The Know

The Law of Moses can seem, at times, to have little relevance to today’s world. Its detailed rules about everything from animal sacrifices (Leviticus 1) to plastering houses (Leviticus 14:42) can seem strange to modern readers. Thankfully, the Book of Mormon provides a solution to this problem: read the Law of Moses with Christ in mind.

Jacob 4:4–5 explains that “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.”1 Just as the near-sacrifice of Isaac pointed to the sacrifice of the Son of God, Jacob believed that the rest of the Law of Moses also points to the Atonement of Christ.2

The verse Jacob is alluding to here, Moses 5:7, supports this interpretation. In this verse, an angel explained to Adam that animal sacrifices are “a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father.” Amulek also testified that “this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God” (Alma 34:14, emphasis added).

If the Nephites thought that every aspect of the Law of Moses pointed to Christ, this poses the question: Are there any concrete examples of how the Nephites connected the Law of Moses to Christ? One possible example is found in Alma 30:2–3: “after they had buried their dead, and also after the days of fasting, and mourning, and prayer ... there began to be continual peace throughout all the land. Yea, and the people did observe to keep the commandments of the Lord; and they were strict in observing the ordinances of God, according to the law of Moses.”

According to Numbers 19:16, anyone who touched “one that is slain with a sword in the open fields,” including those burying the dead, were unclean for a week. Mormon’s statement about “the days of fasting, mourning, and prayer” suggests that there was a fixed number of days assigned for this. This may have been the week of uncleanness mentioned in Numbers. When this week of ritual purification was over, the Law of Moses said that an individual was supposed to wash themselves in water mixed with the ashes of a completely red cow (Numbers 19:17–18).

The reference to the Law of Moses in Alma 30:3, immediately after Mormon’s description of Nephite burial practice, suggests that the Nephites did indeed observe this ritual, although possibly in a slightly modified form, as red heifers may have been hard to get in the Americas.3 But what do red coats, dead bodies, and ashy water have to do with Christ?

Numbers 19:2 commands the priest to sacrifice a completely red heifer as part of this purification ritual. According to Mosiah 3:7, Christ bled from every pore when He atoned for our sins, which would have made Him almost completely red from head to toe.4 When the priests burned the red heifer, they threw cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet into the fire with the sacrifice (Numbers 19:6). Although no one knows what kind of wood Christ’s cross was made out of, cedar is a very likely option.5John 19:29 records that Christ was given something to drink on a stick of hyssop while He was on the cross, and Matthew 27:28 states that He was given a scarlet robe immediately before He was sent to be crucified.6

Finally, the red heifer was sacrificed outside the camp (see Numbers 19:3). Christ, was also sacrificed outside the walls of Jerusalem, as noted in the New Testament: “for the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate” (Hebrews 13:11–12).

The Why

The similarities between the sacrifice of the red heifer and the Atonement of Christ teach us that no matter what we have been through, Christ can make us clean again. Throughout the rest of Alma 30, Korihor insists that the prophecies about Christ are all false. However, the juxtaposition of one of the more obviously Christian portions of the Law of Moses and Korihor’s denial of Christ show how ridiculous this claim is. It also suggests that Numbers 19 was one chapter of the Law of Moses in which the Nephites saw Christ's sacrifice clearly and distinctly, years before He was born.

In today’s world, Christians offer up “a broken heart and a contrite spirit” rather than animal sacrifices (3 Nephi 9:20). But reading the Law of Moses the way the Nephites did, with Christ in mind, can help us to find meaning in scriptures that may not seem to relate to modern life. If the Law of Moses can teach us about Christ, then it is worth studying carefully, even today.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has stated that “the most plain and precious of all truths lost from the ... Old Testament ... are the clear and unequivocal declarations of the mission of Jesus Christ.”7 Ultimately, he asserts, “the Book of Mormon’s highest purpose is to restore to the universal family of God that crucial knowledge of Christ’s role in the salvation of every man, woman, and child who now lives, has ever lived, or will yet live upon the earth.”8

The Book of Mormon allows us to understand the crucial role of Christ in profound and beautiful ways. When we read the Law of Moses the way the Nephites did, and see Christ in every verse of it, the Law of Moses can become a nearly-limitless source of insight into the power of Christ’s Atonement in our lives.

• 1. 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. The title “only begotten son” in Hebrews 11 refers to Isaac with an implied reference to Christ, whereas in Jacob 4, the title is used to refer directly to Jesus Christ. Hebrews 11:17 states, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.”
• 2. Book of Mormon Central, “How Abraham’s Sacrifice of Isaac Illuminates the Atonement (Jacob 4:5),” KnoWhy 412 (March 1, 2018).
• 3. For a preliminary discussion of this, 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), 4:405.
• 4. The completely red heifer was meant to be symbolic of blood. See Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible Commentary, Volume 4A (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993), 460.
• 5. Cedar grows in Israel and early Christian traditions suggest that the cross was made, at least in part, from cedar. See “Wednesday Matins of the Fourth Week of Lent, Ode 7,” Lenten Triodion.
• 6. Some early Christian writers made this connection as well. See Caroll Stuhlmueller and John J. Collins, eds., The Catholic Study Bible: New American Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1990), 164.
• 7. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1997), 6–7.
• 8. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant, 6–7.

The Know

During his masterful discourse in Moroni 7, Mormon made a seeming detour in his discussion of the role of faith, hope, and charity in the lives of his brothers and sisters of the church. He reminded them of the role that angels play in ministering the gospel.1 This aside may seem out-of-place at first. However, a close reading shows that Mormon was using the ministering of angels as an example; to show his own flock how they should minister to those around them.

“For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing” (Moroni 7:22).

…
“Wherefore, by the ministering of angels, and by every word which proceeded forth out of the mouth of God, men began to exercise faith in Christ; and thus by faith, they did lay hold upon every good thing; and thus it was until the coming of Christ” (Moroni 7:25).

Mormon's abridgment of his people’s records brims with accounts and testimony of angels of the Lord.2 Throughout the scriptures, angels have served to bring forth “knowledge, priesthood, comfort, and assurances from God to mortals.”3 Mormon knew this; not only from his own personal angelic experiences, but also from the accounts of great faith-building miracles in the lives of his forbearers who testified that God works in the same way “from everlasting to everlasting” in testifying of Christ.

With this in mind, however, it is important to note that his ancient audience lived in a time of great wickedness; a time of wars and rumors of wars. Being a saint in those days was not easy, but true discipleship was never meant to be. Taking it upon himself to provide comfort, Mormon had just reassured them that, “…[w]hatsoever thing ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is good, in faith believing that ye shall receive, behold, it shall be done to you” (Moroni 7:26). But could such a promise really be true in such dangerous and unstable times?

Any guessing as to their thoughts is speculation, but it lends us a potential insight into Mormon’s mind when he said a few verses later, “…my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither have angels ceased to minister unto the children of men” (Moroni 7:29).

Mormon testified that even in their day, the presence of miracles was no different.

Miracles still occurred, and angels continued to minister.4 They showed themselves “unto them of strong faith and a firm mind in every form of godliness” (Moroni 7:31). Not just to the prophets, but to any who possessed strong faith.5 And their office, he continued, was “to call men unto repentance” that “the residue of men may have faith in Christ, that the Holy Ghost may have place in their hearts” (Moroni 7:31-32).

The Why

While this message certainly had a profound personal impact on Mormon and his struggling saints, what does it mean for us today? The answer may be more personal than you think.

In the Book of Mormon, the converted Lamanite king Anti-Nephi-Lehi spoke to his people as they faced certain destruction, 

“And the great God has had mercy on us, …therefore, in his mercy he doth visit us by his angels, that the plan of salvation might be made known unto us as well as unto future generations” (Alma 24:14).

Just a few chapters later, Mormon tells us that the Lamanites treated Ammon and the other sons of Mosiah “as though they were angels sent from God to save them everlasting destruction” (Alma 27:4).

As these brethren taught repentance, they were looked upon as angels sent from the Lord. It’s important to mention here that the Hebrew word malakh, often translated as angel in the King James Bible, can also be translated as “messenger”, which fits Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s use of the word.6

Mormon’s lesson in these few short verses was not a tangent. More significantly, it was an example of how they could exercise faith, hope, and charity. He held up the angels of the Lord as a model of what they could become, what they could do. Just as the sons of Mosiah were angels to the people of Ammon, the saints of Mormon’s day could be angels to their own people.

In these latter days, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has profoundly taught us about angels, seen and unseen, that come from both sides of the veil:

“I have spoken here of heavenly help, of angels dispatched to bless us in time of need. But when we speak of those who are instruments in the hand of God, we are reminded that not all angels are from the other side of the veil. Some of them we walk with and talk with—here, now, every day. Some of them reside in our own neighborhoods. Some of them gave birth to us, and in my case, one of them consented to marry me. Indeed heaven never seems closer than when we see the love of God manifested in the kindness and devotion of people so good and so pure that angelic is the only word that comes to mind.”7

Today, we live in difficult times just as Mormon and his people did. Many of us doubt. Many others seek the Lord in prayer, looking for answers, even miracles, to come in some grand and glorious manner. Sometimes we fail to stop and consider the small and simple ways that the Lord puts people in our path. Other times we overlook the moments that we unknowingly serve as His messengers, and His angels, by following a silent prompting. The ways in which he whispers, “Don’t worry. Keep going. I’m still here. Repent.”

What do we learn of angels from Mormon? The glorious reality that the day of miracles has not ceased, and angels – mortal and immortal – still minister to the children of men.

• 1. See also Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Mormon State that Angels Did Appear unto Wise Men? (Helaman 16:14),” KnoWhy 187 (September 14^th, 2016).
• 2. Angelic visitations occurred often in the Book of Mormon, sometimes multiple times. The text tells of us visitations to Nephi (Son of Lehi), Sam, Laman and Lemuel, Jacob, King Benjamin, Alma the Younger, the Sons of Mosiah, Amulek, Nephi (Son of Helaman), Samuel the Lamanite, the Nephites gathered at the temple at Bountiful, Mormon, and Moroni.
• 3. Oscar W. McConkie, “Angels,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:41.
• 4. For an in-depth discussion of the role of angels, see Donald W. Parry, Angels: Agents of Light, Love, and Power (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2013).
• 5. Larry Evans Dahl, “Angels, Ministry of,” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 60.
• 6. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1951), 521.
• 7. Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Ministry of Angels” Ensign, November 2008, online at lds.org.

The Know

After the Israelites left Egypt, they traveled through the country of the Moabites on their way to the promise land (Numbers 22:1). The king of the Moabites was afraid of the Israelites and asked a prophet named Balaam to curse them (vv. 3–6). As Balaam was on his way to do so, “the angel of the Lord” stopped him, sword in hand (v. 22–23). However, this angel did not do what we might have expected him to do: mention who he was. This may seem strange to modern readers who are used to knowing the names of angels, such as Gabriel, Raphael, and Michael. However, angels in the early books of the Old Testament almost always go unnamed.1

As biblical scholar Carol A. Newsom has noted, “in contrast to later writings,” texts from before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians “exhibit almost no interest in the heavenly messengers themselves. They are not individuated in any way. They do not have personal names.”2 Angels play a significant role in 29 chapters of these pre-exilic portions of the Bible.3 In all of these instances, the angels are referred to simply as an “angel of God” or an “angel of the Lord,” except in one instance when the angel is described as the “angel which redeemed me from all evil” (Genesis 48:16).4

In fact, it is sometimes difficult even to tell the difference between an angel and God Himself. In Exodus 3:2–4, for example, “the angel of the Lord” appeared to Moses “in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. ... And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see ... why the bush is not burnt. And ... God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.” In these verses, it seems clear that the “angel of the Lord” is actually God Himself.5 Eventually, named angels would become more common. In the book of Daniel and the New Testament, one begins to find angels being referred to by name, but when Lehi left Jerusalem, biblical texts rarely recorded the names of angels.6

One sees this pattern of angels going unnamed throughout the Book of Mormon as well.7 Angels are mentioned 145 times in the Book of Mormon, yet their names are never given.8 The closest the reader gets to know the identity of an angel is in Alma 8:15, in which an angel told Alma the Younger that he was the same angel that had appeared to him earlier. Just as in the Old Testament, angels in the Book of Mormon are known simply as an “angel of the Lord” or an “angel of God.”9 Because Lehi left Jerusalem around 600 B.C., it makes sense that the Book of Mormon would reflect this more ancient view of angels, even though it may be surprising to modern readers.

The Why

The way angels are depicted in the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament reminds us of an important truth: the identity of the person speaking truth is sometimes less important than the truths being spoken.

In life, we often find ourselves in situations where we are being taught by various people. Some of these people might be ministering brothers and sisters sharing a message or members of our congregations giving a talk in sacrament meeting. At other times, we might be taught by the wise words of a small child or a grandparent. At times, even the words of strangers can be surprisingly impactful.10 Yet in all these cases, focusing more on the messenger than the message could cause us to miss something important.

By listening with the Spirit to those around us, regardless of their identity, we can learn profound truths from the people we interact with every day. The people that had encounters with angels in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon did not record the names of the angels that were communicating with them. But that did not matter. What mattered is that they were messengers from God, sent to tell them something important. 

The angel speaking to Balaam spoke for God, and Balaam treated him accordingly, regardless of his actual identity. We could do the same in our own lives, listening carefully to those around us and applying the truths they teach us to our own lives, no matter who they are.

Appendix – Angels in Old Testament Narrative

• 1. For more on angels in general, see Donald W. Parry, Angels: Agents of Light, Love, and Power (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2013).
• 2. Carol A. Newsom, “Angels,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, 6 vols. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), 1:250.
• 3. See appendix. See also, Taylor Halverson, “The Path of Angels: A Biblical Pattern for the Role of Angels in Physical Salvation,” The Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, The 38th Annual BYU Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (Provo, UT: Religioius Studies Center, Brigham Youngg University, 2009).
• 4. See appendix.
• 5. Newsom, “Angels,” 1:250.
• 6. Newsom, “Angels,” 1:252.
• 7. For more on the role of angels in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does God Sometimes Send Angels to Help People? (Alma 24:14),” KnoWhy 360 (September 1, 2017); Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Mormon State that ‘Angels Did Appear unto Wise Men’? (Helaman 16:14),” KnoWhy 187 (September 14, 2016).
• 8.Eldin Ricks’s Thorough Concordance of the LDS Standard Works (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1995), 41–42.
• 9.Concordance of the LDS Standard Works , 41–42.
• 10. For more on how others can be like angels in our lives, see Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Ministry of Angels,” Ensign, November 2008, 29–31.

The Know

In Nephi’s vision of the Tree of Life, he beheld that the iron rod was a symbolic representation of the “word of God” (1 Nephi 11:25). In this same vision, however, we find that the word of God is symbolized by the “sword of the justice of the Eternal God” (1 Nephi 12:18; original manuscript),1 which has the “brightness of a flaming fire” and divides “the wicked from the righteous” (1 Nephi 15:30).2

The fact that a number of biblical passages use similar symbolism—sometimes with both “rod” and “sword” together in the same verse—lends support to the dual symbolism found in the Book of Mormon.3 The book of Revelation, for example, speaks of Jesus Christ as the “Word of God” (Revelation 19:13) and then states that “out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron” (v. 15).4

Yet some may wonder why the word of God is being connected with a rod and a sword in the first place. One possible explanation may have to do with the dual function of each symbol. According to John A. Tvedtnes,

Anciently, the rod was used both for correction and for gentle guidance. This dual role came from the world of the shepherd as pastor and defender of the flock. … The shepherd’s rod was a weapon, normally a piece of wood with a knob at one end. With it, he could defend the flock from predators. It was also used to count the sheep at the day’s end (see Leviticus 27:32; Ezekiel 20:37). The staff was a long walking stick, sometimes with a crook at the top. It could also be used for handling sheep, including separating sheep and goats.5

In Nephi’s vision, the iron rod seems to function much like a shepherd’s staff—leading people to the Tree of Life just as a shepherd would use a “rod” (Psalm 23:4) to lead his sheep to “green pastures” and “still waters” (v. 2).6 However, Nephi later quoted Isaiah’s prophecy that the Lord “shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked” (2 Nephi 30:9; cf. Isaiah 11:4). Thus, the rod is used both as a symbol of loving guidance and of divine punishment in the Book of Mormon.7

As for the sword, its dualism is sometimes represented by its having “two edges” (Revelation 2:12).8 Hebrews 4:12 states that “the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

Nephi captured a similar dualism when he described the “terrible gulf” in his father’s dream as the “sword of the justice of the Eternal God” (1 Nephi 12:18; original manuscript). When Laman and Lemuel said that Nephi had “declared unto us hard things,” Nephi responded by explaining the dual nature of God’s justice and truth: “I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center” (1 Nephi 16:2).9 In other words, God’s word—as represented by his flaming sword of justice—divides the wicked from the righteous by justifying the righteous and condemning the wicked.11

The Why

It is fascinating that the iron rod and the sword of justice—two dualistic symbols of the word of God—seem to be linked features in Lehi’s vision of the tree of life. God’s sword of justice was associated with a filthy river and an impassible flaming gulf, and the iron rod was extending along its bank (1 Nephi 8:19). In such close and parallel proximity, each feature reinforces the dual symbolism of the other, revealing various layers of truth about the word of God.

God’s word offers both guidance and firm correction (as symbolized by the rod), and the power of its truth penetrates and reveals the hearts of men, justifying the righteous and condemning the wicked (as symbolized by the sword). Also, as a flaming sword, the word of God causes the hearts of the righteous to burn with love and truth,12 while for the wicked it causes them to be in a “state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God” (Alma 40:14).13 Understanding the contrasting nuances of these symbols can help us better understand and apply the various passages that use them.

As Tvedtnes concluded, “By comparing the word of God with a sword and a rod, the prophets have shown us that there is both strength and love in obedience to the Lord. With the word of the Lord, we can fight off sin and temptation as with a sword and nurture our families and ourselves as did ancient shepherds with the rod.”14

• 1. Instead of using “sword,” the 2013 LDS edition of the Book of Mormon has “word of the justice of the Eternal God” (emphasis added). However, the Critical Text Project has revealed that Oliver Cowdery mistook the sw in “sword” for a w when he made a copy (known as the printer’s manuscript) from the original manuscript. According to Royal Skousen, “There are no other examples of ‘the word of justice’ in the Book of Mormon, but there are seven other examples of ‘the sword of justice’.” Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants: Part 1: 1Nephi–2 Nephi 10 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2014), 258. Thus, manuscript evidence and consistent usage both indicate that “word” should be “sword” in this verse.
• 2. See also, 1 Nephi 16:2; 2 Nephi 1:26; Words of Mormon 1:17; Mosiah 13:7; Alma 1:7; 3 Nephi 11:3; Moroni 9:4.
• 3. John A. Tvedtnes, “Rod and Sword as the Word of God,” in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5, no. 2 (1996): 148–55; reprinted 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) 32–39.
• 4. See also, Ezekiel 21:9–10, 13; Revelation 2:16, 27.
• 5. Tvedtnes, “Rod and Sword as the Word of God,” in Pressing Forward, 33.
• 6. The tree of life in Lehi’s dream shares a number of parallels with the tree of life in the Garden of Eden—including the presence of water in both accounts. See David M. Calabro, “Lehi’s Dream and the Garden of Eden,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 26 (2017): 269–296; Book of Mormon Central, “Why We Still Have to Cling to the Iron Rod Even Though the Path is Strait (1 Nephi 8:13–14),” KnoWhy 402 (January 25, 2018).
• 7. Margret Barker has noted that this dual symbolism can also be seen in different translations of Psalm 2: “In the Bible, the rod of iron is mentioned four times as the rod of the Messiah. Each mention in the King James Version says the Messiah uses the rod to ‘break’ the nations (Psalm 2:9) or to ‘rule’ them (Revelation 2:27; 12:5; 19:15). The ancient Greek translation (the Septuagint) is significantly different; it understood the Hebrew word in Psalm 2:9 to mean ‘shepherd’ and it reads, ‘He will shepherd them with a rod of iron.’ The two Hebrew verbs for ‘break’ and ‘shepherd, pasture, tend, lead’ look very similar and in some forms are identical.” Margret Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” in The Worlds of Joseph Smith, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2006), 76–77.
• 8. See also, Doctrine and Covenants 6:2; 11:2; 12:2; 14:2; 33:1.
• 9. See also, 2 Nephi 9:16.

  Nephi’s use of “cutteth” here is good evidence that he is referring back to the symbol of the “sword of the justice of the Eternal God” from his vision. Nephi explained to his brothers that the “awful gulf, which separated the wicked from the tree of life” (1 Nephi 15:28) was a symbol of the “justice of God [which] did also divide the wicked from the righteous; and the brightness thereof was like unto the brightness of a flaming fire” (1 Nephi 15:30).The flaming sword of justice which created an impassible gulf between the wicked and the righteous in Lehi’s dream seems to be clearly analogous to the “flaming sword” which separated Adam and Eve from the Tree of life (Genesis 3:24). This imagery is referred to several times in the Book of Mormon. See Alma 12:21; 42:2–3. For further connections between these symbols, see Corbin T. Volluz, “Lehi’s Dream of the Tree of Life: Springboard to Prophecy,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2, no. 2 (1993): 34–35; David M. Calabro, “Lehi’s Dream and the Garden of Eden,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 26 (2017): 272–274.

• 11. This concept of justice is rather different from our modern understanding, which hearkens more closely to the Egyptian symbolism of a set of scales weighing the heart—as if God's judgment were a commercial transaction. For ancient Israel, justice was more about who was on the Lord’s side (see Joshua 24:15). Those not faithful to covenant obligations were divided or separated by divine justice from those who were faithful.
• 12. See Helaman 5:23–24, 44; 3 Nephi 11:3; Luke 24:32; Doctrine and Covenants 9:8.
• 13. Emphasis added. See also, Jacob 6:10; Mosiah 3:27; Moroni 9:5; Proverbs 6:27–28.
• 14. Tvedtnes, “Rod and Sword as the Word of God,” in Pressing Forward, 38.

The Know

While making repairs to the temple in Jerusalem in the 7^th century BC, workers discovered a copy of a book called “the book of the law” and gave it to the high priest Hilkiah (2 Kings 22:8). He, in turn, showed it to Shaphan the scribe, who read the book to King Josiah (v. 9). But “when the king had heard the words of the book of the law … he rent his clothes” in grief, knowing that he and his people had not kept the laws in this book (vv. 11–13).

Shortly after this, King Josiah initiated a series of reforms based on what was in the book (2 Kings 23:3–15). Most scholars now agree that the book the king was so worried about was the book of Deuteronomy.1 Because Deuteronomy was so important in Jerusalem during Lehi’s time, it makes sense to assume that it would have been important to the writers of the Book of Mormon as well.2

One way in which Deuteronomy influenced the Book of Mormon is that the Book of Mormon uses a large number of short phrases from Deuteronomy. For example, Deuteronomy 11:1 commands the people to keep God’s “statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments.” Helaman 15:5 similarly commands people to keep “his commandments and his statutes and his judgments according to the law of Moses.”

1 Nephi 4:34 uses Deuteronomy as well. It states, “Surely the Lord hath commanded us to do this thing; and shall we not be diligent in keeping the commandments of the Lord? Therefore, if thou wilt go down into the wilderness to my father thou shalt have place with us.” This is likely a reference to Deuteronomy 6:17, “Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.” These are not the only examples of shared phrases. Based on research done by Book of Mormon Central Staff, at least 52 different phrases from Deuteronomy appear throughout the Book of Mormon.3

Deuteronomy influenced the Book of Mormon in other ways as well.4 Deuteronomy 17:14–20, for example, gives laws about how kings should behave. These laws are referenced throughout the Book of Mormon.5 Deuteronomy 17:15 states, “thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee.” Mosiah 2:9–11 notes that the Nephites set a king over themselves that was chosen by God from among their brethren, just as it states in Deuteronomy6. Drew Briney has noted more than 200 scriptural passages in the Book of Mormon that reflect these kinds of similarities between Nephite laws and the laws of Deuteronomy.7

The Why

Because the Book of Mormon begins in Jerusalem in 600 BC, and because Deuteronomy was an important text in Jerusalem during that time, the use of Deuteronomy in the Book of Mormon is a subtle indication of its authenticity. The numerous relationships between the two books also show us how the Nephites incorporated some of the timeless truths of Deuteronomy into their lives, teaching us how we can do the same.

For example, Deuteronomy tells us that good leaders should care more about knowing and keeping the commandments than they do about money or possessions (see Deuteronomy 17:14–20). King Benjamin clearly took this counsel to heart (see Mosiah 2:10–13). His life is an example of how we can apply Deuteronomy to ourselves and become better leaders. Another example is in Deuteronomy 31:9–13, which tells people that they should make the scriptures a focal point of their lives. Alma 5 gives practical ways in which people can make this ideal a reality in daily life.

Another doctrine, found in Deuteronomy 6:7–9, states that parents should teach the commandments “diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” Alma 36–42 is an example of how Alma obeyed this commandment and shows us how we can fulfill this commandment today as well.

When we understand how the Nephites lived the commandments contained in Deuteronomy and applied its teachings to their own lives, we can have a better idea of how we can apply Deuteronomy to ourselves as well, allowing it to become an important source of insight into how we can live better lives today.

• 1. 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.
• 2. For more on this, see David Rolph Seely, “Presentation on Deuteronomy in the Book of Mormon,” presentation given at BYU Law School, November 18, 2015, online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org.
• 3. From Book of Mormon Central, “Deuteronomy in the Book of Mormon,” unpublished paper in our possession.
• 4. For more on Deuteronomy in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “How Do the Covenants in the Scriptures Apply to Me Today? (Mosiah 7:25),” KnoWhy 369 (October 3, 2017).
• 5. From Drew Briney, “Deuteronomy’s Influence on Nephite Jurisprudence,” unpublished paper in our possession. See also Taylor Halverson, “Deuteronomy 17:14–20 as Criteria for Book of Mormon Kingship,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 24 (2017): 1–10.
• 6. See Briney, “Deuteronomy’s Influence.”
• 7. See Briney, “Deuteronomy’s Influence.”

The Know

After the great destruction which was recorded in 3 Nephi, the Lord’s voice was heard among the people, declaring that the “great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned” (3 Nephi 9:4). The cities of Onihah, Mocum, and Jerusalem suffered similar fates. Concerning them, the Lord declared that “waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof” (v. 7).

Some may wonder, based on these passages, if there is any evidence that cities were flooded in this manner in the ancient Americas. In the 1990s, Roberto Samayoa noticed ruins on an underwater plateau while he was scuba diving in Lake Atitlan, located in the highlands of Guatemala. The site was named Samabaj, which is partly derived from Roberto’s own last name, and eventually trained archaeologists began to seriously study the area.1 A geophysical survey using side sonar scanning revealed even more man-made structures at other underwater locations along Lake Atitlan’s southern shore.2

Concerning Samabaj, anthropologist John Sorenson noted that the “buildings appear to have been undamaged before their submersion, implying a sudden rise of the water.”3 Journalist Roger Atwood called it an “underwater time capsule unmolested by looters and untouched by urbanization.”4

Researchers have found “about 30 ancient homes, a plaza, staircases, and even saunas, among the submerged ruins of Samabaj.”5 It also features “no fewer than 16 religious structures,” including “at least seven stelas, standing stone markers that often signified power and authority in antiquity.”6 Sonya Medrano, an archaeologist involved with the site’s recent underwater excavation and mapping, has described it as “a place of public rituals and pilgrimage.”7

The sudden rise in water, which left the 30-acre island submerged under 12 to 30 meters of water, was likely due to local volcanic activity.8 Based on ceramic remains, Sorenson felt that the ruins were from the “Late Pre-Classic period, probably around the time of Christ,”9 and Medrano dated “the island’s moment of destruction to no later than A.D. 300.”10

The Why

Samabaj offers a perfect example of the type of destruction experienced by the cities of Onihah, Mocum, and Jerusalem, as explained by the voice of the Lord. Rather than sinking into the sea or having a flash flood come crashing down upon them from above, the Lord declared that “waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof” (3 Nephi 9:7; emphasis added). This is exactly what happened at Samabaj—the water level of its surrounding lake quickly arose and submerged it. This underwater settlement, which until recent times lay undetected at the bottom of a popular resort lake, demonstrates that the type of flooding mentioned in 3 Nephi is anything but farfetched.

Interestingly, long before the discovery of Samabaj, several LDS scholars identified the region of Lake Atitlan with the waters of Mormon and placed Jerusalem, one of the sunken cities, near its shores.11 It remains uncertain, however, if Samabaj and its sudden flooding had anything to do with Book of Mormon peoples or the destruction reported in 3 Nephi.

After discussing the symbolic and religious significance that Samabaj’s destruction may have held for its inhabitants, Atwood asked, “Did the ancient Maya know why the island was disappearing?”12 It may be similarly relevant to ask if Book of Mormon peoples knew why their cities were being covered with water. From heaven, the Lord’s voice was heard among the people, explaining that this was done “to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them” (3 Nephi 9:7).

This reasoning is actually quite similar to the Lord’s justification for sending the flood in Noah’s time. In Moses 6:28 the Lord explained to Enoch that He would send the flood because “in [the people’s] own abominations have they devised murder, and have not kept the commandments.” These “abominations” were first introduced by Cain, who slew his brother Abel (Moses 5:25). In response to Cain’s murder, the Lord declared, “The voice of thy brother’s blood cries unto me from the ground” (v. 35).

Thus, in both accounts, the floods were sent because of “abominations” which are scripturally linked with the shedding of innocent blood—blood which symbolically calls out from the ground for divine justice.13 The Lord wanted the people to understand that He was bound by His own law to exact justice for the spilling of innocent blood. The rising waters symbolically hid the people’s wickedness and abominations from before the face of the Lord,14 while at the same time cleansing the earth from sin.15

• 1. Roger Atwood, “Lost Island of the Maya,” Archeology 68, no. 4 (2015): 42.
• 2. Based on an unpublished geophysical survey examined by Book of Mormon Central staff.
• 3. John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 2013), 647.
• 4. Atwood, “Lost Island of the Maya,” 42.
• 5. Atwood, “Lost Island of the Maya,” 43.
• 6. Atwood, “Lost Island of the Maya,” 42–43.
• 7. Atwood, “Lost Island of the Maya,” 43.
• 8. Based on an unpublished geophysical survey. See also, Atwood, “Lost Island of the Maya,” 42. For information about the natural disasters in 3 Nephi and their likely connection to volcanic and geological activity, see Book of Mormon Central, “What Caused the Darkness and Destruction in the 34th Year? (3 Nephi 8:20),” KnoWhy 197 (September 28, 2016).
• 9. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex, 647. According to Sorenson, his proposed Book of Mormon geography “plausibly places the city of Jerusalem on the south shore of the Lake Atitlan. The near agreement in time between the flooding described in the Book of Mormon city and the rise of the lake waters over Samabaj, as well as the seemingly abrupt manner of that rise, is striking.” Although the timing of Samabaj’s flooding may be too late, Sorenson’s geographical correlation is still intriguing and deserves further consideration and exploration.
• 10. Atwood, “Lost Island of the Maya,” 42.
• 11. John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985), 175–176, 223–225; Bruce W. Warren and Thomas Stuart Ferguson, The Messiah in Ancient America (Provo, UT: Book of Mormon Research Foundation, 1987), 44; Joseph L. Allen and Blake J. Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, rev. ed. (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 2011), 637–646, 737–740.
• 12. Atwood, “Lost Island of the Maya,” 45.
• 13. Notably, it was immediately after the flood in Genesis that the Lord explained the symbolic importance of blood to Noah: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you … But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man” (Genesis 9:4–5).
• 14. The symbolism of hiding or covering sins from before the Lord’s face hearkens back to the story of Adam and Eve, who, after partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, “hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God” (Genesis 3:8). See also 2 Nephi 9:14, Mormon 9:5; Lamentations 1:8; Isaiah 47:3; Revelation 3:18.
• 15. See Paul Y. Hoskisson and Stephen O. Smoot, “Was Noah’s Flood the Baptism of the Earth?” in Let Us Reason Together: Essays in Honor of the Life’s Work of Robert L. Millet, ed. Spencer Fluhman and Brent L. Top (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book, Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship, and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2016) 163–188.

The Know

On several occasions, Captain Moroni spoke of pulling down the pride of the political elite who were unwilling to fight for their country. For instance, when a group of dissenters known as king-men attempted to overthrow the government, Moroni “commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth” (Alma 51:17, emphasis added).1

Some may wonder where the imagery of pulling something down comes from and how it might be related to political power, pride, or nobility. It should first be noted that to “pull down,” “bring down,” “break down,” “throw down,” or “cut down” something in order to destroy or humble it is found in many biblical passages.2 In many cases, the things that are brought low are inherently high or prideful, such as false idols, altars, lofty trees, towers, buildings, armies, mighty kingdoms, and noble rulers. Typically, the high thing is brought low to the earth, to the grave, into captivity, or even to a pit which is symbolic of hell. The Book of Mormon uses much of the same imagery.3

Perhaps Moroni recalled that a great and spacious building in Nephi’s vision represented the “pride of the world” and that “it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great” (1 Nephi 11:36).4 Or maybe he was thinking of the “pomp” of Lucifer who had “fallen from heaven” and was “cut to the ground” (Isaiah 14:11–12). Whatever the case, his warning that the proud would be leveled to the earth seems to be right at home with a number of other scriptures dealing with the consequences of pride.

Studying the Book of Mormon in an ancient American setting may offer even more ways to view Moroni’s language. Like ancient Near Eastern rulers, Mesoamerican kings often sat on elevated thrones, which literally and symbolically raised them above their subjects.5 This may help explain why Moroni, after repeatedly condemning wicked rulers for sitting idly upon their thrones, concluded by saying, “I seek not for power, but to pull it down” (Alma 60:36; emphasis added).6 In other words, pulling down pride may have been a metaphor for pulling down a ruler from off his throne.7

Yet thrones weren’t the only raised objects which signified a ruler’s status. Mesoamerican kings also erected large stones called “stelae” which, among other things, recorded their accomplishments.8 These inscribed stones (also called “banner stones”) were conceptually linked to cloth war banners called “flap staffs.” The erection of stelae and the raising of flap staffs upon towers were ceremonial actions which held political and ritual significance among various Mesoamerican societies.9

That such rituals were also important to Book of Mormon peoples can be seen by the fact that Moroni compelled the dissenters to “hoist the title of liberty [a perfect example of a ‘flapstaff’] upon their towers, and in their cities, and to take up arms in defence of their country” (Alma 51:20).10 Thus, pulling down their pride was followed immediately by raising up a symbol of religious freedom. This suggests that Moroni’s imagery of pulling down pride may have been an idiom that directly contrasted with the raising up of ceremonial objects which were symbolic of kingship.11

Interestingly, when one group of people conquered another in ancient Mesoamerica, the conquerors would often pull down or destroy the monuments of past leaders and replace them with their own.12 Excavators at Piedras Negras, for example, found that an elaborately carved throne had been “willfully smashed and strewn about the chamber of the palace” after what was likely a “military attack.”13 In relation to the “proposed conquest of Tikal by Teotihuicanos and their Tikal allies” a stela depicting a “king stepping on a bound sacrificial victim” was ritually decapitated.14

At Cholula, a group of large stone stelae were “thrown down and intentionally smashed.”15 And in Copan, a stela inscription begins with a reference to the “toppling of the Foundation House,”16 David Stuart, an expert in ancient Mesoamerican inscriptions, interpreted this as “a possible metaphorical reference to the end of Copan’s ruling line.”17 In light of these findings, Moroni’s metaphorical statements about pulling down the rulers’ pride seem to nicely fit an ancient American context.

The Why

The problem with the king-men in the time of Captain Moroni was that they felt their social status granted them special privileges. Their pride led them to selfishly stand by and watch as the common people bled and died on the battlefield to preserve their rights and freedoms. Moroni’s stern rebuke and swift military action is a reminder that God will not always tolerate injustice. It also shows that the eventual fall of those who exercise unlawful dominion will  be tremendous, which is dramatically visualized in the idea of prideful monuments being “pulled down.”

President Ezra Taft Benson referred to pride as the “universal sin” and “the great vice.”18 Similarly, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf has taught, “Pride is the great sin of self-elevation. It is for so many a personal Rameumptom, a holy stand that justifies envy, greed, and vanity.”19 Those in this state of self-elevation often become self-absorbed and calloused to others’ needs.

The Book of Mormon teaches that the solution for anyone to get out of this condition is to willingly “humble yourselves even to the dust” (Alma 34:38). The “dust” of the earth provides a good metaphor because as one willingly lowers oneself in humility (such as bowing to the earth in prayer), he or she can remember that mankind was “created of the dust of the earth” and that “it belongeth to him who created you” (Mosiah 2:25).20

Ultimately,  when we begin to comprehend our complete dependence upon Jesus Christ—who both created us and atoned for sins—we will begin to see why, in the end, “every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him” (Mosiah 27:31).21 In one of the gospel’s insightful ironies, those who refuse to humble themselves will, like Lucifer, be pulled down to the dust (Genesis 3:14). In contrast, those who willingly humble themselves to the dust and obey God’s commandments will be raised up into eternal life (3 Nephi 15:1).22 As the prophet Alma taught, “Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble” (Alma 32:15).

• 1. For more references to pulling down pride, see Alma 4:19; 51:21; 60:36.
• 2. See Exodus 34:13; Leviticus 26:30; Judges 6:25, 28, 30; 2 Samuel 22:28; 1 Kings 8:32–33; 2 Kings 10:27; 18:4; 2 Chronicles 14:3; 15:16; 31:1; 34:4; Job 14:2; 40:12; Psalm 18:27; 20:8; 30:3; 37:2; 55:23; 59:11; 107:12; Isaiah 5:15; 14:11–12, 15; 22:19; 25:11–12; 43:14; 63:6; Jeremiah 1:10; 18:7; 24:6; 42:10; 51:40; Lamentations 2:2; Ezekiel 17:24; 26:20; 28:8; 31:18; Obadiah 1:4; Zechariah 10:11.
• 3. See 1 Nephi 13:9; 14:2, 7; 16:25; 18:17–18; 2 Nephi 1:7, 21; 2:29; 26:15; Jacob 6:7; Enos 1:10; Mosiah 7:28; Alma 4:19; 10:18; 12:6, 37; 13:30; 30:23, 47; 42:29–30; 51:21; Helaman 1:24; 6:5, 25; 14:19; 17:10; 3 Nephi 21:15; Ether 2:11; Moroni 8:14.
• 4. For similar imagery related to Babylon, see Isaiah 21:9; Revelation 14:8; 18:2; Doctrine and Covenants 1:16.
• 5. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Riplakish Construct a Beautiful Throne? (Ether 10:6),” KnoWhy 244 (December 2, 2016); John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2013), 370–371, 577; Robert Sharer, “Time of Kings and Queens,” Expedition 54, no. 1 (2012): 27–28. For iconography depicting Mesoamerican rulers seated on elevated thrones, see Simon Martin and Nikolai Grube, Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, 2nd edition (New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, 2008), 15, 60, 62, 77, 135, 143, 147, 149 153, 201.
• 6. For the comments about the rulers idly sitting on their thrones, see Alma 60:7, 11, 21–22.
• 7. The concept of dethroning a king is mentioned in Mosiah 29:21.
• 8. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why was Coriantumr's Record Engraved on a ‘Large Stone’? (Omni 1:20),” KnoWhy 77 (April 13, 2016).
• 9. See Kerry Hull, “War Banners: A Mesoamerican Context for the Title of Liberty,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24 (2015): 84–118.
• 10. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Moroni Quote the Patriarch Jacob about a Piece of Joseph’s Coat? (Alma 46:24),” KnoWhy 154 (July 29, 2016).
• 11. It is also notable that the phrase “lifted up” is associated with pride in many Book of Mormon passages. For a few examples, see 2 Nephi 28:12; Jacob 1:16; Mosiah 11:5, 19; Alma 31:25; Helaman 3:34; 3 Nephi 6:10; 4 Nephi 1:24; Mormon 8:28.
• 12. See Morgan Deane, “Experiencing Battle in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23 (2017): 240. For a broader, cross-cultural treatment of this same phenomenon, see Sarah Ralph, ed., The Archaeology of Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches, IEMA Proceedings, Volume 2 (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2012).
• 13. Martin and Grube, Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, 153.
• 14. David A. Freidel, Barbara MacLeod, and Charles K. Suhler, “Early Classic Maya Conquest in Words and Deeds,” Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare, ed. M. Kathryn Brown and Travis W. Stanton (Oxford, UK: Alta Mira Press, 2003), 196.
• 15. Geoffrey G. McCafferty, “Ethnic Conflict in Postclassic Cholula, Mexico,” in Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare, 233. Although this example significantly post-dates Book of Mormon times, it helps demonstrate that ritual desecration was an enduring cultural phenomenon in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.
• 16. Martin and Grube, Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, 153.
• 17. Gyles Iannone, “The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Maya Petty Royal Court,” Latin American Antiquity 16, no. 1 (2005): 39; citing David Stuart, “Historical Inscriptions and the Maya Collapse,” in Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., ed. Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Henderson (Washington D.C., Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1991–1992), 346.
• 18. Ezra Taft Benson, “Beware of Pride,” Ensign, May 1989, online at lds.org.
• 19. Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Pride and the Priesthood,” Ensign, November 2010, 56, online at lds.org.
• 20. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Mormon Say the Children of Men are Less than the Dust of the Earth? (Helaman 12:7),” KnoWhy 183 (September 8, 2016).
• 21. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the People Fall Down at the Feet of Jesus? (3 Nephi 11:17),” KnoWhy 202 (October 5, 2016); Matthew L. Bowen, “‘They Came and Held Him by the Feet and Worshipped Him’: Proskynesis before Jesus in Its Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Context,” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 5 (2013): 63–68; Matthew L. Bowen, “‘They Came Forth and Fell Down and Partook of the Fruit of the Tree’: Proskynesis in 3 Nephi 11:12–19 and 17:9–10 and Its Significance,” in Third Nephi: An Incomparable Scripture (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2012), 107–130; Matthew L. Bowen, “'And Behold, They Had Fallen to the Earth': An Examination of Proskynesis in the Book of Mormon,” Studia Antiqua 4, no. 1 (2005): 91–110.
• 22. For a similar concept, see Matthew 11:11; Luke 7:28; Doctrine and Covenants 50:26.

• 1.“The Golden Bible, or, Campbellism Improved,” Observer and Telegraph (Hudson, Ohio), November 18, 1830, spelling modernized.
• 2. W. W. Phelps, “The Far West,” The Evening and the Morning Star 1, no. 5, October 1832.
• 3. W. W. Phelps, “Discovery of Ancient Ruins in Central America,” The Evening and the Morning Star, 1, no. 9, February 1833; spelling and capitalization altered.
• 4.Joseph Smith to Emma Smith, June 4, 1834, pp. 57–58, online at josephsmithpapers.org. Many historians believe this is alluding to the Zelph incident. For more information, see Book of Mormon Central, “Who Was Zelph? (Helaman 6:6),” KnoWhy 336 (July 7, 2017).
• 5.Joseph Smith to John M. Berhnisel, November 16, 1841, online at josephsmithpapers.org. See Matthew Roper, “John Bernhisel’s Gift to a Prophet: Incidents of Travel in Central America and the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 16 (2015): 207–253.
• 6.“Traits of the Mosaic History, Found among the Azteca Nations,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 16, June 15, 1842, 818–820; “American Antiquities,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 18, July 15, 1842, 858–860; “Extract from Stephens’ ‘Incidents of Travel in Central America’,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 22, September 15, 1842, 911–915; “Facts are Stubborn Things,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 22, September 15, 1842, 921–922; “Zarahemla,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 23, October 1, 1842, 927–928. Motivated by geographical theories which are contradicted by these articles, some have tried to distance Joseph Smith from their authorship and publication. Both historical and statistical analysis, however, strongly support Joseph’s involvement with these articles. See Matthew Roper, “Joseph Smith, Revelation, and Book of Mormon Geography,” FARMS Review 22, no. 2 (2010): 70–83; Matthew Roper, Paul J. Fields, Atul Nepal, “Joseph Smith, the Times and Seasons, and Central American Ruins,” Journal of Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22, no. 2 (2013): 84–97; Neal Rappleye, “‘War of Words and Tumult of Opinions’: the Battle for Joseph Smith’s Words in Book of Mormon Geography,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 11 (2014): 37–95; Matthew Roper, “Joseph Smith, Central American Ruins, and the Book of Mormon,” in Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith and the Ancient World, ed. Lincoln Blumell, Matthew J. Grey, and Andrew H. Hedges (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Religious Studies Center, 2015), 141–162; Matthew Roper, Paul Fields, and Larry Bassist, “Zarahemla Revisited: Neville’s Newest Novel,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17 (2016): 13–61.
• 7. The popularity of this tradition was largely due to Orson Pratt and Fredrick G. Williams. Orson Pratt was heard teaching that Lehi “came across the water into South America” as early as 1832. See B. Stokely, “The Orators of Mormon,” Catholic Telegraph 1, April 14, 1832. Pratt’s views on Book of Mormon geography became widespread and influential with the release of the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, which included footnotes, written by Pratt, making external correlations to Book of Mormon places. In a footnote to the phrase “we did arrive to the promised land” in 1 Nephi 18:23, Pratt noted, “believed to be on the coast of Chile, S. America” (spelling modernized). See Joseph Smith Jr., trans., The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon (Liverpool, Eng.: William Budge, 1879), 47. Fredrick G. Williams copied a highly specific statement that Lehi landed “in Chile thirty degrees south Latitude” (spelling modernized), which later was believed to be a revelation from Joseph Smith. The actual origins of the statement, however, are murky and unclear. See Fredrick G. Williams III, “Did Lehi Land in Chile? An Assessment of the Frederick G. Williams Statement,” FARMS Preliminary Report (1988); Frederick G. Williams, “Did Lehi Land in Chile?,” 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), 57–61.
• 8.“Facts are Stubborn Things,” Times and Seasons, 3, no. 22, September 15, 1842, 922.
• 9. Parley P. Pratt, “Ruins in Central America,” Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 2, no. 11, March 1842, 161–165.
• 10. Matthew Roper, “Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations,” FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): 225–275, esp. pp. 254–255.
• 11. George Q. Cannon, “Editorial Thoughts: The Book of Mormon Geography,” Juvenile Instructor 25, no. 1 (1890): 18.
• 12. For comparison of 60 different proposals, see John L. Sorenson, The Geography of the Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), 37–206.
• 13. See John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Map (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 55–81. Already in 1903, some were disputing proposals for Book of Mormon geography on the grounds that “students could not reconcile the statements as to time consumed in traveling from one place to another with Zarahemla being at the point claimed by him.” See “Book of Mormon Students Meet: Interesting Convention Held in Provo Saturday and Sunday,” Deseret Evening News, May 25, 1903; reprinted in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 22, no. 2 (2013): 109. In 1909, B. H. Roberts suggested, “the physical description relative to the contour of the lands occupied by the Jaredites and Nephites … can be found between Mexico and Yucatan with the Isthmus of Tehuantepec between,” but ultimately continued to promote a hemispheric view. B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret News, 1909), 3:502–503. Even in the 19th century, there was precedent for limiting the scope of Book of Mormon geography. See Roper, “Limited Geography,” 242–255, 260–265.
• 14. See Roper, “Limited Geography,” 255–260; “Is there a revealed Book of Mormon geography?” FairMormon AnswersWiki, online at fairmormon.org.
• 15. In a Fax sent from the office of the First Presidency, April 23, 1993, F. Michael Watson—then secretary to the First Presidency, said, “While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.” See “Did the First Presidency identify the New York ‘Hill Cumorah’ as the site of the Nephite final battles?” FairMormon AnswersWiki, online at fairmormon.org. Elder John A. Widtsoe, of the Quorum of the Twelve and President Harold B. Lee also considered the location of the final Nephite battles an open question. See John A. Widtsoe, “Evidences and Reconciliations: Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?,” Improvement Era 53, no. 7 (July 1950): 547; Harold B. Lee, “Loyalty,” address to religious educators, 8 July 1966; in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Church Educational System and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), 65; quoted online at fairmormon.org. See also David A. Palmer, “Cumorah,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:346–347; Rex C. Reeve Jr., “Cumorah, Hill” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 222–224.
• 16. Widtsoe, “Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?,” 547.
• 17. Cannon, “Book of Mormon Geography,” 19.
• 18. James E. Talmage, Conference Report, April 1929, 44. Also consider Widtsoe, “Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?,” 547: “Students must depend, chiefly, upon existing natural monuments, such as mountains, rivers, lakes, or ocean beaches, and try to identify them with similar places mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Ruins of early cities are also used as clues by the investigator. Usually, an ideal map is drawn based upon geographical facts mentioned in the book. Then a search is made for existing areas complying with the map. All such studies are legitimate, but the conclusions drawn from them, though they may be correct, must at the best be held as intelligent conjectures.”
• 19. Russell M. Nelson, “A Testimony of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, November 1999, online at lds.org.

The Know

Although most readers probably haven’t thought much about this detail, the Book of Mormon consistently discusses thieves and theft in a different way than it speaks of robbers and robbery. Throughout the Nephite record, robbers are typically organized bands who separate themselves from society, oppose the government, and largely subsist by plundering their enemies. Thieves, on the other hand, seem to be community members who are guilty of stealing from fellow citizens. In simple terms, robbers were organized groups of “outsiders,” whereas thieves were community “insiders” who acted alone.

Illustrating this distinction, John W. Welch and Kelly Ward have explained that “the Lamanites are always said to ‘rob’ from the Nephites but never from their own brethren—that would be ‘theft,’ not ‘robbery.’ It also explains the rise and fearful menace of the Gadianton society, who are always called ‘robbers’ in the Book of Mormon, never ‘thieves.’”1

Although these differences may not seem important to modern readers, they were crucial throughout much of the ancient world. Drawing upon the research of Bernard S. Jackson, Welch and Ward noted “how robbers usually acted in organized groups rivaling local governments and attacking towns and how they swore oaths and extorted ransom, a menace worse than outright war. Thieves, however, were a much less serious threat to society.”2

We know that this distinction was important in the Bible because, just as in the Book of Mormon, its authors consistently referred to thieves and robbers by different names. Again, drawing upon Jackson’s analysis, Welch explained,

In Hebrew, the terms gazal (to rob) and gazlan (robber) normally mean taking property openly and blatantly, while the words ganab (to steal) and gannab (thief) usually connote stealing in secret. Similarly the Greek term kleptes“is used to describe a stealthy person who, without violence, deprives another person of his property,” whereas by contrast, “in the Old Testament and Apocrypha, a λῃστής [lēstēs] is always a brigand, a marauder, a member of a gang whose activity takes place out of doors. He belongs to a troop that attacks caravans or settlements with weapons and robs them of their goods.”3

The Why

It seems highly improbable that Joseph Smith, relying on his own American cultural background and knowledge, would have even have been aware that a distinction existed anciently between robbers and thieves. Although this distinction is consistent in the underlying texts of the Old and New Testaments, Welch has demonstrated that even the well-educated “King James translators used the words theft and robbery interchangeably.”4

For instance, “the same phrase is translated inconsistently as ‘den of robbers’ and ‘den of thieves’ in Jeremiah 7:11 and Matthew 21:13. The same word (lestai) is translated sometimes as ‘thieves’ (Matthew 27:38), other times as ‘robber’ (John 18:40).”5 If expert biblical scholars trained in ancient languages were ignorant of this important nuance, what chance would the uneducated Joseph Smith have of noticing it?6

Understanding the difference between thieves and robbers can also help us better grasp the significance of some events in Book of Mormon stories. For instance, readers may wonder why some individuals, like Zemnarihah, were executed without any trial or ordinarily due legal process. Welch has noted, “This treatment can be explained by Zemnarihah’s status as a robber. Robbers in the ancient world were more than common thieves; they were outsiders and enemies to society itself. As such, the ancients reasoned, they were outlaws, outside the law, and not entitled to legal process.”7

Thus, although it is a seemingly small detail, the Book of Mormon’s distinction between thieves and robbers has significant implications. Its presence offers good evidence of the Book of Mormon’s antiquity, as well as the attention paid by Nephite record keepers to technical legal terminology. It can also help readers better understand the drastic social and legal implications of the “robbers” who terrorized the Nephite civilization. More than mere thieves, these organized, oath-bound criminals were intent on overthrowing the Nephite government and subjecting the people to their rule.8 As such, they were always treated as a serious military threat and swiftly punished as traitors or brigands.9

• 1. John W. Welch and Kelly Ward, “Thieves and Robbers,” 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), 248. Interestingly, the names of two notable leaders of the Gadianton robbers—Gaddianton and Giddianhi (each spelled with a double “d” in the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon)—may actually have symbolic significance related to their occupation as robbers. See Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 164–168; John W. Welch, “Theft and Robbery in the Book of Mormon and Ancient Near Eastern Law,” FARMS Preliminary Report (1985), 30–31; Welch and Ward, “Thieves and Robbers,” 249.
• 2. Welch and Ward, “Thieves and Robbers,” 248.
• 3. John W. Welch, “Legal and Social Perspectives on Robbers in First-Century Judea,” BYU Studies 36, no. 3 (1996–1997): 142; citing Bernard S. Jackson, Theft in Early Jewish Law, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 1–5. See also, Kent P. Jackson, “Revolutionaries in the First Century,” BYU Studies 36, no. 3 (1997): 129–140.
• 4. Welch, “Legal and Social Perspectives,” 148.
• 5. Welch and Ward, “Thieves and Robbers,” 248.
• 6. It’s true that the legal language of Joseph Smith’s day did offer a distinction between theft and robbery, but according to Welch, these distinctions were “inconsistent in many ways with usages found in the Book of Mormon.” Welch, “Theft and Robbery,” 38.
• 7. John W. Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: BYU Press and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2008), 354.
• 8. For more on the secret societies in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does the Book of Mormon Use the Phrase ‘Secret Combinations?’ (3 Nephi 7:6),” KnoWhy 377 (October 31, 2017).
• 9. For more on the tactics of the Gadianton robbers, see Book of Mormon Central, “Is the Book of Mormon’s Depiction of Guerrilla Warfare Realistic? (Helaman 11:25),” KnoWhy 423 (April 10, 2018).

The Know

Although women do not play a prominent role in most Book of Mormon stories, their importance and influence is apparent.1 Nephi, for instance, foresaw that the Savior Himself would be born of a virgin (1 Nephi 11:13–20).2 Abish was instrumental in bringing her people to the knowledge of Christ.3 And the two thousand stripling warriors helped save the Nephite nation because of the faith and influence of their righteous mothers (Alma 56:47–48).

Women have also played important roles in the LDS Church in our own gospel dispensation. To acknowledge and appreciate this influence, the Church Historian’s Press recently selected and published a collection of discourses given by LDS women from 1831 to 2016.4 Not only do these talks show the vital contribution women have made to the Church and its people, but they also highlight how LDS women have promoted, defended, and utilized the Book of Mormon.

Rachel H. Leatham, for example, was “among the first generation of unmarried women to serve proselytizing missions for the church.”5 When asked to report on her mission at an overflow meeting during the April session of general conference in 1908, she emphasized the importance of the Book of Mormon. She asked the youth,

Are we familiar with the ancient record of the inhabitants of this continent, the Book of Mormon? And are we familiar with the great truths that are taught therein and with those books that teach us the beauties of the work in which we are engaged today? I am afraid we are not sufficiently conversant with the principles of the gospel and that we are not as diligent as we should be.6

In 1975 Belle S. Spafford was the General Relief Society President. She had also been “affiliated with the NCW [National Council of Women] for fifty-two years” and had even served as its president.7 Drawing on these experiences, she used the Book of Mormon to help explain why women should look to God and His prophetic messengers for spiritual guidance about women’s divine role and worth.

Counseling on the desirability of representative government, King Mosiah made this significant statement: “It is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right” [Mosiah 29:26]. Now, having this warning from a great Book of Mormon prophet, Latter-day Saints would do well to be particularly careful to weigh the voices of the people in the light of the teachings of our modern-day prophets. Even though the voices may be few, they are usually loud and convincing.

Possessing revealed truth and the words of the prophets as they relate to the responsibility of the Latter-day Saint woman and her role in life, we have an unwavering duty to uphold these teachings in our speech and actions, and to direct our lives in harmony with them.8

In 2012 Judy Brummer shared her powerful conversion story at a devotional in Salt Lake City. “Brummer was among the first wave of missionaries to proselytize primarily in the townships and tribal homelands of black South Africans. Her fluency in Xhosa proved crucial to her missionary work. After her mission, she also helped translate large portions of the Book of Mormon into Xhosa.”9 Sister Brummer explained that while translating,

It was so clear. It was almost like I was there. I knew exactly what every word meant in English. So it was easy to translate into Xhosa, which does not happen to me now. I understood [the Book of Mormon] with a clarity that I cannot explain, even the portions from Isaiah. I kept saying to myself, “I feel like there is a lightbulb that lit up in my brain. I am not usually this smart,” and I know now that it was a gift from God. I did not do it alone; I had help.10

The Why

These are only three samples from many selected teachings and testimonies highlighted by the Church Historian’s Press. But they beautifully illustrate how the women of the Church have done so much to promote and share the Book of Mormon with the world. They also show how, beginning with Emma Smith, God has called upon women in our dispensation “to expound scriptures, and to exhort the church, according as it shall be given thee by my Spirit” (Doctrine and Covenants 25:7).

Even though God called male prophets to write the Book of Mormon,11 its message is meant for all people. As the prophet Nephi taught, God invites all people “to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33).

In our dispensation, God has called upon women to help share the message of the Book of Mormon. Whether sharing in public, in a Church setting, or in our own homes, the effect is the same—the Book of Mormon builds faith and hope in Jesus Christ. By sharing its teachings, women participate in the priesthood responsibility to share the Gospel with all the world.12 Concerning the joy that comes from this service, Sister Carole M. Stephens explained,

We are covenant daughters in the Lord’s kingdom, and we have the opportunity to be instruments in His hands. As we participate in the work of salvation each day in small and simple ways—watching over, strengthening, and teaching one another—we will be able to join with Ammon, who declared:

“Behold, my joy is full, yea, my heart is brim with joy, and I will rejoice in my God” [Alma 26:11].13

• 1. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Are So Few Women Mentioned in the Book of Mormon? (2 Nephi 26:33),” KnoWhy (December 19, 2017).
• 2. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Does the Virgin Mary Have to Do with the Tree of Life? (1 Nephi 11:18),” KnoWhy 13 (January 18, 2016).
• 3. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Can We Learn From Abish’s Member-missionary Work? (Alma 19:17),” KnoWhy 374 (October 19, 2017).
• 4. See “At the Pulpit: 185 Years of Discourses by Latter-day Saint Women,” online at churchhistorianspress.org.
• 5. Rachel H. Leatham, “God Has Revealed It unto Me,” Annual General Conference Outdoor Overflow Meeting, April 1908, online at churchhistorianspress.org.
• 6. Leatham, “God Has Revealed It unto Me,” online at churchhistorianspress.org.
• 7. Belle S. Spafford, “Latter-day Saint Women in Today’s Changing World,” Brigham Young University Devotional, February 1975, online at churchhistorianspress.org.
• 8. Spafford, “Latter-day Saint Women,” online at churchhistorianspress.org.
• 9. Judy Brummer, “Our Father in Heaven Has a Mission for Us,” from a devotional given at Salt Lake City, Utah, April 2012, online at churchhistorianspress.org.
• 10. Brummer, “Our Father in Heaven,” online at churchhistorianspress.org.
• 11. Book of Mormon Central, “Why Are So Few Women Mentioned in the Book of Mormon? (2 Nephi 26:33),” KnoWhy (December 19, 2017).
• 12. See Thomas S. Monson, “Welcome to Conference,” Ensign, November 2012, online at lds.org: “We affirm that missionary work is a priesthood duty—and we encourage all young men who are worthy and who are physically able and mentally capable to respond to the call to serve. Many young women also serve, but they are not under the same mandate to serve as are the young men. We assure the young sisters of the Church, however, that they make a valuable contribution as missionaries, and we welcome their service.”
• 13. Carole M. Stephens, “We Have Great Reason to Rejoice,” Ensign, November 2013, online at lds.org.

The Know

In the book of Omni, readers are introduced to the “people of Zarahemla” who “came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon” (Omni 1:15). Mosiah 25:2 explains that Zarahemla was a “descendant of Mulek, and those who came with him into the wilderness.” Yet not until the book of Helaman do readers learn that Mulek was a “son of Zedekiah” (Helaman 6:10), and that he was Zedekiah’s only son who wasn’t slain when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians (Helaman 8:21).1

These verses show that the identity of the people of Zarahemla is not immediately clear in the text. Their identity can only be pieced together from isolated passages. This lack of clarity may cause readers to assume that Mulek’s descendants (often referred to as “Mulekites”)2 were of little concern in the sweeping history of the Nephites and Lamanites. A careful reading, though, suggests that the Mulekites were enormously influential, both politically and religiously, among Book of Mormon peoples.

First of all, the Mulekites’ history helped settle a fundamental conflict between the Nephites and Lamanites. Laman and Lemuel rejected Lehi’s visions, refused to believe that Jerusalem would be destroyed, and claimed that Lehi wrongly accused the Jews of wickedness.3 These grievances were used as a justification for their hatred, and they passed this tradition on to their Lamanite posterity.4

The history of the Mulekites, however, directly supported the Nephite origin story and undermined the Lamanite tradition. Nephi, son of Helaman, called attention to this when preaching from his garden tower at Zarahemla:

And now will you dispute that Jerusalem was destroyed? Will ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not slain, all except it were Mulek? Yea, and do ye not behold that the seed of Zedekiah are with us, and they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem? (Helaman 8:21)5

In order to side with Lamanite tradition, Mulekite dissenters would have needed to reject their own people’s origin story, which surely would have placed them in an uncomfortable position. Mulek’s witness of Jerusalem’s destruction proved that Lehi and Nephi were true prophets and, therefore, that Laman and Lemuel had unjustly rebelled against them.6

The Mulekites also play an important contrasting role to the Nephites. Within only a few years of one another, both groups fled Jerusalem and sailed to the New World. Yet only the Nephites brought with them a scriptural record. Because the Nephites had the plates of brass, they were able to preserve the sacred stories and righteous traditions of their Israelite ancestors.7

The Mulekites, on the other hand, suffered a significant spiritual decline after dwelling only a few generations in the New World. Their “language had become corrupted” because “they had brought no records with them” (Omni 1:17). Even worse, without scriptures to keep them in remembrance of the Lord, “they denied the being of their Creator” (v. 17).

These unfavorable circumstances may help explain why the Mulekites were willing to join with the Nephites in the first place, and why they allowed Mosiah, a Nephite king, to rule over them. Upon doing so, they immediately gained access to abundant religious and historical information about their ancestors. They solidified their religious and cultural identity by merging with another Israelite colony that in some ways was likely more advanced than their own.8

This favorable merger surely brought with it political, economic, and military advantages for both groups. Yet successfully mixing diverse peoples is rarely a smooth process. Although Book of Mormon authors do not come right out and say it, it seems likely that some of the Mulekites never warmed up to the idea of having Nephite kings or judges rule over them. A number of Book of Mormon scholars have suggested that the “Nephite” dissenters who instigated numerous wars and civil unrest were possibly of Mulekite heritage.9 If true, then the Mulekites were both a blessing and burden to the Nephites.

The Why

Gaining an increased awareness of the Mulekites can help readers in a number of ways. Their story shows how the history of one group of people can help verify or falsify the history or traditions of another. The account of Mulek and his escape from Jerusalem helped validate the Nephite tradition, and it confirmed that Lehi and Nephi were true prophets. Similarly, the Book of Mormon—which offers an additional historical and spiritual record of Jesus Christ’s reality—establishes the truth of the Bible and confirms that Joseph Smith was truly a prophet of God.10

The Mulekites also show us why the scriptures are so important. Over time, those who neglect the word of God often forget eternal truths and can even lose faith in God’s existence.11 Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, the absence of scriptures or scripture study can have a rippling effect throughout the generations, just as it did for the Mulekites. For this reason, modern prophets and apostles have invited individuals and families to study the scriptures, particularly the Book of Mormon, every day.12 Doing so will help ignite and then continually fuel the fire of faith in God and Christ.

Finally, the Mulekites show us that the Book of Mormon was written by real people with real social challenges. Combining different societies, just as the Nephites and Mulekites did, takes patience and humility. The social strife between these groups, often hinted at throughout the Book of Mormon, provides a warning for modern readers. We must not let our differences divide us from Christ or His true gospel.

Instead, we can allow our divinely inspired differences to complement and refine one another. By uniting together with faith in Christ, we can amplify our strengths and better recognize our own weaknesses (see Ether 12:27). As President Dieter F. Uchtdorf has taught, the “diversity of persons and peoples all around the globe is a strength” to all who strive to follow Jesus Christ.13

• 1. See Book of Mormon Central, “Has An Artifact That Relates to the Book of Mormon Been Found? (Mosiah 25:2),” KnoWhy 103 (May 19, 2016).
• 2.“Mulekites” is a term regularly used by Book of Mormon scholars and commentators, but it is not found in the Book of Mormon.
• 3. See 1 Nephi 2:12–13; 17:19–22. See also, Neal Rappleye, “The Deuteronomist Reforms and Lehi’s Family Dynamics: A Social Context for the Rebellions of Laman and Lemuel,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 16 (2015): 87–99.
• 4. See Alma 3:8; 9:17; 20:13; 37:9; 54:17.
• 5. It should be noted that Zarahemla was originally a Mulekite city, and therefore Nephi’s comment would have been particularly relevant. See also Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Nephi Prophesy Near ‘the Highway Which Led to the Chief Market?’ (Helaman 7:10),” KnoWhy 178 (September 1, 2016).
• 6. See Gary R. Whiting, “The Testimony of Amaleki,” in Jacob Through Words of Mormon, To Learn With Joy, Book of Mormon Symposium Series, Volume 4, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1990), 299–301.
• 7. See Whiting, “The Testimony of Amaleki,” 299–301.
• 8. For further cultural and political information on this merger between the Nephites and the Lamanites, see John L. Sorenson, “The ‘Mulekites’,” BYU Studies Quarterly 30, no. 3 (1990): 6–22. For the merger’s spiritual implications, see Garth A. Wilson, “The Mulekites,” Ensign, March 1987, online at lds.org.
• 9. See, for example, A. Keith Thompson, “Apostate Religion in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25 (2017): 191–226; Dan Belnap, “‘And it came to pass . . .’: The Sociopolitical Events in the Book of Mormon Leading to the Eighteenth Year of the Reign of the Judges,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 23 (2014): 101–139; Val Larsen, “In His Footsteps: Ammon₁ and Ammon₂,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 3 (2013): 85–113; John W. Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: BYU Press and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2008), 212–215.
• 10. See 2 Nephi 3:12.
• 11. See Ronald A. Rasband, “Lest Thou Forget,” Ensign, October 2016, online at lds.org.
• 12. See Russell M. Nelson, “The Book of Mormon: What Would Your Life Be Like without It?” Ensign, November 2017, online at lds.org; Thomas S. Monson, “The Power of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, May 2017, 86–87, online at lds.org; Book of Mormon Central, “Why Should We Read the Book of Mormon Daily? (2 Nephi 4:15),” KnoWhy 368 (September 28, 2017).
• 13. Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us,” Ensign, November 2013, online at lds.org.

The Know

Modern anthropological research tells us that the New World was already extensively populated when the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites arrived. This may lead readers to wonder why other societies are never mentioned in the Book of Mormon? The first thing to consider is that there are actually quite a few clues in the text which suggest that “others” were living in the regions where these colonies settled. The following list summarizes some of these clues:1

1. The reported size of early Nephite populations, the accounts of their warfare, and their unsanctioned polygamous marriages all indicate that they had an unbelievably high population growth rate.2 This suggests that outsiders mixed with and added to their population from the beginning.
2. In the book of Jarom, readers learn that the hunter-gatherer Lamanites had become “exceedingly more numerous” than the Nephites who cultivated the land (Jarom 1:6). This situation goes against the historical trend of higher population growth among agricultural societies. It seems that outsiders would have been necessary to swell the Lamanite population so disproportionately.3
3. Some researchers have felt that Jacob’s statements about Sherem, who “sought much opportunity” to speak with Jacob and who “had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people,” suggest that Sherem was an outsider to Nephite society (Jacob 7:3–4).4 This is because it makes little sense to emphasize that a community insider had a good grasp of their language or that he would have to seek out an encounter with Jacob.
4. For several reasons, the Nephites’ quick ability to grow corn (maize) and raise flocks and herds seems unlikely unless they had obtained this knowledge from local natives.5
5. The Mulekites’ language seems to have been “corrupted” too quickly for natural language evolution. This indicates that their language was being mixed with another language or languages from outside groups (Omni 1:17).6
6. The terms “Nephite” and “Lamanite” were broad enough to include a variety of ethnic and cultural sub-groups.7 Moreover, there are examples of Book of Mormon societies adopting the name of a host group upon joining them.7
7. The way that Jaredite culture and names were preserved among the Nephites shows how cultural influence from one group upon another goes unmentioned and unexplained in the text.9
8. The use of some terms or group designations, such as “Lamanitish servants” (Alma 17:26) or “Ishmaelitish women” (Alma 3:7), hints at affiliated groups of outsiders.10 If the social identity of the servants or women was one of the named groups in the Book of Mormon, then we would expect a straightforward label. Instead, the “ish” indicates that they may have been outsiders who were adopted into the Lamanite and Ishmaelite tribal groups.
9. Several prophetic interpretations of Isaiah hint that the Nephites were concerned with the spiritual welfare of “others” in the land.11 

These textual clues suggest that the Book of Mormon and the secular history of the Americas are actually in agreement about the presence of other peoples in the land. However, these clues still don’t explain why outsiders were never mentioned directly in the text. One likely answer can be found by comparing the Book of Mormon with other ancient American historical documents.

Anthropologist John L. Sorenson has noted that ancient Mesoamerican histories are similarly ethnocentric—meaning that, like the Book of Mormon, they focus almost solely on a particular society or lineage and that they exclude political, cultural, or religious information that isn’t directly relevant.12 With this ancient American context in place, the Book of Mormon’s lack of information about outside societies is perfectly understandable and even expected.

The Why

These findings suggest that the Book of Mormon’s lack of detail about surrounding peoples and cultures is a subtle evidence of its historical authenticity. It is also consistent with claims made by several Book of Mormon authors that they couldn’t record even a “hundredth part” of their peoples’ history.13

They directly tell us that much more is going on in the background. Therefore we shouldn’t be surprised to discover that large amounts of historical or cultural information, such as descriptions of other societies, is missing from the text. As President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency stated in 1929, “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”14

The strong likelihood that others were in the land also has implications for DNA studies. The Church essay on this topic has explained,

When a small population mixes with a large one, combinations of autosomal markers typical of the smaller group become rapidly overwhelmed or swamped by those of the larger. The smaller group’s markers soon become rare in the combined population and may go extinct due to the effects of genetic drift.15

In other words, when a small colony like the Jaredites, Lehites, or Mulekites mixes with a larger population, as we would expect them to have found in ancient America, then the DNA of the immigrant colonies would likely be lost to us within only a few generations. For this and other reasons, “DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.”16

Finally, the unmentioned presence of other peoples should help us remember why the Book of Mormon was written in the first place. Nephi explained, “I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred” (1 Nephi 19:6).17 Mormon similarly stated that his record was written so that a remnant of his people would “know concerning your fathers, and also the marvelous works which were wrought by the power of God among them” (Mormon 7:9).18

In essence, the Book of Mormon is a spiritual and religious history. Its focus is on particular groups of people, their sacred revelations, and their miraculous experiences. It was never meant to be a cultural survey of the Nephites and Jaredites, or any of the others who interacted with them. Its narrow spiritual focus can help us remember to similarly prioritize spiritual things—especially the realty and teachings of Jesus Christ—in our own lives.

As Elder Russell M. Nelson explained,

Some authors have focused upon [the Book of Mormon’s] stories, its people, or its vignettes of history. Others have been intrigued by its language structure or its records of weapons, geography, animal life, techniques of building, or systems of weights and measures.

Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental.19

• 1. These textual clues are mostly adapted and summarized from John L. Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (1992): 1–34.
• 2. See Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 1–4.
• 3. See Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 26–32.
• 4. See Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 4; A. Keith Thompson, “Who Was Sherem?” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14 (2015): 1–15; Kevin Christensen, “The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament,” FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004), 86‒88.
• 5. See Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 4–6.
• 6. See Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 18–19.
• 7.a.b. See Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 8–17.
• 9. See Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 19–21. See also 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), 242–263.
• 10. See Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 31.
• 11. See Book of Mormon Central, “Did Interactions with ‘Others’ Influence Nephi’s Selection of Isaiah? (2 Nephi 24:1),” 45 (March 2, 2016).
• 12. See John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2013), 104–106.
• 13. See Jacob 3:13; Words of Mormon 1:5; Helaman 3:14; 3 Nephi 5:8; 26:6–7; 4 Nephi 1:40–42; Ether 15:33.
• 14. Anthony W. Ivins, in Conference Report, Apr. 1929, 15; as cited in “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies,” Gospel Topics, online at lds.org.
• 15.“Book of Mormon and DNA Studies,” online at lds.org.
• 16.“Book of Mormon and DNA Studies,” online at lds.org. See also, Matthew Roper, “Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations,” FairMormon Conference, 2003, online at archive.bookofmormoncentral.org; Book of Mormon Central, “Why Hasn’t Lehi’s DNA Been Found? (Introduction),” KnoWhy 280 (February 27, 2018).
• 17. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Do the Authors on the Small Plates Follow a Pattern? (Jacob 7:27),” KnoWhy 74 (April 8, 2016).
• 18. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Was Mormon’s Purpose in Writing the Book of Mormon? (Mormon 5:14),” KnoWhy 230 (November 14, 2016).
• 19. Russell M. Nelson, “A Testimony of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, November 1999, online at lds.org.

The Know

The book of Ruth recounts the story of Ruth, a Moabite, who moved to Bethlehem with her mother-in-law Naomi (Ruth 1:19). While there, Ruth met Naomi’s relative Boaz (2:3), whom she eventually married.  In marrying Ruth, Boaz performed “the part of a kinsman” for her (3:13). The phrase, “do the part of a kinsman” can also be translated as “redeem,” and the kind of “redemption” we see in the book of Ruth can help us understand how Christ redeems us, as explained in the Book of Mormon.1

According to LDS scholar Benjamin Spackman, one of the keys to understanding redemption in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon is, oddly enough, Israelite names.2 The Old Testament contains names like Abijah, “God is my Father,”3 Joah, “God is (my) brother”4 or even Elliam “God is my uncle.”5 After studying these names, Spackman realized that they all demonstrate the ancient Israelite idea that we are all in a kinship relationship with God.6 Spackman explained, kinship was one of the main things that dictated how society worked, and “kin had particular duties to each other within that structure.”7

One of the most important of these functions, as Spackman has observed, was buying back (redeeming) a family’s land that they had sold because they were too poor (Leviticus 25:25–34). Members of the family who had been sold into slavery for the same reason were also bought back (vv. 47–50).8 Another element of being a redeemer was the Levirate law of marriage in which a man married his brother’s widow whose children would be born in the deceased brother’s name, as one sees in the book of Ruth.9 These kinship duties were also extended to those outside the tribe through covenants, which one also sees in Ruth.10

This meant, according to Spackman, that terms like father, brother, or uncle that reflect this idea of covenantal kin, terms we might usually think of as purely biological today, acquired a slightly different meaning: “they often identify people who are kin through covenant.”11 In this way, those outside the family could be symbolically brought into the family through covenant, as though they had always been family.12

This Israelite idea that covenants could establish a family-like relationship between people who were not biologically related was also extended to God, which explains the odd personal names in the Old Testament.13 Ancient Israelites, may well have thought of this relationship when they approached God in prayer, and “when in need of help, they called on God and expected him to respond because they were kin.”14 Ultimately, whether someone was actually kin or was made kin through covenant, it was the kinsman’s responsibility to redeem or buy back both family land and family members that had been sold.15 And when ancient Israelite’s asked for God to redeem them, they were considering Him to be their kin through the covenant relationship they had with Him.16

With this context, the Book of Mormon’s teachings about the Redeemer make more sense.17 2 Nephi 2:3, for example, states, “wherefore, I know that thou art redeemed, because of the righteousness of thy Redeemer.” Spackman has observed that in the book of Ruth, the kinsman who was more closely related to Naomi than Boaz, did not fulfill his obligation to redeem Ruth.18 Boaz had to fill this role instead. With this story of an unreliable kinsman in mind, Spackman paraphrases Lehi’s words as, “‘because God is your kinsman-redeemer and unlike human kinsman-redeemers who are not always reliable and faithful in carrying out covenantal obligations, God is righteous. Therefore, you, Jacob, are surely redeemed, bought back, repurchased.’”19

The Why

Ben Spackman has observed that “there is a kind of quasi-kinship among Latter-day Saints.”20 Formally, the duties of church members “are often summed up with Mosiah 18:8–10, ‘mourning with those who mourn’ and so on, but informally, Latter-day Saints perform the duties of community or even kinship for fellow Saints whom they know only remotely, if at all.”21 Although times are different now than they were in ancient Israel, “fundamentally both LDS and Israelite ideas of kinship and mutual responsibilities are concerned with relationships. On such a basic level, we can perhaps apply some of God-as-divine-kinsman to our ideas of atonement.”22

Remembering our kinship relationship with God can change how we see Him: “If our relationship with God is not characterized primarily as debtor to creditor, but as kin to kin (whether kin by covenant or kin by nature), then perhaps we can do as the Israelites and call on Him for help in terms of that relationship.”23 Ultimately, “thinking of God as a family member we turn to for help instead of as a banker concerned primarily with having his debt repaid means that we are more likely to seek that help.”24

Spackman concluded by stating that Hebrews 4:15–16 changes how we understand and approach God “on the basis of how we conceive of him: ‘We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need’ (NRSV).”25 May we all remember the redeeming power of God, and approach Him as our kinsman, knowing He will help us “in time of need.”26

• 1. For more on redemption in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “How Are Atonement, Resurrection, Judgment, and Redemption Interconnected? (Mosiah 3:17),” KnoWhy 275 (February 15, 2017).
• 2. T. Benjamin Spackman, “The Israelite Roots of Atonement Terminology,” BYU Studies Quarterly 55, no. 1 (2016): 52.
• 3. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 52.
• 4. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 53.
• 5. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 53.
• 6. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 53.
• 7. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 53.
• 8. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 54.
• 9. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 54.
• 10. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 54.
• 11. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 54.
• 12. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 55.
• 13. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 55.
• 14. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 56.
• 15. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 56.
• 16. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 57.
• 17. For more on the role of the Redeemer in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Are There So Many Different Names for the Plan of Salvation? (Alma 42:5, 42:8, 42:13, 42:15),” KnoWhy 312 (May 12, 2017).
• 18. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 59.
• 19. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 59.
• 20. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 62.
• 21. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 62.
• 22. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 62.
• 23. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 62–63.
• 24. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 63.
• 25. Spackman, “The Israelite Roots,” 63.
• 26. See Gerald N. Lund, “Plan of Salvation, Plan of Redemption,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols. (New York, NY: Macmillian Publishing, 1992), 3:1088–1091.

The Know

The Psalms mention the word “temple” more than any other book in the Old Testament except for 2 Chronicles. The Psalms have been called the “hymn book” of the ancient temple because many of them were likely read or sung during temple rituals and ceremonies. What most readers likely do not realize is that phrases and expressions from the Psalms are often used in the Book of Mormon. About 50 such references have been identified and many of them allude to a temple context.1

There is much that the Psalms can teach us about the ancient temple, as they are full of references to the temple and depictions of its rituals.2 Descriptions like those found in Psalms 24, 42, 68, 95, 118, 122, and 132 suggest that periodic pilgrimages to the house of the Lord were an important part of ancient temple worship. The people of Israel would ascend up to Jerusalem and enter the temple grounds in order to be taught the word of God, offer sacrifices, and participate in other temple rites.

These pilgrimages were probably quite similar to the gatherings at the temple that we read about in the Book of Mormon, such as those in which Jacob (2 Nephi 6–10; Jacob 2–3) and King Benjamin (Mosiah 1–6) taught their people. It is evident that Jacob, for example, understood the relevance of these particular psalms to his temple teachings because he used parts of Psalms 95, 118, and 145 in his writings.3

Biblical passages such as Deuteronomy 31:11 state that the purpose of such temple gatherings was not only to hear the law of God taught, but also for “all Israel [to] come to appear before the Lord.” Scholars have determined, however, that this was not likely the original meaning of the passage. The ancient reading of the text was likely: “When all Israel comes to see the face of the Lord.”4

The idea that the original purpose of going to the temple was to “see the face of the Lord” is supported by other passages in the Psalms. For example, Psalm 17:15 declares, “As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.” Psalm 11:7 is similar: “For the Lord is righteous; he loves righteous deeds; the upright shall behold his face.”

Psalm 24, a “temple entry” psalm, declares that in order to “ascend the hill of the Lord” and “stand in his holy place,” one must come with “clean hands and a pure heart” (Psalm 24:3–4). The psalm then states those entering the temple went there to “seek the face of the God of Jacob.”5

This psalm is used multiple times in the Book of Mormon. For example, Nephi prophesied that the Jews will come to recognize Jesus as their true Messiah when they worship the Father “with pure hearts and clean hands” (2 Nephi 25:16, citing Psalm 24:4).6 Alma, in his great discourse to the people of Zarahemla in Alma 5, mentioned the requirement of having “a pure heart and clean hands” in the context of “look[ing] up to God” and standing in His presence (Alma 5:18–19).7

We cannot know if ancient Israelite temple pilgrims expected to literally (rather than symbolically) see the Lord upon arriving at the Lord’s house in Jerusalem. What is certain is that this expectation was fulfilled very literally in the Book of Mormon when the people gathered around the temple in Bountiful and received the visitation of their Savior, Jesus Christ. There, they had the opportunity to experience in reality what the ancients had sought by going to the temple—they saw the face of the Lord their God (3 Nephi 11).

Another related and important part of the ancient temple rites was the idea that when the Lord appeared, He would “lift up” the light of His countenance and His face would “shine” upon the people. This was part of the priestly blessing (Numbers 6:24–26) and is mentioned repeatedly in the Psalms.8 The sight of the shining face of the Lord was supposed to effect a transfiguration in those who saw it so that their faces would also shine, as was the case with Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 34:29–35).

Again, this is exactly what happened during Jesus’ visit to the Book of Mormon people. In 3 Nephi 19:25, after Jesus had prayed with his chosen disciples, the record states:

And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus …

The Why

These findings demonstrate that Book of Mormon authors had access to at least some of the Psalms, either from the plates of brass or from memory. The Israelites, especially the priests and Levites, knew the Psalms and sang them regularly the way that Latter-day Saints know the hymns in their modern hymn books. Jacob, for example, worked as a priest in the Nephite temple and would, therefore, be expected to know the priestly traditions of the ancient Israelites. Recognizing that Book of Mormon authors knew and quoted from the Psalms provides greater depth to their words. It also illumines the temple setting and background of much of the Book of Mormon text.

When Alma quoted Psalm 24, admonishing his Nephite brethren that they would need to have “a pure heart and clean hands” when they looked up to God and stood in His presence, he also used the related temple imagery of being transfigured by the Lord’s shining face. This is the well-known line in Alma 5:19, in which Alma asked his audience if they had “the image of God engraven upon your countenances.” In the context of the ancient temple, having one’s face become like God’s face—becoming like God through the temple experience—was one of the main purposes of the pilgrimage up to house of the Lord.9

We may not all have the privilege of actually seeing the Lord when we attend the temple, as did the Nephites at Bountiful, and those few ancient prophets, like Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1), who experienced such grand appearances.10 However, we can have the same goal of seeing the Lord through the powerful symbols and representations of the modern temple. And we can certainly determine to let ourselves be changed by this experience, allowing ourselves to become more like our Savior and our Heavenly Father there.

• 1. Based on research done by Book of Mormon Central. A key example is 2 Nephi 4:16–35, which uses various words and phrases from Psalms 25–31, among others, which focus on themes of temple and covenant. See Book of Mormon Central, “Is ‘Nephi’s Psalm’ Really a Psalm? (2 Nephi 4:16–17),” KnoWhy 30 (February 10, 2016).
• 2. See David J. Larsen, “Ascending into the Hill of the Lord: What the Psalms Can Tell Us about the Rituals of the First Temple,” in Ancient Temple Worship: Proceedings of the Expound Symposium, 14 May 2011, ed. Matthew B. Brown, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Stephen D. Ricks, and John S. Thompson (Salt Lake City and Orem, UT: Eborn Books and the Interpreter Foundation, 2014), 171–188.
• 3. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Jacob Quote So Much from the Psalms? (Jacob 1:7),” KnoWhy 62 (March 25, 2016).
• 4. The version of Deuteronomy 31:11 cited first is the King James translation of the “Masoretic text” of the Hebrew Bible, which is the traditionally accepted version of the Hebrew scriptures, compiled by Jewish scholars between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. The Masoretic text has dictated how the Hebrew Bible has been read for centuries and how it has been translated into modern languages. However, in ages past, previous to the work of the Masoretes, it was likely clearer that the verbal structure of the phrase should be understood as saying “to see the face of” instead of “to appear before” the Lord. See Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962 edition), 816, 908.
• 5. The KJV of Psalm 24:6 has “that seek thy face, O Jacob,” obscuring the original meaning. Most modern translations have something akin to “who seek the face of the God of Jacob,” based on the LXX, Syriac manuscripts, etc. See Psalm 24:6 in the NIV, ESV, ERV, RSV, NRSV, and others.
• 6. Although the order of words in Nephi’s quotation of Psalm 24 appears to modern readers to be backwards, this is actually a great indicator that he is indeed quoting from scripture. Scholars have recognized that “when quoting from an earlier source, biblical authors often reversed its sequence.” This phenomenon is known as Seidel’s Law. See David E. Bokovoy and John A. Tvedtnes, Testaments: Links between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible (Tooele, UT: Heritage, 2003), 56–58. See also, Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Nephi Quote a Temple Psalm While Commenting on Isaiah? (2 Nephi 25:16),” KnoWhy 51 (March 10, 2016).
• 7. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Alma Ask about Having God’s Image Engraven upon One’s Countenance? (Alma 5:19),” KnoWhy 295 (April 3, 2017).
• 8. See Psalms 4:6; 67:1; 89:15, etc.
• 9. Compare 1 John 3:2: “We know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” For an alternative interpretation of Alma’s words, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Alma Ask about Having God’s Image Engraven upon One’s Countenance? (Alma 5:19),” KnoWhy 295 (April 3, 2017).
• 10. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Does the Book of Mormon Teach about the Temple? (2 Nephi 5:16),” KnoWhy 309 (May 5, 2017).

The Know

When tragedy struck God’s people in Old Testament times, it was common for them to respond, both as a community and as individuals, with “psalms of lament.” A psalm of lament is, essentially, a song of complaint to the Lord regarding difficulties being endured, and a petition for His help.1

Psalms of lament come in two basic types: individual (in which the speaker is “I/me”), and communal (“we/us”).2 These psalms share a basic common form that generally has the following elements, although the order can be rearranged: (1) invocation, (2) complaint, (3) confession of trust, (4) petition, and (5) vow of praise.3

Psalm 22, well known due to its use in the New Testament (Matthew 27:35, 39, 46, etc.), is a good example of the typical elements of this genre.

• Invocation: “My God, my God” (Psalm 22:1)
• Complaint: “why hast thou forsaken me?” (vv. 1–18)
• Confession of trust: “He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him” (vv. 8, 24)
• Petition: “be not thou far from me, O Lord … haste thee to help me … deliver my soul from the sword” (vv. 19–21)
• Vow of praise: “in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee … I will pay my vows before them that fear him” (vv. 22–31)

This form of expressing lament to God was so common that it makes up the largest category of psalm in the biblical Book of Psalms. Roughly one third of all the 150 biblical psalms are laments or contain laments.4

Lehi and his family would certainly have been aware of this type of psalm, so it would be natural to expect that similar expressions of lament would show up in some form in the Book of Mormon. In fact, selections from the biblical psalms of lament appear in the Book of Mormon approximately two dozen times.5 A few examples include:

• 2 Nephi 33:3– When Nephi stated that he cried unto God for his people and that his “eyes water my pillow by night, because of them,” he was echoing the lament in Psalm 6, which states in the KJV translation: “all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears” (Psalm 6:6).
• Moroni 10:25– Moroni spoke of a time in which miracles might be done away among mankind due to their unbelief. He stated that “if this be the case” it will be because “there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one.” This is almost a direct quote of Psalm 14:3, a psalm of lament.
• 1 Nephi 8:8; Ether 6:12– An oft-quoted line from the Book of Mormon, “according to the multitude of his tender mercies,” comes from the “petition” element of Psalm 69: “turn unto me according to the multitude of thy tender mercies” (v. 16).

Perhaps the most striking example of this genre in the Book of Mormon is the psalm that Nephi himself wrote in 2 Nephi 4.6 Nephi’s Psalm has all five of the elements listed above that are characteristic of a lament psalm:

• Invocation: “My soul delighteth in the things of the Lord … O Lord” (2 Ne 4:16–17, 30)
• Complaint: “O wretched man that I am! … I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me” (2 Ne 4:17–19)
• Confession of Trust: “My God hath been my support … O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever.” (2 Ne 4:20–30, 34)
• Petition: (2 Ne 4:31–33)
• Vow of Praise: “I will praise thee forever … my voice shall forever ascend up unto thee” (2 Ne 4:30, 35)7

Although 2 Nephi 4 is very original and unique to Nephi, he does allude to and quote from several biblical psalms of lament, including Psalms 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 52, throughout the chapter.8

The Why

Nephi’s Psalm depicts a soulful cry of anguish and a passionate plea for help virtually unrivaled in the Book of Mormon. It demonstrates the spiritual and emotional power that the Psalms of Lament typically carry and gives us an idea of why Nephi and other Book of Mormon prophets may have chosen to quote from them or write their own.

Due to the large number of laments in the Book of Psalms and elsewhere in the Bible (see, for example, Jeremiah 15:15–21), it is clear that this form of expression was an important means of communicating one’s needs and desires to the Lord and petitioning His divine assistance. The specific form or structure for these laments that has been described here was mostly likely established so that once recorded, a lament could be reused by others. Although the psalm may have been written in response to a particular disastrous event or personal tragedy, the structure of the piece ensured that it would be applicable to a much broader audience.

Jesus, for example, was able to apply the words of Psalm 22 to Himself when He hung on the cross and invoked His Father, using the Psalmist’s inspired lament: “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46, quoting Psalm 22:1). Likewise, when Nephi vowed that “my soul will rejoice in thee, my God, and the rock of my salvation” (2 Nephi 4:30), he was echoing the cry of King David in Psalm 89:26, likely because that scriptural expression of praise represented exactly what Nephi felt inside himself at that moment.

So, when readers today immerse themselves in psalms of lament such as those found in the biblical Psalms and in the Book of Mormon, they may similarly find themselves, their trials, and their yearnings for God’s help, already expressed in an eloquent and inspiring manner. These ancient petitions may become the readers’ own prayers to a merciful Father as they learn to internalize them and apply them to their own situations.

Appendix

Psalms of Lament Quoted or Alluded to in the Book of Mormon

• 1. For more on Psalms of Lament in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “How Did Mormon React to Seeing His People Slain? (Mormon 6:17),” KnoWhy 232 (November 16, 2016).
• 2.Psalm 9 is an example of an individual Psalm of Lament, while Psalm 123 is communal.
• 3. See Matthew Nickerson, “Nephi’s Psalm: 2 Nephi 4:16–35 in Light of Form-Critical Analysis,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 6, no. 2 (1997): 30.
• 4. See, for example, Psalms 3, 5-7, 9, 12–14, 17, 22, 25, 28, 31, 35, 38, 39, 51, 53–58, 61, 64, 69–71, 77, 83, 86, 88, 102, 109, 130, 139–144.
• 5. See appendix.
• 6. For more on this psalm, see John W. Welch, “The Psalm of Nephi as a Post-Lehi Document,” 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), 72–74.
• 7. See Book of Mormon Central, “Is ‘Nephi’s Psalm’ Really a Psalm?” KnoWhy 30 (February 10, 2016).
• 8. See Kenneth L. Alford and D. Bryce Baker, “Parallels between Psalms 25–31 and the Psalm of Nephi,” 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), 312–328. See also John Hilton III, “Old Testament Psalms in the Book of Mormon,” in Ascending the Mountain of the Lord, 291–311.

The Know

The idea that the Nephite authors of the Book of Mormon may have had used the Psalms in their writings has become a topic of interest among LDS scholars in recent years. For example, many people have analyzed “Nephi’s Psalm” (2 Nephi 4:16–35), and how it compares with and even borrows from the biblical book of Psalms.[1] Scholars have also noted the prophet Jacob’s clear usage of Psalm 95 in his book.[2]

BYU Professor of Religious Education John Hilton III has recently conducted research attempting to identify as many connections as possible between Old Testament Psalms and the Book of Mormon.[3] Hilton’s study, as well as research from other scholars, has been very fruitful, and has shown that the study of the use of the Psalms in the Book of Mormon deserves more attention.

Here at Book of Mormon Central, we have done what is likely the most extensive study of the use of the Psalms in the Book of Mormon. We first used a computer program to find matches between phrases in the book of Psalms and the Book of Mormon. Then, we carefully looked at each match, and used an established method to determine which phrase was actually a Psalms quotation, and which was just a coincidence.

The results of this research show that there are at least sixty good examples of the use of phrases from the Psalms in the Book of Mormon. The Psalms that appear in the Book of Mormon, according to our study, are Psalms 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 18, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 44, 46, 51, 52, 62, 74, 86, 89, 95, 106, 107, 110, 115, 118, and 145. The most-used psalms, according to our research, are 18, 31, 51, 95, and 107. For a list of which parts of these psalms were used, and where, please see the appendix below.

The Book of Mormon books that quote the Psalms most often are Nephi, Jacob and Alma. Books that do not have references to the Psalms, according to our findings, are Enos, Jarom, Omni, Words of Mormon, Helaman, and 4 Nephi. There are very few references to the Psalms in Mosiah, Mormon, Ether, and Moroni.

In the books from the Book of Mormon that do have several Psalms quotations (1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, Jacob, Alma, 3 Nephi), they are generally scattered throughout the books. The chapters that use the Psalms most often are 2 Nephi 4, Alma 5, 26, and 37.

The Why

Generally speaking, the psalms that we would most expect to show up in the Book of Mormon do actually appear, while those we would not expect to be present are largely absent. Psalms from throughout the biblical book of Psalms are found in the Book of Mormon, but a large concentration of those present are from the initial collection of Psalms made by King David: 3–41. Sixteen of these appear in the Book of Mormon, according to our findings. Most scholars agree that these Psalms were written before Lehi left Jerusalem, so it is likely that they would have been on the Plates of Brass and that Book of Mormon prophets would have had access to them.[4]

We do not see many of the Royal Psalms,[5] the psalms that emphasize kingship, in the writings of Nephi and Jacob, even though they were written before the time of Lehi. However, some of these Royal Psalms do show up later, in the time of King Benjamin and in the writings of Alma the Younger. This may suggest that Nephi and Jacob left these Psalms out because they focused on the ideology of the Davidic monarchy, an ideology that Nephi and Jacob seem to have been disillusioned with.[6]

Some of the psalms consist of collections from various people, such as Korah and Asaph. These two collections are generally considered to be from a later time, with some hymns possibly dating to before the time of Lehi, but with most of the hymns being written later. Very few of the Psalms from these collections appear in the Book of Mormon. Some that are found, like Psalm 86, are considered to be earlier compositions. Some of the psalms from later collections that show up in the Book of Mormon may still be from before Lehi’s time. This is because earlier psalms, such as Psalms 89, 106, 107, 110, and 145, were scattered throughout the book in strategic positions to give the book a more Davidic flavor.

Although the belief that King David wrote all, or most, of the Psalms (which would make them all pre-exilic) is common, it is clear from the Psalms themselves that this is not the case. Only 73 of the 150 Psalms are directly attributed to David in the Psalm headings, whereas 12 are attributed to Asaph, 11 to the “sons of Korah,” and others to Solomon, Moses, and others. Biblical scholars have found that many of the Psalms were written after the time of Lehi, based on what these Psalms are about.

It is also important to note that the earliest examples of biblical Psalms that exist (from the Dead Sea Scrolls) are found in collection that do not all match the order of Psalms found in the Bible as we know it today. It has become clear that the Psalms were often gathered into different groupings and in a different order than what is found in the bible as we know it.[7] These findings demonstrate that a good case can be made for why most (or all) of the psalms present in the Book of Mormon should be there, based on the time period Lehi left Jerusalem. This is yet another sophisticated piece of evidence that testifies to the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon.

Appendix

The Know

The Old Testament-era prophet Zenos had considerable influence on the prophet-authors of the Book of Mormon. He was mentioned or quoted by Nephi₁ (1 Nephi 19:10–17), Jacob (Jacob 5:1–77; 6:1), Alma₂ (Alma 33:3–11, 13, 15), Amulek (Alma 34:7), Nephi₂ (Helaman 8:19–20), and Mormon (3 Nephi 10:14–17). The Nephites were familiar with Zenos because his writings appeared on the Plates of Brass, although they are not contained in the Old Testament as we have it.

Despite the fact that Zenos is not mentioned in the Bible, there is some evidence that Old Testament authors may have known his writings. Zenos’s Allegory of the Olive Tree, which is laid out in its entirety in Jacob 5 in the Book of Mormon, may have been an influence on several Old Testament authors for centuries, including the prophet Ezekiel.

BYU Professors John W. Welch and David Seely have suggested that in the Old Testament one can find the symbol of the olive tree (or sometimes the vine, often used synonymously) used as if the author’s audience were already familiar with a longer allegory containing both positive and negative aspects of the destiny of Israel.

Passages such as Exodus 15:17, 2 Samuel 7:10, Psalms 1:3; 52:8, Hosea 14:4–8, and Isaiah 4:2 focus primarily on the positive aspects of the Lord planting, taking care of, and blessing the tree. Others, such as Psalm 52:5; 80:15–16, Isaiah 5:1–7; 17:9–11; and Jeremiah 11:14–17 feature the uprooting, burning, destruction, and cursing of the tree. Both dimensions are found, combined seamlessly into one whole, in Zenos’s allegory.

A particularly interesting example of an Old Testament prophet possibly drawing on the writings of Zenos can be found in the book of Ezekiel. Ezekiel used symbolism that is very similar to Zenos’s but is focused more on the problems Jerusalem was facing in Ezekiel’s time instead of on the entire history of the people of Israel.

In Ezekiel 17, the prophet presented a parable regarding an eagle that came and snatched the top, the highest branch, of a cedar tree and carried it off to another land (Ezekiel 17:3–4). Toward the end of the parable, the Lord promises to do something similar—to “crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one” and “plant it upon a high mountain” in hopes that it will become a “goodly cedar” and “bear fruit” (Ezekiel 17:22–23). This allegory appears to be making reference to the King of Babylon, in the first place, as the eagle, and how he carried off the king of Judah, Jehoiachin, into Babylon. The Lord, for His part, is likely referring to the Messiah of the House of David, whom He himself would plant and cause to bear fruit for Israel.

This is similar to Zenos’s allegory. In Jacob 5:6–8, Zenos speaks of the “young and tender branches” that the Lord of the vineyard will “take away” and graft or plant elsewhere. Then, in verses 23–24, we are told that some of these branches “brought forth fruit.” Here, Zenos is speaking not only of the king of Judah or the royal family in Jerusalem, but of other families or portions of the people of Israel being taken into Babylon and otherwise scattered.

This isn’t the only similarity between Zenos and Ezekiel. In Jacob 5, the main parts of the top of the tree, not the tender branches but the older branches that were perishing, were plucked off and “cast … into the fire that they may be burned.” In Ezekiel 5, although He is not speaking of trees, the Lord uses symbolism to describe the destruction of Jerusalem. He declares their fate using the same words as Zenos: “cast them into … the fire and burn them” (Ezekiel 5:4). There are other phrases in common between Ezekiel and Zenos, such as the use of the phrase “glory of the God of Israel” (1 Nephi 19:13; Ezekiel 8:4).

The Why

Due to the fact that the Old Testament authors tended to draw on either the positive or the negative aspects of this symbolism, Welch and Seely reasoned:

Although the evidence does not allow a firm conclusion with respect to the dating of the allegory of Zenos, the positive and negative dimensions of the Old Testament image of the olive tree are difficult to reconcile in these texts without assuming that a single paradigm (such as the allegory of Zenos) existed in ancient Israel utilizing both of these dimensions. Jacob 5 provides the full paradigm unifying the many scattered references in the Old Testament to the olive tree as an image for the house of Israel and illuminating what that image would likely have meant to an ancient Israelite audience.1

The writings of Ezekiel touch briefly on both positive and negative aspects of the tree imagery. However, it is not hard to imagine them as being derivative of, or alluding to, a much larger allegory referring to the scattering and gathering of Israel. Although it is possible that the Book of Mormon is borrowing from Ezekiel and other biblical authors, instead of the other way around, this seems unlikely. Seely and Welch concluded:

While it remains possible that these two diametrically opposed strands of negative judgmental imagery and positive merciful imagery developed haphazardly in ancient Israel and that Zenos came late in that tradition and served to synthesize all these elements into a single coherent story, the simpler explanation is that Zenos probably preceded … Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah [and Ezekiel] by several generations, and that all these later prophets knew and drew upon Zenos, often quite specifically. In any event, it seems highly unlikely that Joseph Smith, operating on his own mental faculties, could have worked within the limited vocabulary of Jacob 5, while keeping in mind all the diverse and specific elements of each of these Old Testament texts, to weave back together from these complex strands such an elegant and vivid image as that of Zenos’s masterful allegory in Jacob 5.2

• 1. David Rolph Seely and John W. Welch, “Zenos and the Texts of the Old Testament,” in The Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1994), 322—346.
• 2. David Rolph Seely and John W. Welch, “Zenos and the Texts of the Old Testament,” in The Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1994), 322—346, at 346.

The Know

Nephi stated that at the time he lived in Jerusalem, there were “many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed” (1 Nephi 1:4). Nine prophets from the Bible were active during the late-7th/early-6th centuries bc,1 a remarkably high number. In addition, other unnamed prophets may have been active during this time as well (see Jeremiah 25:4; 2 Chronicles 36:15–16).

Just as Nephi said, these prophets warned the people about the impending destruction of Jerusalem if they would not repent. John W. Welch, while citing several examples, explained, “Prophetic messages of judgment and destruction were in fact common among the so-called classical prophets of Israel who are known to have been active at this time.”2

The increased prophetic activity that Nephi mentioned corresponded with the coronation of King Zedekiah (see 1 Nephi 1:4), which makes sense in an ancient Israelite context. Welch noted that Micaiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and Jeremiah all prophesied around the coronation of a new king, concluding that, “prophecy played an especially important role” near the time of such coronations.3

Welch has also noted that “such circumstances as trouble in the land ... often precipitated prophetic action in the ancient world.”4 Judah’s troubles with an ever-strengthening Egypt, on one hand, and the impending destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of Babylon on the other, certainly made this era a time of trouble in the land. Considering both this trouble and the coronation of King Zedekiah, it is not surprising that there were “many prophets” in the land during this time.

The rifts between Laman and Lemuel and Nephi also make more sense in the context of many prophets, both true and false. Aaron P. Schade stated that, “the prophets’ messages tended to create factions among the people.”5 Randall P. Spackman, who has carefully studied the historical context of the opening pages of the Book of Mormon in an effort to accurately date the events in the Book of Mormon, found that, “the exile of Jehoiachin and enthronement of Zedekiah by Nebuchrezzer certainly raised questions about when the exile would end and when, if ever, Jehoiachin would return. Differing prophetic views would have been in conflict immediately.”6

One example of such conflicts was recorded by Jeremiah during Zedekiah’s reign, where he and Hananiah presented competing prophecies before a conference in Jerusalem (see Jeremiah 27–28).7 According to Spackman, this is “when the prophetic conflict reached a climax.”8 With this in mind, one should not be surprised to see a rift between Laman and Lemuel, who took Hananiah’s view that Jerusalem would be spared, and Nephi and Lehi, who preached, like Jeremiah, that Jerusalem would be destroyed.

The Why

The fact that God raised up “many prophets” during the time of Lehi teaches an important lesson for today. Just as God raised up many prophets in Lehi’s day, God has also raised up many prophets, the quorum of the twelve and the first presidency, to help us today. These prophets help us navigate periods of chaos and transition, just as they did in Lehi’s time.

The prophets in Lehi’s time preached that the people must repent or be destroyed, and our prophets today preach repentance and warn us of the consequences of not doing so. The calamities that befell the people of Judah when they failed to listen to these prophets are a reminder of how important it is to listen to the prophets today.

Finally, the false prophets of Lehi’s day who caused factions among the people are a reminder of the false voices we hear today.9 These people seek to spread misinformation that creates factions and schisms in society. Just as in Lehi’s time, it is important for us to remember to listen to the fifteen men God has called as prophets, seers, and revelators, rather than being drawn away by the deceptive influences that we read and hear so often in the world around us. 

• 1. Table based on Seely and Hunt, “Dramatis Personae: The World of Lehi (ca. 700–562 B.C.),” 52–54; alternative dating for Habakkuk from John W. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet in the World of Jerusalem,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004), 424. Dating of Obadiah from Paul R. Raabe, Obadiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible Commentary, Volume 24D (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1996), 51–53.
• 2. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi,” 423.
• 3. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi,” 422–423.
• 4. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi,” 422–423.
• 5. Schade, “The Kingdom of Judah: Politics, Prophets, and Scribes in the Late Preexilic Period,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, 310.
• 6. Randall P. Spackman, “Was Jeremiah Imprisoned in Zedekiah’s Reign?” part of A Source Book for Book of Mormon Chronology (self-published online, 2010–2012), 2, emphasis added; online (accessed December 20, 2012).
• 7. Note that Jeremiah 27:1 is a chronological error. Jeremiah 27:3, 12 confirm that these events are taking place in Zedekiah’s reign, as does Jeremiah 28:1, which continues the same narrative started in Jeremiah 27.
• 8. Spackman, “Was Jeremiah Imprisoned?” 2.
• 9. See M. Russell Ballard, “Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers,” Ensign, November 1999, online at lds.org.

The Know

When Lehi preached to the people of Jerusalem, most people, including members of his own family, rejected his message. However, his son Nephi wanted to know if what his father said was true. So he asked God, and received an answer, such that he “did believe all the words which had been spoken” by his prophetic father (1 Nephi 2:16). In describing this experience, Nephi said he wanted “to know of the mysteries of God” (v. 16). But what did he mean by this? When the word mysteries is understood in its ancient context, it seems likely that Nephi specifically wanted to know the information his father had learned from the Lord in 1 Nephi 1.1

In 1 Nephi 1:8, Lehi stated that he “thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels” (1 Nephi 1:8).2 According to John W. Welch, it was understood in Lehi’s time that a vision like this meant that the prophet was being allowed into the divine council, where he would receive his call and learn what he needed to say to the people.3 One can see this in 1 Kings 22:19–23 and Jeremiah 23:18, as well as in many other texts from the ancient Near East, where God presides over His divine council.4 This council’s main purpose was to deliver God’s decrees, decrees that were issued to prophets who would, in turn, deliver them to the people.5

Thus, as Welch has noted, these prophets were admitted into the council through a vision, allowed to witness the deliberations of the council, and then sent to declare to the people the decision of the council.6 The divine council and its decrees are referred to in Hebrew as the sod.7 Because the sod was not available to everyone, the decrees of the sod were thought to be confidential, similar to what one might reveal to a close friend.8 Because of this, the sod was understood as the mysteries of God. The word sod was even translated into Greek as the word mysterion.9

Welch explained that Nephi’s desire to “know of the mysteries of God” was mentioned soon after Lehi had his experience in the divine council.10 This suggests that Nephi wanted to know the things that had been decreed in that council: the mysteries of God.11 Thus, when the Lord visited him and helped him to believe all the words of his father, He was likely telling Nephi what had been discussed in the council.12 Because what had been discussed in the council matched Lehi’s own words, Nephi then knew that his father was a true prophet, or that he had accurately reported to the people the mysteries decreed in the council.13

The Why

When some people think of the “mysteries of God” they may think about doctrinal riddles or secret codes. However, as John W. Welch put it, even though the decisions of the sod were “confidential and privileged information (and that in this sense they can be called mysteria), they were not puzzles or cryptic information.”14 God revealed His mysteries to Lehi in the divine council with the understanding that Lehi would share that information with the world. Thus, even though the original words of the council are hidden, one function of prophets is to take these mysteries, learned from God, and share them with the people.

Although in some cases God wishes us to keep certain things confidential, in this particular instance it is clear that God wants His prophets to share these mysteries with society, not keep them to themselves. And because the prophets have been commanded to share these truths, the best way to learn the mysteries of God is to listen to the prophets, who have the solemn responsibility to share these truths with everyone.

In addition, this understanding of the mysteries of God should keep us from wandering down strange spiritual paths in search of mysteries. As Welch stated, “while all are invited to seek and all are promised knowledge (1 Nephi 15:8; Matthew 7:7; Moroni 10:4–5), this is not an open invitation for all men and women to seek ‘mysteries’ beyond the declarative words of the prophets.”15 Rather, we should listen to the words of the prophets who tell us what God had told them, which seems to have been Nephi’s understanding of the “mysteries of God.”

Thankfully, Nephi shows us how we can understand the mysteries of God once the prophets have delivered them to us. Just as Nephi prayed about his father’s words and received confirmation and clarification concerning their truthfulness. Welch has noted that, “in a comparable way, the Lord will make known to all his children the truthfulness of the words of his messengers, the prophets.”16

• 1. For a brief summary of this, see John W. Welch, “Lehi's Council Vision and the Mysteries of God,” 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), 24–25.
• 2. For more information on this event, see Book of Mormon Central, “How Did God Call His Prophets in Ancient Times? (1 Nephi 15:8),” KnoWhy 17 (January 22, 2016).
• 3. John W. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet in the World of Jerusalem,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004), 427.
• 4. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet,” 427–429.
• 5. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet,” 427.
• 6. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet,” 428.
• 7. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet,” 428.
• 8. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet,” 435.
• 9. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet,” 435, 428. For an example, see the Sinaiticus Septuagint manuscript suppletor of Sirach 3:19.
• 10. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet,” 436.
• 11. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet,” 435.
• 12. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet,” 436.
• 13. For more on this, see John W. Welch, “The Calling of a Prophet,” 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), 35–54.
• 14. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet,” 436.
• 15. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet,” 435.
• 16. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet,” 435.

The Know

Beginning with the pioneering work of Hugh Nibley,1 scholars have noticed that the Book of Mormon contains what are called colophons (from the Greek word kolofōn, meaning “summit,” “top,” or “finishing”). “In antiquity,” one scholar explained, “the beginning and/or the end of a literary text was often marked by colophons. The colophons as superscriptions and subscriptions contained various information about the published text (addressee, author, scribe, subject, chronological information, etc.).”2 Nephi’s introductory colophon is arguably the most notable example of its use in the Book of Mormon. After summarizing the contents of his record and identifying himself as both scribe and author of the text, Nephi began his account by affirming: (1) his good parentage and upbringing, (2) his education and scribal training, and (3) his reliability as an author (1 Nephi 1:1–3).

But Nephi was not the only Book of Mormon author to use colophons. Enos (Enos 1:1–2) and Mormon (Mormon 1:1) both begin their accounts with a colophon, while Jacob (Jacob 7:27) included a colophon at the conclusion of his record. Mormon also used colophons throughout his abridgement in order to introduce verbatim or near-verbatim quotations of various source texts.

Alma 5, for example, is prefaced with this introductory colophon: “The words which Alma, the High Priest according to the holy order of God, delivered to the people in their cities and villages throughout the land.” Likewise, Samuel the Lamanite’s prophecies to the Nephites recorded in Helaman 7–16 are introduced with a simple colophon identifying the author behind the text (Samuel) and a short summary of its contents.3

The use of colophons to signal the beginning or end of a text is widely found in biblical, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian sources. The prophetic books of the Bible often begin with colophons which identify the prophet and briefly introduce the historical setting in which he was prophesying. For instance, the book of Isaiah begins: “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” (Isaiah 1:1).4

Sometimes biblical colophons describe the prophecies as coming literally “by the hand” (bĕ yad) of the prophet (cf. Malachi 1:1; Haggai 1:1), a feature shared in Mesopotamian texts to identify the copyist (“by the hand of so-and-so”) and in later Egyptian texts to indicate authorship (“written by his own hand”; cf. 1 Nephi 1:3).5

As Nibley recognized, Nephi’s colophon at the beginning of his account shares striking similarities to the colophon found in an ancient Egyptian manuscript called the Bremner-Rhind Papyrus.6 Further similarities with Egyptian texts could be cited. Indeed, Egyptian literary texts very often end in either a short, formulaic colophon certifying that the text has been copied correctly or a longer colophon which also includes the identity of the scribe.7 Introductory prefaces to Egyptian literary texts likewise often include the name and titles of the writer or subject of the narrative.8 These and other considerations led Nibley to conclude that the type of colophon seen in 1 Nephi 1:1–3 is “highly characteristic of Egyptian compositions.”9

The Why

Nephi said he wrote his record “in the language of [his] father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2). This being the case, it is reasonable to expect that his writings should bear the marks of an ancient Judeo-Egyptian literary culture. Nephi’s use of colophons fulfills this expectation remarkably well. Inasmuch as there is clear evidence (unavailable in Joseph Smith’s day) for Egyptian influence on Jewish literary and scribal culture before and during Nephi’s time,10 this in turn reinforces the book’s historicity.

Besides this, learning to recognize colophons may assist readers in making sense of the Book of Mormon’s complex narratives. This is because colophons were used at strategic points in the text to help readers identify when certain sources are being cited, or when authorial voices are shifting from one to another (such as Mormon’s to Alma’s in Alma 5). As explained by LDS scholar John A. Tvedtnes, colophons “provide valuable clues to the process of writing and compiling the [Book of Mormon].”11

The presence of colophons in the Book of Mormon forcefully testifies of the “great efforts made by its writers and editors to make the record as clear as possible.”12 As one whose soul “delight[ed] in plainness” (2 Nephi 25:4), it’s completely understandable, then, why Nephi would use colophons in his record, and why his prophetic and scribal descendants would follow suit.

• 1. Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert/The World of the Jaredites/There Were Jaredites (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 17–19.
• 2. Csaba Barlogh, The Stele of YHWH in Egypt: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 concerning Egypt and Kush (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 69. Compare this definition with that of Leila Avrin, Scribes, Script, and Books: The Book Arts from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Chicago and London: American Library Association and The British Library, 1991), 79. “The tradition of the colophon . . . flourished in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. The colophon’s information and composition varied. It gave the standard title, that is, the book’s opening words, and the name of the scribe, at times with his patronym. Seldom was the book’s author named. Sometimes the colophon verified that this edition was a true copy of the original book, giving the name of the scribe of the prototype and its date and owner. Then the date of the copy would be given along with the name of the patron who commissioned the book and the nature of the work.”
• 3. See these and other examples identified by John A. Tvedtnes, “Colophons in the Book of Mormon,” 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), 32–37; “Colophons in the Book of Mormon,”  in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 13–17; Thomas W. Mackay, “Mormon as Editor: A Study of Colophons, Headers, and Source Indicators,”  Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2, no. 2 (1993): 90­–109; John A. Tvedtnes and David E. Bokovoy, “Colophons and Superscripts,” in Testaments: Links Between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible (Toelle, UT: Heritage Press, 2003), 107–116.
• 4. See also Jeremiah 1:1–3; Amos 1:1; Micah 1:1; Zephaniah 1:1.
• 5. Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 32; John Gee, “Were Egyptian Texts Divinely Written?” in Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 150 (Leuvens: Peeters, 2007), 1:809. On biblical colophons generally, see H. M. I. Gervaryahu, “Biblical Colophons: A Source for the ‘Biography’ of Authors, Texts and Books,” in Congress Volume Edinburgh, VTSup 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 42–59; D. W. Baker, “Biblical Colophons: Gevaryahu and Beyond,” in Studies in the Succession Narrative: OTWSA 27 (1984) and OTWSA 28 (1985), ed. W. C. van Wyk (Pretoria: OTWSA, 1986), 29–61; Michael Fishbane, “Biblical Colophons, Textual Criticism and Legal Analogies,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42, no. 4 (1980): 438–449; Tvedtnes and Bokovoy, “Colophons and Superscripts,” 109–114.
• 6. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 17. The authority cited by Nibley (Raymond O. Faulkner, “The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus,” JEA 23 [1937]: 10) indicates that, “strictly speaking,” calling the opening of the text a colophon in this case is a “misnomer” since the colophon itself appears to be a later addition to the manuscript and is not an original composition. Nevertheless, Faulkner does allow for it to be called a “colophon” in a broad sense. Compare Faulkner’s views with those of Mark Smith, who sees no impropriety in calling the concluding lines of the manuscript a colophon even though the they were added after the rest of the text. See Mark Smith, Traversing Eternity: Texts for the Afterlife from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009), 120–121.
• 7. The most common formulaic colophon reads that the text “is finished from its beginning to its end as found in writing,” or simply “it is finished.” In P. Leningrad 1115 (the Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor) the colophon includes the name of the scribe: “it is finished from its beginning to its end as found in writing. The scribe, excellent in his fingers, Imeni, son of Imena.” See the examples collected and discussed in Michela Luiselli, “The Colophons as an Indication of the Attitudes Towards the Literary Tradition in Egypt and Mesopotamia,” in Basel Egyptology Prize 1: Junior Research in Egyptian History, Archaeology, and Philology, ed. Susanne Bickel and Antonio Loprieno (Basel: Schwabe & Co., 2003), 346–347.
• 8. Thus the opening lines of the venerable Story of Sinuhe. “The hereditary noble and commander, warden and district officer of the estates of the sovereign in the lands of the Asiatics, this truly beloved royal acquaintance, the follower Sinuhe, said: I was a follower who followed his lord, a servant of the king’s harem and of the hereditary princess, greatest of praise, wife of [King] Senwosret in Khnumet-sut and daughter of [King] Amenemhet in Ka-nofru, Nofru, the possessor of an honored state.” William K. Simpson, “The Story of Sinuhe,” in The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry, ed. William Kelly Simpson, 3rd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), 55.
• 9. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 17.
• 10. See generally Adolf Erman, “Eine ägyptische Quelle der »Sprüche Salomos«,” Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 15 (1924): 86–93; D. C. Simpson, “The Hebrew Book of Proverbs and the Teachings of Amenophis,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 12, no. 3/4 (Oct. 1926): 232–239; Ronald J. Williams, “Some Egyptianisms in the Old Testament,” in Studies in Honor of John A. Wilson, ed. E. B. Hauser, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 35 (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1969), 93–98; “‘A People Come Out of Egypt’: An Egyptologist looks at the Old Testament,” in Congress Volume Edinburgh, 231–252; Glendon E. Bryce, A Legacy of Wisdom: The Egyptian Contribution to the Wisdom of Israel (Lewisburg: Bucknell University, 1979). Orly Goldwasser, “An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms,” Tel Aviv 18 (1991): 248–253; David Calabro, “The Hieratic Scribal Tradition in Preexilic Judah,” in Evolving Egypt: Innovation, Appropriation, and Reinterpretation in Ancient Egypt, BAR International Series 2397, ed. Kerry Muhlestein and John Gee (Oxford, Eng.: Archaeopress, 2012), 77–85. On Nephi’s scribal training in general, including his use of Egyptian, see Brant A. Gardner, “Nephi as Scribe,” Mormon Studies Review 23, no. 1 (2011): 45–55.
• 11. John A. Tvedtnes, “Colophons in the Book of Mormon,” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, 37. What’s more, “the large number of these statements in such intricate relations both with each other and in the overall structure of the book teach us something else. They make it obvious that they came from ancient writers, not from Joseph Smith.”
• 12. Tvedtnes, “Colophons in the Book of Mormon,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 16.