεoῦ έφ’ ὺμῖυ. A′

Radday notes “an interesting detail concerning Jacob which we may call ‘distant chiasm.’”65 His explanation is this:

The account first states that when Joseph was sold he was seventeen years of age (37:2). In view of the undisputedly concise style of Genesis this is a surprising piece of specific information. Moreover, it is superfluous, because we are also told in the same verse that he was “a lad.” As we are not informed of Isaac’s age when he was to be sacrificed, why then need we know how old Joseph was when he was sold? Now we read that Jacob’s age was one hundred and thirty years when he came to Egypt (47:9) and that “he lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years” (47:28). The expression “lived” (wayeḥi) may sound natural enough in English, but is most unusual in Hebrew where one would expect “dwelt” (wayešeb, see e.g. 37:1). The word should therefore be understood in the light of 45:27 which says that when he heard that Joseph was still alive, “the spirit of . . . Jacob lived” (wateḥi), [RSV; revived]). “To live” means here (as in 12 :13 and also in II Kings 13:21, Job 42:16 and a number of other cases) to lead not an ordinary life but a full and joyous one. We now begin to see the significance of the twice repeated seventeen years (37:2, 47:28): Jacob “lived” only with Joseph at his side, which happened during the first seventeen years of Joseph’s and during the last seventeen years of his own lifetime. The two passages refer to each other and enclose Jacob’s old age within two periods of equal length—concentrically, symmetrically and, in a simple sense, chiastically.66

Robert F. Smith notes67 that a distant chiasm is formed by the text of 1 Nephi 2:9–10 (“river . . . righteousness . . . commandments”) and the distant text of 1 Nephi 20:18 (“commandments . . . river . . . righteousness”). If valid as a parallel, this perhaps would be a skewed instance of what Yehuda T. Radday and others refer to as a distant chiasm, in this case a-b-c-c-a-b (instead of a-b-c-c-b-a).

Rabbi David Fohrman proposes a distant chiasmus between Genesis 28:13–22 (the first half of the rewriting below) and Deuteronomy 14:22–29 (the second half of the rewriting below).68

A “I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed” (Genesis 28:13)

B “And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.” (Genesis 28:14–15)

C “this is the gate of heaven” (Genesis 28: 17b)

D “And he called the name of that place Beth-el: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first.” (Genesis 28:19)

E “give me bread to eat” (Genesis 28:20)

F “And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee” (Genesis 28:22)

F′ “Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.” (Deuteronomy 14:22)

E′ “And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God” (Deuteronomy 14:23a)

D′ “in the place which he shall choose to place his name there” (Deuteronomy 14:23b)

B′ “And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the Lord thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the Lord thy God hath blessed thee: Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household, And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee” (Deuteronomy 14:24–27)

C′ “At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates” (Deuteronomy 14:28)

A′ “the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee), and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 14:29)

Numerous distant chiasms in the New Testament gospel of Mark are analyzed by M. Phillip Scott.69

The above examples of Seidel’s law exemplify the inverted quotation of words and phrases in texts distant from one another. A related manifestation of Seidel’s law is what is called “extended inverted allusion” or simply what could be termed “distant conceptual chiasmus.” To introduce a differentiation between Seidel’s law as applied to words and phrases and the law as applied to concepts and ideas, Pancratius Beentjes coined the term “inverted quotation” to refer to Seidel’s law. In coining that phrase, Beentjes limited the use of the term to the inversion of word-pairs, cola, and phrases.70 Building on that notion, Jason Robert Combs states that “some authors extended their employment of inverted quotation to include lengthier excerpts and even entire plot lines.” Combs calls this phenomenon “extended inverted allusion.”71

Combs cites Holly J. Carey72 and both Combs and Carey note the extended inverted allusions found in Mark 15, alluding to text found in LXX Psalm 21 (Psalm 22). Carey identifies as a “faint allusion” the use of Psalm 22:27 in Mark 15:39 “because,” as Combs states, “the parallel is only conceptual—there are no direct verbal parallels between Mark 15.39 and Ps 22.27 as there are between the other passages of Mark 15 and Ps 22.”73

The A-B-C-C′-B′-A′ distant or extended chiasm that I propose for texts of Nephi and Jarom is based on the texts of 2 Nephi 5:14–15 and Jarom 1:8b–8c, as set forth below. The elements of those two texts constitute what I view as an instance of Seidel’s law as applied to concepts, ideas, or themes (left column in table 6) and also in distant reversal in the sequence of repeated phrases and word groups (right column in table 6). Because the metals and other materials in Jarom 1:8b (third row in table 6) indeed are verbally parallel with 2 Nephi 5:15 (second row in table 6) but are not inverted in their repetition, “extended allusion” or “extended citation” may be the appropriate label for that correspondence. Carey’s adjective faint likely does not apply, and “extended inverted allusion,” as Combs uses the term, clearly does not apply. But Carey’s term “faint allusion” likely would indeed be properly used to describe the correspondence between the “many swords” of 2 Nephi 5:14 (first row in table 6) and the specifically identified weapons of Jarom 1:8c (fifth row in table 6). The relationship between 2 Nephi 5:14 and Jarom 1:8c is only conceptual, while the relationship between 2 Nephi 5:15 and Jarom 1:8b is verbal. Thus, the chiastic correspondence may be viewed as a hybrid of both extended allusion (the A-B-C-C′-B′-A′ chiasm of the left column in table 6) and extended citation (the metals mentioned in the verbiage of elements B and B′, in the right column in table 6).

Table 6. The “distant chiasm” for the central elements of the chiasm of the book of Jarom derives from an A-B-C-C′-B′-A′ relationship between the text of 2 Nephi 5:14–15 and the text of Jarom 1:8b–c.

A Make Weapons of War

And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people. (2 Nephi 5:14)

B Workings in Base Materials

And I did teach the people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel (2 Nephi 5:15a)

Cʹ Workings in Precious Materials

And we . . . became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things (Jarom 1:8a)

Bʹ Workings in Base Materials

and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground (Jarom 1:8b)

Aʹ Make Weapons of War

and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war. (Jarom 1:8c)

Chiasmus relating to weapons of war is not unheard of. At the Chiasmus Jubilee held in September 2017 at Brigham Young University, Kerry Hull, PhD in Linguistic Anthropology and Professor in the department of Ancient Scripture at BYU, drew upon his studies in Maya linguistics and anthropology, Polynesian linguistics, historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, and Maya epigraphic studies to comment on a chiasmus in the Annals of the Kaqchikels, composed in Kaqchikel Mayan between 1571 and 1604:74

Ja ruma ri’ xtiwiqaj re’:

settesïk che‘,
q’i’om aj;
ch’a’,
pokob’

k’uk’um,
sajkab’

Therefore, you will bear these:

rounded wood,
straight cane;
arrows,
shields;
bright feathers,
white clay.

The A-B-B-A chiasm is apparent: element A (“rounded wood”) corresponds with element A′ (“shields”), and element B (“straight cane”) corresponds with element B′ (“arrows”).

Subordinate Level Rhetorical Structures

As mentioned above, a number of shorter rhetorical structures have been identified by Welch; they all seem convincing to me though I suggest that the possible Christ-centered chiasm in the text of v. 5b might better be rendered as follows:

1 They observed to keep the law of Moses

2 and the sabbath day holy [fourth commandment]

3 unto the Lord.

2′ And they profaned not; neither did they blaspheme. [third commandment]

1′ And the laws of the land were exceedingly strict. (5c)

A Christ-centered chiasm in verse 11b might be rendered as follows:

1 teaching the law of Moses,

2 and the intent for which it was given;

3 persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah,

2′ and believe in him to come as though he already was.

1′ And after this manner did they teach them

Conclusions

Jarom seemingly uses the device of chiasmus to draw attention to two significant types of prosperity that result from righteousness: prosperity in things and prosperity in what is done with those things. The message of the book of Jarom, of course, repeats that great, oft-repeated theme of prosperity—that inasmuch as God’s children keep His commandments they will prosper in the land. The apparent chiastic pattern of the book seems to emphasize a sometimes-difficult principle. True, the God-given prosperity that follows righteousness includes riches in material blessings supplied by God. In Jarom’s day those material blessings included gold, silver, iron, copper, brass, steel, and precious things. But God-given prosperity also includes the uses to which those materials can be put and the things that can be made with those materials. Jarom identifies riches in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also the making of tools to till the ground and the making of weapons of war in preparation for war. (See Jarom 1:8.) The book reflects many characteristics of chiasmus, including the rare feature of distant chiasmus, and the effect of the chiastic structure seems to focus the reader’s attention on a truth relevant to Jarom’s time and other times: that a righteous society may survive the murderous attacks of an unrighteous society, even when that survival is secured by a form of prosperity that is manifested in successfully making preparations for righteous, defensive war. (See Jarom 1:7–9.)

An analysis of the precious materials worked by the people as set forth in the middle of the text (B and B′) elements of the proposed distant chiasm of 1 Nephi 5:15 and Jarom 1:8b might be presented as follows:

1 And I did teach the people to build buildings,

2 and to work in all manner of wood,

3 and of iron,75 [an element, transition metal, base metal that corrodes rapidly in moist air; a Metal of Antiquity]

4 and of copper, [an element, transition metal, base metal that resists oxidation and does not corrode easily; a Metal of Antiquity]

5 and of brass, [a man-made alloy usually made from the base metal copper and zinc]

6 and of steel, [a man-made alloy of iron and carbon or other metals, usually with other elements, such as nickel and cobalt]

7 and of gold, [an element, transition metal, precious noble metal that resists oxidation and corrosion in moist air; a Metal of Antiquity]

8 and of silver, [an element, transition metal, precious noble metal that resists oxidation and corrosion in moist air; a Metal of Antiquity]

9 and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.” (2 Nephi 5:15)

7 “And we . . . became exceedingly rich in gold, [an element, transition metal, precious noble metal that resists oxidation and corrosion in moist air; a Metal of Antiquity]

8 and in silver, [an element, transition metal, precious noble metal that resists oxidation and corrosion in moist air; a Metal of Antiquity]

9 and in precious things,

2a and in fine workmanship of wood,

1 in buildings, and in machinery,

3 and also in iron [an element, transition metal, base metal that corrodes rapidly in moist air; a Metal of Antiquity]

4 and copper, [a base metal that resists oxidation and does not corrode easily; a Metal of Antiquity]

5 and brass, [a man-made alloy usually made from the base metal copper and zinc]

6 and steel, [a man-made alloy of iron and carbon or other metals, usually with other elements, such as nickel and cobalt]

2b making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, . . .” (Jarom 1:8b)

Thus, a skewed chiasmus for the metals mentioned in that distant chiasm would be:

a - b - c || c - a - b
base metal – alloy – precious metal || precious metal – base metal – alloy

In Nephi’s day, apart from the building of a temple (which is not mentioned in the account of Jarom’s day), the progression of quality of the metals mentioned in his text proceeds from base to man-made to precious. But in Jarom’s day, the quality of metals mentioned in his text retrogresses from precious to base, only to be somewhat ameliorated with the mention of the man-made alloys between the extremes.

In a sense, the two flanks of the apparent chiastic pattern in the book of Jarom seem to reflect a difference between the nature of the accounts on the small plates of Nephi and that on the large plates as abridged by Mormon. Whereas, on the one hand, in the records that predate Jarom—namely, in the books of 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, Jacob, and Enos—the wars and battles are portrayed as ones within, between, and among individuals (Nephi versus Laban, Nephi and Sam versus Laman and Lemuel, Enos versus his sins, etc.), and those wars and battles involving societies and peoples and nations are seen only in visions and prophetic descriptions (Zenos, Isaiah, Lehi, Nephi). On the other hand, in the records that postdate Jarom—namely, in the books of Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Mormon, Ether, and Moroni—the battles are portrayed in all their physical reality, accomplished on an overtly societal scale, involving in ever-increasing scope whole armies, peoples, and nations.

Even though Jarom may have written his book without knowledge it would become part of a transition from the small plates of Nephi to an abridged account from the large plates of Nephi, nevertheless, within the framework in which it presently is found, the book of Jarom seems to perform an efficient and meaningful transitional function. Certainly, it can be said of Jarom that as an author he obeyed Nephi’s command—that he not occupy the small plates of Nephi with things that are not of worth unto the children of men (1 Nephi 6:6). In doing so, he seems to have imparted his message with a measure of meaningful artistry as well.

Stephen Kent Ehat has a J.D. degree (1981) and as a California attorney he researches and writes appellate briefs for California attorneys in state and federal matters. He has been a student of chiasmus since 1973. He and his wife Jeanine moved to Utah in 2001 and live in Lindon, Utah. They are the parents of five sons and have twenty-one grandchildren.

1 . Details of the prior depictions and short summaries of the discoveries will be provided in a forthcoming paper. In this paper, attention is devoted to harmonizing the unique contributions of the prior depictions.

2 . John W. Welch, email to author, 18 June 2024. See Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Enhanced Brown–Driver–Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), s.v. “רוּם” (rûm “vb. be high, exalted, rise”).

3 . Robert F. Smith, email to author, 8 July 2024. The footnotes in the following four-paragraph quotation of Smith’s email were provided by Smith. His footnote numbers were 56 through 59, and they are here numbered as my footnotes 5, 6, 7, and 8, with hyperlinks within the footnotes here updated to current URLs, sometimes presenting paywalls.

4 . Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part Two: 2 Nephi 12–Mosiah 13, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS], 2017), 1146.

5 . L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000), 2:437, 439.

6 . Just as Joram is hypocoristic for Jehoram (see the Bible Dictionary in the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible, 710); Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1988), 10–11, 134 §21367.

7 . John A. Tvedtnes, “Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon” (presentation, Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum 2005 Conference, Thanksgiving Point, Utah, September 2005), 4. Tvedtnes adds, “Evidently the shortened form of ירמיהו, it can be compared to the Book of Mormon name Jarom (Jarom 1:1, 14).” John A. Tvedtnes, John Gee, and Matthew Roper, “Book of Mormon Names Attested in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 1 (2000): 49, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ jbms/vol9
/iss1/11/. John A. Tvedtnes, “Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon,” in G. Khan et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, 4 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 2:787–88, referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics.

8 . Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants, 2:1146.

9 . Regarding “skews,” see Stephen Kent Ehat, “Asymmetry in Chiasms, With a Note About Deuteronomy 8 and Alma 36,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 59 (2023): 191–280, journal.interpreter
foundation.org/asymmetry-in-chiasms-with-a-note-about-deuteronomy
-8-and-alma-36/. Regarding “concentric” structuring, see Stephen Kent Ehat, “Centered on Christ: The Book of Enos Possibly Structured Chiastically,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 58 (2023): 243–306, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/centered-on-christ-the-book-of-enos
-possibly-structured-chiastically/.

10 . An inclusio consists of linguistic boundary markers for the beginning and ending units of a text in both prose and poetry; the markers “frame” the text. See Jack Lundbom, Biblical Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), 4, 6, 23, 25, 27–30; and Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings, ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 323–25.

11 . John W. Welch, email message to author, 18 June 2024.

12 . John W. Welch, email to author, 18 June 2024.

13 . Walter E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary (New York: Oxford University Press, 1939), 319b–320a.

14 . Smith, email to author, 8 July 2024. Smith cites Adolf Erman, The Ancient Egyptians: A Sourcebook of their Writings, trans. Aylward M. Blackman, Torchbook ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 189, archive.org/details/ancient egyptians0000unse_j7c9/page/189/mode/1up; also in William Kelly Simpson, The Literature of Ancient Egypt (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), 344.

15 . Whether Enos was Jacob’s son or a grandson or other relation and thus whether Jarom was Nephi’s nephew or grandnephew is an issue raised because of our limited present-day understanding of the received chronological record. Studies of the meaning of the phrase “my son Enos” in Jacob 7:27 and the meaning of “my father” in Enos 1:1 reveal a dearth of conclusive evidence of what the relationships might be between and among Jacob, Nephi, Enos, and Jarom. Robert F. Smith noted the following chronology: Enos 25, at October 421 BC; Jarom 5, at June 400 BC; Jarom 13, at December 363 BC; Omni 3, at May 325 BC. Robert F. Smith, email to author, 8 July 2024.

16 . John S. Tanner, “Jacob and His Descendants as Authors,” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1991), 56.

17 . John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in Alma 36” (occasional paper, FARMS, 1989), 43 (“a burden of persuasion rests on any person describing a passage as chiastic”). See also John W. Welch, “Criteria for Identifying and Evaluating the Presence of Chiasmus,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4, no. 2 (1995): 3 (same). “Anyone who claims that a passage is chiastic should be able to prove it.” John W. Welch, “A Masterpiece: Alma 36,” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, 131.

18 . The central element D could easily be analyzed as two or even four elements (a chiasm) (such as “D: the Nephites prosper (vv.7–8a)” and “D′: the Nephites’ prosperity prepares them for war (vv. 8b–9).” I show this further below in the full-text analysis.

19 . See “Book of Mormon, 1830,” p. 146, The Joseph Smith Papers, joseph
smithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/152 and joseph
smithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/153.

20 . See “Book of Mormon, 1837,” p. 155–57, The Joseph Smith Papers, joseph
smithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1837/159.

21 . See “Book of Mormon, 1840,” p. 143–45, The Joseph Smith Papers, joseph
smithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1840/147.

22 . See “Book of Mormon, 1841,” p. 153, The Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1841/161.

23 . The 1842 printing is identical to the 1840 edition. Four later impressions (printings) were made of the 1840 edition: October 1840, Spring 1841, early 1842, and August 1842. See Larry W. Draper, “Book of Mormon Editions,” in Uncovering the Original Text of the Book of Mormon: History and Findings of the Critical Text Project, ed. M. Gerald Bradford and Alison V. P. Coutts (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002), 43. Apparently the 1842 edition was simply a reprint made from the Cincinnati stereotype plates of the 1840 edition. See David J. Whittaker, stating that the “1842 edition of the Book of Mormon . . . (or more correctly impression or printing) is the fourth and last impression made from the Cincinnati stereotype plates (1840).” David J. Whittaker, “‘That Most Important of All Books’: A Printing History of the Book of Mormon,” in FARMS Occasional Papers, ed. M. Gerald Bradford (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2007), 112.

24 . See, for example, my video detailing the chiastic nature of that book. Stephen Kent Ehat, The Book of Enos, video, 6 May 2024, 3:11 to 3:50, gendocs.org/ENOS.mp4.

25 . Welch, “Presence of Chiasmus.” A “maverick” is a word or phrase that is repeated in two corresponding elements of a chiasm but also happens to appear in the text in one or more other places outside of the proposed chiastic pattern.

26 . The “have faith” of verse 4 may possibly be the companion of the “believe” of verse 11 or, as suggested in the proposal depicted above, it may possibly be the companion of “repentance” of verse 12. This is discussed further below.

27 . A strikingly similar chiastic correspondence of time references appears also in the chiasm of the book of Enos. See reference to that correspondence and detailing that feature of the proposed chiasm of that book in Ehat, Book of Enos, 3:11 to 3:50.

28 . See John A. Tvedtnes, “Word Groups in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 6, no. 2 (1997): 262–68, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=jbms. At pp. 266–67 Tvedtnes states, “From its earliest pages, the Book of Mormon speaks of gold, silver, and precious things (see 1 Nephi 2:4, 11; 3:22, 24; Mosiah 19:15; 22:12; Alma 15:16; 17:14)—a list that is paralleled in several Bible passages (see 2 Kings 20:13; 2 Chronicles 21:3; Ezra 1:6; Isaiah 39:2; Daniel 11:38, 43). [Tvedtnes, at p. 267n11, states: “A variant—gold, silver, riches—is found in Mosiah 4:19.”] Some passages expand the list to include such elements as wood, buildings, machinery, iron, copper, brass, steel, and ziff (see 2 Nephi 5:15–16; Jarom 1:8; Mosiah 11:8–10).”

In a letter to Tvedtnes, dated 24 March 1998, I referred to the enumeration of “iron and copper, and brass and steel” as a “metals word group” and the enumeration of the “sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin” as a “weapons-of-war word group.” The second purported group that I suggested to Tvedtnes might well be reflected in KJV Job 39:23 (“the quiver rattleth against him, the glittering spear and the shield”); ASV Job 41:26 (“the sword . . . the spear, the dart, . . . the pointed shaft”); KJV Job 41:26 (“the sword . . . the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon [breastplate]”); 1 Samuel 17:45 (“with a sword, and with a spear, and with a javelin”); and Mormon 6:9 (“with the sword, and with the bow, and with the arrow, and with the axe”).

29 . Nils Wilhelm Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament: A Study in Formgeschichte (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1942), 40–41.

30 . Paul Gaechter, Die Literarische Kunst im Matthaus-Evangelium [Literary Art in the Gospel of Matthew] (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1965), 1–82.

31 . Joanna Dewey, “The Literary Structure of the Controversy Stories in Mark 2:1–3:6,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973) 394–401; Joanna Dewey, Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:1–3:6, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 48 (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1980), 131–36, 168–80.

32 . David J. Clark, “Criteria for Identifying Chiasm,” Linguistica Biblica 5 (1975) 63–71.

33 . R. Alan Culpepper, “The Pivot of John’s Prologue,” New Testament Studies 27 (1981), 1–31.

34 . David Noel Freedman, “Preface,” in Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis, ed. John W. Welch (Hildesheim, DE: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981), 7–8.

35 . Wilfred G. E. Watson, “Chiastic Patterns in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, in Chiasmus in Antiquity, 118–68.

36 . John W. Welch, “Introduction,” in Chiasmus in Antiquity, 9–16; Welch, “Criteria for Identifying and Evaluating the Presence of Chiasmus,” 1–14.

37 . Craig Blomberg, “Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7,” Criswell Theological Review 4.1 (1989) 3–20, biblicalelearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01
/Blomberg-2Cor1-7-CTR.pdf.

38 . George Michael Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 130 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992): 24–29.

39 . John Breck, The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994), 335–41, archive.org/details/shapeofbiblicall0000brec/page/334/mode/2up.

40 . Ian H. Thomson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 26–27.

41 . Mark J. Boda, “Chiasmus in Ubiquity: Symmetrical Mirages in Nehemiah 9,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 71 (September 1996): 55–69.

42 . Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 1–205.

43 . Wayne Brouwer, “The Literary Development of John 13-17: A Chiastic Reading” (PhD diss., McMaster University, 1999), macsphere.mcmaster.ca
/bitstream/11375/6598/1/fulltext.pdf; Wayne Brouwer, The Literary Development of John 13–17: A Chiastic Reading, Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series 182 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 78–108.

44 . David P. Wright, “The Fallacies of Chiasmus: A Critique of Structural Proposed for the Covenant Collection (Exodus 20:23–23:19),” Zeitschrift fur Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 10 (2004): 165–68.

45 . Steven R. Scott, “Raising the Dead: Finding History in the Gospel Accounts of Jesus’s Resurrection Miracles” (PhD thesis, University of Ottawa, 2010), 59–62.

46 . James E. Patrick, “The Prophetic Structure of 1–2 Samuel” (PhD thesis, Mansfield College, University of Oxford, 2016): 89, 237, ora.ox.ac.uk
/objects/uuid:309e6831-242b-40c9-9271-360dd4bec2d0/files
/mfacdd8ae2618d9d7e73689d30d355e12.

47 . Jonathan Burnside, “Exegesis or Eisegesis: Does Chiastic Analysis Help Us to Understand Leviticus 20?,” BYU Studies 59, supplement (2020): 67–84, website-files-bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/articles/article_pdfs
/Exegesis_or_Eisegesis.pdf.

48 . For a full discussion of the views of those who have written about chiasmus criteria, see Stephen Kent Ehat, “Chiasmus Criteria and Characteristics as Proposed by Various Scholars” (unpublished manuscript, 2023), archive.book
ofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/ehat/2023
-10-19/chiasmus_criteria_and_characteristics_as_proposed_by_various
_scholars.pdf.

49 . Welch, “Introduction,” in Chiasmus in Antiquity, 9–16; Welch, “Criteria for Identifying and Evaluating the Presence of Chiasmus,” 1–14.

50 . See the discussion of Christ-centered, God-centered, Jehovah-centered chiasmus at pages 271–273 in Ehat, “Centered on Christ.” Here the references to Christ the Lord (in elements F and F′) surround the central chiastic elements (elements G, H, H′, and G′, as will be noted below under “centrality”).

51 . Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2022) 183–85.

52 . The Printer’s Manuscript sets forth 739 words (counting “long suffering” as two words, which Skousen hyphenates and I count as one word); the 1830 edition sets forth 735 words, the 1837 and subsequent editions each set forth 734 words in the text of the book of Jarom. The 1981 edition sets forth 731 words. For simplicity’s sake, I use Skousen’s text for the word count discussed here.

53 . The number increases to 164 when “long suffering” (two words, as it appeared in the Printer’s Manuscript and the 1830 Edition) is counted as two words (instead of the hyphenated “long-suffering” of v. 11 of the 1981 Edition). Skousen hyphenates it as “long-suffering.”

54 . Skousen, Earliest Text, 183–85.

55 . For example, renowned biblical scholar David Noel Freedman notes that the Primary History in the Hebrew Bible accounts for 49% of its words, and the remainder for 51% of its words. David Noel Freedman, “The Undiscovered Symmetry of the Bible,” Bible Review, 10, no. 1 (February 1994): 34–41. David Noel Freedman also notes the 150,000 words of the Torah/Pentateuch (80,000 words) plus the “former prophets” (70,000 words) and the 150,000 words of the “latter prophets” (72,000 words) and the “writings” (78,000 words), stating “the correspondences among the major segments are so close, and the symmetry so exact, that it is difficult to imagine that these are the result of happenstance.” Freedman, The Unity of the Hebrew Bible (Distinguished Senior Faculty Lecture Series, March 1988, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor), 79–80. See also Yehuda T. Radday, “Chiasmus in Hebrew Biblical Narrative,” in Chiasmus in Antiquity, 86–87 (mentioning the word-counts in various groups of chapters in the book of Deuteronomy).

56 . Later, Mormon does mention that in the first year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, the people enjoyed “an abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth,” all “because of the steadiness of the church,” which made them “exceedingly rich” (Alma 1:29).

57 . Welch, email to Steven Harper, 29 September 2024, copy shared with Ehat on 30 September 2024.

58 . See, for example, Donald W. Parry, “Preserved in Translation,” in Hebrew and Other Ancient Literary Forms in the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2020), 89–92, rsc.byu.edu/preserved-translation/inverted-quotations#:~:text=A%20little-known%20Hebrew%20literary%20technique%20was%20first%20identified,This%20observation%20came%20to%20be%20called%20Seidel%E2%80%99s%20law. See also David Bokovoy and John A. Tvedtnes, “Seidel’s Law,” in Testaments: Links between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible (Tooele, UT: Heritage Press, 2003), archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf
/bokovoy/2016-08-29/10_seidels_law.pdf.

59 . Radday, “Chiasmus,” 103B104.

60 . Kieran J. O’Mahony, Pauline Persuasion: A Sounding in 2 Corinthians 8–9 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 94.

61 . Nachman Levine, “The Curse and the Blessing: Narrative Discourse Syntax and Literary Form,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27, no. 2 (2002): 189–99 (see his pages 196–99 and 196n11 where he refers to “a very distant chiasm” between Genesis 3 and Deuteronomy 33).

62 . Shemaryahu Talmon, “Yqtol-Qtl Pattern: The Presentation of Synchroneity and Simultaneity in Biblical Narrative,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 27 (1978): 9–26. See page 12 where he refers to “distant parallels” and “chiastic parallelism” and page 20, for example, where he identifies “distant parallels” in 1 Samuel 18:20 and 28.

63 . Bernard M. Levinson, “‘You Must Not Add Anything to What I Command You’: Paradoxes of Canon and Authorship in Ancient Israel,” Numen: International Review for the History of Religions 50 (2003): 1–51 (see his depiction at page 34).

64 . A the grace of God

B into the riches the generosity of them

B′ in every [way] enriching you to all generosity

A′ on account of the surpassing grace of God upon you

65 . Radday, “Chiasmus,” 103–4.

66 . Radday, “Chiasmus,” 103–4.

67 . Robert F. Smith, email to author, 19 September 2022.

68 . Rabbi David Fohrman, What Did Jacob’s Dream Mean? Part 1, Jacob’s Ladder and the Laws of Ma’aser, (AlephBeta, no date), archived live webinar, available behind paywall at alephbeta.org/video/jacobs-dream/jacobs
-ladder-and-the-laws-of-maaser-webinar.

69 . M. Phillip Scott, “Chiastic Structure: A Key to the Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 15 (January 1985): 17–26, contentdm.lib.byu
.edu/digital/collection/p15999coll24/id/37461.

70 . P. C. Beentjes, “Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern,” Biblica, 63, no. 4 (1982): 506–523.

71 . Jason Robert Combs, “An Extended Inverted Allusion to Psalm 22 in Mark 15: Reading Reversal in the Markan Passion,” New Testament Studies 70, no. 1 (2024): 23–37, doi.org/10.1017/S0028688523000346. At page 28 Combs states, “For Beentjes, ‘inverted quotation’ was limited to the inversion of word-pairs, cola, or phrases.”

72 . Combs, “Extended Inverted Allusion,” footnotes 2, 6–10, 55, and 59. Citing Holly J. Carey, Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: Towards a First-Century understanding of the Intertextual Relationship Between Psalm 22 and the Narrative of Mark’s Gospel (Library of New Testament Studies 398; London: T&T Clark, 2009).

73 . Combs, “Extended Inverted Allusion,” 24–25, emphasis added.

74 . In support of this comment (and in a visual he depicted during the conference), Hull cites Judith M. Maxwell and Robert M. Hill II, trans., Kaqchikel Chronicles (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2006) 21.

75 . Meteoritic Iron: Though meteorites may consist of any number of materials, some are natural alloys of iron and nickel, with extraterrestrial origins. These alloys were used by ancient cultures to make weapons and tools. See Anne Marie Helmenstine, “Alloy Definition and Examples in Chemistry,” Chemistry, ThoughtCo, thoughtco.com/alloy-definition-examples-and-uses-606371.

Joseph Smith Jr. as a Translator:
The Book of Abraham as a Case Study

Stephen O. Smoot

Abstract: This paper examines Joseph Smith’s approach to translation, using the Book of Abraham as a case study to explore the interplay between divine revelation and human participation in scriptural production. While the Book of Abraham incorporates both ancient and modern elements, its unique synthesis resists simple categorization as either an unblemished Abrahamic autograph or a purely nineteenth-century pseudepigraphon. Drawing on historical evidence and textual analysis, this paper aims to illuminate Joseph Smith’s role as both translator and revelator, offering insights into how Latter-day Saints might understand the complex process of producing sacred texts.

[Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the annual Joseph Smith Papers Conference in Salt Lake City on 26 October 2018.]

Geschrieben steht: “im Anfang war das Wort!”
Hier stock’ ich schon! Wer hilft mir weiter fort?
Ich kann das Wort so hoch unmöglich schätzen,
Ich muss es anders übersetzen,
Wenn ich vom Geiste recht erleuchtet bin.

—Goethe, Faust I, 1224–12281

On 6 April 1830, the day the Church of Christ (later renamed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) was officially founded, Joseph Smith received a revelation affirming his divinely appointed roles. The revelation declared him to be “a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ” (Doctrine and Covenants 21:1).2 During his ministry, Joseph Smith undertook several significant projects as an inspired translator. These projects represent a conceptual range of translation that Joseph himself never clearly defined, leaving it up to us to tease out the nuances based on the evidence we have available. These projects included the Book of Mormon, which he testified was translated “by the gift, and power of God”;3 a lost record of John the Beloved Disciple (Doctrine and Covenants 7);4 a “new translation”5 of the Bible, now known as the Joseph Smith Translation;6 a “record of John”—presumably again the Beloved Disciple—embedded within a 6 May 1833 revelation (Doctrine and Covenants 93:6–18);7 and the Book of Abraham, described as “a translation of some ancient records . . . from the catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham.”8 Beyond these inspired scriptural translations, the Prophet demonstrated a fascination with recovering the primordial “pure language” of Eden.9 To this end, he pursued the study of both ancient and modern languages, particularly Hebrew, as a means of enhancing his revelatory insights.10 Joseph’s linguistic pursuits informed both his sermons and writings, including his important King Follett Sermon of 7 April 1844, where he offered an expansive reinterpretation of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1.11

Joseph Smith also occasionally engaged in what might be described as “secular” translations, wherein he offered interpretations of texts outside the scope of his prophetic calling. One notable example occurred in 1843 when he was presented with a set of small brass plates allegedly unearthed near Kinderhook, Illinois. These plates were later revealed to be forgeries, both by the admission of one of the hoaxers and through modern scientific testing. Despite this, Joseph reportedly “translated a portion” of the plates,12 likely focusing on a single character on just one of the plates. Based on available evidence, this translation appears to have been attempted through non-revelatory means rather than by inspiration.13 A similar instance is found in the account of Henry Caswall, an Episcopalian cleric who visited Nauvoo in 1842. Caswall brought with him a medieval Greek manuscript—a copy of the Psalms—and showed it to Joseph. According to Caswall’s hostile account, Joseph embarrassed himself in front of an audience of Saints when he misidentified the manuscript’s contents as a “dictionary of Egyptian Hieroglyphics.”14 Precisely what transpired during this encounter has been the subject of considerable debate. While it is of course possible that Joseph mistook the contents of Caswall’s manuscript, the learned reverend’s narrative is fraught with inconsistencies, bias, and obvious exaggerations meant to make Joseph look foolish, thus rendering his motives and the reliability of his account suspect.15

Joseph Smith’s engagement with ancient texts and artifacts, and the role these sources played in shaping his work as a prophet, has been the subject of extensive scholarly inquiry.16 This paper focuses on a single scriptural project that highlights the complexities of Joseph’s approach to translation: the Book of Abraham.17 As I will argue, the Book of Abraham resists simplistic categorization, revealing dynamics that transcend conventional definitions of translation. Specifically, the production of the Book of Abraham incorporates both ancient and modern elements, complicating efforts to classify it as either an unblemished Abrahamic autograph or a purely nineteenth-century pseudepigraphon. A critical examination of the text and the historical context of its production demonstrates that Joseph Smith’s conception of translation was, in many respects, expansive and idiosyncratic by contemporary standards. At the same time, it is essential to challenge reductive interpretations that dismiss the Book of Abraham as merely a product of Joseph’s frenzied religious imagination.

The Translation of the Book of Abraham:
A Brief Historical Review

Before delving into my analysis of the Book of Abraham, a brief overview of the translation of the book will provide necessary context for the analysis that follows. Given the extensive coverage of this history elsewhere, this summary will remain concise.18 On 3 July 1835, shortly after the initial academic advances in deciphering the Egyptian language emerged in Europe,19 an antiquities dealer and showman named Michael Chandler presented Joseph Smith with a collection of Egyptian papyri and mummies.20 Upon examining the materials, Joseph declared that one of the papyrus rolls contained “the writings of Abraham; another the writings of Joseph of Egypt.”21 Following this announcement, Joseph acquired the collection for $2,400 and promptly began efforts to translate the papyri.22 During the summer and fall of 1835, Joseph worked alongside his scribes W. W. Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, Warren Parrish, and Frederick G. Williams to decipher the texts.23 In conjunction with the translation of the papyri, members of this circle also undertook a project to create an “alphabet and grammar” of the Egyptian language—an endeavor that appears to have been conceptually related to their efforts to recover the “pure language.”24 The extent of Joseph Smith’s involvement in this effort to systematize and study the Egyptian language remains disputed, as does its precise relationship to the production of the Book of Abraham.25

The exact methods employed by the Prophet in the process of translating the Book of Abraham also remain unclear. Some historical evidence indicates Joseph Smith and those close to him, including those who assisted in the translation and publication of the Book of Abraham, believed the text was produced “by the revelation of Jesus Christ,”26 with some accounts mentioning the use of a seer stone in the process.27 Not much more can be conclusively stated, as no consensus has yet been reached regarding the relationship between the translated text and the Egyptian papyri, the connection between the translated text and the “alphabet and grammar” manuscripts (the Egyptian language project), or the relationships among the extant Book of Abraham manuscripts themselves.28 There is ongoing debate about whether the entire extant Book of Abraham was translated during the summer and fall of 1835, or if only a portion (up to Abraham 2:18) was completed in that period, with the remainder (up to Abraham 5:21) being produced in the spring of 1842, shortly before its publication.29 (As we will explore below, the presence of Hebrew terminology in the third chapter of the Book of Abraham is an important piece of evidence in this debate.) However exactly it was produced, the resulting text was published serially between 1 March and 16 May 1842, under the title “The writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”30

The recovery of fragments of the Egyptian papyri once owned by Joseph Smith in 1967 has sparked significant debate regarding the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. These surviving papyri fragments do not contain the English text of the Book of Abraham but are instead identifiable as copies of Egyptian funerary texts, including the Book of Breathings and the Book of the Dead.31 While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continues to affirm the inspiration and scriptural authority of the Book of Abraham, it acknowledges that the relationship between the translated text and the papyri remains complex and not fully understood.32 Consequently, any attempt to understand the production of the Book of Abraham must approach this subject with care and nuance. To this end, I will highlight four data points derived from my close study of the text of the Book of Abraham to explore what they reveal about Joseph Smith as a prophet engaged in the act of inspired translation. These data points include: (1) the figure of Zeptah/Egyptus, which provides insight into Joseph Smith’s interaction with the onomasticon of the Book of Abraham text he rendered; (2) the use of Hebrew vocabulary in the Book of Abraham, likely reflecting Joseph’s efforts to incorporate linguistic knowledge he obtained from his studies into his scriptural productions; (3) the presence of explanatory glosses within the text of the Book of Abraham, which shed light on the interplay between revelation and interpretive clarification in the translation process; and (4) the Book of Abraham’s creation account, a narrative that offers a window into how Joseph’s study of Hebrew coupled with his revelation on Abrahamic cosmology contributed to Latter-day Saint doctrine. Together, these data points provide just such a nuanced perspective on the nature of the translation of the Book of Abraham that the Church calls for today.

Data point 1: Zeptah/Egyptus

The Book of Abraham’s first chapter recounts a primeval history of Egypt’s founding:33 “The land of Egypt [was] first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus” (Abraham 1:23). This woman “discovered the land [when] it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.” The “first government of Egypt” was established by “Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham” (vv. 24–25). In its current canonical edition (2013), the Book of Abraham presents the genealogy of Egypt’s founding family as depicted in Figure 1—Ham is the husband of Egyptus[1] and the father of Egyptus[2], the mother of Pharaoh. This genealogy reflects the names of the characters as originally published in the Times and Seasons on 1 March 1842.34 Significantly, two of the names in the Book of Abraham appear differently in the 1835 Kirtland manuscripts. In all three Kirtland-era manuscripts, Ham’s wife (Egyptus[1]) is identified as either “Zep-tah” or “Zeptah.”35 Additionally, the name of their daughter is consistently rendered as Egyptes rather than Egyptus.36

Figure 1. The genealogy of Ham and Egyptus as presented in the canonical text of the Book of Abraham, based on the 1842 Times and Seasons publication under Joseph Smith’s editorship.

In the earliest iteration of the narrative, the family tree of Egypt’s discoverers appears as depicted in Figure 2—Ham is the husband of Zeptah and the father of Eyptes, the mother of Pharaoh. Both Zeptah and Egyptes were emended to their current readings in Willard Richards’s 1842 manuscript copy of the Book of Abraham, evidently in preparation for publication in the Times and Seasons.37 The change from Egyptes to Egyptus may suggest that the name was spelled aloud to Richards as he recorded it,38 but it is also possible that it simply reflects Joseph Smith’s or another Nauvoo clerk’s imprecise pronunciation of the English schwa plus the consonant [s] (/əs/) contained in the ending syllable of the name. This latter explanation is consistent with evidence from the dictated Book of Mormon manuscript.39

Figure 2. The genealogy of Ham and Egyptus according to the 1835 Kirtland-era Book of Abraham manuscripts.

Whatever the case for Egyptes/Egyptus, which might be explained easily enough as simply the result of imprecise pronunciation, the change from Zeptah to Egyptus[1] is more difficult to account for. Writing in 1955, James R. Clark proposed that the alteration was intended to make the name more familiar to contemporary readers, observing that Joseph Smith was “translating the papyrus into English for readers who were already commonly familiar with this nomenclature.”40 If this is correct (and it appears to be a plausible enough explanation), then the revisions may have aimed to create a stronger connection between the characters in the text and the land of Egypt, reinforcing the thematic significance of this land already familiar from the Bible. Whatever the motivation, as with his revisions to post-1830 editions of the Book of Mormon,41 including the alteration of names,42 these adjustments to the Book of Abraham appear to indicate that Joseph’s conception of revelatory translation encompassed processes of revision and redaction.43

That being said, the name Zeptah appears to be an authentically ancient name that grounds the Book of Abraham in the ancient world. Contrary to one author’s assertion that it is merely “an imaginative Chaldean name,”44 Zeptah is a plausible rendering of the Egyptian name Siptah, which means “son of [the god] Ptah.” While the name underwent changes between the manuscript and printed versions of the Book of Abraham, suggesting that Joseph Smith felt at liberty to revise the names of figures in his revealed translations, this name also anchors the translation to an ancient source.

Data point 2: Hebrew vocabulary

The second data point worth examining is the presence of distinctly Hebrew words in the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith’s explanations of the accompanying facsimiles. (See table 1.) This Hebrew terminology first appears in Abraham 3:13, during the account of Abraham’s cosmic vision.45 In transliterating these words, Joseph Smith adhered closely to the Sephardic pronunciation system outlined in Joshua Seixas’s Manual Hebrew Grammar (1834), a text he and others studied in Kirtland beginning in January 1836.46

Table 1. Hebrew words in the Book of Abraham.

Book of Abraham Transliteration

Manual Hebrew Grammar (1834) Transliteration

Society of Biblical Literature Transliteration

Hebrew

Raukeeyang (Facsimile 1, Fig. 12; Fac. 2, Fig. 4)

raukeeyagn

rāqîʿa

רָקִיעַ

Shaumau (Fac. 1, Fig. 12)

*shaumau

*ŝāmāh47

שָׁמָה*

Shaumahyeem (Fac. 1, Fig. 12)

shaumayeem

ŝāmayîm

שָׁמַיִם

Kokob (Abraham 3:13)

kokaub

Kôkāb

כּוֹכָב

Kokaubeam (Abraham 3:13, 16)

kokaubeem

kôkābîm

כּוֹכָבִים

Hah-ko-kau-beam (Fac. 2, Fig. 5)

hakokaubeem

ha-kôkābîm

הַכּוֹכָבִים

Gnolaum (Abraham 3:18)

gnolaum

ʿôlām

עוֹלָם

This feature of the text raises several important questions, foremost among them being how to account for their presence. Are the transliterated Hebrew words in the text from Joseph Smith’s modern redactional handling of the text based on the transliteration system he learned from Seixas in 1836 or are they original to an ancient Book of Abraham text that Joseph simply rendered using this transliteration system? The available evidence, in my judgement, favors the first explanation, but some nuances must be considered. To start, the presence of Hebrew terminology in a pristine Abrahamic text dating to the early second millennium BCE (circa 2000 BCE) is implausible.48 Current evidence places the origins of Hebrew no earlier than the late second or early first millennium BCE (circa 1000 BCE).49 It is true that “a precursor to Hebrew was already spoken by the inhabitants of Canaan in the second millennium B.C.E.” by the time of the Israelites’ entrance into the land,50 and recent discoveries are beginning to catalog samples of written Amorite51—an “important early ancestor of Hebrew”52 that may have been Abraham’s language.53 However, these precursors are not the Hebrew proper found in the Book of Abraham. Just as Anglo-Saxon, the language of Beowulf, or Middle English, the language of Chaucer, are distinct from modern English, these early Northwest Semitic languages, including Amorite, are distinct from the Hebrew that emerged later. Thus, based on the currently available evidence, the presence of Hebrew in an untouched Abrahamic Urtext is difficult to maintain.

That being said, it is noteworthy that only three Hebrew words appear in the actual translated text of the Book of Abraham: Kokob (Abraham 3:13), its plural form Kokaubeam (Abraham 3:13, 16), and Gnolaum (Abraham 3:18). In contrast, the remaining four Hebrew terms are found in Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles, which, unlike the Book of Abraham text, do not claim to be of ancient origin. (Why Joseph Smith chose Hebrew in his explanations to the facsimiles is unknown.54) The terms in the Book of Abraham text—Kokob/Kokaubeam and Gnolaum—are attested in cognate Semitic languages that predate Hebrew: Kokob/Kokaubeam (“star[s]”) is attested as Old Akkadian kakkabu/kabkabu and Ugaritic kbkb,55 while Gnolaum (“everlasting,” “ancient”) is attested in Ugaritic as ʿlm.56 This linguistic attestation leaves open the possibility that these terms reflect Joseph Smith’s rendering of an underlying ancient text. What’s more, scribal redactions were common in the transmission of ancient texts, where copyists adapted older works to the linguistic context of their time. The Hebrew words in the Book of Abraham could, hypothetically, be the result of just such an adaption, and would therefore reflect the language of ancient scribes (rather than Abraham himself). If a copy of Abraham’s writings was preserved among the Joseph Smith Papyri, which date well over 1,500 years after Abraham’s day, it would have undergone scribal transmission over centuries, passing through various cultural and linguistic filters, including Egyptian and Hebrew-speaking environments.57 By the time such a text reached Joseph Smith, it may have already incorporated elements foreign to Abraham’s original composition, reflecting the influence of the later scribes that preserved it.58

However, the usage of these Hebrew terms as explanatory glosses within the narrative (“Kokob, which is star”; “Kokaubeam, which signifies stars, or all the great lights, which were in the firmament of heaven”; “for they are gnolaum, or eternal”), seems to suggest they were employed by Joseph as the modern translator to convey theological and cosmological concepts. (See the next point for more on glosses in the Book of Abraham.) These concepts, while rooted in the Abrahamic narrative, were presented in a manner unfamiliar to readers but resonant with what Joseph regarded as sacred and authoritative language. Joseph’s use of transliterated Hebrew words in the Book of Abraham may therefore represent his attempt to imbue the text of Abraham with additional theological depth and scriptural resonance—anchoring his work to the biblical tradition and enhancing the sacred character of his revelation. Furthermore, even if these words originated with Abraham or an ancient hypothetical copyist, their presentation in the English Book of Abraham still undeniably reflects Joseph’s Hebrew studies. As Muhlestein and Hansen acknowledge, “On the surface, [the presence of Hebrew in the text] suggests Joseph translated these phrases after he began his study of Hebrew and that his transliterations were influenced by his grammar book.”59 Whether this indeed means Joseph translated the third chapter of Abraham after learning Hebrew in 1836, as maintained by Grey and Hauglid, or later revised an earlier translation to incorporate his linguistic studies, as Muhlestein and Hansen posit, is largely immaterial to my own argument. What is clear is that Joseph’s exposure to Hebrew influenced the final form of the text published in 1842—either by shaping the original translation or through subsequent editorial refinements. This demonstrates that his evolving knowledge and study of language were integral to the final production of the Book of Abraham and that the text Joseph gave to his readers reflects an interaction between revelation and intellectual effort. Both explanations—the possibility of a post-Hebrew-study translation or a later revision—are consistent with the evidence seen here and either supports my contention that Joseph’s work on the Book of Abraham was shaped by his scholarly and revelatory experiences alike.60

Data point 3: Explanatory glosses

The Hebrew terminology in Abraham 3:13 and 3:18 is not the only instance in the text where explanatory glosses are provided for the reader. The first chapter of the Book of Abraham also contains several such glosses (emphasis added):

- “And it came to pass that the priest made an offering unto the god of Pharaoh, and also unto the god of Shagreel, even after the manner of the Egyptians. Now the god of Shagreel was the sun.” (1:9)

- “And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.” (1:12)

- “That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics.” (1:14)

- “and there was great mourning in Chaldea, and also in the court of Pharaoh; which Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood.” (1:20)

- “The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden.” (1:23)

In the description of the Abrahamic covenant provided at Abraham 2:6–11, interpretative glosses are likewise employed to clarify the blessings promised to Abraham:

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal. (v. 11)

Finally, interpretative glosses are used in the Book of Abraham’s creation account to explain certain aspects of the Gods’ creative acts:

- “And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” (5:7)

- “But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.” (5:13)

A cursory reading of the Book of Abraham might suggest that all explanatory glosses originate with Abraham himself. This certainly appears to be the case with the gloss in Abraham 5:13, which explains that Adam and Eve operated on what might be called “Kolob Standard Time” while in the Garden of Eden. However, a closer examination of the manuscript evidence indicates that some glosses appear to be nineteenth-century additions. For example, “The references to the facsimiles within the text of the Book of Abraham seem to have been nineteenth-century editorial insertions.”61 This is apparent with the glosses at Abraham 1:12, 14, which appear to be interlinear additions in Frederick G. William’s Kirtland-era manuscript.62 As explained by Gee:

The earliest manuscript we have shows that the phrase “I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this record” from Abraham 1:12 was squished in two lines of smaller handwriting in the space at the end of the paragraph between Abraham 1:12 and 1:13. Similarly, Abraham 1:14 was added in a smaller hand squeezed into the margin at the top of the page, above the header, ignoring the ruled left margin. The Book of Abraham actually reads smoothly without these additions. Thus, these statements in the text seem to be nineteenth-century additions approved by, if not made by, Joseph Smith.63

The gloss “which signifies hieroglyphics” at the end of Abraham 1:14 first appears in the 1 March 1842, publication of the text in the Times and Seasons. It is absent from the Kirtland-era manuscripts and Willard Richards’s early 1842 copy, suggesting that it originated with Joseph Smith or one of the clerks in the printing office.64 This observation raises the possibility that other glosses in the Book of Abraham may also have originated with Joseph Smith or his scribes.65 However, prudence dictates evaluating each gloss individually, as the evidence varies. For instance, the gloss at Abraham 5:13 appears original, while the gloss at the end of Abraham 1:14 is almost certainly a modern interpolation. This phenomenon is not without precedent in Joseph Smith’s other revealed texts. For example, the 1840 third edition of the Book of Mormon introduced the gloss “or out of the waters of baptism” at 1 Nephi 20:1 under the Prophet’s editorial supervision.66 That explanatory glosses were added to the Book of Abraham likely at Joseph’s editorial direction is therefore consistent with his broader translation practices, demonstrating that his concept of “translation” encompassed textual emendations that did not necessarily reflect a direct rendering of the underlying source.

Data point 4: Creation account

The influence of Joseph Smith’s Hebrew studies on the Book of Abraham appears to extend beyond the handful of Hebrew words found in Abraham 3. His engagement with Hebrew in Kirtland in the winter of 1836 also appears evident in Abraham 4–5, which recounts a creation narrative that diverges in notable ways from the Genesis creation account. As Muhlestein and Hansen observe:

Phrases like “organized and formed” (Abraham 4:1) instead of “created,” “expanse,” instead of “firmament,” “heavens” (Abraham 4:1) instead of “heaven,” and “empty and desolate” (Abraham 4:2) as opposed to “without form and void” are all phrases Joseph likely picked up from his Hebrew study and some of which he referenced elsewhere. Even an apparent use of the Hebrew hiphil verb form is present in Abraham 4:4. Various words and phrases which were clearly influenced by Joseph Smith’s Hebrew studies are used throughout the entire narrative of chapters 4 and 5. The same is true of representing creation being brought about by “gods” instead of “God,” something that Joseph Smith argued could be demonstrated in the Hebrew name for God. These elements are so thoroughly interwoven in the text of Abraham 4 and 5 that it is difficult to imagine them as glosses. Rather, they seem to represent integral features of the text.67

Matthew Grey has similarly argued that “the published text of the Book of Abraham shows that Joseph Smith incorporated into the translation process his knowledge of Biblical Hebrew—which he concurrently acquired through textbooks and formal study with a Hebrew instructor.”68 Grey, like Muhlestein and Hansen, identifies elements in the creation account in Abraham 4–5 as evidence of how Joseph’s study of Hebrew shaped the translation process.69 For example, it has been a common—and reasonable—assumption that Joseph Smith’s rendering of the Hebrew ʾĕlōhîm as the plural “Gods” rather than the singular “God” throughout Abraham 4–5 reflects his training with Joshua Seixas.70 There is some basis for this assumption.71 However, it would be mistaken to claim that Joseph simply adopted Seixas’s views and presented them as his own. “It is almost certainly during his study of Hebrew at the end of 1835 and the beginning of 1836 that Joseph first saw any linguistic evidence in Hebrew that supported the notion of a plurality of gods,” write Muhlestein and Hansen. “Yet the way he would have encountered this does not seem like it would have propelled him towards that interpretation.”72 One reason for this is that Seixas’s grammar used to instruct the Kirtland school explicitly disavowed the interpretation of ʾĕlōhîm that Joseph eventually embraced.73 In fact, a passing comment made by him in an 1844 sermon suggests that Joseph and Seixas held opposing views on the implications of ʾĕlōhîm as a plural noun.74 There is little in Seixas’s religious background or academic work to suggest that he would have encouraged Joseph Smith to embrace the radical doctrine of a plurality of gods.75 As one biographer observes, “We must conclude that Seixas’s influence on the Mormons was primarily philological.”76 While Joseph’s study under Seixas may have served as a catalyst for his revelatory development of the doctrines of a plurality of gods and deification, “in his post-1836 translations, [he] did not slavishly adhere to the teachings of Joshua Seixas, but felt free to adapt his academic learning to his prophetic thinking in innovative ways.” Indeed, although Joseph “deferred to his various textbooks on several points” in formulating his views, “there were other instances in which his own examination of the [Egyptian] papyri, developing theology, and revelations merged with his creative use of less conventional Hebrew definitions or technicalities, thus allowing him to tease out unique theological concepts and produce a distinctively expansive translation.”77

Juxtaposing the Book of Abraham with the creation account in the Book of Moses (Moses 2–3), a text revealed to Joseph Smith between June and October 1830 as part of his inspired revision of the Bible, offers additional perspective in understanding how progressive revelation and intellectual study contributed to the production of the Prophet’s scriptural translations. Since both texts were produced by the same human agent—Joseph Smith—they function as complementary sources for analyzing the Prophet’s revelatory offerings. In a sense, the Book of Moses provides something akin to a control group for understanding the Book of Abraham, as it captures Joseph’s initial foray into restoring ancient scripture, allowing us to trace thematic and doctrinal continuities and divergences between the two works. This approach illuminates how Joseph’s translations were not static productions, but instead the result of dynamic processes influenced by external factors—such as, in the case of the Book of Abraham, his exposure to the Egyptian papyri and his Hebrew studies in Kirtland—complemented with revelatory insight.

The creation accounts in Moses 2–3 and Abraham 4–5 share many similarities but also include significant differences. We will highlight just a few examples here. Both describe the creation in sequential stages, emphasizing divine power and intention in forming the earth, the heavens, and humanity. However, the texts diverge in their portrayal of the divine beings involved, the method of creation, and the broader narrative context. In Moses 2–3, the Creator is identified as “Almighty God,” “God,” or “Lord God,” emphasizing a singular, personal deity commanding creation into existence by verbal fiat. This account closely parallels the Genesis narrative (specifically the King James Version Joseph was revising), repeatedly using the phrase “And I, God, said . . .” to describe the sequential acts of Creation (Moses 2:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29)—although the shift from a third-person to a first-person narrative voice is a notable departure from the biblical text. Like Genesis, the Moses account speaks of God “creating” the cosmos (Moses 2: 1, 21), describes the earth as “without form, and void” (Moses 2:2), and references a “firmament” dividing the waters (Moses 2:6). Time is structured into “days,” with each phase marked by “the evening and the morning” (Moses 2:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31), again reflecting the KJV Genesis framework. All of this is presented in the context of God speaking directly to Moses, revealing the mystery of creation to the prophet (Moses 1:40; 2:1).

In contrast to Moses, Abraham 4–5 is presented in a third-person voice as a revelation to Abraham in the context of his vision of the premortal world and divine council (Abraham 3:22). It introduces the concept of the “Gods” as collaborative agents in the creation process. The consistent plural language—such as “the Gods organized,” “the Gods said,” “the Gods ordered,” and “the Gods took counsel”—reflects a clear council-like deliberation, emphasizing a cooperative nature of divine governance not explicit in Moses (Abraham 4:1, 3, 7, 10, 12, 26). Notably, the term “created” is absent, with the Gods instead “organizing” or “preparing” the elements (Abraham 4:1, 11–12, 14–16, 25–27). Time is measured by the Gods in “times” rather than “days,” suggesting a broader, chronologically indefinite framework for the stages of creation (Abraham 4:8, 13, 19, 23, 31). Other differences include descriptions of the earth and its condition. In Abraham, the earth is described as “empty and desolate,” with the Spirit of the Gods “brooding” upon the waters, (v. 2) in contrast to Moses’ depiction of the earth as “without form, and void,” with the Spirit of God “moving” upon the waters. Additionally, the “firmament” of Moses and Genesis is replaced with an “expanse” in Abraham, (v. 6) reflecting an additional linguistic and conceptual shift.

While it is feasible that some of these differences could be attributed to the distinct eponymous ancient figures these texts claim as their ultimate sources—Moses for the Book of Moses and Abraham for the Book of Abraham—many of the variations in the latter are likely influenced, at least in part, by Joseph Smith’s study of Hebrew. His engagement with the Hebrew language and text of Genesis during his studies in Kirtland provided him with new linguistic tools and conceptual frameworks that shaped his understanding of the creation narrative. This exposure, in turn, likely informed his translation choices in the Book of Abraham. By comparing these two texts, it becomes evident that Joseph Smith’s evolving understanding of ancient languages played a significant role in shaping the content and presentation of his translations.

At the same time, the overarching cosmological vision contained in the Book of Abraham aligns closely with elements found in ancient Egyptian, Canaanite, and Mesopotamian traditions. For instance, the Book of Abraham’s depiction of a divine council, with multiple gods deliberating and organizing the cosmos, resonates with ancient Near Eastern depictions of an assembly of deities such as those found in Canaanite and Mesopotamian texts. The idea made explicit in the Book of Abraham of organizing creation from chaotic matter, rather than creation ex nihilo, is also a hallmark of ancient cosmologies. Additionally, the geocentric model described in Abraham 3, which focuses on a hierarchy of celestial bodies in relation to the earth, reflects pre-modern astronomical paradigms characteristic of the ancient world.78 These ancient convergences make it difficult to dismiss the Book of Abraham as mere nineteenth-century pseudepigrapha, as it exhibits patterns and themes consistent with the world Abraham would have known.79 However, words and concepts drawn from Joseph Smith’s study of Hebrew, such as those influenced by Seixas’s Manual Hebrew Grammar, reflect a nineteenth-century linguistic context rather than the original language of Abraham’s era. This anachronism does not indicate that the Book of Abraham is a modern forgery, but simply that it cannot easily be classified as a direct, pristine Abrahamic autograph or untouched relic of the patriarchal age. Rather, it reflects a blending of ancient and modern elements, shaped both by Joseph Smith’s revelatory process and by his engagement with contemporary linguistic tools.

Upon close examination, the Book of Abraham’s parallel biblical material in Abraham 4–5 appears to both preserve Abrahamic material and draw from the King James Bible, albeit refracted through Joseph Smith’s experience studying Hebrew under Joshua Seixas. The language and structure of the creation account bear clear traces of the KJV’s influence, suggesting that Joseph drew upon its familiar phrasing while adapting and expanding it.80 This phenomenon is not without precedent; the Book of Mormon likewise extensively incorporates KJV biblical quotations and allusions, blending them with original material to create a distinct scriptural voice and narrative.81 This pattern of incorporating and adapting KJV language has been acknowledged by Royal Skousen, a prominent proponent of the Prophet’s “tight control” over the Book of Mormon’s rendering.82 Skousen’s study of King James text in the Book of Mormon has compelled him to go so far as to characterize the Book of Mormon as “a creative translation that involves considerable intervention by the translator.”83 If this is true for the Book of Mormon, it is reasonable to expect a similar dynamic in the case of the Book of Abraham.

Conclusion: Bridging Antiquity and Modernity
in the Book of Abraham

These four data points underscore the complex nature of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham. They indicate the Prophet’s active engagement with the text, not merely as a passive recipient of revelation but as a translator and editor consciously working to convey the inspired truths of Abraham’s record in a manner accessible and meaningful to a modern audience. As one scholar memorably put it, Joseph “did not think of himself as God’s stenographer. Rather, he was an interpreting reader, and God the confirming authority.”84 At the same time, the Book of Abraham contains undeniable ancient features that defy categorization as purely speculative or the product of prophetic imagination.85 Paradoxically, Joseph’s translation of the Book of Abraham thus appears to function as both a rendering of an ancient text and a modern expansion or “midrash”—using the term in its popular, albeit not strictly accurate, sense.86 In this regard, B. H. Roberts’s “manual theory” or Blake Ostler’s “expansion theory” for the Book of Mormon may offer a useful framework for understanding the nature of the Book of Abraham.87 Similarly, Michael R. Ash’s perspective—that revelation often involves a collaborative process between God and his prophets, where human culture, language, and understanding shape the final inspired product—offers valuable insight. The view articulated by these authors portrays scripture as dynamic and multifaceted, blending divine inspiration with human interpretation.88 Much of what they propose seems relevant for understanding the Book of Abraham and can account for the data we have seen above.

However, this paradigm also has its explanatory limitations, as all translations—especially those of ancient texts—inevitably involve some degree of expansion and interpretation to make the rendering comprehensible to readers. Translation is never a purely mechanical process, even under the most ideal circumstances. If we take seriously the possibility that the Book of Abraham reproduces an ancient text in some form, which I believe we should, such expansion becomes not just possible but inevitable—even when the translation is conveyed through revelation. This is because the process necessarily involved a human agent, Joseph Smith, who worked through the constraints of a human brain, expressed himself in a human language, and operated with the cultural and linguistic tools available to him at the time. In this light, the very act of translation—whether by inspiration or by scholarly engagement—is an interpretive endeavor, shaped by the translator’s understanding, experience, and context. The more pertinent question for the Book of Abraham, then, may not be whether it represents a modern prophetic expansion of an ancient source, but rather to what degree or extent such expansion occurred. The lack of direct access to the original source text that Joseph Smith claimed to translate, however, limits our ability to definitively resolve this matter. All we currently possess is Joseph’s English translation. Without an Abrahamic original, we are left to rely on contextual evidence, textual analysis of the English translation, and reasoned inferences. This necessarily situates the discussion in the realm of conjecture. Until additional ancient manuscript evidence emerges, our understanding of the precise kind of translation Joseph Smith produced must remain provisional. “We [can] set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further.”89

An additional, potentially helpful framework for understanding the Book of Abraham has been articulated by Brant Gardner in his analysis of the Book of Mormon. In a recent monograph, Gardner explores the “compositional layers that are explicit and implicit in the text of the Book of Mormon.”90 He identifies two such layers that are relevant here: the nineteenth-century text and the Nephite Book of Mormon. The first layer consists of what Gardner terms “translation artifacts” in the modern English text produced by Joseph Smith, such as King James Bible quotations and anachronistic language.91 Gardner concludes that “the resulting translation” produced by the Prophet “transmits the Nephite meaning, but it was filtered through Joseph’s culture, vocabulary, and experiences.”92 The second layer, the Nephite Book of Mormon, represents the record composed in antiquity by Mormon, Moroni, and other Nephite recordkeepers—a complex text that interweaves written and oral sources.93 Mormon and Moroni served as the ultimate ancient editors who shaped this record into the cohesive narrative we now have.

A similar compositional schema might be applied to the Book of Abraham, consisting of two layers: the nineteenth-century text and the Abrahamic text. At the top layer, as with the Book of Mormon, we find “translation artifacts” present in the English text of the Book of Abraham. These artifacts reflect Joseph Smith’s cultural and linguistic environment, including his vocabulary, familiarity of the King James Bible, and influences such as his study of Hebrew. These features are not necessarily part of the ancient text itself but are the result of the inspired process through which Joseph rendered the record into a form comprehensible and meaningful to a nineteenth-century audience. Beneath this is the Abrahamic text, composed by Abraham himself and, presumably, transmitted through the centuries. This layer represents the core content of Abraham’s writings—his autobiographical narrative and cosmological vision. A copy of this record was preserved among the Egyptian papyri obtained by Joseph Smith. This layer reflects the ancient compositional work of Abraham and later scribes who may have contributed to its transmission and preservation. This compositional framework underscores the complexity of the Book of Abraham and suggests, as I have maintained, that the text we have before us today reflects a synthesis of ancient and modern elements, shaped by Abraham’s writings, the process of transmission over millennia, and Joseph Smith’s inspired translation. Understanding these layers enriches our appreciation for the Book of Abraham as both an ancient document and a product of modern revelation.

To be very clear, and to dispel any possibly misunderstanding, I believe the Book of Abraham is an ancient text that preserves elements of Abraham’s life and teachings. I reject the view that the Book of Abraham is merely nineteenth-century pseudepigrapha, as this explanation is both incompatible with the available data and is incongruent with my belief in Joseph Smith’s prophethood. Like the Book of Mormon, I believe the Book of Abraham has been shaped by centuries of ancient transmission as well as Joseph Smith’s modern revelatory translation process. However, these redactional layers neither disprove its ancient origin nor diminish its spiritual value. Any attempt to interpret what I have laid out here as some kind of admission of the Book of Abraham’s purely modern origin or its lack of historicity misrepresents my position. Instead, I am simply making the point that Joseph’s participation in rendering the text into English reflects a collaboration between human effort and divine guidance.

I hope that what I have outlined above will feel consistent with what many Latter-day Saints already understand. The idea that God works through the imperfect mediums of language and culture does not diminish the divine nature of revelation and is reflected in scripture itself. Nephi taught how “the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding” of men, “for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3). Similarly, the Doctrine and Covenants affirms that revelation is given through prophets “after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24). Joseph Smith himself acknowledged the challenges and imperfections inherent in conveying divine revelation through human language. He lamented on one occasion how his “crooked, broken, scattered, and imperfect language” could sometimes entrap him in a “little narrow prison” and a “total darkness of paper, pen, and ink.”94 This candid admission hardly disqualifies Joseph as a prophet; it simply acknowledges a fact of the human condition.

Brigham Young similarly recognized that revelation is inevitably shaped by the human instruments through which it is conveyed. As he stated in an 1855 speech, “The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities.”95 Brigham went even further on another occasion, teaching how the delivery of scripture is inherently tied to the human context of its reception. “When God speaks to the people,” he said in an 1862 discourse, “he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. . . . Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to rewrite the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.”96 Brigham was not denying the existence of revelation with comments such as these. Instead, he was acknowledging the reality that when God speaks to humanity, including his prophets, he condescends to meet them where they are and adapts revelation in ways that are comprehensible and meaningful within the limitations of human experience.

Based on the preceding discussion, we conclude that the case of the Book of Abraham exemplifies how Joseph Smith’s revelatory synthesis of ancient and modern sources produced a text that transcends simplistic categorizations. Called a “translation” by the Prophet, a term I accept in how I conceptualize the text, the Book of Abraham represents a rich, vibrant, and audacious work—one that seamlessly weaves together ancient truths and modern elements to create something far greater than the sum of its parts. This book offers profound doctrinal and cosmological insights that not only resonate with believers such as myself but also challenge and inspire all who honestly engage with its complexities.97 While some critics, operating under unexamined and overly reductive naturalistic assumptions,98 might dismiss the Book of Abraham as nothing more than the product of Joseph Smith’s environmental borrowing or fanciful imaginings, such a perspective underestimates the depth and originality of the text.99 The Book of Abraham defies such easy dismissal precisely because of its paradoxical nature. It presents itself as both a record deeply rooted in antiquity, with authentic ancient elements beyond Joseph Smith’s ability to magically conjure on the American frontier in the 1830s, and a product of modern prophetic expansion, shaped by Joseph’s unique cultural and theological context. Taking the Book of Abraham seriously on its own terms requires granting Joseph Smith the intellectual and spiritual credibility to engage with him as a prophet. While this may be a bridge too far for some, doing so reveals a work that rewards careful study and reflection.100 The tension between the ancient and modern elements present in the Book of Abraham is not a weakness but a strength—offering a multifaceted lens through which readers can explore questions of faith, revelation, and the nature of scripture. It is precisely this interplay of ancient authenticity and modern creativity that makes the Book of Abraham such a compelling and enduring source of inquiry and inspiration.

Stephen O. Smoot is a doctoral candidate in Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literature at the Catholic University of America. He previously earned a Master’s degree in Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations from the University of Toronto and Bachelor’s degrees in Ancient Near Eastern Studies and German Studies from Brigham Young University.

1 . “It is written: ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ / How soon I’m stopped! Who’ll help me to go on? / I cannot concede that words have such high worth / and must, if properly inspired, / translate the term some other way.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust I & II, ed., trans. Stuart Atkins (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), 33.

2 . Compare Robin Scott Jensen, Robert J. Woodford, and Steven C. Harper, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations: Manuscript Revelation Books, facsimile ed. (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2009), 27.

3 . “Church History,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 9 (1 March 1842): 707. See Brant A. Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2011); Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University [BYU]; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015); Gerrit J. Dirkmaat and Michael Hubbard MacKay, Let’s Talk about the Translation of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2023).

4 . “Account of John, April 1829–C [D&C 7],” in The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 1: July 1828–June 1831, ed. Michael Hubbard MacKay et al. (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2013), 47–48. See Jeffrey G. Cannon, “Oliver Cowdery’s Gift,” in Revelations in Context: The Stories Behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, ed. Matthew McBride and James Goldberg (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2016), 15–19; David W. Grua and William V. Smith, “The Tarrying of the Beloved Disciple: The Textual Formation of the Account of John,” in Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity, ed. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2019), 231–61.

5 . “Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson County, Missouri, 25 June 1833, in The Joseph Smith Papers: Documents, Volume 3: February 1833–March 1834, ed. Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, et al. (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2014), 154; and “Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson County, Missouri, 2 July 1833,” 167.

6 . See Robert J. Matthews, “A Plainer Translation”: Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible—A History and Commentary (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1975); Kent P. Jackson, Understanding Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2022; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2022).

7 . See Nicholas J. Frederick, “Translation, Revelation, and the Hermeneutics of Theological Innovation: Joseph Smith and the Record of John,” in Producing Ancient Scripture, 304–27.

8 . “The Book of Abraham,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 9 (March 1, 1842): 704, spelling standardized. See John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017); Stephen O. Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, John S. Thompson, A Guide to the Book of Abraham, BYU Studies Quarterly 61, no. 4 (2022).

9 . David Golding, “‘Eternal Wisdom Engraven upon Heavens’: Joseph Smith’s Pure Language Project,” in Producing Ancient Scripture, 331–62; Samuel Morris Brown, In Heaven as it is on Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early Mormon Conquest of Death (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 115–41; Samuel Morris Brown, “The Quest for Pure Language,” in Joseph Smith’s Translation: The Words and Worlds of Early Mormonism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 19–49; Stephen O. Smoot and Brian C. Passantino, eds., Joseph Smith’s Uncanonized Revelations, (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2024), 47–51.

10 . Louis C. Zucker, “Joseph Smith as a Student of Hebrew,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3, no. 2 (Summer 1968): 41–55; Matthew J. Grey, “‘The Word of the Lord in the Original’: Joseph Smith’s Study of Hebrew in Kirtland,” in Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith and the Ancient World, ed. Lincoln H. Blumell, Matthew J. Grey, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015), 249–302, rsc.byu.edu
/book/approaching-antiquity-joseph-smith-ancient-world; Matthew J. Grey, “Approaching Egyptian Papyri through Biblical Language: Joseph Smith’s Use of Hebrew in His Translation of the Book of Abraham,” in Producing Ancient Scripture, 390–451; John W. Welch, “Joseph Smith’s Awareness of Greek and Latin,” in Approaching Antiquity, 303–28. In addition to these languages, Joseph also briefly studied German with the assistance of Alexander Neibaur, a German Jewish convert, and Orson Hyde, who had spent part of his 1840–1842 mission to Palestine in Germany. Andrew H. Hedges, Alex D. Smith, and Richard Lloyd Anderson, eds., (The Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, Volume 2: December 1841–April 1843 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2011), 191n17, 254–56, 263–64, 267, 276, 279, 297; Andrew H. Hedges, Alex D. Smith, and Brent M. Rogers, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, Volume 3: May 1843–June 1844 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2015), 205–7, 222, 271.

11 . Alex D. Smith, et al, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 14: 1 January–15 May 1844 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2023), 316, 320–21, 330–31, 338; “Conference Minutes,” Times and Seasons 5, no. 15 (15 August 1844): 614; see Kevin L. Barney, “Joseph Smith’s Emendation of Hebrew Genesis 1:1,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 30, no. 4 (Winter 1997): 103–35; Kevin L. Barney, “Examining Six Key Concepts in Joseph Smith’s Understanding of Genesis 1:1,” BYU Studies 39, no. 3 (2000): 107–24, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol39/iss3/7/.

12 . “William Clayton, Journal, May 1, 1843,” in An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, ed. George D. Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991), 100.

13 . Brian M. Hauglid, “Did Joseph Smith Translate the Kinderhook Plates?” in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, ed. Robert L. Millet (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 93–103; Don Bradley and Mark Ashurst-McGee, “‘President Joseph Has Translated a Portion’: Joseph Smith and the Mistranslation of the Kinderhook Plates,” in Producing Ancient Scripture, 452–523.

14 . Henry Caswall, The City of the Mormons; or, Three Days at Nauvoo (London: J. G. F. & J. Rivington, 1842), 34–37; Henry Caswall, The Prophet of the Nineteenth Century; or, the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the Mormons (London: J. F. G. & J. Rivington, 1843), 223–24.

15 . See Hugh Nibley, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, The Art of Telling Tales about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991), 304–406; Craig L. Foster, “Henry Caswall: Anti-Mormon Extraordinaire,” BYU Studies 35, no. 4 (1995): 145–59, esp. 150–54; John W. Welch, “Joseph Smith’s Awareness of Greek and Latin,” Approaching Antiquity, 311–14; “Joseph Smith and the Greek Psalter,” Mormonr (website), mormonr.org/qnas/NMzhsd/joseph_smith_and_the_greek_psalter.

16 . See the studies in Blumell, Grey, and Hedges, eds., Approaching Antiquity; MacKay, Ashurst-McGee, and Hauglid, eds., Producing Ancient Scripture; and additionally, Stephen O. Smoot “Apologetics and Antiquity: Book of Mormon Reception, 1830–1844,” Journal of Mormon History 48, no. 4 (Fall 2022): 1–31.

17 . The title of this paper intentionally draws inspiration from Franklin S. Spalding’s Joseph Smith, Jr., as a Translator (Salt Lake City: The Arrow Press, 1912), a seminal anti-Mormon publication that challenged “Joseph Smith’s competency as a translator of ancient languages” (13) by critically examining his explanations of the Book of Abraham facsimiles.

18 . See Stephen O. Smoot, “‘From the Catecombs of Egypt’: Latter-day Saint Engagement with Ancient Egypt and the Contest of Religious Identity,” Journal of Mormon History 46, no. 4 (Fall 2020): 3–23, for a recent summary of this history.

19 . See generally Jason Thompson, Wonderful Things: A History of Egyptology: 1: From Antiquity to 1881 (New York: American University in Cairo Press, 2015); Kerry M. Muhlestein, “Prelude to the Pearl: Sweeping Events Leading To The Discovery of the Book of Abraham,” in Prelude to the Restoration: From Apostasy to the Restored Church (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004), 149–61; John Gee, “Joseph Smith and Ancient Egypt,” in Approaching Antiquity, 427–48; The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts, ed. Robin C. Jensen and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2018), xvi–xxii. Jeff Lindsay, “A Precious Resource with Some Gaps,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 33 (2019): 76–87, offers some important notes on potential contemporary influence of early Egyptological discoveries on Joseph Smith, interpreterfoundation
.org/a-precious-resource-with-some-gaps/.

20 . “History, 1838–1856, volume B-1 [1 September 1834–2 November 1838],” p. 595–96, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-b-1-1-september-1834-2-november-1838/49.

21 . “History, 1838–1856, volume B-1,” p. 596.

22 . “Letter from Joseph Coe, 1 January1844,” p. [1], Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-from-joseph-coe-1-january-1844/1. This comes out to approximately $86,000 in 2025, according to online inflation calculators.

23 . For a treatment on the translation of the Book of Abraham with accompanying primary sources, see “Book of Abraham Translation,” Mormonr (website), mormonr.org/qnas/Rqa6Tb/book_of_abraham_translation.

24 . See the recent studies in Michael Hubbard MacKay, “The Secular Binary of Joseph Smith’s Translations,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 54, no. 3 (Fall 2021): 1–39; Michael MacKay and Daniel Belnap, “The Pure Language Project,” Journal of Mormon History 49, no. 4 (2023): 1–44.

25 . For an overview of the various perspectives on this issue, see Smoot et al., “The ‘Kirtland Egyptian Papers’ and the Book of Abraham,” in Guide to the Book of Abraham, 45–49.

26 . “John Whitmer, History, 1831–circa 1847,” in The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Volume 2: Assigned Histories, 1831–1847, ed. Karen Lynn Davidson, Richard L. Jensen, and David J. Whittaker (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 86.

27 . See Stephen O. Smoot, “Did Joseph Smith Use a Seer Stone in the Translation of the Book of Abraham?” Religious Educator 23, no. 2 (2022): 65–107, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/re/vol23/iss2/7/.

28 . See generally Smoot et al., Guide to the Book of Abraham, 13–55.

29 . The following two sources favor the first theory: Kerry Muhlestein and Megan Hansen, “‘The Work of Translating’: The Book of Abraham’s Translation Chronology,” 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), 139–62; and John Gee, “Fantasy and Reality in the Translation of the Book of Abraham,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 42 (2021): 127–70. journal.interpreterfoundation.org/fantasy-and-reality-in-the-translation-of
-the-book-of-abraham/. The following sources favor the second theory: Matthew J. Grey, “Approaching Egyptian Papyri,” 390–451, and Brian Hauglid, “‘Translating an Alphabet to the Book of Abraham’: Joseph Smith’s Study of the Egyptian Language and His Translation of the Book of Abraham,” both in Producing Ancient Scripture, 363–89.

30 . “A Translation,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 9 (1 March 1842), 704.

31 . Klaus Baer, “The Breathing Permit of Hôr: A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3, no. 3 (Autumn 1968): 109–34; John A. Wilson, “The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: Translations and Interpretations: A Summary Report,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3, no. 2 (Summer 1968): 67–85; Richard A. Parker, “The Joseph Smith Papyri: A Preliminary Report,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3, no. 2 (Summer 1968): 86–88; Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment (Provo, UT: FARMS; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005), scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/85/; Michael D. Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002); Michael D. Rhodes, Books of the Dead Belonging to Tshemmin and Neferirnub: A Translation and Commentary (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2010); Robert K. Ritner, ed., The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition, P.JS 1–4 and the Hypocephalus of Shesonq (Salt Lake City: Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2011).

32 . See “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham,” Gospel Topics Essays, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, lds.org/topics/translation
-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham.

33 . See Smoot et al., “Zeptah and Egyptes,” in Guide to the Book of Abraham, 101–6, for additional discussion of what I offer in this section.

34 . “Book of Abraham,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 9 (1 March 1842), 705.

35 . Jensen and Hauglid, The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, 199, 211, 227.

36 . Jensen and Hauglid, The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, 199, 211, 227.

37 . Jensen and Hauglid, The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, 261, 263.

38 . Jensen and Hauglid, The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, 292n78.

39 . Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Part Six: Spelling in the Manuscripts and Editions (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2020), 461–63.

40 . James R. Clark, The Story of the Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1955), 127. For a diverging view, see Brent Lee Metcalfe, “The Curious Textual History of ‘Egyptus’ the Wife of Ham,” The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 34, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2014): 1–11, who argues that the name changed as the result of scribal revisions—a combination of phonetic reinterpretation and visual adjustments—reinforced by Joseph Smith’s imaginative effort to ground the story in a pseudo-historical framework.

41 . Royal Skousen, “Changes in The Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 11 (2014): 161–76, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/changes-in-the-book-of-mormon/.

42 . Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon: Part 3, Mosiah 17–Alma 20 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2006), 1418–21; Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Volume 3, Enos through Mosiah (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 374–76.

43 . Entries in Joseph Smith’s journal on 8 and 9 March 1842 speak of him “translating & revising” the Book of Abraham as he prepared it for publication, consistent with the conclusion we have reached here. See Andrew H. Hedges, Alex D. Smith, and Richard Lloyd Anderson, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, Volume 2: December 1841–April 1843 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2011), 42. On the potential significance of this, see the comments in Muhlestein and Hansen, “The Work of Translating,” 149–50.

44 . Metcalfe, “Curious Textual History,” 9.

45 . There are no extant manuscripts for Abraham 2:19–3:17 and Abraham 3:27–5:21. The earliest known text for these passages is found in the Times and Seasons publications of 1 March and 15 March 1842.

46 . Joshua Seixas, Manual Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed. (Andover, MD: Gould and Newman, 1834), 6–7; Grey, “Approaching Egyptian Papyri,” 419–28.

47 . Grey, “Approaching Egyptian Papyri,” 425–27, highlights lexical sources available to Joseph Smith during his Hebrew studies that reconstruct shaumau as an archaic and obsolete root. Compare, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), 1029; Mitchell Dahood, Psalms II 51-100: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 17 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), 135–36.

48 . On the dating and historical setting of Abraham, see John Gee, “The Wanderings of Abraham,” in From Creation to Sinai: The Old Testament through the Lens of the Restoration, ed. Daniel L. Belnap and Aaron P. Schade (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book), 251–78.

49 . In “Archaic Biblical Hebrew,” in A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, Volume 1: Periods, Corpora, and Reading Traditions, ed. W. Randall Garr and Steven E. Fassberg (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 20, Augustinus Gianto identifies the following texts as some of our earliest in the Hebrew Bible: Exodus 15:1–18; Numbers 23:7–10, 18–24; 24:3–9, 16–19; Deuteronomy 32:1–43; Judges 5:1–30; 1 Samuel 2:1–10; 2 Samuel 22:2–51; and Psalm 18. These he dates to the turn of the first millennium BCE. Looking beyond the biblical corpus, Peter Bekins, Inscriptions from the World of the Bible: A Reader and Introduction to Old Northwest Semitic (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2020), 91, notes that “the Gezer Calendar (tenth century BCE) is typically counted among [Old] Hebrew texts, but it does not have any distinctly Hebrew features. The earliest [non-biblical] texts that can be specifically identified as Hebrew come from the ninth century BCE.”

50 . William M. Schniedewind, A Social History of Hebrew: Its Origins Through the Rabbinic Period (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013), 30.

51 . For instance, Andrew George and Manfred Krebernik, “Two Remarkable Vocabularies: Amorite-Akkadian Bilinguals!” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 116, no. 1 (2022): 113–66.

52 . Schniedewind, Social History of Hebrew, 30.

53 . If not Amorite, then perhaps some other Proto-Northwest Semitic dialect; or, alternatively, Hurrian or Old Babylonian. See Michael P. Streck, “Old Babylonian,” in History of the Akkadian Language, ed. Juan-Pablo Vita, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 1002.

54 . Grey, “Approaching Egyptian Papyri,” 428, suggests some reasons “might have included a desire to provide biblical verisimilitude for his Abrahamic record, display his erudition, or help his fellow students of Hebrew make connections between their studies and the papyri.”

55 . The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, vol. 8 ed. A. Leo Oppenheim (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1971), 21, 45–49; Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1943), 417; George and Krebernik, “Two Remarkable Vocabularies,” 115, 120.

56 . Gregorio del Olmo Lette and Joaquín Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, 3rd. rev. ed., trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 1:155; Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, 456–57. The etymology for the Hebrew ʿôlām is uncertain. The word is possibly related to the Akkadian ullū (“distant past”), as discussed in Ernst Jenni, “Das Wort ʿôlām im Alten Testament,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 64, no. 1 (1952): 201–2, who determines the similarity between the two are “unlikely to be coincidental” and so an etymological relationship is “somewhat plausible,” but also cautions that a direct etymology cannot be established. See additionally The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, ed. Martha T. Roth, vol. 20 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 2010), 73–74.

57 . See Stephen O. Smoot and Kerry Muhlestein, “Prophets, Pagans, and Papyri: The Jews of Greco-Roman Egypt and the Transmission of the Book of Abraham,” BYU Studies Quarterly 61, no. 2 (2022): 105–34.

58 . The possibility that the Book of Abraham represents Joseph Smith’s translation of a later copy of an earlier Abrahamic autograph has been considered by Latter-day Saint scholars for some time. For instance, see Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt (Provo, UT: FARMS; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 4–9; Michael D. Rhodes, “Teaching the Book of Abraham Facsimiles,” Religious Educator 4, no. 2 (2003): 117–18; Kevin L. Barney, “The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources,” in Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, ed. John Gee and Brian Hauglid (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2005), 125–28; Hugh Nibley and Michael Rhodes, One Eternal Round (Provo, UT: FARMS; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 20–22; Kerry Muhlestein, “Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: A Faithful, Egyptological Point of View,” in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, ed. Robert L. Millet (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 229–31; Stephen O. Smoot and Quinten Barney, “The Book of the Dead as a Temple Text and the Implications for the Book of Abraham,” in The Temple: Ancient and Restored, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and Donald W. Parry, (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2016), 193–96; Smoot and Muhlestein, “Prophets, Pagans, and Papyri,” 105–34. This possibility has also been acknowledged by the Church: “Of course, the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples.” “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham,” Gospel Topics Essays, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng.

59 . Muhlestein and Hansen, “‘The Work of Translating,’” 150.

60 . Gee, “Fantasy and Reality,” 167, correctly notes that “retranslating and revising is not uncommon in translations,” and hypothesizes that Joseph spent 9 March 1842, “revising the Hebrew transliterations [in the Book of Abraham]” that were revealed to him in 1835 “to the then standard Hebrew transliteration system that [he] had learned from Sexias.”

61 . Gee, Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 143.

62 . Jensen and Hauglid, The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, 195, 197, 239nn57, 64.

63 . Gee, Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 143–44; compare Jensen and Hauglid, The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, 193, who write, “Two relatively large insertions in this version illustrate a connection between the Book of Abraham text and a vignette on the papyri. The insertions refer readers to a representation of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham upon an altar, which points readers to the vignette, or illustration, from the Book of Breathing for Horos. These insertions by Williams may have been first added to [his manuscript] and then silently incorporated in later versions.” See further Stephen O. Smoot, “Framing the Book of Abraham: Presumptions and Paradigms,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 47 (2021): 282–86, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/framing-the-book-of-abraham-presumptions-and-paradigms/.

64 . Jensen and Hauglid, The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, 197, 209, 223, 257, 309, 334n85.

65 . Smoot et al., “How did Joseph Smith Translate the Book of Abraham?” in Guide to the Book of Abraham, 40–41.

66 . Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon: Part 1, 1 Nephi 1–2 Nephi 10 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004), 427–28.

67 . Muhlestein and Hansen, “Work of Translating,” 150, internal citations removed.

68 . Grey, “Approaching Egyptian Papyri,” 390.

69 . Grey, “Approaching Egyptian Papyri” 431–45.

70 . Zucker, “Joseph Smith as a Student of Hebrew,” 52–53; Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963), 171.

71 . Grey, “Approaching Egyptian Papyri,” 437–44.

72 . Muhlestein and Hansen, “‘Work of Translating,’” 151.

73 . Muhlestein and Hansen, “‘Work of Translating,’” 151; Grey, “Approaching Egyptian Papyri,” 439; Michael T. Walton, “Professor Seixas, the Hebrew Bible, and the Book of Abraham,” Sunstone 6, no. 2 (March–April 1981), 43n12.

74 . Brent D. Dowdle et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 15: 16 May–28 June 1844 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2023), 270.

75 . Shalom Goldman, God’s Sacred Tongue: Hebrew & the American Imagination (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 176–89, esp. 185–89.

76 . Goldman, God’s Sacred Tongue, 193.

77 . Grey, “Approaching Egyptian Papyri,” 442.

78 . See Smoot et al., Guide to the Book of Abraham, 135–74.

79 . Contra David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis–Deuteronomy (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2014), 169–89, who unconvincingly downplays the significance of this material for the historicity of the Book of Abraham.

80 . Anthony A. Hutchinson, “A Mormon Midrash? LDS Creation Narratives Reconsidered,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 21, no. 4 (Winter 1988): 30–49, 62–63. Compare Walton, “Professor Seixas, the Hebrew Bible, and the Book of Abraham,” 43n8. Grey, “Approaching Egyptian Papyri ,” 444–45, offers evidence that Joseph “and his associates believed that the papyri contained the urtext of Genesis,” and therefore, in a process of what Grey calls “reverse engineering,” Joseph “may have felt that rather than laboring over the papyri to translate that original source, it was more convenient to start with the surviving derivative source (Genesis 1–2) and work backward to recover the original account.”

81 . Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Part Five: The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2019).

82 . Royal Skousen, “Translating the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997), 61–93.

83 . Royal Skousen, “The Language of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 3 (2018): 107.

84 . Kathleen Flake, “Translating Time: The Nature and Function of Joseph Smith’s Narrative Canon,” The Journal of Religion 87, no. 4 (October 2007): 507.

85 . As attempted by Karl C. Sanberg, “Knowing Brother Joseph Again: The Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith as Translator,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 22, no. 4 (1989): 17–38, and Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament, 169–73.

86 . See the cautionary comments in Avram R. Shannon, “Mormons and Midrash: On the Composition of Expansive Interpretation in Genesis Rabbah and the Book of Moses,” BYU Studies Quarterly 54, no. 2 (2015): 15–34.

87 . B. H. Roberts, “Translation of the Book of Mormon,” Improvement Era 9, no. 6 (April 1905): 425–36; “Translation of the Book of Mormon,” Improvement Era 9, no. 7 (May 1906): 544–53; “Book of Mormon Translation,” Improvement Era 9, no. 9 (July 1906): 706–13; Blake T. Ostler, “The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 20, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 66–123.

88 . Michael R. Ash, Rethinking Revelation and the Human Element in Scripture: The Prophet’s Role as Creative Co-Author (Redding, CA: FAIR, 2021). Ash includes a discussion of the Book of Abraham (pp. 679–728) as an example of how scripture often reflects a blend of divine elements filtered through human agency, much as I have explored here.

89 . John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations: Aids to Faith in a Modern Day (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1943), 110.

90 . Brant Gardner, Engraven Upon Plates, Printed Upon Paper: Textual and Narrative Structures of the Book of Mormon (Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2023), x.

91 . Gardner, Engraven Upon Plates, Printed Upon Paper, 17–60.

92 . Gardner, Engraven Upon Plates, Printed Upon Paper, 67.

93 . Gardner, Engraven Upon Plates, Printed Upon Paper, 71–163.

94 . “Letter to William W. Phelps, November 27, 1832,” in The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833, ed. Matthew C. Godfrey et al. (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2013), 320, spelling standardized.

95 . Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 2:314.

96 . Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 9:311.

97 . Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, 51–65, argues compellingly that the focus should be less on Joseph Smith’s process or method in translating the Book of Abraham and more on the end result. As Nibley observes, “The Prophet has saved us the trouble of faulting his method by announcing in no uncertain terms that it is a method unique to himself depending entirely on divine revelation. That places the whole thing beyond the reach of direct examination and criticism but leaves wide open the really effective means of testing any method, which is by the results it produces” (63).

98 . For instance, Dan Vogel, Book of Abraham Apologetics: A Review and Critique (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2021).

99 . This applies equally to claims that Joseph Smith plagiarized Thomas Dick (Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 171–72) and to assertions that the Book of Abraham is merely a reworked pastiche of Genesis (H. Michael Marquardt, “Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papers: A History,” in Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, 32–44; and Robert K. Ritner, “‘The Breathing Permit of Hôr’ Among the Joseph Smith Papyri,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 62, no. 3 [2003]: 161).

100 . As seen, for instance, in Brown, Joseph Smith’s Translation, 193–232.

Latter-day Saint Theology and the Problem of Evil

Val Larsen and Newell D. Wright

Abstract: The classical formulation of God as the sole, self-existent Being and ground of all that exists poses a philosophical problem. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, why does evil exist? Why does he not save humankind from moral and natural evil? If we embrace the full set of classical assumptions of creedal Christianity, these questions have no satisfactory answer and God cannot be absolved of responsibility for evil. This paper reviews and rejects several classical and modern philosophical formulations that try to solve the problem of evil. It then argues that the problem of evil dissolves if we accept Restoration theology in its most compelling form. Pluralism replaces monism, law is largely natural rather than legislated, and the necessity of atonement is located in humanity rather than in God, though God graciously provides the Atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes human exaltation possible.

The problem of evil—the seeming logical incompatibility of the existence of ubiquitous evil in the world and the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God—is often the principal argument atheists deploy to discredit theism. This argument gains force from the undeniable existence of malicious acts that no one can credibly deny are grossly evil.1 The existence of this evil is fully documented in the very books that most powerfully testify that God exists—the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In all the traditions rooted in the Bible—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—this evil is held to be real, not illusory, and must be accounted for.

For mainstream, orthodox, creedal Christian theology, this problem is unsolvable. There is, ultimately, no way to satisfactorily reconcile the standard conception of God as an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Being who is outside of time and space and who creates all other existing things ex nihilo (out of nothing), with the obvious, persistent reality that many of the beings God has created are evil and are allowed to enact their monstrously evil desires. In creedal Christian theology, God is the only being who fundamentally exists, who self-exists. God, the Creator is the BEING. All other things that exist are created by him and all other persons are creatures, contingent beings.2 They utterly depend upon God for both their initial and continuing existence. God had the option of not creating them and he has the option of ceasing to sustain their existence. The moment he does, they cease to exist. The total dependence of all contingent beings and things on God’s ongoing desire that they exist makes evil a serious problem.

In this article we review arguments that some Christian theologians have proposed for dealing with the problem of evil. While the existence of evil in the world is inexplicable for mainstream Christian theology, it can be understood if we adopt distinctive premises of Latter-day Saint Christian theology.3

Broadly stated, the key difference between the two theologies discussed in this article is this: creedal Christian theology is monistic, while Latter-day Saint theology is pluralistic.4 For monistic creedal Christians, there is only one BEING who self-exists. For pluralistic Latter-day Saints, there are many self-existent beings. For creedal Christians, God, the one BEING, is a completely different species, so to speak, from human beings. For Latter-day Saints, God and human beings are the same species, though at greatly different levels of development and maturity. Kathleen Flake highlights this monist/pluralist difference between Latter-day Saint and creedal Christian theology by focusing on the opening narrative in each tradition. Creedal Christian theology begins, she says, when God declares:

“Let there be light” . . . over a perfect creation, into which evil has yet to appear. In contrast, Joseph Smith’s addition of the Council in Heaven to the traditional Genesis narrative teaches that the option of evil existed, as did we, primordially—prior to earthly creation.

During the council, Flake notes, Satan says, “Behold, here am I, send me.” He then proposes a plan that would have destroyed human agency. Flake adds,

Beginning history with the events of the Council of Heaven establishes in [Latter-day Saint] theology that evil no more originates than good originates; they are always potential to the . . . choice . . . of the uncreated person.5

These different conceptions of God and of humanity yield different conceptions of law. For creedal Christians, all law is ultimately legislated by the one self-existent God. For Latter-day Saints, all law is ultimately natural law that merely describes the properties of self-existing entities.6 For creedal Christians, any coherent chain of reasoning must begin with God, because God is the only Being/Thing that fundamentally exists, the only self-existent Being. For Latter-day Saints, coherent chains of reasoning may begin with either God or humanity because both fundamentally exist. Both are self-existent.7

Since our ability to take human being as a first principle is distinctive, we begin our brief discussion of Restoration theology with humanity. Speaking of the self-existence of human beings, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that “man was also in the beginning with God,” and that intelligence “was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:29). In a more extended comment, Joseph Smith said:

Where did [the soul—the immortal spirit—the mind of man] come from? All doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning, but it is not so. . . . We say that God Himself is a self-existent God. . . . The mind of man—the intelligent part—is as immortal as, and is coequal with, God Himself. . . . God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. . . . The first principles of man are self-existent with God.8

What God cannot create, he cannot fundamentally change. Thus, the essence of each human being is a brute fact.9 So is the essence of all other matter, which is likewise co-eternal with God.10 Implicit in these uncreated entities, these brute facts, is a set of natural laws that constrain the Latter-day Saint God. Natural laws do not exist independent of the entities in which they are inherent; they merely describe the inherent causal relationships that constitute the natural object. The agency of intelligences is one of these inherent natural properties. God’s respect for human agency is, thus, just a particular instance of his respect for natural law, a respect that is not discretionary. Were he to attempt to violate natural laws that are inherent in the being of other persons and things, he would cease to be God (see Alma 42:13, 22, 25; Mormon 9:19).

But he will never cease to be God because he is a perfect realist. His power is grounded in his unconditioned respect for reality. He is all-powerful in the sense that he can do everything that can be done. He is all-knowing in the sense that he knows everything that can be known. He is all-wise in the sense that—unlike his adversary, Satan—he never kicks against the pricks; he never refuses to acknowledge reality and adapt his will to it. So, though Latter-day Saints often use the word omnipotent, the word does not, or at least should not, have the same meaning for them that it has for creedal Christians. Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, B. H. Roberts, Truman Madsen, Blake Ostler, and Terryl Givens all understand how eternal, natural law circumscribes the power of God. Later in this paper, we cite these thinkers and some of the ideas they have discussed.

While God cannot change the uncreated essence of any human being, he can help other intelligences attain their telos, which means the fullest development of potential that is inherent within them. He does this by providing fellow intelligences with a spiritual body and a physical body, and by then placing them sequentially in circumstances where, if they choose to do so, they can eventually become like him. The magnitude of the help God gives human beings in attaining their telos is beyond the scope of this article. The essential point here is this: what God can do to assist human beings in the attainment of their telos is delimited not by his will but by the self-existent will of his fellow intelligences.

Alma and the Problem of Evil

To further explain the Latter-day Saint position and to provide concrete examples of evil, we will discuss three episodes in the life of Alma.11 We begin with Alma’s “visit to hell,” because his account of that visit and reflections upon it help illustrate distinctive elements of Latter-day Saint theology. We will then discuss two experiences Alma had in the city of Ammonihah. Conventional statements of the problem of evil focus on the obviously unmerited suffering of innocents, and the story of Alma in Ammonihah provides an excellent example of that kind of evil. But, as we shall see, the conventional account may not be the strongest statement of the problem, and the story of Alma in Ammonihah also provides an excellent example of the problem of evil in its starkest form. After discussing these examples of evil that Alma encountered, we will describe and discuss an oft-mentioned putative evil that is not clearly exemplified in the Book of Mormon.

As a sinner, Alma could not abide the presence of God but instead experienced the pains of hell. In the first part of his life, he was “a very wicked and idolatrous man” (Mosiah 27:8), not a rebellious youth.12 He later described what he had done as “having murdered many of [God’s] children, or rather led them away unto destruction” (Alma 36:14). After the angel admonished him for his actions, Alma fell to the earth in a stupor and experienced “the pains of a damned soul” (Alma 36:16). For three days he experienced “everlasting burning” in the “darkest abyss” where his “soul was racked with eternal torment” (Mosiah 27:28–29). As Kevin Christensen has explained, Alma could experience eternal damnation in a finite time because “the endlessness of this state does not consist in an extreme extension of linear time, but in its transcendence.”13 Fully immersed in his misery, Alma experienced damnation as bottomless and horizonless, as having no discernible beginning or end. Based on his first-hand experience, he later described damnation as follows:

For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we . . . would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from [God’s] presence. (Alma 12:14)

Still later, Alma tells his reprobate son, Corianton, that we are our own judges, in multiple senses (see Alma 41:7 and 12:14).

What is striking and theologically important about Alma’s descriptions of hell is that it was Alma himself, not God, who inflicted the pain. He was punished by his own words and thoughts and deeds, not by God. This implies that Alma is more than just the sinful self that was eagerly engaging in soul-murder up to the point when he was accosted by the angel. He had a second self—a premortal self—whose moral viewpoint was aligned with that of God. This second self snapped into place once the angel confronted him. Suffice it to say that serious sinners, like Alma, are in hell not because God cannot stand to be in the presence of a sinner but because sinners cannot stand to be in the presence of God.

After he confronted the evil in himself, Alma called upon the Savior and was redeemed from hell. He then had a second encounter with the angel whose first visit precipitated his visit to hell. In some respects, this second visit of the angel again sent Alma to hell. Alma had visited the city of Ammonihah, had been unequivocally rejected, and then “weighed down with sorrow . . . because of the wickedness of the people,” he had given up his effort to convert the very hard-hearted inhabitants of that city (see Alma 8:14). But, as he was leaving Ammonihah, the angel again appeared before Alma and commanded him to return to the city. There, he would have experiences that were, but for his literal visit to hell, perhaps the most painful, the most hellish of his life.

Alma’s second visit to Ammonihah began pleasantly enough. He encountered Amulek and had success preaching to him and his family. He then again undertook the conversion of the Ammonihahites. Alma and Amulek delivered a powerful exposition of the gospel, including a warning that the unrepentant wicked, when they depart this life, will find themselves suffering as if they were cast into a lake of fire and brimstone (Alma 12:17).14 From personal experience, Alma knew this danger was real. He no doubt delivered the warning with great feeling.

Having heard and rejected this second message, the people of Ammonihah drove from the city all those who showed any sign of accepting what Alma and Amulek had taught. Then, providing a paradigmatic example of the obviously unmerited suffering of innocents, the leaders of Ammonihah seized the wives and children of the men who believed and cast them (and the scriptures) into fires, which they mockingly likened to the fires of hell (Alma 14:14). They forced Alma and Amulek to watch the women and children die a horrible death. Amulek movingly describes the horror of this holocaust and affirms God’s power to prevent it. He says to Alma, “How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames” (Alma 14:10). Alma replies,

The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day. (Alma 14:11)

Like Amulek, Alma fully feels the suffering of these women and children. What happened to them reverberates, Kiley Neilsen Turley has noted, not only throughout the remainder of Alma’s life but throughout the lives of eight generations of Alma’s descendants:

[Alma] preaches of fiery punishment (Alma 12:17), watches his words become horrifyingly real (Alma 14:8–11), and then is told that he is to blame for the deaths he witnesses—or, at least, that his words sparked the idea (Alma 14:14). . . . Hearing that his words ignited the atrocity silences Alma for days. . . . There is at least one phrase he will never say again in the Book of Mormon: lake of fire and brimstone. These events redefine his vocabulary. Moreover, they redefine the vocabulary of the entire Book of Mormon. The extent of the shock and distress caused by Ammonihah’s fires is encapsulated in the fact that this well-used metaphor of hell disappears from the Nephite records. Many spoke of this hell previously . . . but after people burn women and children alive in a lake of fire and brimstone, the words lake of fire and brimstone are never spoken again by anyone in the Book of Mormon.15

If God has the power to prevent suffering of innocents so salient that it traumatized not just the women and children, and not just Alma and Amulek, but eight generations of Alma’s descendants, why does he not prevent it?

Alma provides two reasons: First, the suffering of the women and children, though real, is momentary. Like Abinadi, in minutes they pass through painful fire into the joy of eternal heavenly glory. Second, the wicked must be permitted to enact their evil will so that the blood of the innocents may witness against them as they stand at the threshold of the hellish suffering that Alma had personally experienced. Both of these rationales suggest that sometimes the eternal needs of the wicked take priority over the needs of the righteous.16 Thus, the first rationale minimizes the importance of the innocents’ suffering by focusing not on their suffering, but on their passage into glory. Then the lengthier, second rationale emphasizes the importance of the wicked being assessed and punished by a just process, a process that the wicked themselves will recognize matches their behavior with fitting punishment.

Whatever value the first rationale (brief suffering, eternal glory) may have for theodicy—for explaining the problem of evil and defending the goodness of God in the face of evil and suffering—the second rationale (making judgment just), merely deepens the problem of evil. The Ammonihahite judges subjected the women and children who they cast into the fire, at most, to a few minutes of terrifying, agonizing pain. “The judgments which [God] shall exercise upon [the men of Ammonihah] in his wrath” will subject the Ammonihahite judges to eternal pains at least as intense as those suffered by the women and children. The cruelty of causing someone to suffer eternal pains is infinitely greater than the cruelty of causing someone to suffer a few minutes of pain. How could a good God do this?

As Alma’s own visit to hell illustrates, part of the answer in the Book of Mormon is this: it is not God who makes the men of Ammonihah into demons who suffer the misery of their damnation. As we will show more fully below, they do that to themselves.17 The demonization and suffering are the natural consequence of their own actions. Their self-demonization is apparent in the Book of Mormon account. As they are gnashing their teeth, spitting, and hatefully smiting others, the judges and lawyers and priests of Ammonihah mockingly ask: “How shall we look when we are damned?” (Alma 14:21). The answer is, “pretty much as you look now.” There is irony in the chief judge’s statement: “Know ye not that I have power to deliver you up unto the flames?” (Alma 14:19). If we make an appropriate change in that statement, it might more accurately read: “Know I not that I have power to deliver myself up unto the flames?” He does not know it, but that is what the judge is doing. The natural law we call justice dictates that what we do unto others, we more profoundly do unto ourselves. As Alma had tried to warn him, the judge will soon be immersed in flames more intense than those into which he has cast the women and children.

The Book of Mormon text does say that God “in his wrath” visited this judgment on the wicked men of Ammonihah. At many points in all the standard works, there are statements indicating that God, motivated by “anger,” actively punishes or otherwise exacts vengeance on the wicked when they do evil (for example, see Ezekiel 25:12–14). Such statements are not consistent with other, more theologically sophisticated accounts of justice being a manifestation of self-judgment and natural law, nor are they consistent with the behavior of good earthly parents who are motivated by love, not anger, when disciplining their children. We believe the more sophisticated accounts are also the more accurate description of our loving Heavenly Parents. The attribution of wrath and vengeance is an instance of anthropopathism, the ascription of fallen human emotions to God.18

Accounts of a powerful being lashing out in anger when we act contrary to his will are easier to understand than the natural law account of what happens when we sin. All children anger a powerful adult at some point in their lives and are punished for such behavior. Virtually all adults, too, have had the experience of angering some powerful person, then reaping a negative consequence for evoking that anger. So, accounts of sin evoking anger in God and an angry God punishing the sinner are easier to understand. Such accounts leave no doubt that, according to scripture, sin ultimately produces bad consequences for the sinner. But rather than being the most accurate account of what happens when people sin, anthropopathic statements that describe God as angrily smiting the wicked are merely the most understandable accounts of what happens when we sin. Though they get the causal mechanism wrong, they make it unmistakably clear that in the long run, wickedness never was and never will be happiness (Alma 41:10).

The negative consequences of sin and another dimension of the problem of evil now become more apparent in the Ammonihah story. God does not permit the self-demonization of the Ammonihahites to continue. Their moral evil (evil perpetrated by human beings) is terminated by natural evil (evil visited on human beings by nature).19 The text, beginning ominously with the precise date—“on the twelfth day, in the tenth month, in the tenth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi”—tells us that the leadership of Ammonihah came again to the prison where Alma and Amulek languished, naked, hungry, and thirsty. Each man smote Alma and Amulek and said, “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.” The wicked men get what they ask for. Alma and Amulek rose and broke the cords that bound them. The Ammonihahite leaders “began to flee . . . [but] so great was their fear that they fell to the earth. . . . The earth shook mightily, and the walls of the prison were rent in twain, so that they fell. . . . [All] who smote upon Alma and Amulek, were slain by the fall thereof” (Alma 14:23–27).

This natural occurrence, presumably an earthquake, bears on several important problem-of-evil issues. First, it illustrates one function of natural evil: it constrains moral evil. In this case, it put an end to the atrocities committed by the leaders of Ammonihah. More broadly, it makes all human life precarious. No matter how powerful and wealthy and young and strong a person may be, anyone may be struck down at any time by natural diseases and disasters. All those with a modicum of wisdom live in the shadow of their own impending death and of the moral accountability that may follow. This fact at least partially justifies the existence of natural evil. It is possible that the existence of natural evil reduces the sum of evil in the world. If the awareness of mortality caused by random natural evils reduces the magnitude of moral evil by an amount greater than the magnitude of random natural evils, then natural evil has, on balance, a positive effect on the sum of all evil in the world. Paulson and Ostler clearly state the logic of tradeoffs. For example, a doctor may morally inflict the pain of a shot or even the amputation of a limb if the benefits will outweigh the cost. Thus, a morally perfect being does not necessarily prevent all evil and pain; rather, he maximizes the good by permitting those evils that bring about a greater good.20

This function of natural evil—reminding people of their mortality and moral accountability—is illustrated over and over again in the Book of Mormon. It is so common and obvious that this evil and its effects have a well-known name: the pride cycle.21 As the Nephites prosper, they forget God and become wicked. When they become wicked, they are struck by various natural disasters or are attacked by the Lamanites and suffer battle losses.22 The attacks and battle losses, like famines and earthquakes, are generally attributed to Nephite wickedness. The battle losses and natural disasters typically compel the Nephites to humble themselves and call upon God, at which point they again begin to prosper both militarily and economically. The salutary effects of natural evils (and of moral evils that function like natural evils) are thus well-illustrated throughout the Book of Mormon.

While in a complete analysis, eternal damnation is the most powerful manifestation of the problem of evil, the moral culpability of the damned makes their suffering less salient for many people than the suffering of innocents. The randomness of innocent suffering magnifies the problem. The timing of the earthquake that freed Alma and Amulek is an example of that randomness. If the earthquake had occurred earlier, it could have saved the innocent women and children. If the moral accountability Alma mentions as a rationale for not stopping the murder of innocents was valid, why were the Ammonihahites not permitted to murder Alma and Amulek, thus further compounding their guilt? God sometimes intervenes to stop evil, and sometimes he does not. From the point of view of those who are not rescued, God’s decisions to intervene or not intervene may seem capricious.23

While it contains many diverse manifestations of evil, including eternal damnation (which should be but is not normally cited as the most horrific evil of all), the Book of Mormon provides no emphatic examples of righteous, innocent people suffering natural evils. We must infer that, in the Book of Mormon, innocents were sometimes destroyed by natural evil since this kind of innocent suffering is never dramatized. We can infer it when the city of Moroni sunk into the depths of the sea shortly before Christ’s coming (3 Nephi 8:9), for the children in that city presumably drowned with the guilty adults. In Ammonihah, though the cause was moral evil functioning like a natural evil (not natural evil per se), children analogously died with the wicked adults when Lamanites attacked and killed all the inhabitants of the city (see Alma 16:9–10).

While tragic, these deaths of innocents do not starkly frame the problem of evil. They might be explained by various plausible considerations. One consideration is that a local culture can have immense power to constrain the set of possible life choices and their outcomes. A city like Ammonihah or Moroni could become so wicked as to make “evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). Similarly, like Sodom and Gomorrah, such cities could produce social norms so perverse that no child born into that culture would have any real opportunity to live a righteous life. The destruction of a thoroughly corrupt community or civilization (think of Noah and the Ark) might be justified because that civilization can no longer fulfill the function of mortal life, which is to provide souls an opportunity to exercise agency and choose between good and evil. Another consideration is that, even if the children could somehow be spared when all the wicked adults were killed, there would be no adult care or supervision leaving most to suffer and die from natural causes. Sparing them would only delay the inevitable.

So, the Book of Mormon provides no clear examples of righteous persons both suffering from natural evils and then grappling with unmerited misery.24 We can provide a modern example: While living a righteous life may reduce the incidence of sickness and other forms of suffering that fall upon the wicked as a consequence of their actions, living righteously as a devoted follower of Christ does not guarantee that one will avoid accidents and sickness and thus live a long, full life, then die painlessly in one’s sleep. Many adults who are by all accounts exceptionally devoted and righteous followers of Christ, including young parents whose children urgently need them in their lives, have suffered debilitating disease and untimely deaths. While it is less common today than it was in the past, the children of devoutly righteous followers of Christ still die from accidents and diseases. The parents of these children understandably agonize over their deaths. Additionally, miracles that occasionally save some while not saving many others can compound the suffering of the righteous people who are not blessed with such miracles. The suffering and the agonizing questions that trouble the minds of such people are real. If deep pain and suffering are evil, their unmerited suffering is evil, or at least must be addressed in any adequate theodicy.

Creedal Christian Theology and the Problem of Evil

We turn now to a discussion of the ways in which different Christian traditions deal with the various manifestations of the problem of evil. In this discussion, we draw upon and cite a modern Calvinist theologian, Mark Hausam. In his insightful account of the issues in his article “It’s All in Arminius: Mormonism as a Form of Hyper-Arminianism.”25 Hausam is unusual in that he combines a deep understanding of the various strands of creedal Christianity with a deep understanding of the Latter-day Saint theological tradition.

Again, for creedal Christians, Muslims, and Jews, the problem of evil is intractable. To understand why this is so, let us recall that the god of creedal Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is thought to be the sole possessor of BEING, that he is outside of space and time, that he creates all other beings ex nihilo, and that the continued existence of those other beings is contingent on his willing their continuation. If these concepts are true, created beings cannot act contrary to this god’s will. If they do the monstrous evil that many have done, they must so act because their god created them so to act. To take the specific examples of evil we have been discussing, this god must have created the women and children of Ammonihah to be burned to death and the leadership of Ammonihah to burn them, to torture Alma and Amulek, to turn themselves into demons, and then to suffer eternity in hell. This god must specifically have created the world such that it would cause accidents or disease to strike down righteous people and their children, because no person or anything else in nature exists or acts apart from the force and motive imparted to them by their god. A solitary sovereign who alone fundamentally exists, who exists outside of space and time, who creates all other things ex nihilo is, by implacable logic, morally responsible for every action and event in the universe he creates. Philosopher Antony Flew has summarized the logic that, given these premises, makes the creedal-Christian god morally responsible for evil:

We cannot say that [God] would like to help but cannot: God is omnipotent. We cannot say that he would help if he only knew: God is omniscient. We cannot say that he is not responsible for the wickedness of others: God creates those others. Indeed an omnipotent, omniscient God must be an accessory before (and during) the fact to every human misdeed; as well as being responsible for every non-moral defect in the universe.26

We will now very briefly summarize how some branches of conventional Christianity respond to this formulation of the problem of evil. If we better understand the degree to which conventional Christianity has struggled to deal with this problem, we can better appreciate the distinctive superiority of the Latter-day Saint account of why evil exists in the world.

Calvinism

Calvinists are the most rigorously logical of the conventional Christians.27 They fully embrace the implications of God’s solitary sovereignty and of creation ex nihilo. Hausam rightly asserts that “creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism.”28 If God is the sole ground and sustainer of all being, it follows that all being is precisely what God created it to be. The worlds to come, both heaven and hell, will be populated with people God predestined to inhabit them, with people he specifically created to be there. In the words of Calvin:

God . . . determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.29

The number of beings created to burn eternally in hell is much larger than the number created to sing God’s praises eternally in heaven. This understanding of God and humanity is crystallized in Jonathan Edwards’s well-known, nightmare-inducing sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” A great deal of spiritual angst—possibly including the angst that sent Joseph Smith to the Sacred Grove—has been created by the stern, clear-eyed, implacable logic of Calvinism.

While it is fully consistent with (indeed, probably necessarily follows from) the classical Christian formulation of the doctrine of God, this conception of God is ethically troubling. Within no human ethical system—least of all the ethical system implied by the life of Christ—would it be acceptable, at one’s sole discretion, to create a circumstance that will assuredly cause another human being to suffer eternally the pains of hell. To hold both that God is good and that God does this, one must believe that God’s ethics have little or nothing in common with the ethics of humanity.30 It is, to say the least, a trial of faith to believe that an action that would be monstrously cruel and evil if a human being did it—condemning millions or billions of people to exquisite, eternal suffering—is a manifestation of perfect goodness if God does it. To be sure, God has declared, “my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways” (Isaiah 55:8). Most theists understand that human knowledge and belief is fallible, that God understands and could justify things that appear malign or just incomprehensible to us. But an ethics that combines divine determinism of all outcomes, including billions of souls burning in hell, would seem to entail a complete transvaluation of any recognizably good human ethical system.31 It is not compatible with the loving, giving God whom billions of Jews, Christians, and Muslims have known. So, the phenomenology of our personal experience of the Divine fits poorly with the unquestionably rigorous logic of Calvinist theology.

Nonetheless, the logical rigor of Calvinism should not be lightly dismissed. Hausam plausibly argues that there is a fundamental theological divide between Calvinist theology on the one hand and Arminian/Restoration theology on the other:

I will show that the most important theological dividing line is not between Arminianism and Calvinism on the one side and Mormonism on the other, but between Calvinism/Augustinianism on the one side and the doctrines of Arminianism and Mormonism on the other.32

We will next review both Arminianism and Latter-day Saint theology. But let us here state that, while Hausam is largely correct, a better formulation would be this: there are two logically consistent theological positions one might occupy, the thoroughgoing divine determinism of Calvinism and the throughgoing self-determinism of the Latter-day Saints. The Arminians who attempt to occupy the middle ground fall between the two logical stools. Let us now review their position.

Arminian Protestants

Arminianism, a major school of thought in Protestantism, takes its name from Jacob Arminius (1560–1609), a Dutch Reformed minister who broke with Calvin to affirm the existence of human free will and “prevenient grace.”33 It includes an atonement that is unlimited in its offer of salvation. In adopting these views in opposition to their Calvinist brethren, Arminian Protestants (including Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, many Baptists and Episcopalians, and a number of other Protestant denominations) affirm what Latter-day Saints also regard as important truths. This includes the beliefs that God wants all his children to be saved and that he creates none with the intent that they be damned. Also, Christ suffered for all in the hope that all will receive the gift he freely offers them and be saved. Thus, the Atonement is the universal gift of God to all humanity.

Calvinism has millions of adherents, but most creedal Christians tend to have broadly Arminian views. Thus, though there are many differences between Arminian Protestantism on the one hand and Catholicism and the various Eastern Orthodox denominations on the other, the differences are mostly inconsequential with respect to their views on how universal prevenient grace and human free will can eliminate the problem of evil. Since these faiths share the relevant doctrines, most of the critique of Arminianism given below would also apply to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.34 Arminianism is the dominant strand in mainstream Christianity.

In connection with their affirmation of the important truths mentioned above, Arminians commit themselves to what philosophers call incompatibilist35 or libertarian36 conceptions of free will, positions that are problematic in various ways we discuss below and positions that, in any case, ultimately do not resolve the problem of evil. Compatibilists argue that a choice can be entirely determined by an antecedent set of conditions, and yet be free. Incompatibilists insist that a choice cannot be both determined and free. Libertarian free will is an incompatibilist idea. It floats above and is unconstrained by any internal or external causal factors. Consistent with their incompatibilist libertarianism—and unlike Calvinists— Arminians believe that God has the power to create beings whose will is completely autonomous from his own, beings able to make life choices that contravene his will. By exercising this creative power and extending this gift of freedom, God surrounds himself with other beings who share his capacity for moral agency. The freedom these other beings enjoy does not include the power to determine or control all the consequences of their choices. If they act contrary to God’s will, bad things happen. If they act in harmony with God’s will, good things happen. But like God, they are capable of choosing for themselves what path they will tread, albeit within a narrower set of possible outcomes than those available to God. Since ex hypothesis, he is unable to (or at least does not) control the choices of these moral agents, God is not responsible for any sins they commit. The rationale discussed above for the existence of natural evil is available to Arminians—the natural evil that must fall wholly to God’s account may keep us conscious of our mortality and moral accountability. It may sufficiently inhibit moral evil that, on balance, the natural evil reduces the sum of all evil in the world.

For Arminians to use these ideas to absolve God of responsibility for evil, they must argue that some entities exist that are independent of God, and that, in some fundamental sense, are not created by God. Ultimately, they must posit the existence of other gods who exist with God. Hausam summarizes these views as follows:

God wishes that reality were different than it is. He wishes there was a way to attain all his desires. But there isn’t. He has to live with reality as it comes to him. It is a given he must submit to. And here we see the connection with my previous comments about LDS theology. In the Arminian view, reality is not what a perfectly good being wishes it was. There is a conflict between the nature and will of God, who is perfectly good, and the nature of reality, and the former must submit to the latter. But if there is a fundamental conflict between God, and everything that he is, and the basic nature of reality, then the laws that govern and give structure to that reality can no longer be thought of as being grounded in God or identical with God, but must be thought of as independent variables, structural principles of a universe which is independent of God and in the context of which God exists, and which limit and thwart him from accomplishing all that he desires to accomplish. Ultimate reality in this view, as in the LDS view, is thus not identical with God nor derived from him and his will. God must submit to the laws of reality, which are as much a given to him as they are to us. God is no longer the ultimate answer to all questions of existence or questions of “Why?” As in Mormonism, Arminianism makes God a finite being, limited by “lawlike structures or principles” which are not identical with him and which he did not create and cannot destroy.37

As for human beings, the Arminian analysis makes “gods” of them. Hausam persuasively argues this point as follows:

There is a conflict between ex nihilo creation and some of the central features of the Arminian universe. The concept of “free will” allows the force of creation ex nihilo to be effectually negated so that the independence Arminianism requires can exist. It does this by creating a “causal gap” between God’s creative activity and the actual essence of our will and choices. Whatever God did in creating humans and their free agency, in the Arminian view, he did not create an unbroken causal chain from himself . . . to the actual choices made by his creatures. Those choices are undetermined by God. The reason for their existence, since they are undetermined and first-causal, cannot be anything God has done. They are not traceable to any creative action of God, but are wholly self-originated in their nature . . . Whatever God created ex nihilo when he created human beings, he thus did not create that which constitutes the real essence of our being and character. . . . In Arminian theology, the main implications of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo are negated and the doctrine itself is thus, in effect, relegated to practical unimportance, since the most important part of who we are, that which defines our primary essence, is not created by God, but is self-existent or self-created. In Arminianism, we are uncreated, self-existent entities, just as Joseph Smith stated in the King Follett discourse. And just as the term “Gods” is the appropriate metaphysical term for such entities in Mormonism, so it is appropriate for such entities in Arminianism, although Arminians, being less consistent and developed in their theology, usually do not clearly see this and avoid the term because of its obvious clash with more classical theistic aspects of their thinking that they do not want to wholly or explicitly jettison.38

Hausam sufficiently demonstrates that implicit in Arminian theology are ideas that find their full expression in teachings of Joseph Smith and Restoration doctrines grounded in those teachings.

While Hausam’s critique of the Arminian position is telling, it is not complete. Even if they successfully add libertarian freedom to their theology by rejecting ex nihilo creation and making “gods” of men, the Arminian theology does not reconcile God’s goodness with the existence of evil in the world. Remaining aspects of their beliefs regarding divine ontology make the problem of evil still intractable. Following this line of reasoning, being a BEING outside of time, their omniscient creedal God would never be surprised by anything his creatures do. So even if it were possible for him to create contingent beings who freely act contrary to his will, all their freely chosen actions would be foreknown to him. He would have the option of not creating or not sustaining the existence of those who grossly defy his will.39 He could have created only that subset of free beings who he foreknew would freely choose to act much or entirely as he wanted them to act.40 There is no logical necessity for the creation of free beings to involve the creation of grossly evil beings.41 God was not surprised when Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others murdered millions. When he created them, he knew what they would do and he was not obligated to create them or to sustain their existence once created. It follows that all their evil deeds are traceable to him. Had it not been for his fully informed act of creating these moral monsters, they and their evil deeds would not have existed. Thus, in the end, their acts and all other human actions are fully traceable back to him. He willed them into being and, in every moment, sustains their continuing existence. It follows that the problem of evil is not resolved by attributing to God the power to create beings who have libertarian free will. Or more precisely, it follows for any Arminians who retain other aspects of the classical conception of who God is, that is, the idea that he exists outside of time and foreknows all that any of his creations will freely choose to do.

Open Theists

There is a movement grounded in creedal Christianity that obviates the objection just raised that God is responsible for evil even if he is able to create creatures separated from him by libertarian free will. Hausam briefly discusses this group, whom he designates (and they themselves designate) open theists.42 Open theists tend to be found in all the various branches of creedal Christianity, except Calvinism. Thus, along with other denominations, there are open theists who are Catholic (W. Norris Clarke),43 Eastern Orthodox (Richard Swinburne),44 Seventh-day Adventist (Richard Rice),45 Mennonite (Thomas Finger),46 and Pentecostal (Kenneth Archer).47 Broadly, open theists view the full classical formulation of who God is as incoherent. According to this view, it is not possible for God to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, the ex nihilo Creator of all things, and, at the same time, omniscient in the sense of being fully outside of time and having all events, past, present, and future laid before him as a theologically determined fixed trajectory. The other pillars of the classical formulation of God’s being—in particular omnipotence and omnibenevolence—can be logically reconciled only if his omniscience is compromised.

Thus, open theists embrace what is for most creedal Christians the heterodox view that God’s knowledge of the future is incomplete. At a minimum, the future—as God knows it—branches down different lines, contingent on the not yet-known choices that human agents will make in the moment that the choice arises. In this view, because God cannot know what other moral agents will choose until they choose it, he is not responsible both before and after the fact for the choices they make. By sacrificing the classical formulation of divine omniscience, open theists largely solve the problem of evil. If God does not foreknow what those he creates ex nihilo will choose to do, he cannot solely create that subset of beings who will freely choose to do good. His only option is to create/not create free moral agents and allow/not allow them to enact their will. It is certainly arguable that it is better for God to create other moral agents, even with the inherent risk that some of those agents will choose to enact monstrous evil, than for him to live for eternity as the only extant moral agent. Having others around him—even if some of those others are evil—may be the best option available to God and to the other moral agents he creates.

As noted, open theists largely solve the problem of evil, with the exception of one remaining issue. From the Latter-day Saint point of view, they rightly argue that the classical formulation of God’s being is incoherent.48 So, as noted above, open theists reject one of the key elements of the classical formulation—the idea that God is omniscient. But they continue to believe that God creates all existing things ex nihilo. Like other Arminians, they thus rely upon incompatibilism and libertarian free will to break the causal linkage between God’s act of creation and the evil acts of those he creates. The remaining problem is that, like the classical formulation of God’s being, incompatibilism and the associated idea of libertarian free will seem to be logically incoherent. They are, at a minimum, inconsistent with moral accountability. If they are not logically incoherent—and the topic is, admittedly, extraordinarily complex when philosophers sink their teeth into it and parse every possibility and nuance—these concepts are, at least, less immediately intelligible than determinism and self-determinism.

In philosophy, determinism is the idea that all events have a cause and that the causes make the event inevitable. It is a fairly simple idea. As indicated above, compatibilism is the idea that a choice may be both determined and free. (We discuss how that can be true in the section below on Latter-day Saint theology.) Incompatibilism is the idea that free will can exist only if choices are not determined by anything other than the free floating will itself. Libertarian free will is an incompatibilist conception of free will, a will that is entirely independent, even from its creator, God. To be free of all antecedent causes, this type of free will must lack a fixed essence or disposition that would explain why one choice is made rather than another. But though libertarian free will helps absolve God of responsibility for evil, disconnecting the seat and source of choice from disposition or character, thus severing its connection with the past, leads to numerous problems for moral accountability.

Here are some of the problems: When we make a choice, we either have a reason for making the choice or we do not. If we have a reason, the reason causes or at least influences us to make the choice. If we don’t have any reason for doing one thing rather than another, the choice is random. For a reason to influence us, we need to have a disposition that makes us responsive to that reason. If we have such a disposition, then past choices are predictive of what we will do in the future. Those past choices reveal who we are, so it makes sense for us to be rewarded or punished, based on what we have chosen to do. The choices reflect our essential being, and there are causal connections between who we are and the outcomes we experience. We deserve good outcomes if we are disposed to do good and we deserve bad outcomes if we are disposed to do bad.

If we have no fixed essence, disposition, or character—nothing for reasons to be based on, our choices become indistinguishable from random events. If our choices are random and not caused by anything essential and enduring in our being and therefore do not manifest who we essentially are, were, and will be, then it makes no sense to reward or punish us based on those choices.49 Our past choices would then have no relationship to any future choice. They would be in no way predictive of what we might do in the future. Good choices that yield good results would become indistinguishable from good luck, while bad choices and bad results would be indistinguishable from bad luck. One deserves no admiration or praise for being lucky, no disapprobation or censure for being unlucky. Rewards and punishments, especially eternal rewards and punishments, make sense only if our behavior manifests who we are and will continue to be. They make sense only if our behavior is a function of some stable, enduring essence, some character or disposition that defines us.

But this is precisely what God cannot create without being morally responsible for the choices we make, which fully revives the problem of evil. In short, libertarian free will accomplishes too much, for it relieves the ex nihilo creator, God, of responsibility for evils committed by his creations, but it does so by completely breaking the linkage between the past and present of moral agents. If there is no linkage between a moral agent at this moment and that same moral agent in the past, then rewards and punishments for past actions make no sense. So, even though open theists resolve some problems by jettisoning divine omniscience, they introduce other problems of logical incoherence or fiendish complexity that remain unresolved when they posit the existence of libertarian free will.

Latter-day Saint Theology and the Problem of Evil

In their theological reflections and efforts to address the problem of evil, Latter-day Saints have one colossal advantage over their fellow Christians: on the authority of multiple revelations of Joseph Smith, Latter-day Saints reject the doctrine of ex nihilo creation. As previously mentioned, Joseph taught that “man also was in the beginning with God,” that “the mind of man—the intelligent part—is as immortal as, and is coequal with, God Himself, [and that] the spirit of man [is] self-existent with God.”50

One implication of these statements, discussed above, is the fact that God is constrained by natural law. If God does not have power to create or destroy an intelligence, it follows that the intelligence has properties that define what it is, and the properties possessed by the intelligence limit what God or any other external entity can do with it. Inherent in the uncreated intelligence is a network of causes and effects, a natural law that determines what kinds of interactions are possible between it and other existing things. As previously noted, that natural law constrains God not only with respect to humanity but also with respect to all material entities, for all material reality is, Joseph tells us, in its fundaments, uncreated.51 God may expand the scope of intelligences to act and develop. He may organize and reorganize pre-existing matter into rivers, oceans, planets, solar systems, galaxies, and universes. He may shower many blessings, including miracles, on his children and other existing things. But he has this power only because he loves and respects all other self-existent things and always acts in harmony with their essential, unchangeable nature. Like modern medicine—but on a much grander scale—he performs miracles through, not in defiance of, natural processes. His work and glory is to help other entities fully manifest their own latent glory. He helps them attain the highest form of being, the greatest glory they are capable of and are willing to embrace. Since his beneficent efforts to assist them are a given, any moral agent who, in the long run, is not glorious and beautiful, will lack those attributes because he or she chooses not to have them. If someone is evil, it is because that person chooses to be evil.

Self-determination

The self-existence of intelligences means there is no causal link between the moral choices of human beings and the creative acts of God. Given self-existence, this causal linkage is broken, without severing the connection between the agency of the self and its past. An intelligence has an essential being, which is an inherent disposition or character that is stable across time and that persistently determines the agent’s choices. It thus makes sense for intelligences to reap the consequences, good or ill, of their choices. Indeed, most of the consequences, both good and ill, may be effects wholly encoded into the being of the intelligence. The most important parts of God’s moral law are descriptive. God commands us to do things that (through networks of causes and effects encoded in our being) make us happy and avoid things that (through that same internal causation) make us miserable.

Like Calvinism, Restoration theology is compatible with determinism. But unlike Calvinism, that determinism does not make God responsible for every human moral choice, because God did not create the choosing entity out of nothing nor did he impose misery on beings who, but for his intervention, would be happy. Indeed, he does the exact opposite: he makes it possible for us to escape self-imposed misery that we could not have escaped without his intervention.

The fact that intelligences provide the ground for an enduring character does not mean that the behavior of a moral agent will be entirely consistent across time. Many factors—including past experiences of the consequences of one’s actions—may interact with one’s baseline character to determine what one chooses to do as new circumstances arise. Alma demonstrates that the ultimate preferences of an intelligence may not be immediately apparent. In some cases, people may need to suffer consequences up to and including a “visit to hell” before they understand that God has clearly marked the only path to optimal happiness. The fact that moral choices are wholly attributable to the will of the individual does not mean that there is no causal link between any choice humans make and God’s creative acts. The spirit bodies God created to house intelligences may have—and the physical bodies he created do have—specific needs and desires that influence human choices. Choices which are fully a function of the physical body God gave us are not moral choices. For example, people are not culpable for bad behavior that is entirely caused by dementia, by a physical deformity in the brain, or by various other forms of physically grounded mental illness. We are commanded to “judge not” (Matthew 7:1; see also 3 Nephi 14:1) in part because no human being can be fully informed about all the factors that influence another person’s choices. Many apparently immoral choices may be a function of circumstances over which the agent had no control and, therefore, has no moral responsibility. That said, most human beings are moral agents who determine much of what happens to them when they make moral choices that are a function of their inherent character, which character is grounded in their uncreated, self-existent, persistent intelligence. When they make that kind of choice, it is they, not God, who are responsible for any evil acts they commit and any negative consequences they suffer.

Tradeoffs

Self-existence and self-determinism fully account for the problem of moral evil.52 Similarly, as noted above, the need to constrain moral evil in part accounts for the existence of natural evil. To reiterate, since they help make us conscious of our mortality, natural evils may inhibit moral evil and, on balance, reduce total evil in the world.53 Natural evils sometimes strike in places like Ammonihah, where the inhibition of moral evil might well justify the death and destruction that occur. But, as we also noted above, even if that is true, the timing of the natural evil has no obvious explanation. The earthquake in Ammonihah struck in time to save the lives of Alma and Amulek, but not those of the innocent women and children.

To address issues like these, we need to acknowledge the constraints God faces and the complexity of the many interacting interests he must take into account. We have suggested that God is the perfect realist who understands and wisely accepts all the natural laws encoded into the self-existent entities around him. As Thomas Sowell has sagely observed, realists recognize that most big problems confront us with tradeoffs, not solutions.54 Satan falsely promised a perfect but impossible solution: “not one soul shall be lost” (Moses 4:1). Though God organized and knows intimately all parts of the immense universe he has created for us and though his knowledge and power greatly exceed what we can even imagine, God nevertheless confronts tradeoffs because he lives among entities that he did not create and does not control. He embraces and acts within the unimaginably complex real world where the needs of one can often conflict with the needs or interests of another.55 A world such as ours in which fallen beings live side by side and exercise agency is inherently tragic. Some degree of innocent suffering, suffering like Alma and Amulek witnessed, is thus unavoidable in our world.

That kind of complexity, conflict, and innocent suffering all exist in the Ammonihah story. Let us consider just a few of the competing interests in play, beginning with the interests of the wicked leaders of Ammonihah since they, too, are beloved children of God whom he seeks to serve and save. As self-existent moral agents they have the need and right to make choices. They thereby determine their own destiny, subject to constraints reality imposes on them and everyone else, including God. To the maximum extent possible, they must be permitted to act and to experience the consequences of their actions. Only thus may they justly come to know who they are. Given the hardness of their hearts, the only hope of salvation they may have is to thrust themselves into hell and fully experience the consequences of their actions. Perhaps the pains of hell may help some of them to recognize their need for a Savior and for redemption from the hell they have created for themselves, a redemption which only Christ can offer.

The interests of the Ammonihahite leaders obviously conflicted with those of the innocent women and children whom they cast into the fire. The leaders need to act, then have the veil be lifted and thus experience what it is to be both those who cast innocents into the fire and to be the innocent victims. If, once the veil is lifted, they are sufficiently touched by the experience of their evil as both perpetrators and victims, if that experience motivates them to call upon Christ as Alma did, then they can be redeemed. Christ has, voluntarily, fully inhabited their sin, and having done so, provides a path for them to repent and escape the full measure of suffering that would otherwise be the natural and just consequence of their actions. In some cases, entering the hell that one has self-created seems to be, as it was for Alma, the necessary catalyst for one to become repentant. We can only hope that it proved so for some or all of the leaders in Ammonihah.

The specific form of the deaths of the innocent women and children marks a connection between them and Christ. In the narrative, like the unspotted lamb that is burnt in a holocaust offering on the temple altar, they have the honor of symbolically representing the Savior. Thus, the suffering of these innocents has the potential to play a role in redeeming those who victimized them. In the next life, any of their victimizers who have been saved by their suffering and that of the Savior will come to them as penitents to express profound sorrow for what they did and profound gratitude for the role their victims played in helping to save them. What is certain is that the Savior will suffer all the terror and pain of the fires with the innocent victims and, in the eternities, he will lift from them the burden of that experience.

Tradition suggests that the Apostle Peter was crucified like Christ and counted it an honor to suffer a fate similar to that suffered by his Savior.56 While we should never specifically seek such suffering in the name of Christ, it is an honor to be counted worthy to be a martyr who joins Christ in his redeeming work (Matthew 5:11–12; Mark 10:29–30). These women and children receive that honor and its reward. The text notes their recompense: “the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory” (Alma 14:11). While from an earthly perspective, the suffering of these and other innocent martyrs seems unbearable, in the eternities the suffering is less than a nanosecond in comparison with the eternal glory the Father and Son grant to those who suffer because of their faith in Christ. Having received their reward of eternal glory, no martyr will count the cost of their exaltation as excessive. From an earthly perspective, the suffering of the ultimate innocent, Jesus Christ, seems the most unbearable of all. Yet, having borne it, Christ eternally demonstrated why he is the most glorified and beloved of all God’s spirit children. The earthly perspective that causes us to reprehend all innocent suffering is demonstrably short-sighted in the eternities.

As previously noted, the problem of evil, properly viewed, is centered on the suffering of the wicked who are eternally damned, not on that of their redeemed and exalted innocent victims. It should not surprise us that affairs on the earth are sometimes arranged, as in Ammonihah, to prioritize the needs of our Heavenly Parents’ children who have gone astray over the needs of their children who are firmly on the path to glory. It is common for earthly parents to devote the most time and resources to enhancing the wellbeing of their least fortunate or least wise child. The children who are lucky, righteous, and prosperous often receive less, because they need less.

Because our Heavenly Parents love all of their spirit children, they too might be expected to arrange matters to accommodate the needs of their wicked children who are the least prepared to enter eternity. They might have an analog to the Catholic preferential option for the poor; perhaps a preferential option for the wicked. Catholic teaching rightly suggests that, in public policy-making, it makes sense to favor policies that benefit the poor more than the rich. A prudent balance must be struck that preferentially meets the needs of the poor while preserving sufficient incentives to keep the rich engaged in wealth creation. Like the poor, the wicked are especially needy. Provided that sufficient earthly rewards for righteousness exist to encourage the righteous to persist in righteousness, it makes sense to organize affairs on earth such that the greater spiritual needs of the wicked are given priority when interests clash. As Alma’s life story indicates, the wicked often need to enact their will and come to know themselves as they will be, if they remain unredeemed. They need to know themselves qua themselves alone, even if that knowledge never causes them to repent. For the most part, affairs on earth seem to be arranged for them to acquire that self-knowledge.

Given the importance of permitting moral agents to act and discover who they are by experiencing the natural consequences of their actions, God’s intervening to prevent the ongoing torture and death of Alma and Amulek is harder to explain than is his choice to not intervene and thereby save the women and children from their momentary misery. The intervention in behalf of Alma and Amulek prevented the wicked Ammonihahites from experiencing, when the veil was lifted, the full measure of natural consequences that are inherent in being themselves; it prevented them from fully discovering who they authentically are. That was the downside of the earthquake intervention, but it also had an upside. If it is viewed clearly, the earthquake that destroyed the sinful Ammonihahites was an act of grace for them even more than it was for Alma and Amulek. It saved the sinners from the suffering to which they would otherwise have subjected themselves. Every intervention by God that destroys wicked people and prevents them from committing additional acts of evil is, we posit, ultimately an act of grace.

A common theme of near-death experiences is a life review in which individuals relive their lives as both the one acting and the one being acted upon. So, when the veil is lifted, the suffering of perpetrators is much more than double the suffering of their victims. The wicked suffer both as the victim (which is painful) and as the victimizer who causes the victim’s pain (which is exponentially more painful).57 It is true that what we do unto others, we do unto ourselves. When reading scripture, our view is misplaced and myopic when we focus on the innocents saved from suffering by divine intervention that destroys the destroyers. It may be the destroyers, not their victims, who are most saved from suffering when God intervenes.

Since God’s interventions appear to terminate the self-revelation and self-discovery of moral agents, which is among the most important purposes of this life, how do we account for them? Part of the answer is Sowell’s tradeoffs-not-solutions aphorism. Reality does not often offer the option of optimizing outcomes on every dimension. Achieving one necessary end will sometimes require suboptimization in attaining some other incompatible end. In this specific case, viciously murdering innocent women and children and brutally torturing Alma and Amulek, even if not to death, may have sufficiently demonstrated the wickedness of the Ammonihahites, and, if they do not repent, the justness of their eternal damnation. They probably fully comprehend that they were capable of committing and would have committed other atrocities if permitted to live. The marginal benefit of letting them fully enact their wicked will and fully discover who they are may have been (indeed, almost certainly was) small in comparison to the benefit of having Alma live. And not only live, but continue his ministry among the Zoramites, deliver powerful sermons to his sons, lament that he could not speak with the voice of an angel such that he would be heard by all the earth, then write many things incorporated in the Book of Mormon that, ironically, are heard in hundreds of languages in all parts of the earth as if they were spoken by the voice of an angel.

We have ample reason to trust God’s judgment on how competing moral claims may be most justly balanced. He understands all the interacting variables as no mere human being ever could. He understands which souls are most in need of help and which tradeoffs will best optimize joint outcomes. As we observe his interventions and his choices not to intervene, we should repose in full confidence that he has in each case made the right call, given the constraints he and all of us face. We should trust that he has acted in the way calculated to maximize the overall well-being of his children.

Before moving on to the manifestation of natural evil that is not treated in the Book of Mormon, let us discuss one further issue that might be raised in connection with the Ammonihah story. If intelligences are uncreated, if they have a stable character and dispositions that persist across time, if God fully understands all the interacting variables and the outcomes they will yield in the future, then God may know precisely how each intelligence will act if it is clothed in a spirit and a corporeal body.58 Perhaps more likely, God may have an extra dimensional point of view that lets him foreknow events in our four- dimensional space/time, because events are static from his point of view, though dynamic from ours.59 If God somehow foreknows what we will do before we do it, why would it not be sufficient for God to show us what we would do and cause us to suffer the consequences of the actions we would have taken if permitted to act, while preventing us from actually doing the evil deeds we would do? Why can’t the perpetrators of the holocaust in Ammonihah be told what they will do and be caused to experience the effect of those actions while sparing the women and children from actually being burned in the fire?

The answer is that any intervention which severs the connection between acts and consequences is unjust. If the act occurs without consequence, as Satan unrealistically proposed in the premortal world, then justice is abrogated. In like manner, if the consequence occurs without the act, as here proposed, then again, justice is abrogated. Such an arrangement is, on its face, unjust. Any being committed to justice—a commitment inherent in the being of God and fully encoded in the being of all who kept their first estate—would rebel against an arrangement in which people were punished for what they would do if permitted to act, rather than for what they actually did do. It would not be the men of Ammonihah only who would regard such an arrangement as illegitimate, it would be all of us. Were God to do such a thing—which he never would—he would abrogate justice and cease to be God (Alma 42:22–23). While he quite often gives us blessings that we have not fully earned, including the mercy that saves those who repent, he never visits on us punishments unmerited by our actions. We may have full confidence in his justice. We would not have accepted him and his premortal plan for us if we had not known him to be a completely reliable, completely just, God.

Random effects

That said, the righteous have no guarantee that they will not suffer natural evil. Let us now consider the kind of natural evil that is not exemplified in the Book of Mormon. In some cases, it is quite evident that natural evils do not reduce moral evil. If anything, they increase it. The death of a righteous young mother who leaves behind five children who urgently need her is very unlikely to reduce the incidence of moral evil in the world. On the contrary, the loss of her loving nurture for those children may increase moral evil. When two parents, both devoted followers of Christ, lose a child to disease or accident, while the child of other parents who are less devoted to the Savior is miraculously cured of the same illness, it is not immediately obvious how the quantum of moral evil in the world is reduced.

What is evident, however, is that a somewhat random distribution of natural evils is essential for the preservation of agency and growth. In the Sermon on the Mount, the Savior noted that the Father “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). This metaphor reveals a profound truth. Where there is nothing but sun, where there is no rain, life does not thrive. Tribulation, like rain, has beneficent properties. It increases growth and helps us become resilient. Just as some mixture of sun and rain is required for the flourishing of biological life, even so a mixture of good and bad fortune is required for the flourishing of spiritual life.

An equally or more important consideration is the fact that moral agency cannot be manifested and developed where good acts are always immediately rewarded and bad acts immediately punished. Those of us who kept our first estate had to leave God’s presence and have our memory of it obscured by a veil, in part because while we were still with him, any sin would have subjected us to immediate, excruciating pain, while compliance with his will filled us with immediate joy.60 In that circumstance, our ability to be and know ourselves and to grow spiritually was compromised. Earth life would have been no better for our growth than premortal life if the linkages here between acts and consequences were instantaneous. So, in this life there is typically a time lag between when we act and when we experience the consequences of an act. Alma gives that time-lagged condition a name: he calls it a “probationary state” (Alma 24:7). Without that lag, we would become the human equivalent of rats in a Skinner box.61 Our behavior would be controlled by a system of immediate and certain physical rewards and punishments. We would not be proper moral agents.

The Gods weep

Our Heavenly Father, Mother, and Savior’s work and glory is to help each human being attain the kind of life that they, themselves, have.62 Their mode of living is our telos, our highest hope in eternity, but not because their existence is one of endless bliss. The life of our Heavenly Parents is not devoid of tragedy and pain. As Terryl and Fiona Givens have observed, one of the distinctive qualities of the Latter-day Saint God is his capacity to experience profound sorrow as well as profound joy.63 The sorrow side of that capacity was memorably witnessed by Enoch:

Angels descend[ed] out of heaven . . . saying: Wo, wo be unto the inhabitants of the earth. . . . Satan . . . had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels rejoiced. . . . [T]he God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept . . . and shed forth . . . tears as the rain upon the mountains. . . . And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity? . . .The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency; And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood (Moses 7:25–26, 28–29, 32–33).

The realism of our Heavenly Parents and their respect for both agency and justice subject them to unavoidable tragedy and sorrow. They experience this pain directly as they observe the foolishness and cruelty of their children. Though they understand the glory that awaits the women and children sacrificed in Ammonihah, our Heavenly Parents surely felt the pains of those holocaust victims even more than Alma and Amulek felt them. Father and Mother in Heaven also experience our pains indirectly as their First-Born Son suffers the agonies inherent in every sin. The suffering of the Divine Mother with her Son may be marked in the passion narrative by the nails that pierce the body of Christ. As they are driven into his body, they also pierce the cross, a symbolic tree that, among other things, may symbolize Heavenly Mother.64

As a consequence, among the things we human beings must embrace, if we wish to have the life our Heavenly Parents have, is the tragedy inherent in agency. Loving parents sometimes use the expression “no empty chairs”65 to communicate their hope, or even expectation, that none of their children or grandchildren will fail to join them in celestial glory. While we should always maintain hope and pray that our wayward children will return,66 we should keep in mind that it was Satan who falsely promised no empty chairs. Although we cannot help but desire the exaltation of our family and friends, we must, like our Heavenly Parents, respect the agency of our progeny and those we love. We must respect their right to determine their own just destiny—a destiny that can include exaltation if they choose it. Their right to choose for themselves is the essential consideration and we must affirm it to be in harmony with God.

It is not the autonomy of human moral agents only that we must affirm and respect. All uncreated material entities have self-existent properties. They are subject to natural law that is encoded in the being of that entity. Physical decline and death are intrinsic properties of our mortal bodies. Earthquakes and storms, illness and accidents, are all manifestations of properties inherent in the materials that compose us and the world we live in. As we better understand the essence of, and the laws implicit in, physical materials that compose us and this world, we are able to ameliorate some outcomes negative from our point of view. God commands us to respect and care for the natural world (Genesis 1:26–29)67 and that respect and care will sometimes entail submitting to realities outside ourselves. To be God is to recognize, respect, and live in harmony with the nature and interests of all existing things.68 Rebelling against or otherwise rejecting what is real is sin. To be like God instead of like Satan,69 we must live in, not rebel against, reality, even when that reality may produce outcomes that induce in us extreme pain. Thus, in some important respects, God himself is subject to natural evil and to the operation of natural law inherent in other real entities that he must respect though it gives him pain. To be like him, we must likewise respect the operation of those natural laws.

The combination of random effects and the operation of laws implicit in physical reality will sometimes yield things like the death of a young mother or of a beloved child. Were parents empowered to eliminate all suffering and death for their children, most might do so. But to do so consistently, to do so as Heavenly Parents would probably have to do, these mortal parents would need to follow Kant’s categorical imperative, a rule that suggests an act is moral only if we would apply it not only to ourselves but to everyone else as well.70 Thus, parents would need to make what is true for their one child true for all children. Would a wise parent eliminate death and suffering for that one child if the cost were to destroy the ability for their other children and all children to choose their own destiny? Would they destroy agency to end the suffering or preserve the life of a single child? If all choices yield the same beneficent consequences, then moral agency no longer exists. The world would potentially be ordered as Satan proposed in the premortal councils rather than as God proposed. The pain and grief we experience when bad things happen to us and our children can sometimes seem unbearable. Even so, upon reflection we may feel compelled to acknowledge that agency cannot exist without tragedy and that the greatest tragedy of all is the loss of agency.

According to Latter-day Saint theology, we become more like our Heavenly Parents as we humbly accept the necessity of some painfully real losses. We must learn to live with pain as well as with joy. We must learn to accept and respect realities inherent in other self-existent things. But while the weeping of our Heavenly Parents and the suffering of our Savior demonstrate that the life, even of exalted beings, is not entirely free from pain, we can have faith, and eventually a perfect knowledge, “that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38–39). They will also not separate us from those we love, who also love God and the Savior. There will be passing defeats and sorrows. The drama of both mortal and eternal life has an element of tragedy. But for the faithful who are redeemed and return to live eternally with our Heavenly Parents and Christ, the drama is ultimately a comedy that has an overwhelmingly happy ending.

While Latter-day Saint theology can account for the problem of evil more effectively than any other theology within the Judeo-Christian tradition, there are caveats. Its ability to do so is contingent on embracing specific versions of the theology. There are certain formulations of Restoration theology that forfeit most of its advantages in dealing with the problem of evil. We will discuss two of these theological contingencies: first, alternative formulations of free will, and second, alternative formulations of what intelligences are.

Caveat 1: Alternative formulations of free will

Hausam succinctly describes the main alternative positions of Latter-day Saints on the nature of free will:

Most Mormons frame this doctrine of free agency by means of the concept of “libertarian” free will, the idea that for a choice to be free it must be possible to do the opposite, all circumstances involved in the choice being equal. Some LDS theologians, however, have adopted a version of “compatibilist” free will, which states that our choices are rooted in our character, or who we are, and are determined by our character, and it is not possible to do the opposite. Both camps would agree, however, that the important point here is that our choices are caused, ultimately, only by us, and are not rooted in the determination of God.71

If most Latter-day Saints, as Hausam suggests, adopt an incompatibilist, libertarian conception of free agency, then most largely forfeit the theological advantages discussed above that are grounded in the rejection of ex nihilo creation. Since the libertarian conception of free will breaks all linkages between the past and the present, how a being was created becomes irrelevant. The distinction between ex nihilo creation and eternal self-existence becomes irrelevant when assigning moral responsibility for evil deeds. It remains relevant only to the existence of divine omniscience. Given libertarian free will, as previously discussed, an omniscient God would be morally responsible for the actions of creatures he created. So creedal theologians must discard omniscience, as open theists do, to fully address the problem of evil.

Latter-day Saint theologians who have an incompatibilist, libertarian conception of free will would not need to jettison divine omniscience. Even if God foreknows that an intelligence will commit gross evil if clothed in a spiritual and physical body, God’s only options are to leave the self-existent intelligence undeveloped, or to help it enlarge its scope for action and, thereafter, confront its own inherent malevolence. It may be better for an intelligence—even an intelligence disposed to do evil—to have the opportunity to act and know itself rather than remain inactive and therefore unknowing. God would be justified in providing the opportunity for that entity to gain both a spirit body and a physical body, so that it might advance to a higher, though suboptimal, state of being.

While losing relative advantage in accounting for the problem of evil might provide weak grounds for rejecting libertarian free will and embracing self-determinism, there are stronger grounds for preferring self-determinism. Libertarian free will would seem to be incompatible with faith in God, final judgment, and enduring exaltation—core principles of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. To reiterate, libertarian free will breaks the linkage between past and present. For all options to be open in any moment, the past cannot be fully indicative or even necessarily predictive of what the present and future will be. A person who has consistently chosen to do evil in the past may, like Alma or Paul, choose to do good now and in the future. One who has chosen to do good in the past may, suddenly choose to do evil.

In Latter-day Saint theology, human beings are ultimately the same species as God, being his children who have the potential to become like him. But if human beings were to have libertarian free will, as some Latter-day Saints believe, then God would likewise have libertarian free will. If he does, even he could not be relied upon to be tomorrow the perfectly righteous and just being that he is today. As Joseph Smith taught, were God changeable, and thus unreliable, we could not exercise saving faith in him.72 Nor could there be a last judgment, a final judgment with assignment to eternal degrees of glory. Those exalted to the celestial kingdom might decide tomorrow that they no longer wish to be there or might act in ways that would make heaven cease to be heaven if they remained there. Conversely, those consigned to the telestial kingdom might change tomorrow and suddenly merit an “upgrade” to the celestial kingdom. All this instability inherent in libertarian free will is very much out of harmony with the Gospel that is taught in the scriptures. There, God is described as being unchanging (Mormon 9:19; Moroni 8:18), and judgment as being final (Alma 12:5; Doctrine and Covenants 43:25). Since all the core principles of the Gospel are consistent with self-determinism and inconsistent with libertarian free will, we may reasonably conclude that our choices reflect our uncreated, self-existent, enduring, eternal being. God has taken up the task of helping each of us attain the highest form of existence that is compatible with who we intrinsically are, and may become.

Self-determinism might seem to warrant a complaint that, being self-determined and self-destined to choose a path that reflects our ultimately fixed character, we do not have the power to choose our destiny. Those who do evil might complain that they would like to be righteous but are unable to do so because righteousness was not encoded in their uncreated, eternal being. The obvious counterargument is this: if people truly wish to be righteous, they merely need to act in harmony with their own sincere wishes and they will be righteous. To be sure, all of us must sometimes say with Paul, “the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do” (Romans 7:19). An essential component of any true desire to be righteous is a willingness to come unto Christ and eventually be made sinless, as Alma was, by the grace of God manifest in Jesus Christ. In another paper, we discuss the natural-law dynamics that make Christ’s righteousness become our righteousness. But with the caveat that we must come unto Christ to fully attain our telos, each person will spend eternity in the place and in the condition that he or she has chosen.

Caveat 2: Alternative conceptions of intelligence(s)

Restoration theologians have articulated two main theories about intelligence(s). One group views intelligences as individuated, as what might be called existential monads or atoms (in the original Greek sense of a thing that cannot be divided into parts and that is, therefore, a fundamental unit of reality). A monad of this kind would have its own view on the world outside it and would be distinct from other monadic beings. Another group thinks of intelligence as a substance, a kind of ocean of intelligence, from which individuals may be created. In this view, intelligence is a stuff-noun, like water. Like seawater in an ocean, it is unindividuated from the surrounding mass of liquid. God must intervene to organize that substance into individuated beings. For the first group, intelligences (note the plural) is a count noun. For the second group, intelligence (note the singular) is a mass noun. Kenneth Godfrey reviews the positions taken by various theologically inclined Restoration thinkers such as B. H. Roberts, John A. Widsoe, Nels Nelson, and Truman Madsen who all viewed intelligences as being monadic. Conversely, Charles W. Penrose, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McConkie all viewed intelligence as being a mass substance.73

The difference between these views is theologically consequential. Both can locate the roots of evil in something outside of God. But only the first view, the idea that intelligences are monadic, fully exonerates God from any responsibility for individual sin. If intelligences are, in their essence, already individuated, God has no influence or responsibility for the character and choices of these co-eternal monadic entities. Their character is in no way influenced by any act of God. To reiterate what was said above, God’s only option with respect to them is to expand or not expand their scope for action and ability to act.

If, on the other hand, intelligence is not individuated, if God creates individual beings by organizing a portion of the substance, intelligence, to form each individual, God may be responsible for the differences that exist between individuals who choose good and those who choose evil. For the good or evil to be grounded in the intelligence, that substance must be differentiated in some way, some of it having inherent within it the seeds of evil, and some of it having within it the seeds of good. A being organized wholly of the inferior intelligence material might be disposed to entirely hate God. A being composed wholly of the superior intelligence material might be disposed to entirely love God. A being composed of a mixture of good and bad intelligence material might do evil because of the bad elements that compose it. But because of the good elements that also compose it, it might lament or even resent the fact that God has yoked it with evil material and, thus, condemned it to suffer rather than rejoice, as it might have done if differently composed.

The theological advantages of the monadic view of intelligences are considerable. In addition to better obviating the problem of evil, the monadic view is more consistent with the concept of eternal identity and being. Our Father and Mother in Heaven obviously now exist as individuals. The Proclamation on the Family suggests that not only their individual existence, but also their gender and ours are eternal attributes: “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”74 For gender or character or any other attribute to be an eternal property of a person, intelligences would probably need to be monadic. In Christianity and, more broadly in the West, the autonomous nature of the individual is generally affirmed. Theologically, the monadic view of intelligences is more consistent with this Western (and scriptural) conception of differentiated, individuated souls. The ocean of intelligence view is more consistent with the Eastern conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism, in which many attributes, if not most, that we associate with being an individual are illusory and something to be transcended. Given the scriptural emphasis on individual identity and moral responsibility, Latter-day Saints should probably embrace the belief that intelligences exist as intrinsically differentiated spiritual monads.

Summary and Conclusions

In this article, we have attempted to demonstrate for those who embrace the classical formulation of the concept of God (the set of beliefs about God promulgated since ancient times by Judaism, creedal Christianity, and Islam), that the necessity for an atonement must be located in God, because he is the only self-existent being, the ex nihilo Creator of all other things. As the sole self-existent Being and source of all that exists, there is no other place to locate the Atonement. Given that classical formulation regarding who God and humanity are, the problem of evil is intractable. If we embrace the full set of classical assumptions, God cannot be absolved of responsibility for evil. While libertarian free will has some potential to attenuate God’s responsibility for evil by breaking the causal link between God, the ex nihilo Creator, and humanity, the ex nihilo creation, even that promising move helps only if one of God’s classical attributes—omniscience—is rejected. Even that open-theist modification of the classic conception of God does not resolve the problem, because it accomplishes too much, because it breaks the linkage between the past and the present, making evil a free-floating, random occurrence for which no being can reasonably be held accountable.

These problems disappear if we accept Latter-day Saint theology in its most compelling form. Ex nihilo creation is rejected; there are many billions of self-existent beings instead of only one; and law changes from being exclusively legislated to being largely natural. Additionally, the necessity for atonement is located in self-existent human beings, not in God, though it falls to God graciously to provide it and thus make exaltation possible. The linkage between past and present is restored, along with moral accountability. Responsibility for evil is clearly assignable to human beings rather than to God, which solves the classical problem of evil.

Having demonstrated in this article that God is not responsible for evil, what remains is to explain how beings who are self-existent and unchangeable can be saved from the evil that is justly attributable to them and from the hell that they will inevitably thrust themselves into. We will address this topic in a forthcoming atonement-theory article.

Val Larsen was born and raised in Moreland, Idaho. He earned a BA in philosophy and English from BYU, an MA and PhD in English from the University of Virginia, and a PhD in marketing from Virginia Tech. While teaching at Virginia Tech, Truman State University, and currently at James Madison University, he has published articles on Flannery O’Connor’s fiction, the Book of Mormon, and a wide variety of marketing topics.

Newell D. Wright recently retired from North Dakota State University as a Professor of Marketing and International Business. Born in Provo and raised in Orem, Utah, he holds a PhD in marketing from Virginia Tech (1993) and an MBA (1987) and a BA (1985) in French literature from Brigham Young University. He has led or directed fifty-seven study-abroad programs worldwide since 1998 and has visited fifty-one countries, mostly with a group of students in tow. He is also a lifelong student of the Book of Mormon. He is married to the former Julie Gold of Abingdon, Virginia, and they are the parents of four children and the grandparents of twelve grandchildren.

1 . While no one can credibly deny that gross evil exists, as C. S. Lewis and other theists have cogently argued, given atheists’ premises, it is hard to get from “is” to “ought,” hard to establish that any act is objectively evil. An atheist can say he does not want something to happen, but he cannot authoritatively say it “should not happen.” So, the existence of evil qua evil is a problem for atheists. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1960). In particular, see chapter two, “Some Objections,” archive.org/details/merechristianity0000unse_x4r5
/page/8/mode/2up.

2 . Keith E. Norman, “Deification, Early Christian,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 1 (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 369–70, eom.byu.edu/index.php
/Deification,_Early_Christian.

3 . There are many excellent Latter-day Saint articles about the problem of evil. See, for example, B. H. Roberts, “The Problem of Evil,” in The Truth, The Way, The Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology, 2nd ed., ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 1996), 331–39, archive.bookofmormoncentral.org
/sites/default/files/B.H.%20Roberts%2C%20TWL%2C%201996_0.pdf; David L. Paulsen, “Evil,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2 (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 477–78, eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evil; John Cobb Jr. and Truman G. Madsen, “Theodicy,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 4 (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1473–74, eom.byu.edu/index.php/Theodicy; Val Larsen, “A Mormon Theodicy: Jacob and the Problem of Evil,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15 (2015): 239–66, journal.interpreterfoundation
.org/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/; David L. Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil,” BYU Studies Quarterly 39, no. 1 (2000): 53–65, byustudies.byu.edu/article/joseph-smith-and-the-problem-of-evil; and Blake T. Ostler, “Evil: A Real Problem for Evangelicals,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 15, no. 1 (2003): 201–13, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr
/vol15/iss1/13.

4 . An anonymous reviewer of an earlier draft of this paper notes that if we focus on ontology, being, Restoration theology is monistic, because it views all existing things as being material, there thus being just one kind of reality. By contrast, creedal Christianity is pluralistic because it views spirit and matter as being fundamentally different, and views human beings and God as fundamentally different in their ontology. We focus in the text on the number of presumed self-existent, uncreated beings and other entities. Given this focus, creedal Christianity is monistic, Restoration theology pluralistic.

5 . Kathleen Flake, “Evil’s Origins and Evil’s End in the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis,” Sunstone (August 1998): 25.

6 . Here, we make a normative claim about Latter-day Saint theology that we justify with various arguments developed in the course of this paper. It must be conceded, however, that there have been and still are Latter-day Saints who believe all law is legislated by God. James McLachlan discusses the history of this controversy. James M. McLachlan, “Is God Subject to or the Creator of Eternal Law?” BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021): 57–58, byustudies.byu.edu/article
/is-god-subject-to-or-the-creator-of-eternal-law.

7 . Paulsen, “Evil,” 477–78.

8 . The quotations from Joseph Smith are taken, not always in the order they occur in the speech, from Stan Larson, “The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text,” BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (1978): 193–208, scholarsarchive
.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1894&context=byusq.

9 . “According to a common definition, a brute fact is a fact that is unexplained, i.e. a fact of which there is no explanation.” Kevin Mulligan and Fabrice Correia, “Facts,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021), ed. Edward N. Zalta, plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/#BrutFact.

10 . Alonzo L. Gaskill and Richard G. Moore, The Revised and Expanded Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Compared with the Earliest Known Manuscripts (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2024), 462–63. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by William Clayton,” pg. 11, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported
-by-william-clayton/1.

11 . All references to Alma in this paper refer to Alma2, son of Alma1.

12 . See Kylie Nielson Turley, Alma 1–29: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: Neal A Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University [BYU], 2020): 13–15.

13 . Kevin Christensen, “‘Nigh unto Death’: NDE Research and the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2, no. 1 (1993): 6, scholarsarchive
.byu.edu/jbms/vol2/iss1/2/. (Cf. Doctrine and Covenants 19:1–21).

14 . Turley notes the importance of the phrase “lake of fire and brimstone” and its subsequent use by the chief judge to traumatize Alma and Amulek. See Turley, Alma 1–29, 88–93.

15 . See Turley, Alma 1–29, 87–92.

16 . Process theologians suggest that God cannot perform miracles that could save the victims of evil holocausts. Latter-day Saint theologians affirm that he can. What may explain his lack of intervention is the fact that the needs of his beloved wicked children exceed those of his beloved righteous children. For the sake of helping the wicked know themselves and see the justice of their judgments, God may need to withhold some protections he would otherwise wish to extend to the righteous. Brian D. Birch, “Mormonism and the Challenge of an Adequate Theodicy: A Response to David Paulsen, et. al.,” Element: The Journal for the Society of Mormon Philosophy and Theology 6, no. 1 (Spring 2015): 66–69.

17 . “The concept of judgment in LDS theology also reflects this sense of man’s significance. Human beings will be judged on the basis of what they have made themselves. They will inherit the final states for which they have made themselves fit. Human beings are not only the ultimate determiners of their choices and character, but of their eternal destiny as well. What we will become does not depend on some preordained plan of God, but on what we make ourselves by our own independently produced choices.” Mark Hausam, “It’s All in Arminius: Mormonism as a Form of Hyper-Arminianism” (paper delivered at the 2005 Sunstone Symposium, Salt Lake City), 18. Audio of the presentation is available at sunstone.org
/its-all-in-arminius-mormonism-as-a-form-of-hyper-arminianism/. A transcript of this session is available at lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/its-all
-in-arminius-mormonism-as-a-form-of-hyper-arminianism/.

18 . Merriam-Webster.com, s.v. “anthropopathism (n.),” merriam-webster.com
/dictionary/anthropopathism.

19 . The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines natural evil as “evil or suffering that results from the operations of nature or nature gone awry.” James R. Beebe, “Logical Problem of Evil,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm
.edu/evil-log/#H6.

20 . David L. Paulsen and Blake T. Ostler, “Sin, Suffering, and Soul-Making: Joseph Smith on the Problem of Evil,” scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent
.cgi?filename=10&article=1066&context=mi&type=additional. This essay was an expansion of Paulsen, “Problem of Evil.”

21 . The term pride cycle is ubiquitous in Latter-day Saint culture. Elder Neal A. Maxwell may have coined the phrase. He used it frequently in his teachings.

22 . The Lamanite attacks are, strictly speaking, a moral evil (a sin of the Lamanites that causes the Nephites to suffer and thus be moved toward repentance; see 1 Nephi 2:20–24), but in the text, the attacks are mostly indistinguishable from natural evils. Except when attacks are led by apostate Nephites, the reasons for the attack and Lamanite moral culpability receive little attention.

23 . Concerning 1 Nephi 3:28–31, Fatiman Salleh and Margaret Olsen Hemming assert:

These are some of the most disturbing verses in Nephi’s record. The bold description of abuse, the way Laman and Lemuel turn so rapidly to rage, and the limited help from the angel are all difficult to read and digest. The angel’s delay in not appearing until after Laman and Lemuel beat Nephi and Sam with a rod leaves the reader struggling with the Problem of Evil—the question of why an omnipotent and loving God allows terrible things to happen. . . . Readers are left with the unanswered question of what it means for us when God seems to refrain from stopping terrible pain in the world. The text doesn’t provide us with an easy answer.

Fatimah Salleh with Margaret Olsen Hemming, The Book of Mormon for the Least of These, vol. 1, 1 Nephi–Words of Mormon (Salt Lake City: By Common Consent Press, 2020), 9.

24 . There are times in the Book of Mormon when innocent people suffer. But unlike Job, they do not grapple with the problem of innocent suffering. The destruction in Bountiful when Christ came is one good example. Instead of reporting on innocent victims wondering why they had to suffer through the calamities, Mormon reports the thoughts of those who were spared as follows:

Great were the groanings of the people, because of the darkness and the great destruction which had come upon them. And in one place they were heard to cry, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and then would our brethren have been spared, and they would not have been burned in that great city Zarahemla. And in another place they were heard to cry and mourn, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and had not killed and stoned the prophets, and cast them out; then would our mothers and our fair daughters, and our children have been spared, and not have been buried up in that great city Moronihah. And thus were the howlings of the people great and terrible. (3 Nephi 8:23–25)

Unlike Job, the people frame themselves not as innocent and undeserving but as guilty and deserving of the suffering they are experiencing.

25 . Though a Calvinist, Hausam for the most part gives an accurate, even charitable account of competing Arminian and Latter-day Saint theologies. His account goes seriously off-track in just one respect. He suggests that Latter-day Saints and Arminians believe God owes humanity grace. Thus, salvation is purely a function of works. This framing is false. Grace would not be grace if God owed it to us; it would be justice. Within both Restoration and Arminian theologies, God extends to all humanity an unmerited offer of salvation. Everyone would be eternally damned if the unmerited gift had not been offered by Jesus Christ. See Hausam, “It’s All in Arminius.”

26 . Antony Flew, section D of “Theology and Falsification,” in New Essays in Philosophical Theology, ed. Antony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 107. David L. Paulsen cites and discusses this statement in “Problem of Evil.”

27 . James McLachlan notes that Calvin exceeds even Augustine in his rigorous adherence to God’s absolute sovereignty.

The Calvinist God is the epitome of the all-powerful ex-nihilo artist of the universe. Even more powerfully than Augustine, Calvin argued that humanity was under the predestinating power of God. Augustine had written, “If it were not good that evil things exist, they would certainly not be allowed to exist by the omnipotent God.” Calvin goes further clarifying the position. “Those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them for the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” God literally decreed all events to take place. God “foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed they take place.” “Whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring in eternal death because it so pleased God?” Calvin replied, “The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess.” But he concludes that “God’s will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be considered righteous.”

McLachlan, “Is God Subject,” 56.

28 . Hausam, “It’s All in Arminius,” 21.

29 . John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 3.21.5. Quote available online at gentlereformation.com/2018/04/30/john-calvin-and-the
-awful-doctrine-of-predestination/.

30 . Friedrich Nietzsche is perhaps the best-known philosopher to have argued that God is beyond good and evil as humans conceive of the terms. In his book Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche proposes that traditional morality, often tied to religious concepts of good and evil, is a human construct and not a divine truth. He suggests that God, if he exists—and Nietzsche denies his existence—would transcend such human-imposed limitations.

31 . Terryl and Fiona Givens have compellingly argued that the moral code of God cannot be completely different from our human moral codes:

In actual fact, it makes little sense to recognize in our conscience a reliable guide to what is virtuous, lovely, and praiseworthy in the world where God has placed us, while suggesting He inhabits a different moral universe. It makes little sense to insist He endowed us with an intuitive grammar of right and wrong, while He himself speaks a different moral language . . . The biblical story of the Fall indicates, on the contrary, that we are absolutely enmeshed in the same moral order as our God.

Terryl Givens and Fiona Givens, The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life (Salt Lake City: Ensign Peak, 2012), 19, archive.org/details
/godwhoweepshowmo0000give/page/18/mode/2up.

32 . Hausam, “It’s all in Arminius,” 5.

33 . “Prevenient grace is a phrase used to describe the grace given by God that precedes the act of a sinner exercising saving faith in Jesus Christ. The term prevenient comes from a Latin word that meant ‘to come before, to anticipate.’ By definition, every theological system that affirms the necessity of God’s grace prior to a sinner’s conversion teaches a type of prevenient grace. The Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace is a type of prevenient grace, as is common grace. However, when the phrase ‘prevenient grace’ is used in theological discussions, it is used in a specific way. In the context of the on-going Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, prevenient grace is referred to in order to object to the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace. This is the reason why, in both modern and historic times, it has also been called ‘resistible grace’ or ‘pre-regenerating grace.’” “What is Prevenient Grace?” Got Questions (website), gotquestions.org/prevenient-grace.html.

34 . Like Arminians, Catholics affirm the reality of free will. From Saint Augustine onward, they have mostly insisted that human beings have the power to act contrary to God’s will and must have that power for God’s judgments to be just. See Montague Brown, “Augustine on Freedom and God,” The Saint Anselm Journal 2, no, 2 (Spring 2005), anselm.edu/sites/default/files/Documents
/Institute%20of%20SA%20Studies/4.5.3.2h_22Brown.pdf. After he presented this paper at a Sunstone Symposium, he was asked which denominations he would characterize as Arminian, and Hausam mentioned both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

35 . “Incompatibilists hold that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive and, consequently, that we act freely (i.e., with free will) only if determinism is false . . .. One question that divides them concerns which type of indeterminism—uncaused events, nondeterministically caused events, or agent caused events—is required. Another concerns where in the processes leading to action indeterminism must be located in order for an action to be free. Different answers to these questions yield different incompatibilist theories of free will.” Randolph Clarke, Justin Capes, and Philip Swenson, “Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories of Free Will”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 ed.), ed. Edward N. Zalta, plato.stanford.edu/archives
/fall2021/entries/incompatibilism-theories.

36 . The idea that one’s life can be determined and controlled by another agent is fallacious. Libertarians believe “that one’s action not be causally determined by factors beyond one’s control.” Timothy O’Connor and Christopher Franklin, “Free Will,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 ed.), ed. Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#LibeAccoSour.

37 . Hausam, “It’s All in Arminius,” 13.

38 . Hausam, “It’s All in Arminius,” 22–23.

39 . Paulsen and Ostler make this point as follows:

Christian theologians also affirm that God . . . has absolute foreknowledge of all the outcomes of his creative choices. Given this view of God, even if God endows his human creatures with contra-causal freedom, he still remains an accessory before the fact and is ultimately at least jointly responsible for everything that happens in the world, including the evil choices of those creatures. Additionally, God is responsible for every evil inasmuch as he knowingly chose to bring them all into existence when he created the world ex nihilo.

Paulsen and Ostler, “Sin, Suffering, and Soul-Making,” 6.

40 . J. L. Mackie argued,

If there is no logical impossibility in a man’s freely choosing the good on one, or on several occasions, there cannot be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion.

An omnipotent God should, therefore, have the ability to create beings who would always freely choose to do what is right. “Key Thinkers: J. L. Mackie,” Philosophy Dungeon (blog), philosophydungeon.weebly.com/scholar-mackie.html.

41 . Hausam summarizes the faulty argument of the Arminians well:

Arminian theologians have often attempted to solve the problem of evil by affirming that, due to the laws of logic, God is unable to make a world of free creatures without incurring the possibility of sin. But not to create the world would be a worse situation, so God has gone ahead and created. If God could remove sin and suffering from the creation without abandoning his fundamental plan for the universe, he would be evil not to do so; but, as it turns out, he cannot, so he is off the hook. Probably the most famous advocate of this response to the problem of evil was C. S. Lewis.

Hausam, “It’s all in Arminius,” 11. This argument is clearly faulty if God is outside of time and both foreknows the effects of all his creative acts and also sustains the existence of all beings, including those who are grossly evil.

42 . “Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future. Though omnipotent, He has chosen to invite us to freely collaborate with Him in governing and developing His creation, thereby also allowing us the freedom to thwart His hopes for us. God desires that each of us freely enter into a loving and dynamic personal relationship with Him, and He has therefore left it open to us to choose for or against His will.” James Rissler, “Open Theism,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu/o-theism/.

43 . W. Norris Clarke, “A New Look at the Immutability of God,” in God Knowable and Unknowable, ed. Robert J. Roth (New York: Fordham University Press, 1973), 43–72.

44 . Terence Penelhum, “Review: The Coherence of Theism by Richard Swinburne,” Journal of Philosophy 77, no. 8 (1980): 502–8, jstor.org/stable
/2025467.

45 . Richard Rice, God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2004).

46 . Thomas Finger, “How My Mind Has Changed,” Mennonite Life, 60, no. 4 (December 2005), mla.bethelks.edu/ml-archive/2005Dec/finger.php.

47 . Martin W. Mittelstadt, Review of Kenneth J. Archer, The Gospel Revisited: Towards a Pentecostal Theology of Worship and Witness, Theology Today 71, no. 3 (2014), doi.org/10.1177/0040573614542200e.

48 . A discussion of the incoherence of the classical formulation of God’s being used to be part of the Latter-day Saint temple ceremony. The formulation was described as “a mass of confusion.”

49 . “Even proponents of libertarian freedom will admit, although paradoxically, that the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are.” Hausam, “It’s all in Arminius,” 22.

50 . Larson, “King Follett Discourse,” 203–4.

51 . Gaskill and Moore, Revised and Expanded Teachings, 462–63.

52 . Hausam, “It’s all in Arminius,” 9–10, provides a nice summary of Latter-day Saint ontology and acknowledges that Latter-day Saint ontology addresses the problem of evil.

53 . The degree to which natural evil inhibits moral evil would seem to be testable. If so, then the degree of moral evil should be lower in less wealthy and less developed societies where life is less comfortable and less secure, than it is in more developed and wealthy societies with, for example, excellent health care systems. As life becomes more secure, at least with respect to natural evils—as it has for most people during the last 100 years—then wickedness should increase. Certainly, many would conclude that it has increased and that our prosperous society is on the downward swing of the pride cycle.

54 . Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 17.

55 . Sowell distinguishes between an “unconstrained vision” and a “constrained vision.” That distinction is germane to the competing world views of Satan (who acts as if reality placed no constraints on the enactment of his will) and God (who happily lives with the constraints placed on him by the self-existence of other entities whom he respects and whose agency he honors).

56 . Peter’s crucifixion was just an extreme instance of him being honored by suffering for Christ’s sake. In addition to tradition, Acts 5:17–42 says Peter and other apostles were beaten for preaching, yet rejoiced “that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.”

57 . For example, see Christensen, “Nigh unto Death,” 6, 8–9.

58 . Laplace made the following claim:

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past could be present before its eyes.

Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, trans. F. W. Truscott and F. L. Emory (New York: Dover, 1951), 4.

59 . A more plausible source of God’s foreknowledge is the existence of other dimensions of reality beyond our three-dimensional space plus time. The Big Bang suggests that other dimensions of reality exist, that this universe was organized elsewhere and then flared into existence. That “elsewhere” need not be entangled in the time that unfolds in this universe. If God exists in a time/space location external to this universe, which he created in the Big Bang, he may have instantaneous access to all moments of our time while himself being enmeshed in some other time and space. He might relate to our world as we relate to film on a reel. We have access to the whole film. From our point of view, it is complete and static. But for the characters in the film, the action must unfold one frame at a time. We may, at will, jump instantaneously to any frame in the film. They cannot. For an exploration of dimensionality implications, see Edwin A. Abbot, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, 2nd rev. ed. (London: Seely & Co., 1884), archive.org/details/gri_33125012922544
/mode/2up.

60 . The inability of those who kept their first estate to sin while still in God’s presence is apparent in the story of Adam and Eve. Alma states that Adam and Eve had to be separated “both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord . . . to follow after their own will” (Alma 42:7). They had agency, but their ability to enact their will was constrained by their love for and fear of God. Were God at her side, Eve would not have looked him in the eye and defiantly partaken of the forbidden fruit. Having partaken while not with him, Adam and Eve were ashamed; they tried to hide from God. Their pain drove them from the Garden and his presence. The pain sinners feel while under the gaze of God’s “all-searching eye” is redundantly documented in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 27:31; 2 Nephi 9:14, 44; Alma 12:14; Mormon 9:3–5). This pain of post-mortal sinners reveals what pre-mortal sinners would have immediately felt had they sinned while still with God.

61 . “A Skinner box is an enclosed apparatus that contains a bar or key that an animal subject can manipulate in order to obtain reinforcement. Developed by B. F. Skinner and also known as an operant conditioning chamber, this box also has a device that records each response provided by the animal as well as the unique schedule of reinforcement that the animal was assigned.” Kendra Cherry, “The Behavioral Psychology Theory that Explains Learned Behavior,” Verywell Mind (website), verywellmind.com/what-is-a-skinner-box-2795875.

62 . This idea is explored more fully in Val Larsen and Newell D. 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/.

63 . Givens and Givens, The God Who Weeps.

64 . See Larsen and Wright, “Theosis,” 301–3 for a complete discussion of this idea.

65 . For example, see Janice Kapp Perry, who wrote a song called, “No Empty Chairs,” The Mother’s Day Collection, vol. 5, 2017, youtube.com/watch
?v=fU1Vbum9mGQ.

66 . Elder David A. Bednar, “Faithful Parents and Wayward Children,” Ensign, March 2014, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2014/03/faithful-parents-and
-wayward-children-sustaining-hope-while-overcoming-misunderstanding.

67 . Many Latter-day Saints have commented on respecting and caring for the natural world, in books, General Conference talks, and various addresses to the Saints. See, for example, Stewardship and the Creation: LDS Perspectives on the Environment, ed. George B. Handley, Terry B. Ball, and Steven L. Peck (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2006); Elder Steven E. Snow, “The Moral Imperative of Environmental Stewardship,” Newsroom, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 10 October 2018, newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/the-moral-imperative-of-environ
mental-stewardship-elder-steven-e-snow; and Bishop Gérard Caussé, “Our Earthly Stewardship,” October 2022 General Conference, churchofjesus
christ.org/study/general-conference/2022/10/31causse.

68 . Paulsen and Ostler express this idea beautifully. See “Sin, Suffering, and Soul-Making,” 13.

69 . Satan’s unwillingness to face reality is clearly demonstrated in the doctrine of Nehor, which Satan certainly inspired:

And it came to pass that . . . [Nehor was] brought before [Alma2] to be judged . . . And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life. (Alma 1:2–4)

70 . See Robert Johnson and Adam Cureton, “Kant’s Moral Philosophy” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 ed.), ed. Edward N. Zalta, plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/.

71 . Hausam, “It’s all in Arminius,” 17.

72 . “The Character of God: Lecture Third,” verses 15–19, Lectures on Faith, lectures
onfaith.com/3/.

73 . Kenneth W. Godfrey, “The History of Intelligence in Latter-day Saint Thought,” in The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God, ed. H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1989), 213–36, rsc.byu.edu/pearl-great-price-revelations-god/history-intelligence-latter
-day-saint-thought.

74 . The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” 23 September 1995, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a
-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world.

The Bands of Death, the Chains of Hell, and the Seed Motif

Noel Hudson

Abstract: This article continues a discussion of the imagery, words, and phrases that make up a specific leitmotif, called the seed motif. Two instances of the seed motif found in Alma are discussed as a seemingly intentional diptych in which one narrative reflects the other, but in the negative. Five specific examples from the motif are examined in greater detail, with a look at their origin and usage throughout the record. The narrative of Abinadi is presented as a unique iteration of the seed motif wherein the concept of the bands of death is introduced. The paper concludes by discussing the relationship between authorship of the Book of Mormon, the seed motif, and the metaphor of the bands of death and the chains of hell.

In a previous article, I presented evidence that a motif found in the two stories of the serpent in the Garden of Eden and the story of Cain is used as a framework for structuring the narratives of conflicts between the followers of the devil and the followers of God.1 This motif occurs throughout the Bible and in Restoration scripture. This follow-up paper is a companion piece to that earlier article. In the appendix at the end of this study is a summary of the key concepts presented in the previous article that will aid the reader to understand this paper. This background will help the reader as this article explores two more instances of the seed motif that make use of two short phrases used as lead-words: the bands of death and the chains of hell (Alma 5; 9–14). (The term lead-word is defined in the appendix.) The article investigates the origin and usage of these two phrases, which will provide some insights into the authoring and editing process of the Book of Mormon. Along the way, it will review other literary links, which are also related to the seed motif.

One specific theme of the seed motif, which has been developed from its early usage to an area of particular emphasis by Alma2, is that of captivity. His in-depth emphasis on this theme is likely due to his own intimate personal experience. Alma2 develops the themes of bondage and dominion to a greater extent than other prophets as he preaches in Zarahemla and Ammonihah and as he teaches his sons. He encourages his various audiences to retain a remembrance of the captivity of their fathers. This is a theme he returns to time and again (for example, Alma 5:6, 29:12, 36:2). This repetition may be because Alma2, like his father, Alma1, had been in bondage to the Amulonites (Mosiah 24:8–13) and also had been subjected to spiritual bondage during his rebellion against the Church. He refers to this state as being “encircled about by the everlasting chains of death” (Alma 36:18). Other authors discuss this same theme, but Alma2 not only places greater emphasis on it, he ties the theme of bondage to the phrase the chains of hell. This latter phrase is used as a lead-word that sometimes associates doctrinal discussions about death with the theme of captivity.

Alma2’s use of the seed motif highlights the contrast between good and evil that is inherent in the seed motif. Gordon Thomasson has commented on the dialectic that features prominently in the construction and narration of stories in the Book of Mormon.2 Alma2’s use of the seed motif accentuates that dialectic as he employs it at many different levels in his preaching. Contrasting elements are placed adjacent to one another in the record and range from individual contrasting verses to the contrast inherent in the seed motif to contrasting stories with similar situations but opposite outcomes. I term Alma2’s usage of the seed motif in this fashion a diptych, which is a term drawn from the usage of contrasting matching images in the art world.

One fascinating aspect of the seed motif is the way in which it can be adapted by different authors to fit varying circumstances, concerns, and themes. By tracing the origin and development of the lead-words the bands of death and the chains of hell, the different ways in which the terms are employed provide insight into the ability of Book of Mormon authors to work with the imagery and themes that make up the seed motif—all while still providing a very individualized treatment of several highly important topics. As one example of this, while Alma2 places great emphasis on the doctrinal impact of the themes of captivity and dominion within the seed motif, in the chapters that deal extensively with war in the latter part of the book of Alma, the same themes are instead discussed in the context of political freedom. Perhaps the change in focus is related to the different sensibilities of Mormon, the general, when compared with Alma2, the high priest.

Alma2, the Bands of Death, and the Chains of Hell
in the Seed Motif

The seed motif consists of a set of themes, symbols, phrases, and lead-words (see appendix), that serve to focus attention on a set of attributes and behaviors of the protagonists (the seed of the woman) and antagonists (seed of the serpent) in important stories. The attributes and behaviors are listed in table 1.

Table 1. The seed of the serpent compared to the seed of the woman.3

The Seed of the Serpent

The Seed of the Woman

Rejects the Counsel of the Lord

Hearkens to the Word of the Lord

Chooses Satan to Rule Over Them

Chooses to Follow God

Ambushes, Sets Snares, and Deceives

Is Honest and Forthright

Focuses on This Life Only

Looks forward to the future with faith

Kills for Gain or Power, Sets Their Heart on Riches

Sets their heart on the things of God

Seeks to Exercise Dominion and Bring the Seed of the Woman into Bondage

Seeks Freedom and Agency for Themselves and Others

Is Cursed, Marked, and Cast Out

Is Blessed and Protected by God

Is Trampled, has His Head Crushed, or is Utterly Subdued

Is Lifted Up, Either Literally or Metaphorically

The seed motif is used frequently throughout the Book of Mormon, but it doesn’t show up in every book. A question that naturally arises is, what is the relationship of the usage of the seed motif across the various Book of Mormon authors and editors?

The seed motif is first used by Lehi, as cited by Nephi shortly after the arrival of the family group in the promised land. It also shows up in quotations attributed to Nephi’s brother, Jacob. The motif is used later by Mosiah, Alma2, Abinadi, and others. The close match in the structure of narratives such as that of Nephi and Laban with the story of David and Goliath4 suggests that Nephi intentionally built his narrative in a way that reflected the usage of the seed motif by ancient Hebrew prophets in the Bible or, more accurately, in the record that Nephi obtained from Laban, the brass plates.5 While an in-depth study of where the motif is used and where it is absent is beyond the scope of the current article, an answer to this question may yield new insights into the relationships between the works of the various authors and editors whose work is found in the Book of Mormon. Jeff Lindsay has done research on many different types of intertextual relationships and discusses many of the possibilities for the source of the intertextuality ranging from the editorial efforts of Mormon to an unintentional commonality of language used in translation.6 I will explore many of these ideas as they relate to the seed motif in a future article.

For the purpose of the study at hand, some insights may be gained by examining the origin and evolution of two phrases that develop into a leitwort used within the context of the seed motif by Alma2. These phrases are the chains of hell and the associated metaphor, the bands of death. Tracing the evolution of these phrases may help to resolve a question that Book of Mormon scholars have debated that has come to be known as the discontinuity theory. Scholars such as Brent Metcalfe, Rebecca Roesler, Grant Hardy, and others have proposed that the concepts taught in the small plates of Nephi such as the prophecies of the coming of Christ may not have been seamlessly transmitted to king Benjamin, Alma2, and other prophets in the middle period of the Book of Mormon.7 The shared usage of the leitworter the chains of hell and the bands of death between early and later Book of Mormon prophets may indicate that there is continuity between early and later prophets that has previously been overlooked. Other shared concepts that are also used by the prophets examined here in iterations of the seed motif strengthen the likelihood of a continuity of concepts that presents challenges for the discontinuity theory.

To trace the usage of the concepts in question, I begin in the early part of the ministry of Alma2. In two early examples of his preaching, Alma2 addresses the people of Zarahemla and the people of Ammonihah. In the context of his preaching to these two different audiences, Alma2 describes the Church in Zarahemla as being in a state of great unbelief (Alma 7:6) and says of the people of Ammonihah that “Satan had gotten great hold upon the hearts of the people” (Alma 8:9). These two groups both contain a population of people who had distanced themselves from the Church. A significant portion of both groups are described as possessing the characteristics of the seed of the serpent, as shown in table 2.

Table 2. Characteristics of the seed of the serpent in two groups.

Seed of the Serpent

People of Zarahemla

People of Ammonihah

Rejects the Counsel of the Lord

O ye workers of iniquity . . . a shepherd hath called after you and is still calling after you, but ye will not hearken unto his voice! (Alma 5:37)

Satan had gotten great hold upon the hearts of the people of the city of Ammonihah; therefore they would not hearken unto the words of Alma. (Alma 8:9)

Chooses Satan to Rule Over Them

I say unto you, can ye think of being saved when you have yielded yourselves to become subjects to the devil? (Alma 5:20)

O ye wicked and perverse generation, why hath Satan got such great hold upon your hearts? Why will ye yield yourselves unto him that he may have power over you? (Alma 10:25)

Ambushes, Sets Snares, and Deceives

Or do ye imagine to yourselves that ye can lie unto the Lord in that day. . . (Alma 5:17)

For ye are laying the foundations of the devil; for ye are laying traps and snares to catch the holy ones of God. (Alma 10:17)

Focuses on This Life Only

Behold, are ye stripped of pride? I say unto you, if ye are not ye are not prepared to meet God. Behold ye must prepare quickly; for the kingdom of heaven is soon at hand, and such an one hath not eternal life. (Alma 5:28)

Believest thou that there is no God? I say unto you, Nay, thou knowest that there is a God, but thou lovest that lucre more than him. (Alma 11:24)

Kills for Gain or Power, Sets Their Heart on Riches

Behold will they not testify that ye are murderers, yea, and also that ye are guilty of all manner of wickedness? (Alma 5:23)

Therefore, they did stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness, that they might have more employ, that they might get money according to the suits which were brought before them. (Alma 11:20)

Seeks to Exercise Dominion and Bring the Seed of the Woman into Bondage

And again I say unto you, is there one among you that doth make a mock of his brother, or that heapeth upon him persecutions? (Alma 5:30)

And they did withhold food from them that they might hunger, and water that they might thirst; and they also did take from them their clothes that they were naked; and thus they were bound with strong cords, and confined in prison. (Alma 14:22)

Is Cursed, Marked, and Cast Out

I say unto you that these are they who shall be hewn down and cast into the fire except they speedily repent. (Alma 5:56)

And they spit upon him, and cast him out from among them, and also all those who believed in the words which had been spoken by Alma and Amulek; and they cast them out, and sent men to cast stones at them. (Alma 12:3)*

Is Trampled, has His Head Crushed, or is Utterly Subdued

Can ye lay aside these things, and trample the Holy One under your feet. (Alma 5:53)*

And the walls of the prison were rent in twain, so that they fell to the earth; and the chief judge, and the lawyers, and priests, and teachers, who smote upon Alma and Amulek, were slain by the fall thereof. (Alma 14:27)

* There is a reversal in which the seed of the woman suffers the fate we expect for the seed of the serpent. This type of reversal may be a literary tool that may be discussed in a subsequent article.

Alma2 and the bands of death and the chains of hell

When Alma2 preaches to the people of Zarahemla, he uses the phrase the bands of death together with the metaphor of grasping chains, which he calls the chains of hell. When Alma2 discusses the bands of death and the chains of hell, he is apparently dealing with the themes of sin, guilt, captivity, liberation, and the Atonement. Jeff Lindsay has previously noted an intertextual linkage between the preaching of Abinadi and several discourses of Alma2 concerning the meaning and need for the Atonement. This linkage is based on the recurring phrase “the bowels of mercy.”8 Here Alma2 uses a couple of short phrases that create a very similar set of intertextual linkages. He begins his discourse with a discussion of the theme of bondage in the context of the people in the time of his father, Alma1, who were in captivity to the Lamanites:

And behold, after that, they were brought into bondage by the hands of the Lamanites in the wilderness; yea, I say unto you, they were in captivity, and again the Lord did deliver them out of bondage by the power of his word; and we were brought into this land, and here we began to establish the church of God throughout this land also. And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, you that belong to this church, have you sufficiently retained in remembrance the captivity of your fathers? (Alma 5:5–6)

As his preaching continues, Alma2 links the concepts of both death and hell to his theme of captivity. He says:

Behold, they were in the midst of darkness; nevertheless, their souls were illuminated by the light of the everlasting word; yea, they were encircled about by the bands of death, and the chains of hell, and an everlasting destruction did await them. (Alma 5:7)

For Alma2, the physical captivity of his people reflects their spiritual captivity. In his account, he and his father were triply bound, first by the bands of death, second by the chains of hell, and third by their captivity to the Lamanites. However, all of these bindings were loosed:

And again, I ask, were the bands of death broken, and the chains of hell which encircled them about, were they loosed? I say unto you, Yea, they were loosed, and their souls did expand, and they did sing redeeming love. And I say unto you that they are saved. (Alma 5:9)

Alma2 and Amulek also touch upon these same metaphors in their preaching in Ammonihah, and they expand upon them by providing clear definitions for each one. Amulek is discussing the consequences of sin and death when he tells Zeezrom:

Therefore, the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death; for behold, the day cometh that all shall rise from the dead and stand before God, and be judged according to their works. (Alma 11:41)

However, when Amulek preaches that everyone will be saved from physical death, Zeezrom and the people with him “began again to be astonished” (Alma 11:46). The people of Ammonihah held a different view of things, perhaps based on the doctrines of Nehor. Alma2 warns Zeezrom that his lack of understanding, which has led to his poor behavior, is a trap laid by the devil.

And behold I say unto you all that this was a snare of the adversary, which he has laid to catch this people, that he might bring you into subjection unto him, that he might encircle you about with his chains, that he might chain you down to everlasting destruction, according to the power of his captivity. (Alma 12:6)

Zeezrom begins to suspect that his previous worldview might be incorrect, based on the knowledge that Alma2 and Amulek appear to have of him. He seems particularly intrigued by the concept that resurrection will be granted universally, and he asks Alma2 to explain the concept further, saying:

What does this mean which Amulek hath spoken concerning the resurrection of the dead, that all shall rise from the dead, both the just and the unjust, and are brought to stand before God to be judged according to their works? (Alma 12:8)

Alma2 responds with the insight that what Amulek has presented is a mystery of God that requires a higher level of spiritual maturity to understand (Alma 12:9). He then goes on to define the second part of his paired phrase, the chains of hell, in relation to knowledge from God. He says:

And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 12:11)

So, the chains of hell, as defined by Alma2, is a concept that explains the methodology the devil uses to drag spirits into hell. These chains are congruent with an aspect of the seed motif: namely, the seed of the serpent are blissfully unaware of the danger that awaits after they die because of their conscious, intentional choice to focus on this life alone. In their pride, they dismiss the word of God since it is foolishness to them. The devil then uses their pride to grasp them with the chains of hell.

The narratives of Ammonihah and Zarahemla are connected by additional themes

In addition to the standard themes of the seed motif, which are present in the two narratives under consideration, other themes and mental images tie these two narratives together.9 This additional imagery seems to be frequently associated with iterations of the seed motif. It may in fact make up a superset of seed motif imagery that could be added to those images and themes previously identified, as this imagery is also used in other instances of the seed motif. Many of the concepts in the preaching of Alma2 in Ammonihah are explicitly placed in the context of the Garden of Eden and the events that unfolded there (Alma 12:21–33). This strengthens the connection between the seed motif presented in this narrative and the original seed motif.10 Alma2 explains the need for an atonement to overcome the effects of sin and death. Logically and pragmatically, God needed to find a way to let men know about all of these important concepts. According to Alma2, the need to disseminate knowledge was the reason for the creation of the high priesthood:

I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people. (Alma 13:1)

This discussion of the priesthood is at home in the original seed motif, which mentions the first calling of men to the holy order of the priesthood (Moses 5:50; 6:67). This concept was also preached by Alma2 in Zarahemla, which he mentions four different times in his sermon (for example, Alma 5:54). The in-depth discussion of Melchizedek, and the holy order of the priesthood that Alma2 presents in Ammonihah (Alma 13:1–20), is similar to a discussion that takes place at the end of the story of Cain (Moses 5:58–59). The holders of this priesthood are sanctified by the Holy Ghost:

Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb. Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God. (Alma 13:11–12)

This teaching in Ammonihah is very similar to what Alma2 taught in Zarahemla:

I say unto you, ye will know at that day that ye cannot be saved; for there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins. (Alma 5:21)

The concept of garments washed clean in blood is a paradoxical concept that is found in the writings of both Alma2 and of Nephi1. Nephi1 associates the image with Christ, the Apostles, and those who have faith in Christ (1 Nephi 12:10–11). This is the same way that Alma2 uses the concept here. He then goes on to use the contrasting image of garments filthy with blood as a symbol of murder. He asks:

And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness? Behold, what will these things testify against you? Behold will they not testify that ye are murderers, yea, and also that ye are guilty of all manner of wickedness? (Alma 5:22–23)

The association of this imagery with the themes from the Cain seed motif is made based on blood serving as a testimony of murder. Blood crying out against the seed of the serpent is, of course, a bit of imagery from the narrative of the first murder (Moses 5:35–36).

Another detail that may tie these instances of the seed motif back to the early instances in the book of Genesis is a reference to the countenance of a person. Seth is described as being in the image and likeness of his father, who was in the likeness of God (Genesis 5:1–3). In contrast, Cain was of a fallen countenance (Genesis 4:6). Both narratives in Alma2 have similar allusions, one in the positive and the other in the negative (a diptych-style collocation). In preaching to the people of Zarahemla Alma2 asks:

And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? (Alma 5:14)

A possible allusion to the same concept in Ammonihah occurs when the judges are questioning and abusing Alma2 and Amulek. As their abuse reaches a frenzy, the judges begin “gnashing their teeth upon them, and spitting upon them, and saying: How shall we look when we are damned?” (Alma 14:21). This hellish countenance, if it may be so termed, fits in well with Cain’s fallen countenance and serves as a counterpoint to receiving the image of God in one’s countenance.

The Metaphor of the Bands of Death and the Chains of Hell

The incorporation of several sets of matching lead-words and metaphors into the seed motif in Alma2’s preaching in these two instances seems to be meant to highlight a point of differentiation between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. This point is a consequence of the conscious choice by the seed of the serpent to reject the counsel of God. The use of the bands of death and the chains of hell in these two narratives, together with the other themes and imagery noted above, suggests that these two narratives were meant to be examined by the reader with each story to be understood in the light of the other narrative.

In other words, it appears that these two narratives were designed as a dyad that was meant for pairwise comparison. When viewed in this way, the people of Ammonihah, who were wicked and refused to repent, serve as an excellent foil for the people of Zarahemla who were wicked but repented and turned to the Lord. There are other dyads of this type in which the characters or events in one situation serve as a foil for others in a different situation. The account of the King of the Lamanites, who hears the word of the Lord and changes his heart completely, is an excellent foil for Korihor, who rejects the word of the Lord and seeks to lead away the hearts of the people.11 The Lamanites, who lack the gospel but later embrace it fully, may be intended as foils for the Amulonites and Amalekites who had the gospel but later rejected it utterly. Grant Hardy notes, “One of the most characteristic features of Mormon’s writing is his use of parallel narratives.12 Hardy goes on to note several examples of parallel narratives before explaining that, “there is a fair degree of variation in how Mormon employs selection, arrangement, and phrasing to construct parallel narratives.”13

The parallel stories that Hardy asserts are linked by similarities include two different kings assembling their people to speak to them (Limhi and Benjamin) and two sons of kings (Ammon and Aaron) teaching Lamanite kings (Lamoni and his father). Val Larsen has also commented extensively on similar parallel stories.14 However, the parallels between these stories are not examined by Hardy in greater detail. An in-depth study of linkages between stories made via leitmotif, leitworter, or other literary tools may reveal additional connections, as is the case between the stories of Korihor and the king of the Lamanites. Such connections suggest a high degree of intentionality on the part of the author (or editor) based on the explicitness and formality of the literary tools employed. The purpose of the Hebrew authors in writing parallel narratives, as Robert Alter puts it for the case of Biblical parallelism, is for “intensifying, specifying, complementing, qualifying, contrasting, expanding the semantic material of each initial verset in its apparent repetition.”15 The same purpose for the authors in crafting parallel narratives also seems to hold true in the Book of Mormon.

The parallel narratives mentioned by Hardy are all direct parallels containing one story that plays out in the same way as another. An example of this occurs when Aaron’s preaching to the king of the Lamanites plays out essentially the same as Ammon’s preaching to Lamoni. Hardy finds the degree of repetition present in such narratives remarkable. However, just as frequently, we encounter parallel opposites rather than direct parallels in the Book of Mormon. In these cases, the dyads are contrasting reflections of one another with the paired characters having opposite rather than complementary qualities.

Book of Mormon scholars have noticed a tendency throughout the Book of Mormon to place contrasting narratives with differing outcomes adjacent to one another in the record. This tendency to show the extreme good and extreme evil outcomes based on how one receives God’s commandments has been referred to as “The two ways,”16 or “The Ancient Doctrine of the Two Ways,” which is a method used in several ancient cultures of teaching youth and others the way to live their lives.17

In the Book of Mormon, the doctrine of the two ways is taught by using mirror-image reflections—with one image serving as the righteous or correct way to live and the other as the incorrect, wicked way to live—function something like a diptych (see the appendix).

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw notes that “It seems as if the telling of the stories of Moses 5–8 were deliberately structured in order to highlight the contrast between those who accepted and those who rejected the laws of heaven.”18 His observation was made concerning the chapters of the Pearl of Great Price that contain the fullest account of the original seed motif,19 and it is equally true of the many instances of the seed motif found in the Book of Mormon. These instances function like diptychs in illustrating contrasting choices and outcomes in an attempt to teach the people to choose wisely when confronted with the option of the two ways.

Alma2’s combining of the short phrases the bands of death and the chains of hell in the two cases of the narrative of Alma2 at Zarahemla and at Ammonihah may suggest an intentional diptych connection between these stories. There are additional parallel elements between the two stories that strengthen the diptych hypothesis mentioned above. These include the discussion of the purpose of the order of the Son of God, the shared imagery of garments either stained in blood or else washed white in the blood of the Lamb, and the reference to countenances. In addition to these, there also appear to be instances of near-verbatim repetition, a literary technique discussed by Robert Alter in which small changes are introduced into an otherwise verbatim repetition.20 Although near-verbatim repetition seems to be used far less in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible, there are instances of short phrases being repeated with alterations that seem to serve the same function. For example, when Alma2 began preaching in Zarahemla he introduced himself in these words:

I, Alma, having been consecrated by my father, Alma, to be a high priest over the church of God, he having power and authority from God to do these things, behold, I say unto you that he began to establish a church in the land which was in the borders of Nephi. (Alma 5:3)

When he preaches in Ammonihah, the people reject him in an interesting parody of these words saying:

Behold, we know that thou art Alma; and we know that thou art high priest over the church which thou hast established in many parts of the land, according to your tradition; and we are not of thy church, and we do not believe in such foolish traditions. (Alma 8:11)

The presence of these similar phrases in both narratives, as well as the shared imagery and themes, suggests that these stories are meant to be read as a paired diptych. The seed motif is, of course, by its very nature, structured as a diptych that encourages the reader to identify and compare contrasting elements and themes. The presence of the seed motif in both narratives, when taken in addition to the broader scope of opposing images and themes, provides a set of nested diptychs. An examination of this concept at the level of individual verses, such as those just mentioned above, reveals reflective dyads at that level as well, thus creating a nested hierarchy of diptychs at the level of the story, the motif within the story, and individual verses.

The Origin of the Terms the Bands of Death
and the Chains of Hell

The two discourses of Alma2, examined above, both use the terms the bands of death and the chains of hell. Alma2 appears to have adopted these terms from other prophets and combined them together for rhetorical emphasis. By focusing on the usage of metaphorical chains or bands in the seed motif, we can see the way in which the concept is adopted by one prophet from another, and then adapted for the specific usage of that prophet. The origin of the concept of the metaphorical chains of hell may have been from the brass plates. Jeff Lindsay and Noel Reynolds have identified many specific turns of phrase or metaphorical concepts used in the Book of Mormon that may have originated with the brass plates. One of these concepts is the chains of the devil or the chains of hell. They note that:

In Moses 7:26, Enoch sees Satan with “a great chain”: “And he beheld Satan; and he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels rejoiced.” A little later in Moses 7:57, we read of spirits in prison, held captive in “chains of darkness” until the judgment day. (This follows the heavens being “veiled” in verse 56.) Chains of darkness and Satan veiling the earth (perhaps with the chain of darkness) are striking images in Moses 7.21

The examples explored below of the ways of which the metaphorical chains of the devil are used in the seed motif illustrate how Book of Mormon authors appear to have adapted themes within a common framework in unique ways. This allows them to maintain the integrity of the motif while at the same time dealing with those themes in deeply personal ways.

Lehi’s usage of the chains of hell

Lehi was the first prophet in the Book of Mormon to use a term similar to the chains of hell in the context of the seed motif. This occurs when he explains to his rebellious sons the consequences of the choice to follow Satan in seed of the serpent fashion, He uses Nephi’s righteousness as the contrasting seed of the woman behavior.22 As Lehi alternates between these contrasting behaviors, he urges Laman and Lemuel to mend their ways. He twice invokes the metaphor of diabolical chains in a poignant plea for his sons to free themselves from the influence of the devil. He begs them:

O that ye would awake; awake from a deep sleep, yea, even from the sleep of hell, and shake off the awful chains by which ye are bound, which are the chains which bind the children of men, that they are carried away captive down to the eternal gulf of misery and woe. Awake! and arise from the dust and hear the words of a trembling parent. (2 Nephi 1:13–14)

In these verses, he uses the imagery of a trembling parent watching his children who are unaware of the disastrous consequences of the fact that while they are spiritually sleeping, they are being pulled down by chains into a gulf of misery and woe. Brandt Gardner says of these verses that:

This is a reference to the dead, even though the sons are not physically dead. Lehi uses the imagery of the sleep in Sheol to describe their spiritual state. If they are in the awful gulf, then they are essentially dead to God’s influence. Hence, they must awake and arise from the dust of that state of spiritual death. This reference is made more poignant by Lehi’s declaration that he believes that he is on his deathbed.23

The imagery that he uses in the next verse is an interesting contrast (diptych) to children who are sleeping while bound with chains. He tells them:

But behold, the Lord hath redeemed my soul from hell; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love. (2 Nephi 1:15)

The encircling arms of the love of God stand in direct contrast to the encircling chains of hell. Lehi’s certainty of his own salvation serves to reinforce the message that the trembling parent is not trembling because of concern for himself, but because he is so concerned for the fate of his children. The farewell address of a trembling father with his pleas to his wayward children to shake off the chains that bind them is a powerful image in this instance of the seed motif.

Jacob’s usage of the chains of hell

As Jacob expounds upon his themes in 2 Nephi 9, he provides doctrinal statements that clearly delineate the domains of physical and spiritual death. This is done in a way that appears to have later been adopted by Alma2:

O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit. And because of the way of deliverance of our God, the Holy One of Israel, this death, of which I have spoken, which is the temporal, shall deliver up its dead; which death is the grave. And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell. (2 Nephi 9:10–12)

In Jacob’s teaching, there are two types of death: the death of the physical body is called death, or the grave, while hell is the death of the spirit. This latter death is not a dissolution of the spirit, but rather captivity to the devil. One may avoid hell if one is willing to “turn away from your sins; shake off the chains of him that would bind you fast; come unto that God who is the rock of your salvation” (v. 45). The chains of hell, or the chains of the devil, therefore, as in Alma2’s preaching, refer to the means used to drag a spirit into captivity in hell.

Jacob uses another image that appears to be taken up later by Alma2. Jacob figuratively takes off his garments and shakes them as a metaphor for shaking off the iniquities from his soul, much as he is encouraging his audience to shake off the chains of hell (v. 44). By performing this symbolic act, he can stand with brightness before God, being rid of the blood of those to whom he is preaching.

Finally, another key concept from Nephi, which is taken up later by Alma2, challenges the ignorance of those who reject the word of God. Jacob perhaps articulates this concept better than anyone when he says:

O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. (2 Nephi 9:28)

The treatment of spiritual and temporal death, the metaphor of the chains of hell, the use of garments stained with blood as a symbol of sinfulness, and the vain and foolish people who disregard the teachings of the prophets because they think they know for themselves are all concepts that Alma2 appears to have borrowed from Jacob. If Alma2 did, indeed, receive these concepts by reading the record of Jacob, the discontinuity theory may have to be reconsidered.

Nephi’s usage of the chains of hell metaphor

Nephi’s usage of the chain metaphor in 2 Nephi 28 is very similar to how his father uses it in that he is warning his oblivious audience of the danger that they are in of being grasped by the devil. However, unlike the urging of a trembling parent, Nephi is somewhat fierier in his preaching as he attempts to wake the Gentiles to an awareness of their situation. He says:

For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish… and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell. And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance. Yea, they are grasped with death, and hell; and death, and hell, and the devil, and all that have been seized therewith must stand before the throne of God, and be judged according to their works, from whence they must go into the place prepared for them, even a lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment. (2 Nephi 28:19–23)

As in Lehi’s urging, Nephi warns that the devil has been using his tranquilizing influence to lull them into ignoring the raging torrent that is sweeping them to destruction. Nephi also makes use of the imagery of shaking, though in this case it is not a trembling parent, and it is not Laman and Lemuel shaking off the chains with which they are bound. Rather, it is the entire kingdom of the devil that is shaking as some of its members are stirred up to repentance.

The bands of death in the teachings of Abinadi

Just as Lehi spoke of being encircled in the arms of God, in Mosiah 16:12, Abinadi uses the imagery of the arms of mercy extended toward the people: “having never called upon the Lord while the arms of mercy were extended towards them; for the arms of mercy were extended towards them, and they would not.” Since the people have chosen to be the seed of the serpent they refuse the extended arms, preferring instead to be grasped in the bands of death. This is a metaphor that Abinadi uses in the same way as Lehi, Jacob, and Nephi use metaphorical chains. He says:

And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men. (Mosiah 15:8)

In his usage of this metaphor, Abinadi focuses on Christ’s ability to overcome both the grave and the effects of sin as he breaks the bands of death through the power of the Atonement. Abinadi explains how Christ overcame the grave by first subjecting his flesh to death, thus swallowing up the will of the Son in the will of the Father to “break the bands of death” (Mosiah 15:8). This phrase is found four times in Mosiah 15 and once more in Mosiah 16. It is found thereafter in the preaching of Amulek, Alma2, Aaron, and Mormon. As noted earlier, Alma2 appears to synthesize the teachings of Jacob and those of Abinadi when he combines the concept of the bands of death with that of the chains of hell. In so doing he specifically references Abinadi (Alma 5:11), thereby suggesting that Abinadi was the source of the concept of the bands of death.

Conclusions from the seed motif and the chains of the devil by Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, and Abinadi

There are clear similarities in imagery between Alma2 and his predecessors, especially in the case of Jacob. It seems unlikely that Alma2’s preaching would have turned out as it did if he had not been influenced by reading Jacob. Alma2’s definitions of death and hell, his use of the imagery of dirty garments, and the grasping chains that bind the proud and unrepentant all bear a strong similarity to Jacob. Jacob’s use of the word “death” as a leitwort in 2 Nephi 9 (used a total of fourteen times for “death” and three more for “dead”) seems to strengthen the connection. Jacob’s most memorable passage using this lead-word says:

Yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit. And because of the way of deliverance of our God, the Holy One of Israel, this death, of which I have spoken, which is the temporal, shall deliver up its dead; which death is the grave. And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies. (2 Nephi 9:10–11)

The rhythm and tempo in Jacob’s usage of this lead-word closely match two verses from Alma2’s sermon in Ammonihah. Alma2 uses dead, die, dieth, and death a total of forty-one times in chapters 11 and 12. The matching usage by Alma2 and Jacob of death as a lead-word within the framework of the seed motif suggests the intentional creation of an intertextual connection. The following verses illustrate the similar usage of the lead-word by Alma2:

Now, there is a death which is called a temporal death; and the death of Christ shall loose the bands of this temporal death, that all shall be raised from this temporal death. (Alma 11:42)

And now behold, I say unto you then cometh a death, even a second death, which is a spiritual death; then is a time that whosoever dieth in his sins, as to a temporal death, shall also die a spiritual death; yea, he shall die as to things pertaining unto righteousness. (Alma 12:16)

The bits of evidence accumulated so far build a strong case for Alma2’s familiarity with Jacob’s discourse, which he seems to have referenced in the development of his own preaching. Likewise, when Alma2 directly references Abinadi’s bands of death phrase, it becomes clear that Alma2’s aptitude with the scriptures runs the gamut from those of the distant past to those that are recent enough to have been preached in Alma2’s own lifetime. The familiarity with the scriptures is, of course, not limited to Alma2. Several other prophets show that they are familiar with the teachings of their predecessors, and that specific scriptures tend to resonate with later prophets who pick them up and repeat them, often with adaptations. So it is that this one particular phrase came to be used many times in the Book of Mormon, all the way up to Mormon’s words of farewell when he says, “all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death, which death is a temporal death” (Mormon 9:13).

The accumulation of evidence that supports the adoption and adaptation from prophet to prophet over time supports the conclusion made by Matthew Stenson in discussing the discontinuity theory. Stenson suggests that there is sufficient evidence from the writings of Alma2 to challenge the notion of discontinuity. Much of Stenson’s evidence comes from the teachings of Alma2 in the narratives examined above.24 The evidence from the evolution of the concept of the chains of hell and the close correlation of Jacob’s teachings with those of Alma2 support the notion that Alma2 was intimately familiar with the writings of his earlier predecessors and used the concepts they taught in his own preaching. This conclusion favors the position of continuity over discontinuity.

Summary and Conclusions

This article examines the seed motif in two instances that occur nearly back-to-back in the book of Alma2. The preaching of Alma2 in Zarahemla shares several elements with his preaching in Ammonihah (in addition to those recognized as the basis of the seed motif). This suggests that the accounts are meant to be viewed as a sort of literary diptych. Some of the elements that tie these two narratives together include:

- A discussion of the priesthood after the holy order of God.

- The use of the phrases the bands of death and the chains of hell as lead-words.

- The imagery of garments made white in the blood of Christ.

- The imagery of a countenance that reflects divine qualities or else reflects the countenance of the damned.

Reading these two accounts with the notion that the original author meant them to be compared to one another provides insights into the likely motivations and aspirations of Alma2, In addition, they offer doctrinal justification for the utter destruction of the people of Ammonihah and the ongoing preservation of the people of Zarahemla.

Several narratives in the book of 2 Nephi were shown to have elements that may have later been adopted by Alma2 for use in his preaching. These elements include garments stained by blood as a sign of sin and chains that grasp the proud who refuse to repent of their sins. The narrative of Jacob in 2 Nephi 9 showed a particular set of common literary elements found in the preaching of Alma2 in Ammonihah, including the shared usage of death as a lead-word. The narrative of Abinadi was found to have contributed the concept of the bands of death to the preaching of Alma2.

Taken together, the narratives examined suggest a complex picture of the seed motif that may be better explained by the adoption and adaptation of elements of the literary motif by authors across time, rather than as the effect of a single unifying editor or author who imposed the motif on previously existing accounts. This tentative conclusion is based in part on the large variation in the ways in which the books attributed to different authors employ the seed motif and its associated themes and imagery. Further research into the ways in which literary elements such as the imagery of the bands of death and the chains of hell is required to confirm whether or not this conclusion is correct. However, in this case at least, it seems likely that several memorable metaphors used by Alma2 are based on earlier imagery from his prophetic predecessors.

Appendix: Leitmotif and Leitwort as Rhetorical Devices Employed by Ancient Hebrew Authors

As presented in the work of several other scholars, an ancient Hebrew literary form that ties together multiple narratives through the usage of a repeated lead-word is termed a leitwort. 25 The plural of leitwort is leitworter. Leitworter are used in such a way that they stand out in a narrative and prompt the reader to pay close attention. Yairah Amit explains that lead-words are used to connect separate stories to one another in ways that prompt the reader to contrast the different accounts.26 Lead-words can also be created using short phrases repeated in a way that seizes the reader’s attention. Once the reader’s attention is captured, the reader may be prompted to recall a related passage of scripture that uses the same phrase in a similar way. The intent seems to have been to create an intertextual linkage between the two passages of scripture in a way that would allow the reader to draw new conclusions. Lead-words are used prominently in the stories of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, for example, as well as in many subsequent instances of the seed motif. 27

When one or more lead-words, or leitworter, are employed to tie together a set of stories, and when those stories also make use of a common set of mental images and situations, the resultant literary technique created is a leitmotif. Leitmotif is a term that was originally coined to refer to musical works, particular those of Wagner, in which a unique musical score was associated with a particular character.28 Leitmotif may be conceived as applying to a unified body of work by a single composer. However, it has been also employed broadly in the literary world and has become more generalized. In addition to expanding into the field of literature, it is no longer restricted to the unified work of a single artist. The term leitmotif has come to be used to describe a theme or motif used by multiple authors over time. Thus, I employ the term here as applied to the related work of several different authors in a single literary work based on a common set of images and themes. The modern definition of a leitmotif is flexible enough to accommodate this broader usage.29 The leitmotif literary tool appears to have been used throughout ancient Hebrew scriptures in a variety of ways to aid the reader in uncovering relationships between stories.

Diptych is a term that refers to an art style from the late Middle Ages in which paintings or carved reliefs are created on two opposing panels hinged in the middle, with the opposing images on the inner sides frequently including common elements that serve as a reflection of one another, as in figure 1.

Artists sometimes make diptychs consisting of a pair of works with inverted lighting or color schemes, resulting in inverted mirror images.30 The inverted mirror images of the righteous Lamanite king and the wicked Korihor are an example of a diptych-style literary portrait. Such related literary diptychs are common throughout the Book of Mormon. Indeed, the majority of the narratives in the Book of Mormon, which have adopted the framework of the seed motif, are structured in just such a diptych literary style with the qualities of the righteous seed of the woman reflected in the negative by the unrighteous seed of the serpent.

Figure 1. A diptych from the Metropolitan Museum of Art31

[Author’s Note: I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editorial staff of Interpreter for their assistance in producing this article. I especially want to thank the Executive Editor, Godfrey Ellis, for the many hours of excellent review he provided. The improvements to structure and wording resulted in an article that is much clearer and easier to read. He also provided many ideas that improved the article immensely. I am grateful for his assistance.]

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 . 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 (2025): 1–50, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-seed-of-the-serpent
-and-the-seed-of-the-woman-in-the-standard-works/.

2 . Gordon C. Thomasson, “Mosiah: The Complex Symbolism and Symbolic Complex of Kingship in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2, no. 1 (1993): 32–34, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol2/iss1/3.

3 . Hudson, “Seed of the Serpent,” 1–50.

4 . Val Larsen, “Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16, no. 1 (2007): 36, scholars
archive.byu.edu/jbms/vol16/iss1/5.

5 . Hudson, “Seed of the Serpent,” 40–43.

6 . Jeff Lindsay, “An Update to Strong Like Unto Moses,” unpublished manuscript.

7 . Matthew Scott Stenson, “According to the Spirit of Revelation and Prophecy”: Alma2’s Prophetic Warning of Christ’s Coming to the Lehites (and Others),” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 55 (2023): 107–68, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/according-to-the-spirit-of-revelation-and
-prophecy-alma2s-prophetic-warning-of-christs-coming-to-the-lehites-and
-others/.

8 . Jeff Lindsay, “Was the Sacrifice of the Messiah Really Needed? How the Book of Moses + Book of Mormon May Help Remove a Stumbling Block,” Arise from the Dust (blog), 4 February 2025, arisefromthedust.com/was-the-sacrifice-of
-the-messiah-really-needed-how-the-book-of-moses-book-of-mormon
-may-help-remove-a-stumbling-block/.

9 . Images or imagery as I am using them here are defined as follows: In literature, imagery refers to words that trigger the reader to recall images, or mental pictures, that engage one of the five senses: sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch. Imagery is one of the strongest literary techniques because it connects to the personal experiences or memories of the reader. “Imagery,” Del Mar College, 13 June 2023, delmar.edu/offices/swc/elements-of-literature/imagery.html.

10 . Hudson, “Seed of the Serpent,” 1–50.

11 . 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/.

12 . Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 153.

13 . Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 155–56.

14 . Val Larsen, “Prophet or Loss: Mosiah1/Zeniff, Benjamin/Noah, Mosiah2/Limhi and the Emergence of the Almas,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 60 (2024): 367–408, journal.interpreterfoundation
.org/prophet-or-loss-mosiah1-zeniff-benjamin-noah-mosiah2-limhi-and-the-emergence-of-the-almas/.

15 . Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 2nd ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 122.

16 . Noel B. Reynolds, “The Nephite Metaphor of Life as a Probation: Rethinking Nephi’s Portrayal of Laman and Lemuel,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 57 (2023): 231–80, journal.interpreterfoundation
.org/the-nephite-metaphor-of-life-as-a-probation-rethinking-nephis
-portrayal-of-laman-and-lemuel/.

17 . Noel B. Reynolds, “The Ancient Doctrine of the Two Ways and the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies Quarterly 56, no. 3 (2017): 49–78, byustudies.byu.edu
/article/the-ancient-doctrine-of-the-two-ways-and-the-book-of-mormon.

18 . Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Book of Moses, 2014 ed. (Salt Lake City: Eborn Publishing, 2014), as adapted for “Book of Mormon Essays 73: The Two Ways (Moses 5) The Five Celestial Laws (Moses, Chapters 5–8),” Interpreter Foundation, 18 September 2021, interpreterfoundation.org
/book-of-moses-essays-073/.

19 . Hudson, “Seed Motif,” 25–27.

20 . Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 122.

21 . Jeff Lindsay and Noel B. Reynolds, “‘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,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 44 (2021): 15, journal.interpreter
foundation.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/.

22 . Rather than discussing each instance of the seed motif in detail in this example, I assume that all of the basic elements are present and will focus attention on the specific attributes of the seed motif that are relevant to the bands of death and the chains of hell and related imagery.

23 . Brant A. Gardner, “2 Nephi 1,” in Book of Mormon Minute (Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central, 2019).

24 . Stenson, “According to the Spirit of Revelation and Prophecy,” 165–67.

25 . See, for example, Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 116.

26 . Yairah Amit, “The Multi-Purpose ‘Leading Word’ and the Problems of Its Usage,” Prooftexts 9, no. 2 (1989): 100.

27 . Ronald Hendel, “Leitwort Style and Literary Structure in the J Primeval Narrative,” in Sacred History, Sacred Literature: Essays on Ancient Israel, the Bible, and Religion in Honor of R. E. Friedman on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Shawna Dolansky (Berkeley, CA: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 98.

28 . Merriam-Webster Dictionary, s.v. “leitmotif,” merriam-webster.com/dictionary
/leitmotif.

29 . Merriam-Webster Dictionary, s.v. “leitmotif.” Of particular interest in the dictionary entry is the following:

Leitmotif (also and formerly more commonly spelled leitmotiv) has its origins in opera and is especially associated with Wagnerian opera. The word is from the German words leit and Motif, which translate respectively as, “leading” and “motive.” In opera, a leitmotif is a recurring melody that accompanies the reappearance of an idea, person, or situation. The term is now applied in other kinds of music, sometimes with a meaning very close to the original: “The Imperial March” that is heard in the Star Wars film franchise whenever Darth Vader appears on screen, for example, is a modern example of leitmotif.

An older example is the classic work “Peter and the Wolf” by Sergei Prokofiev in 1936. Leitmotif also has extended use that treads the same territory as motif. Although it is not a common word, when it is applied it often refers to a dominant recurring theme, as when an image is consistently used in an artist’s works.

30 . Marshall K. Harris, “Negative Drawing Diptychs,” drawings, marshallkharris
.com/art/drawings/negative-drawing-dipytics/view/2291849/1/6200705.

31 . Diptych with the Coronation of the Virgin and the Last Judgment, circa 1260–70, 5 x 5 1/8 x 3/4 in., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, object no. 1970.324.7a,b. Wikimedia Commons, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index
.php?curid=57857852.

Seeing with a Hat: How Joseph Smith Used a Hat in Translating the
Book of Mormon

Stan Spencer

Abstract: Joseph Smith’s use of a seer stone and hat in producing the Book of Mormon has been a point of confusion, dismay, and even embarrassment among some believers. These feelings may reflect a lack of understanding of the functions of these objects in enabling Joseph to receive divine revelation. As the term was used in the Bible and commonly used in Joseph Smith’s day, a seer was a “see-er” of visions. Accordingly, a seer stone was a stone used for seeing visions. Joseph was reported to have used seer stones to receive the translation of the Book of Mormon in vision. This is how he reportedly described the experience of translation to others. According to these reports, Joseph said that he read the translation from a manuscript that appeared before him. The revelation of the Book of Mormon translation to Joseph in vision places him in the company of ancient seers such as Ezekiel and Lehi, who also read from sacred manuscripts seen in vision. This paper specifically addresses the nature of Joseph’s hat and its function in the revelation of the translation of the Book of Mormon.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides a gospel topics essay entitled “Book of Mormon Translation.” It gives an overview of the stones and the method Joseph used in translating the Book of Mormon as related in witness accounts:

Joseph Smith and his scribes wrote of two instruments used in translating the Book of Mormon. According to witnesses of the translation, when Joseph looked into the instruments, the words of scripture appeared in English. One instrument, called in the Book of Mormon the “interpreters,” is better known to Latter-day Saints today as the “Urim and Thummim.” Joseph found the interpreters buried in the hill with the plates. . . .

The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.” As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure. As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.

Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters.1

The Church essay goes on to state that, according to most witness accounts of the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph would see the English translation when he “placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat [and] pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light.”

In Joseph’s day, the natural propensity for seeing visions was called “the gift of seeing,” and the experience of seeing visions was called “seeing.” A seer was understood to be a “see-er” of visions. Accordingly, a “seeing stone” or “seer stone” was a stone used for seeing visions.2 Although the term vision can be used for various kinds of religious and nonreligious experiences, I use it in the common sense of “something which is apparently seen otherwise than by ordinary sight.”3 Regarding Joseph’s use of seer stones prior to obtaining the plates, his mother said that he was known for being “in possession of certain means, by which he could discern things, that could not be seen by the natural eye.”4 Regarding Joseph’s later use of the interpreters—the two seer stones he found with the plates (Joseph Smith—History 1:35)—she observed that “it was by this that the angel showed him those things which he saw in vision.”5 Joseph and other individuals of his time used seer stones to experience visions of things that were hidden, distant, or imaginary. With Joseph’s reputation for being able to see things not discernable to the natural eye, he was sometimes asked to help find lost items and assist “money diggers” looking for buried treasure.6

Seer stones, although not usually clear, were colloquially called glasses, presumably because the seer would look seemingly into or through the stones to see what could not otherwise be seen. Accordingly, the use of stones for seeing visions was called “glass looking.”7 Rather than functioning in any technological way, these stones perhaps functioned as aids to faith or focus that prompted the belief or expectation needed to experience visions of what was sought, whether real or imaginary.8 Joseph and his associates learned that the ability to see visions was but a modality of perception and that the source of the visioned images—whether God, other unseen entities, or one’s own mind—was not always apparent.9

Joseph was eventually commanded by an angel to quit the company of the treasure seekers, but he was not told to give up his use of seer stones. Rather, he was permitted to use them in his new role of revelator.10 With his natural gift of seeing (the gift of visions) that he had further developed in glass looking, Joseph was able to enter a state of consciousness in which he could perceive the revelatory visions that awaited him. Accordingly, he was called “the seer” in the oldest surviving copies of his early revelations and became known for his many revelatory visions.11 I explore these topics in a previous paper, “Seers and Stones: The Translation of the Book of Mormon as Divine Visions of an Old-Time Seer,” and recommend that the reader review that paper before proceeding with this one.

In “Seers and Stones,” I address the nature and function of the stones used for translation. Specifically, I propose that Joseph used the two interpreter stones and his own seer stone in a hat to see, in vision, the translation of the Book of Mormon in the same manner he used a stone in a hat to see visions of other things. This contrasts with an idea that has often been expressed: that the stones functioned in some advanced technological way as light-emitting devices that displayed the translated text. God showed sacred texts to seers such as Lehi (1 Nephi 1:7–13) and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 2:8–10) in vision, and it is reasonable that he could have revealed the words of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith in vision also without the need for advanced physical technology. The way the Book of Mormon describes the use of the interpreter stones, the way it describes its own translation, and the way Joseph Smith described his subjective experience of translating are all consistent with a visionary experience.12

The present paper continues with the idea of the translation of the Book of Mormon as a visionary experience, specifically addressing the nature and function of the hat. It addresses how Joseph made use of his hat in seeing the Book of Mormon translation, what his “seeing hat” looked like,13 and how the hat may have functioned to help him attain a visionary state of consciousness. As a basis for this investigation of the role of Joseph’s hat in the translation, I provide, in an appendix, a discussion of the most informative historical accounts of the translation.

The Purpose and Function of the Hat

In discussions of the means of the translation of the Book of Mormon, emphasis has generally been placed on the purpose and function of the seer stones, with the seer’s hat being considered relatively unimportant or even an embarrassment because of its connotations of magic or trickery.14 But the hat must have been critical to the translation process, as it was consistently used. Although witness accounts assert that the hat was used to block the ambient light, none say why blocking the light was necessary.15

Excluding ambient light

A common explanation is that the translation appeared on the seer stone, and Joseph used the hat to shade the stone so he could more easily read the displayed text, just as we might use our body to shade a smart phone to better read a text message in bright outdoor light.16 This idea differs from Joseph’s reported descriptions of the experience of translation, which portray him as reading, with “spiritual eyes” or by “spiritual light” from a visioned manuscript.17 It is unclear why shading would be needed to read something seen with spiritual eyes or by spiritual light.

Even if we ignore Joseph’s reported descriptions of the translation experience, the idea that the purpose of the hat was to shade the stone for easier reading still runs into some logical difficulties. Witness accounts have Joseph burying his face in the hat, not positioning it to cast a shadow on the stone or using it to hold the stone at a comfortable reading distance. Also, if Joseph placed his seer stone in a hat in order to shade it so he could better see the light it was emitting, why did other individuals of his time use stones in the same manner?18 Did their stones also produce light?

An alternative explanation is that Joseph used the hat to help him attain a state of consciousness that was conducive to experiencing a vision of the English text. Certainly, by looking into the hat, Joseph would have experienced less visual distraction and so could have better focused and attended to the revelation. Or perhaps it was by interrupting Joseph’s normal vision, as perceived through his physical eyes, that the hat enabled Joseph to better see a vision with his spiritual eyes, or “the eyes of [his] understanding.”19

We can evaluate these two explanations of the purpose of the hat—to shade the stone for easier reading, or to help Joseph attain a visionary state of consciousness—in light of the observations of witnesses in their personally prepared or authorized statements or (when those are lacking) in the principal reports of interviews with them. These and other principal witness accounts of the translation are discussed in the appendix. There are eight principal witness accounts of the translation that describe how Joseph used the hat:

- “Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes.” (Joseph Knight’s circa 1835–1847 statement)20

- “He would place the director in his hat, and then place his <face in his> hat, so as to exclude the light.” (Elizabeth Cowdery’s 1870 statement)21

- “J[oseph] put the seer stone in a hat and leaning forward would place his face in the hat.” (1879 record of Michael Morse interview)22

- “He sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it.” (1879 report of Emma Smith interview)23

- “One dark colored, opaque stone . . . was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light.” (David Whitmer’s 1879 corrective statement through John Traughber)24

- “In translating he put the stone in his hat and putting his face in his hat . . . so as to exclude the light.” (David Whitmer’s 1881 statement)25

- “He was allowed to go on and translate by the use of a ‘Seers stone’ which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face.” (David Whitmer’s 1885 statement through Zenas Gurley)26

- “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light.” (David Whitmer’s 1887 statement)27

Four of these eight accounts mention the purpose of the hat: to exclude the light. To exclude means to shut out, not slightly reduce. If Joseph had been using an upturned hat merely to shade the stone, peering into the hat from a few inches away, the hat would not have been excluding the ambient light. Seven of the eight accounts specifically describe the relative positions of Joseph’s face and hat. They say Joseph would “put” or “place” his face “in” or “into” the hat or that he “buried” his face in the hat. In other words, the hat was covering Joseph’s face. The remaining account has him darkening his eyes (not the stone), which is also more consistent with the idea of the hat covering his face rather than just shading the stone. These descriptions from witnesses are mutually consistent and, taken together, unambiguous. When translating, Joseph was not peering into a hat from a few inches away; the hat was covering his face.

The most detailed description of how Joseph made use of his hat in translating comes from the testimony of his friend, Josiah Stowell. Stowell testified on Joseph’s behalf when Joseph stood trial 30 June 1830, in Broome County, New York, for “looking through a certain stone to find hid treasures, &c.”28 According to an 1832 account of the trial based on notes taken by the presiding justice, Stowell described how Joseph used a stone and hat both in looking for hidden valuables and in translating the Book of Mormon:

Josiah Stowel[l] being by me sworn, saith . . . prisoner put a certain stone into his hat, put his face into the crown, then drew the brim of the hat around his head to prevent Light—he could then see as prisoner said, and translate; . . . and the prisoner, when looking for money, salt springs, hid treasures, &c. looked in the same manner.29

According to this description of the translation process, Joseph would not only put his face in the crown of the hat, but would also extend the brim around the sides of his head to further block out the light. These words were not written or reviewed by Stowell, and are probably not his exact language, but it is unlikely that the justice would have added such details as an embellishment. Stowell had hired Joseph to use his stone to look for a silver mine in Harmony, where Joseph would later do much of the translating.30 After that effort was abandoned, Joseph continued to work for Stowell, including in the role of seeing with his stone, and lived with him the winter of 1825–1826.31 Stowell was at Joseph’s home when he first obtained the plates and remained a close friend of Joseph and a believer in his divine calling and abilities as a seer.32 Given his close association with Joseph and his belief in his abilities and calling, Stowell was likely given the opportunity to observe Joseph use the hat and stone for seeing, but even if not, he would have been knowledgeable of how it was done.

Even looking more broadly at other, less authoritative nineteenth-century accounts provide the same picture: accounts of the translation that address the function of the hat relative to the ambient light all state that the function of the hat was to exclude or prevent light from entering, not to produce shade:

- “He translated . . . by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light.” (William Smith’s 1883 statement)33

- “He did not use the plates in the translation, but would hold the interpreters to his eyes and cover his face with a hat, excluding all light.” (Kansas City Journal 1881 report of interview with David Whitmer)34

- “In speaking of the translating he said that Joseph had the stone in a hat from which all light was excluded.” (George Q. Cannon’s 1884 report of his interview with David Whitmer)35

- “When Joseph received the plates he a[l]so received the Urim and Thummim, which he would place in a hat to exclude all light.” (C. E. Butterworth’s 1884 report of sermon by William Smith)36

- “Smith would bend over the hat with his face buried in it so that no light could enter it.” (Rhamanthus M. Stocker’s 1887 report of interview with Joseph Fowler McCune, neighbor of Joseph)37

If we expand this search beyond accounts of the translation to include references to Joseph’s use of a seer stone for treasure seeking, we do see a few mentions of shading. An 1874 article in the Danville, Vermont North Star says that young Joseph would look for stolen property and hidden treasure with a stone that was a “much more efficient agent when darkened or shaded in his hat.”38 An 1877 history of Wayne County, New York, says that when Joseph used his stone for visioning buried treasure, “the stone was finally placed in his hat to shade its marvelous brightness when its services were required.”39 An 1893 article in the New York Herald says that Joseph “would look at the stone shaded in his hat and see visions.”40 The sources behind these statements are not identified, but based on wording in the surrounding text, they all appear to be derived from Pomeroy Tucker’s 1867 Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism, in which Tucker says, sarcastically, that Joseph’s visions of treasure were “too dazzling for his eyes in daylight” so he “had to shade his vision by looking at the stone in his hat!”41 The problem, according to Tucker, was not that the light from the stone was so dim that it had to be shaded to be seen, but that it was too bright to look at. The whole idea, of course, is illogical. Joseph could not have blocked the light coming from the stone without also blocking the images the light contained. More likely, these details were invented by Tucker or his source for sensational effect. I have found no nineteenth-century account that claims that the purpose of the hat was to shade the stone to better see its dim light.

Seeing into stone

Historical accounts that describe where Joseph saw the text while translating with a hat and stone may also shed light on the function of the hat. Any valid description would, of course, need to derive ultimately from Joseph Smith.

According to reports of how Joseph described the translation experience (see appendix for a discussion of these reports), the words of the translation appeared “before him” (Elizabeth Cowdery’s 1870 statement), “it matters not whether his eyes are open or shut” (Ezra Booth’s 1831 statement), or on a visioned parchment (David Whitmer’s 1879 corrective statement through John Traughber and his 1885 statement through Zenas Gurley).42 Whitmer’s 1881 statement on the translation says the words appeared “in the hat.”43 Another individual who likely heard Joseph describe the experience of translation was Joseph Knight, a close friend who assisted with the translation effort. In his circa 1835–1847 statement, Knight says the words simply “would apper” after Joseph “Darkned his Eyes” with the hat.44

Secondhand reports of how Joseph may have described his experience (i.e., reports of interviews with individuals who may have heard Joseph describe his experience) say that the words would appear “before the Prophet” (Edward Stevenson’s 1886 report of a conversation with Martin Harris) or “in the stone” (George Q. Cannon’s 1884 report of an interview with David Whitmer) or on a parchment that appeared in place of the stone (James Hart’s 1884 report of an interview with David Whitmer).45

These accounts are all consistent with one another if we understand the translation as a visionary experience in which Joseph, after covering his eyes with his hat, would seemingly see before him an image of a parchment containing the English translation. As Joseph gazed in the direction of the stone and saw instead a parchment manuscript, he may have thought of the vision as appearing in or through (not on) the stone, at least in a figurative sense, and expressed it this way to others.46

Only the most problematic accounts speak of words appearing on Joseph’s seer stone. There are three: a December 1885 Chicago Tribune report of a purported interview with David Whitmer, an October 1886 Omaha Herald report of an interview with David Whitmer, and a January 1888 Richmond Democrat article on David Whitmer. The December 1885 Chicago Tribune report says that “on covering his face with the hat the characters and translation would appear on the stone.”47 There is reason to doubt, however, that David Whitmer ever said this. David Whitmer’s son reportedly insisted that his father was not interviewed for this report as claimed and that it was inaccurate, but that his father was tired of always contradicting such reports and so let it pass.48 A close look at the report supports the son’s contention. Based on similarity in word choice, phrasing, and ideas covered, the description of the translation process in this article appears to be an amalgamation of descriptions of the process from three previously published reports of interviews with Whitmer. None of those reports say the words appeared on the seer stone.49 This suggests that the idea of words appearing on the stone was an assumption made by the reporter, not something Whitmer taught. The October 1886 Omaha Herald report of an interview with Whitmer says that on one occasion Joseph was unable to translate because “the surface of the magic stone remained blank.” By the context, the “magic stone” could be the interpreters or Joseph’s seer stone. Whitmer later noted that this article also contained errors and that the reporter took no notes during the “so-called interview.”50 The lack of notetaking means that the reported description of the translation process was not Whitmer’s wording but was composed by the reporter based on other sources or on his own imperfect recollection of what was said during the interview and his assumptions of what was meant. Based on similarity in phrasing and word choice, the reporter appears to have taken language from the problematic 1885 Chicago Tribune report and probably adopted the idea of words appearing on a stone from that report as well.51 The January 1888 Richmond Democrat article on David Whitmer says that, in translating, “the prophet would place the stone in a hat, then put his face in the hat and read the words that appeared thereon.”52 Based on similarity in wording in the surrounding text, the idea of words appearing on the stone as well as much of the language appear to have been copied from the October 1886 Omaha Herald interview report.53 Based on this textual evidence, the idea of words appearing on the seer stone appears to have originated as a reporter’s assumption in the 1885 Chicago Tribune report.

If we look at historical accounts that describe where Joseph saw text while using the white, marble-like interpreter stones, the results are similar.54 The only statement from someone who likely heard Joseph describe his experience with the interpreter stones says words would appear “in the stone” (William Smith’s 1883 statement), although it is possible that this phrase is referring to Joseph’s own seer stone.55 While on a mission in Germany in 1842, Orson Hyde published a pamphlet that, speaking of the interpreters, said they “were placed where all light was excluded . . . and the answer appeared written with letters of light on the Urim and Thummim.”56 It is possible that Orson Hyde had retrospectively discussed details of the translation with Joseph Smith after he joined the Church in late 1831. Another possibility is that Hyde discussed the translation with Samuel Smith, who was his companion during an earlier mission in 1832 and had probably talked with Joseph about the translation experience. Especially in the latter case, being a thirdhand account, Hyde’s description of the translation may not have faithfully conveyed seemingly minor details such as in versus on.

Newspaper reports of interviews with individuals to whom Joseph described or may have described his experience translating with the interpreters are thirdhand at best and therefore of limited reliability. One of these is an 1884 report by E. C. Briggs of an interview with David Whitmer that says “the letters appeared on them in light.” But the report also twice has words appearing in the stones—an inconsistency that suggests on may have been an error.57 The 1888 Richmond Democrat report mentioned above not only has words appearing on Joseph’s seer stone, but also “on the lenses” of the interpreters.58 Again, the reporter is relying on the language and ideas of the 1886 Omaha Herald report, which in turn relies on the dubious 1885 Chicago Tribune report. Samual Richards’s 1907 recollection of his interview with Oliver Cowdery has words appearing “distinctly in the instrument” and remaining “in the translator” that Joseph held over the words on the plates.59

Instead of asking where Joseph saw the words while translating, we might ask where he was looking in relation to the stone when he saw them. Firsthand accounts from individuals who credibly claim that Joseph described this element of the translation to them report that Joseph said he was looking “through” his seer stone (Henry Harris’s circa 1833 statement) or “into” the interpreters (Nancy Towle’s 1832 report).60

Nineteenth-century individuals familiar with the use of seer stones knew that a seer would see things by looking through or into a stone, not at a stone.61 This understanding applied to Joseph’s use of seer stones. Referring to Joseph’ seer stone, Martin Harris said that Joseph had been employed to “look in the stone” for buried treasure.62 It was for the crime of “looking through a certain stone” that Joseph was charged in 1830, and at the trial, his friend Newel Knight (son of Joseph Knight Sr.) testified in 1830, as reported by the presiding justice, that Joseph could indeed “see in a stone.”63 According to an entry in Wilford Woodruff’s journal, John Taylor spoke of “the gift of seeing through seer stones” as a means of divine revelation.64

No special gift would have been needed to look into or through a clear stone; any person with normal vision could have done that. Opaque or translucent stones such as Joseph’s seer stones or the white interpreters, on the other hand, could be looked into or through only in a figurative sense (as in, “I explore the world through books”) or in a visionary sense. Looking through or into an opaque stone with the unaided eye in a literal sense is impossible by definition. But even if it were possible, the results would be uninteresting. If Joseph, with some sort of x-ray vision, had actually looked through his brown seer stone placed in his hat, he would have seen the bottom of the hat. If he had looked into the stone, he would have seen the inside of the stone, which would have looked a lot like the outside. The banality of seeing through or into stones in the usual sense suggests that Joseph was not seeing with normal vision, when shading might be helpful, but rather “seeing” as a seer—seeing a vision.

Individuals close to Joseph understood his method of translating with a stone and hat to involve the same visioning abilities—his gift of “seeing” as a seer and the art of “looking” as a glass looker—that he had previously used in visioning lost or hidden things:

- Isaac Hale, in his 1834 statement – “He was at that time in the employ of a set of men who were called ‘money-diggers;’ and his occupation was that of seeing, or pretending to see by means of a stone placed in his hat, and his hat closed over his face. . . . Smith stated to me, that he had given up what he called ‘glasslooking,’ and that he expected to work hard for a living. . . . The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face.”65

- Josiah Stowell, in his 1830 trial testimony as reported by the presiding justice – “Prisoner put a certain stone into his hat . . . he could then see as prisoner said, and translate the same . . . and the prisoner, when looking for money, salt springs, hid treasures, &c., looked in the same manner.”66

- Newel Knight, in his 1830 trial testimony as reported by the presiding justice – “Prisoner could see in a stone as stated by Stowel; that formerly he looked for Money &c.”67

- William E. McLellin, early apostle, in his 1872 letter to Joseph Smith III – “When he finished the translation of the Book [of Mormon,] thereafter he did not see—that is he did not use his stone. . . . In Oct[ober], 1831 I wrote a revelation as he delivered it [D&C 66]. And I know he used no stone to see then.”68

These statements reflect a contemporary understanding by Joseph’s close associates that the translation was a visionary experience of the kind he had while looking for hidden things, not a novel kind of experience involving normal vision, a light-emitting stone, and the need for shading. This supports the idea that the hat served to facilitate a visionary state of consciousness rather than to aid normal visual perception.

The Book of Mormon describes the use of the white interpreter stones in terms reminiscent of glass looking. In Mosiah 8:13, Ammon describes how a “seer” could “look in” the stones to see visions. The seeing of visions is implied in this passage not only by the idea of seeing hidden things, but also by the use of the word seer, since a seer “after the manner of old times” (Mosiah 28:16) was a see-er of visions.69

When the Book of Mormon translation process is understood as a visionary experience, comparisons to magic become moot, cultural connections to money digging are logically explained, and Joseph can be appreciated as an Old Testament style seer like the ancient prophet-seers Lehi and Ezekiel, who also saw sacred manuscripts in vision.

What Did Joseph’s Seeing Hat Look Like?

The only historical accounts that mention the style of Joseph’s hat are relatively late in the century and refer to the hat as a top hat. Here I use top hat to mean a tall, cylindrical hat with a stiff brim.70

In the early part of the nineteenth century, hats were commonly made of felted wool. More expensive felt hats were constructed of a mixture of wool and rabbit or other animal fur.71 Felt hats came in various styles, from the relatively low-crowned, broad brimmed, soft felt hats seen on the heads of farmers and other outdoor laborers to the more fashionable top hats obligatory for the gentry and professional class. The felt in top hats was typically stiffened with shellac and covered with a nap composed of fur (not skin) of beaver, muskrat, rabbit or other animal (see figure 1).72 These top hats were commonly called beaver hats, or just beavers. Beginning around 1830, top hats were increasingly covered with silk plush instead of fur and were called silk hats, although beaver could still refer to a hat covered with either fur or silk. Pasteboard, cork, whalebone, cemented layers of fabric, or other stiff material could be used instead of stiffened felt to form the hat body.73 Near the end of the century, the term top hat came into use, along with high hat and tall hat, which meant the same thing. Stovepipe hat (or stove-pipe hat) and chimney-pot hat were informal terms used especially for the tallest hats.74

If Joseph’s seeing hat was a top hat, as the late nineteenth-century accounts suggest, it was most likely made of beaver or other animal fur, since silk hats were less common at the time. Both black and white beaver hats were fashionable in the early part of the century, even in rural areas, as can be seen in figure 2. Although a new beaver hat

Figure 1. Beaver-style top hat (this one of rabbit fur) purchased by a young Connecticut businessman around 1830 (Barnum Museum, Bridgeport, Connecticut). This basic shape was fashionable in the 1820s when Joseph Smith was using a hat for seeing.75

Figure 2. Detail of Barroom Dancing, circa 1820, John Lewis Krimmel
(Library of Congress).76
would have been expensive, there was a used hat market, and Joseph might have purchased an old hat.77

On the other hand, it is possible that the late century descriptions of Joseph’s hat, which describe it as a top hat, were invented. Earlier descriptions, published before 1875, make no mention of the form or style of the hat. This lack of labeling suggests the hat may have been of a style that was unremarkable or did not have a widely recognized name. For example, various shapes of soft felt hats apparently not stylish enough to have their own identifying names appear in depictions of early nineteenth-century country life in genre paintings such as John Lewis Krimmel’s The village politicians (1819, Pennsylvania), William Sidney Mount’s Winding up (1836, New York) and The raffle (1837, New York), and George Caleb Bingham’s Country politician (1849, Missouri). These paintings can be viewed by image search on the Internet.

Joseph Smith was a farmer and laborer.78 One shape of soft felt hat that was particularly suited for farming and other outdoor labor had a rounded crown and broad brim. These hats can be seen on the heads of New York farmers in Mount’s Dancing on the barn floor (1831), which can be viewed on the Internet, and Bargaining for a horse (1835), shown in figure 3. Based on genre paintings from the latter part of the 18th and first half of the nineteenth centuries, such hats were commonly worn by farmers and laborers of this period.79

Figure 3. Detail of Bargaining for a horse, 1835, William Sidney Mount (New York Historical Society).80 The farmer on the left wears a common round-crowned, broad-brimmed felt hat. The more fashionable hat worn by the farmer on the right suggests that he is the buyer who has traveled to negotiate the purchase.

These hats were not only less expensive than top hats, but were, for outdoor labor, more functional. Broad brims provided protection from the sun. The relatively low center of gravity and snug fit made the hats stable enough to stay on the head when bending over, making sudden movements, and in windy conditions. And the soft felted wool was resilient enough to take a beating without becoming permanently deformed. This contrasted with the expense, poor shading, instability, and fragility of top hats.81

To further explore what Joseph’s translating hat may have looked like, I will consider two questions: What limits do the mechanics of translation place on the hat style? And how do historical accounts describe Joseph’s hat?

Evidence from the mechanics of the translation

Portrayals of Joseph translating with various styles of hat positioned in various ways can be found on the Internet by searching for “Joseph Smith’s hat” (without the quotation marks). Witness statements that mention the mechanics of translation are discussed in the appendix. They say either that Joseph “buried” his face in his hat82 or that he “placed” or “put” his face in his hat,83 with the purpose of excluding the light. Whitmer’s 1887 statement says that Joseph would “put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face.”84 Burying one’s face in a hat snugly enough to exclude the ambient light would require a hat flexible enough to bend into a shape that would admit the face and soft enough to mold around the face to fill gaps where light would enter. With their shellac-stiffened crowns and brims, top hats would have been ill-suited for this purpose. A soft, wool felt hat would have been more pliable and more easily molded around the face. The most detailed explanation of how Joseph would position the hat over his face, based on Josiah Stowell’s 1830 trial testimony, says that after he “put his face into the crown,” he “drew the brim of the hat around his head to prevent Light.”85 Drawing the brim of a hat around one’s head implies a broad, flexible brim. Although early nineteenth-century beaver hats varied in brim width and perhaps stiffness, a brim flexible and broad enough to be drawn “around his head” was more characteristic of a farmer’s soft wool felt hat.86

Historical descriptions of the hat

If we were to accept all nineteenth-century descriptions of Joseph Smith’s seeing hat at face value, we would conclude that Joseph not only used this hat for seeing, but also “invariably wore” it even though it was “antiquated” and so “old” and “battered” that “his uncombed hair” could be seen “sticking through the holes”; that it was a “very large . . . stovepipe” style of “beaver” hat; and that it was “black” but also “white.”87 But not all historical accounts are of equal value in discerning the facts. To get as close to the truth as possible, we must favor those accounts that are most credible and question those that are likely invented. Each account must be evaluated for credibility and its claims tested against other sources and for logical consistency. Most of the accounts describing Joseph’s seeing hat are secondhand at best and do not state their sources of information. Many are copied, sometimes with embellishments, from earlier unsourced accounts. When sources are provided, they are not always credible and there is always a chance that details from interviews were remembered or interpreted incorrectly or that embellishments were added to fill in gaps or for literary effect.

The earliest description of Joseph Smith’s seeing hat is in an 1841 issue of the Christian Advocate and Journal:

Gladly would he while engaged in “peeping,” sometimes into an old hat, and at others into the spectacles, “called Urim and Thummim,” through which he was enabled to read “the plates,” and dictate to Oliver Cowdery, his amanuensis.88

In his 1842 exposé on Mormonism, John C. Bennett referred to Joseph Smith as “the Holy Old White Hat Prophet.”89

The next oldest description of Joseph’s hat appears in an 1851 book of grievances against Mormons, compiled by Nelson Slater:

This was in keeping with the practice of Smith in former days when he was a money digger. He was in the habit of putting his head into an old black hat, pulling it up so as to exclude the light, and then by various motions with his head, as if looking here and there, he would pretend that he saw money beneath the surface of the ground.90

These articles do not provide a source for their descriptions of Joseph’s seeing hat. Neither does an 1858 article in the Boston Cultivator, which similarly mentions how “Mormon Joe could read the mystic stone in his old hat.”91

The earliest description of Joseph’s seeing hat from a witness of the translation of the Book of Mormon is from Martin Harris’s 1859 statement, in which he tells of Joseph using his seer stone and hat to find a lost pin:

In the first place, he told me of this stone, and proposed to bind it on his eyes, and run a race with me in the woods. A few days after this, I was at the house of his father in Manchester, two miles south of Palmyra village, and was picking my teeth with a pin while sitting on the bars. The pin caught in my teeth, and dropped from my fingers into shavings and straw. I jumped from the bars and looked for it. Joseph and Northrop Sweet also did the same. We could not find it. I then took Joseph on surprise, and said to him—I said, ‘Take your stone.’ I had never seen it, and did not know that he had it with him. He had it in his pocket. He took it and placed it in his hat—the old white hat—and placed his face in his hat. I watched him closely to see that he did not look one side; he reached out his hand beyond me on the right, and moved a little stick, and there I saw the pin, which he picked up and gave to me. I know he did not look out of the hat until after he had picked up the pin. Joseph had had this stone for some time. . . . When Joseph found this stone, there was a company digging in Harmony, Pa., and they took Joseph to look in the stone for them.92

Harris’s account says the pin incident happened a few days after Joseph first told him about his stone and before Joseph obtained the plates (September of 1827). A little later in the account, Harris mentions Joseph’s seeing hat again while speaking of the interpreters that Joseph obtained with the plates: “I never dared to look into them by placing them in the hat.”93 The apparent antecedent of “the hat” in the second quote is “the old white hat” in the first one, suggesting that Joseph used his old white hat in translating the Book of Mormon when Harris was scribe in 1828. The fact that the 1841 account in the Christian Advocate and Journal, which names Oliver Cowdery as scribe, and the 1859 account with Martin Harris as scribe, both describe the hat similarly as “old” suggests that Joseph used the same hat for translating the entire Book of Mormon.94

These descriptions from the 1840s and 1850s tell us that the age and color of the hat were the notable characteristics, not the style or shape. The common theme is that Joseph’s seeing hat was old. Harris’s account, which is the most authoritative, also confirms that the hat was white, as suggested by Bennett’s 1830 moniker for the prophet. The one mention of Joseph’s hat as “black,” by Nelson Staker in 1851, is unsourced. An 1830 account that says that Joseph would translate with “a dark hat before his eyes” is more likely referring to Joseph’s need to look into a darkened hat (with the light excluded) rather than a black or dark-colored hat.95

Besides Harris’s description, the only nineteenth-century acount of Joseph’s seeing hat that is traceable to someone known to have witnessed his seeing activities is James Hart’s 1884 record of an interview with David Whitmer. Hart reported Whitmer’s description of the translation as follows:

The way it was done was thus: Joseph would place the seer-stone in a deep hat, and placing his face close to it, would see, not the stone, but what appeared like an oblong piece of parchment.96

“A deep hat” is descriptively consistent with a top hat, but also with deep-crowned versions of other hat styles, including broad-brimmed, soft felt hats.97 If Whitmer wanted to communicate that the hat was a top hat, he could have used one of the other terms commonly used to refer to top hats, such as high hat, tall hat, beaver hat, or stovepipe hat. Even without Hart’s account, we can estimate that the hat would have needed to be fairly deep—with a crown height of about 5 inches or more—to comfortably accommodate both Joseph’s face and the stone.98

This combination of the earliest and most authoritative descriptions of Joseph’s seeing hat paints a picture of an old, white (perhaps gray or off-white), fairly deep hat that was otherwise unremarkable for an early nineteenth-century farmer, perhaps something like the hat shown in figure 4.

Charles W. Brown account

All of the remaining nineteenth-century descriptions of Joseph’s seeing hat are from a half century or more after the events described. The earliest of these accounts is from an article by Charles W. Brown published in the Ontario County Times in 1875. In it, Brown relates a “well authenticated anecdote” of a treasure-seeking expedition involving Joseph Smith, his father, and Joseph’s Manchester era neighbor, Williiam Stafford, in which Joseph looks into a hat. Brown calls the hat a “well worn and antiquated beaver” and mentions Joseph “looking into the cavernous depths of the superannuated chapeau” to vision the treasure.99 “Beaver” could refer to any top hat, whether of fur or

Figure 4. An “old white” hat of felted wool with a fairly deep crown, alongside a replica of Joseph Smith’s brown seer stone.100
silk.101 Brown’s “well worn and antiquated beaver” with “cavernous depths” implies a very tall, old top hat. Brown’s description of Joseph’s hat as a very tall top hat was followed over the next two decades by many published mentions of Joseph’s “tall” or “large” “stovepipe” hat and may have been the ultimate inspiration for them.

There are reasons to believe that Brown invented this description of Joseph’s seeing hat. First, Brown does not provide a source for his description. His article draws from Orsamus Turner’s 1851 local history, Pomeroy Tucker’s 1867 history of early Mormonism, and William Stafford’s 1833 affidavit as published Eber D. Howe in 1834.102 But none of these works provide any information on the style of Joseph’s hat. Brown does not claim to have interviewed any local residents who may have seen Joseph’s hat. William Stafford died in 1863, which was too early for him to have been a source. It is possible that Brown obtained some information from Stafford’s son, John, who happened to be Brown’s father-in-law, but Brown does not mention this connection or any personal interview. Because Brown did not provide a source for his description of Joseph’s seeing hat, it cannot be considered authoritative.

Second, a comparison with Stafford’s 1833 affidavit, which is the most authoritative account of the story Brown is telling, suggests that Brown’s descriptions of Joseph’s hat are embellishments to the story.103 Brown introduces the story with, “the following well-authenticated account is related.” The authentication that Brown refers to is apparently William Stafford’s own 1833 account of treasure digging in Manchester, probably between 1822 and 1825.104 The similarity in phrasing and order of ideas in Stafford’s and Brown’s accounts suggests that Brown was looking at Stafford’s affidavit as he was writing his account. In the comparison of Stafford’s and Brown’s accounts below, similar phrases and ideas in the same or nearly the same order in the two accounts are in small caps. The underlined portions of Brown’s account have no counterpart in Stafford’s. References to Joseph Smith’s hat are bolded.

Stafford’s 1833 Account:

They would say, also, that . . . Joseph, Jr., could see, by placing a stone of singular appearance in his hat . . . [and] could also discover the spirits in whose charge these treasures were. . . . These tales I regarded as visionary. However, being prompted by curiosity, I at length accepted of their invitations, to join them in their nocturnal excursions. I will now relate a few incidents. . . . I accordingly consented to go, and early in the evening repaired to the place of deposit. Joseph, Sen. first made a circle, twelve or fourteen feet in diameter. This circle, said he, contains the treasure. . . . [he] then enjoined profound silence upon us, lest we should arouse the evil spirit who had the charge of these treasures. After we had dug a trench . . . [Joseph, Sr.] went to the house to inquire of young Joseph the cause of our disappointment. He soon returned and said, that Joseph had remained all this time in the house, looking in his stone and watching the motions of the evil spirit [which] . . . caused the money to sink. We then went into the house, and the old man observed, that we had made a mistake in the commencement of the operation; if it had not been for that, said he, we should have got the money.105

Brown’s 1875 Account:

The following well authenticated anecdote is related: It was claimed that Joseph, Jr., by placing it in a hat could discover by looking into the hat the precise spot where the hidden treasure was buried. Among the many dupes which were victimized by this story, was one William Stafford. They repeated the tale to him time and time again, with such solemn asseverations of its truth, that at last he began to believe that there might be something in it, and so consented to join them in one of their midnight expeditions. When the evening which had been agreed upon came around, he hied him to the Smith domicile, and there awaited developments. Soon Joseph joined the circle before the hearth, bearing with him the stone carefully concealed in a well worn and antiquated beaver. Seating himself, he placed his face where his pate ought to have been, and after peering intently into the recesses thereof, made the encouraging announcement that he saw a pot full to overflowing with glittering shiners, and that he could lead the assembled coterie to the precise spot, where by a little dilligent digging combined with a strict observation of all the conditions imposed, they could speedily exhume the same, and make a pro rata division of the contents thereof.—No time was now lost in getting under way, and arming themselves with shovels, pick axes and implements of a like nature, they started forth with Joseph and the magic stone at the head of the column. “Tramp, tramp, tramp” they went “marching on,” through the forests and across the fields, until after a long and weary march their leader commanded a halt. . . . A solemn injunction to preserve the strictest silence was now laid upon every one of the party, as it was said that the Evil One was around. . . . [Joseph, Sr.] proceeded to strike out, and “swing around,” the magic circle within which the treasure was to be found. Work was now commenced in earnest. . . . [Joseph, Jr.] with drew himself into a thicket, and after looking into the cavernous depths of the superannuated chapeau, dolorously announced to his followers, that some of the prescribed conditions had been violated, and that Satan had carried off the concentrated riches to some other locality. They dug no longer but went to their homes, where it is suspected that they did ample justice to the matutinal meals. Before separating however, Joseph took another look into the hat, and made the encouraging announcement that his precious pebble had revealed to him the precise spot where Le Diable had secreted his ill gotten and recently acquired wealth.106

The underlined portions of Brown’s account relate incidents and details that do not appear in Stafford’s account and in fact contradict his account. Specifically, according to Stafford, he did not join any meeting at Joseph’s house but rather went directly to the digging spot where he found Joseph’s father and others. Joseph did not join the expedition but remained in his house with his seeing stone and hat the entire time. This also means that Joseph never withdrew from the group into a thicket and that he was not with the digging crew at any time during the operation. The idea that Joseph led the group to the digging site was probably borrowed from Tucker’s 1867 reworking of Stafford’s account. The remainder of the underlined portions are apparently Brown’s own embellishments. The description of Joseph’s seeing hat is within these apparent embellishments.

Third, additional evidence that Brown’s hat descriptions are fanciful is found in his tone and word choice. “Tramp, tramp, tramp” marks Brown’s account as satire. Brown creates the mocking tone of his satire with hyperbole and flowery language. For example, in place of Stafford’s straight-forward phrase, “observed that we had made a mistake,” Brown substitutes, “dolorously announced to his followers,

Figure 5. Group portrait of students, probably members of The Ranters, at Bethany College, Virginia, 1850–1851. Two are costumed in large, white, beaver-style hats consistent with Brown’s satirical description of Joseph’s seeing hat as being a “cavernous” “antiquated beaver.”107
that some of the prescribed conditions had been violated.” Where Stafford mentions “the evil spirit who had the charge of these treasures,” Brown has “the Evil One . . . Satan . . . Le Diable.” Brown’s avoidance of simple, accurate language is most evident in the portions of the text that have no counterpart in Stafford’s account, and it is here that we find the descriptions of Joseph’s hat. Here, he uses fancy and often inaccurate words: hied, domicile, bearing, pate, glittering, coterie, exhume, pro rata, arming, magic, column, marching, halt, cavernous, superannuated, chapeau, etc. We can see by his use of such ill-fitting words as exhume to refer to digging up treasure, arming to mean gathering digging equipment, Satan to mean an evil spirit, coterie to mean assembled workers, marching to mean walking, and cavernous to mean merely deep, that precision in meaning was not always his principal concern in choosing words. His choice to call Joseph’s hat an “antiquated beaver” and “superannuated chapeau” instead of an “old . . . hat,” as previous and more straightforward accounts had done, fits this pattern of substituting flowery and hyperbolic language. This pattern, together with the mocking tone of Brown’s writing, suggests that “antiquated beaver” is no more informative as a definitive description of Joseph’s hat than is “superannuated chapeau,” and that Brown was using these phrases to paint a comical picture of Joseph, not an accurate one.

Lewis brothers account

Chronologically, the next description of Joseph’s hat is in a statement by Joseph and Hiel Lewis that appeared in 1879 in the Amboy Journal. In their statement, the Lewises say they are relating “what they saw and heard of the sayings and doings of the prophet Joseph Smith.” In other words, not all of the information they provide is firsthand. Their claim to authority is that they lived “within one mile of where he lived and transacted his business” in Harmony, Pennsylvania. They report being in the presence of Joseph on multiple occasions and also had a sister, Elizabeth L. McKune, who worked in the Smith home and observed him translate. In their statement, they relate what they had heard of Joseph’s activities while he boarded with their uncle, Isaac Hale:

But while he was engaged in looking through his peep-stone and old white hat, directing the digging for money, and boarding at Uncle Isaac Hale’s, he formed an intimacy with Mr. Hale’s daughter Emma.108

This statement describes the hat in the same way Martin Harris had described it twenty years earlier. The Lewises do not say whether they got their understanding of Joseph’s seeing hat from their own observation, from Harris’s published description, from circulating rumors, from their sister Elizabeth, or from some other source. But whatever their source, this account does not contain anything new.

Frederick G. Mather account

The next year, in July of 1880, a description of Joseph’s seeing hat appeared in the Binghampton Republican (Broome Co., New York) in an article written by an unnamed newspaper reporter:

No matter how it got there, there can be no doubt that a ton of silver bars was buried in the hill, for the Prophet saw it through his “peek-stone.” Before proceeding further with this narrative we will give a description of the Prophet as it was given to the reporter by several aged persons who saw him. He was six feet or a trifle over in height; stout built but wiry; light complexion; light hair and light blue eyes. One aged lady said “he didn’t look as though he knowed enough to fool people so.” He wore a tall white stovepipe hat. Now imagine this athletic form kneeling down and burying his face in his white stovepipe hat, in which was placed the “peek-stone,” and you have in your mind’s eye a view of the first Latter Day Saint discovering the treasures in the earth which no other fellow ever discovered. It was just like looking into water, he said; he could not tell just how deep it was any more than a man can who looks down into a lake; and the deflection of light sometimes took him out of the right course a few inches. Then, too, the “rock-ribbed hills”—and the hills about here are “rock-ribbed” with a vengeance—were so insecure, and treasure so unstable that things in the bowels of the earth were liable to get mixed up every day. When his party would dig almost to a great treasure the enchantment would move it sometimes several rods out of the way. That sort of enchantment must have “tried the patience of a saint,” and all the saints of Mormondom. As soon as he could collect followers enough about him to do the work—the Latter Day Saint, unlike St. Paul, did not labor with his own hands—an excavation was commenced to recover the lost Spanish silver bars. . . . Down, down they went, the distance being measured by slow shovelfuls and tedious blasts in the rocks until they were just ready, or would be next day, to stoop down and pick up the ton of silver bullion. “Hocus, pocus, presto, change.” The “charm” moved the silver away three hundred feet to the north-east. It was an uphill job, but the charm was sufficient for the task. This was terribly hard on the new church, but the ambitious Saint was not to be cheated in that way. He got down on his marrow bones with his peek-stone and tracked it to its exact hiding place. It was not so far under ground this time—only about twenty feet. The faithful went for it again with sleeves rolled up. It was a case of necessity. . . . At it they went again, with a will known only to those who work with a religious zeal or a worldly hope of a “bar’l of money.” Hush, it’s here: pick it up! No, it’s gone again. Not a rumble nor a jar marked its going, but it went like riches on wings. Softly and silently it flitted away, and lighted fifty feet beyond the big hole. The Saint and faithful followers were exasperated, and fully determined to capture it if they had to take the hill to pieces and shake it through a sieve.109

A somewhat condensed version of the article appeared the following month in Lippincott’s Magazine of Popular Literature and Science, identifying the reporter as Frederick G. Mather.110 According to the original article, Mather “visited Susquehanna and other towns on the Susquehanna river for the purpose of authenticating rumors of Mormon history, and interviewed several of the oldest inhabitants.” Unfortunately, most of the local residents who knew Joseph had died or moved away. The elderly inhabitants Mather found to interview did not claim to have any firsthand knowledge of Joseph’s seeing activities but were able to repeat stories they had heard or read. Most of the stories of Joseph’s activities that Mather ended up including in his articles had previously been published in Emily Blackman’s 1873 history of the area.111

The portion of Mather’s article presented above is a sensationalized account of Joseph’s, and his father’s, work for Josiah Stowell in Harmony, Pennsylvania, in November 1825. Stowell had been digging for Spanish treasure he believed was buried in the area and brought on Joseph and his father to assist with the ongoing effort.112 In other words, Mather is speaking of the same dig and the same “old white hat” the Lewis brothers mentioned in their account of the previous year. But Mather describes the hat as a tall stovepipe hat. Mather’s description of Joseph’s seeing hat is suspect for the same reasons Brown’s is: he does not provide a source for this information, there are many incorrect details in his story, and it is written as satire.

Mather based his article partially on interviews with local residents, none of whom are presented as having personally witnessed the treasure-seeking activities described. At the end of his article, he tells us what information was contributed by each interviewed resident. He names Jacob Skinner as the source for the description of Joseph’s appearance and his manner of searching for treasure, Samuel Brush as the source for the explanation of the principle of deflected light, and Sally McKune as the source for the description of the charm moving the treasure, but he provides no source for the hat description. Mather’s failure to provide attribution for the description of the hat suggests it may have been his own invention or reinterpretation of previously published descriptions.

If the description of Joseph’s seeing hat was not Mather’s but was provided by one of the individuals he interviewed, Jacob Skinner seems the most likely source. This is because the hat description comes after the description of Joseph’s appearance and is integrated into his manner of searching for hidden treasure. Skinner, who was born in 1815, would have been about ten years old at the time of the diggings, not sixteen years old as Mather claims. He was, therefore, too young to be of much use on a treasure dig where he might have observed Joseph using a seeing hat.113 Even if Joseph made a habit of wearing his “old” seeing hat in public where a ten-year-old boy might have seen it, it is not clear why the boy would have remembered that hat among the ubiquitous hats on other men’s heads. If Joseph’s hat was so unusual (an exceptionally tall hat?) as to be memorable to a ten-year-old, why was such a hat not mentioned for five decades in which Joseph was frequently ridiculed with any information that could be used for that purpose? It is as likely that any description of Joseph’s hat provided by Skinner or any other elderly resident was based on circulating rumors or previously published accounts such as Martin Harris’s 1859 account, the Lewis brothers’ 1879 account, or Brown’s 1875 account. Mather’s version of events surrounding Joseph’s obtaining and transporting of the gold plates—in which Joseph is assaulted by “the chief devil” but escapes and then transports the plates to Harmony in a “barrel of beans”—suggests that either Mather or one of his sources was familiar with Harris’s 1859 account and could have borrowed and embellished his “old white hat” description.114

The details in Mather’s article are often incorrect, as might be expected from rumors circulating decades after the subject events. For example, in the portion of Mather’s article provided above, Mather has Joseph organizing the dig and being involved from the start, while more authoritative sources say Stowell and others initiated the effort and that it had already been underway before Joseph was hired to help.115 Mather’s account speaks of involvement of “the saints of Mormondom” and Joseph’s “new church,” yet Joseph did not organize the Church until several years later. He had not even obtained the gold plates at this time. Mather has “peek-stone” as a colloquial term for seer stone, while previous accounts have “peep” rather than “peek.” The overall level of inaccuracy in the article does not inspire confidence in the details it presents.

Mather’s account, like Brown’s, is satire. Instead of “tramp, tramp, tramp” signaling the satirical nature of his piece, Mather gives us “hocus, pocus, presto, change.” The sensational tone and high level of sarcasm serve as a warning to the reader that the details of the account were not necessarily intended as facts and cannot be relied upon. While Brown paints a comical picture of Joseph peering into his “antiquated beaver,” Mather creates an even more comical picture of Joseph with his “athletic form kneeling down and burying his face” in his “tall, white stovepipe hat,” or, as an author a few years later summarized Mather’s imagery, “What a spectacle to see such an athletic form kneeling with his face buried in the stovepipe hat . . . to see into the bowels of the earth!”116 At this time, stovepipe was an informal and humorous or derisive term for a top hat.117 Like his description of the hat, Mather’s overall account of Joseph’s treasure-seeking venture surpasses even Brown’s in humor and sensationalism. As stories often do, Joseph Smith’s treasure-seeking ventures got more entertaining with the retelling. While Stafford’s 1833 account had the treasure merely sinking out of reach, and Brown’s 1875 derivative account had Satan carrying off the buried riches “to some other locality,” Mather’s story has “the charm” moving the treasure hundreds of feet away. When the diggers had chased the “bar’l of money” down, Mather tells us it “waltzed around on the other side” and evaded all attempts at being “cornered by tunneling” as it was “dodging about” like “a nimble sixpence.”

Whether Mather actually modeled his account on Brown’s account, independently created a similar piece, or faithfully conveyed the rumors his elderly sources shared with him, the account appears to have been intended to be more funny than factual.

Daniel Hendrix account

After Mather’s 1880 accounts, published descriptions of Joseph’s seeing hat suddenly became much more frequent. There were more descriptions of the hat published in the 1880s than in all prior decades combined. Some of these accounts describe Joseph’s hat only as old or as old and white. Since we have already established through Harris’s authoritative account that Joseph’s hat was old and white, and since these later accounts are all unsourced, I will not discuss them further.

One account, purportedly the transcript of Henry G. Tinsley’s 1893 interview with one Daniel Hendrix, goes beyond “old” to describe Joseph’s hat as “battered.” The account has Hendrix stating:

I was a lad, or a very young man, in a store in Palmyra, N.Y., from 1822 until 1830 . . . and among the daily visitors at the establishment was Joseph Smith, Jr. Every one knew him as Joe Smith. He had lived in Palmyra a few years previous to my going there from Rochester. Joe was the most ragged, lazy fellow in the place, and that is saying a good deal. He was about 25 years old. I can see him now, in my mind’s eye, with his torn and patched trousers, held to his form by a pair of suspenders made out of sheeting, with his calico shirt as dirty and black as the earth, and his uncombed hair sticking through the holes in his old battered hat.118

Just as with Brown’s and Mather’s accounts, the sensational, hyperbolic language of this account reduces its believability. Also, it is unclear whether this statement is referring to the hat Joseph would have used for seeing, since it is not mentioned in context of translation or treasure seeking activities, and a holey hat would have had limited utility for excluding ambient light. But it does not matter—the description of the hat is a fabrication. There was no interview, nor, apparently, any Daniel Hendrix. Efforts by researchers to confirm his existence have failed.119 The bulk of the published text was not, it turns out, from an 1893 interview, but was plagiarized from the reminiscence of Joseph Franklin Peck, published 6 years earlier.120 It was Peck, not Hendrix, who was the young attendant in the Palmyra store. And since Peck’s original account makes no mention of Joseph’s appearance, the battered and holey hat seen in the “mind’s eye” of the young store attendant must have been an embellishment from Tinsley’s own imagination.

Derivatives of Mather’s account

The remaining descriptions of Joseph’s hat published in the 1880s and 1890s call it a stovepipe hat, usually a large white one. Most of these appear to have been derived, either directly or indirectly, from Mather’s 1880 Binghampton Republican account, as evidenced by contextual similarity in wording and structure. Specifically, based on topics covered, order, and word choice in the surrounding text, an 1894 mention of a “white ‘stove-pipe hat’” in the Democrat and Chronicle and an 1887 mention of an “old stove-pipe hat” by Selah Brown in the Los Angeles Times appear to be derived from an 1885 mention of a “white stove-pipe hat” in Ellen E. Dickinson’s New Light on Mormonism.121 In turn, Dickinson’s wording as well as an 1888 mention of a “large white stovepipe hat” in The New York Times and an 1899 mention of a “large white ‘stovepipe’ hat” by H. S. Caswell in the New York Tribune all appear to be derived from an October 1881 mention of a “large white stove-pipe hat” in Eaton’s The Origin of Mormonism.122 Eaton’s wording is in turn derived from Mather’s 1880 Binghampton Republican account, as is an 1890 mention of a “tall white stovepipe hat” by Auburn Towner in the Elmira Telegram.123 This relationship of accounts suggests that one reason descriptions of Joseph’s hat become much more frequent after 1880 was that Mather’s account provided an amusing description to adopt or adapt. Since these hat descriptions appear to all trace back to Mather, they are no more credible than is his.

Joseph Fowler McKune account

Only one of the late “stovepipe” accounts names a potentially authoritative source. This is an account in Rhamnus Stocker’s 1887 Centennial History of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, which reports information provided by many local residents, including Joseph Fowler McKune:

Joseph Fowler McCune [McKune], now residing in Windsor, Broome County, N.Y., boarded in this neighborhood and attended school at Hickory Grove while Smith was engaged in translating the Bible [Book of Mormon], and was quite often in Smith’s house. Mr. McCune states that Reuben Hale acted as scribe a part of the time. He says Smith’s hat was a very large one, and what is commonly called a “stove-pipe.” The hat was on the table by the window and the stone in the bottom or rather in the top of the hat. Smith would bend over the hat with his face buried in it so that no light could enter it, and thus dictate to the scribe what he should write.124

Joseph Fowler McKune, born in 1815, would have been around 13 or 14 in 1828 and 1829 when Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon. Whether Joseph wore his old seeing hat in public at this time, or used it only for seeing, is not known. This account mentions the hat only in the context of the translation, which was reportedly conducted in an upstairs room in the Smith home.125 Stocker reports that McKune told him that Joseph’s seeing hat was “a very large” hat of the “stove-pipe” style and that Joseph used this hat for translating at a table by a window. Stocker does not say how McKune obtained his understanding of the translation process or hat, but notes, as McKune’s

Figure 6. A very large stovepipe hat consistent with McCune’s description of Joseph’s seeing hat. This hat, with a nap of beaver fur, was made around 1830 (Oregon Historical Society Museum, 68–418.3).

basis of authority, that McKune attended school in the area and lived in the neighborhood while Joseph was translating, and further, that McKune had “quite often” been in the Smith house. There is no claim that McKune personally observed Joseph translating or ever saw the hat used for that purpose. There are many reasons a young teenage neighbor might have been in the Smith’s house, such as buying, selling, or bartering items; delivering messages; or even visiting, but these do not necessarily provide him with access to the upstairs translating chamber. It is unlikely that McKune personally observed the translation. All known or likely witnesses to the translation were very close friends or relatives of the Smiths, except for Elizabeth L. McKune, who was a household employee.126 McKune was none of these. If McKune had been privileged enough to have witnessed the translation, he probably would have said so and Stocker would have mentioned that as the basis of McKune’s authority on the topic.

Joseph and Emma moved out of the house and sold it to McKune’s uncle, Joseph McKune, Jr., in 1833. McKune’s uncle, his aunt, Sally, and his cousins lived in the house for many years and McKune also remained in the area.127 However frequent Joseph Fowler McKune’s visits may have been to the Smith house during the translation period, he was probably “quite often” in the house after his uncle’s family moved in. During such familial visits he may have even been shown the former translating chamber, perhaps with the translating table still by the window. These visits, of course, would not have afforded him the opportunity to observe the translation or to see the hat used for that purpose.

In describing Joseph’s translating technique and hat to Stocker, McKune may have simply been repeating what he heard from other residents or had himself read, most likely in Mather’s 1880 account or Eaton’s 1881 account. As a resident of Broome County, McKune would have had access to Mather’s original 1880 account published in the area newspaper, which included a report of an interview with his own Aunt Sally. Copies of Eaton’s account were also widely available.128

McKune’s description of Joseph bending over, with his “face buried” in his “very large . . . stove-pipe” hat is reminiscent of Mather’s 1880 description of Joseph kneeling and “burying his face” in his “tall white stovepipe hat.” It is also possible that Mather and Joseph Fowler McKune both got their language from McKune’s Aunt Sally. But even in that case, we would still not know whether the idea of a large top hat had its ultimate source in someone’s (possibly Sally’s) personal observation of the hat or in Brown’s likely invented description of the hat as a “cavernous” “beaver.” Given the local interest in Joseph Smith’s seeing activities and the fact that published accounts describing Joseph’s translation methods and seeing hat had been around for several years, it is likely that the idea of Joseph using a large top hat was circulating among the local residents, along with a general understanding of his translating technique and the identities of his scribes.129 If McKune was merely repeating what he heard or read from unspecified sources, his description of Joseph’s hat as a large top hat is no more helpful than Mather’s. In the end, we are left not knowing whether to take McKune’s description of Joseph’s seeing hat as a confirmation of Mather’s questionable 1880 description, or as a derivative of it.

Another indication that McKune may have been relaying what he had heard or read rather than his own personal knowledge of Joseph’s hat is that he did not describe the hat’s color or age, as the earliest accounts most often did, but instead described its size and style in a way similar to descriptions in recently published accounts.

By the turn of the century, most of the individuals who knew Joseph during the time of his seeing activities had died, and reporters had to rely more heavily on circulating rumors and previously published accounts for their stories about Joseph’s younger days. I have found no twentieth century accounts that provide any credible additional information regarding Joseph’s seeing hat.130

Summary of hat descriptions

In summary, there are three potentially independent nineteenth-century accounts that describe Joseph’s seeing hat as a top hat, and these portray it as a notably large one: Brown’s 1875 “cavernous” “beaver,” Mather’s 1880 “tall white stovepipe hat,” and McKune’s 1887 “very large” “stove-pipe.” All other nineteenth-century descriptions of Joseph’s seeing hat as a top hat appear to ultimately derive from one of these three. Thus, based on historical descriptions of Joseph’s seeing hat, if it was a top hat, it was an unusually large one.

Although it is possible that Joseph’s seeing hat was an exceptionally large top hat, this is not the only option. The firsthand and earliest descriptions of the hat make no mention of its size or style, which suggests that the hat was unremarkable for a farmer—perhaps a common wool felt hat of unremarkable dimensions. (Based on these earliest descriptions, the hat’s remarkable characteristics were its age and color, not its size or style.) Comparisons of the various accounts that describe Joseph’s hat as a top hat, along with a consideration of Brown’s account as satire, provide evidence for one possible derivation of the idea that Joseph’s seeing hat was a very large white top hat:

- Brown took the well-known idea that Joseph’s hat was an old hat—this having been the common theme in previously published descriptions—and expressed it in hyperbolic, satirical language as a “cavernous” “antiquated beaver.”

- Mather or one of his sources took Brown’s description at face value and understood it to mean an unusually large top hat, which, when combined with the “white hat” in Harris’s 1859 account (which independently appears to have been a source for Mather’s article), resulted in Mather’s “tall white stovepipe hat.”

- The other descriptions of Joseph’s hat as a top hat published over the subsequent two decades ultimately derive from Mather’s amusing-yet-influential account.

The best corroborated and most detailed descriptions of how Joseph used a hat in the translation of the Book of Mormon—drawing the hat closely around his face and the brim around his head to exclude ambient light—are most consistent with a soft, broad-brimmed felt hat.

Summary and Conclusions

The characterization of Joseph in historical accounts as a seer (traditionally, a “see-er” of visions), his use of seer stones (both the interpreters and his own) in translating, the way he described the experience of translation to others, and scriptural accounts of the revelation of sacred books to other seers such as Lehi and Ezekiel in vision, all suggest that the translation of the Book of Mormon was revealed to Joseph in vision. The seer stones he used for translating, rather than being advanced technological devices, more likely served as an aid to faith for seeing the revelatory visions.

Joseph said that he translated by “the gift and power of God.”131 David Whitmer, to whom Joseph described his experience, explained that the gift by which Joseph translated was “the gift to see the sentences in English, when he looked into the hat in which was placed the stone.”132 This “gift to see” when he looked into a hat containing a seer stone was the gift of seeing as a seer. It was the gift of visions. The hat, held close over Joseph’s face, would have blocked his normal vision and provided a space for focus in the presence of others, facilitating a state of consciousness more conducive to revelatory vision. Functioning in this way, the hat would have been a visionary instrument.

Figure 7. Portrayal of Joseph Smith using a white, broad-brimmed, soft felt hat to attain a state of consciousness in which he could vision the translation of the Book of Mormon.133

Based on historical evidence, Joseph used an old white hat in translating the Book of Mormon, but the style of the hat is less certain. It may have been a very tall top hat of beaver or other animal fur, as suggested by late nineteenth-century accounts. But more likely, the idea of an oversized top hat was invented for literary effect, and Joseph’s seeing hat was actually a more ordinary looking hat—perhaps a broad-brimmed, soft wool felt hat like those commonly worn by farmers of the time. The latter is more consistent with accounts describing how Joseph used the hat for translating—drawing the hat closely around his face and the brim around his head.

The established Christianity of Joseph’s day could not teach him how to attain a visionary state of consciousness, but the art of seeing visions had been preserved in the traditional use of seer stones, and that is where Joseph learned how to use a hat and a meaningful stone to attain a visionary state. With this ability and his gift of seeing, he became a seer through whom God could reveal the Book of Mormon.

Appendix: Historical Accounts of the
Translation of the Book of Mormon

Many of the historical accounts of the translation are found in reports of interviews with witnesses. Before the use of recording equipment became standard practice, interviewers had to reconstruct statements from hastily written notes, if any were taken at all. They often filled in gaps and smoothed over rough spots with their own words based on their imperfect memories of what was said and assumptions of what was meant. Reporters were not bound by modern journalistic standards and frequently borrowed text or ideas from previously published reports, however erroneous. The chance for error was high and limited the utility of secondhand accounts for reconstructing historical events. When firsthand accounts are unavailable, secondhand accounts may be helpful, if they are used carefully and compared against other sources. When I do quote secondhand, thirdhand, or fourth-hand accounts, I will make it clear that I am doing so. The agreement of multiple independent sources increases the credibility of information and, all else being equal, reports closer in time to an event or interview tend to be more reliable than those further removed.

The Urim and Thummim in Joseph Smith’s time

A cause of confusion particular to the translation of the Book of Mormon is the frequently ambiguous use of the term Urim and Thummim. For most of history, the Urim and Thummim was universally understood to mean the revelatory instrument, often presumed to consist of one or two stones, used by Israel’s high priest. Joseph Smith expanded that definition.134 William Clayton, in his journal entry of 2 April 1843, related a conversation he had with Joseph in which Joseph said that the planet where God dwells, which is like crystal or glass, is “the Great Urim & Thummim,” that “the Urim and Thummim” is a small representation of this globe, and that the white stone spoken of in Revelation 2:17 would be “the Urim and Thummim” to those who received one.135

To Joseph, the Urim and Thummim no longer meant just the revelatory stones used by Israel’s High priest, but other revelatory stones as well. Joseph had his own white stone that he used for revelation, in addition to his brown one.136 It was most likely this white stone that Joseph used when he gave patriarchal blessings “through the Urim and Thummim” to Hyrum Smith in 1833 and Newel K. Whitney in 1835.137 By this time, Joseph had already returned the interpreters to the angel with the plates and given his brown seer stone to Oliver Cowdery.138 When Cowdery copied Hyrum’s patriarchal blessing into the Church patriarchal blessing book, he introduced it by writing, “The following blessing was given by Joseph Smith, jr. by prophecy and revelation, through the Urim and Thummin, December, 1833.” His preface to Whitney’s 1835 blessing is similar.

Brigham Young, in his journal entry for 27 December 1841, wrote, “I met with the Twelve at brother Joseph’s. . . . He said that every man who lived on the earth was entitled to a seer stone, and should have one . . . he showed us his seer stone.”139 Wilford Woodruff recorded the same experience and mentioned the same stone in his journal: “The Twelve or a part of them spent the day with Joseph the Seer . . . I had the privilege of seeing for the first time in my day the URIM & THUMMIM.”140

The headings to the revelations in Doctrine and Covenants sections 3, 6, 7, 11, 14, and 17 indicate that they were received through the Urim and Thummim. In his 1877 book, David Whitmer noted that he was present when Joseph received most of the early revelations and that “the revelations in the Book of Commandments up to June, 1829,” which include the foregoing, “were given through the ‘stone,’ through which the Book of Mormon was translated.”141

In his 1874 affidavit regarding Joseph’s revelation on celestial marriage (Doctrine and Covenants 132), William Clayton, who was Joseph’s scribe at the time, recalled that “Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph in reply, said he did not need to.”142 For Joseph and those around him, the Urim and Thummim was whatever revelatory stone or stones Joseph was using or possessed at the time.

In his history and other published statements, Joseph never explicitly mentions his own seer stones but refers to the interpreter stones as the Urim and Thummim.143 Due to the influence of these statements, the term eventually came to be used almost exclusively among believers in the Restoration to refer to the interpreter stones. This was how Emma used the term in a letter she wrote to Emma Pilgrim in 1870 regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon:

Now, the first that my <husband> translated, [the book] was translated by the use of the Urim, and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly, black, but was rather a dark color.144

Here, Emma associates the interpreters with the first part of the translation and Joseph’s brown seer stone with the rest, including what he translated after the loss of the 116 manuscript pages.

Joseph was strictly forbidden from letting anyone see the interpreters or the plates (Joseph Smith—History 1:42). Although Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer desired to see the plates and would eventually see them and the interpreters, they did not have that privilege until the translation was complete or nearly so.145 Even so, it is possible that Joseph translated with one or both of the interpreter stones in the presence of others by keeping them carefully hidden from view in his hat.

If the interpreters were used in a different manner, or if the uncovered plates were being used, Joseph would have presumably been behind some kind of curtain to prevent his scribe or anyone else from inadvertently seeing these objects. Firsthand witness statements do not, however, mention any such curtain. Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery (see below) explicitly denies that there was a curtain between Joseph and his scribe and further states that she, as a member of the household, often watched Joseph translate for hours at a time. Other witness statements and reports of interviews also suggest that household and family members were able to freely observe the translation. The best evidence for a curtain is secondhand and comes from reports of interviews with Martin Harris that occurred after Joseph had copied characters from the open plates (Joseph Smith—History 1:62) but before the sequential translation of the record began.146 This suggests that if Joseph used a curtain, it was while copying characters from the plates and perhaps very early in the translation. Without a curtain, Joseph would not have been translating with the uncovered interpreters or plates. Furthermore, his scribes and others present would have been able to tell whether he was using the interpreters or his own seer stone, since, if using the former, he would have been taking strict precautions to prevent them from being seen.

Witness statements on the mechanics of translation

Although any witness would have been able to describe the outward mechanics of translation, only Joseph would have been able to describe, firsthand, the subjective experience of translation, including what he saw while translating and where he saw it. I will address Joseph’s subjective experience of translation at the end of this appendix.

First, though, I focus on the mechanics of translation and provide the firsthand statements of individuals who observed Joseph translate as well as firsthand statements from other individuals who heard him describe the mechanics of translation. For known witnesses who left no firsthand statements describing the mechanics of the translation, I summarize reports of interviews that do. For the sake of brevity, I do not provide the entire texts of witness statements in this section, but only those portions that indicate that the witness was present for the translation and what they observed. I quote additional portions of these same statements later in this appendix and in the body of the paper as they are relevant.

Emma Smith Bidamon

Joseph’s wife Emma served at times as Joseph’s scribe both before and after the loss of the first 116 manuscript pages.147 Her only personally written statement on the means of translation was her 1870 letter to Emma Pilgrim, quoted above. Of lesser authority is a report by her son, Joseph Smith III, who interviewed her in February 1879. The report of the interview, published several months after her death in the October 1879 Saints’ Herald, represents her as saying:

In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.148

An editorial in the 13 November 1886 Saints’ Herald, of which Joseph Smith III was editor, appears to favor the idea that most or all of the Book of Mormon was translated by the interpreters. Regarding Joseph’s use of a seer stone, it acknowledges statements by David Whitmer but oddly fails to cite Emma’s testimony.149 This suggests that Joseph Smith III may have had doubts about Emma’s published testimony, perhaps because it appeared to contradict his father’s published statements regarding the translation. Another possibility is that the editorial was not written by Joseph Smith III, but by the associate editor, William W. Blair.150 In any case, the editorial concedes that if Joseph used a single seer stone in translating, “it was in effect a Urim and Thummim,” and that it did not “detract from the Seeric powers of Joseph Smith. It rather confirms and exalts them, showing that the gift of translation and revelation was bestowed of God upon the Seer in person,” not on the stones.

Martin Harris and minor scribes

In 1859, Martin Harris, who served as Joseph’s scribe early in the translation process, granted an interview to Joel Tiffany, editor of the spiritualist periodical Tiffany’s Monthly. Tiffany’s report of the interview begins by noting efforts to assure that Harris’s words were accurately recorded: “The following narration we took down from the lips of Martin Harris, and read the same to him after it was written, that we might be certain of giving his statement to the world.” Because Harris personally authorized, dictated, and reviewed the narration, it serves as an authoritative statement of his experiences surrounding the translation. In his statement, he does not directly describe the mechanics of translation or say which stones were used, but he does say that the interpreters as well as the seer stone would have been used for seeing visions by placing them in a hat.151 This is the method of translation Harris apparently described to publisher Jonathan A. Hadley in 1829, who provided the earliest published account of the method of translation. Soon after visiting with Harris, Hadley reported that “by placing the spectacles in a hat, and looking into it, Smith could (he said so, at least) interpret these characters.”152 Other reports from individuals who heard Harris describe the translation say that Joseph translated with the interpreters, with his own stone in a hat, or both.153

I will discuss Oliver Cowdery’s statements later in this section. The remaining individuals who reportedly served as scribes—Reuben Hale, Samuel Smith, John Whitmer, and Christian Whitmer—left no firsthand statements describing the translation.154 John Whitmer, however, is sometimes given credit for a description of the translation that was reported by S. F. Walker. In Walker’s 1879 synopsis of a discourse delivered by Zenas Gurley several years after Gurley had interviewed John Whitmer, Walker reports Gurley as saying that Joseph would sit at a table with the breastplate and attached interpreters, into which he would look and see the translation and then dictate it to John Whitmer.155 The account does not mention use of the plates or a hat. Since Joseph had been commanded not to show the breastplate or interpreters to others, John Whitmer would not have been able to describe this method of translation firsthand, so this is a fourth-hand account at best (Joseph to John Whitmer to Zenas Gurley to S. F. Walker). It may be even further removed, as the synopsis does not say that Gurley heard this description of the translation from John Whitmer. It may have been Gurley’s own assumption based on other sources. John Whitmer was scribe during the last month of the translation, when more direct accounts from other witnesses say that Joseph was using his own seer stone.

Elizabeth L. McKune, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, and Michael Morse

There were other individuals who credibly claimed to have observed Joseph translating the Book of Mormon, either in Harmony, Pennsylvania or Fayette, New York:

- Elizabeth L. McKune, who was household help for Emma when Joseph was translating in Harmony

- Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, who married Oliver Cowdery in 1832 and was sister of John and David Whitmer

- Michael Morse, who was married to Emma’s sister and lived in Harmony during the translation period

In a statement quoted in a 29 September 1879 letter written by her brother, Hiel Lewis, Elizabeth L. McKune asserts that she was able to observe Joseph translate:

I worked in the families of Joseph Smith and uncle Isaac Hale for about nine months . . . I saw Smith translating his book by the aid of the stone and hat. Reuben Hale, acted as scribe, writing down the words from Joseph Smith’s mouth, but after a short time Martin Harris did the writing.156

Elizabeth Cowdery, a firm believer in the divinity and truth of the events to which her husband was a special witness, prepared a certificate on 15 February 1870 regarding the Book of Mormon translation.157 The certificate has been lost but was copied by William E. McLellin into a letter. It states:

I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith’s translating the book of Mormon. He translated the most of it at my Father’s house. And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together. Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating. He would place the director in his hat, and then place his <face in his> hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [read?] to his scribe the words (he said) as they appeared before him.158

Michael Morse left no statement regarding the translation, but he mentioned it while being interviewed by William Blair on 8 May 1879. That same day, after the interview, Blair recorded in his journal that

Morse . . . says he many times called in at Jos[e]phs on business, when J[oseph]. would be engaged [in] translating the plates. J[oseph] put the seer stone in a hat and leaning forward would place his face in the hat, and then Dictate to his scribe, Sentence by Sentence.159

A couple of weeks later, on May 22, Blaire reported in a letter to the Saints’ Herald that Morse “further states that when Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon, he, (Morse), had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation.”

David Whitmer

Although he was excommunicated in 1838 and believed Joseph had led the Church astray, David Whitmer maintained a firm belief in the divine calling of Joseph in bringing forth the Book of Mormon and was unwavering in his testimony that the Book of Mormon had been translated by the gift and power of God. Whitmer considered his role as one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon a solemn responsibility. To maintain his credibility as witness, he placed special value on communicating truthfully and was regarded as a man of the highest integrity by those who knew him well.160

His accounts of the translation have been discounted by some because of their inconsistency.161 Such discounting is justified when applied broadly to the many reports of interviews with him. Newspaper reports of his interviews are quite inconsistent, as might be expected. Some reports of interviews or purported interviews with him, such as the problematic 1881 Kansas City Journal, 1885 Chicago Tribune, and 1886 Omaha Herald articles, the latter two of which were discussed earlier in this paper, are particularly unreliable. Such sources are as apt to mislead as to enlighten.

In contrast, the statements describing the translation that Whitmer personally wrote, dictated, or reviewed and authorized are quite consistent. There are four:

- his 1879 corrective statement issued in a letter to the Saints’ Herald through his friend, John Traughber

- his 1881 statement in his corrective letter to the Kansas City Journal

- his 1885 statement in answering questions presented by Zenas Gurley, which answers were recorded and corrected in Whitmer’s presence; and

- his 1887 statement in his self-published pamphlet, An Address to All Believers in Christ.

Whitmer’s 1879 statement through John Traughber was in response to erroneous reports of his interviews that had been published a few years prior in the Chicago Times and more recently in the Saints’ Herald. Whitmer’s corrective statement through Traughber was printed on 15 November 1879 Saints’ Herald, and reads in part:

With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a “Seer Stone,” which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light.162

This statement clarified that Whitmer observed Joseph translating with his brown seer stone in a hat, but not with the interpreters. The quality of reporting did not immediately improve, however, and Whitmer continued to be frustrated at being so frequently misquoted. In a 5 June 1881 report of an interview with Whitmer in the Kansas City Journal, the reporter who had sought the interview recorded Whitmer’s frustration:

Young man, you are right. I am the only living witness to the Book of Mormon, but I have been imposed upon and misrepresented so many times by persons claiming to be honorable newspapermen, that I feel a delicacy in allowing my name to come before the public in newspaper print again.163

Whitmer agreed to the interview, but when he read the published report, he found it as misrepresentative as he had feared. He complained in a letter to S. T. Mouch that “it is Seldom that my Statements are correctly reported” and that “there were So many Errors in it as published that I felt compelled to correct what I thought to be the most damaging Errors.”164

Whitmer issued a corrective letter to the editor of the Kansas City Journal, dated 13 June 1881. When used in combination with the June 5 report of the interview, it is a firsthand statement that affirms that Whitmer was an eyewitness to the translation. The June 5 report of the interview had stated that David Whitmer “as well as all of my father’s family, Smith’s wife, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris were present during the translation.”165 Concerned that this wording implied that these individuals were immediately present all the time during the translation, Whitmer clarified, in his June 13 letter, that the observers were not always present, as well as correcting other details:

I did not wish to be understood as saying that those referred to as being present were all the time in the immediate presence of the translator, but were at the place and saw how the translation was conducted. I did not say that Smith used ‘two small stones’ as stated nor did I call the stone ‘interpreters.’ . . . My statement was and now is that in translating he put the stone in his hat and [that this was accomplished by] putting his face in his hat so as to exclude the light and then the light and characters appeared in the hat together with the interpretation.166

This accords with the statements of Elizabeth McKune and Elizabeth Cowdery and with Blair’s report of his interview with Michael Morse in characterizing the translation as observable by household members and close relations when they happened to be present.

On 14 January 1885, Zenas Gurley presented David Whitmer with a list of questions. Gurley writes, “Brother Whitmer was too feeble to write . . . the answers . . . Yet it was with his consent and in his presence that I wrote them and corrected them, as they appear here. Jan. 21—1885. [signed] Z. H. Gurley.” In answer to “Were you present during any of the translation, if so, state how it was done?” Whitmer replied, implying that he was present by describing the manner of translation:

He was allowed to go on and translate by the use of a “Seers stone” which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face.167

Whitmer’s statement in his 1887 self-published pamphlet reaffirmed his status as eyewitness to the translation:

I testify to the world that I am an eye-witness to the translation of the greater part of the Book of Mormon. Part of it was translated in my father’s house . . .

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light.168

Emma, Martin Harris, Elizabeth McKune, Elizabeth Cowdery, Michael Morse, and David Whitmer did not need Joseph to describe for them the mechanics of the translation process; they could directly observe him translating. While Martin Harris, Emma, Elizabeth Cowdery, and David Whitmer remained firm believers in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon throughout their lives, Elizabeth McKune and Michael Morse were non-believers. All of these individuals mention a stone or stones being placed in a hat. Elizabeth McKune’s statement may refer to a single time observing the translation, but the firsthand statements of Elizabeth Cowdery and David Whitmer indicate frequent or regular observations, and reports of interviews with Michael Morse and Emma Smith agree.

Joseph Knight Sr. (probable witness)

Joseph Knight Sr. was another likely eyewitness to the translation who left a firsthand statement. He was a close friend of Joseph Smith and remained true to him and the Church he established throughout his life. He was present at the Smith home when Joseph Smith first obtained the plates and interpreters. He also provided material support, including paper, for the translation and visited the Smiths while Joseph was translating with Oliver Cowdery as his scribe.169 He likely would have been permitted to observe Joseph translating at that time. In his handwritten history, Joseph Knight notes Joseph’s confidence in the utility of the interpreter stones for seeing visions. He also reported that he was commanded to not let anyone see them except as witnesses at a given time, and described how he translated:

But he seamed to think more of the glasses or the urim and thummem then [than] he Did of the Plates for says he I can see any thing they are Marvelus Now they are writen in Caracters and I want them translated Now he was Commanded not to let no one see those things But a few for witness at a given time. . . .

By the means he found with the plates he Could translate those Caricters Better than the Larned. Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes then he would take a sentence and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters then he would tell the writer and he would write it.170

Joseph Knight refers to the interpreters as “glasses,” the local term for seer stones. In his history he also refers to Joseph’s own seer stone as “his glass.”171 Knight states that Joseph was able to translate with “the means he found with the plates” but then describes Joseph translating with “the urim and thummim,” perhaps doing so to cover both instruments in his description.

Lucy Mack Smith (possible witness)

Lucy Mack Smith likely discussed her son’s method of translating with him. In her written history, she says she visited Joseph and Emma in Harmony after Joseph had been permitted to resume translating. This was following the loss of the 116 pages but before the arrival of Oliver Cowdery.172 It is possible that she observed Joseph translate during her visit, although Joseph translated little during this period, with Emma as scribe.173 In her history, she describes one instance during the translation with Oliver Cowdery as scribe in Harmony:

Joseph was 150 miles distant and knew naught of the matter e[x]cept an intimation that was given through the urim and thummim for as he one morning applied the<m> latter to his eyes to look upon the record instead of the words of the book being given him he was commanded to write a letter to one David Whitmore [Whitmer].174

Lucy would not have been present during the period of the translation when Cowdery was scribe but is reporting what she understood the process to have been. “The urim and thummim” in Lucy’s original dictation could have referred to the interpreter stones or to Joseph’s own seer stone. According to Elizabeth McKune, Michael Morse, and Emma, it would have been the latter at this time. The phrase, “applied the latter to his eyes to look upon the record” is also vague. An 1831 article in a Palmyra newspaper mentions individuals who “applied their eyes” after placing a seer stone in a hat.175

Even if Lucy is envisioning Joseph using the interpreters, he would not have worn them like eyeglasses. Although Joseph sometimes called them “spectacles,” these seer stones were white, not clear, and were set too far apart to be worn like eyeglasses.176 The one thing this description does clearly imply is that Joseph used the same method for translating the Book of Mormon that he used for obtaining other revelations.177

Regardless of which stone or stones Lucy is referring to, the fact that she does not explicitly mention a seer stone or stones or a hat is unsurprising. She never explicitly mentions Joseph’s seer stones in her history even when relevant to the events she is relating. When she tells how Joseph was hired by Josiah Stowell to use his seer stone and hat to look for buried silver, she refers to these obscurely as “certain means, by which he could discern things that could not be seen by the natural eye.”178

Lucy’s avoidance of direct mention of Joseph’s seer stones in her history is best considered in light of the negative contemporary public perceptions of glass looking with stone and hat. Looking into hats containing stones was not something Joseph invented. It was practiced by other individuals in early nineteenth-century upstate New York, and it was covered in the press in a generally negative way. The general public, influenced by Enlightenment ideas of rationalism and skepticism, increasingly considered such folk practices as fraudulent or ignorant superstition and incompatible with Christianity.179

Nathaniel Stacy, a prominent Universalist minister in western and central New York, recalled in his 1850 memoir how a fellow preacher had hired a treasure seer around 1806. This seer, “by looking into a mysterious glass, or rather stone, pretended to be able to discover hidden treasures . . . which he could plainly see by looking into his dark hat, having this stone in the crown.” The fellow preacher was subsequently disfellowshipped by his local church leaders for his “puerile and visionary” search for buried treasures and for engaging the services of a glass looker who, they assumed, was “practicing this deception . . . to gratify his idleness and his avarice.”180 The state of New York had an 1813 disorderly persons statute against “pretending to tell fortunes, or where lost or stolen items may be found,” which was the justification for Joseph’s arrest after he used his seer stone to assist Josiah Stowell in his money-digging efforts.181

An 1817 magazine article derisively mentions a girl in western New York who “put a certain stone into a hat, and placing her face in front so as entirely to exclude the light, pretended . . . she could see the whole world.”182 Critics of Joseph Smith promulgated a darker image of glass looking. A February 1831 article in a Palmyra newspaper told of “pebbles . . . placed in a hat or other situation excluded from the light” to which “some wizzard or witch . . . applied their eyes” to guide deluded money diggers in their search for buried treasure.183 Eber Howe’s 1834 Mormonism Unvailed continued the theme.

Although some who used seer stones may have done so fraudulently, others appear to have indeed had visionary experiences of some kind while looking into stones.184 As for Joseph, he was certainly not a wizard as his critics implied. In making use of stones to seek divine revelation, including the translation of the Book of Mormon, he was emulating Israel’s high priests. It was they who inquired of the Lord through the biblical Urim and Thummim, not the witches and wizards of public imagination.185 Nevertheless, given the negative public perception of seer stones, had Lucy spoken of Joseph receiving revelation by use of “a seer stone and hat” instead of “the urim and thummim,” many readers would have interpreted her words through the lens of contemporary prejudices. They would have formed an unfairly negative impression of the miraculous translation.

Oliver Cowdery

Oliver Cowdery’s only written statement describing the translation is in the first of a series of letters he wrote as a history of the Church and that he, as editor, printed in the October 1834 edition of Messenger and Advocate:

I . . . commenced to write the book of Mormon. These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven . . . to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites whould [should] have said, “Interpreters.”186

Fourteen years later, in October 1848, as he addressed a conference in Kanesville, Iowa, Cowdery used very similar wording, which we have secondhand from the journal of Reuben Miller:

I wrote with my own pen the intire book of Mormon (Save a few pages) as it fell from the Lips of the prophet. As he translated <it> by the gift and power of god, By means of the urum and thummim, or as it is called by that book holy Interperters.187

The similarity in terminology, phrasing, choice, and sequence of ideas in these two statements, separated by over a decade, is notable. Whether in preparing for his 1848 address Cowdery decided to use the language of his 1834 letter or had long settled on this way of describing the translation, the similarities suggest careful wording. His use of the ambiguous term, the Urim and Thummim is also notable, as is his use of the circuitous phrase, “or, as the Nephites should have said,” instead of simply saying, “or.”

Because these two statements are very similar, and because the 1834 statement is firsthand and also much closer in time to the event described, we can expect to gain the most accurate understanding of Cowdery’s thinking by giving it priority. With casual reading, this statement implies that Joseph was using the interpreters while Cowdery was scribe. This differs from firsthand statements of the other witnesses, which report the use of Joseph’s seer stone. A closer reading reveals that Cowdery’s statement is ambiguous. “The Urim and Thummim” could refer to either the interpreters or to Joseph’s own seer stone. Around the time Cowdery wrote this statement, he was referring to Joseph’s seer stone as the Urim and Thummim in recording patriarchal blessings, as noted previously. (Like Lucy, Oliver Cowdery never explicitly mentions Joseph’s seer stones in his writing even when relevant to the discussion.188)

The phrase, “or, as the Nephites should have said, ‘Interpreters,’” is also ambiguous. It can be understood as saying either that the interpreters were the instrument used, or, alternatively, as stating only that the Nephite term for Urim and Thummim (which is plural in form) was Interpreters.189

Because Cowdery’s statement is silent on the manner in which the stone or stones were used in translating, we are left to rely on reports from others for any information on what he might have said about this aspect of the translation. These less authoritative reports all have Joseph translating with the interpreters but do not imply that he did so while Cowdery was scribe or that Cowdery observed him doing so. Nor do they imply that Cowdery handled the interpreters or saw the plates during the translation.190 Cowdery was at one time authorized to translate but had limited success (Doctrine and Covenants 9:1–11). In attempting to translate, he would have likely used Joseph’s brown seer stone. This was the stone that David Whitmer (1879 corrective statement through John Traughber) and Emma (1870 letter) remembered Joseph using at the time and which Joseph gave to Cowdery after the translation was complete.

In November 1830, Josiah Jones interviewed Cowdery, who was in Kirtland, Ohio, on his way to Missouri to preach to the Native Americans in that region. Jones wrote in 1831 (published in 1841) that Cowdery and his missionary companions had told him that Joseph translated by looking “through the stone spectacles” and specifically, by looking “into a stone or two stones, when put into a dark place.” Jones further reported Cowdery stating that “Smith looked into or through the transparent stones to translate what was on the plates.” When he asked Cowdery if he “had ever looked through the stones to see what he could see in them,” Cowdery replied that he “was not permitted to look into them.”191 The seemingly contradictory and odd language of looking “into” and “through” stones to see what one can see “in” them is characteristic of glass looking, in which a seer stone is called a glass, and the seer looks seemingly into or through it to see a vision.192 Descriptions of looking through or into stones in this sense do not imply that the stones resembled glass or that they were clear to normal vision, although hearers unfamiliar with the parlance of glass looking could have interpreted them that way. Such misinterpretation may have influenced the language of some of the reports by others of what Cowdery and other witnesses said. Also, transparent at that time could mean merely translucent, and in the context of seeing with stones, even opaque stones could be considered transparent.193

The mention of both one stone and two stones, if reported accurately, could have been an acknowledgment that Joseph used his own seer stone in addition to the two interpreter stones. Alternatively, it could be an indication that he disassembled the interpreters so one or both of the stones could more easily fit in his hat.

If the “dark place” where Joseph put the stones to translate meant his hat, this report accords with Martin Harris’s description of Joseph placing the interpreters in a hat. The idea of Joseph using a hat with the interpreters is supported by an independent report of how Cowdery described the method of translation later that same month to a group of Shakers in Union Village, Ohio.194 This report of what Cowdery said was recorded in January of 1831 by Richard McNemar in his diary. McNemar wrote that Cowdery had recently told some of his fellow Shakers that Joseph translated with “stones in the form of spectacles thro which the translator looked on the engraving & afterwards put his face into a hat & the interpretation then flowed into his mind.” Since Cowdery would not have been permitted to see the interpreters or the plates, this report, if accurate, would be fourth-hand at best (Joseph to Cowdery to an unknown Shaker to McNemar).

Another description of translation with the interpreters, that is at least thirdhand, was printed in the April 1831, Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate. It reports on Joseph’s 29 June 1830 trial in Chenango County, New York, stemming from his use of a seer stone in the region after being hired in 1825 by Josiah Stowell to use it to look for silver.195 The report says that Cowdery testified that Joseph “was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates” by “looking through” the “two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows.”196 This is similar to what Cowdery told Josiah Jones a few months earlier. The differences could be due to these both being summaries of what Oliver said, as expressed in the words of the reporters and based on their assumptions of what Oliver meant.197

An entirely different description of the mechanics of translation was reported in a very late account by Samuel W. Richards, who visited with Oliver Cowdery in 1849. In 1907, Richards wrote down what he remembered from his visit a half century prior. His recollection has Cowdery saying that Joseph translated “by holding the translators over the words of the written record, and the translation appears distinctly in the instrument.”198

Joseph’s statements on the mechanics of translation

Beginning in 1829, newspaper reports began to appear stating that Joseph used a hat in translating. By late 1831, these reports had been widely published, some saying he translated by placing the interpreter stones in the hat and others saying he used a single seer stone.199 The reports may have derived from discussions and preaching of Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery during their early missionary and other labors. This seems plausible given that, as mentioned above, (1) the first of these reports was published by Jonathan Hadley soon after he visited with Harris, and (2) Cowdery and his companions were willing to discuss the method of translation by “a stone or two stones, when put into a dark place” in their early missionary efforts.200

The published reports put Joseph in a difficult situation. To deny that he translated with a stone and hat would be to make a false statement; to confirm that he did, given the contemporary public preconceptions of glass looking, would be to elicit an unfairly negative impression of the nature of the translation in many readers. Joseph did neither.

In his preface to the 1830 Book of Mormon, he wrote only that he translated “by the gift and power of God,” echoing words from the title page of the Book of Mormon.

At an 25 October 1831 conference of elders, perhaps in response to these early newspaper reports, Joseph was invited by Hyrum to explain the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. He declined, saying it was not expedient for him to relate those things.201 To the end of his life, Joseph remained true to that determination. He did not provide particulars on the translation in his public statements or history other than mentioning the interpreters and saying that the translation involved the gift and power of God, reading words, and use of “the Urim and Thummim.”202 Like Lucy and Oliver Cowdery, he chose not to explicitly mention his seer stones in his written history or published statements.203

In his 1832 history, Joseph says, speaking of Martin Harris and the characters copied from the gold plates:

He returned to me and gave them to <me> <to> translate and I said I said cannot for I am not learned but the Lord had prepared spectticke spectacles for to read the Book.”204

Since the interpreters were too large to be worn like glasses, and the book was in another language, this description of the translation must be figurative. Based on the context, Joseph is alluding to 2 Nephi 27:19–20, which portrays the translation as a matter of Joseph reading words that the Lord shows him:

The Lord God will deliver again the book and the words thereof to him that is not learned; and the man that is not learned shall say: I am not learned. Then shall the Lord God say unto him: . . . thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee.

A 9 November 1835 entry in Joseph’s journal relates his report of what the angel Moroni told him about the purpose of the interpreters twelve years earlier:

Also that the Urim and Thumim, was hid up with the record, and that God would give me power to translate it, with the assistance of this instrument.205

In a portion of his history recorded in 1839, Joseph expresses his memory of this same experience in different words:

Also, that there were two stones in silver bows and these (put in <stones fastened> to a breast plate) which constituted what is called the Urim & Thummin deposited with the plates, and <the possession and use of these stones> that was what constituted seers in ancient or former times and that God <had> prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.206

An edited version of this statement was later canonized (Joseph Smith—History 1:35). It is unlikely that Joseph remembered the angel’s exact wording twelve years after the fact, still less after sixteen, but the basic idea is the same in these two accounts: the two seer stones were provided to assist Joseph with the translation. They must have been critical at the beginning of the translation, since Emma said that they were the first stones Joseph used. Perhaps these two polished, white, specially prepared seer stones were superior to Joseph’s own seer stone in inspiring the faith he needed to get started. As Joseph Knight reported, Joseph was quite impressed with the stones: “I can see any thing they are Marvelus!”207 Once Joseph had some initial success translating, his own seer stone may have been sufficient and served the same purpose. While these statements say that the interpreters were prepared or provided to assist Joseph in translating, they are silent on whether other stones had been made available or could be used for the same purpose.

The November 1837 issue of the Elders’ Journal, of which Joseph had the title of editor, promised answers in an upcoming issue to several questions frequently asked of the prophet. Among these, were “Was not Jo Smith a money digger?” and “How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon?”208 The 8 May 1838 entry in Joseph’s journal indicates he was working on answers to the questions.209 On May 12, Sidney Rigdon was appointed to “correct the matter for the ‘Elders Journal’ (that is) the Orthography and the Prosody of the different letters &c.”210 Whether his assignment included editing Joseph’s contribution is unclear. Joseph’s answers, edited or not, were published in July 1838, issue of the Elders’ Journal.211 The answer to the first of these two questions confirmed that Joseph had been involved in money digging and gave his monthly wage, though not the reason for his hiring. The answer to the second question related how an angel had told him about the plates, and that

I obtained them, and the Urim and Thummim with them; by the means of which, I translated the plates; and thus came the book of Mormon.

The first portion of this statement, to the second semicolon, does not contradict any of the firsthand witness statements, none of which deny that the interpreters were ever used in translating the plates. The only potential contradiction is in the phrase, “and thus came the book of Mormon.” “The book of Mormon” could refer to the published Book of Mormon, as we have it today, or to the larger book compiled by Mormon, including the portion Martin Harris lost and which Emma stated was translated with the aid of the interpreters. The phrase, “thus came the book of Mormon,” implies that the interpreters were the only stones used for the entire translation. It does not, however, strictly rule out the use of another stone as well. By using the term, the Urim and Thummim in reference to the two interpreter stones, Joseph expands its definition for the reader. It no longer means only the biblical Urim and Thummim, as most readers at the time would have assumed, but now encompasses other revelatory stones. With Joseph’s expanded definition of this term, his statement reads:

I obtained them, and revelatory stones with them; by the means of which, I translated the plates; and thus came the book of Mormon.

With this understanding, his summary phrase, “thus came the book of Mormon,” can now be read in at least three ways:

1. the book of Mormon came by translation with revelatory stones,

2. the book of Mormon came by translation with the revelatory stones found with the plates, or

3. the book of Mormon came in a manner exemplified by translation with the revelatory stones found with the plates.

Only the second possible reading contradicts the statements of witnesses who reported seeing Joseph translate with his own seer stone. If Joseph (or Rigdon, if he edited the statement) had wanted to state unequivocally that he used only the interpreters in translating Mormon’s record, he could have done so, in fewer words, by using direct and unambiguous language.

In his 1 March 1842 article, “Church History,” published in Times and Seasons, Joseph made similar mention of his translation of the Book of Mormon:

With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.

Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God.212

The latter part of this statement uses Joseph’s nonspecific term for revelatory stones and is also set off from the description of the interpreters by a paragraph break, allowing the term to be more easily interpreted as referring to both the interpreter stones and Joseph’s own seer stone. Even if this phrase is interpreted as referring only to the interpreters, the statement does not exclude the use of another stone in addition to the interpreters in translating the record.

Statements of Joseph Smith’s interviewers and close relations

Since Joseph’s own statements use ambiguous language for the stones of translation and are silent on whether a hat was used, we might turn to statements of individuals who heard him, or likely heard him, describe the translation in person. Below, I review statements made by such individuals regarding the instruments and mechanics of translation.

Accounts by close relations

Two individuals who had a close relationship with Joseph during the translation period and who left descriptive statements are Joseph’s father-in-law, Isaac Hale, and his younger brother William. There is no record of William having witnessed the translation, but he would have surely been privy to family discussions on the topic and to have at some point discussed the translation with Joseph. In his 1883 self-published pamphlet, he states that Joseph would translate by placing “the Urim and Thummim” in a hat:

He translated them by means of the Urim and Thummim, (which he obtained with the plates), and the power of God. The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God.213

Although this account reports translation by placing the interpreters in a hat, it is unclear whether “the stone” in which words appeared refers to the interpreter stones, Joseph’s own seer stone, or perhaps both.

When Joseph and Emma moved to Harmony, Pennsylvania, to translate, they briefly lived with Emma’s parents, the Hales, and then in a nearby house the Hales agreed to sell them.214 Isaac Hale had been familiar with Joseph’s role as a glass looker—Joseph having boarded at his house while looking for buried silver for Josiah Stowell—and disapproved of it. Given his disapproval of his son-in-law’s glass looking, Hale would have been interested to know how Joseph claimed to read the contents of the plates. He could have heard about Joseph’s method of translating from his daughter, Emma, or his son, Reuben, both of whom served as scribes; during his discussions related to the translation with Martin Harris; or Joseph himself.215 Hale signed an affidavit in March 1834 (first published in the May 1 Susquehanna Register), in which he states:

The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!216

Accounts by others who interviewed Joseph

There are four other individuals who left statements describing the mechanics or instruments of translation, based apparently on what Joseph Smith told them.

Ezra Booth joined the Church in May 1831 after meeting Joseph. He was soon called on a mission to go to Missouri along with Joseph and others. While there, he became disillusioned and “condemned for evil that thing in which there was no evil” (Doctrine and Covenants 64:15–16). Beginning in September, he wrote a series of letters, published in the Ohio Star, condemning Joseph. His sources of information for his letters included his own experiences as well as “several interviews with Messrs. Smith, Rigdon and Cowdery.”217 In his 24 October 1831 letter (published 27 October), he says:

These treasures were discovered several years since, by means of the dark glass, the same with which Smith says he translated the most of the Book of Mormon.218

Here, Booth reports Joseph as saying he translated with the “dark glass,” the brown seer stone he had used for treasure seeking.

Nancy Towle, an itinerant preacher who met with Joseph Smith in October of 1831, reported in her 1832 book that he claimed to have found with the gold plates,
a pair of ‘interpreters,’ (as he called them,) that resembled spectacles; by looking into which, he could read a writing engraven upon the plates, though to himself, in a tongue unknown.219

Henry Harris, a neighbor of the Smiths in Manchester, New York, recalled in a sworn statement in about 1833 how Joseph Smith described the translation:

By looking on the plates he said he could not understand the words, but it was made known to him that he was the person that must translate them, and on looking through the stone was enabled to translate.220

Peter Bauder, a minister who interviewed Joseph Smith at the Whitmer home in 1830, reported in a book he published in 1834 that Joseph Smith told of having
obtained a parcel of plate resembling gold, on which were engraved what he did not understand, only by the aid of a glass which he also obtained with the plate, by which means he was enabled to translate the characters on the plate into English.221

Here, Bauder, like Joseph Knight and Ezra Booth, uses the colloquial term glass in reference to seer stones, in this case the interpreter stones.

Summary of statements on the mechanics of translation

Joseph Smith’s and Oliver Cowdery’s own published statements have Joseph translating with “the Urim and Thummim.” They imply that this refers to the interpreters, but the wording leaves open the possibility that Joseph’s seer stone is being obliquely referred to, or that it was used in addition to the interpreters. Joseph Knight (probable witness) said that Joseph was able to translate with the interpreters, then described how he would translate with “the urim and thummim.” Lucy Mack Smith (possible witness) ambiguously mentioned translation with “the urim and thummim.” Statements by Emma, Elizabeth McKune, Elizabeth Cowdery, and David Whitmer and a report of an interview with Michael Morse, all of whom credibly claimed to have observed Joseph translate in either Harmony or Fayette, say he translated with his own seer stone. Emma’s statement says Joseph first used the interpreters to translate, and later, his own brown seer stone.

Statements by Elizabeth Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Elizabeth McKune and reports of interviews with Emma and Michael Morse describe Joseph translating with the stone placed in a hat. Joseph Knight’s statement implies that the interpreters were placed in a hat. Martin Harris stated that the interpreters would have been used by placing them in a hat. The statements of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery neither confirm nor deny the use of a hat. An early report derived from Cowdery and his missionary companions, however, does say that Joseph translated by looking into one or both interpreter stones put in a dark place, and another report derived from Cowdery mentions a hat. Other individuals who heard or likely heard Joseph describe his manner of translating imply he used the interpreter stones in a hat (William Smith), his own seer stone in a hat (Isaac Hale), the interpreters with no mention of a hat (Nancy Towle, Peter Bauder), or a single stone with no mention of a hat (Ezra Booth, Henry Harris).

These statements are all consistent with the idea that Joseph first translated with one or both of the interpreter stones in a hat and later substituted his own seer stone. Having obtained the two interpreter stones and knowing they were seer stones (Joseph Smith—History 1:35), Joseph would have naturally thought to use them in the same manner he used his own seer stones.

Three of the accounts reviewed above describe distinctly different methods of translation:

- looking through the interpreters at the open plates (“looked on the engravings”) and then into a hat (1831 record of report of Oliver Cowdery preaching),

- looking into (not through) the interpreters while attached to the breastplate, with no plates mentioned (1879 synopsis of discourse on John Whitmer), and

- holding the interpreters over the words of the plates and reading what appeared in them (1907 report of Oliver Cowdery interview).

These accounts are quite far removed in either time or connection from the translation, mutually contradictory, and uncorroborated by credible accounts.

None of the accounts reviewed above clearly describes Joseph translating by simply looking through the interpreters at the open plates, a method that is sometimes assumed to have been used, perhaps inspired by Joseph’s early references to the interpreters as “spectacles.” The resemblance of the white, widely set, relatively large interpreter stones to spectacles was only superficial, however, and they could not have been used in the same way.

With a casual reading, Nancy Towle’s report of her visit with Joseph Smith (given above) may seem to describe this method, but it has Joseph looking “into” the stones to read the contents of the plates in English, not through them, and does not definitively state whether the plates were present. Her report says that Joseph could read the writing (the record) that was engraven on the plates, but this may refer only to reading the English translation of the record rather than reading directly from the plates. The summary of Oliver’s testimony at Joseph’s 1830 trial, which is a thirdhand description of Joseph’s experience at best, has Joseph looking through the interpreters but is also unclear on whether he was looking at the plates or only at the translation.

While it is possible that Joseph translated with another method in addition to looking into a hat containing one or two seer stones, it is not clear what that additional method would have been.

Whether Joseph translated with a single stone or the two interpreter stones in a hat makes no difference as far as the miraculous nature of the translation is concerned. Either way, he was seeing the translation when he looked in the hat, not dictating it from notes or a manuscript. Witnesses who spoke of both Joseph’s seer stone and the interpreters—Joseph Knight, Emma, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris—gave no indication that they saw any important difference in the implications of Joseph’s use of his own seer stone versus those provided with the plates.

Similarly, the evidence that Joseph used stones in his hat in the translation process should not diminish the vital roles that the plates served in the Restoration. Since he did not know the Nephite language, he could not have understood the record by reading directly from the plates; the translation had to be revealed to him.222 However, the plates were often present and so must have been important.223 Their presence would have given Joseph confidence that there was an ancient record to be revealed and sustained the faith he needed to experience the revelation. They were also of vital importance for other reasons. Of course, if the plates had not been made and passed down through the centuries by Nephite record keepers, there would be no record to translate, and we would have no Book of Mormon. Joseph’s possession of plates also served as tangible evidence that the record was a real history of real people, not just inspirational literature. Even though we do not have access to the plates, we have the testimonies of three witnesses who saw them in joint divine visions, and eight witnesses who handled them, turned the pages, and saw the engravings. Their sober testimonies were and still are foundational to the message of the Restoration.

Reports of how Joseph described the experience of translation

In his 24 October 1831, letter, Ezra Booth reported how Joseph described experiences of seeing heavenly beings and of translating the Book of Mormon:

He does not pretend that he sees them with his natural, but with his spiritual eyes; and he says he can see them as well with his eyes shut, as with them open. So also in translating.—The subject stands before his eyes in print, but it matters not whether his eyes are open or shut; he can see as well one way as the other.224

According to Booth’s report, Joseph said he was able to see heavenly beings and also the translation of the Book of Mormon whether his eyes were open or shut, because he was seeing with “spiritual eyes.” Joseph expressed a similar idea—of seeing with other than the physical eyes—in describing two of his visions of heavenly beings as reported in the Doctrine and Covenants. In Doctrine and Covenants 76, Joseph Smith relates how he and Sidney Rigdon, in Hiram, Ohio, simultaneously experienced a vision of divine beings after the Lord “touched the eyes of our understandings and they were opened.” They were commanded to write the vision while yet “in the Spirit.” Others in the room saw and heard Joseph and Sidney Rigdon describe what they were seeing but did not themselves see the vision.225 In another vision, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery saw Christ standing on a platform of gold in the Kirtland Temple. They reported that “the vision” was seen through “the eyes of our understanding” when “the veil was taken from our minds.” The experience ended when the “vision closed” (Doctrine and Covenants 110:1–2, 11). Joseph’s nephew, Joseph F. Smith, used similar language in reporting his 1918 vision of the redemption of the dead (Doctrine and Covenants 138:11).

In her 1870 statement, Elizabeth Cowdery reports that Joseph said that after he placed the stone in the hat and the hat over his face, “the words (he said) . . . appeared before him.” Royal Skousen, in his analysis of the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, estimated that Joseph was seeing and dictating up to 20 words of the translation at a time, based on instances of anticipation in the text as the scribe took down Joseph’s dictation.226

In his 1885 statement through Zenas Gurley, David Whitmer says that Joseph described the translation experience to multiple individuals. He reports Joseph “stating to me and others that the original Character[s] appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in english.”227 In his 1879 corrective statement through John Traughber, Whitmer reports in similar language how he heard Joseph describe the translation—as words on a parchment that appeared before him in “spiritual light”:

A spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said.228

These are the reports of how Joseph described the subjective experience of translation that are most likely to be firsthand.229 They give no indication that the stone or stones were still visible once the words were seen. The words simply appear before Joseph (Elizabeth Cowdery and Ezra Booth reports) or on parchment that appears before him (David Whitmer reports). These reports are mutually consistent and suggest a visionary experience reminiscent of Lehi reading from a visioned manuscript as described in 1 Nephi 1. With the words appearing before Joseph with no apparent connection to the stone, seen with his spiritual eyes, and seen whether his physical eyes were open or shut, these reports are less evocative of advanced light-emitting stone technology.

In his 1887 statement, Whitmer again expresses his understanding that Joseph saw the translation on a visioned parchment, and says, echoing Joseph’s 1830 statement, “Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”230 Whitmer summarizes his understanding of this gift of God: “God gave to Brother Joseph the gift to see the sentences in English, when he looked into the hat in which was placed the stone.”231 The gift and power of God by which Joseph said he translated, in Whitmer’s understanding, was the ability to see the words on the visioned parchment—the gift of seeing, or the gift of visions.232 In an early revelation, this gift was called the “sight and power to translate” (Doctrine and Covenants 3:11–12). This gift was temporarily taken from Joseph after he lost the 116 pages, with the result that his “mind became darkened” (Doctrine and Covenants 10:2–3). The gift of visions is one of the spiritual gifts mentioned in the seventh Article of Faith. Doctrine and Covenants 5:4 says the gift Joseph used in translating was the first gift the Lord had bestowed upon him, which also suggests that it was the same gift as his gift of visions. After the translation was complete, Joseph received other sacred texts by vision.233

Stan Spencer earned a BS from Brigham Young University and a PhD from Claremont Graduate University, both in botany. He has worked as a research scientist at Brigham Young University and the Smithsonian Institution’s Laboratory of Molecular Systematics and now works as a consultant in California. He has a particular interest in the textual origins of Mormon scripture.

1 . “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics Essays, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual
/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-translation.

2 . For the gift of seeing, see Stan Spencer, “Seers and Stones: The Translation of the Book of Mormon as Divine Visions of an Old-Time Seer,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 24 (2017): 50–51, 53, 84n96, 84n97, journal
.interpreterfoundation.org/seers-and-stones-the-translation-of-the-book
-of-mormon-as-divine-visions-of-an-old-time-seer/. For the meaning of seer, see Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 29–30, 76n16. For the contemporary use of seeing stone, see “James Colin Brewster Account, 1843,” in Early Mormon Documents, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2000), 3:316–18, archive.org/details/volume-3_202011/page/315/mode/2up. For use of seer stones in seeing visions, see Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 52–55.

3 . Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “vision,” definition 1.a., oed.com/dictionary
/vision_n.

4 . “Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845,” p. 95, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/102?p=102.

5 . “Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845,” p. 113.

6 . Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 52–56. For more on Joseph’s money digging, see Steven C. Harper, “Was Joseph Smith a Money Digger?” BYU Studies 62, no. 4 (2023): 37–55, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol62/iss4/4/.

7 . Stan Spencer, “What Did the Interpreters (Urim and Thummim) Look Like?” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 33 (2019): 231, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/what-did-the-interpreters-urim-and-thum
mim-look-like/.

8 . Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 68–72.

9 . Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 55–56, 84n97.

10 . Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 53–54.

11 . Joseph once remarked, “It is my meditation all the day . . . to know how I shall make the saints of God to comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge before my mind.” “Discourse, 16 April 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” p. [144], Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper
-summary/discourse-16-april-1843-as-reported-by-willard-richards/6. The earliest surviving record of Joseph Smith’s revelations begins, “A Book of Commandments & Revelations of the Lord given to Joseph the Seer,” and then the first revelation in that record is introduced as, “Given to Joseph the Seer after he had lost certa[i]n writings.” “Revelation Book 1,” Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-book-1/3. For a summary of Joseph’s many visions, see Alexander L. Baugh, “Parting the Veil: The Visions of Joseph Smith,” BYU Studies 38, no. 1 (1999): 22–489, scholars
archive.byu.edu/byusq/vol38/iss1/8/.

12 . Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 64–68. For Joseph’s reported descriptions of his experience of translation, see the last section of the appendix.

13 . The seer stone, or “seeing stone,” was consistently used in conjunction with a hat, which must have therefore had some kind of important role in the “seeing.” In over 30 occurrences in this paper, I refer to the hat he used for seeing as a “seeing hat” to make it clear I am talking of that particular hat rather than any of his other hats.

14 . For example, Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, in their discussion of the instruments of translation of the Book of Mormon, state, “The mention of the hat Joseph used often causes modern interpreters to relate the translation with magic. Yet the hat itself is as insignificant to the process as the table Oliver Cowdery used to write on during the translation. It was simply a tool that Joseph apparently used to block out all extraneous light.” “Firsthand Witness Accounts of the Translation Process,” in The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon: A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, ed. Dennis L. Largey, Andrew H. Hedges, John Hilton III, and Kerry Hull (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015), 68, rsc.byu.edu/coming-forth-book-mormon
/firsthand-witness-accounts-translation-process.

15 . Most of the surviving firsthand accounts of those who witnessed or likely witnessed Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon say that the translation was accomplished by placing a stone or stones in a hat. None appear to describe any alternate method. David Whitmer, William Smith, and Elizabeth Cowdery all said the hat was used to exclude the light. Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 32–43.

16 . For an example of a discussion of the stone as a device that displays the English translation on its surface and is easier to read in low light, along with illustrative works of art, see “Joseph Smith’s Seer Stone,” Gospel Lessons (YouTube channel), 11:45 to 12:20, youtu.be/amGVHecmPA0.

17 . “Ezra Booth Accounts, 1831,” in Early Mormon Documents, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2003), 5:308, archive.org/details/volume
-5_202011; David Whitmer, “Testimony of David Whitmer,” interview by John Traughber, Saints Herald 26 (15 November 1879): 341, archive.org/details
/TheSaintsHerald_Volume_26_1879/page/n339/mode/2up?view=theater.

18 . For examples of use of seer stones and hats by others of Joseph’s time, see the section of the appendix on Lucy Mack Smith’s translation account.

19 . Brant Gardner has proposed that Joseph’s use of a stone and hat served to disrupt the normal visual function and bring about a brain state in which Joseph could more readily see internally generated images. Brant Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford, 2011), 261–77, particularly 262–63, google.com/books/edition/The_Gift_and_Power/0VxlEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA263. For a discussion of Joseph seeing visions with spiritual eyes, or the eyes of his understanding, see the last section of the appendix.

20 . “Joseph Knight, Sr., Reminiscence, Circa 1835–1847,” in Early Mormon Documents, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 4:17, archive.org/details/volume-4_202011.

21 . “Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery Affidavit, 15 February 1870,” in Early Mormon Documents, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2003), 5:260, archive.org/details/volume-5_202011/page/259/mode/2up. In this and other quoted transcriptions of original documents, above-the-line insertions are enclosed in angle brackets. Clarifications as well as conjectural readings are in square brackets. In many instances, square brackets indicate a conjectural reading of a damaged source document.

22 . “Michael Morse Interview with William W. Blair, 8 May 1879,” in Early Mormon Documents, 4:340–42, archive.org/details/volume-4_202011
/page/341/mode/2up.

23 . Emma Smith, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” interview by Joseph Smith III, Saints Herald 26, no. 10 (October 1, 1879): 289, archive.org/details/The
SaintsHerald_Volume_26_1879/page/n287/mode/2up?view=theater.

24 . Traughber Interview, “Testimony of David Whitmer,” 341, archive.org/details
/TheSaintsHerald_Volume_26_1879/page/n339/mode/2up?view=theater.

25 . “David Whitmer to Kansas City Journal, 13 June 1881,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5:81–82, archive.org/details/volume-5_202011/page/81/mode/2up.

26 . “David Whitmer Interview with Zenas H. Gurley, 14 January 1885,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5:138, archive.org/details/volume-5_202011/page/137/mode/2up.

27 . David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ: By a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, pamphlet (Richmond, MO: self-published, 1887), 12, archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/12/mode
/2up.

28 . “Trial Report, 28 August 1832 [State of New York v. JS–C],” p. [2], Joseph Smith Papers,josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/trial-report-28-august
-1832-state-of-new-york-v-js-c/1.

29 . “Trial Report, 28 August 1832, [State of New York v. JS–C],” p. [2], emphasis in the original. For more on this report and charges against Joseph related to his glass-looking activities, see “Introduction to State of New York v. JS–B and State of New York v. JS–C,” Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/introduction-to-state-of-new-york-v-js-b-and-state-of-new
-york-v-js-c/1#transcript-1-1830.

30 . See the “Historical Introduction” to “Appendix 1: Agreement of Josiah Stowell and Others, 1 November 1825,” Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/paper-summary/appendix-1-agreement-of-josiah-stowell-and
-others-1-november-1825.

31 . “Introduction to State of New York v. JS–B and State of New York v. JS–C.”

32 . Mark Ashurst-McGee, “The Josiah Stowell Jr.– John S. Fullmer Correspondence,” BYU Studies 38, no. 3 (1999): 114, 115n8, scholarsarchive.byu
.edu/byusq/vol38/iss3/10/.

33 . “William Smith, On Mormonism, 1883,” in Early Mormon Documents, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996), 1:497, archive.org/details
/volume-1_202010/page/496/mode/2up.

34 . “David Whitmer Interview with Kansas City Journal, 1 June 1881,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5:76, archive.org/details/volume-5_202011/page/75
/mode/2up.

35 . “David Whitmer Interview with George Q. Cannon, 27 February 1884,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5:113, archive.org/details/volume-5_202011
/page/113/mode/2up.

36 . “William Smith Testimony, 1884,” in Early Mormon Documents, 1:505–6, archive.org/details/volume-1_202010/page/506/mode/2up.

37 . Rhamanthus M. Stocker, Centennial History of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: R. T. Peck, 1887), 556, archive.org/details/cu3192
4028854689/page/556/mode/2up.

38 . “Joseph Smith, Jr., the Mormon Prophet,” The North Star, vol. 68, no. 13 (Danville, VT), 27 March 1874, sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/ne/miscne04.htm.

39 . “W. H. McIntosh, History of Wayne County (NY), 1877,” in Early Mormon Documents, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2000), 3:373, archive.org/details/volume-3_202011/page/373/mode/2up.

40 . “Palmyra-Manchester Residents Account, 1893,” in Early Mormon Documents, 3:205, archive.org/details/volume-3_202011/page/205/mode/2up.

41 . Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867), 20–21, archive.org/details/originriseprogre00tuck
/page/n27/mode/2up.

42 . “Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery Affidavit, 15 February 1870,” 5:260; “Ezra Booth Accounts, 1831,” 308; Traughber Interview, “Testimony of David Whitmer,” 341; “David Whitmer Interview with Zenas H. Gurley,” 5:138.

43 . “David Whitmer to Kansas City Journal, 13 June 1881,” 5:81–82.

44 . “Joseph Knight, Sr., Reminiscence, Circa 1835–1847,” 4:17–18.

45 . “Martin Harris Interview with Edward Stevenson, 1870,” in Early Mormon Documents, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), 2:324, archive.org/details/volume-2_202011/page/323/mode/2up; “David Whitmer Interview with George Q. Cannon, 27 February 1884,” 5:113; “David Whitmer Interview with James H. Hart, 21 August 1883 & 10 March 1884,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5:104, archive.org/details/volume-5_202011/page/103
/mode/2up.

46 . It could be argued that the visioned parchment itself appeared on the seer stone, but there is no evidence for this in the historical accounts, which say that the parchment would either appear “before Joseph” (Whitmer’s 1879 corrective statement through Traughber) or “before his eyes” when he would “hold the interpreters to his eyes and cover his face with a hat” (“David Whitmer Interview with Kansas City Journal, 1 June 1881,” 76) or that Joseph “would see, not the stone, but . . . an oblong piece of parchment” (Hart’s 1884 report of interview with Whitmer) or that the parchment simply “would appear” after Joseph covered his face with the hat (Whitmer’s 1887 statement).

47 . “David Whitmer Interview with Chicago Tribune, 15 December 1885,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5:155, emphasis added.

48 . “David Whitmer Interview with Nathan Tanner, Jr., 13 May 1886,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5:166, archive.org/details/volume-5_202011/page/165
/mode/2up. The reporter himself states that most of his information was provided by a relative, not David Whitmer. “David Whitmer Interview with Chicago Tribune, 15 December 1885,” 150–51.

49 . These are “David Whitmer Interview with Chicago Times, August 1875,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5:21; “David Whitmer Interview with Kansas City Journal, 1 June 1881,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5:76; and “David Whitmer Interview with Chicago Times, 14 October 1881,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5:85–86. To see the similarities in these accounts, compare the 1885 text from “affixing the magical spectacles” to “intrusted with the precious plates” with the 1875 text from “plates were not before Joseph” to “scribe put them together;” with the June 1881 text from “would hold the interpreters to his eyes” to “the translation in English’” and with the October 1881 text from “The tablets or plates” to “a word or two words;” and also note the unusual use of “tablets” instead of “plates” and of “oval” to describe the shape of the brown seer stone.

50 . “David Whitmer Interview with Omaha (NE) Herald, 10 October 1886,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5:171–73, 178, archive.org/details/volume-5_202011
/page/171/mode/2up.

51 . Compare the language in the two reports regarding “the work” of translating taking “eight months,” 116 pages being “stolen” from a “bureau drawer,” and Joseph being provided a “Urim and Thummim” replacement in the form of an “oval” shaped stone—all of which language is rare in or absent from previous accounts.

52 . “David Whitmer Interview with Richmond (MO) Democrat, January 1888,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5:211, 214, emphasis added, archive.org/details
/volume-5_202011/page/211/mode/2up. There is no indication in the report that Whitmer provided this information or that an actual interview with the dying Whitmer took place.

53 . Read from “again found favor” to “Phineas Young.”

54 . Regarding Truman Coe’s report that Joseph said words would appear “on a screen placed before him,” see note 229. “Journal, 1835–1836,” Joseph Smith Papers, p. 25, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-1836/26.

55 . “William Smith, On Mormonism, 1883,” 1:497. William mentions the interpreters in the previous sentence, but then uses the singular, “the stone.”

56 . “Orson Hyde Account, 1842,” in Early Mormon Documents, 1:167, emphasis added, archive.org/details/volume-1_202010/page/166/mode/2up.

57 . “David Whitmer Interview with E. C. Briggs and R. Etzenhouser, 25 April 1884,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5: 121–22, emphasis added.

58 . “David Whitmer Interview with Richmond (MO) Democrat, January 1888,” 5:213–14, emphasis added.

59 . This is the language in Richards’s original handwritten and signed statement. For more discussion on this reminiscence, see Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 32.

60 . “Henry Harris Statement, circa 1833,” in Early Mormon Documents, 2:76, archive.org/details/volume-2_202011/page/75/mode/2up; Nancy Towle, Vicissitudes Illustrated in the Experience of Nancy Towle, in Europe and America (Charleston, SC: James L. Burges, 1832), 138, google.com/books
/edition/Vicissitudes_Illustrated/iXYoAAAAYAAJ .

61 . A notice in the 1842 issue of the Mormon newspaper, Times and Seasons, warned of false revelations of a Latter-day Saint boy, James Brewster, who claimed to have “the gift of seeing and looking through or into a stone” (Times and Seasons 4 [1 December 1842]: 32), books.google.com
/books?id=YSEsAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA32. In her history, Lucy Smith told of a girl living with David Whitmer who “pretended to be able to diccover [discover] hiden things and to prophecy by looking through a certain black stone” and thus turned some of the Church leadership and members against Joseph. “Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845,” pp. [8]–[10], bk. 14, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844
-1845?p=174. See also the language used (of looking “through” or “into” seer stones) in the several accounts of the nineteenth-century use of seer stones by Latter-day Saints in Ian G. Barber, “Mormon Women as ‘Natural’ Seers: An Enduring Legacy,” in Maxine Hanks, ed., Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 168–71, 173, 176.

62 . “Martin Harris Interview with Joel Tiffany, 1859,” in Early Mormon Documents, 2:304, archive.org/details/volume-2_202011/page/309/mode/2up.

63 . “Trial Report, 28 August 1832,” p. [2].

64 . “Journal (January 1, 1860–October 22, 1865),” February 11, 1861–February 12, 1861, The Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/p/Z4M5.

65 . “Isaac Hale Statement, 1834,” in Early Mormon Documents, 4:284–85, 287, emphasis added, archive.org/details/volume-4_202011/page/283/mode/2up.

66 . “Trial Report, 28 August 1832,” p. [2].

67 . “Trial Report, 28 August 1832,” p. [2].

68 . “William E. McLellin to Joseph Smith III, July & September 1872,” in Early Mormon Documents, 5:328.

69 . Regarding old-time seers, see Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 29–32. Regarding the idea of seeing in or through the white interpreter stones, see Spencer, “What Did the Interpreters Look Like,” 232–34, 241–42.

70 . Collins, s.v. “top hat,” collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/top-hat.

71 . For a description of hat making in the early nineteenth century, see Arthur Aikin, Illustrations of Arts and Manufactures (London: John Van Voorst, 1841), 160–74, google.com/books/edition/Illustrations_of_Arts_and_Manu
factures/W6s-AAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA160; also, Charles Tomlinson, The Useful Arts and Manufactures of Great Britain (London: Clay, Son, and Taylor, 1866), 588–604, google.com/books/edition/The_Useful
_Arts_and_Manufactures_of_Grea/qZbICTDmvlUC?gbpv=1&pg=PA588.

72 . P. T. Barnum, whose first top hat, purchased about 1830, had a rabbit fur nap, listed the variety of nap options in his autobiography: “Among the furs used for the nap of hats in those days, were otter, beaver, Russia, nutria otter, cony, muskrat, etc., etc. The best fur was otter, the poorest was cony. . . . If a ‘peddler’ wanted to trade with us for a box of beaver hats worth sixty dollars per dozen, he was sure to obtain a box of ‘conies,’ which were dear at fifteen dollars per dozen.” Phineas T. Barnum, The Life of P. T. Barnum (London: Willoughby, 1855), 75, google.com/books/edition/The_Life_of_P_T_Barnum_written_by_himsel
/LLpcAAAAcAAJ?gbpv=1.

73 . Thomas Webster, An Encyclopædia of Domestic Economy (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1845), 994–95, google.com/books/edition/An_Encyclop
%C3%A6dia_of_Domestic_Economy/L7M2AQAAMAAJ?gbpv=1. Also see references on hat making cited previously.

74 . For a short history of top hats, see “The Centennial Jubilee of the High Hat,” Scientific American Supplement, 29 May 1897, 17851–52, google.com
/books/edition/Scientific_American/KKxPAQAAMAAJ?gbpv=1&pg
=PA17851. Silk became fashionable beginning in the 1820s (p. 17852). It was not until the 1830s, however, that hat making technology improved to the point that silk hats became more affordable, and soon much more common, than beaver hats. Madeleine Ginsburg, The Hat: Trends and Traditions (Hauppauge, NY: Barrons, 1990), 86.

75 . Image used with permission of The Barnum Museum; accession number AN-1971–002–001_v0001_2012. More information from the museum on P. T. Barnum’s first top hat, see “The Greatest Showman Top Hat,” youtube.com
/watch?v=fxxjdfDw1AU. For a presentation of images of 1820s style top hats, see Ellie Valsin, “Men’s fashion ca. 1830: Accessories,” (Tumblr), ellie-valsin.tumblr.com/post/129716351246/mens-fashion-ca-1830-accessories.

76 . This image is in the public domain. John Lewis Krimmel, Barroom dancing, Library of Congress, loc.gov/item/2004661961/.

77 . I am grateful to Mark Staker for sharing with me some of his research on Joseph Smith’s translating hat and early nineteenth-century hat styles that he conducted for the Historic Sites Division of the LDS Church History Department. Thanks also to Henry Cooke of Historical Costume Services for sharing his knowledge of early nineteenth-century hats and hat making. On the existence of used hat markets, see Ginsburg, The Hat, 86.

78 . Joseph’s history summarizes his occupation in the early 1820s: “As my father’s worldly circumstances were very <limited> we were under the necessity of laboring with our hands, hiring by days works and otherwise as we could get opportunity.” In 1825, he was employed by Josiah Stowell in digging and other labor. In 1827 he moved to Manchester to farm with his father and then to Emma’s parents’ home in Pennsylvania, where he translated with Martin Harris as scribe and continued “laboring with my hands upon a small farm which I had purchased . . . to provide for my family.” “History, circa June 1839–circa 1841 [Draft 2],” p. [1]n4, 7–9, 11, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org
/paper-summary/history-circa-june-1839-circa-1841-draft-2.

79 . For genre paintings depicting farmers in the latter part of the eighteenth century, see George Stubbs’ various Haymakers (1785) and his Men loading sheaves of corn onto a cart, with two young girls gleaning (1785). For the first half of the nineteenth century, see works by John Lewis Krimmel, William Sidney Mount, and George Caleb Bingham.

80 . See the complete painting in the digital collections of the New York Historical Society at digitalcollections.nyhistory.org/items/284157-nyhsv04n03quarterly
report192010022.

81 . An 1851 article observed that a top hat was “as rigid as a helmet and almost as fragile as a piece of pottery. A smart blow breaks it, and the look of the article is destroyed. . . . In windy weather, owing to the comparatively large surface it shows, and the comparatively small hold it has upon the head, it is very apt to be blown off. . . . Again, the article affords no shade to the face.” “The Great Exhibition,” The Illustrated London News, 14 June 1851, 564, google.com/books/edition/The_Illustrated_London_News/ErNLAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA564.

82 . “David Whitmer Interview with Zenas H. Gurley,” 5:138.

83 . “Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery Affidavit, 15 February 1870,” 5:260; Traughber Interview, “Testimony of David Whitmer,” 341; “David Whitmer to Kansas City Journal, 13 June 1881,” 5:82; Whitmer, Address to All Believers, 12.

84 . Whitmer, Address to All Believers, 12.

85 . “Trial Report, 28 August 1832,” p. [2].

86 . A “soft beaver hat” and beaver hats of various brim widths are mentioned in “The Centennial Jubilee of the High Hat,” 17851–52.

87 . An 1890 article in the Elmira Telegram says that Joseph “invariably wore a tall white stovepipe hat,” in which he would place a stone and pretend to see buried items. Ausburn Towner, “Some Interesting Facts Suggested by The Mormon Articles,” Elmira [NY] Telegram, 19 January 1890, PDF at sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/ny/miscNYS5.htm. References for the remaining descriptive terms will be provided as these nineteenth-century descriptions of Joseph’s hat are now discussed.

88 . “Prevalence of Mormonism,” Christian Advocate and Journal, 8 December 1841, emphasis added, contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/BOMP/id/2532.

89 . John C. Bennett, The History of the Saints, or, an Expose of Joe Smith and Mormonism (Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842), 221, archive.org/details
/historyofsaintso00benne/page/n235/mode/2up.

90 . Nelson Slater, Fruits of Mormonism (Coloma, CA: Harmon & Springer, 1851), 65, emphasis added.

91 . “To the Bachelors,” Boston Cultivator (Boston), 21 August 1858, 271, emphasis added.

92 . “Martin Harris Interview with Joel Tiffany, 1859,” 2:303–04.

93 . “Martin Harris Interview with Joel Tiffany, 1859,” 2:305.

94 . Although it is possible that “old” means an old style of hat, this seems unlikely since all five mentions of the hat—in 1841, 1842, 1851, 1858, and 1859—call it “old” without making any reference to its style. This suggests that “old” is being used in the most common sense of the term to indicate aged, not to indicate old-fashioned. Moreover, Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary does not list old-fashioned as a meaning of old. The dictionary includes old-fashioned and antiquated as separate dictionary entries, and either of these terms could have been used if the style of hat were being discussed. Websters Dictionary, 1828, s.v. “old,” webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/old.

95 . “Brattleboro’ (VT) Messenger, 20 November 1830,” in Early Mormon Documents, 4:213, archive.org/details/volume-4_202011/page/213/mode/2up.

96 . “David Whitmer Interview with James H. Hart,” 5:104.

97 . For example, see variations in crown heights in genre paintings such as John Lewis Krimmel’s The village tavern (1813–1814), William Sidney Mount’s The raffle (1837), and George Caleb Bingham’s In a Quandary, or Mississippi Raftsmen at Cards (1851), all of which can be viewed by image search on the Internet.

98 . This estimate is based on my experimentation, placing a replica of Joseph’s brown seer stone in hats of different crown depths that I then pulled over my face. In a crown of less than 5 inches, the stone would bump up against my fairly prominent nose. Joseph’s brown seer stone was nearly an inch and a half thick. “Note on Seer Stone Images,” Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/site/note-on-seer-stone-images.

99 . “Manchester in the Early Days,” The Ontario County (NY) Times, 23 June 1875, PDF at sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/ny/miscNYS5.htm.

100 . Use of this image requires permission from the author (stanspencer1@gmail.com) and, generally, a link back to this paper. No derivatives are permitted.

101 . According to an 1889 dictionary, beaver could mean “(b) A hat of the shape of a beaver hat, but made of silk or other material, in imitation of the fur. The modern stiff silk hat was commonly called a beaver until recently.” Century Dictionary, s.v. “beaver” (New York: T, Fisher Unwin, The Century Co., 1889), google.com/books/edition/The_Century_Dictionary/eaTN38hW980C
?gbpv=1&pg=PA496 .

102 . Orsamus Turner, History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham’s Purchase, and Morris’ Reserve (Rochester, NY: William Alling, 1851); “William Stafford Statement, 8 December 1833,” in Early Mormon Documents, 2:60–61.

103 . The 1833 Stafford affidavit may also contain inaccuracies. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Reappraised,” BYU Studies, no. 3 (1970): 286–89, 289n10, 293–96.

104 . The dig for “kegs of gold and silver” near the Smith home in Manchester would have been one of the earliest. Dan Vogel, “The Locations of Joseph Smith’s Early Treasure Quests,” Dialogue, 27, no. 3 (1994): 202, 230, dialogue
journal.com/articles/the-locations-of-joseph-smiths-early-treasure-quests/.

105 . “William Stafford Statement, 8 December 1833,” in Early Mormon Documents, 2:60–61.

106 . “Manchester in the Early Days,” The Ontario County (NY) Times, 23 June 1875.

107 . “Group portrait of students, probably members of The Ranters, at Bethany College, Virginia.” Daguerreotype, [1850–1851], from Library of Congress: Daguerreotype Collection, loc.gov/resource/ppmsca.38824/.

108 . “Joseph and Hiel Lewis Statements, 1879,” in Early Mormon Documents, 4:300, 303, 305, emphasis added. On their sister having observed Joseph translate, see “Hiel Lewis to [James T. Cobb?], 29 September 1879,” in Early Mormon Documents, 4:320, archive.org/details/volume-4_202011/page/299
/mode/2up.

109 . “Sally McKune, Mehetable Dolittle, Elizabeth Squires, Jacob I. Skinner, and Samuel Brush Interviews with Frederick G. Mather, July 1880,” in Early Mormon Documents, 4:345, 350–52, emphasis added.

110 . Frederic G. Mather, “The Early Days of Mormonism,” Lippincott’s Magazine of Popular Literature and Science, August 1880, 198–211, PDF at Joseph Smith’s History Vault (website), olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1880Math.htm.

111 . Compare Emily C. Blackman, History of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: Claxton Remsen & Haffelfinger, 1873), 577–82, archive.org/details/historyofsusqueh00blac/page/576/mode/2up. Mather mentions Blackman’s history in his bio of Samuel Brush near the end of each of his accounts.

112 . For the November dig, Joseph boarded with Isaac Hale. “Sally McKune, Mehetable Doolittle,” 352. Mather locates this dig on land that, at the time of his interviews, was owned by Jacob I. Skinner. “Sally McKune, Mehetable Doolittle,” 350. For more on this dig, see Vogel, “The Locations of Joseph Smith’s Early Treasure Quests,” 213–19; also, “Historical Introduction” to “Appendix 1: Agreement of Josiah Stowell and Others, 1 November 1825,” josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-1-agreement-of-josiah
-stowell-and-others-1-november-1825.

113 . Jacob Israel Skinner (variously referred to as Jacob I. Skinner and Jacob J. Skinner) was born 5 January 1815. He died in 1897 and was buried in the McKune Cemetery in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. See “Jacob Israel Skinner,” Find a Grave (website), findagrave.com/memorial/186608619
/jacob-israel-skinner; also, “Descendants of Thomas Skinner: Generation No. 1,” RootsWeb (website), sites.rootsweb.com/~wijuneau/SkinnerGen.htm.

114 . In Harris’s account, Joseph is assaulted by “what appeared to be a man” (implying that Harris wasn’t certain whether the assailant was a man or a devil) and later hid the plates in a “barrel about one-third full of beans.” “Martin Harris Interview with Joel Tiffany, 1859,” 2:306, 310. Alternatively, Mather or his source could have learned about these same events from Lucy Mack Smith’s 1853 history, but that work has three assailants, unquestionably identifies them as men, and has the plates (along with the breastplate) being hid in a “cask” (not a “barrel”) of beans. Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (Liverpool: S. W. Richards, 1853), 105, 113, contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id
/16421.

115 . See “Historical Introduction” to “Appendix 1: Agreement of Josiah Stowell and Others, 1 November 1825.”

116 . Towner, “Some Interesting Facts,” PDF at sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/ny
/miscNYS5.htm.

117 . An 1897 history of top hats mentions “the derisive terms stovepipe, chimney pot, plug, tile, etc.” “The Centennial Jubilee of the High Hat,” 17851. For an example of a humorous use of stovepipe, see Loyal Publication Society, The Life and Services as a Soldier of Major-General Grant (Philadelphia: Peterson and Brothers, 1864), 30, google.com/books/edition/Pamphlets
/FaeKrQcylGYC?gbpv=1&pg=RA3-PT10.

118 . “Daniel Hendrix Reminiscence, 1893,” in Early Mormon Documents, 3:211, archive.org/details/volume-3_202011/page/211/mode/2up.

119 . “Daniel Hendrix Reminiscence, 1893,” 208–11.

120 . J. F. Peck, “The Beginnings of Mormonism,” Springfield Republican, 18 October 1887, sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NE/miscne03.htm#101887.

121 . “Chroniclings,” Democrat [and] Chronicle, 21 February 1894, sidneyrigdon
.com/dbroadhu/ny/miscNYS5.htm#022194; “The Mormon Problem’,” Los Angeles Times, 29 July 1887, sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/ca/misccalf.htm#
072987; and Ellen E. Dickinson, New Light on Mormonism (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885), 30, archive.org/details/newlightonmormon00dick/page/30
/mode/2up.

122 . “A Looked-For Exposure: Secrets of the Original Mormon Bible,” The New York Times, 26 February 1888, sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscnyc3
.htm#022688; “Enlightening the Public: Mrs. H. S. Caswell Tells of the Origin and History of Mormonism,” New York Tribune, 30 January 1899, sidney
rigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscnyc3.htm#013099; and Mrs. Dr. Horace Eaton [Anna Ruth Eaton], The Origin of Mormonism (New York: Woman’s Executive Committee of Home Missions, 1881), p. [2], loc.gov/resource/rbpe.12900800.

123 . Towner, “Some Interesting Facts.”

124 . Stocker, Centennial History, 556, emphasis added.

125 . Charles Anthon, who had visited with Martin Harris years earlier, stated his understanding in an 1834 letter that Joseph translated “behind a curtain, in a garret of a farm house.” Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, OH: printed and published by the author, 1834), 270–71, archive.org/details
/mormonismunvaile00howe/page/270/mode/2up. After interviewing Sally McKune and Samuel Brush, Frederic G. Mather reported in 1880 that “the translating and writing were done in the little low chamber of Joe Smith’s house” and that Sally McKune’s “husband bought the Smith place, built an addition to the house, and Mrs. McKune lived in the house about forty years. She remembers the arrangement of the nails used for hooks to hang blankets on during the translation.” Mather reported further that Samuel Brush “called often to see Reuben Hale, the scribe. Reuben would always quit work and come down stairs.” “Sally McKune, Mehetable Doolittle,” 355, 358–59. Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines chamber as “an apartment in an upper story, or in a story above the lower floor of a dwelling house,” webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary
/chamber.

126 . William Riley Hine is one person without a close relationship to the Smiths who dubiously claimed to have witnessed the translation. Dan Vogel, in his comments on Hine’s statement, observes that “Hine’s statement should be approached with caution since it makes claims contrary to established chronology and history.” “William R. Hine Statement, Circa March 1885,” in Early Mormon Documents, 4:181, 184–86, archive.org/details/volume-4_202011
/page/181/mode/2up. With his mixture of farcical claims and well-known facts, Hines seems to be attempting some kind of satire. For example, in Hine’s narrative, Joseph carries the sacred, very heavy gold plates around in public, holding them in one hand, and then translates them in a tavern.

127 . The given name of Sally (Sallie) McKune, wife of Joseph McKune, Jr., was Sarah Clark. The sale of the Smith’s house was recorded in a deed dated 28 June 1833. “McKune, Joseph, Jr.,” Biography, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/person/joseph-mckune-jr. At the time of the 1860 census, Joseph Fowler McKune was a farmer in Windsor, Broome County, New York, about 8 miles from the former Joseph Smith home in Harmony. “Rhamanthus M. Stocker Account, 1887,” in Early Mormon Documents, 4:402n10, archive.org/details/volume-4_202011/page/401/mode/2up.

128 . Eaton’s account was not only published in The Origin of Mormonism, but also in the Wayne County Journal of July 1881 and in John McCutchen Coyner’s 1882 Hand-Book on Mormonism. “Anna Ruth Eaton Statement, 1881,” in Early Mormon Documents, 3:146.

129 . If McKune didn’t pick up his understanding of Joseph’s method of translating by putting his face in his hat from other local residents, he could have read it described in any of several works published before 1887, including those mentioned above that were written by or attributed to Josiah Stowell (report of Joseph’s 1830 trial), Emma Smith (1879 report of interview), David Whitmer (1879 corrective statement through John Traughber, and his 1881 and 1887 statements), or William Smith (1883 statement, 1884 report of sermon). The fact that Reuben Hale acted as scribe was also available from Mather’s 1880 account and was probably common knowledge among the locals.

130 . There is a 1904 account that describes Joseph’s seeing hat as a “high hat” (a top hat) in the context of a treasure dig at Monument Hill. In this account, Joseph uses his stone to look for treasure by, nonsensically, “placing it in his high hat while he examined it closely with his head on the ground.” “Mormon’s Religion Had Its Birth in Broome County,” Binghampton Press, 14 April 1904, sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/ny/miscNYS4.htm#041404. The article contains many errors in details and chronologies of events, suggesting it is based ultimately on circulating stories or unreliable, previously published accounts. The author of the article does not state his source for this story but does seem to have interviewed Addison Wilder, who lived in Center Village, not far from Monument Hill. The dig at Monument Hill is estimated to have been in late 1825 or early 1826. Vogel, “The Locations of Joseph Smith’s Early Treasure Quests,” 230. Wilder would have been only about 4 years old, too young to have been a witness to the event. “Addison S. Wilder,” Find a Grave (website), 15 July 2011, findagrave.com/memorial/73392305/addison-s.-wilder. A story in the article of Joseph attempting to walk on water but his efforts being sabotaged by George Collington suggests a reliance on Mather’s 1880 Broome Republican article, with its similar story and mention of a top hat. Since we don’t know the ultimate source of this very late description of Joseph’s seeing hat, and since the idea that Joseph used a top hat had already been circulating in the area due to Mather’s questionable 1880 account and its derivatives, this 1904 account is of little value.

131 . See, for example, the preface to the 1830 Book of Mormon. For more of Joseph Smith’s accounts, see John W. Welch, “The Miraculous Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: BYU Press, 2005), 121–29, archive.dev-bookofmormoncentral.org
/content/miraculous-translation-book-mormon. See a discussion of Joseph’s principal accounts in the appendix.

132 . Whitmer, Address to All Believers, 37, archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli
00whit/page/36/mode/2up. See the last section in the appendix for a discussion of Whitmer’s account.

133 . I would like to recognize my son, Michael Spencer, for portraying Joseph Smith for this photograph. Elder Spencer is currently serving in the Washington DC North Mission. Use of this image requires permission from the author and, generally, a link back to this paper. No derivatives permitted.

134 . For more discussion on Joseph’s seer stones as “the Urim and Thummim,” see Spencer Kraus, “An Unfortunate Approach to Joseph Smith’s Translation of Ancient Scripture,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 52 (2022): 3–6, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/an-unfortunate
-approach-to-joseph-smiths-translation-of-ancient-scripture/; also, Richard Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker, “Joseph Smith: The Gift of Seeing,” Dialogue 15, no. 2 (1982): 49–68.

135 . “Appendix 2: William Clayton, Journal Excerpt, 1–4 April 1843,” 68–70, Joseph Smith Papers; josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-2-william
-clayton-journal-excerpt-1-4-april-1843/5.

136 . For descriptions of these two seer stones, see descriptions and references in Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 28, 57, 73n1, 73n3.

137 . For Whitney’s blessing, see “Historical Introduction” to “Blessing to Newel K. Whitney, 7 October 1835,” Joseph Smith Papers; josephsmithpapers.org
/paper-summary/blessing-to-newel-k-whitney-7-october-1835/2#historical
-intro. For Hyrum Smith’s blessing, see “Blessing to Hyrum Smith, between circa 15 and 28 September 1835, Oliver Cowdery Copy,” Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/blessing-to-hyrum-smith-between
-circa-15-and-28-september-1835-oliver-cowdery-copy/1.

138 . Regarding the interpreters having been returned with the plates, see Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 75n11. According to David Whitmer, Joseph Smith gave his brown seer stone to Oliver Cowdery in early 1830. Whitmer, Address to All Believers, 32.

139 . “History of Brigham Young,” Millennial Star 26 (20 February 1864): 118–19, google.com/books/edition/The_Latter_Day_Saints_Millennial_Star/v1YoAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA118& .

140 . Wilford Woodruff journal, 1841 January–1842 December,” MS 1352, p. [126], Church History Catalog, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/28b53d73-2ba2-418b-8ef7-dafcc
935bee3/0/125.

141 . Whitmer, Address to All Believers, 53, 58–59. Whitmer would not have been present for revelations received prior to June 1829 (i.e., Sections 3, 6, and 7). On p. 58 of his book, he says he was present during the revelation of Section 16, today’s Section 18 and that it was given through Joseph’s seer stone. For more discussion of Joseph’s revelations through seer stones, see Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 43–48.

142 . “William Clayton affidavit, 16–17 February 1874,” MS 3423, p. [3], Church History Catalog, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, catalog.churchof
jesuschrist.org/assets/d091310b-4d88-43dd-a141-bb7ec1579934/0/2.

143 . If the interpreters were the same object that ancient Israel’s high priest used, the Book of Mormon probably would have said so, since it was written with the Books of Moses in view.

144 . “Emma Smith Bidamon to Emma Pilgrim, 27 March 1870,” in Early Mormon Documents, 1:532–33, archive.org/details/volume-1_202010/page/532/mode
/2up.

145 . See Doctrine and Covenants 17; also, “Historical Introduction” to “Appendix 4: Testimony of Three Witnesses, Late June 1829,” Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-4-testimony-of-three
-witnesses-late-june-1829/1#historical-intro.

146 . Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 2015), 91. Also, see discussion of a sheet or other partition in “Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon,” Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/intro/introduction-to-revelations-and
-translations-volume-5. John A. Clark, who interviewed Harris before and again soon after he visited Professor Anthon with a copy of characters from the plates, describes a curtain being used as Joseph was making “transcripts and transcriptions” from the plates for Harris, which describes Joseph’s initial investigation of the writings on the plates before Harris visited Professor Anthon. Clark admits he has no similar knowledge of the later method of translation, as he soon moved from the area. John A. Clark, Gleanings by the Way (Philadephia: Robert Carter, 1842), 230-231, archive.org/details
/bywaygleanings00clarrich/page/230/mode/2up?q=Martin+Harris.

147 . “Joseph Knight, Sr., Reminiscence, Circa 1835–1847,” 4:18, archive.org/details
/volume-4_202011/page/17/mode/2up; “History, circa Summer 1832,” p. 6, Joseph Smith Papers; josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-circa
-summer-1832?p=5; “Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845,” p. [11], bk. 7, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith
-history-1844-1845/91.

148 . Joseph Smith III Interview, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” 289–90, archive.org/details/TheSaintsHerald_Volume_26_1879/page/n287/mode
/2up?view=theater .

149 . “David Whitmer Reviewed,” Saints’ Herald 33 (13 November 1886), 707, latter
daytruth.org/pdf/100200.pdf.

150 . James Lucas and Jonathan Neville, in their book, By Means of the Urim and Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration (Salt Lake City: Museum of the Book of Mormon Press, 2023), 50, discuss the editorial’s odd lack of endorsement of Emma’s testimony. They do not consider the possibility that the editorial was written by Blair. The continuation of the editorial in the November 20 issue uses “we” but refers to Joseph Smith III in the third person. “David Whitmer Reviewed,” 723, latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100200.pdf.

151 . “Martin Harris Interview with Joel Tiffany, 1859,” in Early Mormon Documents, 2: 302–03, 305, archive.org/details/volume-2_202011/page/309/mode/2up.

152 . “Palmyra Freeman, circa August 1829,” in Early Mormon Documents, 2:221, archive.org/details/volume-2_202011/page/221/mode/2up.

153 . Welch, “Miraculous Translation,” 132–41, archive.dev-bookofmormoncentral
.org/content/miraculous-translation-book-mormon.

154 . Samuel Smith is sometimes assumed to be the sources of an 1832 statement that the translation “was made known by the spirit of the Lord through the medium of the Urim and Thummim . . . which were found with the plates.” “Questions Proposed to the Mormonite Preachers and Their Answers Obtained before the Whole Assembly at Julien Hall, Sunday Evening, August 5, 1832,” Boston Investigator, 10 August 1832, bhroberts.org/records/0iSghu
-78K4Mb/boston_investigator_reports_that_joseph_used_the_urim_and_thummim_two_crystal_stones_to_translate_the_bom. Although Samuel was present, it was Orson Hyde who made this statement, according to his own journal entry for 5 August 1832. “Orson Hyde journal, 1832 February-December,” MS 1386, pp. [36]–[37], Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets
/5f701d17-0604-462a-a4b1-696c24c6c93a/0/35.

155 . S. F. Walker, “Synopsis of a Discourse”delivered at Lamoni, Iowa, Saints’ Herald 26 (15 December 1879): 370, archive.org/details/TheSaintsHerald_Volume
_26_1879/page/n369/mode/2up.

156 . “Hiel Lewis to [James T. Cobb?], 29 September 1879,” 4:320, archive.org
/details/volume-4_202011/page/319/mode/2up.

157 . For her belief in her husband’s witness, see “A Letter From O. Cowdery’s Wife,” The Return 3, no. 5 (December 1892): 7, catalog.churchofjesuschrist
.org/assets/9fad70f7-4638-4127-afdc-f418ff9cf9a8/0/12.

158 . “Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery Affidavit, 15 February 1870,” 5:260, emphasis added, brackets in original, archive.org/details/volume-5_202011/page/259/mode/2up. In this and other quoted transcriptions of original documents, above-the-line insertions are enclosed in angle brackets. Clarifications as well as conjectural readings are in square brackets. In this instance, the square brackets indicate a conjectural reading of the damaged document.

159 . “Michael Morse Interview with William W. Blair, 8 May 1879,” 4:340–42, archive.org/details/volume-4_202011/page/339/mode/2up.

160 . Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 67–76. In an 1882 letter to S. T. Mouch, Whitmer says, “I have always in the fear of God, tried to give a true statement to the best of my recollection in regard to all matters which I have attempted to Explain.” “David Whitmer to S. T. Mouch, 18 November 1882,” in Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, UT: Grandin Book, 1991), 241.

161 . Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, “The Process of Translating the Book of Mormon,” in Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 89–98.

162 . Traughber Interview, “Testimony of David Whitmer,” 341, archive.org/details
/TheSaintsHerald_Volume_26_1879/page/n339/mode/2up?view=theater.

163 . “David Whitmer Interview with Kansas City Journal, 1 June 1881,” 5:73, archive.org/details/volume-5_202011/page/73/mode/2up.

164 . Cook, “Whitmer Interviews,” 241–42.

165 . “David Whitmer Interview with Kansas City Journal, 1 June 1881,” 5:76.

166 . “David Whitmer to Kansas City Journal, 13 June 1881,” 5:81–82, archive.org
/details/volume-5_202011/page/81/mode/2up.

167 . “David Whitmer Interview with Zenas H. Gurley,” 5:138.

168 . Whitmer, Address to All Believers, 11–12.

169 . “Joseph Knight, Sr., Reminiscence, Circa 1835–1847,” 4:11, 15, 19–20, archive
.org/details/volume-4_202011/page/11/mode/2up.

170 . “Joseph Knight, Sr., Reminiscence, Circa 1835–1847,” 4:15, 17–18.

171 . “Joseph Knight, Sr., Reminiscence, Circa 1835–1847,” 4:13.

172 . “Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845,” p. [11], bk. 7, josephsmithpapers
.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/91.

173 . “Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon,” Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/intro/introduction-to-revelations-and-translations-volume-5.

174 . “Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845,” p. [8], bk. 8, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844
-1845/100.

175 . Obediah Dogberry [Abner Cole], “Gold Bible, No. 3,” Palmyra Reflector (Palmyra, NY), 1 February 1831.

176 . Zenas Gurley, in his transcription of David Whitmer’s answers to several questions, taken and corrected in David Whitmer’s presence, recorded Whitmer as saying, “I saw the ‘Interpreters’ in the holy [vision]. They looked like whitish stones p[ut in the] rim of a bow, looked like spectacles only much larger.” “David Whitmer Interview with Zenas H. Gurley,” 5:135–36, 138. Martin Harris described the interpreter stones as about two inches in diameter, “white, like polished marble, with a few gray streaks,” and “joined by a round bar of silver . . . about four inches long, which, with the two stones, would make eight inches.” “Martin Harris Interview with Joel Tiffany, 1859,” 2:305. For other descriptions of the interpreters, see Spencer, “What Did the Interpreters Look Like,” journal.interpreterfoundation.org/what-did-the-interpreters-urim-and-thummim-look-like/. For more discussion on the dimensions of the interpreters compared to eyeglasses, see Michael R. Ash, Rethinking Revelation and the Human Element in Scripture: A Prophet’s Role as Creative Co-Author (Redding, CA: FAIRLatterDaySaints.org, 2021), 495–98, PDF download at fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Rethinking-Revelation
-chapter-23.pdf .

177 . For Joseph’s use of a seer stone (and hat) to receive other revelations, see Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 43–48.

178 . “Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845,” p. 95, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-sum
mary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/102?p=102.

179 . Harper, “Was Joseph Smith a Money Digger?,” 38–40, 43–47, 54–55, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol62/iss4/4/.

180 . Nathaniel Stacy, Memoirs of the Life of Nathaniel Stacy, Preacher of the Gospel of Universal Grace (Columbus, PA: W. Heughes, Monroe Hall 1850), 171–72, books.google.com/books?id=uWxFg8WA8WYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.

181 . “Introduction to State of New York v. JS–B and State of New York v. JS–C.” josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/introduction-to-state-of-new-york
-v-js-b-and-state-of-new-york-v-js-c/1#transcript-1-1830.

182 . “J. Kidd, “A Geological Essay on the imperfect evidence in support of a theory of the earth,” The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 2 (November 1817): 355, google.com/books/edition/The_American_Monthly_Magazine
_and_Critic/F1HOAAAAMAAJ?gbpv=1.

183 . Obediah Dogberry [Abner Cole], “Gold Bible, No. 3,” sidneyrigdon.com
/dbroadhu/ny/wayn1830.htm.

184 . For example, Harriet Carter, a young Latter-day Saint girl in nineteenth-century Alberta, after hearing “a lot of talk about Peep-stones” in her community and finding a “beautiful creamy stone” in a friend’s collection, decided to look into it. She recorded, “Well, I had it up to my eye, with both hands cupped around it, so that no light could get in. At first it was all dark, and then gradually it cleared, and I could see a room. . . . At the far side was one door. As I looked for a few seconds, this door opened, and in came a very tall man. . . . He smiled at me and made a sweeping bow, and the scene was gone,” quoted in Barber, “Mormon Women as ‘Natural’ Seers,” 171. For a discussion of seeing with stones in Joseph’s day, see Harper, “Was Joseph Smith a Money Digger?,” 38–55, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol62/iss4/4/. It seems unlikely that the use of seer stones would develop as a tradition without some basis in genuine experience or that God would associate his prophet with a tradition that was entirely fraudulent.

185 . For a comparison of Joseph’s use of his seer stones and the biblical use of the Urim and Thummim, see Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 59–64, 93n142, 97n159.

186 . Oliver Cowdery to W.W. Phelps, 7 Sep 1834, Messenger and Advocate 1 (Oct 1834), 14, emphasis in original, contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection
/BOMP/id/827. The typo “whould” was resolved to “should” when Frederick G. Williams, under Joseph’s or Oliver Cowdery’s supervision, copied the letter into Joseph’s history some time before November 1835. “History, 1834–1836,” p. 48, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history
-1834-1836/50. It became “would” in a footnote to Joseph Smith—History 1:71.

187 . “Reuben Miller journals, 1848–1849 / Journal, 1848,” MS 1392, p. [15], Church History Catalog, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, catalog
.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/22222322-f4fe-41e3-aa86-bfc54b94
df92/0/14.

188 . For example, when telling of Joseph’s arrests resulting from his use of a seer stone for Josiah Stowell’s money digging operation, he mentions the charge (disorderly person) but not the underlying reason. Oliver Cowdery, “Letter VIII,” Messenger and Advocate 2, no. 1 (October 1835): 201, archive.bookofmormon
central.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/cowdery/2018-06-29/letter_viii.pdf .

189 . Historian Mark Ashurst-McGee notes that “Cowdery did not say that the Nephites did call the speculum in question ‘interpreters,’ but that they would have. As the Nephites called the spectacles ‘interpreters,’ it was reasonable for Cowdery to state that they would have used the same term to describe other seer stones.” Mark Ashurst-McGee, “A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Jr. as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet” (master’s thesis, Utah State University, 2000), 324n13, mormonpolygamydocuments
.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JS1699.pdf.

190 . A published account that does say, incorrectly, that Oliver handled the interpreters is a misquotation of Cowdery’s 1884 discourse as recorded in Reuben Miller’s journal. The erroneous account has Cowdery saying, “I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the ‘holy interpreters.’ That book is true.” “Last Days of Oliver Cowdery,” Deseret News, 13 April 1859, 48, contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/desnews2/id/7557
/rec/21 . The original record in Miller’s journal has “the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interperters. That book is True.” Reuben Miller journals, 1848–1849 / Journal, 1848, p. [16], catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org
/assets/22222322-f4fe-41e3-aa86-bfc54b94df92/0/14.

191 . Josiah Jones, “History of the Mormonites,” The Evangelist 9 (1 June 1841): 133–34, contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/BOMP/id/4487.

192 . Spencer, “What Did the Interpreters Look Like,” 231; “Trial Report, 28 August 1832,” p. [2], josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/trial-report-28-august
-1832-state-of-new-york-v-js-c/1; “Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845,” p. [8], bk. 14, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history
-1844-1845/174?p=174.

193 . Spencer, “What Did the Interpreters Look Like,” 231–34.

194 . Christian Goodwillie, “Shaker Richard McNemar: The Earliest Book of Mormon Reviewer,” Journal of Mormon History 37, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 138, 142–43, digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=mormonhistory.

195 . “Introduction to State of New York v. JS–B and State of New York v. JS–C,” josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/introduction-to-state-of-new-york
-v-js-b-and-state-of-new-york-v-js-c/1#transcript-1-1830.

196 . “Abram W. Benton Reminiscence, March 1831,” in Early Mormon Documents, 4:97, archive.org/details/volume-4_202011/page/97/mode/2up.

197 . For example, instead of saying the stones looked like glass, Cowdery may have called them glasses, i.e., seer stones. For analysis of this report relative to the parlance of seeing, see Spencer, “What Did the Interpreters Look Like,” 239, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/what-did-the-interpreters
-urim-and-thummim-look-like/.

198 . “Oliver Cowdery Interview with Samuel W. Richards, January 1849,” in Early Mormon Documents, 2:500–501, archive.org/details/volume-2_202011/page
/499/mode/2up.

199 . For examples featuring the interpreters in a hat, see “Martin Harris Interview with Rochester (NY) Gem, Circa June 1829,” in Early Mormon Documents, 2:273; “Palmyra Freeman, Circa August 1829,” 2:221, archive.org/details
/volume-2_202011/page/221/mode/2up ; “Brattleboro’ (VT) Messenger, 20 November 1830,” 4:213, archive.org/details/volume-4_202011/page/213/mode
/2up; for a single seer stone in a hat, see “Wayne County (PA) Inquirer, circa May 1830,” in Early Mormon Documents, 3:274, archive.org/details/volume
-3_202011/page/273/mode/2up.

200 . Jones, “History of the Mormonites,” 133.

201 . “Minutes, 25–26 October 1831,” p. 13, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/paper-summary/minutes-25-26-october-1831/4.

202 . For Joseph Smith’s accounts, see Welch, “Miraculous Translation,” 121–29.

203 . For example, in summarizing the testimony of his two June 1830 trials stemming from his use of seer stones for treasure seeking, Joseph does not tell the principal justification for his arrest or relate any testimony mentioning his use of seer stones. “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” pp. 44–47, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper
-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august
-1834/52. For more on charges against Joseph related to his glass-looking activities, see “Introduction to State of New York v. JS–B and State of New York v. JS–C.” josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/introduction-to-state
-of-new-york-v-js-b-and-state-of-new-york-v-js-c/1#transcript-1-1830.

204 . “History, circa Summer 1832,” p. 5, josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary
/history-circa-summer-1832?p=5. Compare the surrounding text with 2 Nephi 27: 15–20.

205 . “Journal, 1835–1836,” p. 25, Joseph Smith Papers, emphasis added.

206 . “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” p. 5, emphasis added, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838
-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/5#source-note. Although the edited and canonized version of this statement (Joseph Smith—History 1:35) implies that “the Urim and Thummim” consisted of the combination of the interpreters and the breastplate, Doctrine and Covenants 17 identifies “the Urim and Thummim” as the stones only.

207 . “Joseph Knight, Sr., Reminiscence, Circa 1835–1847,” 4:15, archive.org
/details/volume-4_202011/page/11/mode/2up.

208 . “Elders’ Journal, November 1837,” pp. 28–29, Joseph Smith Papers, joseph
smithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-november-1837/12.

209 . “Journal, March-September 1838,” p. 39, Joseph Smith Papers, joseph
smithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-march-september-1838/25.

210 . “Minute Book 2,” p. 140, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper
-summary/minute-book-2/143.

211 . “Elders’ Journal, July 1838 ,” pp. 42–43, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/10.

212 . ‘“Church History,’ 1 March 1842,” p. 707, Joseph Smith Papers; josephsmith
papers.org/paper-summary/church-history-1-march-1842/2.

213 . “William Smith, On Mormonism, 1883,” 1:497, archive.org/details/volume-1_
202010/page/496/mode/2up. For discussion of J. W. Peterson’s 1924 report of an interview with William Smith that says Joseph translated by looking through the interpreters attached to a breastplate, see Spencer, “What Did the Interpreters Look Like,” 253n73.

214 . Mark L. Staker and Curtis Ashton, “Joseph and Emma Smith’s Home,” Church History, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (website), February 27, 2019, history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/historic-sites
/pennsylvania/joseph-and-emma-smiths-home?lang=eng.

215 . In his statement, Hale says that Joseph assured him he would give up glass looking, that Joseph permitted him to heft the plates in a box, and that he discussed the plates with both Joseph and Martin Harris. “Isaac Hale Statement, 1834,” 4:281–88, archive.org/details/volume-4_202011/page/283/mode/2up.

216 . “Isaac Hale Statement, 1834,” 4:281, 287.

217 . “For the Ohio Star: Nelson, Portage County, Sept. 12th, 1831,” Ohio Star, 13 October 1831, emphasis added, sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/oh/miscohio
.htm.

218 . “Ezra Booth Accounts, 1831,” 5:308–9, emphasis added, archive.org/details
/volume-5_202011.

219 . Towle, Vicissitudes Illustrated in the Experience of Nancy Towle, in Europe and America, 151, google.com/books/edition/Vicissitudes_Illustrated/iXYoAA
AAYAAJ.

220 . “Henry Harris Statement, circa 1833,” 2:76, emphasis added, archive.org
/details/volume-2_202011/page/75/mode/2up.

221 . “Joseph Smith Interview with Peter Bauder, October 1830,” in Early Mormon Documents, 1:17, archive.org/details/volume-1_202010/page/16/mode/2up.

222 . In a letter to the editor of Times & Seasons, Joseph quoted Mormon 9:34 and then stated, “Here then the subject is put to silence, for ‘none other people knoweth our language,’ therefore the Lord, and not man, had to interpret, after the people were all dead.” “Letter to Editor, circa 20 May 1843,” Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-editor-circa
-20-may-1843/1.

223 . For more on the importance of the plates to the translation, see Scripture Central Staff, “Why Were the Plates Present During the Translation of the Book of Mormon?,” KnoWhy 366, 20 August 2020, scripturecentral.org/knowhy
/why-were-the-plates-present-during-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon.

224 . “Ezra Booth Accounts, 1831,” 5:308, emphasis added.

225 . Philo Dibble, “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” The Juvenile Instructor, 15 May 1892, 303–04, ia801600.us.archive.org/21/items/juvenile
instruct2710geor/juvenileinstruct2710geor.pdf.

226 . Royal Skousen, “The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon,” chapter from The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, vol. 3, part 7 (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, in press), 28–29, pre-print available at “Update of the Pre-Print of a Discussion of the Book of Mormon Witnesses,” Interpreter Foundation (website), 25 August 2021, interpreterfoundation.org/blog-update-of-the-pre-print
-of-a-discussion-of-the-book-of-mormon-witnesses-by-royal-skousen/.

227 . “David Whitmer Interview with Zenas H. Gurley,” 5:138, emphasis added.

228 . Traughber Interview, “Testimony of David Whitmer,” 341, emphasis added, archive.org/details/TheSaintsHerald_Volume_26_1879/page/n339/mode
/2up?view=theater.

229 . A report by Truman Coe is sometimes cited as description of the translation process by Joseph Smith, but there is no record of Coe having interviewed Joseph Smith. In his introduction to Coe’s account, Dan Vogel suggests that Joseph Smith may have provided the information while preaching to Coe’s congregation. Alternatively, Coe may have been repeating what he had heard others report. If Coe had spoken with Smith, he probably would have said so. Coe’s statement claims that Joseph said the words would appear “on a screen placed before him.” “Truman Coe Account, 1836,” in Early Mormon Documents, 1:46–47, archive.org/details/volume-1_202010/page/46/mode/2up.

230 . Whitmer, Address to All Believers, 12, emphasis added, archive.org/details
/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/12/mode/2up.

231 . Whitmer, Address to All Believers, 37, emphasis added, archive.org/details
/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/36/mode/2up.

232 . For the gift of seeing as equivalent to the gift of visions, see Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 50–51, including notes.

233 . For a discussion of other revealed texts Joseph reportedly received by vision, see Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 43–48. Regarding the revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 52 being received by vision, see “Historical Introduction” to “Revelation, 6 June 1831 [D&C 52],” Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers
.org/paper-summary/revelation-6-june-1831-dc-52/1#historical-intro.