The Know

On October 3, 1863, when the United States was in the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln declared Thanksgiving Day to be a national holiday in the United States.1 The middle of a war might seem like a strange time to declare a holiday devoted to giving thanks, yet the Book of Mormon shows us how times of hardship are actually perfect occasions to show our gratitude.2 Sometimes, it is only in the depths of sorrow, struggle, or trial that we fully realize how all along the Lord has been “supporting [us] from one moment to another” through His tender mercies (Mosiah 2:21).3

Lehi is a good example of giving thanks during a challenging time. After attempting to teach the people in Jerusalem and being rejected, the Lord spoke to Lehi and told him to “take his family and depart into the wilderness” (1 Nephi 2:1–2). When he did so, he “left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness” (1 Nephi 2:4).

In other words, Lehi left most of his worldly possessions behind him and journeyed into a desert which some travelers described as a “brutal wilderness” where “hardly a blade of grass breaks up the monotony.”4 To make matters worse, two of his sons, Laman and Lemuel, repeatedly murmured against him during this trip (1 Nephi 2:11).5 Finally, after about 250 miles, he made it to a river.6 He then did something unexpected under such strenuous conditions: he gave thanks.7“He built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord” (1 Nephi 2:7).8

Hundreds of years later, the Nephites also gave thanks under difficult circumstances. Soldiers serving under a great military leader, also named Lehi, had just fought off a large Lamanite attack against their heavily fortified city without losing a single person (Alma 49:21–25). After this decisive victory, the Nephites “did thank the Lord their God, because of his matchless power in delivering them from the hands of their enemies” (Alma 49:28).

However, this would not always be the Nephite response to resounding victories. As the Nephites neared extinction, they once again won a resounding victory against the Lamanites (Mormon 3:8). But this time, “because of this great thing which my people, the Nephites, had done, they began to boast in their own strength” (Mormon 3:9). Far from thanking God for their victory, they took the credit for defeating their enemy. Sadly, pride was a key factor in their ultimate destruction (see Mormon 4:8–18).

The Why

The stories of Lehi the patriarch and Lehi the chief captain demonstrate two fundamental principles of giving thanks: (1) we must notice and be grateful for our blessings, even in the midst of trials and triumphs, and (2) we must remain humble. The patriarch Lehi did something far more difficult than anything most of us will ever have to do. He left everything behind him in Jerusalem, at the command of God, and traveled through a barren wasteland with family members who were not necessarily happy to follow him.9

Yet, despite having so many things to be upset or frustrated about, he chose to be thankful for his blessings instead. Ultimately, arriving at the river in the Valley of Lemuel meant that he and his family would not die of thirst in the wilderness. Lehi appears to have chosen to focus on his blessing, the water that would keep his family alive, rather than on his misfortunes.10 Directing his mind in this way surely helped him to feel gratitude in his heart, and it provided an enduring example of righteousness for his murmuring family members and for all of us.

In the case of Chief Captain Lehi and the Nephites that were with him, one can see how humility can help us to give thanks even after we seem to have succeeded on our own. When the Nephites under Chief Captain Lehi beat the Lamanites, they could have easily done what the Nephites at the time of Mormon did, and ignore the role that God played in their victory. During times of difficulty, when we are struggling to achieve even small victories, it can be easy to claim these victories for ourselves, rather than thanking God for them. The Nephites under Lehi show that humility can allow us to see God’s hand in the victories we achieve in life, and thank Him for them.

“When we are suffering from hardship and it is difficult to say ‘thank you for this trial’ we can start by saying ‘I praise you for so many other things.’  In this way we can eventually find gratitude for our trials.” Humbly noticing our blessings in our suffering, as well as after hard-earned accomplishments, will allow us to give thanks to God, no matter what might be happening in our lives. Seeing the world this way, will likely involve a shift in how we think, but that might not be a bad thing. As Dallin H. Oaks stated,

When we understand this principle, that God offers us opportunities for blessings and blesses us through our own adversities and the adversities of others, we can understand why He has commanded us again and again to ‘thank the Lord thy God in all things’ (D&C 59:7). I pray that we will be blessed to understand the truth and purpose of the doctrines and commandments I have described and that we will be faithful enough and strong enough to give thanks in all things.11

• 1. Abraham Lincoln, "Proclamation of Thanksgiving (October 3, 1863)", online at abrahamlincolnonline.org.
• 2. For more on giving thanks in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Should We Take the Time to Give Thanks to God? (Mosiah 24:22),” KnoWhy 238 (November 24, 2016).
• 3. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Zion Flourish in the Wilderness? (1 Nephi 2:2),” KnoWhy 362 (September 7, 2017).
• 4. George Potter and Richard Wellington, Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New, Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon is a True History (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, 2003), 22, 41.
• 5. For more on the murmuring of Laman and Lemuel, see Neal Rappleye, “The Deuteronomist Reforms and Lehi’s Family Dynamics: A Social Context for the Rebellions of Laman and Lemuel,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 16 (2015): 87–99.
• 6. For a proposed physical location of this valley, see George D. Potter, “A New Candidate in Arabia for the ‘Valley of Lemuel’,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8, no. 1 (1999): 54–63, 79; S. Kent Brown, “New Light from Arabia on Lehi's Trail,” in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002), 60–62; S. Kent Brown, “The Hunt for the Valley of Lemuel,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16, no. 1 (2007): 64–73, 86–88; Book of Mormon Central, “Have the Valley of Lemuel and the River Laman Been Found? (1 Nephi 2:6),” KnoWhy 286 (March 13, 2017).
• 7. For insights on what it really means to give thanks, see Taylor Halverson, “Giving Thanks Now and Always,” Deseret News, November 23, 2014; “Giving Thanks Now and Always, Part 2,” Deseret News, November 24, 2014.
• 8. For more on how Lehi could offer sacrifices so far from the temple in Jerusalem, see Book of Mormon Central, “How Could Lehi Offer Sacrifices Outside of Jerusalem? (1 Nephi 7:22),” KnoWhy 9 (January 12, 2016); David Rolph Seely, “Lehi’s Altar and Sacrifice in the Wilderness,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10, no. 1 (2001): 62–69, 80; Brown, “New Light from Arabia on Lehi's Trail,” 62–63; S. Kent Brown, “What Were Those Sacrifices Offered by Lehi?” in From Jerusalem to Zarahemla: Literary and Historical Studies of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1998), 2; Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 6 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 245–246.
• 9. For more on why Laman and Lemuel did not want to go with Lehi, see David Rolph Seely, “Nephi’s Use of Isaiah 2–14 in 2 Nephi 12–30,” in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 165.
• 10. For more on this scene, see Book of Mormon Central, “Did Lehi Use the Poetry of the Ancient Bedouin? (1 Nephi 2:9–10),” KnoWhy 5 (January 6, 2016); Hugh Nibley, “Lehi in the Desert—Part VI,” Improvement Era 53, no. 6 (June 1950): 517–518; Hugh Nibley, “Lehi in the Desert—Part VII,” Improvement Era 53, no. 7 (July 1950): 566–567, 587–588; reprinted in Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert/The World of the Jaredites/There Were Jaredites, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 5 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 84–92.
• 11. Dallin H. Oaks, “Give Thanks in All Things,” Ensign, May 2003, online at lds.org.

The Know

Generally, when we think of witnesses of the Book of Mormon, we think of the Three Witnesses or the Eight Witnesses. However, there were many other indirect witnesses of the Book of Mormon. These incidental witnesses may have seen part of the plates, like Josiah Stowell did.1 Others may have handled the plates, like Emma Smith did.2 One witness was converted to the church simply by witnessing the effect that the translation process had on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Her name was Sally Heller Conrad.3

In June of 1829, Mary Whitmer was hard at work taking care of her own family, but she also faced the added burden of taking care of Joseph and Oliver, who were translating the Book of Mormon in her home.4 Exhausted and overworked, Mary hired Sally to help her around the house. Eighteen-year-old Sally likely thought this would be a job like any other, but she soon noticed something unusual. She later told a friend that she saw Joseph and Oliver “come down from the translating room several times when they looked so exceedingly white and strange” that she asked Mary Whitmer what was going on.5

Because of the sacred nature of the work and fear of persecution, the Whitmers did not tell Sally what was happening.6 But finally, after seeing this happen multiple times, Sally said she would leave if Mary did not tell her what was going on.7 Mary finally explained that Joseph and Oliver were translating a sacred record from golden plates, “and that the power of God was so great in the room that they could hardly endure it: at times angels were in the room in their glory, which nearly consumed them.”8

Mary’s explanation satisfied Sally, who not only stayed to help the Whitmers, but eventually joined the church because of her experiences.9 She would eventually marry in the church, come west with the Saints, and die in Provo, Utah at the age of 92.10

The Why

As far as we know, Sally Conrad never saw the plates or even handled them.11 What made a difference in her life was the effect the Book of Mormon had on those around her. Sally did not have some grand or glorious vision of an angel with plates. She didn’t hear a voice from heaven. She simply saw the impact the Book of Mormon had on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. The same can be true of us today. Our faces may not have a celestial glow when we read the Book of Mormon, but people will still be able to see in our countenances that we read the Book of Mormon and live what it teaches.12 And they may even wonder, like Sally did, what makes us different from other people they know.

James E. Faust once commented on a remark someone had made about the “light” in the eyes of Latter-day Saints. He said,

What was that light in their eyes which was so obvious to our friend? The Lord Himself gives the answer: ‘And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings.’ Where did that light come from? Again the Lord gives the answer: ‘I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.’ The Lord is the true light, ‘and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.’ This light shows in our countenances as well as in our eyes.13

When we faithfully read the Book of Mormon, the Spirit will flow into our lives, and the impact of the Spirit will be obvious to those we interact with. Most people will probably not become converted when they see the influence of the Spirit in our lives, as Sally did, but our increased spirituality will touch all we meet.14 They will not need to see golden plates and divine messengers to know that something about the Book of Mormon is good and true. They will see it in our faces, and eventually, from their own experiences reading the Book of Mormon.

May we all, in our own small ways, let the Book of Mormon’s spiritual light radiate from us so that we can be a positive influence in the lives of those around us.15

• 1. See “Mormonism,” New England Christian Herald 4, no. 6 (Boston, MA; November 7, 1832); reprinted in Morning Star 8, no. 29 (Limerick, ME; November 16, 1832); accessed November 1, 2017, online at sidneyrigdon.com.
• 2. Amy Easton-Flake and Rachel Cope, “A Multiplicity of Witnesses: Women and 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 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2015), 143.
• 3. Her actual name was Sarah, but she went by Sally (sometimes spelled Sallie). See John W. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd edition (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2017), 109, primary document no. 114 (available on p. 185). See also Glenn Rawson, “Sallie Heller Conrad” in Signs, Wonders, and Miracles: Extraordinary Stories from Early Latter-day Saints, ed. Glenn Rawson and Dennis Lyman (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2015), 199.
• 4. Although Emma likely was helping during much of the time, things would still have been very busy. See Rawson, “Sallie Heller Conrad,” 199.
• 5. For a copy of the original interview, see Welch, Opening the Heavens, 185. See also Mark L. McConkie, Remembering Joseph (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 248–249.
• 6. See Welch, Opening the Heavens, 185.
• 7. See Rawson, “Sallie Heller Conrad,” 199.
• 8. See Welch, Opening the Heavens, 185.
• 9. Rawson, “Sallie Heller Conrad,” 200.
• 10. Rawson, “Sallie Heller Conrad,” 200.
• 11. One would think that she would have mentioned this during her interview if she had. See Welch, Opening the Heavens, 185.
• 12. See Andrew C. Skinner, “Alma’s ‘Pure Testimony’ (Alma 5–8),” in Book of Mormon, Part 1: 1 Nephi to Alma 29, Studies in Scripture, Volume 7, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 301.
• 13. James E. Faust, “The Light in Their Eyes,” Ensign, November 2005, online at lds.org.
• 14. Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987–1992), 3:30.
• 15. See, for example, Alma 37:23.

The Know

According to religion professors Amy Easton-Flake and Rachel Cope, “Emma Smith was arguably more intimately involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon than any person besides Joseph.”1 She helped Joseph Smith retrieve the plates, acted as his scribe, and even felt and hefted the plates while they were covered with a cloth. In these various capacities, she was both an active participant and an intimate witness of the miraculous events as they unfolded. In more ways than some may realize, Emma stood side by side with her husband in bringing forth the “words of them which have slumbered” (2 Nephi 27:6).

Emma Helped Retrieve the Plates

Emma’s participation in retrieving the plates was apparently both necessary and appointed by revelation. According to Joseph Knight, Sr., the angel Moroni told Joseph Smith that he would only be able to retrieve the plates if he brought the “right person.”2 Through revelation, Joseph discerned that this person was Emma.3 On the appointed day,4 Emma accompanied him to the base of the hill where the plates were buried, after which Joseph went on alone to retrieve them. After Emma waited alone for several hours, Joseph returned with the plates “wrapped in his coat,” which he then hid in a “hollowed out birch log.”5

Thus, while Emma didn’t actually view the plates directly, she was, according to sources, divinely appointed to participate in, and perhaps witness, their retrieval. She watched Joseph trek up the hill emptyhanded and then return with a tangible, though covered, object.6 As on other important revelatory occasions, Joseph was not alone during this key event of the Restoration.7

Emma as Scribe

Emma, having been a “rural school teacher of considerable native talents,”8 was also Joseph Smith’s first scribe and may have transcribed more of the Book of Mormon than anyone else except for Oliver Cowdery.9 It is from Emma that we learn most about the circumstances that make the production of the Book of Mormon such a miracle. In her own words, Emma explained that “when acting as scribe, [Joseph] would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do.”10

Emma remembered that she was “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.” With this immediate and consistent knowledge of the translation process, she insisted that Joseph “had neither manuscript nor book to read from” and that “if he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.”11 Emma’s participation as a scribe was crucial during the early stages of the translation, and her descriptions offer a unique window into how this miracle unfolded day by day.12

Emma as Witness

Emma’s value as a witness is enhanced because of her physical interaction with the tangible plates.13 She reported to her son that while cleaning the home, “she would lift and move [the covered plates] when she swept and dusted the room and furniture.”14 She further explained, “I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.”15 Emma was so confident in the plates’ reality that she never attempted to “uncover them to look at them,” even though she had plenty of opportunity to do so.16

The Why

Emma’s participation in these miraculous undertakings did not come without great sacrifice. First of all, she chose to marry Joseph Smith even though her father, Isaac Hale, “bitterly opposed their courtship.”17 And then, in the first year of their marriage, she helped Joseph obtain the Book of Mormon.18 From this time forward, numerous attempts were made to steal the gold plates,19 and persecution and danger continually swirled around their lives.20 Yet through it all, Emma remained constant and true to her husband and the sacred relic that he was charged to protect and translate.

When Emma wasn’t acting as a scribe, she was often doing the domestic chores needed for the survival and comfort of those actively involved in the translation. Easton-Flake and Cope noted, “Maintaining a home was a full-time occupation in early nineteenth-century America, and Emma, without any hired help, fulfilled this necessary role for Joseph and herself, as well as at times for Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery.”21

It is also apparent that Emma was deeply concerned for the success of the translation project. The loss of the 116 pages22 occurred during a time when Emma was severely sick and had just lost a baby in childbirth.23 Yet even in her sorrow and ill health, Emma told Joseph, “I feel so uneasy … that I cannot rest and shall not be at ease until I know something about what Mr. Harris is doing with [the borrowed manuscript].”24

These details help explain why the Lord chose Emma Smith as an “elect lady” to serve alongside her husband (Doctrine and Covenants 25:3). Her service as a scribe was essential. Her witness as an intimate observer and participant of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is convincing. And her faithfulness to the prophet Joseph Smith and to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is inspiring. In awe at her miraculous experiences, Emma herself remarked, “And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, ‘a marvel and a wonder,’ as much so as to any one else.”25

• 1. Amy Easton-Flake and Rachel Cope, “A Multiplicity of Witnesses: Women and 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 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2015), 143.
• 2. Dean Jesse, “Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early Mormon History,” BYU Studies 17, no. 1 (1976): 2.
• 3. Knight reported that Moroni initially revealed to Joseph Smith that his older brother Alvin was chosen to accompany him to retrieve the plates. However, because Alvin unexpectedly passed away, Joseph sought further clarification about the matter during his next interview with Moroni. According to Knight, “Joseph says, ‘who is the right Person?’ The answer [from Moroni] was you will know. Then he looked in his glass and found it was Emma Hale, Daughter of old Mr Hail of Pensylvany, a girl that he had seen Before, for he had Bin Down there Before with me.” Jesse, “Joseph Knight’s Recollection ,” 2 (original spelling retained). Knight’s story is supported by a late recollection given by Katherine Smith Salisbury, Joseph Smith’s sister. She remembered that when Joseph asked who should accompany him to the hill, Moroni explained, “You will know her when you see her.” Kyle R. Walker, “Katharine Smith Salisbury’s Recollections of Joseph’s Meetings with Moroni,” BYU Studies Quarterly 41, no. 3 (2002): 14. For information regarding Willard Chase’s claim that Samuel Lawrence was supposed to be the one to accompany Joseph to the hill, see Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2015), 7–9.
• 4. See Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York, NY: Knopf, 2005), 59: “The angel had commanded Joseph to come to the hill on September 22. To be precise in his compliance and still to throw off meddlers who knew of the date, Joseph chose to go to Cumorah in the dead of night, almost the minute September 22 arrived.”
• 5. See Easton-Flake and Cope, “A Multiplicity of Witnesses,” 143–144. According to Martin Harris, Joseph hid the plates in “an old black oak tree top which was hollow.” John W. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd edition (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2017), 87. Joseph didn’t actually take the plates home at this time because he didn’t have a proper “covering or a safe place to store them.” MacKay and Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light, 6.
• 6. Emma also accompanied Joseph when he returned to Palmyra to retrieve the plates from where he had hidden them. See Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845, Page 1, bk. 5, online at josephsmithpapers.org.
• 7. For an overview of these revelatory events, the witnesses who participated, and the documents which help verify their reality, see Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation,” vii–xii.
• 8. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1981), 5.
• 9. Easton-Flake and Cope, “A Multiplicity of Witnesses,” 144. See also, Book of Mormon Central, “How Important Was Oliver Cowdery in Bringing Forth the Book of Mormon? (2 Nephi 27:9),” KnoWhy 270 (February 3, 2017).
• 10.“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” The Saint’s Herald 26, no. 19 (October 1, 1879): 290.
• 11.“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” 289–290.
• 12. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the Book of Mormon Come Forth as a Miracle? (2 Nephi 27:23),” KnoWhy 273 (February 10, 2017); Book of Mormon Central, “Why Were the Plates Present During the Translation of the Book of Mormon? (Mosiah 1:6),” KnoWhy 366 (September 21, 2017).
• 13. Emma was just one of many who had such encounters with the plates and the other artifacts. For broader treatments of this subject, see Kirk B. Henrichsen, compiler, “How Witnesses Described the ‘Gold Plates’,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10, no. 1 (2001): 16–21, 78; Anthony Sweat, “Hefted and Handled: Tangible Interactions with Book of Mormon Objects,” in The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon, 43–59; Neal Rappleye, “‘Idle and Slothful Strange Stories’: Book of Mormon Origins and the Historical Record,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 20 (2016): 21–37; Daniel C. Peterson, “Tangible Restoration: The Witnesses and What They Experienced,” 2006 FairMormon Conference presentation, 1–33, online at fairmormon.org.
• 14. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation,” 145, doc. 43.
• 15.“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” 290.
• 16.“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” 290.
• 17. Gracia N. Jones, “My Great-Great-Grandmother, Emma Hale Smith,” Ensign, August 1992, online at lds.org. See also, Ryan Carr, “When Emma Met Joseph,” New Era, October 2004, online at lds.org. 
• 18. Joseph and Emma were married on January 18, 1827 and they retrieved the plates on September 22 of the same year. See Carol Cornwall Madsen, “Smith, Emma Hale,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 3:1321–1326.
• 19. See Andrew H. Hedges, “‘All My Endeavors to Preserve Them’: Protecting the Plates in Palmyra, 22 September–December 1827,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8, 2 (1999): 14–23, 84–85.
• 20. See MacKay and Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light, 30–32.
• 21. Easton-Flake and Cope, “A Multiplicity of Witnesses,” 144.
• 22. See J. B. Haws, “The Lost 116 Pages Story: What We Do Know, What We Don’t Know, and What We Might Know,” in The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon, 81–102; Susan Easton Black, “Book of Mormon, lost manuscript of (116 pages),” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 123–124.
• 23. Easton-Flake and Cope, “A Multiplicity of Witnesses,” 147.
• 24.Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845, Page 2, bk. 7, online at josephsmithpapers.org.
• 25.“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” 290.

The Know

In Mormon 2:15, Mormon stated that the “day of grace was past” with his people, the Nephites.1 The phrase “day of grace” only appears once in the scriptures, so it is hard to know what it might mean.2 However, based on what this phrase meant in the late 1820s when the Book of Mormon was translated, it is possible that the “day of grace” signified extra time that God gave the Nephites to repent.3

The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, a dictionary from Joseph Smith’s own time and place, defines the day of grace as a “time of probation, when an offer is made to sinners.”4 This seems to come from a definition having to do with commerce: “the days immediately following the day when a bill or note becomes due, which days are allowed to the debtor or payor to make payment in.”5 Today, people usually refer to this as a “grace period.” In other words, the day of grace is extra time given for a person to pay a debt, which in a spiritual sense means that God gives his children extra time to repent.

More generally, a day of grace is “favor shown by granting ... immunity from penalty during a specified period.”6Mormon 2:15 seems to imply that the death penalty was the punishment that had been delayed for a time. Mormon stated, “I saw that the day of grace was past with them, both temporally and spiritually; for I saw thousands of them hewn down in open rebellion against their God.” The day of grace was over for the Nephites; the time of their punishment was at hand. The punishment was that they were now, in effect, being executed, or “hewn down.” 7

This very physical destruction that the Nephites were experiencing at this time helps to explain Mormon’s comment about the day of grace. He stated that “the day of grace was past with them, both temporally and spiritually” (Mormon 2:15).8 Temporally speaking, the delay of the death penalty that was the Nephites’ punishment for their “open rebellion against their God” was over, and they were physically being destroyed. But spiritually, the extra time God had granted them to repent was also over. Thus, the day of grace was past, both temporally and spiritually.

The idea that God gives mankind extra time to repent appears in other places in the Book of Mormon as well. Alma, for example, stated that God could have killed Adam immediately for violating the commandment not to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. However, he stated that “death comes upon mankind ... nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God” (Alma 12:24). In other words, God gave Adam extra time so he could repent, just like He gave the Nephites extra time.

The Why

In Adam’s case, “there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God” (Alma 42:4). The same can be said of all of us. As Alma put it, the only way the plan of redemption can be brought to pass is if people repent while in “this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice” (Alma 42:13).9

In some ways, mercy is a matter of time. If God instantly punished sin, people would have no time to feel remorse, repent, and become better. God grants people a “day of grace” to see if they will “repent and serve God” (Alma 42:4). This is one way in which, as Alma taught, mercy does not destroy justice.10 People have the opportunity to repent and receive God’s grace through the mercy of Christ, before the full weight of justice falls upon them.11 God has provided us all with the opportunity to repent and come to Him.12 Instead of immediately punishing us when we sin, He gives us the necessary time to change our lives and be healed through the redemption of Christ.

The Nephites did not take advantage of this opportunity during Mormon’s lifetime.13 Even when offered one last chance, they refused it. As Mormon stated, “the Lord did say unto me: Cry unto this people—Repent ... and ye shall be spared. And I did cry unto this people, but it was in vain; and they did not realize that it was the Lord that had spared them, and granted unto them a chance for repentance” (Mormon 3:2–3). However, we can all take advantage of this time today, if we will look at our lives as a period of probation, and gratefully and wisely use the extra time God has given us to repent.

• 1. For the use of “past” instead of “passed,” in the earliest text see Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 784. For an explanation of the variant, see Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon: Part Six, 3 Nephi 8 – Moroni 10, 2nd edition, The Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, Volume 4 (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2017), 3734–3735.
• 2.Eldin Ricks’s Thorough Concordance of the LDS Standard Works (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1995), 829.
• 3. For a discussion of how grace is usually used in the Book of Mormon, see Stephen E. Robinson, “Grace,” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 306.
• 4. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), s.v., “Grace.” Online at webstersdictionary1828.com.
• 5. Webster, “Grace.”
• 6.Oxford English Dictionary (1971), s.v., “Grace,” 325–328.
• 7. This delay before execution may reflect a common practice in ancient America, where rulers would schedule the execution of a slave for some time in the future, usually a sacred festival. See John S. Henderson, The World of the Ancient Maya, 2nd ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997), 62.
• 8. People have usually assumed that this verse refers to grace as we usually think of it, but then one wonders why Mormon stated, “both temporally and spiritually.” For an interpretation that assumes this is grace as we usually think of it, see Brent J. Schmidt, Relational Grace (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2015), 155–156.
• 9. For more on the relationship between justice and mercy, see Bruce C. Hafen, “Justice and Mercy,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 2:775–776.
• 10. For more on this, see Robert L. Millet, “Justice, Mercy, and the Life Beyond: Alma 40–42,” in The Book of Mormon, Part 2: Alma 30 to Moroni, ed. Kent P. Jackson, Studies in Scripture: Volume 8 (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1988), 56–68.
• 11. See H. Donl Peterson, “The Law of Justice and the Law of Mercy,” in Alma, The Testimony of the Word, Book of Mormon Symposium Series, Volume 6, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1993), 211–222.
• 12. See Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 4:555.
• 13. See Joseph Fielding McConkie, Robert L. Millet, and Brent L. Top, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1987–1992), 4:217.

The Know

When the first copies of the Book of Mormon came off the press in March 1830, they were not based, for the most part, directly on the original manuscript written down by Oliver Cowdery as Joseph Smith dictated the text. Joseph, knowing from personal experience that manuscripts could sometimes get lost, had Oliver Cowdery and two other scribes make a copy of the original manuscript from which the book could be printed.1 Because much of the original manuscript was damaged or lost, this copy of the original text, known as the printer’s manuscript, is a priceless source of information on the Book of Mormon. We are fortunate that all but one line of it survives to the present day,2 especially because it was almost destroyed in 1878.

In June of 1878, a tornado tore through the town of Richmond, Missouri. It destroyed a third of the city, taking away even the foundations of the buildings.3 The county courthouse was destroyed, literally scattering books to the winds. Some of these books were carried forty miles away from the courthouse by the tornado.4 David Whitmer, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, was living in the town at the time, and had the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon stored in a room of his house.

David’s house was a large two-story, seven-room house, and the tornado turned most of it into matchsticks. Or rather, the house across the street destroyed David’s house, when the tornado literally picked up his neighbor’s house and threw it into David’s.5 There was only one part of David’s home that was preserved: the small room in which he stored the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon. The rest of the house was utterly destroyed, but this room was left completely undisturbed; not even the windows were broken.6 Everything else in that part of the town was flattened, yet the room containing the printer’s manuscript survived. David and his family always attributed the preservation of the manuscript to divine intervention.7

David Whitmer kept the manuscript until his death in 1888, and in 1903 Whitmer's grandson sold it to the Community of Christ. They, in turn, sold it to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on September 18, 2017.8

The Why

It is impossible to say whether the Lord intentionally preserved the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon, or whether the tornado and its debris simply happened to miss that room in the house by chance. However, the manuscript’s brush with certain destruction reminds us all of the importance of the printer's manuscript. That precious manuscript gets readers as close as possible, in most sections of the Book of Mormon, to the very words spoken by Joseph Smith as he brought forth the text of the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God.9

In the vast majority of cases, the current text of the Book of Mormon is substantially the same as it was when it came forth in 1830. But edits and changes have been made, usually for well-intentioned reasons. By examining the surviving sections of the original manuscript and the printer’s manuscript, we can come to understand the Book of Mormon better.10

Most readers of the Book of Mormon are not concerned with the small textual differences between the printer’s manuscript and the modern Book of Mormon. However, examining these differences can help readers to understand many phrases or sentences in the Book of Mormon on a more technical and often interesting level.11 For example, the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon said "mediation" instead of "mediator", in 2 Nephi 2:27, but this was a typographical error as the printer's manuscript clearly has "mediator." This error was corrected in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon using the invaluable Printer’s Manuscript.12 Work like this allows us all to have greater confidence in the text of the Book of Mormon.

Looking at the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery and the other scribes is a reminder of the effort that was involved in copying page after page of the Book of Mormon.13 It increases our appreciation for the great men and women who were involved in producing the text we all enjoy today.14 And if God did indeed save this text from a tornado, as David Whitmer believed, it might be a good thing for us to pay a little bit more attention to the textual variants in the Book of Mormon.

The more we study the scriptures, and the greater attention we pay to the details of the text, the more the text will come alive to us, and the more we will see things we never noticed before. The printer’s manuscript, as one of the earliest surviving text of the Book of Mormon, allows us to experience the book in a new way. If we assume that David Whitmer was right and that God had a hand in preserving this manuscript, this story is a reminder to all of us that God sometimes mercifully reaches down to intervene in our lives, helping us in miraculous ways.15

• 1. Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2015), 199.
• 2. Royal Skousen has noted that in “October 1841, Joseph Smith placed [the original manuscript] in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House. Over forty years later, Lewis Bidamon, Emma Smith's second husband, opened the cornerstone and found that water seepage had destroyed most of [it]. The surviving pages were handed out to various individuals during the 1880s. … Today, roughly 25 percent of the [original manuscript] survives: 1 Nephi 2 through 2 Nephi 1, with gaps; Alma 22 through Helaman 3, with gaps; and a few other fragments. All but one of the authentic pages and fragments of [the original manuscript] are housed in the archives of the LDS Historical Department; one-half of a sheet (from 1 Nephi 14) is owned by the University of Utah.” Royal Skousen, “Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon,” in To All the World: The Book of Mormon Articles from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, S. Kent Brown, and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 178–180.
• 3. Glenn Rawson, “Cyclone of ‘78” in Signs, Wonders, and Miracles: Extrordinary Stories from Early Latter-day Saints, ed. Glenn Rawson and Dennis Lyman (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2015), 61.
• 4. Rawson, “Cyclone of ’78,” 61.
• 5. Rawson, “Cyclone of ’78,” 62.
• 6. Rawson, “Cyclone of ’78,” 62.
• 7. Rawson, “Cyclone of ’78,” 62.
• 8. Royal Skousen, “Book of Mormon Manuscripts,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1993), 1:185–186.
• 9. For some of these insights, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the Book of Mormon Come Forth as a Miracle? (2 Nephi 27:23),” KnoWhy 273 (February 10, 2017).
• 10. Most conveniently, see Royal Skousen, “Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies 30, no. 1 (1990): 41–69; “Some Textual Changes for a Scholarly Study of the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies 51 no. 4 (2012): 99–117.
• 11. Royal Skousen, ed., The Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon: Typographical Facsimiles of the Entire Text in Two Parts, The Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, Volume 2 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2001), 10–14.
• 12. See Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 753. See also Royal Skousen, ed., The Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, Part One: 1 Nephi 1–Alma 17, The Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, Volume 2 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2001), 154; Royal Skousen and Robin Scott Jensen, eds., Revelations and Translations, Volume 3, Part 1: Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 1–Alma 35, The Joseph Smith Papers (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian's Press, 2015), 123.
• 13. To actually look at the handwritten text, see Royal Skousen and Robin Scott Jensen, eds., Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon 1 Nephi–Alma 35, Revelations and Translations Volume 3, Part 1, Joseph Smith Papers (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historian’s Press, 2015).
• 14. Royal Jon Skousen, “Book of Mormon, manuscripts of,” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 125.
• 15. Rawson, “Cyclone of ’78,” 62.

Editor’s Note: This KnoWhy is the first in a series which discusses stylometry and its relevance to questions of Book of Mormon authorship. This first article explains what stylometry is and gives readers a short history of stylometric studies performed on the Book of Mormon. Building on this foundation, subsequent KnoWhys will discuss some of the exciting new results from more recent stylometric research.

The Know

Since the Book of Mormon’s publication in 1830, a number of different theories have been proposed concerning its authorship.1 Those who believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God naturally have accepted that its source texts were written by multiple ancient prophets.2 In contrast, those skeptical of the Book of Mormon’s ancient origin and miraculous translation have generally assumed that Joseph Smith himself authored the entire text, or that it was written by one or more of his 19th century contemporaries.

In order to help shed light on this issue, several studies have relied upon a type of analysis called stylometry.3 This field of research uses various statistical methods to detect linguistic patterns. Stylometry has most notably been used to help answer questions about texts with disputed authorship, such as the Federalist Papers4 and some of Shakespeare’s plays.5 It has even been shown that stylometry can detect an author’s unique writing style even after his or her words have been translated from one language to another.6 The following summaries highlight the results of several notable stylometric studies on the Book of Mormon.7

Larsen Study

In 1980,8 Wayne Larsen, Alvin Rencher, and Tim Layton relied on three different statistical methods9 which used non-contextual words10 to distinguish writing styles among the Book of Mormon’s internally designated authors, including Nephi, Alma, Mormon, and Moroni, as well as several 19th century candidates, including Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Solomon Spalding.11 Despite initial concerns from some scholars,12 the validity of using non-contextual words to determine authorship is now widely accepted in the broader field of stylometric analysis.13

Larsen and his associates concluded that the Book of Mormon was written in “distinct authorship styles” and that none of the 19th century candidates that they tested “resemble Book of Mormon authors in style.”14 Not only did the Larsen study pioneer stylometric research on the Book of Mormon, but its results have provided an enduring statistical basis in support of Joseph Smith’s claims.

Holmes Study

In 1985, David Holmes, using measures of vocabulary richness, found no meaningful difference among the Book of Mormon’s claimed prophetic authors.15 He concluded that Joseph Smith himself wrote the text.16 However, in subsequent studies, other researchers discovered that patterns of vocabulary richness are often not reliable enough to distinguish between writing styles.17 Holmes himself recognized the comparative weakness of this method in his reanalysis of the Federalist essays.18 Naturally, these results largely invalidated his earlier conclusions on Book of Mormon authorship.

Hilton Study

In 1990,19 John Hilton and a team of researchers from Berkeley (most of whom were not LDS20) conducted a study using word pattern ratios21 and a new method of differentiation based on what Hilton called rejections.22 This study is especially notable because of its large control samples, which included 26 texts by 9 different control authors and 325 pairwise comparisons.23 Comparisons were made between texts attributed to Nephi and Alma and those from Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Solomon Spalding.

The findings of Hilton’s research team largely agreed with the results of the Larsen study, leading them to conclude that “it is statistically indefensible to propose Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery or Solomon Spaulding as the author of the 30,000 words from the Book of Mormon attributed to Nephi and Alma” and also that Nephi and Alma “have wordprints unique to themselves and measure statistically independent from each other in the same fashion that other uncontested authors do.” These results indicate that the Book of Mormon was indeed “multiauthored, with authorship consistent to its own internal claims.”24

The Hilton study’s innovative stylometric approach, combined with its thorough statistical controls, make it a landmark study on Book of Mormon authorship. Using a slightly different method, researchers from Utah State University essentially reproduced the results of the Hilton study in 2006.25

Jockers Study

In 2008, Matthew Jockers, Daniela Witten, and Craig Criddle applied two statistical methods—delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification (NSC)—to the question of Book of Mormon authorship.26 They concluded that the Book of Mormon’s literary style most closely matched writing samples from Solomon Spaulding and Sidney Rigdon, two of Joseph Smith’s 19th century contemporaries.27

This study, however, contained at least eight significant errors,28 the most critical being that it used a closed set technique on what is clearly an open set problem.29 This excluded everyone but the study’s selected candidates as potential authors.30 Most notably, the Jockers study did not include Joseph Smith as a candidate author,31 and it made no provision for the text to have possibly been written by its internally claimed authors.32

Moreover, a closed set of NSC values can only measure the sample texts’ relative similarities to the Book of Mormon. This means that NSC analysis will always deliver positive results for one of the candidate authors in the set, even if his or her style happens to be very different from the Book of Mormon.33 In other words, the Jockers study failed to recognize how misleading the results of their analysis could be if the true author of the text was not included in their selected group of candidate authors.

Fields Study

In 2011, Paul Fields, Bruce Schaalje, and Matthew Roper reviewed the Jockers study and introduced an improvement upon the NSC method, which they termed extended nearest shrunken centroid classification (ENSC).34 This allowed for the possibility that an unknown author (or authors) not included in the set of potential candidates could have written the text. The Fields study also included Joseph Smith as a candidate author.

With these adjustments in place and other errors from the Jockers study corrected, Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding were each assigned a value of 0% for their relative likelihood of authoring the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith fared little better at 3%. In contrast, the chance of it having been written by one or more authors not included in the set turned out to be 93%.35

While these results cannot identify the unknown author(s) who likely wrote much of the text, they do show that it is highly likely that the author(s) were not any of the 19th century candidates who have been conjectured to have written the Book of Mormon. Thus, the Fields research team offers a third stylometric study on the Book of Mormon which independently contradicts theories of 19th century authorship.

The Why

In light of the above studies, it can be responsibly concluded that the Book of Mormon’s internal claims about its authorship are consistent with the best stylometric evidence currently available. While the Holmes and Jockers studies each reached conclusions inconsistent with the Book of Mormon’s claims of authorship, both were later found to be fundamentally flawed. In contrast the Larsen, Hilton, and Fields studies each produced sound results. Their mutually supporting conclusions should therefore be taken seriously by anyone assessing questions of Book of Mormon authorship.36

Stylometry is not a perfect science, but over the years its methods for distinguishing writing styles have become increasingly refined. In fact, it has been demonstrated that stylometric methods are able to detect an author’s word-use patterns even when he or she attempts to write in a different “voice” or to imitate another text’s style.37 The Book of Mormon’s lengthy texts and complex content would make it especially difficult for its true author(s) to fool the stylometric analysis, whether intentionally or inadvertently. 

It should be understood that stylometry cannot prove that the Book of Mormon was written by multiple ancient American prophets. What it can reliably demonstrate, and what valid data from the above studies collectively argue, is that (1) the Book of Mormon was written in multiple, distinct authorship styles, (2) these distinct styles are consistent with the authors designated within the text itself, and (3) none of the proposed 19th century authors—including Joseph Smith himself—have writing styles that are similar to those found in the Book of Mormon.

Not only do these conclusions strongly refute the most popular alternative theories for 19th century authorship, but they can also strengthen faith that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. Firmly embracing the particular words of Nephi, Alma, or Mormon, as authentic statements spoken by true prophets can increase one’s ability to remain firm and steadfast in heeding their personal words and testimonies.

The prophet Jacob declared, “For, for this intent have we written these things, that [future generations] may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming” (Jacob 4:4). While stylometry is capable of detecting stylistic differences among many of the Book of Mormon’s underlying authors, only the Spirit of God can confirm that they truly were ancient holy prophets who were called by God to testify of Jesus Christ.38

• 1. See Daniel C. Peterson, “The Divine Source of the Book of Mormon in the Face of Alternative Theories Advocated by LDS Critics,” FairMormon presentation, 2001, online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org.
• 2. See Noel B. Reynolds and Charles D. Tate, eds., Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1996); Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997); Paul Y. Hoskisson, ed., Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001); Stephen O. Smoot, “The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon,” at The Interpreter Foundation (blog), October 20, 2013, online at mormoninterpreter.com.
• 3. For an overview of this field of study, see Michael P. Oaks, Literary Detective Work on the Computer (Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2014); for this publication’s discussion of Book of Mormon authorship, see pp. 190–197. See also, Efstathios Stamatatos, “A Survey of Modern Authorship Attribution Methods,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60, no. 3 (2009): 538–556.
• 4. See Frederick Mosteller and David L. Wallace, Inference and Disputed Authorship: “The Federalist” (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1964); David I. Holmes and R. S. Forsyth, “The Federalist Revisited: New Directions in Authorship Attribution,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 10, no. 2 (1995): 111–127; Antonio Miranda-García and Javier Calle-Martín, “Testing Delta on the Disputed Federalist Papers,” International Journal of English Studies 12, no. 2 (2012): 133–150; Jacques Savoy, “The Federalist Papers revisited: A collaborative attribution scheme,” Proceedings of the American Society for Information, Science, and Technology 50, no. 1 (2013): 1–8.
• 5. See Reginald C. Churchill, Shakespeare and His Betters: A History and a Criticism of the Attempts Which Have Been Made to Prove That Shakespeare’s Works Were Written by Others (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1958); James G. McManaway, The Authorship of Shakespeare (Washington, DC: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1962); Hugh Craig and Arthur F. Kinney, Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
• 6. See John L. Hilton, “On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship,” BYU Studies Quarterly 30, no. 3 (1990): 97, 108, n. 17; reprinted in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, 236–237, 251–252, n. 17; G. Bruce Schaalje, John L. Hilton, and John B. Archer, “Comparative Power of Three Author-Attribution Techniques for Differentiating Authors,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 6, no. 1 (1997): 47–63. For the failure of machine translations (automated translations such as those provided by Google Translate and Bing Translator) to obscure or mislead stylometric analysis, see Michael Brennon, Sadia Afroz, and Rachel Greenstadt, “Adversarial Stylometry: Circumventing Authorship Recognition to Preserve Privacy and Anonymity,” ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 15, no. 3 (2012): 12:8–9, 16–19, 21; Aylin Caliskan and Rachel Greenstadt, “Translate Once, Translate Twice, Translate Thrice and Attribute: Identifying Authors and Machine Translation Tools in Translated Text,” Sixth IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing presentation, September 20, 2012. These findings are important for Book of Mormon authorship studies since it is claimed to be an English translation of a text written in an ancient language.
• 7. For a historical overview of stylometric studies on the Book of Mormon, see Matthew Roper, Paul J. Fields, and G. Bruce Schaalje, “Stylometric Analyses of the Book of Mormon: A Short History,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 21, no. 1 (2012): 28–45. See also, John L. Hilton, “Review of Ernest Taves’ Book of Mormon Stylometry,” (FARMS Preliminary Reports, 1986).
• 8. See Wayne A. Larsen, Alvin C. Rencher, and Tim Layton, “Who Wrote the Book of Mormon? An Analysis of Wordprints,” BYU Studies 20, no. 3 (1980): 225–251; reprinted in Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1982), 157–188.
• 9. See Larsen, Rencher, and Layton, “Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?” Book of Mormon Authorship, 163–177. For a brief overview of these methods, see Paul J. Fields, G. Bruce Schaalje, and Matthew Roper, “Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification to Investigate Book of Mormon Authorship,” Mormon Studies Review 23, no. 1 (2011): 91: “The Larsen et al. researchers used three statistical techniques—Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), Cluster Analysis (CA), and Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)—to test for differences in the frequencies of noncontextual words. MANOVA is a method of testing for homogeneity (degree of similarity) within groups of items. CA is a method that can identify which items are closest to each other among all items compared. LDA is a method for determining a set of mathematical functions (discriminant functions) that can be used to classify items into categories based on their characteristics.”
• 10. Rather than conveying an author’s unique ideas, non-contextual words (a, an, the, with, without, etc.) simply provide the grammatical framework in which those ideas are structured. Non-contextual words are ideal for statistical analysis because they show up frequently and most authors have very little conscious awareness of their own unique patterns of using them. As explained by Fields et al., “Studying the function words in a text can indicate an author’s personal manner of expressing his or her ideas since they do not indicate what the author says but the way he or she says it.” Fields, Schaalje, and Roper, “Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification,” 91.
• 11. For the 24 Book of Mormon authors included in the analysis, see Larsen, Rencher, and Layton, “Who Wrote the Book of Mormon? An Analysis of Wordprints,” Book of Mormon Authorship, 181. The 19th century writers included Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spaulding, Joseph Smith, W. W. Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, and Parley P. Pratt. The Lectures on Faith and two sections from the Doctrine and Covenants were also included (p. 163).
• 12. For example, see D. James Croft, “Book of Mormon ‘Wordprints’ Reexamined,” Sunstone (March–April 1981): 15–21. In response to these concerns, see Wayne A. Larsen and Alvin C. Rencher, “Response to Book of Mormon ‘Wordprints’ Reexamined,” Sunstone (March–April 1981): 23–26.
• 13. See Fields, Schaalje, and Roper “Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification,” 92–94; Stamatatos, “A Survey of Modern Authorship Attribution Methods,” 540–541; Oaks, Literary Detective Work on the Computer, 1; Antonio Miranda García and Javier Calle Martín, “Function Words in Authorship Attribution Studies,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 22, no. 1 (2007): 50; John Burrows, “Questions of Authorship: Attribution and Beyond,” Computers and the Humanities 37, no. 1 (2003): 7.
• 14. See Larsen, Rencher, and Layton, “Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?” Book of Mormon Authorship, 172. Despite several reviews which questioned the Larsen study’s results, Fields et al. concluded, “On the whole, even after the thoughtful criticism of the Larsen et al. study is accounted for, the results of that early study continue to provide persuasive support for the claim that the Book of Mormon is the work of multiple authors and not the work of any of the likely nineteenth-century candidates.” Fields, Schaalje, and Roper, “Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification,” 94.
• 15. See David I. Holmes, “A Stylometric Analysis of Mormon Scripture and Related Texts,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (Statistics in Society) 155, no. 1 (1992): 91–120.
• 16. Holmes, “A Stylometric Analysis of Mormon Scripture,” 118.
• 17. See Schaalje, Hilton, and Archer, “Comparative Power of Three Author-Attribution Techniques for Differentiating Authors,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 6, no. 1 (1997): 47–63; Stamatatos, “A Survey of Modern Authorship Attribution Methods,” 540.
• 18. See Holmes and Forsyth, “The Federalist Revisited,” 111–127. David Hoover writes, “Despite the attractiveness of measures of vocabulary richness, and despite the fact that they are sometimes effective in clustering texts by a single author and discriminating those texts from other texts by other authors, such measures cannot provide a consistent, reliable, or satisfactory means of identifying an author or describing a style. … Unfortunately, the long-cherished goal of a measure of vocabulary richness that characterizes authors and their styles appears to be unattainable. The basic assumption that underlies it is false.” David L. Hoover, “Another Perspective on Vocabulary Richness,” Computers and the Humanities 37 (2003): 173.
• 19. See John L. Hilton, “On Verifying Wordprint Studies,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, 225–253. For the summarized findings of the Hilton study, see John L. Hilton, “Wordprints and the Book of Mormon,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 221–226. See also, John L. Hilton, “Some Book of Mormon Wordprint Measurements Using ‘Wraparound’ Block Counting,” (FARMS Preliminary Reports, 1988).
• 20. See Hilton, “On Verifying Wordprint Studies,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, 233: “As the major LDS contributor in the group, I was little different from my agnostic and Jewish colleagues: each of us seriously questioned whether objective measurement could determine who did or did not write a controversial document like the Book of Mormon.”
• 21. The 65 noncontextual word-pattern ratios which Hilton relied upon in his study were derived from A. Q. Morton, Literary Detection: How to Prove Authorship and Fraud in Literature and Documents (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1978).  For a comprehensive list of these word patterns, see Hilton, “On Verifying Wordprint Studies,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, 245.
• 22. See Hilton, “On Verifying Wordprint Studies,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, 228–229: “If the same word pattern is found to be statistically different between the two texts, we identify the difference as a rejection. The total of the rejections measured when the two texts are tested for a large number of word patterns is identified as the number of rejections. The larger the number of rejections, the more likely the disputed text was not written by the author of the other compared text. Thus, testing a contested document against comparable texts from all possible candidate-authors will identify the most likely writer by eliminating authors whose texts generate high numbers of rejections.” For summarized results of all rejections for texts that were compared to one another, see p. 243.
• 23. See Hilton, “On Verifying Wordprint Studies,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, 236.
• 24. Hilton, “On Verifying Wordprint Studies,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, 241.
• 25. This study used a generalized discriminant analysis which is an extension of the linear discriminant analysis used in the Larsen study. See Todd K. Moon, Peg Howland, and Jacob H. Gunther, “Document Author Classification Using Generalized Discriminant Analysis,” in Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Text Mining, Sixth SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, April 22, 2006, online at siam.org.
• 26. See Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M. Witten, and Craig S. Criddle, “Reassessing Authorship of the Book of Mormon Using Delta and Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 23, no. 4 (2008): 465–491. While delta analysis was already being used in stylometric studies, the application of NSC, which was originally developed for genomic testing, was unique.
• 27. See Jockers, Witten, Criddle, “Reassessing Authorship of the Book of Mormon,” 482. A foundational premise of the Jockers study was that the once prominent, though long discarded, Spaulding-Ridgon theory of Book of Mormon authorship might actually be valid. For several historical-based arguments against this well-known theory, see Matthew Roper and Paul J. Fields, “The Historical Case against Sidney Rigdon’s Authorship of the Book of Mormon,” Mormon Studies Review 23, no. 1 (2011): 113–125; Matthew Roper, “Myth, Memory, and ‘Manuscript Found’,” FARMS Review 21, no. 2 (2009): 179–223; Matthew Roper, “Mythical ‘Manuscript Found,’” FARMS Review 17, no. 2 (2005): 7–140.
• 28. For a summary of these errors, see Fields, Schaalje, and Roper, “Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification,” 97. For in-depth analysis of each error, see pp. 97–108. See also, Roper, Fields, and Schaalje, “Stylometric Analyses of the Book of Mormon: A Short History,”37–43.
• 29. See Fields, Schaalje, and Roper, “Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification,” 99–101.
• 30. The Jockers study included Solomon Spaulding, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, and Parley Pratt as potential 19th century authors in its closed set. Samples from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and Joel Barlow were included as control texts, as well as combined samples from the Old Testament books of Isaiah and Malachi.
• 31. For a response to this decision, see Fields, Schaalje, and Roper, “Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification,” 108–111.
• 32. The Jockers study’s use of NSC required access to sample texts (other than the Book of Mormon) that are certainly known to have been written by the candidate authors in its closed set. Thus, potential authors like Nephi, Alma, and Mormon couldn’t be included in the study because none of their writings, except those contained in the Book of Mormon itself, have been preserved for comparison. The Jockers study’s fundamental error wasn’t that it didn’t include Book of Mormon authors in its NSC analysis; that would have been impossible. Its error was in assuming from the outset that the authors in its closed set were “selected from among the most likely candidates” and that the results of their analysis “[support] the theory that the Book of Mormon was written by multiple, nineteenth-century authors.” Jockers, Witten, Criddle, “Reassessing Authorship of the Book of Mormon,” 483. By ignoring the possibility of the text being a translation of an ancient document and by unnecessarily excluding Joseph Smith himself as a potential author, the Jockers study “prejudiced their … results from the start,” as explained by Fields, Schaalje, and Roper, “Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification,” 100.
• 33. See Fields, Schaalje, and Roper, “Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification,” 101: “The logic of Criddle and associates’ approach is no different than asking, ‘Choosing among Boston, New York, and Chicago, which city is closest to Los Angeles?’ and then, upon finding that there is a 99 percent probability that Chicago is the closest, concluding that ‘Chicago is the city in the United States that is closest to Los Angeles.’” Obviously, even though Chicago is the closest among a set of proposed candidate cities, it doesn’t mean that it is truly close to Los Angeles. Likewise, just because a sample text in a closed set is closer to the style of the Book of Mormon than the other texts, it doesn’t mean that it is truly similar in style.
• 34. See G. Bruce Schaalje, Paul J. Fields, Matthew Roper, Gregory L. Snow, “Extended Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification: A New Method for Open-set Authorship Attribution of Texts of Varying Sizes,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 26, no. 1 (2011): 71–88. The conclusions of these findings were summarized and adapted for LDS audiences in two different articles: Fields, Schaalje, and Roper, “Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification,” 87–111; Roper, Fields, and Schaalje, “Stylometric Analyses of the Book of Mormon: A Short History,” 28–45.
• 35. See Fields, Schaalje, and Roper, “Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification,” 104–108. In the Fields study’s corrected analysis, Oliver Cowdery received the remaining 4%, “indicating that the writing styles of the candidate authors show very little resemblance to the writing styles in the Book of Mormon” (p. 107).
• 36. In total, four different stylometric methods were used in the Larsen and Hilton studies. Each of these methods independently detected evidence of multiple authorship and ruled out commonly proposed 19th century candidates. The generalized discriminate anaylsis used by the Utah State University researchers adds a fifth method supporting the same conclusions, and the Fields study’s use of ENSC adds a sixth method ruling out proposed 19th century authors. Thus, when viewed collectively, there is plenty of corroborating data to confirm the most fundamental conclusions of these studies.
• 37. See Andrew Queen Morton, Literary Detection: How to Prove Authorship and Fraud in Literature and Documents (New York, NY: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1978).
• 38. See Book of Mormon Central, “How Will God Manifest the Truth of the Book of Mormon? (Moroni 10:4),” KnoWhy 254 (December 16, 2016).

The Know

Often, as we going about our daily lives, we may not think much about how our choices could impact the larger world around us. We may think that our choices impact only us or a few other people. But sometimes our choices can have very far-reaching consequences. The impact of Alma’s son Corianton on the Zoramites is a good example of this principle.  

Throughout their history, the Zoramites sometimes sided with the Nephites and sometimes with the Lamanites.1 Many years after the death of Christ, for example, the Zoramites sided with the Nephites (4 Nephi 1:37), but hundreds of years before, they had sided with the Lamanites (Alma 35:10).2 A list of the seven Lehite tribes found in Jacob 1:13, 4 Nephi 1:37–38and Mormon 1:8–9, suggests that this had been the case for many years.3

This list always names the tribes in exactly the same order: Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.4 Even when the list is interrupted halfway through by other content, it always resumes where it leaves off and finishes in the same order.54 Nephi 1:37–38, for example, states, “Therefore the true believers in Christ ... were called Nephites, and Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites. And it came to pass that they who rejected the gospel were called Lamanites, and Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.” This detail shows the accuracy and consistency of the Book of Mormon, but it also suggests something about Lehite politics.

This list always names the Nephites and their traditional allies, the Jacobites and Josephites, at the beginning of the list, and the Lamanites and their traditional allies, the Lemuelites and the Ishmaelites, at the end of the list.6 The Zoramites are invariably placed in the middle of the list. The reason for this is likely because the Zoramites were not the traditional allies of the Nephites or the Lamanites. They would eventually become the “swing” tribe, who sometimes sided with one group, and sometimes with the other.7 This arrangement of seven tribes appears to have been “the social and legal order that lasted among these people for almost one thousand years.”8

On one of the only known occasions when the Zoramites sided with the Lamanites, Alma’s son Corianton was part of the cause of this alliance. During one particularly tense period, “the Nephites greatly feared that the Zoramites would enter into a correspondence with the Lamanites” (Alma 31:4).9 To avoid this, Alma and a group of missionaries, including Corianton, went to preach to the Zoramites. Although it met with some success (Alma 35:6), many of the Zoramites did not listen to Alma and his companions. These Zoramites began to stir up the Lamanites against the Nephites, leading to the long wars of the Book of Alma (Alma 35:11). 

According to Alma, Corianton was part of the reason the Zoramites did not listen to the gospel, for he “didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel” (Alma 39:3).10 Alma told him that when the Zoramites “saw your conduct they would not believe in my words” (Alma 39:11). Thus Corianton, through his sin with Isabel, contributed to the failure of the mission to the Zoramites, which indirectly led to the Zoramites siding with the Lamanites and the wars contained in the Book of Alma.

The Why

Obviously, Corianton’s dealings with Isabel were only one factor among many that contributed to the wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites. However, Corianton probably did not expect that his actions would have any impact at all on Nephite-Lamanite relations. Most of us do not expect our mistakes to drive a long-standing neutral party into the hands of our enemies, yet in the case of Corianton, this is what happened. An action that Corianton may have assumed would only affect himself and one other person had significant consequences for his whole society.

Most of our sins will probably not lead to a war with our neighbors, but they can still have significant consequences. As President Gordon B. Hinckley noted, “I should like to emphasize the importance of watching the little things in our lives. Have you ever noticed a large gate in a farm fence? As you open it or close it there appears to be very little movement at the hinge. But there is great movement at the perimeter.”11

He continued, “Small, kind acts can grow into mammoth good institutions ... It is so likewise with evil things. Small acts of dishonesty, small acts of an immoral nature, small outbursts of anger can grow into great and terrible things.”12 President Hinckley’s words are a reminder to all of us of the possible significance of our actions. Although Corianton’s actions were not a small sin, the consequences of his actions were likely far greater than he ever imagined.

Sometimes, we may try to rationalize our sins by thinking “I’m not hurting anyone else.” But before we do this, we would do well to think about the wide-reaching effects of Corianton’s sin, and consider the impact our sins might have on others. As Richard C. Edgley stated, “When such justifications are given either outright by others or subtly by the whisperings of the tempter, you are warned. Don’t listen. Don’t experiment. Just don’t do it.”13

• 1. For more on the history of the Zoramites, see Parrish Brady and Shon Hopkin, “The Zoramites and Costly Apparel: Symbolism and Irony,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22, no. 1 (2013): 40–53.
• 2. For more on this event, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Was the Zoramite Defection So Disastrous? (Alma 35:11),” KnoWhy 143 (July 14, 2016).
• 3. For more on the seven tribes, see Diane E. Wirth, “Revisiting the Seven Lineages of the Book of Mormon and the Seven Tribes of Mesoamerica,” BYU Studies Quarterly 52, no. 4 (2013): 77–88.
• 4. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Lehi Divide His People into Seven Tribes? (Jacob 1:13),” KnoWhy 319 (May 29, 2017).
• 5.Doctrine and Covenants 3:17–18 also lists the seven tribes in exactly the same order. Based on the date this revelation was received, in July of 1828, it is possible that the list was also present in this order on the 116 pages as well.
• 6. Although not obvious in the Book of Mormon, these tribal relationships appear to have been part of the organizing principle of Nephite and Lamanite society. See Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1993), 4:25.
• 7. For more on this, see John A. Tvedtnes “Book of Mormon Tribal Affiliation and Military Castes,” in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 305–306; Sherrie Mills Johnson, “The Zoramite Separation: A Sociological Perspective,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 1 (2005): 76.
• 8. John L. Sorenson, John A. Tvedtnes, and John W. Welch, “Seven Tribes: An Aspect of Lehi’s Legacy,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), 93.
• 9. For an example of why this was so important, see Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 4:566–568.
• 10. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why was Corianton’s Sin So Serious (Alma 39:5)?” KnoWhy 147 (July 20, 2016).
• 11. President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Small Acts Lead to Great Consequences,” Ensign, May 1984, 83, online at lds.org.
• 12. Hinckley, “Small Acts,” Ensign, May 1984, 83, online at lds.org.
• 13. Bishop Richard C. Edgley, “Satan’s Bag of Snipes,” Ensign, November 2000, online at lds.org.

The Know

One element of the Book of Mormon that is troubling to some modern readers is that it rarely mentions women. Only six women are mentioned by name,1 and there are just over 150 passages that explicitly reference women.2 If the Book of Mormon were a modern book, this lack of references to women might be somewhat surprising.3 However, when one looks at the Book of Mormon in its ancient context, this lack of references to women begins to make more sense.

In the Old Testament, for example, around 200 named women are mentioned and more than twice that number of unnamed women are referred to, but that is still a very small number when compared to the number of men named in the book (nearly 3,000).4 In addition, this number drops significantly when one considers the books in the Old Testament written during the time of Lehi and later.5 Thus, the lack of women in the Book of Mormon fits its ancient Israelite context. In addition, the Book of Mormon does not contain the kinds of texts, like law books or social histories, that discuss women more often, like the Old Testament does. This means that women appear in the Nephite record even less often than one might otherwise expect.6

Another element that may help explain the lack of women in the Book of Mormon is Mormon’s occupation.7 As a military commander, Mormon devoted much of the Book of Mormon to depictions of war.8 Yet, like most women in much of the rest of the ancient world, pre-Columbian American women rarely participated in warfare.9 Thus, much of the book discusses an activity that women would not be directly involved with: war. This may be. Similarly, the missionaries and prophets in Nephite culture were generally men, meaning that women appear less often in accounts of these events as well. Similarly, the missionaries and prophets in Nephite culture were generally men, meaning that women appear less often in accounts of these events as well. 

Literacy is another factor we must take into account. Unlike many modern Western societies, where both men and women are literate, in the ancient Near East and pre-Columbian America, it was primarily men who were literate.10 This means not only that a man (Mormon) abridged the Book of Mormon, but also that men wrote the records that Mormon abridged. Therefore, women are less likely to be mentioned simply because men wrote and abridged the book.11 Ultimately, we should not necessarily expect women to be mentioned often in a book that was written by an ancient male military leader.

The final note, and perhaps most significant, is that languages themselves are often sexist. In Hebrew, for example, one of the common words for “human” is the word “man.”12Genesis 5:1–2, for example, states that “God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them.” This verse means that God created all humankind, both males and females, but uses the word “man” to mean “humankind.”

English is the same in this respect. In the 1828 Webster’s dictionary, the first definition for “man” is “Mankind; the human race; the whole species of human beings.”13 This means that, both the language the Book of Mormon was originally written in, and also the language it was translated into, often used masculine language, including masculine pronouns, when a modern English text would have used gender-neutral terms.

The Why

Understanding the lack of women in the Book of Mormon in its ancient context can inform how we read the Book of Mormon. If one reads the book knowing that it will only explicitly mention women on certain, limited occasions, readers can actively begin looking for women in places they might not initially expect them.14 Keeping this in mind and pondering details that go deeper than the text itself allows modern readers to find women throughout the Book of Mormon, even when they are not given a prominent role or mentioned expressly.

For example, the war chapters of the book of Alma would likely have gone very differently if Morianton’s maid servant hadn’t told Moroni about Morianton’s intentions to flee into the land northward (Alma 50:30–32).15 If Morianton had succeeded in turning the land northward into an anti-Nephite stronghold, the Nephites may well have lost the wars against the Lamanites, changing the course of Nephite and Lamanite history forever. It was the courage of this abused but righteous and honest woman that allowed Teancum to head off Morianton and end this significant threat to the Nephites (Alma 50:35). Thus, even though she is not mentioned throughout the rest of the Book of Mormon, readers can ponder the impact of her actions and keep them in mind throughout the rest of the war chapters in the book of Alma.

There are often other occasions, when although women are not explicitly mentioned, the reader should picture them as an important element of the scene. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes that,

In religious life, women participated in assemblies at the temple (Jacob 2:7; Mosiah 2:5–8), in teaching their children about God (Alma 56:46–47), and in offering sacrifice (1 Nephi 5:9). Evidently they were not excluded from, or segregated during, worship (2 Nephi 26:28–33) ... The gospel taught by the Nephites and Christ in the Book of Mormon is addressed to all, regardless of gender, age, or descent (2 Nephi 26:33; Mosiah 27:25; Alma 11:44; 32:23; 3 Nephi 17:25). Baptism was offered to all men and women who believed (Mosiah 18:16; Moroni 9:10). Women demonstrated profound faith and were tested by great sacrifice. In Ammonihah, women were burned to death with their children for refusing to renounce their faith in Christ (Alma 14:7–11).16

This means that in sacred scenes involving the temple, worship, sacrifice, teaching of the gospel, family, genealogy, community, and persecution for the cause of Christ, not to mention numerous other moments, we should picture women as well as men having an impact on the story and historical events surrounding the given passage.

Readers of the Book of Mormon should recognize that its lack of women is largely due to its ancient context, as well as a number of other factors. However, those who intentionally look for women as they read its pages will be rewarded with a deeper understanding of women and women’s issues in the context of the restored gospel.

• 1. See Donna Lee Bowen and Camille S. Williams, “Women in the Book of Mormon” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 4:1577.
• 2. See Marjorie Meads Spencer, “My Book of Mormon Sisters” Ensign, September 1977, online at lds.org.
• 3. For a thorough discussion of this point, see Orson Scott Card, A Storyteller in Zion: Essays and Speeches (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1993), 26.
• 4. See Steven C. Walker, Illuminating Humor of the Bible (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013), 75.
• 5. Much of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, for example.
• 6. See Bowen and Williams, “Women in the Book of Mormon,” 4:1577.
• 7. For more on Mormon’s service in the military and how that affects the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why are There So Many War Chapters in the Book of Mormon? (Alma 49:9),” KnoWhy 157 (August 3, 2016).
• 8. For a more thorough treatment of this topic, see R. Douglas Phillips, “Why is So Much of the Book of Mormon Given Over to Military Accounts?” in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 25–28.
• 9. See Cecelia F. Klein, “Gender Roles: Pre-Hispanic Period,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, 3 vols., ed. Davíd Carrasco (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1:427.
• 10. For a pre-Columbian American perspective on this, see Klein, “Gender Roles: Pre-Hispanic Period,” 1:427.
• 11. For more on women in the world of the Book of Mormon, see Ariel E. Bybee, “A Woman’s World in Lehi’s Jerusalem,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely (Provo: FARMS, 2004), 131–148.
• 12. See George Wigram, ed., The Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament: Coded with the Numbering System from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1980), s.v., adam.
• 13. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), s.v., “man,” online at webstersdictionary1828.com.
• 14. For one example of carefully looking for women in 1 Nephi, see Camille Fronk, “Desert Epiphany: Sariah and the Women in 1 Nephi," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 2 (2000): 4–15, 80.
• 15. For more on why this story was preserved, see Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 4:652.
• 16. Bowen and Williams, “Women in the Book of Mormon,” 4:1578.

The Know

Shortly after Jesus was born, “wise men from the east” visited Him and gave Him gold, frankincense, and myrrh as gifts (Matthew 2:1). These gifts were all extremely valuable and expensive, and were the appropriate gifts for the “king of the Jews” as the wise men called Jesus (v.2). However, many people have shown that these gifts could be symbolic as well.1

Because crowns were traditionally made of gold, gold was thought to represent Christ’s kingship.2

Because of its use in religious ceremonies, frankincense was thought to represent Christ’s role as a priest.3 And because of its use in the embalming of Jesus, myrrh was thought to foreshadow Christ’s death.4 Although the Book of Mormon does not record these gifts that Christ received, it does refer to Christ’s roles as king and priest, as well as His death and resurrection.

Christ as King

The motif of Christ as King often appears in the Book of Mormon. However, many people do not recognize this because the Book of Mormon often uses words for “king” that modern readers associate with other things. The word Christ, for example, is Greek for “anointed one” and is often used to refer to kings, who were anointed when they received their coronation (see 2 Samuel 2:4).5

This word is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Messiah, which also has the same connotations.6Therefore when we see “Christ” or “Messiah” in the Book of Mormon, one thing we should be thinking of is Christ’s role as Divine King.7

Christ as Priest

One occasion when the Book of Mormon mentions Christ’s role as priest is in 2 Nephi 2:7: “Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.”8 The Old Testament refers to offering a sacrifice 49 times,9 and the Book of Mormon refers to it 5 times.10 In every case, offering a sacrifice refers to offering sacrifices according to the Law of Moses. Because these sacrifices were generally performed by priests, this verse is a reminder of Christ’s role as priest (see Hebrews 9:11).11

Christ’s Death and Resurrection

The power of Christ’s death and resurrection is the essence of the Book of Mormon, and it shows that Christ’s death is essential for all humanity: “Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God” (2 Nephi 25:13).12 The Book of Mormon powerfully testifies that “the redemption of the people” is “brought to pass through the power, and sufferings, and death of Christ, and his resurrection and ascension into heaven” (Mosiah 18:2).

The Why

In a world where chaos sometimes holds sway, knowing that Christ is the king of the universe can bring comfort to our troubled lives.13 Christ rules over all that is, and will eventually triumph over evil, no matter how much evil we may sometimes experience.14 Because Christ is king, we can find peace.

Knowing that Christ is, as the author of Hebrews put it, “an high priest of good things to come,” (Hebrews 9:11) He can also help us as we go through life.15 The high priest of the Old Testament entered into the Holy of Holies once a year with the blood of an animal to atone for sins.16 But Christ, “by his own blood” has “entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews 9:12). Because Christ, the ultimate High Priest, has offered Himself for each of us, we can turn to Him to find redemption and to reconcile ourselves with God.17 Finally, because of Christ’s death and resurrection, we can all overcome death and pain. Christ's power allows all of us to be freed from the troubles of mortality, including physical death.18

Especially during the Christmas season, we can all remember the power of Christ’s Atonement and resurrection and the power He has to help us through our own lives. And when we think of the gold, frankincense and myrrh offered by the wise men, we can all remember Christ’s roles of king and priest and the power of his death and resurrection.19 These gifts, given by the wise men, remind us all of Christ’s gifts to us. These gifts can give us hope, reconciliation with God, and freedom from death.

• 1.“Strata: The Magi’s Gifts—Tribute or Treatment?” Biblical Archaeology Review 38, no. 1 (2012): 24.
• 2.“The Magi’s Gifts,” 24.
• 3.“The Magi’s Gifts,” 24.
• 4.“The Magi’s Gifts,” 24. For more on Myrrh, see Roland K. Harrison, “Myrrh” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols., ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 3:450–451.
• 5.Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 9:510.
• 6. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does an Angel Reveal the Name of Christ to Jacob? (2 Nephi 10:3),” KnoWhy 36 (February 18, 2016).
• 7. See Stephen D. Ricks, “Kingship, Coronation, and Covenant in Mosiah 1–6,” in King Benjamin’s Speech: “That Ye May Learn Wisdom”, ed. John W. Welch and Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 265.
• 8. For more on Christ as the High Priest, see Matthew Grey’s presentation, “‘Jesus Blessed Them . . . and His Countenance Did Shine Upon Them’: Understanding Third Nephi 19 in Light of the Priestly Blessing,” given at the September 2008 conference, “Third Nephi: New Perspectives on an Incomparable Scripture,” held at Brigham Young University. The brief summary of the presentation can be found in “Scholars Focus Conference on Third Nephi,” Insights: The Newsletter of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship 28, no. 6 (2008): 3–4.
• 9.The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 628–633.
• 10.Eldin Ricks’s Thorough Concordance of the LDS Standard Works (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1995), 546.
• 11. For another priestly function Christ performed in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Jesus Allude to the Priestly Blessing in Numbers 6? (3 Nephi 19:25),” KnoWhy 212 (October 19, 2016).
• 12. For more on this, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Abinadi Use the Phrase ‘The Bands of Death’? (Mosiah 15:8),” KnoWhy 93 (May 5, 2016).
• 13. See Daniel K. Judd, “The Spirit of Christ: A Light Amidst the Darkness,” in Fourth Nephi Through Moroni, From Zion to Destruction, Book of Mormon Symposium Series, Volume 9, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1995), 133–134.
• 14. For more on Christ’s conquest over evil, see Robert J. Matthews, “Two Ways in the World: The Warfare Between God and Satan,” in The Book of Mormon, Part 1: 1 Nephi to Alma 29, Studies in Scripture: Volume 7, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 146–161.
• 15. Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 6 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 1988), 162–163.
• 16. See Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 2:39.
• 17. See Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1987–1992), 1:192–193.
• 18. See Robert J. Matthews, “Jesus Christ” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 452–453.
• 19. Gary P. Gillum, “Christology,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 1:272–273.

The Know

Hugh Nibley once described the Book of Mormon as a “tragic book” which begins and ends with destruction and lone survivors.1 Its prophetic authors had great cause to mourn, yet the fact that its message of hope in Christ was conveyed by those who had witnessed and survived the worst of human depravity only strengthens its spiritual power. As Steve Walker expressed, “If ever hope were earned, it is this optimism pervading the Book of Mormon narrative, even in the face of the end of all things.”2

Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob

When Lehi was called as a prophet, he was shown “great and marvelous things … concerning the destruction of Jerusalem” (1 Nephi 1:18). Years later, Nephi not only revealed that this destruction had taken place (2 Nephi 25:10), but he saw that in the future his own people would suffer a similar fate: “O the pain, and the anguish of my soul for the loss of the slain of my people! For I, Nephi, have seen it, and it well nigh consumeth me before the presence of the Lord” (2 Nephi 26:7).

Lehi’s son, Jacob, wrote that his people were “wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem, born in tribulation, in a wilderness, and hated of our brethren, which caused wars and contentions; wherefore, we did mourn out our days” (Jacob 7:26). In light of such sobering statements, Lisa Hawkins and Gordon Thomasson noted that “Lehi’s entire family can be considered survivor-witnesses of a sort, fleeing from … Jerusalem to save Lehi’s life.”3 Yet Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob all rejoiced in Christ and the Plan of Salvation on numerous occasions, even in the midst of sorrow and suffering.4

Alma the Elder

Alma can be seen as a survivor-witness of Abinadi’s prophecies and tragic martyrdom. After risking his own life by pleading on Abinadi’s behalf, Alma went into hiding, wrote down Abinadi’s words, and used them to gather a following (Mosiah 17:2–4). Sadly, Alma’s followers were forced to flee into the wilderness to escape King Noah’s soldiers, only to fall into bondage under Amulon and his Lamanite army a short time later. In the midst of these trying circumstances, the Lord declared to His people that He would ease their burdens so that they could “stand as witnesses for me hereafter, and that ye may know of a surety that I, the Lord God, do visit my people in their afflictions” (Mosiah 24:14).5

Alma the Younger and Amulek

While witnessing the terrible martyrdom of women and children by fire, “Amulek said unto Alma: Behold, perhaps they will burn us also. And Alma said: Be it according to the will of the Lord. But, behold, our work is not finished; therefore they burn us not.” (Alma 14:12–13).6 Alma and Amulek survived this ordeal when others didn’t, so that they could witness of and testify against the “the chief judge, and the lawyers, and priests, and teachers” who had committed such terrible crimes.7 While Alma and Amulek were being persecuted by their captors, an earthquake caused the surrounding prison walls to fall, and “every soul within the walls thereof, save it were Alma and Amulek, was slain” (Alma 14:28).8

Mormon

Mormon’s lament for the destruction of his people is filled with terrible anguish: “O ye fair sons and daughters, ye fathers and mothers, ye husbands and wives, ye fair ones, how is it that ye could have fallen! But behold, ye are gone, and my sorrows cannot bring your return” (Mormon 6:19–20).9 As a survivor-witness, Mormon declared, “I did stand as an idle witness to manifest unto the world the things which I saw and heard” (Mormon 3:16).10 Yet, despite such sorrow, Mormon also stated that he was “filled with charity” (Moroni 8:17) which “rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things” (Moroni 7:45).

Ether and Moroni

For years, Ether hid himself in the “cavity of a rock” while he witnessed and recorded the entire destruction of his people (Ether 13:18–24). Similarly, Moroni explained, “I even remain alone to write the sad tale of the destruction of my people” (Mormon 8:3).11 Yet at the very end, these faithful survivor-witnesses saw a bright future beyond death.

Ether could say, “Whether the Lord will that I be translated, or that I suffer the will of the Lord in the flesh, it mattereth not, if it so be that I am saved in the kingdom of God” (Ether 15:34). And in his final words, Moroni remarked, “I soon go to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant through the air” (Moroni 10:34).

The Why

In a remarkable study on those who have survived terrible atrocities, Terrence Des Pres explained that having their story told is “enormously important to people facing extinction. In the survivor's own case … it becomes a way to transcend the helplessness which withers hope and self-respect.”12 This certainly seems to be the case with the Book of Mormon prophets who, in the midst of tragic episodes of grief and suffering, diligently recorded their experiences for future generations.13

In our own day, millions suffer from having experienced or witnessed terrible things. Soldiers who experience combat often suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).14 Countless individuals struggle with feelings of depression, loneliness, heartache, disappointment, disinterest, and a number of other personal sorrows, mental limitations, and emotional scars. Some of these feelings are due to severe chemical imbalances. Others may be caused by different circumstances out of an individual’s control. And sometimes those who suffer simply don’t have good answers for why they feel so unhappy.15

The Book of Mormon offers a powerful message of hope to those who for whatever reason have cause to mourn. It shows that while the suffering of its prophetic survivors was real and acute, their overwhelming sorrow was ultimately “swallowed up in the joy of Christ” (Alma 31:38). They mourned for the pain and suffering of their people, but they also looked to the future with hope. They knew that by witnessing and recording these sad experiences, they could help future generations avoid unnecessary sorrows. Elder Dallin H. Oaks has taught that “Lord will not only consecrate our afflictions for our gain, but He will use them to bless the lives of countless others.”16

In each case, the Book of Mormon’s sad tales of human atrocities help us refocus our minds and hearts on Jesus Christ—whose infinite sacrifice gives meaning and purpose to our very existence. Not only did Christ experience His own excruciating trials, but through His divine power, He willingly witnessed and participated in our suffering in a way that is personal to each of us.17 He is the ultimate survivor-witness. He descended below all things, witnessed the worst of death and hell,18

and yet rose again with hope and “healing in His wings.”19

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland taught, “It is only an appreciation of this divine love that will make our own lesser suffering first bearable, then understandable, and finally redemptive.”20

• 1. Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1993), 1:62. In literary perspective, a comedy is a story where everything starts out well, descends into chaos, but then eventually ends well, following a pattern of the letter “V” or “W” (if there are multiple falls and returns). Tragedy, on the other hand, is where everything goes from bad, to worse, to unimaginably terrible, and the story does not end well, following the pattern of the letter “Z”.
• 2. Steve Walker, “Last Words: 4 Nephi–Moroni,” in The Reader’s Book of Mormon, ed. Robert A. Rees and Eugene England, Volume 7 (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2008), xvii.
• 3. Lisa Bolin Hawkins and Gordon Thomasson, “I Only Am Escaped Alone to Tell Thee: Survivor Witnesses in the Book of Mormon” FARMS Preliminary Reports (1984): 8.
• 4. For examples, see 2 Nephi 2:25; 2 Nephi 4:30; 2 Nephi 9:18. See also, Allan D. Rau, “Cheer Up Your Hearts: Jacob's Message of Hope in Christ,” Religious Educator 14 no. 3 (2013): 49–63.
• 5. Emphasis added. See Book of Mormon Central, “How Does the Lord Make Our Burdens Light? (Mosiah 24:15),” KnoWhy 102 (May 18, 2016).
• 6. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does God Sometimes Allow His Saints to Be Martyred? (Alma 14:11),” KnoWhy 351 (August 11, 2017).
• 7. John W. Welch, Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: BYU Press and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2008), 262–263.
• 8. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Kind of Earthquake Caused the Prison Walls to Fall? (Alma 14:29),” KnoWhy 121 (June 14, 2016).
• 9. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Mormon Write So Little about His Own Time Period? (Mormon 2:18),” KnoWhy 227 (November 9, 2016).
• 10. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Was Mormon’s Purpose in Writing the Book of Mormon? (Mormon 5:14),” KnoWhy 226 (November 8, 2016).
• 11. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Moroni Write So Many Farewells? (Mormon 8:1),” KnoWhy 233 (November 17, 2016); Mark D. Thomas, “Moroni: The Final Voice,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 1 (2003): 88–99, 119–120.
• 12. Terrence Des Pres, “Survivors and the Will to Bear Witness,” Social Research 40 no. 4 (1973): 678.
• 13. See Hawkins and Thomasson, “I Only Am Escaped Alone to Tell Thee,” 1–13; Gordon C. Thomasson, “The Survivor and the Will to Bear Witness,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), 266–268.
• 14. For the likelihood that several Book of Mormon prophets experienced the emotional and physical scars of war, see Morgan Deane, “Experiencing Battle in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23 (2017): 250–252.
• 15. For a discussion of mental illness, depression, and hope in Christ, see Jeffrey R. Holland, “Like a Broken Vessel,” Ensign, November 2013, 40–42, online at lds.org
• 16. Dallin H. Oaks, “Give Thanks in All Things,” Ensign, 2003, online at lds.org.
• 17. See Dallin H. Oaks, “Strengthened by the Atonement of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, November 2015, 61–64, online at lds.org.
• 18. See Psalm 116:3; 2 Nephi 9:10–26; Revelation 1:18.
• 19. See 2 Nephi 25:13; 3 Nephi 25:2; Malachi 4:2.
• 20. Jeffrey R. Holland, “Like a Broken Vessel,” Ensign, November 2013, 40, online at lds.org

The Know

In the United States, the “holiday season,” encompassing Thanksgiving, Christmas, and the New Year, carries with it a special feeling. People try to be kinder, spend more time with family, and they try to have the “Holiday spirit.”

Although the people in the Book of Mormon did not celebrate Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s like people do today, they appear to have celebrated three similar holidays in close succession in their own sort of “holiday season.”1 These holidays were Rosh Hashana (the Israelite New Year), Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), and Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles).2

Terrence L. Szink and John W. Welch have stated that “the various components of the autumn festival were celebrated as a single season of celebration in the earliest periods of Israelite history.”3 It was only later on that its “many elements were … sharply differentiated.”4 King Benjamin’s speech “touches on all the major themes of these sacred days, treating them as parts of a single festival complex, consistent with what one would expect in a pre-exilic Israelite community in which the fall feasts were not sharply differentiated but were still closely associated as parts of one large autumn festival.”5

During Israelite New Year’s Day celebrations, for example, worshippers would offer sacrifices of animals that were of “the first year” (see Leviticus 23:24–25).6 This is what Benjamin’s people did. They brought “the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses” (Mosiah 2:3).7 Both events celebrated God’s kingship as well. King Benjamin declared: “If I, whom ye call your king, … do merit any thanks from you, O how you ought to thank your heavenly King” (v. 19).8 Szink and Welch have noted that the Talmud and other Jewish and ancient Near Eastern literature similarly connect the idea of divine kingship directly to the New Year.9

Both the Israelite New Year and King Benjamin’s speech stress remembrance.10 In Leviticus 23:23–25, the event that is the equivalent of a New Year’s celebration is literally called a zikkaron (remembrance).11 The first six chapters of Mosiah alone mention some form of the word “remember” 15 times.12 King Benjamin’s speech and the Israelite New Year also focused on the king.13 Szink and Welch noted, “This was apparently the preferred time for the coronation of the king and the renewal of the people’s covenant to obey him and God.”14 During King Benjamin’s speech, Mosiah received his coronation (Mosiah 2:30), and the people all covenanted to obey the laws of the king and of God (Mosiah 5:5).15

King Benjamin’s speech also contains elements that reflect the Day of Atonement.16 Besides mentioning “atonement” seven times in his speech,17 Benjamin wove themes from the Day of Atonement into his message.18 According to Leviticus 16, the high priest was supposed to use the blood of the Day of Atonement sacrifice to cleanse the tabernacle.19

Benjamin’s references to “the atoning blood of Christ” (Mosiah 3:18) are likely allusions to this law.20

Another element of the Day of Atonement was that the priest would cleanse the people from various iniquities, especially from commandments violated in ignorance (Numbers 15:27–29).21

As King Benjamin put it, Christ, through His Atonement, can redeem “those … who have ignorantly sinned” (Mosiah 3:11).22

According to Szink and Welch, Leviticus 16:7–10 describes a ritual “in which the high priest, on the Day of Atonement, took two goats; by casting lots one goat was declared to be ‘for the Lord’ and the other” as a Scapegoat.23 They noted,

A similar dichotomy appears in Mosiah 5:7–12, in which the people are called either by the name of Christ and found belonging at the right hand of God, or are called “by some other name” and found at the left hand of God. According to later rabbinic tradition, if the lot “For the Lord” came up in the left hand it was permissible to switch the lots with their respective goats so that although the determination of which goat was the Lord’s was made by lot, the Lord’s goat would be on the right hand while [the other] would be on the left.24

Finally, Benjamin’s speech is similar to the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot).25Deuteronomy 31:10–12 states that the people should gather as family units near the temple or tabernacle for this festival.26 Similarly, Benjamin’s people were instructed to “gather themselves together” (Mosiah 1:18), “every man according to his family” (Mosiah 2:5), “round about” the temple (v. 6).27 They also stayed in tents during this meeting (Mosiah 2:6).28 Welch and Szink have noted, “Tents were specifically mentioned in connection with the celebration of Solomon’s dedication of the temple … (1 Kings 8:65–66). This feast, in which tents were used, was held in the seventh month (see 1 Kings 8:2) and has generally been thought of as a Feast of Tabernacles.”29

Also, according to Szink and Welch, ancient Israelites “renewed their covenant with God to be his people and to obey his laws” at the Feast of Tabernacles.30

“Benjamin’s people also enter into such a covenant, and they follow the form of covenant renewal in Israel in detail. Through this covenant, the people became the sons and daughters of God.”31

Also, “Jewish texts attest to the association between the king and the Feast of Tabernacles.”32 In these texts, “the king stands upon a specially constructed platform, and he is given a copy of the law from which he reads various passages from Deuteronomy … dealing with the law and covenant-making.”33 Standing on a tower reciting material related to covenant-making is exactly what one sees in King Benjamin’s speech.

The Why

Although it is impossible to know exactly how the people of King Benjamin were feeling when they were listening to his speech, we may be able to have some idea. If his speech was given during the Nephite “holiday season” as it seems to have been, it is possible that they were feeling the way we feel today during our autumn/early winter holiday season.

Sukkot, like our Thanksgiving, is a harvest festival, and would naturally lend itself to the feelings of gratitude for God’s blessings during the year that characterizes the modern holiday. Yom Kippur, for the Nephites, would have been a day when they looked forward with a feeling of reverence towards the sacrifice of the Savior, just as Christmas is for us. Rosh Hashanah, like our new year, is a time of hope and anticipation for the New Year. Although not exactly the same, perhaps the way we feel during the First Presidency Christmas Devotional is similar to the way they felt listening to King Benjamin’s speech, when these feelings combine to create a special holiday spirit.

As Szink and Welch explained, King Benjamin’s speech “makes good sense if one understands Benjamin’s speech as taking place during the season of the year when the Nephites would have been turning their hearts and minds to the kinds of themes and concerns that characterized this time of annual religious renewal and activity in ancient Israel.”34

Regardless of how the people actually felt during this speech, King Benjamin’s focus on Christ and on caring for one another reflects the essence of the “Christmas spirit.” May we all keep this spirit with us this holiday season, and always.

• 1. See Terrence L. Szink and John W. Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” in King Benjamin’s Speech: “That Ye May Learn Wisdom” (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 159. 
• 2. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 150.
• 3. Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 159.
• 4. Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 159.
• 5. Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 159.
• 6. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 164.
• 7. Emphasis added. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 164.
• 8. Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 168–169.
• 9. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 167–168.
• 10. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 170.
• 11. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 170.
• 12. See Eldin Ricks’s Thorough Concordance of the LDS Standard Works (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1995), 619–620.
• 13. For more on this, as well as other possible reasons for this stress on kingship, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why is the Theme of Kingship So Prominent in King Benjamin's Speech? (Mosiah 1:10),” KnoWhy 79 (April 15, 2016); Neal Rappleye, “King Noah and Maya Kingship,” at Studio et Quoque Fide: A Blog on Latter-day Saint Apologetics, Scholarship, and Commentary, August 21, 2016, online at studioetquoquefide.com; Lee L. Donaldson, “Benjamin and Noah: The Principle of Dominion” in Mosiah, Salvation Only Through Christ, Book of Mormon Symposium Series, Volume 5, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1991), 49–58.
• 14. Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 170–171.
• 15. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 172–173.
• 16. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does King Benjamin Emphasize the Blood of Christ? (Mosiah 4:2),” KnoWhy 82 (April 20, 2016).
• 17. See Mosiah 3:11, 15, 16, 18, 19; 4:6–7. For more on this, see Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 174.
• 18. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 176.
• 19. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 176.
• 20. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 176.
• 21. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 176–177.
• 22. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 177.
• 23. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 177.
• 24. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 177–178.
• 25. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the Nephites Stay in Their Tents During King Benjamin’s Speech? (Mosiah 2:6),” KnoWhy 80 (April 18, 2016); John A. Tvedtnes, “King Benjamin and the Feast of Tabernacles,” 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, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 2:197–237.
• 26. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 184.
• 27. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 184.
• 28. It seems that these tents were more than just a place to stay while the people were gathering to listen to Benjamin’s speech. Szink and Welch have noted that “Everyone had a tent, not just those who had come from out of town and needed a place to stay. Furthermore, they all remained in their tents during the speech, surely for ceremonial reasons. If it had not been religiously and ritually important for them to stay in their tents, the crowd could have stood much closer to Benjamin and been able to hear him, obviating the need for written copies of his words to be prepared and circulated (see Mosiah 2:8). Apparently Benjamin considered it more important for the people to remain in their tents than to have them stand within close hearing distance of the speaker.” See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 185–186.
• 29. Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 185.
• 30. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 187.
• 31. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 187. See also Mosiah 5:1–7; compare Exodus 19:5; Jeremiah 31:33; Nehemiah 7:73–8:18; 9:1–13:31.
• 32. Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 188.
• 33. Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 188.
• 34. See Szink and Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” 160.

The Know

After traveling nearly 100 miles to reach Harmony, Pennsylvania, David Whitmer met Joseph Smith for the first time at the end of May 1829.1 David had received word from Oliver Cowdery that Joseph had an ancient record, that he had begun translating it, and that harassment from locals in Harmony was deterring their progress.2 After remaining long enough to observe the young Prophet in action, which included receiving a personal revelation at Joseph’s hands (Doctrine and Covenants 14), David was satisfied “of the divine inspiration of Joseph Smith.”3

With this conviction in place, David used his team and wagon to transport Joseph and Oliver to the home of his parents in Fayette, New York.4 This allowed the translation to move forward to completion without interruption.5 The Whitmer home proved to be a vital refuge for the Book of Mormon translation project,6 and David’s personal interest in it grew as he witnessed Joseph Smith dictate the Book of Mormon, day after day, until its completion at the end of June.7 As a result of his faith and service, David was chosen as one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.8

David served in a number of important leadership capacities in the early days of the Church,9 and his unwavering testimony of the Book of Mormon often inspired those around him. For instance, in 1833 nearly 500 men marched Whitmer and other Church leaders into a town square, stripped them, and tarred and feathered them. Then, with guns cocked and aimed at the prisoners, the mob “threaten[ed] them with instant death unless they denied the Book of Mormon and confessed it to be a fraud.” In response, David “lifted up his hands and bore witness that the Book of Mormon was the Word of God.”10 Upon seeing the resolve of their prisoners, the mob set them free.

Sadly, David had a falling out with Joseph Smith and was excommunicated for dissension in 1838.11 Although each of the Three Witnesses fell away from the Church at some point, David was the only one who didn’t eventually return to full fellowship with the Saints. Instead, he lived out a long and reputable life in Richmond, Missouri, where he owned a livery business, actively participated in public events, served multiple terms as a city councilman, and was even elected as mayor.12

Despite being separated from the church for over 50 years, David never disavowed his testimony of the Book of Mormon. He took his responsibility as a witness seriously and hosted numerous visitors who were curious about his testimony of the Book of Mormon. He said that “thousands came to inquire,”13 and in interview after interview he boldly reaffirmed his original statements about seeing the angel, beholding the plates and other Nephite artifacts, and hearing a voice from heaven.14

David was known as an honest, upright, hard-working, and capable individual, and his stubborn integrity often perplexed those who knew him well and yet were skeptical of the Book of Mormon. As historian Richard Anderson explained, “Relatively few people in Richmond could wholly accept [David’s] testimony, but none doubted his intelligence or complete honesty.”15

On one occasion, a skeptical military officer suggested, in David’s presence, that perhaps David had merely experienced some sort of hallucination. David, having none of this, drew himself up and declared, “No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!” After encountering David’s bold testimony, the officer admitted, “[O]ne thing is certain—no man could hear him make his affirmation, as he has to us in there, and doubt for one moment the honesty and sincerity of the man himself. He fully believes he saw and heard, just as he stated he did.”16

On another occasion, James Moyle, a young lawyer, cross-examined David Whitmer and pled with him to disclose any fraud or deceit about his testimony if any existed. As Moyle put it, “I begged of him not to let me go through life believing in a vital falsehood.”17 David’s reaffirmation left no doubt in Moyle’s mind that he was telling the truth according to his knowledge. After coming away from the interview, Moyle felt that it was “impossible” for David Whitmer to have been insincere.18

Like Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, David Whitmer remained true to his original convictions about the Book of Mormon, even in the face of death. Nearly two weeks before his passing, David declared that “if God ever uttered a truth, the testimony I now bear is true. I did see the angel of God, and I beheld the glory of the Lord, and he declared the record true.”19

The Why

For a number of reasons, David Whitmer’s lifelong testimony is uniquely valuable. For one thing, he was the most interviewed of the Three Witnesses and often seemed to go out of his way to fulfill his duty to testify of the Book of Mormon.20 Whitmer’s consistent and persistent reaffirmations of his original testimony survive in more than seventy interviews and statements recorded in his own writings and by those who personally discussed the matter with him.21

David was also known to correct those whom he felt had significantly misrepresented his views. Especially important is his clarification of the nature of the visionary experience shared by the Three Witnesses and Joseph Smith. Some individuals have tried to claim that because there was a spiritual component to the vision, that it was merely imagined or somehow less than real.22 To these concerns and misrepresentations, David explained, “Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time.”23

Perhaps the most powerful aspect of David Whitmer’s testimony is that he remained so absolutely committed to his original statements, while at the same time being so completely separated from the Church. If David never had the vision he claimed, and if he felt slighted by Joseph Smith and other members of the church, then, in the words of his grandson, he would have “had all to gain and nothing to lose” by telling the truth of the matter.24 Instead, with his dying breaths, David affirmed the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon once and for all.25

Whatever his shortcomings may have been and whatever his personal reasons were for distancing himself from the Church,26 his commitment to telling the truth about his miraculous experience will forever define him as a man of integrity. After reviewing David Whitmer’s contributions as one of the Three Witnesses, Anderson concluded, “Impeccable in reputation, consistent in scores of recorded interviews, obviously sincere, and personally capable of detecting delusion—no witness is more compelling than David Whitmer.”27

• 1. See John W. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations 1820–1844, 2nd edition, ed. by John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2017), 108, 168.
• 2. For insights concerning Oliver Cowdery’s contributions to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “How Important was Oliver Cowdery in Bringing Forth the Book of Mormon? (2 Nephi 27:9),” KnoWhy 270 (February 3, 2017).
• 3. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation,” 176, doc. 99. Several miracles related to this journey helped David Whitmer have faith that he was on the Lord’s errand. These include his fields being miraculously plowed and fertilized as well as Joseph Smith seeing the details of his journey through the Urim and Thummim. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Whitmers: A Family That Nourished the Church,” Ensign, August 1979, online at lds.org; Keith W. Perkins, “True to the Book of Mormon—The Whitmers,” Ensign, February 1989, online at lds.org.
• 4. Emma apparently joined them a short time later. See Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation,” 108, 170.
• 5. This blessing, however, didn’t come without sacrifice. Because of the strain of caring for so many extra people, Mary Whitmer (David’s mother) became exhausted and discouraged. Several reports indicate that while she was out milking her cows one day, she was visited by a messenger who showed her the plates. See Larry C. Porter, “The Peter Whitmer Log Home: Cradle of Mormonism,” Religious Educator 12, no. 3 (2011): 179–180; Royal Skousen, “Another Account of Mary Whitmer's Viewing of the Golden Plates,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 10 (2014): 35–44. 
• 6. Porter, “The Peter Whitmer Log Home,” 177–182.
• 7. See Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation,” 112–114. See also, Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the Book of Mormon Come Forth as a Miracle? (2 Nephi 27:23),” KnoWhy 273 (February 10, 2017).
• 8. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Were Three Key Witnesses Chosen to Testify of the Book of Mormon? (Ether 5:4),” KnoWhy (January 27, 2017).
• 9. These included being called on a mission, serving as the president of the church in Missouri, helping establish the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and drafting rules and regulations for the Kirtland temple. See Keith W. Perkins, “Whitmer, David,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols. (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 4:1565.
• 10. Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1981), 83–84.
• 11. Perkins, “Whitmer, David,” 4:1565.
• 12. See Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 72.
• 13. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 79.
• 14. See Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 79–105.
• 15. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 74.
• 16. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 88.
• 17. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 85.
• 18. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 85.
• 19. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 90.
• 20. For a valuable collection of these interviews, see Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, UT: Grandin Book Company, 1991). For reviews of this resource, see Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Review of David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness,” Journal of Mormon History 20, no. 1 (1994): 186–193; Daniel C. Peterson, “Review of David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5, no. 1 (1993): 113–115.
• 21. Anderson reported to have “over fifty” interviews in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 79. However, in a FairMormon presentation, given in 2004, Anderson had collected “a minimum of 70” interviews for David Whitmer. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Explaining Away the Book of Mormon Witnesses,” FairMormon presentation, 2004, online at bookofmormoncentral.org. See also, Peterson, “Review of David Whitmer Interviews,” 113: “Lyndon W. Cook has done us a considerable service in gathering together all the reports of all the known interviews given by David Whitmer on the subject of the Book of Mormon, to which he was a witness. Seventy-two different accounts, ranging over the half-century from 1838 to 1888, are supplemented by eighteen letters and newspaper statements from Whitmer and others.”
• 22. For responses to these views, see Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 1 (2005): 18–31, 125–27; Anderson, “Explaining Away the Book of Mormon Witnesses,” online at bookofmormoncentral.org; Daniel C. Peterson, “Tangible Restoration: The Witnesses and What They Experienced,” FairMormon presentation, 2004, 9–33, online at fairmormon.org; Steven C. Harper, “The Eleven Witnesses,” 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 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2015), 117–132; an earlier and shorter version of this article was published as “Evaluating the Book of Mormon Witnesses” Religious Educator 11, no. 2 (2010): 36–49.
• 23. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 87.
• 24. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 86.
• 25. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 90.
• 26. For a treatment of David’s relationship with the church and his later views toward Mormonism, see Kenneth W. Godfrey, “David Whitmer and the Shaping of Latter-day Saint History,” in The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed. Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 223–256.
• 27. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 90.

The Know

Because the LDS Temple Endowment ceremony is so important to members of the church today, one might wonder why it is not mentioned often in the scriptures. The most likely answer to this question is probably that the Book of Mormon authors wanted to help keep the specifics as sacred as possible. However, something like the endowment appears to be alluded to often in the scriptures and can help us appreciate the endowment more. Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated:

“According to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the crucial holy endowment was administered to Moses ‘on the mountaintop.’ President Joseph Fielding Smith expressed the belief that Peter, James, and John also received the holy endowment on a mountain, the Mount of Transfiguration. Nephi, too, was caught up to an exceedingly high mountain (see 1 Nephi 11:1) and was instructed not to write or speak of some of the things he experienced there (see 1 Nephi 14:25).”1

Elder Maxwell’s quotation suggests that both Moses and Nephi experienced something like the Endowment ceremony in ancient times. One clue that helps us identify and appreciate such sacred moments in scripture is the presence of a mountaintop experience. This assertion is borne out in both the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon.

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw2 has noted, “The details of Moses’ experience in chapter 1 place it squarely in the tradition of ancient ‘heavenly ascent’ literature” which “portrays prophets who experience actual encounters with Deity within the heavenly temple.”3 This may be reflected in Moses 1:1, when Moses was “caught up into an exceedingly high mountain.” As Stephen O. Smoot has noted, “Immediately we have a description that characterizes this as a temple-ascension text. The tops of mountains were symbolically linked with the temple in the ancient Near East. Not only that, but the divine assembly of God is also depicted in the Hebrew Bible as being on the top of a mountain.”4

In the Book of Mormon, Nephi was, “caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain” (1 Nephi 11:1), almost exactly the same words used to describe the event in Moses 1. The Spirit then asked Nephi if he believed the vision of his father (1 Nephi 11:4).5 When Nephi said he did, the Spirit gave Nephi a vision similar to his father’s in 1 Nephi 8.6 According to Biblical scholar David Bokovoy, this encounter “echoes an ancient temple motif” and forms a “template for depicting an official encounter between witness and worshiper in preparation for the introduction to advanced revelatory truths.”7 This template shows up several times in the Book of Mormon.

Bokovoy summarized,

“Nephi participated in a celestial ascent to an exceedingly high mountain possessed by the most high God ... Nephi’s exchange with the Spirit of the Lord provides a dramatic portrayal of the faith necessary to receive introduction to advanced spiritual truth. Through his testimony, as born to the Spirit of the Lord, Nephi proved himself worthy to pass by the heavenly sentinel and enter the realm of greater light and knowledge.”8

The knowledge that both Nephi and Moses received is similar to what President Ezra Taft Benson described to a general audience at BYU as the key covenants of the temple. These are “the law of obedience and sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, and the law of consecration.”9Moses 5:1–6 emphasizes obedience, verses 4–8, 20 discuss sacrifice, verses 58–59 cover the gospel, chapter 6:5–23 explains chastity, and 7:18 is the classic text on consecration.10

Nephi receives this same information in symbolic form. In 1 Nephi 11:25, Nephi saw that obedience to the word of God, represented by the rod of iron, leads to the tree of life. Verses 32–33 reveal the Lamb of God being sacrificed for the sins of the world. This is an especially fitting image, as it was lambs that were sacrificed under the Law of Moses. 1 Nephi 13:24–36 mentions the gospel seven times. Verses 7–8, 34, and 14:10–17 discuss literal and symbolic violations of the law of chastity. Verses 13:7–8 also discuss the violation of the law of consecration as seen through the Abominable Church’s love of riches.11

The Why

It is impossible to know exactly what Moses and Nephi experienced in their mountaintop encounters with God.12 Yet their experiences should give us all a greater appreciation for the temples that dot the earth in this dispensation.13 As one goes to the temple today and learns things related to what Moses and Nephi learned, one can come to see the temple as our own mountaintop experience—a time for us to draw close personally with God.14

As we make covenants with God, we can look back on the long line of faithful saints who went before us and appreciate the similarities between our temple experiences and theirs.15 Our time in the temple can be just as powerful as Moses’ and Nephi’s time on their mountaintops if we are prepared to enter into a solemn covenant to keep all the laws mentioned in the Endowment and to receive all the revelations and blessings God is willing to give us.

The accounts of Moses and Nephi remind us all of the significance of the temple. In these sacred buildings, we are symbolically being invited into God’s presence to partake of all that He has to offer us. We should all strive to think a bit more about the grandeur of our temple experiences and remember that when we are in the temple, the house of the Lord, we follow in the footsteps of Moses and Nephi and are truly in the company of God and stand in holy places.16

• 1. Neal A. Maxwell, Lord Increase Our Faith (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1994), 78.
• 2. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, In God’s Image and Likeness: Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2010). For a condensed version of this lengthy commentary, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Book of Moses (Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2010), esp. 17–51. Another helpful commentary on this theme is E. Douglas Clark, “A Prologue to Genesis: Moses 1 in Light of Jewish Traditions,” BYU Studies 45, no. 1 (2006): 129–142.
• 3. Bradshaw, In God’s Image and Likeness, 1:37; emphasis in original. See also Bradshaw, In God’s Image and Likeness, 2:293–295. Compare Andrew F. Ehat, “‘Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord?’ Sesquicentennial Reflections of a Sacred Day: 4 May 1842,” in Temples of the Ancient World, ed. Donald W. Parry (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1994), 52–53.
• 4. Stephen O. Smoot, “‘I Am a Son of God’: Moses’ Ascension into the Divine Council,” BYU Religious Education Student Symposium (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2012), 129–143, at 132–138. See also, Donald W. Parry, “Garden of Eden: Prototype Sanctuary,” in Temples of the Ancient World, 133–137. Compare Parry’s remarks with William J. Hamblin and David Rolph Seely, Solomon’s Temple: Myth and History (London, UK: Thames and Hudson, 2007), 10. For examples of God’s assembly being on a mountain, see Isaiah 14:12–14 and Psalm 48:3.
• 5. For more information on events like this, see Book of Mormon Central, “How Did God Call His Prophets in Ancient Times? (1 Nephi 15:8),” KnoWhy 17 (January 22, 2016).
• 6. Stephen O. Smoot, “The Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 176.
• 7. David E. Bokovoy, “‘Thou Knowest That I Believe’: Invoking the Spirit of the Lord as Council Witness in 1 Nephi 11,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 1 (2012): 17–18.
• 8. Bokovoy, “‘Thou Knowest That I Believe,’” 22.
• 9. Ezra T. Benson, “A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion,” address given at Brigham Young University, April 12, 1977.
• 10. Figure 6. The Two Ways of Covenant-Keeping and Covenant-Breaking, in Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Freemasonry and the Origins of Modern Temple Ordinances,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15 (2015): 173.
• 11. For more on the Great and Abominable Church, see Robert E. Parsons, “The Great and Abominable Church (1 Nephi 12–14),” in Book of Mormon, Part 1: 1 Nephi to Alma 29, Studies in Scripture, Volume 7, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 44–59.
• 12. For more on Nephi’s experience, see Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1:198–199.
• 13. Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1987–1992), 1:75.
• 14. Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1993), 1:184–185.
• 15. Stephen D. Ricks, “Temples Through the Ages,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 4:1463–1465.
• 16. Donald W. Parry, “Temples” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 753–754.

The Know

In 2 Nephi 27:19, Nephi prophesied, “Wherefore it shall come to pass, that 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.”1 This prophecy clearly refers to the prophet Joseph Smith, who was a poor 21-year-old farmer when he received the golden plates from the angel Moroni. 

In 1832 Joseph wrote in his own hand that he was “deprived of the bennifit [sic] of an education suffice it to say I was mearly [sic] instructtid [sic] in reading writing and the ground rules of Arithmatic [sic] which constituted my whole literary acquirements.”2 Although this statement, along with its misspelled words, emphasizes Joseph’s limited education, it shouldn’t be seen as a declaration that he was completely illiterate.

While the patchy historical record of Joseph’s school attendance is difficult to calculate, one scholar has recently estimated that Joseph may have attended nearly seven years of schooling.3 Joseph’s extracurricular education should also be taken into account. He apparently read the family Bible with at least some diligence,4 attended Sunday school, participated in a debate club, and was instructed to some extent by parents and siblings who had decent educational backgrounds.5

Yet no matter how many years (or seasons) Joseph attended school, or how helpful his supplemental educational opportunities may have been, or how quick he was as a learner, or how sharp his memory, or how creative his imagination—it doesn’t change the fact that he and those around him, both friend and foe, described him as relatively unlearned.6

Joseph’s mother remembered that he was “less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children” and said that at “eighteen years of age” he had “never read the Bible through in his life.”7 His wife, Emma, explained that at the time of the translation, he “could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.”8 Martin Harris similarly declared that Joseph was “a poor writer, and could not even draw up a note of hand as his education was so limited.”9 And David Whitmer described him as “illiterate,”10a “man of limited education,” and “ignorant of the Bible.”11

Joseph could read and write at a basic level of competence, to be sure, but his spelling and style indicate that he was not an accomplished 19th century writer. As assessed by literary scholar Robert Rees:

[Joseph’s] handwritten account of the First Vision written in 1832 is ungrammatical, is written with little sense of punctuation or compositional structure, and, though sincere and authentic, shows little evidence of stylistic or compositional competence or confidence. Certainly there is evidence of the beginnings of an eloquent voice, but that voice is tentative and immature.12

Thus, in light of Joseph Smith’s own statements, of descriptions from those who knew him best, and of samples of his early writings, it is clear that he truly did lack formal learning, just as Nephi prophesied. Whatever natural talents Joseph may have developed, they weren’t enough to overshadow his inexperience and his basic level of education at the time of the Book of Mormon’s translation.

The Why

Although many notable Americans have risen from poverty and ignorance to accomplish great things, Joseph Smith’s accomplishment is uniquely extraordinary. Why is this so? In part, it is because his literary and scriptural masterpiece was produced at the beginning, rather than the conclusion, of his development as a writer.13

According to Rees, Joseph Smith’s development of literary skills was nothing like the prominent 19th century authors of his time. In the cases of Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, and Whitman, there is evidence of exceptional educational opportunities or an extensive period of development as a writer, and in most circumstances both.14 In contrast, Rees noted that prior to 1830, “we have practically nothing of Joseph Smith’s mind or writing to suggest that he was capable of authoring a book like the Book of Mormon, a book that is much more substantial, complex, and varied than his critics have been able to see or willing to admit.”15

Just because we don’t have evidence of something, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. But it more than strains the historical record to assume that, during his teenage and early adult years, Joseph Smith was somehow secretly developing the Book of Mormon. Someone at some point would surely have noticed if he was spending any significant amount of time reading or writing in preparation for his translation.16 Yet there is no such reliable report from anyone inside or outside of Joseph’s family.

Moreover, the destitute circumstances of the Smith family required long hours of “continuous labor” from all who were capable of work (Joseph Smith—History 1:55). As Rees has argued, the notion that “Joseph had time to read broadly, undertake research, construct various drafts, and work out the plot, characters, settings, various points of view, and multiple rhetorical styles that constitute the five-hundred-plus page narrative of the Book of Mormon is simply incredible (in its original Latin sense of ‘not worthy of belief’).”17

With these circumstances in mind, we can more clearly understand why the Lord himself, through the voice of the prophet Isaiah, referred to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon as a “marvelous work and a wonder” (2 Nephi 27:26), and then set about to see that this prophetic description was fulfilled.

Much of the Book of Mormon’s authentic historical content would have been beyond the ability of even an experienced and well-educated scholar in 1830.18 And the text as a whole is far more complex and sophisticated than Joseph Smith’s contemporaries—and likely Joseph Smith himself—ever realized.19 This being the case, it is highly improbable that anyone in the 1820s could have created such a book, much less an individual as ill-prepared as Joseph Smith.

Unless brought forth by divine means, the Book of Mormon’s sophistication, complexity, authentic historical content, and spiritual power present the world with nothing short of an anomaly. How did one so young, inexperienced, and uneducated dictate such a text in no more than about 60 actual working days during a time-span from April 7 to June 28, 1829, without the aid of any notes or reference materials, and without any revisions worth mentioning?20

Joseph Smith’s inexperience and weakness as a writer does nothing but intensely magnify the miraculous nature of the book which he brought forth through divine means. His noticeable lack of education also demonstrates how the Lord often uses the weak and simple things of the earth to “confound the wise.”21

• 1. It’s possible that Joseph Smith, at first, may not have been altogether certain that he would be the one to translate the Book of Mormon. It was apparently part of the Lord’s plan to first allow the learned men of the world to try their hand at deciphering the characters from the plates. Inspired to see that this happened, Martin Harris went back east to consult with scholars who had knowledge of ancient languages and the origins of the American Indians. According to Michael MacKay and Gerrit Dirkmaat, these scholars were either “unable to provide any information on the cryptic characters or had been unwilling to entertain the notion that they were prophetic writings delivered by an angel.” Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2015), 62. Thus, after the learned men of the world demonstrated their inability or unwillingness to translate the characters, the Lord turned to Joseph Smith, who was not learned, to accomplish His work.
• 2.Letterbook 1, p. 1, accessed November 10, 2017, online at josephsmithpapers.org. Emphasis added on misspelled words.
• 3. See William Davis, “Reassessing Joseph Smith, Jr.’s Formal Education,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 49, no. 4 (2016): 46. Davis recognized that seven years is merely an estimate and that Joseph’s actual years of formal education could be either lower or higher than this number. At the very least, he concluded that “the overall combined effect of historical sources points to a higher amount of Joseph’s formal education than is traditionally acknowledged” (p. 46), which is often estimated to be around three years of formal education.
• 4. Richard Bushman has noted that “a neighbor remembered the Smiths holding school in their house and studying the Bible.” Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York, NY: Vintage, 2005), 42. Joseph Smith was led to the sacred grove by reading verses from the Bible, and the angel Moroni quoted verses from the Bible to him in their first encounters. So there is reason to believe that he was both interested and somewhat acquainted with biblical content. However, this shouldn’t lead to the conclusion that Joseph was deeply familiar with the Bible. See Book of Mormon Central, “Did Jerusalem Have Walls Around It? (1 Nephi 4:4),” KnoWhy  7 (January 8, 2016); Robert A. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35, no. 3 (2002): 97–102; Robert A. Rees, “John Milton, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies Quarterly 54, no. 3 (2015): 13.
• 5. See Davis, “Reassessing Joseph Smith,” 3–6, 46–47; Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Early Preparation of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Ensign, December 2005, online at lds.org.
• 6. For examples of critics who made derogatory remarks concerning Joseph Smith’s intelligence and the quality of the Book of Mormon, see Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor’s Introduction: ‘In the Hope That Something Will Stick’: Changing Explanations for the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): xi–xv.
• 7.Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, p. 86, accessed October 26, 2017, online at josephsmithpapers.org.
• 8. John W. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations 1820–1844, 2nd edition, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2017), 144, doc. 41.
• 9. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 149–150, doc. 53. A “note of hand” was likely a promissory note, which was an agreement specifying the details of a financial transaction. See Robert A. Rees, “John Milton, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies Quarterly 54, no. 3 (2015): 14.
• 10.“The Golden Tables,” Chicago Times, August 7, 1875, 1. See also Blair, “Letter of W. W. Blair about Mr. Michael Morse,” 190–91; as cited in Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 92.
• 11. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 174–175, doc. 97.
• 12. Robert A. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance: An Update,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 13.
• 13. In recent years, the Book of Mormon has increasingly earned respect as a remarkable and influential American text. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why is the Book of Mormon a Classic? (Ether 12:25),” KnoWhy 63 (March 26, 2016).
• 14. See Robert A. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance,” 83–112; Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance: An Update,” 1–16. It has been proposed that the Book of Mormon’s composition is more analogous to John Milton’s dictation of Paradise Lost than to any of Joseph Smith’s contemporary authors. For a response to this comparison, see Rees, “John Milton, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon,” 6–18.
• 15. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance: An Update,” 12.
• 16. For instance, Abraham Lincoln, who also lacked a formal education, was repeatedly accused of being lazy by those who knew him. Unlike Joseph Smith, who was often labeled as an idle money digger, Lincoln was criticized for continually reading and writing when others felt he should be working. One of his employers remarked, “Abe was awful lazy: he worked for me—was always reading & thinking—used to get mad at him.” His second cousin Dennis Hanks reported, “Lincoln was lazy—a very lazy man—He was always reading—scribbling—writing—Ciphering—writing Poetry &c. &c.” Presumably for similar reasons, another associate remembered Lincoln as “a sort of loafer.” Kenneth J. Winkle, “Abraham Lincoln: Self-Made Man,” Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 21, no. 2 (2000): 13.
• 17. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance: An Update,” 11.
• 18. For wide ranging treatments of these evidences, see John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon: Insights You May Have Missed Before (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991); John W. Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992); John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999); Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch, eds., Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002); John W. Welch, Neal Rappleye, Stephen O. Smoot, David J. Larsen, and Taylor Halverson, eds., Knowing Why: 137 Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is True (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2017).
• 19. See Melvin J. Thorne, “Complexity, Consistency, Ignorance, and Probabilities,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997), 179–193. For the Book of Mormon’s literary complexity, see Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010).
• 20. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the Book of Mormon Come Forth as a Miracle? (2 Nephi 27:23),” KnoWhy 273 (February 10, 2017).
• 21.Alma 37:6–7; 1 Corinthians 1:27.

The Know

When Alma, son of Alma, was speaking to the people in Ammonihah, he taught them about the premortal existence: “And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world” (Alma 13:3). Yet the rest of Alma’s address is about repentance. This poses the question: Why would Alma interrupt a sermon about repentance with a discussion about the pre-mortal life?1 A careful reading of Alma’s speech shows that he may actually have brought this up as part of his effort to get them to repent.2

One detail that supports this point is that it is often the manner of ordination that Alma focused on: “And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption. And this is the manner after which they were ordained...” (Alma 13:2–3).3 Thus, as A. Keith Thompson has noted, “it is the manner of ordination to the Priesthood on the earth that was foreordained in the pre-existence.”4 Ultimately, “it is ‘exceeding faith and good works’ on earth that would qualify men for ordination to the Priesthood” or, in other words, adherence to the standards of obedience that were ordained in the pre-mortal life.5

The phrase “called and prepared” also supports this interpretation. As Thompson noted, “the words calling and called, in verses 4, 5, 6, 8, and 11 all refer to an ordination in mortality seem to confirm” that Alma “anticipated an ordination following exceeding faith and good works in mortality.”6 Thus, “those who do not exercise exceeding faith and good works in mortality will not be ordained to the Priesthood.”7

Ultimately, even though the “calling” was “prepared in the pre-existence, it is extended only in earth life after faith and good works have been demonstrated” (see Alma 13:4–5).8

Alma further stated that many “were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish” (Alma 13:10). This verse suggests, according to Thompson, “that it is the exceeding faith of righteous men on earth that leads to their ordination to the Priesthood and the office of high priest within that Priesthood.”9

The importance of righteousness in mortality is made clear in Alma 13:13, “And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest.” This verse helps to clarify why Alma brought up the pre-mortal life in the first place. He wanted to show that the priesthood, with its associated standards of worthiness, had been prepared before the foundation of the world. All they had to do to receive it was repent and live up to that eternal standard.

The Why

This is one occasion, among many, when the Book of Mormon can help us understand another book of scripture. Abraham 3:22–23 states that God showed Abraham “the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers.” Scriptures like this might cause some people to wonder, if so much was determined in the premortal life, what good is repentance and righteousness in this life?

Alma 13 answers this question. It shows that repentance and faith in this life is of the utmost importance, and that faith and repentance today is what matters.10 As Thompson stated, “Alma was identifying the foreordained worthiness standard as a second witness or proof that repentance and righteousness to a high priestly level was a completely legitimate expectation of all the children of God.”11

Joseph Smith stated that everyone “who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was.”12 But Alma 13 makes it clear that repentance and faithfulness in this life are still essential, foreordination or not. Alma 13 also helps to give depth to the words of Abraham 3:25–26: “And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.” Being chosen in the premortal life is not some kind of an eternal free ride.13 Rather, through our faith and repentance in this life, we live up to the eternal standards that have existed since before the world was.14

Through our faith and repentance in this life, not just our inherent goodness or premortal faithfulness, we become the kinds of people Heavenly Father wants us to be, and live up to our divine potential as children of God.

• 1. For a careful analysis of this chapter, see James T. Duke, “The Literary Structure and Doctrinal Significance of Alma 13:1–9,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5, no. 1 (1996): 103–118.
• 2. For another perspective, see Robert L. Millet, “The Holy Order of God,” in Alma, The Testimony of the Word, Book of Mormon Symposium Series, Volume 6, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1993), 61–88.
• 3. Emphasis added.
• 4. A. Keith Thompson, “Were We Foreordained to the Priesthood, or Was the Standard of Worthiness Foreordained? Alma 13 Reconsidered,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21 (2016): 259.
• 5. Thompson, “Alma 13 Reconsidered,” 259.
• 6. Thompson, “Alma 13 Reconsidered,” 259.
• 7. Thompson, “Alma 13 Reconsidered,” 259.
• 8. Thompson, “Alma 13 Reconsidered,” 259.
• 9. Thompson, “Alma 13 Reconsidered,” 261.
• 10. Claims that people were punished with black skin because of premortal unfaithfulness, for example, is clearly wrong. See “Race and the Priesthood,” online at lds.org.
• 11. Thompson, “Alma 13 Reconsidered,” 265.
• 12. See Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1972), 365.
• 13. For a thorough treatment of the premortal existence, and its relationship to mortality, see Joseph F. McConkie, “Premortal Existence, Foreordinations and Heavenly Councils,” in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints, ed. C. Wilfred Griggs (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1986), 173–198.
• 14. See Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1987–1992), 3:94.

Editor’s Note: In a previous KnoWhy, a brief introduction to stylometry and a review of stylometric studies on the Book of Mormon was presented.1 Building on that foundation, this KnoWhy discusses recent stylometric research exploring the ability of novelists to create distinct authorship styles or “voices” for multiple fictional characters

The Know

To date, the combined data from several valid stylometric studies on the Book of Mormon have demonstrated that it has multiple, distinct writing styles and that those styles are consistent with the authors designated within the text itself.2 One may naturally wonder, though, if the Book of Mormon’s diversity of style is in any way unique or impressive. Is it possible that a creative writer could have produced its variety of distinct styles?

Several early studies using simplistic stylometric methods suggested that it is indeed possible for a talented author to create multiple styles or “voices” for different fictional characters.3 In a recent study, using a more robust method, Matt Roper, Paul Fields, and Larry Bassist found persuasive evidence to confirm this hypothesis.4 Using a statistical technique called principal component analysis (PCA), they analyzed the function-word patterns of fictional characters created by four highly regarded 19th century novelists: Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), and James Fenimore Cooper.5

Their results show that, to varying degrees, each author was able to create a distinct voice for multiple fictional characters, including the narrators, in their stories. As the following graph demonstrates, the narrators form clusters on the left, while the fictional characters form somewhat looser clusters on the right. Each dot represents a 2,000-word chunk of the character’s text.

Because in all cases the narrators had distinctly different function word frequencies than non-narrators, the research team re-fitted the PCA to only assess the diversity of voices among non-narrators. On these non-narrator voices, they performed four separate multivariate tests,6 all of which resulted in statistically significant differences among character voices.7

The combined data from these tests show that the differences in function-word patterns among the non-narrator characters of these four authors are significant. Statistically speaking, it can be said that Mark Twain’s character, Tom Sawyer, really does have a different “voice” than his friend Huckleberry Finn, and that the voice of Jane Austen’s Elizabeth Bennet is truly distinct from her love interest, Mr. Darcy. While these characters’ voices still generally cluster together by the author who created them, they are distinct enough to consider them as statistically separate from one another.8

Having successfully detected distinct voices for fictional characters created by 19th century novelists, the research team next applied this same stylometric method to the writings of characters in the Book of Mormon. The following graph shows the diversity of voices in the Book of Mormon, with ellipsoid clouds demonstrating how the writings of major Book of Mormon authors form distinct clusters. In total, the Book of Mormon contains 28 distinct voices that are detectable using stylometric analysis.

Amazingly, after measures were taken to standardize the two studies for valid comparisons,9 the results showed that the level of voice diversity among Book of Mormon characters surpassed the diversity among fictional characters created by the 19th century novelists. The Book of Mormon’s voice diversity value was more than twice that of the average for the 19th century novelists. In addition, the research team’s findings show that the Book of Mormon’s character diversity is larger than even the composite diversity achieved by four of the most widely-recognized, talented nineteenth-century novelists as contained in eight of their works combined!10

The Why

These statistical results provide striking support for the Book of Mormon’s internal claims about its authorship.11 Even if Joseph Smith had been a skilled and experienced writer, in order to fabricate the Book of Mormon, he would have needed an ability to create distinct fictional voices that was beyond some of the greatest novelists of his day. Yet Joseph himself, and those who knew him best, all insisted that he was relatively uneducated.12

Furthermore, literary scholar Robert A. Rees has argued that in contrast to the great works produced by Joseph Smith’s Romantic Era contemporaries, there is no evidence that he engaged in any preparatory literary efforts before translating the Book of Mormon.13 Rees explained,

There is … no evidence that [Joseph] was keeping a journal or developing his writing style, no record of his writing sketches or short stories, no indication that he was creating the major characters of the Nephite history, planning its plots, or working out the major themes and ideas found in its pages; nor is there any evidence that he was consciously developing an authorial voice or cultivating a personal writing style (or that he even understood what this would have entailed). Neither did he exhibit any proclivity for composing large narrative forms or differential styles or anything at all like the complex, interwoven, episodic components of the Book of Mormon.14

This situation makes the results of the stylometric analysis all the more astounding. It is difficult to imagine that a frontier farmer, with limited formal education and no literary accomplishments whatsoever, could have created a work of fiction with such a diverse array of statistically distinct voices.

Moreover, previous stylometric studies have demonstrated that none of the 19th century writers usually suspected of authoring the Book of Mormon have writing samples that match any of its distinct styles. These writers include Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spalding, W. W. Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, and Joseph Smith himself.15

Thus, in order for one of these candidates to be the true author of the Book of Mormon, he would have needed to write in such a way as to completely mask his own style while at the same time creating a diversity of voices that was beyond some of the most talented novelists of their day! This combination of achievements seems highly unlikely for any of them, and especially for Joseph Smith, who was the least educated and experienced of them all.16

In contrast to this scenario, the Book of Mormon’s own claims about its authorship can easily accommodate the results of this recent stylometric analysis. If the Book of Mormon’s source texts were truly written by a large number of ancient prophets over the course of 1,000 years, then that would naturally explain why its voice diversity is greater than the composite diversity achieved by four of the most distinguished novelists of the 19th century. In light of these recent findings, it can be said that stylometry’s statistical methods have once again helped us discern “the evidence of things not [otherwise] seen” (Hebrews 11:1).17

• 1. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Can Stylometry Tell Us about Book of Mormon Authorship? (Jacob 4:4),” KnoWhy 389 (December 12, 2017).
• 2. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Can Stylometry Tell Us about Book of Mormon Authorship? (Jacob 4:4),” KnoWhy 389 (December 12, 2017); Matthew Roper, Paul J. Fields, and G. Bruce Schaalje, “Stylometric Analyses of the Book of Mormon: A Short History,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 21, no. 1 (2012): 28–45.
• 3. See John Frederick Burrows, Computation into Criticism: A Study of Jane Austen's Novels and an Experiment in Method (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1987); Tim Hiatt and John Hilton, “Can Authors Alter Their Wordprints? Faulkner's Narrators in As I Lay Dying,” in Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium 16 no. 1 (1990); Tim Hiatt, “Can Authors Alter Their Wordprints? James Joyce’s Ulysses,” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1990).
• 4. This team personally communicated the results of their ongoing and intriguing research to Book of Mormon Central staff, and it is being reported with their full permission.
• 5. Among other reasons, these authors were chosen because they are each known for their unique and distinctive characters, because they were contemporaries with Joseph Smith, and because they represent both English and American literature.
• 6. These tests included Pillai’s Trace, Wilks’ Lambda, Hotelling’s T-squared, and Roy’s Largest Root.
• 7. For all tests, the chance that the differences occurred simply by chance alone was less than 1 in 1000 (p < .001).
• 8. For instance, Tom Sawyer’s voice is different from Huckleberry Finn’s voice, but their voices are more like the voices of other characters created by Twain than they are like the voices of characters created by Austen.
• 9. The study standardized each author’s volume by dividing by that author’s number of characters and taking the k^th root, where k = the number of principal components used in the analysis.
• 10. The composite diversity for the 19th century authors was calculated by encompassing the speakers from all eight of the novels by the four nineteenth century authors with one giant ellipsoid, as if they were the creation of one author. The encompassing ellipsoid for the Book of Mormon speakers is larger in volume than the giant encompassing ellipsoid for the four nineteenth century authors.
• 11. This statement doesn’t suggest that the stylometric analysis demonstrates that the characters in the Book of Mormon were truly ancient prophets and that they actually wrote the portions of the Book of Mormon that are ascribed to them. Rather it means that the expanse of voice diversity in the Book of Mormon is consistent with its claims of having been written by numerous prophets over a 1,000-year span, while at the same time being inconsistent with the theories that Joseph Smith or any other proposed 19th century author was responsible for creating its content.
• 12. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Would God Use an Uneducated Man to Translate the Book of Mormon? (2 Nephi 27:19),” KnoWhy 397 (January 9, 2017).
• 13. See Robert A. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35, no. 3 (2002): 83–112; Robert A. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance: An Update,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 1–16. For a comparison of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon with John Milton’s dictation of Paradise Lost, see Robert A. Rees, “John Milton, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies Quarterly 54, no. 3 (2015): 6–18.
• 14. Rees, “John Milton, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon,” 12.
• 15. See Wayne A. Larsen, Alvin C. Rencher, and Tim Layton, “Who Wrote the Book of Mormon? An Analysis of Wordprints,” in Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1982), 163; John L. Hilton, “On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997), 253, n. 22; Paul J. Fields, G. Bruce Schaalje, and Matthew Roper, “Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification to Investigate Book of Mormon Authorship,” Mormon Studies Review 23, no. 1 (2011): 107.
• 16. For Joseph Smith’s limited education, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Would God Use an Uneducated Man to Translate the Book of Mormon? (2 Nephi 27:19),” KnoWhy 397 (January 9, 2017). It’s possible that multiple 19th century authors could have collaborated on such a project, but that only makes the historical argument more difficult to sustain. There is simply no valid historical evidence that any of these individuals, let alone a group of them, conspired to fabricate the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine that not just one, but two or more writers would be able to successfully mask their personal writing styles in a way that would be undetectable by the stylometric analysis. Besides, even with a few more collaborative writers in the mix, this scenario would still require them to jointly produce a book with greater character diversity than the composite diversity achieved by four of the best novelists of their day, and from eight of their novels combined.
• 17. For the appropriateness of searching out and using such evidences to support and supplement faith, see Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Greatness of the Evidence,” Chiasmus Jubilee, August 16, 2017, online at bookofmormoncentral.org.

The Know

Latter-day Saints have three different scriptural accounts of the creation: one in Genesis, one in the Book of Moses, and one in the Book of Abraham. One might wonder, at first, why this is so. One important thing to consider is that just because a story has multiple versions, it doesn’t mean that they are incorrect. For example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all true and sacred books of scripture, and yet they each present a different version of Jesus Christ’s life and ministry. It seems that something similar played out in the early accounts of the Creation.

Not only do Abraham, Moses, and Genesis each contain different versions of the Creation, but several biblical passages provide clues that there were even more versions. In Genesis 1, for example, we learn that creation from chaos took six days, starting with light and ending with humans. Genesis 2, on the other hand, has no mention of the number of days. In addition, it reports that man was created first, then Eden, plants, animals, and finally woman. Ezekiel 28:12–19 adds that Eden was “the garden of God,” and describes a figure that is called an “anointed cherub that covereth.” This was a guardian who wore a breastplate like that of the high priest, with precious stones (v. 13).1

In the Book of Job, on the other hand, God “laid the foundations of the earth” (38:4), “laid the measures” and “stretched the line upon it” (v. 5). He also “fastened” the foundations and “laid the corner stone thereof” (v. 6), and “shut up the sea with doors” (v. 8). In Psalm 104 God created the earth by stretching “out the heavens like a curtain” (v. 2), and laying “the beams of his chambers in the waters” (v. 3). He also laid “the foundations of the earth” (v. 5), covering the earth with waters and setting bounds that they cannot pass (v. 9), and appointing “the moon for seasons” (v. 19).2

These examples suggest that various Creation accounts were circulating among believers in the ancient world, and that the authors of the Old Testament apparently knew about them. This also opens up the possibility that the Book of Mormon prophets were aware of Creation stories other than the one found in Genesis.

In 2 Nephi 2, for example, Lehi provided additional details about the Garden of Eden story that are not mentioned in the Genesis account. He described the fruit of the tree of life as sweet and the forbidden fruit as bitter (2 Nephi 2:15).3 He also explained that Adam and Eve “would have had no children” (v. 23) if they had remained in Eden, and that “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (v. 25).4 Lehi referred to the partaking of the fruit as a “fall” (2 Nephi 2:22, 25, 26), and equated the serpent with the devil (2 Nephi 2:17–18) which Genesis never does.5

2 Nephi 2:17–18 seems to suggest that Lehi may have had a version of Genesis with at least some similarities to what is in the Book of Moses: “I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil … and because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind” (vv. 17–18, emphasis added). Here, Lehi appears to be tying together ideas from Isaiah 14:12 and Moses 4:3–4.6 These details suggest that Lehi may have known of different creation stories from those in Genesis.

Throughout the ancient Near East, the Creation was described in terms of a battle between the warrior god and the chaos monster, which was often equated with the ocean.7 God would kill the monster, then  take its carcass and shape it into the cosmos. 8Isaiah 27:1 alludes to this: “The LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall ... slay the dragon that is in the sea.” Psalm 89:8–10 also refers to this creation story: “O LORD God of hosts ... thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them. Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain.”

Jacob, Nephi’s younger brother, also appears to allude to the creation traditions concerning the chaos monster. In 2 Nephi 9:10, 19 and 26, he repeatedly used the imagery of an “awful monster” to refer to death and hell.9 This suggests that like the authors of biblical texts, Book of Mormon prophets may have been aware of creation stories that were widely shared among ancient Near Eastern cultures.10

The Why

These combined allusions from the Old Testament and Book of Mormon show that ancient prophets were apparently comfortable with citing different versions of the creation story. Therefore, we shouldn’t be troubled when we open our scriptures and see three different versions of the creation story. On the contrary, we should appreciate the different things each account can teach us.

Lehi used the version of the Eden narrative available to him to teach about opposition and agency, likely because this account emphasized these topics.11 Jacob, on the other hand, used the chaos monster creation story to stress how Christ’s power through the Atonement can save us from the chaos of life.

Following in Lehi and Jacob’s footsteps, we can glean different things from the differing creation narratives available to us. In Genesis 1, God caused everything to come into existence simply by speaking, reminding us of the power of God. Moses 2 makes it clear that Christ was the main figure responsible for the Creation. This reminds us of His central role from the beginning of the world to the end of it. Finally, the Book of Abraham makes it explicitly clear that a divine council was involved in the creation of the earth, reminding us of the importance of councils in our own lives.

As we read and compare the different creation accounts in our scriptures, we can remember that we are in good company. Like the prophets of old, we can gain a deeper understanding of God’s creations by carefully studying each version and applying their various truths into our personal lives.

• 1. For more on this, see Daphna Arbel, “Questions about Eve's Iniquity, Beauty, and Fall: ‘The Primal Figure’ in Ezekiel 28:11–19 and ‘Genesis Rabbah’ Traditions of Eve,” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 4 (2005): 641–655. See also Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy (New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2003), 250.
• 2. See also Psalm 136:5–9. One finds similar descriptions in Proverbs 8:22–31, which describes how wisdom was in the beginning with God, before the Creation, and was with God when He created the heavens. In this account, God used a compass to measure the deep/waters. He also gave the sea a decree, gave boundaries to it by commandment, and appointed the foundations of the earth. In Isaiah, God similarly “measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span,” etc. (40:12), stretched out the heavens as a curtain, and spread them out as a tent (v. 22; cf. 42:5; 48:13), and called all of creation “by names by the greatness of his might” (40:26).
• 3. David M. Calabro, “Lehi’s Dream and the Garden of Eden,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 26 (2017): 294.
• 4. Calabro, “Lehi’s Dream,” 294.
• 5. Calabro, “Lehi’s Dream,” 294.
• 6. For more on this, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Lehi “Suppose” the Existence of Satan? (2 Nephi 14:12; Isaiah 14:12),” KnoWhy 43 (February 29, 2016).
• 7. Daniel Belnap, “‘I Will Contend with Them That Contendeth with Thee’: The Divine Warrior in Jacob’s Speech of 2 Nephi 6–10,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 17, no. 1–2 (2008): 23.
• 8. For extended surveys of this topic, see Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973); Patrick D. Miller Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973); John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1985); Bernard F. Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1992); Nicholas Wyatt, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996); Martin Klingbeil, Yahweh Fighting from Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999); Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003).
• 9. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Jacob Choose a ‘Monster’ as a Symbol for Death and Hell? (2 Nephi 9:10),” KnoWhy 34 (February 16, 2016).
• 10. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Jacob Describe God as a Divine Warrior? (2 Nephi 6:17),” KnoWhy 277 (February 20, 2017).
• 11. Calabro, “Lehi’s Dream,” 295.

The Know

The sword of Laban is one of the most iconic objects in the Book of Mormon. It was passed down from generation to generation (Mosiah 1:16) and was apparently still being used in battle even during the time of King Benjamin (Words of Mormon 1:13). In June of 1829,1 the Lord told Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris: “you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban” (Doctrine and Covenants 17:1). David Whitmer stated that this prophecy was soon fulfilled.2

Yet the Book of Mormon does not give much information about how the sword looked. Nephi simply stated that “the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and ... the blade thereof was of the most precious steel” (1 Nephi 4:9).3

Thanks to archaeological discoveries in recent decades, however, we now have more information about what this sword might have looked like.4 In the 1980s, archaeologists discovered a sword that has many similarities to Laban’s sword.5 It was found in Jericho, a city near Jerusalem, where Laban was from, and it dates from around 620 BC, when Laban lived.6 Most surprising of all, it was made out of steel, just like Laban’s sword.7 Most surviving swords from this time period in the ancient Near East were made out of iron or bronze, so this sword, made out of steel, is a close match to the sword of Laban described in the Book of Mormon.8

The Jericho sword is three feet long and three inches wide, which is surprisingly long for the ancient Near East.9 However, it would have been much more difficult for Nephi to cut off Laban’s head if the sword were any shorter than this,10 so it is likely that Laban’s sword was roughly this size as well.11

Another interesting detail is that, according to a metallurgical study of the Jericho sword, “the iron was deliberately hardened into steel.”12 Ironworkers can accidentally produce lower-quality steel as part of the smelting process, but this iron was intentionally hardened into high-quality steel.13 If the same was true of Laban’s sword, this could explain Nephi’s comment that it was made of “most precious steel” (1 Nephi 4:9).14

Finally, it is possible that the sword of Laban had words engraved on it. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery once saw a large room which contained many plates. “The first time they went there the sword of Laban hung upon the wall; but when they went again it had been taken down and laid upon the table across the gold plates; it was unsheathed, and on it was written these words: ‘This sword will never be sheathed again until The Kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our God and his Christ’.”15

It is hard to know if this was a somewhat symbolic vision, a vision of a real location with real items, or an actual cave which they visited in upstate New York. In any case, if they were seeing the actual sword of Laban, either in vision or in person, then this gives us one more detail about its appearance.

The Why

Before archaeologists discovered the long steel sword in Jericho, the description of the sword of Laban in the Book of Mormon may have seemed too fantastic to be true.16 Some people laughed at the notion of a steel sword in Jerusalem in 600 BC.17 Similarly, the idea that an ancient Near Eastern sword could be long enough for Nephi to decapitate Laban in the manner described in the Book of Mormon also seemed unbelievable.18 And then, 150 years after the Book of Mormon was published, archaeologists discovered an artifact that showed that the Book of Mormon’s account was not so unbelievable after all.

According to Matt Roper, “One of the earliest criticisms of the Book of Mormon was that Laban could not have had a steel sword blade, because steel was not invented until much later.”19 So for roughly 150 years, people who believed in the Book of Mormon had to do so with this unanswered question lingering in the background.20 However, this question was eventually answered, and those who believed in the Book of Mormon, Sword of Laban and all, were eventually vindicated.21 Archeology just hadn’t yet caught up to the Book of Mormon.

This situation can offer valuable lessons for us today. When we have questions about the Book of Mormon that we do not have good answers to right now, we should simply remember the Sword of Laban, and know that the answers will come eventually.22 Neal Rappleye, commenting upon Sam Wineburg’s illuminating case study on historical thinking,23 has explained that “Wineburg found that mature historical thinkers displayed patience with the unknown. They were able to call attention to apparent contradictions without immediately seeking to resolve them.” Although this is uncomfortable, “mature historical thinkers ‘sat with this discomfort’ as they continued to review additional sources.” In the process, “they exercised what Wineburg called the ‘specification of ignorance’: a practice of identifying when you do not know enough to understand something.” One must then conclude with “‘cultivating puzzlement’: being able ‘to stand back from first impressions, to question … quick leaps of mind, and to keep track of … questions that together pointed … in the direction of new learning.’”24

If we will put some of our questions aside, for now, knowing that they will be answered eventually, we can develop a mature faith that will stand the test of time.

• 1. See Richard O. Cowan, “Sword of Laban” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 748.
• 2. See Reed A. Benson, “Sword of Laban,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 3:1427–1428.
• 3. Part of the reason this might have been referred to as “precious” was because of the difficulty of producing useable steel during this period. See James D. Muhly, “Mining and Metalwork in Ancient Western Asia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995), 3:1515.
• 4. For a summary of this information, see Neal Rappleye, ”‘Put Away Childish Things’: Learning to Read the Book of Mormon with Mature Historical Understanding,” presented at the 2017 FairMormon Conference, August 3, 2017, online at fairmormon.org.
• 5. See William J. Adams Jr., “Nephi’s Jerusalem and Laban’s Sword,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 11–13.
• 6. Adams, “Nephi’s Jerusalem and Laban’s Sword,” 11.
• 7. See Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “All That Glitters is Not … Steel,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 15, no. 1 (2005): 66–67.
• 8. See Adams, “Nephi’s Jerusalem and Laban’s Sword,” 12. For a description of the sword, see Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “Lehi’s House at Jerusalem and the Land of His Inheritance,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004), 115, Figure 11.
• 9. See Hershal Shanks, “Antiquities director confronts problems and controversies,” Biblical Archaeology Review 12, no. 4 (July-August 1986): 33, 35. See also Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1:117.
• 10. Nibley noted that the sword would need to have been sharp and heavy to do the job. See Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert/The World of the Jaredites/There Were Jaredites, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 5 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 101.
• 11. See John A. Tvedtnes, “The Workmanship thereof was Exceedingly Fine,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 14–16.
• 12. See Avraham Eitan, “Rare Sword of the Israelite Period Found at Vered Jericho,” Israel Museum Journal 12 (1994): 61–62, quote on p. 62. See also Hershel Shanks, “BAR Interviews Avraham Eitan,” Biblical Archaeology Review 12, no. 4 (1986): 33.
• 13. See Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2001), 169; Naama Yahalom-Mack and Adi Elyahu-Behar, “The Transition from Bronze to Iron in Canaan: Chronology, Technology, and Context,” Radiocarbon 57, no. 2 (2015): 285–305.
• 14. Emphasis added. As it turns out, one could have found precious steel like this even from a few centuries earlier: "It seems evident that by the beginning of the tenth century B.C. blacksmiths were intentionally steeling iron." Robert Maddin, James D. Muhly and Tamara S. Wheeler, “How the Iron Age Began,” Scientific American 237, no. 4 (October 1977): 127. “Wrought iron heated in contact with hot charcoal (Carbon) at high temperatures produces carbonized iron or steel which is more malleable than cast iron.” King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), 169.
• 15. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses (Liverpool, UK: George Q. Cannon, 1878), 19:38. For an analysis of the various accounts and reports of this experience, see Cameron J. Packer, “Cumorah’s Cave,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 13, no. 1–2 (2004): 50–57, 170–71.
• 16. See Matthew Roper, “‘To Inflict Wounds of Death’: Mesoamerican Swords and Cimeters in the Book of Mormon,” 2016 FairMormon presentation, online at fairmormon.org.
• 17. See Roper, “‘To Inflict Wounds of Death,’“ online at fairmormon.org.
• 18. See Roper, “‘To Inflict Wounds of Death,’“ online at fairmormon.org.
• 19. Roper, “‘To Inflict Wounds of Death,’“ online at fairmormon.org.
• 20. They would have held onto their beliefs in the face of critics saying things like this: “This is the earliest account of steel to be found in history.” E. D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (1834), 25–26.  “Laban’s sword was steel, when it is a notorious fact that the Israelites knew nothing of steel for hundreds of years afterwards. Who but as ignorant a person as Rigdon would have perpetrated all these blunders?” Clark Braden in Public Discussion, 1884, 109. “Laban is represented as killed by one Nephi, some six hundred years before Christ, with a sword ‘of the most precious steel,’ hundreds of years before steel was known to man!” Daniel Bartlett, The Mormons or, Latter-day Saints (1911), 15. “[The Book of Mormon] speaks of the most ‘precious steel,’ before the commonest had been dreamt of.” C. Sheridan Jones, The Truth about the Mormons (1920), 4–5. “Nephi . . . wielded a sword ‘of the most precious steel.’ But steel was not known to man in those days.” Stuart Martin, The Mystery of Mormonism (1920), 44. “Laban had a steel sword long before steel came into use.” George Arbaugh, Revelation in Mormonism (1932), 55. “Every commentator on the Book of Mormon has pointed out the many cultural and historical anachronisms, such as the steel sword of Laban in 600 B.C.” Thomas O’Dea, The Mormons (1957), 39. “No one believes that steel was available to Laban or anyone else in 592 B.C.” William Whalen, TheLatter-day Saints in the Modern World (1964), 48.
• 21. Ultimately, those who kept their faith in the Book of Mormon were amply vindicated, as many examples of ancient steel can now be found from the Near East. See, for example, Erik Tholander, “Evidence of the Use of Carburized Steel and Quench Hardening in Late Bronze Age Cyprus,” Opuscula Atheniensia 10 (1971): 15–22; Anthony M. Snodgrass, “Iron and Early Metallurgy in the Mediterranean,” in The Coming Age of Iron, ed. Theodore A. Wertime and James D. Muhly (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980), 341; D. Davis, R. Maddin, J.D. Muhly, and T. Stech, “A Steel Pick from Mt. Adir in Palestine,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 4 (1985): 41–51; James D. Muhly, “How Iron technology changed the ancient world and gave the Philistines a military edge,” Biblical Archaeology Review 8, no. 6 (November–December 1982): 50; Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 B.C.E. (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1990,) 361; Herbert Maryon, “Early Near Eastern Steel Swords,” American Journal of Archaeology 65, no. 2 (April 1961): 173–184.
• 22. For more examples of this, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why are Horses Mentioned in the Book of Mormon? (Enos 1:21),” KnoWhy 75 (April 11, 2016); Book of Mormon Central, “How Can Barley in the Book of Mormon Feed Faith? (Mosiah 9:9),” KnoWhy 87 (April 27, 2016); Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does the Book of Mormon Use the Phrase ‘Secret Combinations?’ (3 Nephi 7:6),” KnoWhy 377 (October 31, 2017).
• 23. Sam Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2001), 20–22.
• 24. Rappleye, “‘Put Away Childish Things,’” 19, online at fairmormon.org.

The Know

When describing his vision of the tree of life, Lehi said that people “did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron,” eventually reaching the tree of life (italics added for emphasis 1 Nephi 8:24). Yet one wonders why they needed to “press forward” and “cling” to the rod, if they were simply walking through a level plain on the straight and narrow path.1 You would think that simply running your fingers along the iron rod to avoid getting lost in the mist as you sauntered along would be sufficient. Instead, the account of Lehi’s vision suggests that the tree of life was on a hill or mountain and that people had to pull themselves up. This detail makes more sense when Lehi’s vision is compared to the Garden of Eden.

David Calabro has argued that there are multiple similarities between the account of the garden of Eden in Genesis and Lehi’s vision of the tree of life. For example, Genesis 3:24 states that God placed “a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” 1 Nephi 12:18 also discusses a sword: “a great and a terrible gulf divideth them, yea, even the sword of the justice of the eternal God, and Jesus Christ, which is the Lamb of God” (1 Nephi 12:18, original manuscript).21 Nephi 15:28–30 similarly notes that this gulf kept the wicked from accessing a certain area and that it was like the “brightness of a flaming fire”—in other words, a metaphorical “flaming sword.”

Calabro has also noted that there is a road leading up to the tree in both texts. Genesis 3:24 states that God “drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”3 The Hebrew derek, translated here as “way,” can also be translated as “road” or “path.” 1 Nephi 8:20 similarly discusses a path: “I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood.”

Both the Genesis account and Lehi’s dream describe a fertile garden with wilderness beyond it. Calabro has noted that “in Genesis 2–3, there is a basic contrast between the garden, on the one hand, and the world from which Adam and Eve were taken and into which they were later driven, on the other.” One is “characterized by dust (Genesis 2:7; 3:19), thorns and thistles (Genesis 3:18), and toil (Genesis 3:17, 19)” while the garden contained rivers and “every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food” (Genesis 2:8–10). This basic contrast may be reflected in the “dark and dreary wilderness/ waste” and the “large and spacious field” of Lehi’s dream (1 Nephi 8:4, 7, 9, 20).

This “dark and dreary waste,” according to Robert Millet and Joseph McConkie, is a “symbolic representation of fallen man in the lone and dreary world.”4 It is only after Lehi was brought into the “large and spacious field” that he encountered the tree and rivers. Although the words field and garden have different meanings, the Hebrew word karmel, meaning “plantation, garden-land,” is translated as “fruitful field” in several places in the King James Bible (Isaiah 10:18; 29:17; 32:15, 16).5

The Hebrew name Eden may even derive from a Semitic word meaning “plain,” which suggests an expansive piece of land, similar to a field.6 Thus, the “spacious field” of Lehi’s dream may very well reflect an ancient conception of Eden (1 Nephi 8:9, 20).7

The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man by Jan Brueghel the Edler. Image via Wikimedia Commons

In addition, both Lehi’s dream and Eden contain multiple rivers with heads,8

as well as mist.9 In some traditions, Eden is also associated with a rod of iron, like in Lehi’s dream.10

Connections like these help to explain the apparent uphill movement of the people towards the tree. According to many ancient sources, the garden of Eden was on a mountain. This is implied in the phrase “a river went out of Eden” because rivers flow downhill (Genesis 2:10). Ezekiel 28:11–16 also equates “Eden the garden of God” with “the holy mountain of God.”11

Calabro has noted that Lehi, who was near the tree of life, could see “the river and its head (1 Nephi 8:13–14), the straight and narrow path leading ultimately to the ‘large and spacious field’ that is said to be like a ‘world’ (1 Nephi 8:20), and ‘numberless concourses of people’ traveling on various paths (1 Nephi 8:21–22, 28).” Lehi’s expansive view suggests a higher elevation, like Eden.

The head of the river being “described as being ‘a little way off’ from the place where Lehi stands by the tree (1 Nephi 8:13–14); as with the description of the river in Genesis 2:10,” also “implies that Lehi’s location is higher than the surrounding area where the river flows.” These points all suggest that the people may have been “pressing forward” because they were pulling themselves uphill along the rod to get to the tree (1 Nephi 8:21, 24, 30).12

The Why

The image of the people struggling uphill towards the tree of life is a fitting symbol for life on earth. At times, life may feel like an uphill climb, a desperate attempt to overcome the effects of the Fall and return to the Eden from which we have been cast out. This is very similar to what one sees in Lehi’s dream. Far from a leisurely stroll through a field, the people in Lehi’s vision were pulling themselves up towards Eden.

Yet Lehi’s later statement invites us to view this upward journey with optimism: “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Nephi 2:25). The return to the tree of life doesn’t have to be drudgery. We can find joy in the climb. The image of Lehi’s family being present at the Tree of Life with him reminds us of this. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve did not have their family with them, as they could not have children before the Fall (see 2 Nephi 2:23). Lehi, on the other hand, gathered his family around him when he was partaking of the tree of life. His vision reminds us all that the Fall was really a “fall forward,”13 allowing us all to have children, and eventually to be with them in the presence of God.

As we make our way through life, struggling to overcome the effects of the Fall, we should remember that the Fall is what opens the path toward eternal life and therefore eternal happiness.14 In our upward climb, we can remember that even while we are in the process of overcoming the effects of the Fall that a fullness of joy can be found, and we can, with gratitude, make our way towards the tree of life, clinging to the iron rod.

• 1. The interpretation of a flat or level plain may be inviting because Lehi twice reported that the tree of life was somewhere within or near a “spacious field” (1 Nephi 8:9, 20). However, Lehi’s description isn’t clear enough to be certain that the field, and particularly the area surrounding the tree of life, was on level ground.
• 2. David Calabro noted that the “word sword was miscopied as word in the printer’s manuscript, and this reading persisted until the current edition. The reading with sword is undoubtedly correct; not only is it the earliest reading, but the phrase, “the sword of justice,” referring to God’s justice, occurs frequently in the Book of Mormon (Alma 26:19; 60:29; Helaman 13:5; 3 Nephi 20:20; 29:4; Ether 8:23). In Ether 8:23, the same phrase as in the original manuscript of 1 Nephi 12:18 occurs: “the sword of the justice of the eternal God.” In contrast, the phrase “the word of the justice of the eternal God” would be an anomaly.” David M. Calabro, “Lehi’s Dream and the Garden of Eden,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 26 (2017): 272. In support of this claim, Calabro referenced Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part One (Provo: FARMS, 2004), 257–258.
• 3. Emphasis added.
• 4. Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1987), 1:56.
• 5. Other passages also associate fields with fruitfulness and luxuriance (Isaiah 32:12; Ezekiel 17:5).
• 6. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1951), 726–727; Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, study edition (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2001), 1:792.
• 7. Calabro, “Lehi’s Dream,” 278–279.
• 8.

  See Genesis 2:10 and 1 Nephi 8:13–14. “Nephi’s vision includes not just one but two ‘fountains’: (1) ‘the fountain of living waters’ (1 Nephi 11:25), which is not mentioned in Lehi’s account; and (2) ‘the fountain of filthy water’ (1 Nephi 12:16), which is identified with the fountain Lehi describes. One of these, “appears to have had its source very close to the tree of life.” In addition, “on a basic level, the motif of waters emanating from the vicinity of the tree of life is common to both” visions. Some kind of “life-giving water source (meqorkhayyim‘spring of life,’ or meqormayimkhayyim‘spring of living waters’), thought to be located at God’s garden abode, features prominently in other biblical passages (see Psalm 36:8–10; Jeremiah 17:12–13).” One also sees the motif in Near Eastern mythology and temple ideology. One finds “various ancient creation traditions that feature two rivers, one being the celestial waters and the other the subterranean waters.” They might seem “at first to be in conflict with the usual motif of four rivers,” but reflect a related idea. Calabro, “Lehi’s Dream,” 280. Calabro also noted that Eden is the point from which the four rivers flow out toward the four points of the compass (p. 279, n. 24). For this concept, which is present in many ancient traditions of the creation, see Thomas Fawcett, Hebrew Myth and Christian Gospel (London, UK: SCM Press, 1973), 279–281.

• 9. See Genesis 2:6 and 1 Nephi 8:23–24; 12:16–17. “Although the functions are clearly different, the mist in Genesis 2:6 may correspond on some level to the ‘mist of darkness’ in Lehi’s dream.” The mist in Lehi’s dream isn’t “associated with the watering of the ground but rather with an obscuring of vision that results in the wicked becoming lost. This mist seems to be associated with the filthy river.” Thus, “the river and the mist are mentioned side-by-side in 1 Nephi 12:16–17. The Hebrew word ed‘mist’ sounds like the word for ‘distress’ or ‘calamity,’ often used in reference to the paths of the wicked or to their fate, and it is possible that the similarity between these two words prompted a sinister understanding of the biblical mist in the context of Lehi’s dream.” Calabro, “Lehi’s Dream,” 281. See also Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 15.
• 10.

  The Septuagint and several other versions of Psalm 2:9 talk about a Messianic king “ruling” or “shepherding” his people with a rod of iron. This comes from an interpretation of the Hebrew word ra’a (to harm/break) as ra’ah (to pasture, feed, shepherd). Ultimately, it is difficult to know which meaning was intended. The Septuagint interpretation fits with passages such as Leviticus 27:32, where the rod is understood to be a shepherd’s crook. The quotation of Psalm 2:9 in the Greek of Revelation 2:27, where ra’ah is rendered as Greek poimanei (to shepherd, pastor, feed, rule), reflects this. This is apparently the understanding of the rod of iron that we see in Lehi’s dream – that it is meant for guiding, like a shepherd’s crook, and leading people to the Tree of Life (to feed them). Biblical scholar Margaret Barker has addressed this topic, concluding that “Lehi’s vision has the iron rod guiding people to the great tree—the older and probably the original understanding of the word.” Barker further noted that the Bible mentions the rod of iron four times as the rod of the Messiah. The Messiah is depicted as using the rod to “break” the nations (Psalm 2:9) or “rule” them (Revelation 2:27; 12:5; 19:15). In the Greek translation (the Septuagint) the Hebrew word in Psalm 2:9 is understood to mean shepherd and it reads, “He will shepherd them with a rod of iron.” The words for “break” and “shepherd, pasture, tend, lead” are almost the same. The Book of Revelation “uses the word ‘shepherd,’ poimanei, of the Messiah and his iron rod, so the English versions here are not accurate. The holy child who was taken up to heaven (Revelation 12:5) was to ‘shepherd the nations with a rod of iron.’” Micah 7:14, in the King James Version, “translates this same word as ‘Feed thy people with thy rod,’ where ‘guide’ would be a better translation.” In Psalm 78:72 one finds, ‘He fed them . . . and guided them,’ “where the parallelism of Hebrew poetry would expect the two verbs to have a similar meaning: ‘He led them . . . he guided them.’” Ultimately, “Lehi’s vision has the iron rod guiding people to the great tree—the older and probably the original understanding of the word.” Margaret Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” BYU Studies 44, no. 4 (2005): 76–77.

• 11. Calabro, “Lehi’s Dream,” 274. See also Donald W. Parry, “The Garden of Eden: Sacred Space, Sanctuary, and Temple,” Explorations: Journal for Adventurous Thought 5 (1987): 84–85; Donald W. Parry, “Garden of Eden: Prototype Sanctuary,” in Temples of the Ancient World, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994), 133–37.
• 12. Compare 1 Nephi 8:31, which currently reads “and he saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building.” The original manuscript here read “pressing [spelled prssing] their way” instead of “feeling their way.” See Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants, Part One, 187.
• 13. See Book of Mormon Central, “What are the Origins of Lehi’s Understanding of the Fall? (2 Nephi 2:25),” KnoWhy (February 8, 2016).
• 14. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Lehi Teach that the Fall Was Necessary? (2 Nephi 2:22–25)” KnoWhy 269 (February 1, 2017).

The Know

Nearly two dozen individuals had some sort of sensory encounter with the golden plates that Joseph Smith discovered on a hill near his farm.1 The full weight of these combined reports is certainly impressive. Yet, some may wonder what other kinds of evidence, aside from these witnesses, can help verify the reality and authenticity of the ancient artifact in the prophet’s possession.

Joseph said that an angel, who had custody of the plates, directed him to a hill where they were preserved in a stone box,2 along with other Nephite relics.3 Sacred records in sealed caches guarded by divine beings may seem a bit fantastic to modern societies, but there are a large number of precedents from the ancient world.4

The Ark of the Covenant, for instance, was a box-like structure, symbolically guarded by angelic beings,5 which contained, among other sacred artifacts, an engraved religious document written on non-perishable material.6 Metal documents, including those made of gold and gold-alloys, are well-known in the ancient world and have been discovered in both the Middle East and America.7 According to witnesses, the plates contained both a sealed and an unsealed portion.8 This unusual detail is remarkably consistent with a variety of doubled,9 sealed, and witnessed documents from antiquity.10

Several individuals independently reported that the plates were bound together by three D-shaped rings.11 This design was apparently not used for binding written materials during Joseph Smith’s day and was likely unfamiliar to Joseph or anyone in his environment. Yet it is both surprisingly practical and anciently attested. The D shape provided stability, perhaps a way to carry the heavy record,12 and the optimum storage capacity for the plates.13 It is notable that an Etruscan book, dating from the time when Lehi left Jerusalem, was also made from gold plates bound by D-shaped rings.14

As far as the weight, dimensions, and physical appearance of the Nephite record goes, a surprising number of details were reported by witnesses. Individuals who hefted the plates estimated their weight to be around 40–60 pounds. Eyewitnesses said they were about 8 inches in length, 6 or 7 inches in width, and 4 or 6 inches in depth, with the appearance of gold.15

Based on these descriptions, those with metallurgical expertise have suggested that the plates were made of a gold-copper alloy called tumbaga, which was well-known in ancient America.16 Several studies have even shown that it is entirely plausible that the surface area provided by these plates was enough to have produced the English text of the Book of Mormon, assuming the engraved characters from which it was translated were fairly small.17

Finally, several witnesses remarked upon the beauty and seeming antiquity of the engravings on the plates, which the Book of Mormon calls “reformed Egyptian” (Mormon 9:32).18 It is now known that before and during Lehi’s day, ancient Israelites implemented Egyptian characters in their scribal tradition.19 There is also emerging linguistic evidence which suggests that Uto-Aztecan, an ancient American language family, may have been influenced by Egyptian.20 Thus, from both the Old and New Worlds, there are good reasons to accept the use and adaptation of Egyptian characters, as described in the Book of Mormon.

Ancient American scholar John Sorenson has remarked, “Taken together, the descriptions we have of what was engraved on the metal plates are suggestive of what someone might say after a naïve perusal of a Mesoamerican document.”21

The Why

Although it may be surprising to some, ongoing research has only increased the plausibility of the numerous accounts of the plates. The reported weight, dimensions, and composition of the plates are believable. The story of their discovery is supported by a large number of similar archeological finds. And several of the record’s unusual features—such as being bound by D-shaped rings, having a sealed portion, and being written in reformed Egyptian—have a surprising amount of corroboration from the ancient world. Each reported detail, no matter how unusual or unlikely from a 19th century perspective, has checked out in light of 20th and 21st century research.

Neal Rappleye has noted that, in many cases, the eyewitnesses who provided these consistent details did so “after their estrangement from Joseph, independently and spontaneously upon questioning and cross-examination (sometimes from skeptical interviewers), during a time when [they] were scattered and isolated from each other, when no collusion was possible.”22 Recognizing that so many independent witnesses firmly ground the plates in reality, some people have assumed that Joseph Smith or one of his associates simply forged them. Yet those who resort to this theory often fail to account for the metallurgical expertise required to create such an object.23

Whoever made the plates would have needed to be competent in hammering, gilding, annealing, smelting, and engraving metal records.24 They would have needed familiarity with the properties of gold, copper, and perhaps silver.25 They would have needed a good deal of time to create the object, presumably in secret. And, most unlikely of all, they would have needed a large amount of gold! Yet, the historical record suggests that neither Joseph Smith nor any of his associates would have had the competence or the materials to pull off such a scheme.26

The reality of the golden plates is a key element in the story of the Restoration. If Joseph Smith never possessed them, then the foundation of Mormonism is built upon a hoax.27 Yet if he actually did possess an ancient record, then his claims of translating it through divine power are significantly supported. It seems that for this very reason, the Lord has provided profound physical and spiritual evidences for the existence of the plates.28 According to Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, both types of evidence are important because “truly rock-ribbed faith and uncompromised conviction comes with its most complete power when it engages our head as well as our heart.”29

The plates were more than just a finely-crafted artifact. They contained the most important spiritual messages from an ancient civilization, recorded and preserved by prophets over the course of a thousand years. For this reason, their contents are far more valuable than the precious metals from which they were created.30 Yet the evidence for their tangible reality helps confirm the historical reality of the ancient prophets who created them, as well as the true doctrines and miraculous experiences which they recorded.32

In Elder Holland’s view, “the reality of those plates, the substance of them if you will, and the evidence that comes to us from them in the form of the Book of Mormon is at the heart, at the very center, of the hope and testimony and conviction of this work.”32 The plates meaningfully represent the reality of Jesus Christ and the truth of His restored gospel.32 They contain His words and to accept them is to accept Him.34

• 1. These witnesses include Joseph Smith, Jr., the Three and Eight Witnesses, and a number of informal witnesses, including Emma Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, William Smith, Katherine Smith, Mary Whitmer, Josiah Stowell, Joseph Knight, Sr., Alva Beaman, and Martin Harris’s wife and daughter. For the strength of these combined witnesses, see Neal Rappleye, “‘Idle and Slothful Strange Stories’: Book of Mormon Origins and the Historical Record,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 20 (2016): 21–37; Daniel C. Peterson, “Tangible Restoration: The Witnesses and What They Experienced,” FairMormon presentation, 2006, online at fairmormon.org. See also, Book of Mormon Central, “Evidences of the Book of Mormon: Plates,” online at bookofmormoncentral.org.
• 2. Several individuals claimed to have seen the stone box where the plates were buried. See Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2015), 9–10.
• 3. Although we don’t know how many of the sacred Nephite relics were stored in this stone box, we know for certain that it at least held the breastplate and the Nephite interpreters. For a discussion of these artifacts, see Don Bradley, “Piercing the Veil: Temple Worship in the Lost 116 Pages,” FairMormon presentation, 2012, online at fairmormon.org.
• 4. See John A. Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books: “Out of Darkness Unto Light” (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000).
• 5. See Exodus 25:19–20; cf. Genesis 3:24; Moses 4:31; Alma 42:2.
• 6. See Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 33–35, 119–121, 161; Bradley, “Piercing the Veil,” online at fairmormon.org.
• 7. See Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books; William J. Hamblin, “Metal Plates and the Book of Mormon,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 20–22; William J. Adams, Jr., “Notes and Communications: Lehi's Jerusalem and Writing on Metal Plates,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 1 (1994): 204–204; H. Curtis Wright, “Ancient Burials of Metal Documents in Stone Boxes,” in By Study and Also By Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, Volume 2, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 273–334; Paul R. Cheesman, Ancient Writing on Metal Plates: Archaeological Findings Support Mormon Claims (Bountiful, UT: Horizon, 1985); Paul R. Cheesman, “Ancient Writing on Metal Plates,” Ensign, October 1979, online at lds.org; H. Curtis Wright, “Metallic Documents of Antiquity,” BYU Studies Quarterly 10, no. 4 (1970): 457–477; Daniel Johnson, “Metals and Gold Plates in Mesoamerica,” BMAF presentation, 2010, online at bmaf.org; William J. Hamblin, “Sacred Writing on Metal Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean,” FARMS Review 19, no. 1 (2007): 37–54.
• 8. Kirk B. Henrichsen, “How Witnesses Described the ‘Gold Plates’,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10, no. 1 (2001): 18–19.
• 9. In this context, “doubled” simply means duplicated. Often a copy of a document was sealed in some manner while the other copy was accessible to anyone wanting to review its contents. The two copies were typically bound or joined together in some way. The sealed document helped authenticate the accessible one if a question of its legitimacy ever arose.
• 10. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Would a Book Be Sealed? (2 Nephi 27:10),” KnoWhy 53 (March 14, 2016); John W. Welch, “Doubled, Sealed, Witnessed Documents: From the Ancient World to the Book of Mormon,” in Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, ed. Davis Bitton (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 391–444; John W. Welch and Kelsey D. Lambert, “Two Ancient Roman Plates,” BYU Studies 45, no. 2 (2006): 55–76.
• 11. Henrichsen, “How Witnesses Described the ‘Gold Plates’,” 19.
• 12. Orson Pratt remarked, “Through the back of the plates were three rings, which held them together, and through which a rod might easily be passed, serving as a greater convenience for carrying them.” Henrichsen, “How Witnesses Described the ‘Gold Plates’,” 19.
• 13. See Warren P. Aston, “The Rings That Bound the Gold Plates Together,” Insights 26, no 3. (2006): 3–4; Jeff Lindsay, “A ‘D’ for Plausibility of the Gold Plates: The Book of Mormon in an Interesting Bind,” online at mormanity.blogspot.com. Apparently, whoever produced the plates would have needed competent metallurgical skills to produce the rings. Those who have attempted to replicate the plates discovered that the holes in each sheet of metal would have needed to be “an elongated shape larger than the rings” themselves and also that they “cannot be too close to the edges or they tear out.” “A Model of the Plates,” made by Steven Pratt, New Era, July 2007, online at lds.org
• 14. See John A. Tvedtnes, “Etruscan Gold Book from 600 B.C. Discovered,” Insights 23, no. 167 (2003): 1, 6; “Out of the Dust,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 2 (2006): 65.
• 15. Henrichsen, “How Witnesses Described the ‘Gold Plates’,” 16–21; Robert F. Smith, “The ‘Golden’ Plates” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992), 275–277.
• 16. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Kind of Ore did Nephi Use to Make the Plates? (1 Nephi 19:1),” KnoWhy 22 (January 29, 2016); Jerry D. Grover, Jr., Ziff, Magic Goggles, and Golden Plates: The Etymology of Zyf and a Metallurgical Analysis of the Book of Mormon Plates (Provo, UT: Grover Publishing, 2015); “Of What Material Were the Plates?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10, no. 1 (2001): 21; Read H. Putnam, “Were the Golden Plates made of Tumbaga?” Improvement Era 69, no. 9 (1966): 788–789, 828–831.
• 17. See Bruce E. Dale, “How Big A Book? Estimating the Total Surface Area of the Book of Mormon Plates,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25 (2017): 261–268; Janne M. Sjodahl, “The Book of Mormon Plates,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10, no. 1 (2001): 22–24, 79; John Gee, “Epigraphic Considerations on Janne Sjodahl’s Experiment with Nephite Writing,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10, no. 1 (2001): 25, 79.
• 18. Witnesses said that the engravings were on both sides of each plate. See Henrichsen, “How Witnesses Described the ‘Gold Plates’,” 20–21.
• 19. See Book of Mormon Central, “Did Ancient Israelites Write in Egyptian? (1 Nephi 1:2),” KnoWhy 4 (January 5, 2016).
• 20. For the scholarly research supporting this claim, see Brian D. Stubbs, Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan (Provo, UT: Grover Publications, 2015). The results of this study were adapted for a more general audience in Brian D. Stubbs, Changes in Languages: From Nephi to Now (Blanding, UT: Four Corners Digital Design, 2016). For reviews of Stubbs’ research by competent linguists, see John S. Robertson, “Exploring Egyptian and Uto-Aztecan Languages,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25 (2017): 103–116; Dirk Elzinga, Review of Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan, BYU Studies Quarterly, 55, no 4 (2016): 172–176. See also, Jeff Lindsay, “The Next Big Thing in LDS Apologetics: Strong Semitic and Egyptian Elements in Uto-Aztecan Languages,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 26 (2017): 227–267.
• 21. John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2013), 701.
• 22. Rappleye, “‘Idle and Slothful Strange Stories’,” 35.
• 23. See Shanna Butler, “A Golden Opportunity,” New Era (February 2006): 34–37; “A Model of the Plates,” made by Steven Pratt, online at lds.org.
• 24. See Read H. Putnam, “Were the Golden Plates made of Tumbaga?” The Improvement Era 69, no. 9 (1966): 788.
• 25. Silver was sometimes, although not always, added to gold and copper in the tumbaga alloy. See Putnam, “Were the Golden Plates made of Tumbaga?” 789. Also, Martin Harris remarked that the rings which bound the plates were made of silver. See Henrichsen, “How Witnesses Described the ‘Gold Plates’,” 19.
• 26. See William J. Hamblin, “An Apologist for the Critics: Brent Lee Metcalfe’s Assumptions and Methodologies,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6, no. 1 (1994): 462–470; Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor’s Introduction: ‘In the Hope That Something Will Stick’: Changing Explanations for the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): xxviii; Peterson, “Tangible Restoration,” 32–33; Rappleye, “‘Idle and Slothful Strange Stories’,” 33–34.
• 27. See Tad R. Callister, “The Book of Mormon—a Book from God,” Ensign, November 2011, online at lds.org: “Joseph Smith declared that an angel of God directed him to gold plates, which contained the writings of prophets in ancient America, and that he translated those plates by divine powers. If that story is true, then the Book of Mormon is holy scripture, just as it professes to be; if not, it is a sophisticated but, nonetheless, diabolical hoax.”
• 28. The Three Witnesses’ experienced a supernatural, although completely discernable and describable experience with the plates and other Nephite relics. In vision, they saw the angel who first delivered them into Joseph Smith’s possession. The angel presented the artifacts before their eyes. And they heard a voice from heaven confirming the truthfulness of the translation of the plates. In contrast, the experience of the Eight Witnesses was strictly natural. Under completely ordinary circumstances, they were each allowed to touch and heft the plates for themselves. Literary scholar Terryl Givens has explained, “Taken together, the two experiences seemed calculated to provide an evidentiary spectrum, satisfying a range of criteria for belief.” Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 40.
• 29. See Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Greatness of the Evidence,” Chiasmus Jubilee, August 16, 2017, online at bookofmormoncentral.org. For a transcript of this talk, see “Elder Holland Speaks at Book of Mormon Chiasmus Conference,” at mormonnewsroom.org.
• 30. See Mormon 8:14.
• 32.a.b.c. See Paul Y. Hoskisson, ed., Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001); Stephen O. Smoot, “The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon,” at The Interpreter Foundation (blog), October 20, 2013, online at mormoninterpreter.com.
• 34. See Ether 4:8–11; Doctrine and Covenants 5:4–20.