The Know

Among latter-day saints, Enoch is a beloved ancient prophet about whom much is known, thanks to the Pearl of Great Price.1 Ancient Jews and Christians were also fascinated by Enoch, and attributed some of their writings to him.2 One of these works, known as the Slavonic Apocalypse of Enoch or 2 Enoch, was discovered near the end of the 19^th century in Russia, written in a language called Slavonic,3 with a Coptic (Egyptian) version being discovered more recently.4

Much of it was probably originally written in a Semitic language like Hebrew, translated into Greek, and then translated again into Slavonic and Coptic.5

It was likely written by a Jewish group before the time of Christ and seems to quote earlier material. Intriguingly, some of the material it appears to be quoting from is similar to material that is also used in the Book of Mormon.

One of the best examples of material like this is found in 2 Enoch 10 when two men showed Enoch what Hell is like. Enoch described it as a place of “darkness and gloom” with “a river of fire that comes out over the whole place.”6The word translated as “gloom” can also be translated as “fog” or “mist.”7 So, in this text, heavenly beings showed Enoch both a mist of darkness and a flaming river in connection to hell.

In 1 Nephi 12:16–17, an angel showed Nephi the same things. Nephi saw “the fountain of filthy water” that his father saw, “yea, even the river of which he spake; and the depths thereof are the depths of hell.” 1 Nephi 15:30 states that this river was “like unto the brightness of a flaming fire.8 Immediately after showing Nephi the fountain of filthy water, the angel showed him “the mists of darkness” (1 Nephi 12:17). Thus, mists of darkness and a flaming river are connected together in a description of hell, just as in 2 Enoch.

The close similarities between these accounts suggest a few things. The first is that Lehi and Nephi may have written about their visions in the same way that other ancient authors did, such as the author of 2 Enoch. However, it also suggests the possibility that Nephi alluded to some material from the plates of brass to help describe his father’s account of the vision, and that this same material was also alluded to later in 2 Enoch.9

The Why

When 1 Nephi 12 and 2 Enoch 10 are read together, they help to explain how we can avoid the mists of darkness that would lead us into the power of Satan, symbolized by the river of fire. In 2 Enoch 10, the angels tell Enoch that he must avoid certain sins in order to stay out of the place of torment they have shown him.10 In a list reminiscent of 2 Nephi 9:30–38, the angels tell Enoch to avoid immorality, stealing, lying, envy, spreading rumors, getting angry, murder, abusing the poor, and idolatry.11

It may have been commandments like this that Nephi had in mind when he told his brothers that the iron rod “was the word of God; and whoso would hearken unto the word of God, and would hold fast unto it, they would never perish; neither could the temptations and the fiery darts of the adversary overpower them unto blindness, to lead them away to destruction” (1 Nephi 15:24).12 If we will hearken to the commandments in the list contained in 2 Enoch, among other things, we will be more readily able to avoid the mists of darkness that might lead us astray in life.

Susan Easton Black put it this way: “The mist of darkness is the temptations of Satan. These temptations include sin, vice, prideful exaltation of the human mind, and harmful pleasures.”13 Ultimately, for all of us, “These satanic devices blur the perspective ability of the traveler. They dull his sense of human dignity, erode integrity, and obscure the vision of the rod.”14 If we will hearken to what the scriptures teach us, and make the teachings of the scriptures a part of our daily lives, we can navigate the mists of darkness that surround us and return to the presence of God. 

Further Reading

• 1. For the classic treatment on Enoch in LDS scripture, see Hugh Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 2 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988).
• 2. See F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) ENOCH (Late First Century A.D.): A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983), 1:91.
• 3. See Andersen, “2 ENOCH,” 1:92.
• 4. See Joost L. Hagen, “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia,” in New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only, ed. Andrei Orlov, Gabriele Boccaccini, and Jason Zurawski (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 5–34. 
• 5. See Andersen, “2 ENOCH,” 1:94.
• 6.Daniel 7:10 discusses a river of fire, but not in connection to a mist of darkness, as one sees here. Andersen, “2 ENOCH,” 1:118–119.
• 7. See Nevill Forbes and R. H. Charles, “2 Enoch, or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles, 2 vols. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1913), 2:435.
• 8. Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1:264.
• 9. For another example of how references to scripture were used when describing this dream, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Lehi Quote from a Psalm of Repentance in His Dream? (1 Nephi 8:8),” KnoWhy 325 (June 12, 2017).
• 10. Andersen, “2 ENOCH,” 1:118–119.
• 11. Andersen, “2 ENOCH,” 1:118–119.
• 12. See Book of Mormon Central, “What are the ‘Fiery Darts of the Adversary’ Spoken of by Nephi? (1 Nephi 15:24),” KnoWhy 18 (January 25, 2016).
• 13. Susan Easton Black, “‘Behold, I Have Dreamed a Dream’,” in First Nephi, The Doctrinal Foundation, Book of Mormon Symposium Series, Volume 2, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1988), 119.
• 14. Black, “‘Behold, I Have Dreamed a Dream’,” 119.

The Know

Some may not realize that, aside from viewing the plates, the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon beheld several other Nephite artifacts, including the “miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea” (Doctrine and Covenants 17:1).1 These “directors” apparently refer to the “spindles” which “pointed the way” that Lehi’s family should travel through the wilderness (1 Nephi 16:10).2 According to the prophet Alma, this was “the thing which our fathers call a ball, or director—or our fathers called it Liahona,3 which is, being interpreted, a compass; and the Lord prepared it” (Alma 37:38).4

Why was it important for the Three Witnesses to visually witness this object? One likely possibility is that it gave credence to the Lehite exodus story and the founding of the Nephite nation. Don Bradley has proposed that just as the Ark of the Covenant held sacred religious artifacts related to the founding of the Israelite nation, the Nephites had their own national treasures—including the Liahona—which they held in their own sacred repository.5

The Ark of the Covenant was known to contain a golden pot of manna, the rod of Aaron which budded, and the stone tablets from Mt. Sinai (Hebrews 9:4).6 Remarkably, the Liahona has parallels to each of these items. The strongest resemblance is between the Liahona and the manna. Both were discovered in the morning, both were discovered upon the ground, both were round in appearance,7 and both evoked wonder or astonishment.

It is also significant that both items helped wandering travelers to avoid starvation in the wilderness. The manna itself was food, while the Liahona helped Lehi’s family get food by directing them to fertile areas and wild game (1 Nephi 16:16, 30–31).8 It’s even likely that Nephi intentionally crafted his story in a way that would help readers make a connection between the manna and the Liahona. In each situation, the miraculous obtaining of food came immediately after members of the group murmured against the Lord.9 And in each case, the murmuring was related to hunger and the desire to return back to their respective lands.10

In the Bible, we learn that Aaron’s rod, among other staffs, was used as an appropriate means of determining God’s will (Numbers 17:1–11). The Liahona’s “spindles” or “directors” seemed to similarly function as a means by which the Lord could communicate with His people.11 In both circumstances, the objects were rod-like in shape and had writing upon them.12 Using sticks or arrows for divination practices was well known in many ancient societies, and God manifested his will in this manner in a number of Bible stories.13

Finally, just as the Lord permanently inscribed the Ten Commandments onto the stone tablets with His own finger (Deuteronomy 9:10), He also caused writing to miraculously appear upon the Liahona’s “pointers” (1 Nephi 16:26–29). Even though the words found on the Liahona changed from “time to time” (v. 29), it’s clear that both objects conveyed the specific words of the Lord. Alma, when giving counsel to his son Helaman, declared that “it is as easy to give heed to the word of Christ, which will point to you a straight course to eternal bliss, as it was for our fathers to give heed to this compass, which would point unto them a straight course to the promised land” (Alma 37:44).14

The Why

Don Bradley has noted that the “Jerusalem temple was, in one sense, a house for the Ark of the Covenant.” With this in mind, he asked, “How could the Nephites keep the Law of Moses without access to the Ark of the Covenant? … Something, presumably something remarkable, would have to sit in the Ark’s place” in their own temple.5 It is not certain exactly where the Nephite relics were housed or how they were understood by their people. But the correlations between their treasured artifacts and those housed in the Israelite Ark of the Covenant are intriguing.16

Recognizing that the Liahona has parallels to each of the sacred items in the Israelite Ark helps explain why it was included among the sacred objects shown to the Three Witnesses.17 This divine artifact was revered among Nephite prophets and was kept and preserved as one of their most sacred national treasures.18 Its very existence helps establish the reality of the Lehite exodus from Jerusalem. And it meaningfully represents the Lord’s hand in leading a branch of Israel to a land of promise in the New World.

In explaining the reason for presenting the Nephite artifacts to the witnesses, the Lord declared, “And this you shall do that … I may bring about my righteous purposes unto the children of men in this work” (Doctrine and Covenants 17:4). The Liahona, in particular, has become a treasured symbol in our own gospel dispensation. It has been adopted as the name of one of the official LDS church magazines. And numerous conference talks have drawn from its symbolic lessons about giving heed to divine revelation.19 More than ever before, the historical reality and spiritual power of this divinely crafted object is helping strengthen testimonies and further the Lord’s work and purposes. 

• 1. David Whitmer reported on several occasions that the Three Witnesses beheld this object with the other Nephite artifacts, just as was promised in Doctrine and Covenants 17:1–2. See History, circa June 1839–circa 1841 [Draft 2], p. 25, footnote 79, accessed December 1, 2017, online at josephsmithpapers.org.
• 2. For discussions of how the Liahona may have functioned, see Robert L. Bunker, “The Design of the Liahona and the Purpose of the Second Spindle,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 2 (1994): 1–11; Robert F. Smith, “Lodestone and the Liahona,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), 44–46; Alan Miner, The Liahona: Miracles by Small Means (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, Inc., 2013).
• 3. For encyclopedic treatments of the Liahona, see Douglas Kent Ludlow, “Liahona,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 2:829–830; Neal Elwood Lambert, “Liahona,” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Provo, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 519–520.
• 4. For a discussion of the etymology of Liahona, see “Liahona,” in Book of Mormon Onomasticon, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson, online at onoma.lib.byu.edu; Jonathan Curci, “Liahona: ‘The Direction of the Lord’: An Etymological Explanation,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16, no. 2 (2007): 60–67, 97–98.
• 5.a.b. See Don Bradley, “Piercing the Veil: Temple Worship in the Lost 116 Pages,” FairMormon presentation, 2012, online at fairmormon.org. See also, Gordon C. Thomasson, “Mosiah: The Complex Symbolism and Symbolic Complex of Kingship in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2, no. 1 (1993): 28–32.
• 6. It’s unclear exactly how this verse should be reconciled with 1 Kings 8:9, which declares that nothing was in the Ark except for the stone tablets. It’s possible that by Solomon’s time, Aaron’s rod and the jar of manna had been removed. It’s also possible that the rod and the manna were never strictly in the Ark, but were placed somewhere close by. There may even have been opposing traditions about what was contained in the Ark. In any case, other scriptures make it clear that the rod and the manna were definitely associated with the stone tablets and their resting place inside the holy of holies (Exodus 16:33–34; Numbers 17:10).
• 7. Although “small round thing” in the KJV is an inaccurate translation from the Hebrew, it happens to be an accurate description, for we are also told that the manna looked like coriander seeds (Exodus 16:31), which are known for their distinctive round shape. For instance, the ancient Jewish text Yoma 75a, explained, “The manna … is not compared to coriander seed except for its roundness.”
• 8. See Bradley, “Piercing the Veil,” online at fairmormon.org.
• 9. For a discussion of murmuring and the Liahona, see Hugh W. Nibley, “The Liahona and Murmurings in the Wilderness,” in Teachings of the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1993), 1:208–224.
• 10. See Exodus 16:3, 11–15; 1 Nephi 16:18–20, 35, 39. See also, Alan Goff, “Mourning, Consolation, and Repentance at Nahom,” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon: Insights You May Have Missed Before, ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 92–99.
• 11. See Bradley, “Piercing the Veil,” online at fairmormon.org.
• 12. See Numbers 17:2–3; 1 Nephi 16:29.
• 13. See Hugh Nibley, “The Liahona’s Cousins,” Improvement Era, February 1961, 87–89, 104–110; Hugh Nibley, “The Arrow, the Hunter, and the State,” in The Ancient State, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 10 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 1–32. For a different treatment of divination practices in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, see Amanda Colleen Brown, “Out of the Dust: An Examination of Necromancy as a Literary Construct in the Book of Mormon,” Studia Antiqua 14, no. 2 (2016): 27–37.
• 14. Emphasis added. See also, W. Rolfe Kerr, “The Words of Christ—Our Spiritual Liahona,” Ensign, May 2004, online at lds.org.
• 16. For correlations between the sword of Laban, Urim and Thummim, breastplate, and the plates themselves, see Bradley, “Piercing the Veil,” online at fairmormon.org.
• 17. In both ancient and modern times, witnesses have been used to help establish the truth of important facts in legal proceedings. Israelite law, for example, establishes the need for two or three witnesses in trial situations (Deuteronomy 19:15). For more on the need for witnesses, see 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.
• 18. For instance, see Mosiah 1:16; Alma 37:38–46.
• 19. One helpful resource for identifying how the Liahona has been discussed in general conference talks is the LDS Scripture Citation Index found at scriptures.byu.edu. See also, Robert E. Wells, “The Liahona Triad” in A Book of Mormon Treasury: Gospel Insights from General Authorities and Religious Educators (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2003), 80–96.

The Know

The biblical prophet Noah is famous for building an ark and gathering “every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort ... into the ark, to keep them alive” during the flood (Genesis 6:19). King Noah in the Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is famous for sentencing Abinadi to death (Mosiah 17:12). Although these two characters are almost as different from each other as it is possible to be, one thing they have in common is that the people who wrote about them described them using puns based on their names. Biblical scholar Matthew Bowen has noted that the Book of Mormon inverts the puns on Noah’s name found in Genesis when punning on King Noah’s name.1 It does this to emphasize how catastrophic King Noah’s reign had been for his people.2

In Hebrew, the name Noah was associated with “[divine] rest.”3 Bowen found that the story of Noah in Genesis repeatedly connects the name nōaḥ with the word nwḥ (to “rest”) and the similar word nḥm (to “regret” or “be sorry”; “console oneself,” or “comfort” someone).4Genesis 5:29, for example, states, “And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us.”5Genesis 6:6 similarly states that “it repented the Lord that he had made” humanity.6

Similarly, “the ark rested” when it finally landed (Genesis 8:4) and the dove that Noah sent to look for land “found no rest” (v. 9).7 One finds similar puns in the Book of Moses as well.8

Bowen has noted that the Book of Mormon uses the same wordplays on the name Noah that the bible does.9 However, it uses them to caricature King Noah and his priests, depicting them as the opposite of the biblical Noah.10 Bowen stated that, “Far from ‘comforting’ his people or giving them ‘rest,’ as his father Zeniff had surely hoped (cf. Mosiah 10:22), King Noah immediately began to ‘burden’ his people with sin and taxes” (see Mosiah 11:1‒4).11

In the Book of Mormon, King Noah and his priests were “supported in their laziness ... by the taxes which king Noah had put upon his people; thus did the people labor exceedingly to support iniquity” (Mosiah 11:6; cf. Mosiah 29:35).12 This verse reminds the reader that in the Hebrew Bible, Noah brought comfort from labor and toil, while King Noah in the Book of Mormon caused his people to toil to support evil.13 Bowen observed that the pairing of the name Noah (“rest”) with the image of the people laboring to support evil is a mocking pun on Noah’s name.14 He further stated, “Rather than ‘comfort[ing]’ his people ‘concerning the work and toil of [their] hands’ (Genesis 5:29; Moses 8:9), Noah had given them more work and caused them to sin.”15

Even the furniture Noah made for the high priests acts as a pun on his name: “and he caused a breastwork to be built before them, that they might rest their bodies and their arms upon while they should speak lying and vain words to his people” (Mosiah 11:11).16 Unfortunately, instead of easing his people’s burdens, the only rest King Noah provided was for his priests, so they could be comfortable while speaking vain words to the masses.17

The Why

A final point helps to explain why the Book of Mormon puns so often on King Noah’s name. When speaking to Noah’s priests, Abinadi quoted Isaiah saying, “break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem” (Mosiah 15:30).18 The word for comforted in Isaiah’s quoted passage is one of the words associated with the name Noah in Genesis.19 Bowen has noted that in contrast to Noah, who wasn’t doing anything to comfort his people, “Abinadi’s testimony—testimony that Alma remembered and preserved—was that the Lord had comforted and would comfort and redeem Israel, both temporally and spiritually.”20

The Book of Mormon reminds us that, ultimately, Christ is the one who comforts us and gives us rest. Bowen put it well, “The Lord’s promise regarding the earth’s eventual rest that would come because of and through Noah’s posterity—specifically Jesus Christ, ... should still ‘comfort’ all of us.”21 The Book of Mormon confirms the reality of Christ’s words, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

As the people of King Noah learned though sad experience, rest and comfort are sometimes hard to find.22 However, if we remember that real rest comes from Christ, not from worldly sources or institutions, we can experience the comfort and peace that only He can bring.

• 1. Matthew L. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’: An Onomastic Tale of Two Noahs,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23 (2017): 263.
• 2. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 263.
• 3. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 264. See also Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2001), 685–689, who note that the name Noah belongs to “a personage from pre-Israelite tradition whose name sounded to Israelite ears like the verb [nuaḥ].”
• 4. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 264.
• 5. Emphasis added.
• 6. Emphasis added. The verse could also be rendered “the Lord regretted.”
• 7. Emphasis added.
• 8. For an extensive treatment of this topic, see Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 265–279. See also Terrence L. Szink, “The Vision of Enoch: Structure of a Masterpiece,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 17, no. 1–2 (2008): 13‒14, 18.
• 9. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 279.
• 10. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 279.
• 11. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 279–280.
• 12. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 280.
• 13. See Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 280.
• 14. See Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 280–281.
• 15. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 281–282.
• 16. Emphasis added.
• 17. See Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 282.
• 18. For an explanation of how King Noah’s people may have understood this verse, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Would Noah's Priests Quiz Abinadi on Isaiah? (Mosiah 12:20–21),” KnoWhy 89 (April 29, 2016).
• 19. See Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 287–288.
• 20. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 287–288.
• 21. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’,” 296.
• 22. For an analysis of how King Noah failed in this area, see Lee L. Donaldson, “Benjamin and Noah: The Principle of Dominion,” in Mosiah, Salvation Only through Christ, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr., The Book of Mormon Symposium Series, Volume 5 (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1991), 49–58.

The Know

For some, the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon has seemed too bizarre and fanciful to be believable. This was especially true at the time of its publication in 1830. People were suspicious of the claim that an ancient book written on golden plates had been revealed to a young farmer. It has taken nearly two centuries of archeological discoveries to fully demonstrate that the details of the buried Nephite record fit in exceptionally well with hidden books from all over the ancient world.

Hidden Records

Many passages in the Book of Mormon speak of it and other records being hidden up, often in the earth, in order to come forth to the world at a later time.1 According to John A. Tvedtnes, “The concept of hiding books for future generations to discover is [also] evident in a large number of early documents from the ancient Near East, whence came the peoples of the Book of Mormon.”2 The reports and legends contained in these documents stretch back to Adam himself.

When two rabbis, upon reportedly discovering a record hidden by Adam, said that a divine power stopped them from fully reading it,3 another rabbi explained that God “does not desire that so much should be revealed to the world, but when the days of the Messiah will be near at hand … it will be revealed to all, as it is written.”4 In “an early Jewish text … Moses instructed Joshua on how to preserve the books (parchments) he was leaving in his charge … and [to] deposit them in earthen jars until the day of recompense.”5 The Dead Sea Scrolls (some of which were found in earthen jars) the Nag Hammadi texts, and a host of other discovered documents confirm that many ancient records really were preserved for future generations.6

Metallic Plates, Stone Boxes, and Sealed Documents

The idea that the Book of Mormon was engraved onto golden plates and buried in a stone box, along with other sacred relics, was ridiculed by some people in the 19th century.8 Yet today, according to H. Curtis Wright, “literally thousands of metal documents” have been discovered from “all over the ancient world.”8

These include a variety of documents made from gold and gold alloys, some of which are from ancient America.9 The discovery of ancient hidden relics, many of them also made from precious materials, is also significant.10

An ancient Egyptian temple text “describes how to inscribe a text on a gold or silver lamella (plate) and place it ‘in a clean box.’”11 That such boxes were actually used to preserve documents and sacred relics is now widely attested throughout the ancient world.12 For instance, in 1854, “six small inscribed plates (gold, silver, bronze, tin, and lead, with one alabaster) were found in a stone box buried beneath [Sargon II’s] palace foundation.”13 In a 1933 excavation at “Persepolis, two pairs of [inscribed] plates (one silver and one gold in each pair) were found in stone boxes placed in the foundation corners of the palace.”14 And “in 1965 a set of nineteen inscribed gold plates was found in a bronze box.”15

Another seeming peculiarity of the Book of Mormon is that a portion of its plates were sealed.16 Legal scholar John W. Welch has pointed out that a number of ancient documents were also preserved in two parts—one part sealed and the other open—with both parts bound together in some fashion.17 These two-part documents were often legal in nature, validated by witnesses, and intentionally preserved for safe-keeping. These features have remarkable correspondences with the Book of Mormon.18

Mountains, Caves, and Angels

Mountains often symbolize temples or holy sanctuaries.19 Likely in relation with this theme, the Book of Mormon reports that several sacred revelations—including the Book of Mormon itself—were received, recorded, or buried in association with mountains or hills.20 Historical accounts indicate that many Nephite records were preserved in a hillside cave,21 and the Book of Mormon itself emphasizes that it would be “brought out of the earth” (Mormon 8:16).22 Joseph Smith said that an angel named Moroni had responsibility for the plates and led him to their buried location on a hill near his family’s farm (Joseph Smith—History 1:21–54).

Many ancient documents were also found or reportedly hidden in mountains or caves. For instance, the The Cologne Mani Codex indicates that “an angel brought Enosh to a mountain and instructed him to write on bronze tablets and hide his record.” In Russia, “twelve small gold plates” were reportedly found “in a hill.”23 In the Masonic tradition, the prophet Enoch “inscribed his revelation on a gold plate that he concealed in a temple he constructed inside a mountain.”24 And in a number of ancient texts, buried or hidden records or relics were guarded by an angel or some sort of divine power.25

The large set of documents collectively referred to as the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in caves surrounding the Dead Sea. In ancient Mesoamerica, caves held deep mythological symbolism and were often considered to be sacred.26 In 2005, Holley Moyes and James Brady noted that “only in the last decade have caves been widely recognized as ritual spaces by Mesoamerican archaeologists. Since caves in Mesoamerica were used almost exclusively for ritual, they provide an unrivaled context for studying pre-Columbian religion.”27 The Book of Mormon’s emphasis on caves and sacred records coming forth out of the earth fits right in with these findings.28

The Why

In light of post-1830 discoveries from all over the world, and especially from the Middle East, it can be seen that the Book of Mormon is at home in the ancient world. Doubled and witnessed legal documents, engraved golden plates, sealed records, stone boxes, sacred hillside repositories, caches of precious relics—all of these things are abundantly attested in antiquity, both archeologically and textually.

Not only can such discoveries strengthen our faith in the Book of Mormon, but they can also help us better understand and appreciate it. For instance, in our day it takes only a few moments to digitally upload or download what would have been a virtual wagonload of documents in the ancient world! Recognizing that Nephite prophets had to find precious ore, forge their own plates, carefully engrave each character, haul the heavy plates to safe locations, and create durable containers to protect them should increase our gratitude for the sacred writings they recorded and preserved.

The Book of Mormon is a testament to the faith and love of the Nephite prophets. The prophet Enos said he prayed that the Lord “would preserve a record of my people, the Nephites … that it might be brought forth at some future day” (Enos 1:13). In response, the Lord promised to fulfill this request in His “own due time” (v. 16). He also revealed to Enos that “Thy fathers have also required of me this thing; and it shall be done unto them according to their faith; for their faith was like unto thine” (v. 18).

These verses show that the Book of Mormon exists today because ancient prophets were concerned for future generations whom they would never meet in mortality. They truly cared about us. In turn, we ought to deeply care about them. Only when we recognize and accept the Book of Mormon as an ancient record can we gain the fullest understanding and appreciation for its sacred messages and the prophets who wrote them. 

• 1. See 1 Nephi 20:6; 2 Nephi 27:12, 22, 26–27; 4 Nephi 1:48–49; Mormon 1:2; 4:23; 5:8, 12; 6:6; 8:4; Ether 4:3, 13, 15; 15:11, 33. See also, Book of Mormon Central, “What Were the ‘Other Records’ Nephi Saw in Vision? (1 Nephi 13:39),” KnoWhy 376 (October 26, 2017).
• 2. John A. Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books: Out of Darkness Unto Light (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 11.
• 3. Joseph initially wasn’t able to obtain the gold plates because his heart was not right before the Lord. After locating the record, he “tried three times to take them out of the box, but suffered progressively stronger shocks that deprived him of much of his natural strength, until he exclaimed in frustration, ‘Why can I not obtain this book?’” H. Donl Peterson, “Moroni—,” Ensign, January 1992, online at lds.org. It took four years before he was prepared to receive them. See Joseph Smith—History 1:53.
• 4. Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 137.
• 5. Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 20.
• 6. Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 21, 167–174.
• 8.a.b. See 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. Although some examples of metal plates had been discovered by Joseph Smith’s day, it’s likely that knowledge of these discoveries was mainly held by educated scholars and not the general public. 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.
• 9. See William J. Hamblin, “Sacred Writing on Metal Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean,” FARMS Review 19, no. 1 (2007): 37–54; 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; Franklin S. Harris Jr., The Book of Mormon: Message and Evidences (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret News Press, 1953), 95–105; John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, “One Small Step,” FARMS Review 15, no. 1 (2003): 160–169; H. Curtis Wright, Modern Presentism and Ancient Metallic Epigraphy (Salt Lake City, UT: Wings of Fire Press, 2006).
• 10. See Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 109–126. The reason additional relics are relevant is because the plates were preserved along with the Nephite interpreters and breastplate. And when the Three Witnesses were granted a view of the plates, they also beheld other Nephite relics, including the breastplate, interpreters, liahona, and sword of Laban (see Doctrine and Covenants 17:1).
• 11. Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 36.
• 12. See Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 31–58.
• 13. Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 43.
• 14. Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 44.
• 15. Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 36.
• 16. See Title Page; 2 Nephi 26:17; 27:7–21; 30:3; Ether 3:27; 4:5; 5:1; Moroni 10:2.
• 17. See 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.
• 18. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Would a Book Be Sealed? (2 Nephi 27:10),” KnoWhy 53 (March 14, 2016).
• 19. See 2 Nephi 12:2–3; cf. Isaiah 2:2–3.
• 20. See 1 Nephi 11:1; 1 Nephi 18:3; 2 Nephi 4:25; Mormon 1:3; Mormon 4:23; Mormon 6:6; Ether 4:1; Ether 15:11.
• 21. A number of individuals claimed that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery visited a cave that was filled with Nephite records and artifacts. However, it is difficult to tell, from these reports, whether the experience was in vision or whether they visited the cave in person. See Cameron J. Packer, “Cumorah’s Cave,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 13, no. 1–2 (2004): 50–57, 170–71.
• 22. Emphasis added.
• 23. Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 129.
• 24. Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 129.
• 25. Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 75–108.
• 26. 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.
• 27. Holley Moyes and James E. Brady, “The Heart of Creation, the Heart of Darkness: Sacred Caves in Mesoamerica,” Expedition 47, no. 3 (2005): 31. See also Holley Moyes, ed., Sacred Darkness: A Global Perspective on the Ritual Use of Caves (Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado, 2012).
• 28. Most notably, the Book of Mormon emphasizes that “great and marvelous were the prophecies of Ether” who “dwelt in the cavity of a rock [as] he made the remainder of this record” (Ether 13:13–14).

The Know

In the book of Genesis, God made a covenant with Abraham. As part of this covenant, God promised to give him the land of Canaan (Genesis 17:8). He promised that his posterity would be as numerous as the stars in the sky (Genesis 15:5), and He promised that all the families of the earth would be blessed through him (Genesis 12:3).

These verses in Genesis seem to imply that circumcision is the main thing people have to do to hold up their end of the Abrahamic covenant (see Genesis 17:10).1 The Book of Mormon, however, gives more information about how everyone can receive the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.2

God told Abraham, “I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God” (Genesis 17:8).3 Yet when Christ visited the Nephites, He showed that this covenant is actually conditional on the obedience of Abraham’s seed.4 After mentioning the Abrahamic covenant, He promised that when the house of Israel, “shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name ... Then will the Father gather them together again, and give unto them Jerusalem for the land of their inheritance” (3 Nephi 20:31, 33).

Christ made it clear that believing in and praying to the Lord was one thing the people would have to do to inherit the blessings of the covenant. 5 However, Christ was drawing on scriptures about Abraham as the precedent for this statement. Genesis 15:6 states that Abraham “believed in the Lord,” and immediately after this, God promised to give Abraham great blessings. JST Genesis 17:3 similarly states that “Abram fell on his face, and called upon the name of the Lord.” Immediately after praying, Abraham received sacred promises from God. Thus, Jesus appears to be stating that if the house of Israel is to receive the blessings given to Abraham, they must do what Abraham did: believe in the Lord and pray to Him.6

The idea that the house of Israel needs to do what Abraham did to receive the blessings Abraham received helps to explain one element of the Abrahamic covenant. The Book of Mormon repeatedly quotes Genesis 28:14, in which God reaffirmed to Jacob the covenant he made with Abraham: “in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”7 Immediately before this, the Lord promised Jacob, “and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south” (Genesis 28:14). Because the Nephites had spread out all the way to the New World, far away from Jacob’s original home, this verse might have been especially meaningful to the Nephites.

Yet, traveling far from their homeland is also another example of doing what Abraham did. A verse that is almost exactly the same as Genesis 28:14 appears in Genesis 12:3, “in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” This blessing was only promised to Abraham after he obeyed God’s command to “get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee” (Genesis 12:1).

Leaving their country, their extended family, and their father’s house is exactly what Nephi and his family were commanded to do. Now all the peoples of the New World that the Nephites associated with were being blessed through them, Abraham’s seed.8 In this way, the Nephites were fulfilling the promises made to Abraham, blessing the families of the earth, by doing what Abraham had done.

The Why

The Book of Mormon reminds us of how we can receive the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. God will always bless us if we live up to our end of the covenant. Anyone, from anywhere in the world, no matter their ancestry, are blessed when they keep the covenants they have made with God. The Book of Mormon reminds us that if we wish to receive the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, we must live worthy of the blessings of that covenant.

Some people might think that their covenants somehow give them a free pass; they have entered into a covenant and now automatically receive the blessings.9 The Book of Mormon reminds us that this is absolutely not the case.

Abraham obeyed God and was blessed. We must obey God like he did if we wish to receive the unimaginable blessings God has in store for us. We do not have to be perfect. Abraham was not. But if we will believe in the Lord, pray to the Lord, and go where He wants us to go in life, we can receive all the blessings promised to Abraham and his posterity.

• 1. See Taylor Halverson, “Covenant Patterns in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon,” presentation given at the 2017 BMAF–BMC Book of Mormon Conference, online at bookofmormoncentral.org.
• 2. For more on conditional and unconditional covenants in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “How Can the Old Testament Covenants Help Us Understand the Book Of Mormon? (1 Nephi 2:12–13),” KnoWhy 363 (September 12, 2017); Noel B. Reynolds, “The Israelite Background of Moses Typology in the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies 44, no. 2 (2005): 5–23; “Lehi as Moses,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 2 (2000): 26–35.
• 3. For more information on this covenant, see Book of Mormon Central, “How Did Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Authors Use Chiasmus? (Alma 34:9),” KnoWhy 340 (July 16, 2017).
• 4. For more ancient context for this, see S. Kent Brown, “The Exodus Pattern in the Book of Mormon,” in From Jerusalem to Zarahemla: Literary and Historical Studies of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1998), 75–98.
• 5. See Victor L. Ludlow, “The Father’s Covenant People Sermon: 3 Nephi 20:10–23:5,” in Third Nephi: An Incomparable Scripture, ed. Andrew C. Skinner and Gaye Strathearn (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2012), 147–174.
• 6. This idea is similarly expressed in Doctrine and Covenants 132:31–32: “This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself. Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham.”
• 7. See, for example, 1 Nephi 15:18; 22:9–10; 3 Nephi 20:25, 27. These verses use the word kindreds instead of families, the same wording used in the King James translation of Acts 3:25. However, kindreds is a fine translation of the word rendered as families in Genesis and may simply show the tendency of the Book of Mormon translation to use New Testament versions of Old Testament phrases.
• 8. See D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, “Who Are the Children of Lehi?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 1 (2003): 44–46; reprinted in The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, ed. Daniel C. Peterson (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2008), 168–172; Book of Mormon Central, “What Does the Book of Mormon Teach about Families? (Mosiah 25:12),” KnoWhy 382 (November 16, 2017); Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Lehi Divide His People into Seven Tribes? (Jacob 1:13),” KnoWhy 319 (May 29, 2017).
• 9. For more on how covenants really work, see Russell M. Nelson, “Children of the Covenant,” Ensign, May 1995, online at lds.org.

The Know

Some may not realize that Joseph Smith obtained two Nephite relics—the interpreters and breastplate—which were buried along with the golden plates that he discovered on a hill near his family’s farm. Fortunately, several witnesses left detailed descriptions of what these artifacts were like. These items are worth careful consideration because their tangible and historical reality helps confirm the reality of the golden plates and the Nephite record which was engraved upon them.

Joseph Smith described the Nephite interpreters (which, over time, came to be known as the Urim and Thummim)1 as “two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.”2 Martin Harris said they “were about two inches in diameter, perfectly round, and about five-eighths of an inch thick at the center; but not so thick at the edges where they came into the bow.” He added that they were “white, like polished marble, with a few gray streaks.”3 John Whitmer called them “two crystals or glasses.”4 Lucy Mack Smith said they resembled “two large bright diamonds.”5

David Whitmer reported that they were “white stones, each of them cased in as spectacles are, in a kind of silver casing, but the bow between the stones was more heavy, and longer apart between the stones, than we usually find it in spectacles.”6 William Smith further explained that a “silver bow ran over one stone, under the other, around over that one and under the first in the shape of a horizontal figure 8 much like a pair of spectacles.”7

Detailed descriptions were also given for the breastplate. As Lucy explained,

It was concave on one side and convex on the other, and extended from the neck downwards as far as the center of the stomach of a man of extraordinary size. It had four straps of the same material for the purpose of fastening it to the breast, two of which ran back to go over the shoulders, and the other two were designed to fasten to the hips. They were just the width of two of my fingers (for I measured them), and they had holes in the end of them to be convenient in fastening.8

Lucy not only saw, but also physically held the breastplate. She explained, “I have … carried in my hands the sacred breastplate. It is composed of pure gold, and is made to fit the breast very exactly.”9 In another account, she said it had “glistening metal,” and she estimated its worth to be “at least five hundred dollars.”10

Apparently, the interpreters and breastplate, including a rod that could connect them, belonged together as a set. William Smith explained,

At one end was attached a rod which was connected with the outer edge of the right shoulder of the breast-plate. By pressing the head a little forward, the rod held the Urim and Thummim before the eyes much like a pair of spectacles. A pocket was prepared in the breastplate on the left side, immediately over the heart. When not in use the [interpreters were] placed in this pocket, the rod being of just the right length to allow it to be so deposited.11

The Why

The interpreters and breastplate were among the Nephite artifacts shown to the Three Witness.12 These additional accounts not only help confirm their reality, but also show a general consistency concerning their appearance. Collectively, these documented statements provide solid historical evidence that Joseph Smith did indeed possess the specific ancient artifacts that he claimed to have received with the plates.

Some individuals have suggested that the experiences the Three and Eight Witnesses had with the plates were merely imaginary.13 Others have supposed that Joseph Smith simply forged a fake set of plates.14 The accounts of the Nephite interpreters and breastplate, however, make these already tenuous theories even more difficult to sustain. This is because they present two more tangible, meticulously described, artifacts which were seen by individuals other than the official witnesses.

When the detailed descriptions of these additional relics are added to the reports from nearly two dozen individuals who had some sort of sensory encounter with the golden plates,15 mass hallucination becomes an untenable explanation.16 At the same time, theories which suppose Joseph simply forged a set of golden plates—an already unlikely feat17—also have to explain where he got the time, skills, and resources to craft a believable set of Nephite interpreters, as well as an impressive breastplate.18

According to numerous witnesses, the interpreters were set in silver rims which, as William Smith described, twisted about in a figure 8. This suggests that the interpreters and breastplate would both have required additional metallurgical talent to create. Moreover, Lucy Smith reportedly believed that the breastplate was made from precious metal (in one account, pure gold) and was expensive.

Did Joseph Smith really have the materials and knowledge to create an artifact that his mother estimated to be worth at least 500 dollars? It seems not. Martin Harris, for instance, once lifted the plates while in a wooden box and commented that they were either “lead or gold,” and that he knew Joseph “had not enough credit to buy so much lead.”19 In other words, the Smith’s truly were destitute, and merely the weight of the plates alone helped convince Martin that he wasn’t being duped. In a similar way, Lucy would likely have known whether or not Joseph had the materials, skills, or funds to produce the breastplate she beheld.

Whatever one chooses to think about these artifacts, it seems that everyone close to Joseph Smith believed he had them. A number of individuals described one or both of them in detail, and there are no reports of these individuals ever denying their experiences. As demonstrated, it is historically unlikely that Joseph would have possessed such peculiar objects unless he found them as he claimed, buried in the earth. Thus, although the interpreters and breastplate do not provide absolute proof of anything, the strong case for their historical existence invites belief in the reality and divine origins of the Book of Mormon, which was buried along with them.

• 1. Roger Nicholson, “The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 5 (2013): 136–139.
• 2. 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), 138, doc. 28.
• 3. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 147, doc. 47. Spelling standardized.
• 4. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 179, doc. 104. Orson Pratt added that they were “clear as crystal.” Appendix: Orson Pratt, A[n] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, 1840, p. 13, accessed December 13, 2017, online at josephsmithpapers.org. Pomeroy Tucker similarly described them as “two transparent crystals.” Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 214, doc. 174.
• 5. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 181, doc. 107.
• 6. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 163, doc. 81.
• 7. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 184, doc. 112. Spelling standardized.
• 8. Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and His Progenitors for Many Generations (Liverpool, UK: S. W. Richards, 1853), 107.
• 9. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 181, doc. 107.
• 10. Smith, Biographical Sketches, 107.
• 11. J. W. Peterson and W. S. Pender, interview of William Smith, 1891, The Rod of Iron 1, no 3 (February 1924): 6–7, as cited in 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), 89.
• 12. A divine assurance that the Three Witnesses could view these objects is found in Doctrine and Covenants 17:1. For confirmation that they actually beheld them when they saw the angel and plates, see History, circa June 1839–circa 1841 [Draft 2], p. 25, n. 79, accessed December 15, 2017, online at josephsmithpapers.org: “David Whitmer told several interviewers in the 1870s and 1880s that he saw additional items on this occasion. Most of these later accounts listed the gold plates, the interpreters or Urim and Thummim, the sword of Laban, the ‘directors,’ [the Liahona] and additional records; in some Whitmer also mentioned the breastplate.”
• 13. For several responses to these concerns, 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; 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; a shorter and earlier version of this article was printed as “Evaluating the Book of Mormon Witnesses,” Religious Educator 11, no. 1 (2010): 36–49; Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Explaining Away the Book of Mormon Witnesses,” FairMormon presentation, 2004, online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org.
• 14. See Daniel C. Peterson, “Tangible Restoration: The Witnesses and What They Experienced,” FairMormon presentation, 2006, 32–33, online at fairmormon.org.
• 15. These individuals 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; Peterson, “Tangible Restoration,” online at fairmormon.org; Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1981), 21–37. See also, Book of Mormon Central, “Evidences of the Book of Mormon: Plates,” online at bookofmormoncentral.org.
• 16. For further problems with the mass hallucination theories, 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, 7–9, online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org.
• 17. For the difficulty of forging a fake set of plates, see Book of Mormon Central, “Are the Accounts of the Golden Plates Believable? (Testimony of the Eight Witnesses),” KnoWhy 403 (January 30, 2018); Read H. Putnam, “Were the Golden Plates Made of Tumbaga?” The Improvement Era 69, no. 9 (1966): 788; Shanna Butler, “A Golden Opportunity,” New Era, February 2006, 34–37, online at lds.org; “A Model of the Plates,” made by Steven Pratt, online at lds.org.
• 18. Although not witnessed by individuals other than the Three Witnesses, the Liahona and sword of Laban can be added to the items Joseph would have needed to create in order to deceive at least some of his followers.
• 19. Joel Tiffany, “Mormonism—No. II,” Tiffany’s Monthly 5, August 1859, 169–170.

The Know

When reading through the Book of Mormon, one finds references to many different parts of the Old Testament. When discussing Melchizedek in Alma 13, for example, the Book of Mormon appears to allude to the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 14.1 Yet it also frequently quotes Isaiah and the Psalms,2 and even includes a bit of Job.3 All of these were presumably quoted from the plates of brass. This poses the question: What parts of the Old Testament were on the plates of brass?4

Nephi said that the plates of brass contained “the five books of Moses” along with a “record of the Jews ... and also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah.” The collection even contained “many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah” (1 Nephi 5:11–13). The “five books of Moses” refers to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.5 The “record of the Jews” was likely Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings.6 The “holy prophets” down to the time of Zedekiah may refer to the writings of Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, as well as Jeremiah.7

However, this is not the only information the Book of Mormon gives about the plates of brass. The Book of Mormon also quotes extensively from the Psalms8 and periodically refers to Proverbs,9 suggesting that these books were present as well. Yet, when one looks at all the Old Testament quotations in the Book of Mormon, one finds something surprising. Books that were almost certainly written after Lehi left Jerusalem, like 1 Chronicles, Nehemiah, Job,10 Ecclesiastes,11 Ezekiel, Joel,12 and Malachi,13 all have language similar to the Book of Mormon.14

Some of this similar language may be due to translation issues. Translations of ancient texts often use biblical language, even when this language creates a less literal translation from the original.15 However, some allusions to the Old Testament are only clear when comparing the Book of Mormon to the Old Testament in Hebrew, suggesting something more complicated.16 In these instances, it is likely that both the Book of Mormon and the biblical texts written after Lehi’s family left Jerusalem are quoting earlier books that were on the plates of brass but that no longer exist.17

This possibility is supported by the angel’s statement to Nephi, that the Old Testament contains “many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many” (1 Nephi 13:23). This suggests that there were many other books found in the plates of brass that did not make it into our current Old Testament. Some of these texts may have been quoted by later writers, explaining the similarities one sometimes finds between the later books of the Old Testament, and writings presumably being quoted from the plates of brass.   The writings of Zenos, Zenock, Neum,18 and Ezias (Helaman 8:20) were all on the plates of brass but are now lost.

It is likely that some of these lost texts were northern Israelite texts. According to 1 Nephi 5:14, the brass plates contained the genealogy of the descendants of Joseph. Because the tribes of Joseph lived in the northern Israelite kingdom, called Israel, not the southern Israelite kingdom, called Judah, it is likely that the plates of brass had many northern Israelite texts in them.19

Even though we have some idea of the books in the plates of brass, it is hard to know exactly what version of each book the Nephites had.20 The plates of brass sometimes appear to have been the same as the Joseph Smith Translation, as noted above. At other times, they are more like the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament),21 and yet at other times they differ from any version of the text currently available.22

The Why

Often, when we read the Old Testament, it is easy to forget that these books were also Nephite scripture. When Nephite authors talked about holding fast to the “word of God” (1 Nephi 15:24), it was their portion of the Old Testament that they were referring to. It was the Old Testament that they turned to for comfort and guidance.23 Many of their most profound spiritual insights drew from Old Testament teachings.

Realizing how important the plates of brass were to the Nephites can change our perspective on the value of the Old Testament. If the Nephites gained such important spiritual insights from the book, we can too.

As we carefully search the books that would have been in the plates of brass, we can look at how they were quoted in the Book of Mormon, and gain deeper insight into what these scriptures can mean for us.24 Reading the Old Testament this way will allow us to understand both the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament better.

The Book of Mormon is the key that unlocks the Old Testament. By understanding the Old Testament through the lens of the Book of Mormon, we can gain deeper insights into Christ’s power in our lives and the unchanging nature of God.

• 1. See John W. Welch, “The Melchizedek Material in Alma 13:13–19,” in By Study and Also by Faith, 2 vols., ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 2:238–272.
• 2. For more on this, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Jacob Quote So Much from the Psalms? (Jacob 1:7; cf. Psalm 95:8),” KnoWhy 62 (March 25, 2016).
• 3. For an example of this, see Book of Mormon Central, “How Did Enos Liken the Scriptures to His Own Life? (Enos 1:27),” KnoWhy 265 (January 23, 2017).
• 4. For a classic treatment of the plates of brass, see Sidney B. Sperry, “Some Problems of Interest Relating to the Brass Plates,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4, no. 1 (1995): 185–191.
• 5. One sometimes sees quotations from and allusions to various parts of the five books of Moses in the Book of Mormon. 2 Nephi 26:11 alludes to Genesis 6:3, Abinadi quotes the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20 in Mosiah 13, Mosiah 23:15 alludes to Leviticus 19:18, Alma 33:21 references Numbers 21:4–9, and 2 Nephi 25:29 alludes to Deuteronomy 6:5.
• 6.Joshua 24:15 is quoted in Alma 30:8, Judges 15:14 is quoted in 1 Nephi 7:18, 1 Samuel 8:11–18 is alluded to in Mosiah 2:12–14, 2 Samuel 2:19–21 is alluded to in Alma 56:37–40, and 1 Kings 19:12 is quoted in 1 Nephi 17:45. For the relationship between Helaman and 2 Kings, see Book of Mormon Central, “How Did Nephi Use the Power to Seal on Earth and in Heaven? (Helaman 11:4)” KnoWhy 182 (September 7, 2016).
• 7. Large sections of Isaiah appear throughout the Book of Mormon, Hosea 13:14 is alluded to in Mosiah 16:7–8, Moroni 7:32 quotes the Greek version of Amos 5:12, and Christ quoted Micah 5:8–9, and 4:12–13 in 3 Nephi 20:15–20 without introduction, suggesting that they already knew about the passage. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah do not appear to be quoted in the Book of Mormon, but they were likely included in the plates of brass, as most scholars agree that these books were written before 600 BC. Jeremiah 17:5 is quoted in 2 Nephi 4:34. For more on when these Old Testament books were written, see Mordechai Cogan, “Into Exile: From the Assyrian Conquest of Israel to the Fall of Babylon,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. Michael D. Coogan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998), 243.
• 8. For more on the Psalms in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Jacob Quote So Much from the Psalms? (Jacob 1:7),” KnoWhy 62 (March 25, 2016); Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Nephi Quote a Temple Psalm While Commenting on Isaiah? (2 Nephi 25:16),” KnoWhy 51 (March 10, 2016); Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Ammon Borrow So Much from Tradition in Alma 26? (Alma 26:8),” KnoWhy 133 (June 30, 2016); Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Lehi Quote from a Psalm of Repentance in His Dream? (1 Nephi 8:8),” KnoWhy 325 (June 12, 2017); John Hilton III, “Old Testament Psalms in the Book of Mormon,” in Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament (2013 Sperry Symposium), ed. Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Matthew J. Grey, and David Rolph Seely (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2013), 291–311.
• 9. For an example of the use of Proverbs in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “What Does it Really Mean to be Blessed For Keeping the Commandments? (Mosiah 2:41),” KnoWhy 367 (September 26, 2017). For a more general look at its use, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Nephi Work So Hard to Preserve the Wisdom He Had Received? (1 Nephi 6:5–6),” KnoWhy 262 (January 16, 2017).
• 10. See James L. Kugel, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now (New York, NY: Free Press, 2007), 636–638.
• 11. Ecclesiastes was written sometime after 333 BC, see Leonard J. Greenspoon, “Between Alexandria and Antioch: Jews and Judaism in the Hellenistic Period,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. Michael D. Coogan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998), 349.
• 12. See Richard D. Nelson, Historical Roots of the Old Testament (1200–63 BCE) (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2014), 216.
• 13. See Kugel, How to Read the Bible, 633.
• 14. A text quoted in 1 Chronicles 25:5 is alluded to in Alma 1:26, a text quoted in Nehemiah 4:14 is alluded to in Alma 46:12, a text quoted in Job 33:26 is alluded to in Enos 1:27, a text quoted in Ecclesiastes 8:15 is alluded to in 2 Nephi 28:7, a text quoted in Ezekiel 36:31 is quoted repeatedly in the Book of Mormon, beginning in 1 Nephi 1:15 (although this is more obvious in Hebrew), a text quoted in Joel 2:30 is quoted in 1 Nephi 22:18, and texts quoted in Malachi 4:1–2 are alluded to in 1 Nephi 22:15.
• 15. For one amusing example of this, see John W. Welch, “Approaching New Approaches,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6, no. 1 (1994): 176.
• 16.Mosiah 3:5, for example, quotes Job 4:19, but this is really only apparent in Hebrew.
• 17. See Robert L. Millet, “The Plates of Brass,” Ensign, January 1988, online at lds.org.
• 18. See John W. Welch and J. Gregory Welch, Charting the Book of Mormon: Visual Aids for Personal Study and Teaching (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), chart 14.
• 19. See Millet, “The Plates of Brass,” online at lds.org.
• 20. Grant R. Hardy and Robert E. Parsons, “Book of Mormon Plates and Records” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 1:198.
• 21.Moroni 7:32 quotes the Greek version of Amos 5:12, for example.
• 22.Alma 46:24 may be an allusion to something in Genesis that was available to the Nephites, but is no longer in our scriptures.
• 23. See Robert L. Millet, “The Influence of the Brass Plates on the Teachings of Nephi​,” in Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure, Book of Mormon Symposium Series, Volume 3, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 99–111.
• 24. For more on how the plates of brass fit into the wider context of Nephite plates, see Rex C. Reeve, Jr., “The Book of Mormon Plates,” in Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure, 99–111.

The Know

From the time that Nephi drew Laban’s sword from its sheath and slew him with it,1 the weapon held special significance for the Nephite nation. The Book of Mormon references the sword of Laban on multiple occasions. For instance, Nephi said that in order to protect his people he “did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords” (2 Nephi 5:14). Jacob noted that Nephi “wielded the sword of Laban in their defence” (Jacob 1:10). Mormon mentioned that King Benjamin “did fight with the strength of his own arm, with the sword of Laban” (Words of Mormon 1:13). And in Mosiah 1:16, we learn that Mosiah received the sword of Laban from King Benjamin.

In light of these passages, some may rightfully wonder what was so special about Laban’s sword.2 In the ancient world—including ancient Israel—swords were often seen as a symbol of authority, kingship, or divine favor.3 It seems that this is precisely the symbolism that Nephi intended when he described the circumstances under which he obtained Laban’s sword.

Several studies have shown that Nephi intentionally connected his slaying of Laban with David’s slaying of Goliath, and that in both cases, the event signified the young hero’s foreordained kingship (see appendix).4 Also, in each story, the sword itself became a national heir loom, as well as an enduring symbol of divine deliverance and royal legitimacy.5 Brett Holbrook has noted six points of similarity between the sword of Laban and the sword of Goliath:

1. Each sword was originally wielded by a man of might.
2. Each sword’s owner had his head cut off with his own sword by a faithful youth.
3. Each sword was finely crafted for its time and was unique.
4. Each sword was revered by the people.
5. Each sword was used to lead people.
6. Each sword was a symbol of authority and kingship.6

It could be added that both swords were included in their respective nations’ national treasuries.7 The sword of Goliath was kept with the high priestly ephod which was associated with the Urim and Thummim (1 Samuel 21:9). Among the Nephites, the sword of Laban was preserved with the plates of brass, the interpreters, the breastplate, the Liahona, and the Book of Mormon itself (Mosiah 1:16; Doctrine and Covenants 17:1).8

Noel B. Reynolds has argued that “Nephi carefully constructed what he wrote to convince his own and later generations that the Lord had selected him over his older brothers to be Lehi’s successor. Thus, one interesting way to read the account is as a political tract produced to show that his rule was authoritative.”9 The way that Nephite kings revered the sword of Laban significantly supports Reynold’s thesis. In Nephi’s narrative, the sword of Laban played a key role in foreshadowing his future kingship and legitimizing his divine calling as a “ruler and a teacher over [his] brethren” (1 Nephi 2:22).10 The story of his obtaining the sword is loaded with political significance, as well as spiritual symbolism.

The Why

Understanding why the Nephites revered the sword of Laban also sheds light on why it was included among the Nephite relics shown to the Three Witnesses by the angel Moroni.11 In his dying testimony, Martin Harris declared, “Just as sure as you see the sun shining, just as sure am I that I stood in the presence of an angel of God with Joseph Smith, and saw him hold the gold plates in his hands. I also saw the Urim and Thummim, the breastplate, and the sword of Laban.”12 David Whitmer said that a “glorious personage appeared unto them and exhibited to them the plates, the sword of Laban, the Directors which were given to Lehi (called Liahona), the Urim and Thummim, and other records.”13

The sword of Laban symbolized the hand of God in the founding of the Nephite nation and in delivering them from their enemies. In our day, it similarly helps legitimize Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet and demonstrates God’s hand in the Restoration. Its physical reality—as testified of by the Three Witnesses—supports the historical reality of the Nephite prophets who wrote the Book of Mormon as well as Joseph Smith’s claims about its divine translation.

The sword also symbolizes the importance of good leaders. Nephi said he “did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords” (2 Nephi 5:14). And Jacob, right after mentioning Nephi’s use of Laban’s sword, said that “whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings” (Jacob 1:11). Just as the sword of Laban was a template for other swords, Nephi was a template for righteous Kings. Both Nephi’s name and his sword became inseparably connected to the early Nephite monarchy, each serving as high-quality models for others to follow.

Perhaps most importantly, the sword of Laban can help us remember to follow the commandments of the Lord and the whisperings of the Spirit (1 Nephi 4:6). Nephi conquered his enemy and foreshadowed his kingly status by confidently placing his trust in the Lord and diligently following His commandments, even when others wanted to give up and return empty handed (1 Nephi 3:14). Likewise, the sword of Laban is an enduring symbol of God’s willingness to “prepare a way” for each of us to “go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded” (v. 7).

Appendix14

• 1. For the legal justification of Nephi’s actions, see Book of Mormon Central, “Was Nephi’s Slaying of Laban Legal? (1 Nephi 4:18),” KnoWhy 256 (January 2, 2017); John W. Welch, “Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (1992): 119–141; John W. Welch and Heidi Harkness Parker, “Better That One Man Perish,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1999), 17–18.
• 2. One of the things that made the sword of Laban valuable is that it was made of the “most precious steel” (1 Nephi 4:9). For evidence that forging high quality steel was known in Nephi’s day, see Book of Mormon Central, “What Was the Sword of Laban Like? (1 Nephi 4:9),” KnoWhy 401 (January 23, 2018).
• 3. See Brett L. Holbrook, “The Sword of Laban as a Symbol of Divine Authority and Kingship,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2, no. 1 (1993): 39–72; Brett L. Holbrook, “Sword of Laban as a Symbol of Divine Authority,” 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), 93–96.
• 4. See Ben McGuire, “Nephi and Goliath: A Case Study of Literary Allusion in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 18, no. 1 (2009): 16–31; Val Larsen, “Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16, no. 1 (2007): 26–41, 84–85; Alan Goff, “How Should We Then Read? Reading Mormon Scripture after the Fall,” FARMS Review 21, no. 1 (2009): 137–178; Ben McGuire, “Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi,” FairMormon presentation, 2001, online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org.
• 5. For the possibility that the sword of Laban was an important relic among the Israelites, see Daniel N. Rolph, “Prophets, Kings, and Swords: The Sword of Laban and Its Possible Pre-Laban Origin,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2, no. 1 (1993): 73–79.
• 6. These points are adapted from Holbrook, “The Sword of Laban as a Symbol of Divine Authority and Kingship,” 48–53.
• 7. For the relationship between the Nephite relics and those associated with the Israelite Ark of the Covenant, see Don Bradley, “Piercing the Veil: Temple Worship in the Lost 116 Pages,” FairMormon presentation, 2012, online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org.
• 8. It’s possible that the quality steel of Laban’ blade made it more reflective or shiny than other blades. The sword was perhaps kept in a Nephite temple and, if so, its luster may have symbolically represented the “flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life” (Alma 42:2–3). We know that the brightness of swords was an important concept to the Nephites because when the Anti-Nephi-Lehies buried their swords, they did so “that they may be kept bright, as a testimony that we have never used them, at the last day” (Alma 24:16; emphasis added).
• 9. Noel B. Reynolds, “Nephi’s Political Testament,” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon: Insights You May Have Missed Before, ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1991), 221. See also, Noel B. Reynolds, “The Political Dimension in Nephi’s Small Plates,” BYU Studies Quarterly 27, no. 4 (1987): 15–37.
• 10. In the ancient world, armor and weapons were expensive, and high quality armaments were often only available to elite soldiers. When one soldier killed another in combat, he was often privileged to take the enemy’s armor and weapons for himself. Not only did this give him greater wealth, but if the enemy’s armaments were superior to his own, it would allow him to become a more powerful warrior. In the ancient mind, this transferal of armor and weapons could also be seen as a symbolic transferal of power. Thus, the armaments of fallen combatants were often more than mere trophies. Paul used a relevant analogy when he spoke of the need to put on the “the whole armour of God” in Ephesians 6:13. By taking upon us God’s spiritual armor, we symbolically obtain His power as well. For more information about armor-of-God themes in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “What Does the Book of Mormon Say about the Armor of God? (2 Nephi 1:23),” KnoWhy 378 (November 2, 2017).
• 11. The Lord gave these witnesses assurance that they could view of the sword of Laban, along with the other Nephite artifacts, in Doctrine and Covenants 17:1: “Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea.” Emphasis added.
• 12. William Pilkington to Vern C. Poulter, 28 February 1930, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah (emphasis added); as cited in Holbrook, “The Sword of Laban as a Symbol of Divine Authority and Kingship,” 62.
• 13. George Q. Cannon, “Church History,” The Juvenile Instructor 19 (1 April 1884): 107 (emphasis added); as cited in Holbrook, “The Sword of Laban as a Symbol of Divine Authority and Kingship,” 62–63.
• 14. Many of these textual parallels were derived or adapted from the following articles: Ben McGuire, “Nephi and Goliath: A Case Study of Literary Allusion in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 18, no. 1 (2009): 16–31; Alan Goff, “How Should We Then Read? Reading Mormon Scripture after the Fall,” FARMS Review 21, no. 1 (2009): 137–178; Val Larsen, “Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16, no. 1 (2007): 26–41, 84–85; Brett L. Holbrook, “The Sword of Laban as a Symbol of Divine Authority and Kingship,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2, no. 1 (1993): 39–72; Taylor Halverson, “Nephi is David and Laban is Goliath,” unpublished manuscript, July 3, 2007.

The Know

When Jacob was speaking to his people, he told them, “for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son” (Jacob 4:5).1

Jacob’s statement that the near-sacrifice of Isaac was “a similitude” of the Atonement of Christ is a key that unlocks the deeper spiritual meaning behind this story. With this understanding in place, we can go back to the Old Testament with fresh eyes.2 Looking at the similarities between the Abraham-Isaac narrative and the Atonement of Christ shows how insightful Jacob’s comment really was.

If Abraham offering Isaac is symbolic of God offering Christ, then we should expect to find some similarities between God and Abraham.3Genesis 17:4–5 suggests just such a similarity: “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.” Through both Isaac and Ishmael, Abraham was certainly the “father of many nations,” just as God is the Father of all nations. In addition, the name Abraham literally means “exalted father” which is a good description of who God the Father is.4 Another similarity is that God referred to Isaac as Abraham’s “only son” (Genesis 22:2). Similarly, Christ is God the Father’s “only begotten Son” (John 3:16).5

Isaac was also like Christ in many other ways. Both Isaac and Christ were born to women who should not have been able to have children: Sarah, Isaac’s mother, was too old to have children (Genesis 18:11) and Mary, Jesus’ mother, was a virgin (Luke 1:34).6 Both Isaac and Christ carried wood with them when they were being offered up: Isaac carried the wood for the burnt offering (Genesis 22:6) and Christ carried the wood of the cross upon which he would become an offering (John 19:17).7 Both Isaac and Christ were bound before being offered.8 Abraham bound Isaac before laying him on the wood (Genesis 22:9), and Christ was bound before being delivered to Pilate before he was placed on the wooden cross (Matthew 27:2). Both Isaac and Jesus were gone for three days after being made an offering.9

Abraham and Isaac would have arrived back home “on the third day” (Genesis 22:4) after Isaac was nearly sacrificed, and Christ rose from the tomb “on the third day” after His ultimate sacrifice (Luke 24:21).10 Both Christ and Isaac may have even been offered up in the same area (in or around Jerusalem), although it is impossible to know for sure.11 The place Abraham offered up Isaac was called Moriah (Genesis 22:2), and the temple in Jerusalem was built on a mountain called Moriah (2 Chronicles 3:1).

Both Isaac and Christ offered themselves voluntarily. If Isaac was strong enough to carry the wood for a burnt offering on his back, he was likely strong enough to overpower his aged father if he had not wanted to be sacrificed.12 In the same way, Christ also allowed Himself to be crucified rather than offering any resistance (see Matthew 26:53–54).13

Finally, in some traditions, both Isaac and Christ were resurrected. Hebrews 11:17, 19 states, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac ... Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.” Although this verse is ambiguous, it can be understood to mean that Abraham actually killed Isaac and that God brought him back to life, a tradition that one sees in some Jewish texts.14 Thus, Isaac being killed and brought back to life can be seen as a foreshadowing of the resurrection of Christ, or “a figure,” as it says in Hebrews.15

The Why

The New Testament provides very few details about how God reacted when He had to give up His Only Begotten Son. Yet the Abraham story allows us to see, in some small way, what it must have been like for God when He had to give up His only son. One of the most poignant details about Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is how little Abraham speaks throughout the story. When God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham didn’t so much as utter a word of complaint back to Him. As though he were going about his work in stunned silence, he simply made preparations to do what God had commanded him to do (Genesis 22:1–3).

The reader can almost feel Abraham’s pain as he traveled to Moriah, built an altar, and laid the wood on it. The Bible seems to linger on these details, emphasizing Abraham’s mental agony as he tied up his own son, laid him on the wood, and lifted the knife to kill him (Genesis 22:9–10). One can only imagine that God felt the same way as He saw His Son be bound and laid on the wood of the cross, with the Roman soldiers lifting up their hammers to nail Him to it.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland stated that “the Father may never have been closer to His Son than in these agonizing final moments of suffering. Nevertheless, that the supreme sacrifice of His Son might be as complete as it was voluntary and solitary, the Father briefly withdrew from Jesus the comfort of His Spirit, the support of His personal presence.”16

As Melvin J. Ballard put it, God saw His Son be condemned, “He saw Him drag the cross through the streets of Jerusalem and faint under its load. He saw the Son finally upon Calvary; he saw His body stretched out upon the wooden cross; he saw the cruel nails driven through hands and feet, and the blows that broke the skin, tore the flesh, and let out the life’s blood of His Son.”17 God must have looked on in agony, “until there seems to have come a moment when even our Saviour cried out in despair: ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.”18

But for Christ, there would be no lamb in the thicket, no last-minute substitute. The most powerful being in the universe would allow His Son to be tortured to death to save the rest of His children.19 Elder Ballard explained, “In that hour I think I can see our dear Father behind the veil looking upon these dying struggles, … His great heart almost breaking for the love that He had for His Son. Oh, in that moment when He might have saved His Son, I thank Him and praise Him that He did not fail us.”20

We should all rejoice “that He did not interfere, and that His love for us made it possible for Him to endure to look upon the sufferings of His [Only Begotten] and give Him finally to us, our Saviour and our Redeemer. Without Him, without His sacrifice, we would have remained, and we would never have come glorified into His presence.”20 Ultimately, “This is what it cost, in part, for our Father in heaven to give the gift of His Son unto men.”22

• 1. This is the only direct mention of Isaac in the Book of Mormon, outside of the several mentions of “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” the few of mentions of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob sitting in heaven (Alma 5:24; Alma 7:25; Helaman 3:30), and one mention of the covenant with all three patriarchs (1 Nephi 17:40).
• 2. Jacob’s explanation of the meaning of the near-sacrifice of Isaac is not found in the Old Testament, but there is a somewhat similar notion expressed in the New Testament. However, the title “only begotten son” in Hebrews 11:17 refers to Isaac (with, perhaps, an oblique reference to Christ): “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.” Whereas in Jacob 4:5, the title is used to refer directly to Jesus Christ.
• 3. According to the ancient Christian writer Caesarius of Arles (ca. 468/70 – 542 A.D.), in his sermon 84.2, Isaac prefigured Christ and Abraham prefigured God the father: “When Abraham offered his son Isaac, he was a type of God the Father, while Isaac prefigured our Lord and Savior.” See Mark Sheridan, Old Testament II: Genesis 12–50, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 2 (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 102.
• 4. E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, Anchor Bible 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 124.
• 5. Another possible similarity is demonstrated by the scene when Abraham told his servants that he was going to leave with Isaac and come back with him, even though he knew he was going to sacrifice him. Caesarius of Arles, in sermon 84.4, said that Abraham may have thought, “I am offering my son, and I will return to you with him. So great is my faith that I believe that he who deigned to give him to me of a sterile mother could raise him from the dead.” This would allow him to come back with Isaac, and not technically lie to his servants. Thus, both God the Father and Abraham knew that their sons could be raised from the dead (see Hebrews 11:19). See Sheridan, Old Testament II, 104.
• 6. Caesarius of Arles, in sermon 84.4, said Abraham could tell his servants that he was going to leave with Isaac and come back with him. Because Abraham thought, “I am offering my son, and I will return to you with him. So great is my faith that I believe that he who deigned to give him to me of a sterile mother could raise him from the dead,” allowing him to come back with Isaac. See Sheridan, Old Testament II, 104.
• 7. In sermon 84.4 Caesarius of Arles stated, “When Isaac carried the wood for the sacrifice of himself, in this too he prefigured Christ our Lord, who carried his own cross.” See Sheridan, Old Testament II, 104. 
• 8. Melito of Sardis (died around 180 A.D.), fragment five, refers to this. See B. P. Pratten, “Remains of the Second and Third Centuries,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), 8:759–760.
• 9. Caesarius of Arles commented on this in Sermon 84:2. See Sheridan, Old Testament II, 103.
• 10. Another possible similarity is the two other people present in both cases. Abraham’s two servants were present when Abraham took Isaac away to be offered (Genesis 22:3), just as Christ was crucified between two thieves (Mark 15:27).
• 11. It is interesting to note that the sacrifice that was ultimately offered, the ram, was stuck in a thicket by his horns (Genesis 22:13), which is similar of Christ being crowned with thorns before he was led off to be crucified (Matthew 27:29).
• 12. See James L. Kugel, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now (New York, NY: Free Press, 2007), 126–128.
• 13. Melito of Sardis, fragment five, refers to this. See Pratten, “Remains of the Second and Third Centuries,” 8:759–760.
• 14. See Pirke Eliezer, 31:11.
• 15. See Caroll Stuhlmueller and John J. Collins, eds., The Catholic Study Bible: New American Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1990), 364.
• 16. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, “None Were with Him,” Ensign, May 2009, 87–88, online at lds.org.
• 17. Melvin J. Ballard, Crusader for Righteousness (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966), 136–137.
• 18. Ballard, Crusader for Righteousness, 136–137.
• 19. See Hugh Nibley, “The Sacrifice of Isaac,” Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh W. Nibley (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004), 149.
• 20.a.b. Ballard, Crusader for Righteousness, 137.
• 22. Ballard, Crusader for Righteousness, 138.

The Know

In his first interview with the angel Moroni, Joseph Smith was told that his “name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people” (Joseph Smith—History 1:33). Joseph, who was only 17 years old at the time, must surely have been startled by such a revelation.1 What about his life would simultaneously evoke such devotion and derision? Moreover, how can honest seekers of the truth know what to really believe about his personal character in the face of these competing perspectives?

Through the efforts of The Joseph Smith Papers project, numerous historical documents pertaining to the prophet’s life and ministry have recently been made available to the general public.2 Now, more than ever before, Joseph Smith’s life is on full display before the world.

In his own statements, Joseph acknowledged that he was not a perfect man. In response to allegations of misconduct, he confessed that as a youth he “fell into many foolish errors … [and] diverse temptations.”3 However, he clarified that these were not “great or malignant sins”4 but rather that he had “a light, and too often, vain mind, exhibiting a foolish and trifling conversation.”5 On one occasion, Joseph explained, “Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charged with doing.”6

Joseph’s Christian piety and moral character can be demonstrated through a number of personal documents. In an 1832 letter to his wife Emma, Joseph reported that “the Lord assisting me, I have visited a grove … almost every day … to give vent to all the feelings of my heart in meditation and prayer.”7 Writing from a hotel room in New York City several months later, Joseph mentioned that rather than sightseeing, he preferred “reading and praying and holding communion with the Holy Spirit.”8 After surveying these and other personal documents, historian Richard Anderson explained, “The early Joseph is above all the Joseph of faith, of great humility, and of constant prayer.”9

Reports from those who knew Joseph Smith intimately help confirm the evidence of his moral uprightness from his private documents. For instance, Joseph’s brother William remembered how their family responded after Joseph told them about his visit from the angel Moroni.

The whole family were melted to tears, and believed all he said. Knowing that he was very young, that he had not enjoyed the advantages of a common education; and knowing too, his whole character and disposition, they were convinced that he was totally incapable of arising before his aged parents, his brothers and sisters, and so solemnly giving utterance to anything but the truth. All of us, therefore, believed him.10

Anderson explained, “Two parents, five brothers, and three sisters of the Prophet Joseph Smith were living at the time of the coming of Moroni, and each became a devout believer in the reality of the revelations. They comprise a virtual jury qualified to evaluate the consistency of Joseph's early story and his personal believability in telling it. Without dissent, these eleven gave total acceptance.”11 Dozens of other testimonials come from those who witnessed the prophet’s integrity and goodness throughout the remainder of his life.12

Another mark of Joseph Smith’s sincere and noble character was his willingness to suffer persecution and even death for his beliefs and for those he loved. In a British newspaper, a non-LDS columnist remarked in 1851 that Joseph Smith

lived for fourteen years amid vindictive enemies, who never missed an opportunity to vilify, to harass, and to destroy him; and he died at last an untimely and miserable death, involving in his fate a brother to whom he was tenderly attached. If anything can tend to encourage the supposition that Joseph Smith was a sincere enthusiast … it is the notability that unless supported by such feelings [of sincere belief], he would have renounced the unprofitable and ungrateful task, and sought refuge from persecution and misery in private life and honorable industry.13

Finally, there are revelations from the Lord Himself that confirm Joseph Smith was divinely chosen as a prophet and that he remained the Lord’s servant until the end of his life. In 1841, the Lord stated, “Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Joseph Smith, I am well pleased with your offering and acknowledgments, which you have made; for unto this end have I raised you up, that I might show forth my wisdom through the weak things of the earth. Your prayers are acceptable before me.”14

And in 1843, the Lord declared, “I say unto you, my servant Joseph … I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father. Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins.”15

The Why

Yet some may wonder, if Joseph Smith was such an honorable man, then why are so many bad things said about him? The answers to this question may likely be as numerous as the prophet’s critics. For some, the reason is that his conduct or revelations contradict their theological, moral, or social convictions. For others, the idea that God could speak in such a direct way with anyone in modern times seems implausible. And a growing number of individuals simply do not believe in God period, and therefore any prophetic claims are seen as either fraudulent or delusional from the outset.

Unfortunately, because of such views, many have spread false or misleading information about the prophet, either intentionally or inadvertently. This situation has only perpetuated undeserved criticism.16 Whatever the reasons may be, the mere fact of opposition neither disproves nor confirms Joseph Smith’s legitimacy as a prophet.17 After all, many other prophets and even Jesus Christ Himself were scorned and rejected by multitudes of their people.18

Anticipating future prophets, both true and false, Jesus provided the only sure method of sifting through all of the clashing opinions of men: “Ye shall know them by their fruits. … A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matthew 7:16, 18).19 With these verses in mind, Elder Neil L. Andersen explained, “Each believer needs a spiritual confirmation of the divine mission and character of the Prophet Joseph Smith. This is true for every generation. Spiritual questions deserve spiritual answers from God.”20 Such a confirmation often comes through sincere study, diligent prayer, and faithful adherence to the revelations—or fruits—of the prophet.21

Elder Andersen further warned, “The negative commentary about the Prophet Joseph Smith will increase as we move toward the Second Coming of the Savior. The half-truths and subtle deceptions will not diminish. There will be family members and friends who will need your help.”22

None of us will ever fully and completely understand another individual in our own time period, much less one who lived two centuries ago. The historical record of Joseph Smith’s life is fragmentary, and there will always be unanswered questions about what, why, how, when and where he did or said something. For this reason, personal revelation from God must be the ultimate deciding factor in discerning his moral character and divine calling.

The Book of Mormon teaches that “there was not any man who could do a miracle in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquity” (3 Nephi 8:1). The same holds true for Joseph Smith and his prophetic calling.23 As an apostle of the Lord, Elder Andersen testified, “I give you my witness that Jesus is the Christ, our Savior and Redeemer. He chose a holy man, a righteous man, to lead the Restoration of the fulness of His gospel. He chose Joseph Smith.”24 This same spiritual witness is available to any and all who seek it diligently.

• 1. See Joseph Smith—History 1:23.
• 2. See “Joseph Smith and His Papers: An Introduction,” online at josephsmithpapers.org.
• 3.Letter to Oliver Cowdery, December 1834, p. 40, accessed November 18, 2017, online at josephsmithpapers.org.
• 4.Joseph Smith—History 1:28.
• 5.Letter to Oliver Cowdery, December 1834, p. 40, accessed November 18, 2017, online at josephsmithpapers.org.
• 6.History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843], p. 2, accessed November 18, 2017, online at josephsmithpapers.org. For evaluations of Joseph Smith’s reputation in New York, see Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Reappraised,” BYU Studies 10, no. 3 (1970): 283–314; Richard Lloyd Anderson, Review of “Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 3, no. 1 (1991): 52–80; Hugh Nibley, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 11 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 103–406.
• 7.Letter to Emma Smith, 6 June 1832, p. 1, accessed November 18, 2017, online at josephsmithpapers.org. Spelling corrected.
• 8.Letter to Emma Smith, 13 October 1832, p. 3, accessed November 18, 2017, online at josephsmithpapers.org. Spelling corrected.
• 9. Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Credibility of the Book of Mormon Translators,” in Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1982), 228. See also, Richard Bushman, “The Character of Joseph Smith: Insights from His Holographs,” Ensign, April 1977, online at lds.org.
• 10. William Smith, William Smith on Mormonism: A True Account of the Origin of the Book of Mormon (Lamoni, IA, Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 9–10. On another occasion, when William was asked if he thought Joseph could have been lying to his family, he responded, “No. We all had the most implicit confidence in what he said. He was a truthful boy. Father and mother believed him. Why should not the children? I suppose if he had told crooked stories about other things, we might have doubted his word about the plates, but Joseph was a truthful boy. That father and mother believed his report and suffered persecution for that belief shows that he was truthful. No sir, we never doubted his word for one minute.” J. W. Peterson, “William B. Smith’s Last Statement,” Zion's Ensign 5, no. 3 (1894): 6; as cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Trustworthiness of Young Joseph Smith,” The Improvement Era 73, no. 10 (1970): 89.
• 11. Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Trustworthiness of Young Joseph Smith,” The Improvement Era 73, no. 10 (1970): 82. For more on Joseph Smith’s family life, see Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Home Environment,” Ensign, July 1971, online at lds.org; Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Early Preparation of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Ensign, December 2005, online at lds.org.
• 12. For a sampling of such statements, see “Character of Joseph Smith: Gentleness and Meekness and Love Unfeigned,” September 11, 2013, online at josephsmith.net. For a more comprehensive survey, see Mark McConkie, ed., Remembering Joseph Smith: Personal Recollections of Those Who Knew the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003).
• 13.“The Mormons” The Morning Chronicle, June 1851, as cited in George Q. Cannon, The Life of Joseph Smith the Prophet (Salt Lake City, UT: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1888), 336. Emphasis added.
• 14.Doctrine and Covenants 124:1–2.
• 15.Doctrine and Covenants 132:48–50.
• 16. For the inconsistency of many of the claims made against Joseph Smith and 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–xxxv.
• 17. See Hugh Nibley, The World and the Prophets, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 3 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1987), 9–16.
• 18. See Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4; Helaman 13:25–26. For a comparison of the lives of Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ, see Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Probing the Lives of Christ and Joseph Smith,” FARMS Review 21, no. 2 (2009): 1–29.
• 19. See also, Moroni 7:14–16.
• 20. Neil L. Andersen, “Joseph Smith,” Ensign, November 2014, online at lds.org.
• 21. For the importance of testing a prophet’s words by acting upon them, see John 7:17: “Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”
• 22. Andersen, “Joseph Smith,” online at lds.org.
• 23. For instance, unless Joseph was humble and prayerful, the seer stone would not work during the translation of the Book of Mormon. 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. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2017), 173–174, doc. 96. As another evidence of the need for moral conduct, Joseph’s gift to translate was completely withdrawn for a time because he and Martin Harris did not listen to the counsel of the Lord. See William J. Critchlow III, “Manuscript, Lost 166 Pages,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 2:854–855.
• 24. Andersen, “Joseph Smith,” online at lds.org.

The Know

In Genesis 24, Abraham sent his servant to a foreign land to find a wife for Isaac. When he got there, he met a girl named Rebekah at a well, she drew water for him, she ran off to tell her family about it, and later she and Isaac were betrothed. Something similar happened to Jacob. He went to a foreign land to find a wife, he met Rachael by a well, he drew water for her, she ran to tell her family, and Jacob and Rachael were betrothed (see Genesis 29). As with all true stories, the author could have told these stories in many different ways.1 However, the reason these two stories are so similar is because they are both based on the same pattern, called a type-scene.2

A type-scene is an ancient storytelling technique where certain kinds of stories are told in certain ways.3 The ancient audience expected that when a main character got engaged, for example, he would journey to a foreign land, encounter a woman at a well, and draw water from the well.4 Then the woman would rush home to tell the family, and the man and the woman would be betrothed.5 However, each time the storyteller applied this type-scene to a new character, they would change the story slightly. This allowed the type-scene to fit each character’s historical circumstances, but also gave insights into the personalities of each character in the story.6

For instance, biblical scholar Robert Alter noted that “it is only in [Isaac's] betrothal scene that the girl, not the stranger, draws water from the well.”7 This fits well with what we see Rebekah doing later, when she took “the initiative at a crucial moment in the story in order to obtain the paternal blessing for her favored son, Jacob.”8 Ultimately, “Rebekah is to become the shrewdest and the most potent of the matriarchs, and so it is entirely appropriate that she should dominate her betrothal scene.”9 The more these stories differ from the basic type-scene, the more one can expect that the characters in the scene will turn out differently than expected.10

Alan Goff has pointed out a radically different, but still recognizable, version of this type scene in Alma 17.11 Just as in the classic type-scene, Ammon went to a foreign land, but in this case, he went to preach the gospel (Alma 17:12).12 Although Ammon did not meet a woman there, the king offered Ammon his daughter in marriage, but he declined (v. 24).13 Shortly thereafter, Ammon went to the waters of Sebus, rather than a well, to water the flocks (v. 26).14 Finally, instead of the woman returning to tell the family about the presence of a potential suitor, the servants returned to the king with the arms of the would-be sheep rustlers (v. 39).15

The Why

The differences between the basic type-scene and the Ammon story teach us much about Ammon and how we can be like him. Instead of going to a foreign land to find a wife, Ammon went to a foreign land to preach the gospel. When he got there and was offered the hand of the princess, he declined, stating that he wished to work for the king of the Lamanites instead. In addition to simply drawing water for the flocks, he saved them at the peril of his own life. Finally, those present at the watering of the flocks returned to tell the king not about Ammon as a potential suitor, but about the power of God that was with him.

The Ammon story takes the type-scene, in which the hero is simply trying to find a wife, and turns it on its head. Everything Ammon does in the story is done for selfless reasons. The last part of the type-scene, in which the hero becomes betrothed, is conspicuous by its absence. Ammon does not become betrothed at the end of the story because that was not his purpose in traveling to the land of the Lamanites. He went to the Lamanites to preach the gospel and remained focused on that goal the entire time he was in Lamanite lands.

It is easy for us to become so focused on ourselves and our own needs that we rarely think about those around us. Mormon’s masterful reworking of this type-scene reminds us all of the importance of putting others first. If we will all replace selfishness with selflessness, like Ammon did, we can be a true force for good in the lives of those around us and have the power of God with us in our lives, like Ammon did.

• 1. For a concrete example of this in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Are there Multiple Accounts of Joseph Smith's and Alma's Visions? (Alma 36:6–7),” KnoWhy 264 (January 20, 2017).
• 2. For an introduction to type-scenes, see Michael Austin, “How the Book of Mormon Reads the Bible: A Theory of Types,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 26, (2017): 51–53. For one perspective on how type-scenes are a subtle witness for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, see Alan Goff, “Uncritical Theory and Thin Description: The Resistance to History,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 7, no. 1 (1995): 187–190.
• 3. For a few examples other examples of type-scenes in the Book of Mormon, see Richard Dilworth Rust, “Recurrence in Book of Mormon Narratives,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 1 (1994): 42–43.
• 4. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 2^nd ed. (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2011), 62.
• 5. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 62.
• 6. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 63.
• 7. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 64.
• 8. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 64.
• 9. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 64.
• 10. For one example of this, see Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 70.
• 11. Alan Goff, “Reduction and Enlargement: Harold Bloom’s Mormons,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5, no. 1 (1993): 105.
• 12. Goff, “Reduction and Enlargement,” 105.
• 13. Goff, “Reduction and Enlargement,” 105.
• 14. Goff, “Reduction and Enlargement,” 105.
• 15. For more context on this story, 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), 4:275–276.

The Know

The Book of Mormon is full of repeated words and phrases. Many of these repetitions have to do with poetic structures called parallelisms.1 However, one particular type of repetition—called repetitive resumption—is likely a feature of the Book of Mormon’s editing process, rather than its poetry.2 Learning to recognize repetitive resumption may be worthwhile because its use in the Book of Mormon often points out or clarifies important teachings.

Repetitive resumption was often used by biblical authors to add content to an existing text while still maintaining a coherent flow of ideas.3 After interrupting an idea with an explanatory or clarifying aside, the writer would then repeat a phrase close to the beginning of the interruption. This would provide a signal to the reader that the interruption was over and that there would be a return to the original flow of ideas. According to biblical scholar David Bokovoy, repetitive resumption was “one of the primary signs of editorial activity in the Old Testament.”4

This practice is also found repeatedly throughout the Book of Mormon.5 For instance, in Alma 19:35–20:1, Mormon interrupted the narrative after the phrase “they did establish a church among them” and then returned to the narrative with the similar phrase “they had established a church in that land”:

And it came to pass that there were many that did believe in their words; and as many as did believe were baptized; and they became a righteous people, and they did establish a church among them. And thus the work of the Lord did commence among the Lamanites; thus the Lord did begin to pour out his Spirit upon them; and we see that his arm is extended to all people who will repent and believe on his name. And it came to pass that when they had established a church in that land, that king Lamoni desired that Ammon should go with him to the land of Nephi, that he might show him unto his father.6

The repeated idea acts somewhat like brackets, which set off the editor’s commentary. In this particular case, Mormon’s aside helps drive home the doctrinal point that he wanted readers to understand from the story he had just shared. His message was first about how the Lord was reaching out to the Lamanites and second about how His “arm is extended to all people who will repent and believe on his name” (Alma 19:36).

David Bokovoy and John Tvedtnes have noted that Mormon’s inserted commentary “perfectly reflects” the content of the Book of Mormon’s Title Page.7 The Title Page states that the Book of Mormon was written primarily “to the Lamanites” so that they would know they are “not cast off forever.” And yet it also states it was written “to Jew and Gentile” to convince them that “Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.”

Bokovoy and Tvedtnes remarked, “No wonder Mormon chose to emphasize the fact … that God poured out his spirit amongst the righteous Lamanites and that mercy is available to all people through the atonement of Jesus Christ. These observations support the thesis of the entire [Book of Mormon].”8 Not all uses of repetitive resumption in the Book of Mormon are so profound, but careful study and reflection usually reveal that there is a good reason for each interjection.9

The Why

Instances of repetitive resumption provide good evidence that the Book of Mormon’s source texts were written, abridged, and edited by authors trained in the Israelite literary tradition.10 According to Bokovoy and Tvedtnes, “Many of the editorial efforts witnessed in the Book of Mormon parallel the literary techniques now known to have been used by Israelite authors in the Old Testament.”11

Bokovoy has noted that repetitive resumption, in particular, “supports the authenticity of the Book of Mormon” because even though the technique is repeatedly attested in the Bible, it “had not yet been identified by biblical scholars in 1830.”12 Frequently interjecting commentary might be natural for anyone making up a hasty story on the fly, as Joseph Smith is sometimes accused of doing with the Book of Mormon. But it’s unlikely that Joseph or any other American in 1830 would have repeatedly inserted commentary in a way that restates phrases at the point of interruption.13

It should also be remembered that, according to eyewitnesses, Joseph orally dictated the Book of Mormon without using any notes or reference materials and without relying on his scribes to help him keep track of the flow of the narrative.14 Some instances of repetitive resumption come after rather lengthy asides, and it would have required remarkable focus and memory to recall the wording at the outset of each interjection.

For instance, when editing the Jaredite record, Moroni interrupted the commentary for two whole chapters (Ether 3:9–6:2) before he resumed his discussion about the brother of Jared and the shining stones.15 Thus both the time period and the process of the translation help establish that the Book of Mormon’s use of repetitive resumption is evidence of its historical authenticity.

Paying attention to repetitive resumption can also help us better understand the perspectives of Book of Mormon authors and their underlying reasons for including certain source texts or materials. We might ask ourselves: Why is this point being clarified? Why is the narrative being interrupted here? Are there patterns to these interruptive commentaries? And what might I have misunderstood without the inserted comment? Such questions can reveal themes, patterns, connections, and insights that we might have otherwise missed.

So the next time you come across an interjection in the Book of Mormon, make sure to look for a repeated phrase that signals the resumption of the narrative. Doing so may deeply enrich your perspective on the verses, chapters, or prophets you are studying, while at the same time strengthening your testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

• 1. See Donald W. Parry, Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text Reformatted (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2007).
• 2. This literary feature is also known more formally as Epanalepsis. See Larry G. Childs, “Epanalepsis in the Book of Mormon,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), 165–166.
• 3. See David E. Bokovoy and John A. Tvedtnes, Testaments: Links between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible (Toelle, UT: Heritage Press, 2003), 117–123; David E. Bokovoy, “Repetitive Resumption in the Book of Mormon,” Insights 27, no. 182 (2007): 2.
• 4. See Bokovoy, “Repetitive Resumption,” 2.
• 5. Larry Childs found that 15 different Book of Mormon authors used repetitive resumption (also called epanalepsis), and that together they produced “eighty-three total occurrences.” Larry G. Childs, “Epanalepsis in the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium 12, no. 1 (1986): 158.
• 6. Although these verses are divided between chapters 19 and 20 of our current edition of the Book of Mormon, the original chapter designations, as informed by the earliest manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, had no chapter break between these verses. See John W. Welch and J. Gregory Welch, Charting the Book of Mormon: Visual Aids for Personal Study and Teaching (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), chart 170.
• 7. Bokovoy and Tvedtnes, Testaments, 128.
• 8. Bokovoy and Tvedtnes, Testaments, 128.
• 9. James Duke, for instance, has argued that repetitive resumption in the Book of Mormon is “not just an accidental repetition that is caused by poor writing.” James T. Duke, The Literary Masterpiece Called the Book of Mormon (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, Inc., 2004), 270. The authors who used this device seem to have clearly understood that they were departing from the source text or from a prepared outline. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that they had good reasons for doing so.
• 10. Gerald Smith’s study on improvisation among Book of Mormon authors, although it looked at interjections in the Book of Mormon more broadly, concluded that “we see these improvisational impulses not merely in a simple linear story narrative, but in historic layers as if we were digging through literary strata — later translators who deferentially maintain the improvisations of earlier editor-engravers, who strategically embed the improvisational documents and discourses of original prophets, priests, kings, generals, and teachers, who themselves quote the improvisational ancient texts of earlier seminal prophets, like Moses and Isaiah. The presence of these extemporaneous changes, preserved intact through time and edition, suggests that we are not merely reading history, but witnessing the very authors who constructed it in an earlier time.” Gerald E. Smith, “Improvisation and Extemporaneous Change in the Book of Mormon (Part 2: Structural Evidences of Earlier Ancient versus Later Modern Constructions),” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23 (2017): 86. For the first part of this study, see Gerald E. Smith, “Improvisation and Extemporaneous Change in the Book of Mormon (Part 1: Evidence of an Imperfect, Authentic, Ancient Work of Scripture),” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23 (2017): 1–44.
• 11. Bokovoy and Tvedtnes, Testaments, 131.
• 12. See Bokovoy, “Repetitive Resumption,” 2.
• 13. In support of this assumption, Childs found that Joseph Smith’s early revelations, aside from the Book of Mormon itself, were “virtually devoid” of instances of repetitive resumption. Childs, “Epanalepsis in the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Language, 161–162.
• 14. 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).
• 15. See John W. Welch and J. Gregory Welch, Charting the Book of Mormon: Visual Aids for Personal Study and Teaching (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), chart 15: “The seams between the insertions of Moroni's comments into the final text of this book are clearly discernible, with the underlying text resuming flawlessly after each interruption.”

The Know

The writers of the Book of Mormon often alluded to the Old Testament to help people understand their message on more levels and to make more connections to the scriptures and to their own lives. They knew that highlighting the similarities between the events they were writing about and stories from the Old Testament (Plates of Brass) would help the reader understand both stories better. Nephi often alluded to the story of Joseph when writing about his own life, and these allusions help us understand both Nephi and Joseph in a new way.1

Literary scholar Alan Goff has noted, for example, that when Laman complained against Nephi, he brought two accusations against him: “[1] Nephi wants to usurp the authority of the elder brothers, and [2] he lies to them about being guided by God.”2Laman clearly did not believe Nephi’s claims “that the Lord has talked with him, and also that angels have ministered unto him.” Laman was convinced Nephi was lying and doing “many things by his cunning arts, that he may ... make himself a king and a ruler over us” (1 Nephi 16:38).3

Goff has observed that even though “Laman has witnessed angelic intervention and heard words from the angel proclaiming Nephi’s eventual rule (1 Nephi 3:29), he claims that Nephi is unrighteously trying to rule over them.”4 Joseph of Egypt was in a similar situation. When he had a divine manifestation in a dream and was told that he would someday rule over his brothers, they responded, “shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet more for his dreams and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). Joseph’s brothers thought that he wanted to usurp their authority and that he was lying about being guided by God, the same charges Laman leveled against Nephi.5

Laman and Lemuel also tied Nephi up, planning on leaving him “in the wilderness to be devoured by wild beasts” (1 Nephi 7:16). As Goff has noted, “the format of this story is similar to the story of that other Joseph whose brothers intend to put him into a pit and leave him there to die rather than killing him outright and have his blood on their hands.”6 Joseph’s brothers’ false claim that Joseph had been eaten by wild beasts (see Genesis 37:20, 33), would only have been plausible if there really were hungry wild beasts around.7

Thus, Reuben’s suggestion that they leave Joseph in a pit (v. 22) was likely interpreted by the brothers as a means of killing him. They were leaving him to be devoured by wild beasts, just as Laman and Lemuel would eventually try to do to Nephi.8 In both the case of Joseph and Nephi, however, the older brothers repented. Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery instead of killing him (Genesis 37:22–24), and Nephi’s brothers, after being chastened by the Lord, also repented and spared Nephi (1 Nephi 16:39).9

Even some of the language of 1 Nephi is similar to what is found is the Joseph narrative. Nephi stated that Lehi and Sariah’s “grey hairs were about to be brought down to lie low in the dust; yea, even they were near to be cast with sorrow into a watery grave” (1 Nephi 18:18). The image of Lehi and Sariah’s grey hairs being brought down with sorrow to the grave is exactly what we find in the Joseph narrative.10 Genesis repeatedly states that if Jacob lost another child, it would bring down his “gray hairs with sorrow to the grave” (Genesis 42:38; 44:29, 31). These three verses are the only time these words appear in the scriptures, making it more likely that the connection between the two stories was intentional.11

The Why

Because 1 Nephi is one of the oldest surviving texts that comments on a biblical story (outside the Bible itself) it gives us insights on the Joseph story that we could gain in no other way. The Bible does not tell us how Joseph felt as he headed south across the desert towards Egypt. However, we do know how Nephi felt as he headed south across the desert to an unknown promised land.

Nephi, at first, seems to have wondered why he was being asked by God, through his father, to suffer through something so difficult. However, he said, “I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father” (1 Nephi 2:16). God softened Nephi’s heart, helping him to know that he was doing what God wanted him to do and was where God wanted him to be.

Although we do not know for sure whether Joseph had a similar experience, it seems very likely that he, like Nephi, wondered why he had to go through something so difficult. Yet he, like Nephi, seems to have received an assurance that God knew him and was taking care of him. Near the end of Joseph’s life, he told his brothers, “ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” (Genesis 50:20). He knew that God had been with him through all his afflictions, and that even though his brothers had meant to harm him, God had made sure everything worked out well in the end.

Like Joseph and Nephi, we can also feel the reassurance from the Lord that even though we may not know every turn our life may take, we can know that God will help things to work out. This does not mean that we will not experience suffering between now and the end of our journey (Joseph and Nephi did), but we can know that God will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see 2 Nephi 2:2). The words of Dallin H. Oaks apply to Joseph, to Nephi, and to us: “the Lord will not only consecrate our afflictions for our gain, but He will use them to bless the lives of countless others.”12

• 1. For an overview of this topic this, see Alan Goff, “A Hermeneutic of Sacred Texts: Historicism, Revisionism, Positivism, and the Bible and Book of Mormon,” (MA dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1989), 104–132. For a more recent take on the topic, see Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), 42–44. For a summary, 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), 1:47.
• 2. Goff, “A Hermeneutic of Sacred Texts,” 104.
• 3. Goff, “A Hermeneutic of Sacred Texts,” 104.
• 4. Goff, “A Hermeneutic of Sacred Texts,” 104–105.
• 5. Goff, “A Hermeneutic of Sacred Texts,” 105.
• 6. Goff, “A Hermeneutic of Sacred Texts,” 60.
• 7. For more on this, see Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 42.
• 8. Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 42.
• 9. Goff, “A Hermeneutic of Sacred Texts,” 105.
• 10. Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 43.
• 11. Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 43. It is likely that Lehi made connections between their experiences and Joseph’s experiences as well, since he named one of the sons born to him in the wilderness after Joseph. 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), 42.
• 12. Dallin H. Oaks, “Give Thanks in All Things,” Ensign, 2003, online at lds.org.

The Know

When Joseph Smith was entrusted with the golden plates, he was also given a set of Nephite interpreters and a breastplate.1 Over the course of the Book of Mormon’s translation, Joseph apparently made use of several different media—small stones or lenses—to enable his spiritual vision of the text. Initially, in 1828, he utilized the Nephite interpreters, which he described as “two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.”2

In 1921, it was reported that William Smith, Joseph’s younger brother, said that the stones were connected to a rod that could be attached to the breastplate and used like a pair of spectacles.3 For convenience, however, Joseph may soon have removed one of these stones from its holder and placed it in a hat in order to shield it from ambient light as he looked upon it. On other occasions, he apparently used what has come to be called his seer stone.4

When the 116 pages of the book of Lehi were lost in July 1828, the plates and the interpreters were taken back by the angel Moroni. But then in September, 1828, Moroni returned them to Joseph.5 He commenced translating again in earnest two days after Oliver Cowdery arrived on April 5, 1829. After the translation was finished, the plates and interpreters were returned again to Moroni, who showed them to the Three Witnesses.

In 1848, Oliver testified, “I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interpreters. That book is true.”6 On August 31, 1829, an article appeared in the Palmyra Freeman, reprinted in the Rochester Advertiser, apparently quoting Joseph himself: “By placing the spectacles in a hat, and looking into it, Smith could (he said so, at least,) interpret these characters.”7 Joseph declined to explain the translation process except to say repeatedly that it was accomplished by the gift and power of God.8

Whatever the particular details may have been, it is clear that the breastplate and interpreters were linked artifacts and that they were prepared for the purpose of translation.9 Soon, the early Saints recognized that Joseph’s translation instruments were similar to the Urim and Thummim from the Old Testament, and they began to interchangeably refer to them by this biblical term.10 Joseph himself referred to them as the “Urim and Thummim” as early as 1836.11 Some may wonder, though, how closely and in what ways Joseph’s New World artifacts were related to their Old World counterpart? 

As far as the Bible itself is concerned, there is clear evidence that the Urim and Thummim was associated with a ceremonial breastplate worn by the high priest in ancient Israel. From Exodus 28:30, we learn that the Urim and Thummim was supposed to be put “in the breastplate of judgment”12 and that it would be “upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before the Lord.”

Biblical scholar Cornelis Van Dam has argued that although the evidence isn’t conclusive, there are good reasons to suspect that the breastplate was “designed to provide a pouch in which the [Urim and Thummim] … could be kept.”13 This nicely corresponds with William’s description that a “pocket was prepared in the [Nephite] breastplate on the left side, immediately over the heart. When not in use the [interpreters were] placed in this pocket, the rod being of just the right length to allow it to be so deposited.”14

Most biblical scholars over the past few centuries have believed that the Urim and Thummim was “used merely to obtain a yes or no answer, similar to casting lots.”15 Yet Van Dam has argued that there “was something very lively and direct”16 about the Urim and Thummim’s revelatory process and that “[p]rophetic inspiration is the only revelatory means that is known that can adequately account for the complexity and subtlety of some of the answers received.”17 Similarly, Joseph Smith was able to receive detailed revelations from the Lord through the Nephite interpreters. Several early revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants were received in this manner.18

The terms Urim and Thummim possibly mean “light(s)” and “perfection(s).”19 A number of sources indicate that the divine object to which they referred was associated with a sacred name and that its revelatory power was facilitated by gemstones, light, and even illuminated letters.20 For instance, in discussing Exodus 28:30, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan states that “you shall put into the breastplate the Urim, which illuminate their words and make manifest the hidden things of the House of Israel.”21

According to Van Dam,

Ramban suggested that certain letters of the breastpiece lit up, and that lighted letters would then need to be arranged correctly by the high priest. The Zohar took this notion a step further, mentioning that the face of the high priest shone if the luminous letters conveyed a favorable message. The interpretation of [Urim and Thummim] as shining protruding letters is also found in Christian interpretation.22

These various understandings correspond well with accounts of Joseph’s translation method. When asked what appeared to Joseph Smith’s view during the translation process, David Whitmer explained that Joseph would see “what appeared like an oblong piece of parchment, on which the hieroglyphics would appear, and also the translation in the English language, all appearing in bright luminous letters.”23 On other occasions he referred to them as “letters of fire”24 and said that the “letters appeared on [the stone] in light.”25 Joseph Knight said that words looked like “bright Roman letters.”26

The Why

There will likely continue to be scholarly debates about what the biblical Urim and Thummim was and how it functioned. Yet non-LDS scholars such as Van Dam have fairly recently been reaching conclusions that strengthen the possible links between the Urim and Thummim and Joseph Smith’s translation instruments.27 Joseph and the early Latter-day Saints, therefore, were certainly not incorrect to make this association themselves.

It should be noted, however, that Joseph’s conception of a Urim and Thummim was fairly broad. He taught that the “place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim” and that “this earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:9). Moreover, he said the “white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one …. And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word” (Doctrine & Covenants 130:10).

Thus, there is no reason to expect there to be a one-to-one relationship between every aspect of Joseph Smith’s translation instruments and the biblical Urim and Thummim. Each was associated with gemstones, a breastplate, light, illuminating letters, a sacred name, and prophetic revelation.28 And yet the meaning of the name, the nature of the letters, the method of illumination, the features of the breastplate, the appearance of the gemstones, and the specific revelations were all different.29 This shows how God often communicates to his prophets in similar, yet not exactly the same, ways. As Nephi declared, God speaks “unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3).30

Alma prophesied that the Lord’s servant would obtain “a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness” (Alma 37:23), and that he would also obtain the Nephite interpreters which would “bring forth [ancient records] out of darkness unto light” (v. 25). Surely, this servant was Joseph Smith, who variously used the Nephite interpreters as well as a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon by the gift and power God.

While Joseph’s instruments were different in some respects with what is known about the biblical Urim and Thummim, these sacred cousins are certainly similar enough to be called by the same name. Each of them helped the “word of God … shine forth out of darkness, and come unto the knowledge of the people” (Mormon 8:16).

• 1. See Book of Mormon Central, “Is There Evidence That Joseph Smith Possessed a Urim and Thummim and Breastplate? (Ether 4:5),” KnoWhy 409 (February 20, 2018).
• 2. 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), 138, doc. 28.
• 3. 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), 88–90.
• 4. On about July 1, 1830, Joseph was tried a final time in Broome County, New York, on charges of being a disorderly person. As on previous occasions, he was once again acquitted, this time because there was convincing testimony that Joseph had not looked “in the glass within the space of two years last past.” This would mean that he had not used whichever glass (seer stone) was in question between July 1828 and the end of June 1830. See Gordon A. Madsen, “Being Acquitted of a ‘Disorderly Person’ Charge in 1826,” in Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith’s Legal Encounters, ed. Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2014), 92, 464.
• 5. According to David Whitmer, when Joseph was again permitted to translate, he “was given by the angel a Urim and Thummim of another pattern, it being shaped in oval or kidney form.” See Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 173, doc. 95. For more on the possible distinctions among Joseph Smith's translation instruments, see Michael Hubbard MacKay and Nicholas J. Frederick, Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham young University, 2016).
• 6. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 159, doc. 72.
• 7. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 192, doc. 122. Apparently, the hat helped block out ambient room light and allowed Joseph to more clearly see the illuminated words through the stone. See also, Richard E. Turley Jr., Robin S. Jensen, and Mark Ashurst-McGee , “Joseph the Seer,” Ensign, October 2015, online at lds.org; “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics, online at lds.org.
• 8. See, for example, Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 130–140, docs. 9, 10, 11, 16, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 32.
• 9. See MacKay and Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light, 88–89.
• 10. See Roger Nicholson, “The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 5 (2013): 136–139.
• 11. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 135, 140, docs. 23, 32.
• 12. Emphasis added.
• 13. See Cornelis Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 155; for Van Dam’s full argument see pp. 154–160.
• 14. Peterson and Pender, interview of William Smith, 7, as cited in MacKay and Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light, 89.
• 15. Matt Roper, “Revelation and the Urim and Thummim,” 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), 280.
• 16. Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim, 216.
• 17. Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim, 217.
• 18. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,”121–125.
• 19. Although there is no scholarly consensus on the etymology of these words, Van Dam has argued that “light(s)” and “perfection(s)” is likely their meaning in the Masoretic Text of the Bible. Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim, 136.
• 20. See Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim, 9–38.
• 21. Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim, 23.
• 22. Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim, 32.
• 23. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,”170, doc. 91.
• 24. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 173, doc. 96.
• 25. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 169, doc. 90.
• 26. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing,” 189, doc. 119.
• 27. For other relevant non-LDS publications, see C. Houtman, “The Urim and Thummim: A New Suggestion,” Vetus Testamentum 40 (April 1990): 231; Shimon Bakon, “The Mystery of the Urim Ve-Tummum,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 43, no. 4 (2015): 241–245.
• 28. For information on the connection between Joseph Smith, his seer stone, and the name Gazelem, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Was a Stone Used as an Aid in Translating the Book of Mormon? (Alma 37:23),” KnoWhy 145 (July 18, 2016); MacKay and Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light, 68–69. See also Alma 37:23–24; 2 Nephi 3:15.
• 29. It should also be noted that the truthfulness and accuracy of these ancient sources describing the biblical Urim and Thummim is questionable. Their correspondences with Joseph Smith’s translation instruments and methods are intriguing, but this alone doesn’t necessarily establish them as valid.
• 30. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does the Lord Speak to Men ‘According to Their Language’? (2 Nephi 31:3),” KnoWhy 258 (January 6, 2017).

The Know

As part of his last blessing upon his son Joseph, Lehi quoted some of the words of Joseph of Egypt (see 2 Nephi 3:6–21). Most of what Lehi quoted to his son is similar to the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 50:24–38.1 However, the differences between the Joseph Smith Translation and Lehi's blessing in the Book of Mormon show how Lehi specifically applied the scriptures to the lives of his descendants.

In the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 50, God told Joseph of Egypt, “I will raise up Moses, and a rod shall be in his hand, and he shall gather together my people, and he shall lead them as a flock, and he shall smite the waters of the Red Sea with his rod” (JST Genesis 50:34). He also said that Moses would, “have judgment, and shall write the word of the Lord. And he shall not speak many words, for I will write unto him my law by the finger of mine own hand. And I will make a spokesman for him, and his name shall be called Aaron” (v. 35). But the translation concludes simply by saying, “And it shall be done unto thee in the last days also, even as I have sworn” (v. 36).

This last statement could be interpreted in many different ways. What, exactly, would be done to the seed of Joseph of Egypt “in the last days also” as God had sworn? Lehi clarified that a modified version of God’s blessing, as recorded in the two preceding verses (JST Genesis 50:34–35), would be given to the descendants of Joseph of Egypt “in the last days also.” In 2 Nephi 3:17, Lehi said that God would, “raise up a Moses” (Joseph Smith) in the last days, just as God had raised up the original Moses in ancient times (see JST Genesis 50:34).

God also said He would “give power” to Joseph Smith “in a rod” (2 Nephi 3:17), just as God had given Moses power to deliver the Israelites out of Egypt with his rod (see JST Genesis 50:34). Because a “rod” is associated with the “word of God” in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 11:25), this is likely a reference to Joseph’s power to bring forth scripture such as the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants.2 This idea is supported by the next phrase: “I will give judgment unto him in writing” (2 Nephi 3:17), just as Moses would “have judgement” and “write the word of the Lord” (JST Genesis 50:35).

Finally, the Lord told Joseph He would “make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it” (2 Nephi 3:18). Oliver Cowdery was, in some ways, Joseph’s spokesman in the same way that Aaron was a “spokesman” to Moses (see JST Genesis 50:35). Oliver physically copied down what Joseph was dictating when the Book of Mormon was being translated, so it was through him that it was “declared” to the people. However, the “spokesman” in 2 Nephi 3:18 may also be a reference to Sidney Rigdon, since Doctrine and Covenants 100:9 calls Sydney Joseph Smith’s “spokesman.”3

The Why

In 2 Nephi 3, Lehi interpreted Genesis in a remarkably complex way. The subtle nuances that become apparent when comparing 2 Nephi and JST Genesis 50 strongly suggest that Joseph Smith did not simply modify 2 Nephi to produce the Joseph Smith Translation. It is much more likely that something very close to the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 50 was on the Plates of Brass, and that Lehi carefully reinterpreted this text to apply it to his own descendants.4

Yet the way Lehi phrased his comments is interesting. Even though he seemed to have been the one applying Genesis 50 to his own descendants, he still talked about these things as though they were what the Lord had said. This indicates that Lehi received revelation to know how to apply these Old Testament scriptures to his own family. These words would then have been doubly the word of the Lord. They were the word of the Lord to Joseph as found in the Plates of Brass, but the modified version would also have been the word of the Lord to Lehi as he received revelation about these verses.

Lehi likely read, prayed about, and pondered these verses, and then applied them to his own family. Although we will may never be in position to prophecy about our own posterity, we can still liken the scriptures to ourselves. As we read, pray about, and ponder the scriptures, as Lehi likely did, we can learn the lessons that God wants to teach us by applying the scriptures to our own lives.

• 1. For one example, see Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1987–1992), 1:210.
• 2. It is also possible that this is a reference to Oliver Cowdery’s divining rod, although the context does not necessarily support this. See Jeffrey G. Cannon, “Oliver Cowdery’s Gift,” in Revelations in Context, December 15, 2012, online at history.lds.org. For more on the rod of iron, see Matthew L. Bowen, “What Meaneth the Rod of Iron?,” Insights: A Window on the Ancient World 25, no. 2 (2005): 2–3. For more on the Book of Mormon as the rod of iron, see Matthew Bowen, “‘Nephi’s Good Inclusio,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17 (2016): 194.
• 3. 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), 2:60. For an in-depth discussion of this idea, see Catherine Thomas, “A Great Deliverance (2 Nephi 3–5),” 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), 106–107.
• 4. See Kent P. Jackson, “Inspired Additions to Genesis (JST, Genesis),” in Old Testament, Part 1: Genesis to 2 Samuel, Studies in Scripture, Volume 3, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Robert L. Millet (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1989), 44–45.

The Know

Early on in the Book of Mormon, Nephi often compared his family’s exodus from Jerusalem to the Israelites exodus from Egypt. He did this to help his brothers understand that God would help them just as He had helped their ancestors. However, he was not the only Book of Mormon author to allude to the Exodus account. The Book of Mormon also shows how the Israelites’ deliverance from Egypt foreshadows our own deliverance from sin and death through Christ’s Atonement.

One example of this foreshadowing is found in Alma 36. Book of Mormon scholar S. Kent Brown has noted that the first and last verses of the chapter clearly teach that “inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land.”^[1] The last verse states that if people do not keep the commandments they will be “cut off” from God’s presence.^[2] Brown has noted that Alma’s teachings about blessings and curses “find a detailed counterpart in the book of Deuteronomy, which recounts Moses’ last instructions to his people at the end of their wandering, just before they crossed the Jordan River into the land of Canaan.”^[3]

In Deuteronomy, “the Israelites were about to take possession of a promised land, and Moses’ words were not only full of promises to those who would obey the Lord but also bristling with penalties that would descend on those who might disobey.”^[4] In this way, “even the words which open and close Alma 36 are linked to the larger Exodus experience.”^[5] As one continues into the chapter, the Exodus connections become more pronounced. Brown has observed that “the second and third verses, along with three verses at the chapter’s end (36:27–29), all speak of the Exodus as proof of God’s marvelous power to deliver and support those in bondage and afflictions.”^[6]

The core of this chapter is not about the Israelite’s deliverance from Egypt. It actually describes “the remarkable story of Alma’s dramatic conversion to the Lord, in which he was ‘born of God.’”^[7] Yet Alma seems to have emphasized the similarities between his own journey out of his sinful life and the Hebrews’ journey out of Egypt. As Brown noted, Alma stated that “trusting in the Lord leads to divine support and deliverance (36:3, 27),” just as the Israelites were delivered from Egypt and were supported while in the wilderness when they trusted in God.^[8]

In addition, “Alma’s early life was characterized by rebellion,” just as the ancient Israelites often rebelled against God.^[9] Like Israel, Alma was blessed in spite of his lack of worthiness, not because of it.^[10] Finally, “the entire chapter consists of Alma’s recitation of his own story; it resembles in a general sense the memorized recitations learned by Israelites of God’s wondrous acts performed on their behalf during the Exodus.”^[11]Deuteronomy 6:20–25 commands the ancient Israelites to tell their sons about how God delivered the Israelites from Egypt.^[12] Alma seems to have fulfilled this commandment while also applying this story to his own life.^[13]

The Why

Alma looked at the Exodus narrative and saw his own life. As Brown put it, he “linked his deliverance from the bonds of sin to Israel’s deliverance from the bondage of slavery.”^[14] We may not have had exactly the same experiences as Alma the younger. But in some ways, we are all in bondage to sin, just as the Israelites were in bondage to the Egyptians. Trusting in the power of Christ’s Atonement is the only way for us to be freed from this bondage.

Even though we may not rebel against God in the same ways as the ancient Israelites or Alma did, we still rebel against Him in a small way every time we sin. Yet God still is willing to reach down and help us, just as He helped the Israelites, even when we don’t fully deserve it (see Mosiah 2:24). As Alma put it, “I know that he will raise me up at the last day, to dwell with him in glory; yea, and I will praise him forever, for he has brought our fathers out of Egypt, ... and he led them by his power into the promised land” (Alma 36:28). If God raised up the Israelites from bondage in Egypt, then He can raise us up at the last day as well.

We may not recite the Exodus story to our children very often like the ancient Israelites did.^[15] However, every year at Easter, and every week during the sacrament, we remember God’s deliverance in our own lives. The power of Christ’s Atonement can deliver us from the bondage we all experience in life. God delivered the Israelites, He delivered Alma, and He will deliver us.

The Know

Before the tenth and final plague in Egypt, the Lord told the Israelites to kill a lamb without blemish and wipe its blood on the doorframes of their homes (see Exodus 12:6–7). They were then given specific instructions to roast the lamb with fire and eat it along with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (see v. 8). The Lord explained that “the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt” (v. 13). The Lord further told the Israelites that “this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations” (v. 14).

The feast commemorating this important event later become known as the Passover because the destroying angel of the Lord passed over all those who had the blood of the lamb on their doorposts. According to David and Jo Ann Seely, “The elements of the Passover meal: the lamb, the blood, the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs all pointed toward the coming of the Messiah and the redemption He would offer from sin, death, and hell.”[1]

While the Passover tradition is referred to quite frequently in the books of the Old Testament, they rarely associated the Passover lamb with a future Messiah.[2] The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, contains no direct references to the Passover. And yet its authors clearly understood that salvation comes through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, whom they recognized as the Lamb of God.[3]

The first hint that they were familiar with the Passover tradition comes from Nephi’s connected visions in 1 Nephi 11–14. In these chapters, the Messiah is referred to as the “Lamb” on no less than 56 occasions![4] Terrence L. Szink has argued that Nephi would have been “familiar with the Exodus both in story form as he might have heard it from his father and through annual Israelite rituals such as the Passover as they were acted out.”[5] It’s possible, then, that Nephi’s early visions helped solidify for him, and for his future posterity, that the Passover tradition, including the Passover lamb, was meant to symbolize Jesus Christ.[6]

Several other stories in the Book of Mormon suggest that its peoples were likely familiar with the Passover. For example, several scholars have noted that Abinadi likely preached to King Noah and his priests during the festival of Pentecost (or Shavuot), which “marked the concluding phase of Passover.”[7] Matthew Roper has found several clues suggesting that the destruction reported in 3 Nephi may be “an ironic reversal of the Passover blessing of protection and deliverance.”[8]

John Welch has suggested that a Passover setting also makes sense in Alma 10:7–11, when Amulek fed Alma after his fast. “Indeed, if the Nephite calendar began the year in the fall, then their seventh month fell in the spring and was the month of Passover; … Assuming that Amulek was traveling to be with his close family relatives during the Passover season, perhaps he anticipated that Elijah was coming when the angel told him to return home to ‘feed a prophet of the Lord.’”[9]

Finally, there is good evidence that Alma was following an early Passover tradition when giving instruction to his three sons. The tradition held that a father should give different instructions to sons who often acted out three different roles—the wise son, the uninformed son, and the wicked son. This is very similar to Alma’s instructions to Helaman, Shiblon, and Corianton in Alma 35–42.[10] John Welch and Gordon Thomasson found that other themes in Alma’s sermon also indicate a Passover setting:

Alma speaks of “crying out” (compare Deuteronomy 26:7; Alma 36:18) for deliverance from “affliction” (compare Deuteronomy 26:6; Alma 36:3, 27; especially the unleavened Passover “bread of affliction”) and from bondage in Egypt (Alma 36:28), from the “night of darkness” (compare Alma 41:7; Exodus 12:30), and from bitter suffering (Alma 36:18, 21; related to the Passover “bitter herbs” in Exodus 12:8). The Paschal lamb may parallel some of Alma’s references to Christ; and the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart (see Exodus 11:10) may parallel Alma’s reference to the hardness of his people’s hearts (see Alma 35:15). Just as Alma’s deliverance was preceded by three days and nights of darkness (see Alma 36:16), so was the first Passover (see Exodus 10:22).[11]

The Why

In light of these types of findings, Daniel C. Peterson remarked that the prophets who wrote the Book of Mormon seem to have known “remarkably much about the Jewish Passover.”[12] Although we might expect them to have mentioned the Passover more explicitly, it actually makes sense that they didn’t. According to John A. Tvedtnes, “Most references to the two festivals of Passover and unleavened bread [in the Old Testament] are found in the law of Moses. We must remember that the Book of Mormon is not a law code, but a book of history and religious teachings.”[13]

Book of Mormon prophets were clearly more interested in discussing what the performances and ordinances pointed to—Jesus Christ—than in explaining the details of their ritual worship. For instance, the prophet Abinadi taught that the “performances and ordinances” of the Law of Moses were merely “types of things to come,” and that “there could not any man be saved except it were through the redemption of God” (Mosiah 13:30–32).

This doesn’t mean, however, that reading Book of Mormon teachings in the context of the Passover tradition can’t be valuable or instructive. For example, the imagery of the “Lamb” in Nephi’s visions is more meaningful if it is connected to the Passover lamb. Not just any lamb would do for the Passover meal. It required a lamb without blemish, and Israelites would have remembered that the blood of this perfect lamb protected the families who applied it to the entryway of their homes. This was likely the imagery that came to Nephi’s mind when an angel exclaimed, “Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!” (1 Nephi 11:21).

We too can gain much from studying the Passover. For instance, the ancient Israelites were instructed to always remember the Passover tradition and its significance for their people. Likewise, during sacrament services, an ordinance instituted by Christ during a Passover meal, we covenant to always remember Jesus Christ.[14]

In Alma 36, Alma discussed both of these themes—remembering Christ and remembering the Passover deliverance—in the same setting. In the outer layer of his chiastic counsel to Helaman, Alma declared, “I would that ye should do as I have done, in remembering the captivity of our fathers; for they were in bondage, and none could deliver them except it was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (v. 2). Yet in the center of his chiasm, he related, “I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world (v. 17; emphasis added).[15]

This suggests that part of remembering Jesus Christ, as we commit to do in the sacramental prayer, is remembering how He has miraculously delivered His people.[16] For instance, the protective power of the blood of the Passover lamb can help us understand why we are admonished in the sacrament prayer to always remember the blood which Jesus shed for us. By symbolically applying Christ’s atoning blood to our own homes and families, just as the Israelites applied the blood of an unblemished lamb to their doorposts, we can receive spiritual protection from sin and danger.

These types of connections demonstrate that we, like the Nephites, would do well to remember the Passover tradition. Its profound imagery and symbolism continue to teach sacred and eternal truths about Jesus Christ and His role as the Lamb of God.

The Know

During Lehi’s travel through ancient Arabia, his sons needed to slay animals for food from time to time in order for their group to avoid starvation. Nephi reported on one occasion that he went hunting and broke his bow, “which was made of fine steel” (1 Nephi 16:18). And because his brothers’ bows had “lost their springs, it began to be exceedingly difficult, yea, insomuch that [they] could obtain no food” (v. 21).

In response to their dire situation, Laman, Lemuel, the sons of Ishmael, and even Lehi all began to “murmur against the Lord” (1 Nephi 16:20). In contrast, Nephi encouraged them by saying “many things unto them in the energy of [his] soul” (v. 24). He then “made out of wood a bow, and out of a straight stick, an arrow” and went to his father for guidance (v. 23). Lehi humbled himself and consulted the Liahona. It directed Nephi to the top of a mountain, where he “did slay wild beasts, insomuch that [he] did obtain food for [their] families” (1 Nephi 16:31). 

Although this story may seem rather unremarkable, it may actually be loaded with symbolic importance. In the ancient Near East, kingly status, military power, and the right to rule were all symbolized by the bow.1 Thus “to break the bow” was a common idiom which meant to bring an enemy or ruler into submission.2 In Nephi’s circumstances, most of the adult males in the group, except for Nephi, murmured and complained against the Lord. It took the breaking of the bow, as well as chastisement from Nephi and from the Lord Himself, before they finally “humbled themselves” (1 Nephi 16:24).

This story, like Nephi’s slaying of Laban, also helps confirm the Lord’s promise that Nephi would be a teacher and ruler over his brothers (2 Nephi 5:19).3 According to Noel B. Reynolds, “What we tend to read as a story of flight from Jerusalem is really a carefully designed account explaining to [Nephi’s] successors why their religious faith in Christ and their political tradition—the kingship of Nephi—were both true and legitimate.”4 Nephi’s newly created bow symbolized that he was Lehi’s rightful prophetic successor. It foreshadowed his future kingship. And it demonstrated that, according to divine appointment, he was taking “the lead of their journey in the wilderness” (Mosiah 10:13).

The Why

The story of the broken bow adds one more layer of authenticity to Nephi’s record. The breaking of the bow, the loss of spring in his brothers’ bows, Nephi’s ability to fashion a new bow from apparently suitable wood, and the need to make a new arrow are all believable details according to what is known about ancient bows, archery, and the geography of southwest Arabia.5 Moreover, it is unlikely that Joseph Smith came up with this story because, as Alan Goff has argued, it gives “precisely the right biblical symbolism to apply to Nephi as he begins to assert his leadership.”6

This story is also a reminder that the Lord calls and prepares leaders of His choice. Laman and Lemuel may have been more qualified in their own eyes to lead, but the Lord’s appointments to leadership positions are according to His divine knowledge and will. As a prophet follows divine direction, it becomes apparent to the people, as it was in the case of Nephi, that the mantle of prophetic leadership is truly upon him.7

When trials come our way, we can follow Nephi’s example. Instead of murmuring or blaming others, we can encourage them, take the initiative to search for solutions, and then seek the Lord’s guidance. Doing so will help us similarly qualify for revelation. Importantly, it was upon the “top of the mountain” that Nephi found the wild game he was looking for. When we seek answers to our own vexing concerns, the Lord may likewise direct us to His holy temples. In these sacred locations, symbolic of mountaintops, the Lord often rewards obedience and sacrifice with a proverbial ram in the thicket—an unexpected means of salvation or deliverance.8

• 1. Alan Goff, “A Hermeneutic of Sacred Texts: Historicism, Revisionism, Positivism, and the Bible and Book of Mormon,” (MA dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1989), 92–99.
• 2. See Nahum W. Waldman, “The Breaking of the Bow,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 69, no. 2 (1978): 82–33.
• 3. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Was the Sword of Laban So Important to Nephite Leaders? (Words of Mormon 1:13),” KnoWhy 411 (February 27, 2018).
• 4. Noel B. Reynolds, “Nephi’s Political Testament,” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon: Insights You May have Missed Before, ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 221. See also, Noel B. Reynolds, “The Political Dimension in Nephi’s Small Plates,” BYU Studies Quarterly 27, no. 4 (1987): 15–37.
• 5. See William J. Hamblin, “The Bow and Arrow in the Book of Mormon,” 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), 365–399; William J. Hamblin, “Nephi’s Bows and Arrows,” 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), 41–43; George Potter and Richard Wellington, Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidence That the Book of Mormon Is a True History (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, Inc., 2003), 99–105.
• 6. Alan Goff, “Dan Vogel’s Family Romance and the Book of Mormon as Smith Family Allegory,” FARMS Review 17, no. 2 (2005): 388.
• 7. See J. R euben Clark, Jr., “When Are the Writings and Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” Address to Seminary and Institute Personnel, BYU, July 1954: “The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the Brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.” This statement was quoted in D. Todd Christofferson, “The Doctrine of Christ,” Ensign, May 2012, online at lds.org.
• 8. See Genesis 22:13.

The Know

In some parts of the Old Testament, the Lord can seem angry. In the book of Exodus alone, He killed the firstborn of the Egyptians (Exodus 12:12), swore to wage a perpetual war against the Amalekites (17:16), and brought a plague upon His people when they disobeyed Him (32:35). Verses like this could make it seem like the Lord is always angry. But the Book of Mormon reminds us that this is an oversimplification. Nephi, for example, testified that God “loveth His children” (1 Nephi 11:17).1 He also testified that God “doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him” (2 Nephi 26:24).

Yet if the Old Testament, which were Nephi’s scriptures, depicts God as being so angry, one wonders how Nephi might have come to view God as loving.2 Considering this question, Jonathon Riley has noted that the Plates of Brass may have contained “more about God’s love than the Old Testament as we have it today. It is also possible that Nephi simply knew about God’s love through revelation.”3 However, Nephi’s view of God suggests the possibility that the Old Testament really does depict God as loving, and that “many Christians simply have not read the Old Testament very carefully and have missed the ... verses in the Old Testament that show God’s love for humanity.”4

According to Riley, the Old Testament contains 5,871 verses that show God’s love for His children out of a total of 23,145 verses.5 Thus, roughly one out of every four verses in the Old Testament is about God’s love. As a point of comparison, the New Testament has 7,957 verses in it. As Riley observed, “This means that if the verses about the love of God in the Old Testament were compiled into a book, that book would be ¾ the length of the New Testament.”6

This information suggests that part of the reason people see God as being angry in the Old Testament is simply because they have not noticed all the verses that show God’s love. However, the Book of Mormon makes it clear why God sometimes seems angry in the Old Testament, and why terrible things sometimes happened to the Nephites.7

Lehi told his children, that if they “shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and ... shall dwell safely forever” (2 Nephi 1:9). However, he also told them that “if the day shall come that they will reject the ... Messiah, ... the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them ... and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten” (vv. 10–11). In the Old Testament, as in the Book of Mormon, people sometimes experienced terrible things when they turned from God. But God was merciful to all who repented.8

The Why

The Old Testament contains powerful statements about God’s love for His children. In it, God comforts us by telling us, “I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people. ... I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you go upright” (Leviticus 26:12–13). He reassures us that, “My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest” (Exodus 33:14). The Old Testament reminds us to “be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid ... for the Lord thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee” (Deuteronomy 31:6).

To those suffering economically, the Lord revealed to Hannah that, “He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory” (1 Samuel 2:8). To those who feel distant from God, He reminds us that “the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee” (Isaiah 54:10), and that “I have loved thee with an everlasting love” (Jeremiah 31:3). To those in turmoil, God promises, “I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them” (Ezekiel 37:26).

God has promised us, “I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord” (Hosea 2:19–20). With verses like this in mind, suddenly comments from the Book of Mormon, such as, “And he loveth those who will have him to be their God” (1 Nephi 17:40), and “he loveth our souls as well as he loveth our children” (Alma 24:14), don’t seem out of place.

We too can read the Old Testament the way the Nephites seem to have read it and notice the many verses that describe God’s love for us.9 As we do, we might come to see the Old Testament differently, and maybe feel God’s love in our own lives as well.

• 1. For more on love in the Book of Mormon, see RoseAnn Benson and Stephen D. Ricks, “Treaties and Covenants: Ancient Near Eastern Legal Terminology in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 1 (2005): 48–61, 128–129; David E. Bokovoy, “Love vs. Hate: An Analysis of Helaman 15:1–4,” Insights: A Window on the Ancient World22, no. 2 (2002): 2–3.
• 2. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Parts of the Old Testament Were on the Plates of Brass? (1 Nephi 5:10),” KnoWhy 410 (February 22, 2018).
• 3. Jonathon Riley, “Why the God of the Old Testament Is Not as Angry as You Thought,” at Bible Jon’s Musings, March 21, 2018, online at biblejonsmusings.blogspot.com.
• 4. Riley, “Not as Angry as You Thought.”
• 5. Riley, “Not as Angry as You Thought.” This does not include the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, which might change this count significantly. If verses like Moses 7:28, 32-33, 37, which depicts God weeping for His children, were included, one might have an even greater number of verses that describe God’s love for humankind.
• 6. Riley, “Not as Angry as You Thought.”
• 7. For more on God’s love in the Book of Mormon, and why bad things sometimes happened to them, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Samuel Say the Lord ‘Hated’ The Lamanites? (Helaman 15:4),” KnoWhy 186 (September 13, 2016).
• 8. Steven L. Olsen, “Prospering in the Land of Promise,” FARMS Review 22, no. 1 (2010): 229–232.
• 9. For more on God’s love in the Book of Mormon, see Larry E. Dahl, “Faith, Hope, Charity,” in The Book of Mormon: The Keystone Scripture, ed. Paul R. Cheesman (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1988), 137–150.

The Know

In many respects, the style of warfare depicted in the Book of Mormon is quite different from the mode of war familiar to most Americans in Joseph Smith’s day.^[1] One notable example is the starkly realistic account of guerrilla warfare found in the books of Helaman and 3 Nephi.

During the 19th century, it was commonly expected that opposing troops would formally array themselves for battle and engage in an all-out contest on a set-piece battlefield. Guerrilla warfare, on the other hand, operates on the principles of stealth, surprise, hidden base camps, small-scale skirmishes, strategic retreats, advantageous terrain, and—importantly—propaganda. These types of tactics, although foreign and even shameful to 19th-century thinking, were used repeatedly by the Gadianton robbers of the Book of Mormon.

Like many other revolutionaries, the Gadianton robbers started out as a marginalized political group.^[2] After the “voice of the people” sided against them and their secret band was discovered, “they took their flight out of the land, by a secret way, into the wilderness” (Helaman 2:2, 11). Years later, Nephite dissenters revived Gadianton’s “secret plans” and began to wage an extended war with the Nephites (Helaman 11:26).^[3]

We are told that “they did commit murder and plunder; and then they would retreat back into the mountains, and into the wilderness and secret places, hiding themselves that they could not be discovered, receiving daily an addition to their numbers, inasmuch as there were dissenters that went forth unto them” (Helaman 11:25). As is the case in most historical examples, the robbers’ hit-and-run guerrilla tactics worked exceptionally well against the more stationary Nephites and their regular armies (Helaman 11:27–33).

Recognizing the clear parallels to modern military history, Daniel Peterson noted,

Like those who later faced Marxist insurgencies in Cuba, China, and Vietnam, the Nephite and Lamanite authorities had to do something. They could not simply sit back and tolerate the depredations their Gadianton enemies practiced upon them. But they would learn, as would the French, the Americans, Batista y Zaldívar, Chiang Kai-shek, and General Westmoreland, that guerrilla forces are extraordinarily difficult to defeat and virtually impossible to dislodge from their chosen territory.^[4]

Not only were the robbers difficult to root out militarily, but they were hard to counter politically. According to military historian and Brigadier General Samuel Griffith, “Guerrilla leaders spend a great deal more time in organization, instruction, agitation, and propaganda work than they do fighting, for their most important job is to win over the people.”^[5] This agenda is clearly present in the behavior of the Gadianton robbers. On some occasions they almost seemed to “have become extinct,” (Helaman 11:10), but apparently they were just biding their time, mingling among the people, secretly promoting their cause, and recruiting dissidents until they had enough support to wage another promising insurgency (vv. 24–34).

A firsthand glimpse of the political savviness of the Gadianton robbers can be seen in a letter from one of their leaders, Giddianhi. His epistle to Lachoneus attempts both to flatter and intimidate the Nephite governor and his soldiers.^[6] After inviting the Nephites to “unite with us and become acquainted with our secret works,” Giddianhi threatened to completely destroy them within a month if they didn’t submit (3 Nephi 3:7–8). Yet, like a number of guerilla forces throughout history, these robbers transitioned into standard pitched-battle tactics too soon.^[7]

The Nephites’ first impulse was to “fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands” (3 Nephi 3:20). But their prophetic chief captain, Gidgiddoni, warned them that such a course would lead to disaster—both militarily and spiritually. Instead, he proposed that “we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us” (v. 21). This also involved gathering together their food and animals, leaving their lands completely desolate, in order to weather the siege (v. 22).

This tactic reversed the strategy that the robbers had been using against the Nephites all along. According to Peterson, “Gidgiddoni would force the Gadianton armies to attack the Nephites in the Nephites’ own strongholds. Nephite fortified cities would effectively take the place of mountain base camps. … By yielding up territory in a classic ‘strategic retreat,’ he was, to borrow Mao’s phrase, ‘luring the enemy in deep.’”^[8] The robbers ran out of food, could not besiege the city, and decisively lost the battle (3 Nephi 4:1–14).

The Why

In basic principles as well as nuanced subtleties, the Book of Mormon’s depiction of guerrilla warfare is stunningly authentic.^[9] Peterson described it as “a totally believable and coherent complex of military behaviors and responses.”^[10] This feature of the Book of Mormon is especially remarkable because it is so out of place coming from a 19th century farmer like Joseph Smith.

While examples of guerrilla-style tactics have been used by different military groups throughout history, “only in our century have they been systematized in formal theoretical terms.”^[11] According to Peterson, the guerilla warfare displayed in the Book of Mormon

goes considerably beyond anything Joseph Smith would have been likely to create out of his own imagination. It is not simply the Book of Mormon’s precise portrayal of irregular warfare that is foreign to Joseph and his environment. Its realistic and wholly unromantic military narratives do not, it seems clear to me, come from the mind of that Joseph Smith, who, while he abhorred actual battle, loved parades and military pageantry, relished his commission as Lieutenant-General of the Nauvoo Legion, and, uniformed in elegant blue and gold, liked nothing better than to review the troops while mounted on his black stallion, Charlie.^[12]

On another occasion, Peterson remarked that “the Book of Mormon’s portrayal of the Gadianton robbers we find a detailed, realistic depiction of a prolonged guerrilla struggle—lacking any trace of romanticism, uniforms, glamour, or parades, but matching up remarkably well with the actual conduct of such unconventional conflict.”^[13]

These findings provide good evidence that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. It also indicates that the Book of Mormon’s account of secret combinations and their guerrilla efforts to destabilize and destroy governments is no idle tale. In fact, we are seeing it play out again before our own eyes as terrorist groups throughout the world seek to secretly recruit armies and topple governments. Concerning the Nephites’ conflict with the robbers, political science professor Ray C. Hillam has noted, “It was not simply a contest of arms but of ideas.”^[14] The same is certainly true in our day as well.

If the most important goal of modern-day Gadianton robbers is, as Griffith put it, to “win over the people,” then there is something that each of us can do.^[15] We can unite together, live the gospel, and share its joy and goodness with the world. For, as we learn in Alma 31, the word of God “had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them” (Alma 31:5).