The Know

In a famous episode from the Book of Mormon, Nephi disguised himself as the ruthless Laban to obtain the profoundly important plates of brass (1 Nephi 3:3). During his escapade, Nephi encountered Zoram, “the servant of Laban who had the keys of the treasury” where the plates were deposited (1 Nephi 4:20). Unaware that Nephi had slain his master, and “supposing that [Nephi] . . . was truly that Laban” (v. 26), Zoram confided freely with Nephi about intimate matters. This included some undisclosed information about “the elders of the Jews” in Jerusalem, who came up twice during their conversations (vv. 22, 27).

This curious description has elicited some attention from scholars. Who exactly were these “elders” and why are readers not told more about them by Nephi? Because the Book of Mormon gives no more information about their identity, scholars have turned to the social institution of Israelite “elders” in the world of ancient Israel for further understanding.1

The Hebrew word translated as “elder” in the English Bible is zāqēn and derives from the Hebrew word for “beard.” At its most basic definition, then, a biblical “elder” was an aged (“bearded”) and therefore a wise and experienced male who held cultural, political, or religious authority and prestige in Israel.2 City elders are mentioned especially in the book of Deuteronomy, reflecting the social institutions and civic attitudes that would have been most prominent in Jerusalem in Lehi’s day. The “elders of the Jews” in 1 Nephi 4:22, accordingly, should not necessarily be thought of as elders in the Melchizedek Priesthood, as modern Latter-day Saint readers might be tempted to assume. Instead, they were probably senior religious or political bureaucrats who served as “community leaders” in a number of capacities.3

The Hebrew Bible appears to distinguish between “national elders” or the “elders of Israel” who were appointed according to Mosaic law (e.g. Exodus 24:1, 9–11; Numbers 11:16) and “city elders” (e.g. 1 Samuel 16:4) who “perform[ed] several functions within their local community.”4 It is not entirely clear whether the “elders of the Jews” spoken of in 1 Nephi 4:22 were national or local leaders, but a close reading of the Book of Mormon plausibly suggests the latter.5

Scholar John A. Tvedtnes has observed that “Jerusalem was a royal city and, consequently, its elders were public officials in the service of the king.”6 That Laban would be associated with these elders is understandable given how he is presented in Nephi’s record: as an aristocratic military official who commanded a small garrison and had access to a private “treasury” (1 Nephi 3–4). In this position, Laban would undoubtedly have had connections with Jerusalem’s elites, including the city elders who could influence royal policy and oversaw both civil and religious administrative bureaucracies.7

The Why

By understanding the possible identity of the “elders of the Jews” who were associated with Laban, readers of the Book of Mormon can help make better sense of the narrative presented in 1 Nephi. For example, Nephi encountered Laban late at night in the darkened streets of Jerusalem while the latter was dressed in his armor (1 Nephi 4:19). Why would Laban dress in such a manner while meeting with “the elders of the Jews”?

If these elders were city government officials, which they very well may have been, then Laban meeting them at night armed and dressed in armor strongly hints at a conspiracy of some nature taking place amongst city officials.8 Jerusalem had a politically volatile and charged environment around 600 BC, with competing political and religious factions jockeying for power.9 In this context, it is not farfetched that the greedy and violent Laban would ally himself with a cohort of conspirators wishing to take advantage of Judah’s vulnerable situation for their personal gain. While claims that Laban was involved in a conspiracy with “the elders of the Jews” in Jerusalem must remain speculative, the circumstantial evidence seen in the text supports this reading.

The identity of these elders might also help make sense of why Lehi faced such bitter opposition. Lehi, like his prophetic contemporary Jeremiah, was not afraid to rankle the religious elites of Jerusalem who felt no need to repent and who persisted in their wickedness. “These elders were no friends of Lehi,” Hugh Nibley observed, “for if they had been, his life would never have been in danger. As it was, he ‘was driven out of Jerusalem’ (Helaman 8:22; 1 Nephi 7:14) by the only people who could have driven him out, the important people, those responsible for the ‘priestcrafts and iniquities’ that were to be the ruin of them at Jerusalem (2 Nephi 10:5).”10

To be clear, none of this is to imply that all city elders in ancient Israel were inherently corrupt or wicked. Nor does any of this imply that the ancient Jews were universally wicked or irredeemable. The “elders of the Jews” described in 1 Nephi were but a small group of powerful political players who opposed Lehi. Certainly, there came many prophets and there were righteous religious and political leaders in ancient Israel who earnestly strove to uphold God’s law and who sought the welfare of His covenant people. Negative stereotypes about the ancient Jews of Nephi’s day in civil discourse today should be carefully avoided.11 Rather, understanding who these elders were within the broader context of Israelite society may help readers make better sense of some specific political and religious circumstances during the time of Jeremiah and Lehi as narrated in the opening pages of the Book of Mormon.

• 1. See especially John A. Tvedtnes, “The Elders at Jerusalem in the Days of Lehi,” in The Most Correct Book: Insights from a Book of Mormon Scholar (Salt Lake City, UT: Cornerstone Publishing, 1999), 59–75.
• 2. Timothy M. Willis, The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elders-Laws in Deuteronomy, The Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 55 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 8–13.
• 3. Keith H. Meservy, “Elders of the Jews,” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 241.
• 4. Willis, The Elders of the City, 9.
• 5. Tvedtnes, “The Elders at Jerusalem in the Days of Lehi,” 64–65.
• 6. Tvedtnes, “The Elders at Jerusalem in the Days of Lehi,” 64.
• 7. Tvedtnes, ““The Elders at Jerusalem in the Days of Lehi,” 60–63.
• 8. Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert/The World of the Jaredites/There Were Jaredites, The Collected Work of Hugh Nibley: Volume 5 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 98–99.
• 9. See Tvedtnes, “The Elders at Jerusalem in the Days of Lehi,” 66–71; Aaron P. Schade, “The Kingdom of Judah: Politics, Prophets, and Scribes in the Late Preexilic Period,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004), 299–336.
• 10. Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley: Volume 6 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 96.
• 11. See further Matthew L. Bowen, “‘What Thank They the Jews’? (2 Nephi 29:4): A Note on the Name ‘Judah’ and Antisemitism,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 12 (2014): 111–125.

The Know

The Book of Mormon opens with an account of a prophet named Lehi who took a small group, including members of his family, into the wilderness to flee the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. The book of 1 Nephi records how Lehi’s group travelled through the wilderness, constructed a boat, and sailed for a “land of promise” in the New World.1 Based on the explicit textual details in the record, Lehi’s party consisted of at least the following members:

In addition to these explicit statements made in the Book of Mormon, a careful reading suggests that others also travelled in Lehi’s party, or were at least encountered by his group. For instance, 1 Nephi 7:6 speaks of the two unnamed sons of Ishmael having “families,” suggesting grandchildren of Ishmael and his anonymous wife. Similarly, Nephi mentioned how the “women [of the group] did bear children in the wilderness” (1 Nephi 17:1) suggesting Lehi and Sariah had grandchildren in the wilderness, in addition to their sons Jacob and Joseph.

Another possibility is that Lehi took unmentioned servants with the party into the wilderness. If Lehi was a wealthy landowner, as the Book of Mormon portrays him as being (1 Nephi 3:16, 22, 24), then it seems very likely that he also owned domestic servants, something attested in ancient Israelite households.4 All told, after calculating both the known and inferred members of Lehi’s party, John L. Sorenson reasonably concluded that between 40–50 people entered the boat that carried the group to the promised land.5

Additional textual clues also hint that the party encountered outsiders during their travels in both the Old and New Worlds. For example, Nephi’s use of the passive voice to describe Nahom (“the place which was called Nahom” [1 Nephi 16:34, emphasis added]) as opposed to the active voice used to describe the other locations visited during the party’s travels6 suggests that he learned the name of the area from an undisclosed third party (perhaps members of the local Nihm tribe).7 Given the staggering physical labor that goes into constructing seaworthy vessels, it is also possible that local inhabitants of the area called Bountiful8 by Nephi and his family assisted in the construction of the ship that conducted them across the ocean.9 Textual evidence also points to the high probability that Lehi and his family encountered native inhabitants in the New World upon their arrival who were adopted under “Nephite” and “Lamanite” tribal designations (cf. 2 Nephi 5:5–6).10

The Why

Understanding the composition of Lehi’s traveling party is more than just interesting trivia. Rather, studying this topic may help readers answer important questions about the Book of Mormon; questions such as whether the demographics reported in the book are realistic,11 as well as how Nephi’s small colony could have built a temple “after the manner of Solomon” with, as it appears from a surface level reading of the text, only a handful of people (2 Nephi 5:16).12 Reconstructing the size of Lehi’s group and exploring the possibility of unidentified “others” in the narrative are important for assessing the historical claims made in the Book of Mormon.

Many readers today may wonder why more members of Lehi’s group aren’t mentioned by name. This is especially true for the women in Lehi’s party as well as the rest of the Book of Mormon.13 Aside from ancient cultural factors which likely shaped the structure of the account found in 1 Nephi,15 Nephi’s decision to focus on specific narrative and theological details at the expense of others may also account for why he did not provide more information about his family (1 Nephi 6:4–6). It might also explain the mere indirect mention of “others” interacting with Lehi’s party.16

Whatever the case, carefully studying the given and implied details of the composition of Lehi’s family proves how rewarding a close reading of the Book of Mormon can be. As is true in many other instances, a careful analysis of the Book of Mormon narrative goes a long way in adding depth and nuance to an already remarkable text. It also sheds light on historical questions which might otherwise remain unanswered.

• 1. For a historical reconstruction of the travel narrative in 1 Nephi, see S. Kent Brown and Peter Johnson, eds., Journey of Faith: From Jerusalem to the Promised Land (Provo, UT: The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2006).
• 2. As inferred by 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), 40.
• 3. There were at least two unnamed sisters who almost certainly married the two unnamed sons of Ishmael. See Sidney B. Sperry, “Did Father Lehi Have Daughters Who Married the Sons of Ishmael?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4, no. 1 (1995): 235–238.
• 4. John L. Sorenson, “The Composition of Lehi’s Family,” in By Study and Also By Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh Nibley, 2 vols., ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1990), 2:192–193. See additionally Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 39–40; Lawrence Boadt, Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 2012), 228–229.
• 5. Sorenson, “The Composition of Lehi’s Family,” 195.
• 6. E.g. the river of Laman (1 Nephi 2:8), the valley of Lemuel (1 Nephi 16:6), Shazer (1 Nephi 16:13), and Bountiful (1 Nephi 17:5).
• 7. See Book of Mormon Central, “Who Called Ishmael’s Burial Place Nahom?” KnoWhy 19 (January 26, 2016).
• 8. Located almost certainly in the coastal region of Dhofar in modern Oman. See Book of Mormon Central, Has the Location of Nephi’s Bountiful Been Discovered?” KnoWhy 259 (January 9, 2017).
• 9. Sorenson, “The Composition of Lehi’s Family,” 194.
• 10. See Book of Mormon Central, “Did Interactions with ‘Others’ Influence Nephi's Selection of Isaiah?” KnoWhy 45 (March 2, 2016); “Did ‘Others’ Influence Book of Mormon Peoples?” KnoWhy 435 (May 22, 2018).
• 11. James E. Smith, “How Many Nephites? The Book of Mormon at the Bar of Demography,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997), 255–294, esp. 272–278.
• 12. This was a concern raised by B. H. Roberts, Studies in the Book of Mormon, 2nd ed., ed. Brigham D. Madsen (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1992), 259–261. For a reply to this inquiry, see Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 2:101–104; Mark Alan Wright, “Axes Mundi: Ritual Complexes in Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 12 (2014): 81–82.
• 13. See Camille Fronk, “Desert Epiphany: Sariah and the Women in 1 Nephi,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 2 (2000): 4–15, 80; Donna Lee Bowen and Camille S. Williams, “Women in the Book of Mormon” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 4:1577–1580.[\fn] Who were these brave women who ventured out with their husbands and families into the wilderness? What stories might they have to tell? It’s certainly possible that more information about these women was contained in Lehi’s record–––a record which we unfortunately do not currently possess.This has not stopped researchers from attempting to reconstruct the contents of the Book of Lehi as far as possible. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Was on the Lost 116 Pages?” KnoWhy 452 (July 24, 2018).
• 15. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Are So Few Women Mentioned in the Book of Mormon?” KnoWhy 391 (December 19, 2017).
• 16. See also the observations made in Gardner, Second Witness, 1:3–4.

The Know

When Nephi summarized his father’s prophecies in 1 Nephi 10, he included Lehi’s teaching that the house of Israel “should be compared like unto an olive tree, whose branches should be broken off and should be scattered upon all the face of the earth” (v. 12). Lehi also understood that Israel’s future gathering was related to the same olive tree imagery. He taught that after being scattered, “the natural branches of the olive tree, or the remnants of the house of Israel, should be grafted in, or come to the knowledge of the true Messiah, their Lord and their Redeemer” (v. 14).

Readers familiar with Jacob 5 will probably recognize that Lehi’s teachings relate to Zenos’s allegory of the olive tree, which was eventually recorded onto the small plates by Lehi’s son, Jacob.1 What may not be so immediately obvious, though, is that Lehi’s comments provide an inspired interpretation and application of Zenos’s allegory. According to Noel B. Reynolds,

Lehi connects the breaking off of the branches to dwindling in unbelief and interprets the scattering of the branches in Zenos’s allegory to mean, in part, that “we should be led with one accord into the land of promise, unto the fulfilling of the word of the Lord, that we should be scattered upon all the face of the earth” (v. 13). He interprets the grafting of the natural branches back into the olive tree as regaining knowledge of Christ.2

Readers should also be aware that Lehi’s teachings about the olive tree follow soon after his dream of the Tree of Life. This close proximity is significant because, as John A. Tvedtnes has argued, it provides “evidence that Lehi’s vision of the tree of life is related to the parable of Zenos.”3 Supporting this claim is the fact that Nephi’s brothers seemed to link the two trees together as related symbols when they asked about their father’s teachings.4

Further evidence of Lehi’s dependence upon Zenos’s allegory comes from his final blessings upon his posterity. Declaring the word of the Lord, Lehi prophesied, “Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence” (2 Nephi 1:20). Reynolds has seen this as a reflection of the “alternate cycles of productive growth and pruning of the Zenos allegory.”5

Lehi’s blessing and curse was specifically related to his people’s promised land, which he described as being “choice above all other lands” (2 Nephi 1:5). This phrase correlates with the “spot of ground” in Jacob 5:43, which the Lord of the vineyard described as being “choice unto me above all other parts of the land of my vineyard.”

In Jacob 5:40, readers learn that the wild fruit of this choice ground would eventually “overcome that part of the tree which brought forth good fruit, even that the branch had withered away and died.” Lehi seems to have understood that this this was a prophecy about his own posterity, specifically about how the seed of the Lamanites would eventually overcome the seed of the once-righteous Nephites.

In agreement with Zenos’s allegory on this point, Lehi blessed the posterity of Laman and Lemuel so that even if they were cursed, they would “not utterly be destroyed” (v. 9) and that instead their curse would be taken from them and “answered upon the heads of [their] parents” (v. 6). Lehi’s prophecy can help readers understand why the wild branches (Lamanites) were allowed to overcome the good branches (Nephites) in Zenos’s allegory. It was because the Nephites had knowingly sinned against light and truth while the Lamanites were less spiritually accountable because of the wicked traditions of their forefathers.6

The Why

Although it is never directly stated, Lehi’s teachings and prophecies show a consistent awareness of Zenos’s allegory of the olive tree. This makes a lot of sense, considering that Zenos’s allegory seems to have been known to Old Testament prophets as well.7 It also helps explain why other Book of Mormon prophets—such as Nephi, Jacob, Alma, and Mormon—all valued Zenos’s teachings.8 In doing so, they were following the example of Lehi, their founding patriarch.

The allegory of the olive tree concerns the past history and future destiny of the house of Israel.9 This means that, like Lehi, readers today can find their own place in the allegory. Just as Lehi saw that part of his posterity would be overrun, he also knew that in the last days, Israel would be gathered together again. And we are invited to participate in this gathering. Speaking to the youth, President Russell M. Nelson has explained,

The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith that now, meaning our day, is the eleventh hour and the last time that He will call laborers into His vineyard for the express purpose of gathering the elect from the four quarters of the earth. … Would you like to be a big part of the greatest challenge, the greatest cause, and the greatest work on earth today?10

No matter our age, we can contribute to this gathering and bring forth good fruit by living righteously and inviting others to come unto Christ. As we do so, we will have “joy in the fruit” of our labors, as prophesied in Jacob 5:71. Participating in this monumental gathering is a unique privilege because it helps prepare the world for Jesus Christ’s Second Coming. At the same time, it fulfills the hopes and desires of all the holy prophets, like Zenos and Lehi, who foresaw that the restoration of Israel would take place in our day.

• 1. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Jacob Share the Allegory of the Olive Tree? (Jacob 4:17),” KnoWhy 66 (March 30, 2016).
• 2. Noel B. Reynolds, “Nephite Uses and Interpretations of Zenos,” 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), 23.
• 3. John A. Tvedtnes, “Borrowings from the Parables of Zenos,” in The Allegory of the Olive Tree, 375.
• 4. When inquiring after the meaning of their father’s prophecies, Nephi’s brothers first asked about the olive tree symbolism from their father’s teachings (1 Nephi 15:7). They then immediately asked about the symbolism of the other tree which Lehi saw, which Nephi explained was a symbol of the Tree of Life (1 Nephi 15:21–22). For a visual comparison of the symbolism inherent in these trees, see John W. Welch and J. Gregory Welch, Charting the Book of Mormon: Visual Aids for Personal Study and Teaching (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), chart 95.
• 5. Reynolds, “Nephite Uses and Interpretations of Zenos,” 25.
• 6.See also, Alma 9:19; Alma 24:30; Helaman 7:24.
• 7. See Tvedtnes, “Borrowings from the Parables of Zenos,” 373–426; Book of Mormon Central, “Did Prophets Such as Ezekiel Know the Writings of Zenos? (Jacob 5:24),” KnoWhy 440 (June 12, 2018).
• 8. See 1 Nephi 19:10–17; Jacob 5:1–77; 6:1; Alma 33:3–11, 13, 15; 34:7; Helaman 8:19–20; Helaman 15:11; 3 Nephi 10:14–17.
• 9. See Joseph Fielding Smith, “Who Were the Prophets Zenos and Zenock?” Improvement Era 66 (March 1963): 158–59.
• 10. Russell M. Nelson, “Hope of Israel,” Worldwide Youth Devotional, June 3, 2018, online at lds.org

The Know

In 2 Nephi 25:29 we learn that we must worship Christ with all our “might, mind, and strength” and our “whole soul.” The phrase “whole soul” appears seven times in the Book of Mormon and seems to be an important concept in the text.1 At first, it is hard to know exactly what this phrase might mean.  However, when read in light of the Old Testament, this phrase teaches us about dedicating ourselves to God.

One way to understand how we can to give our “whole souls” to God comes from Omni 1:26. This verse encourages all people to come unto Christ and offer their “whole souls as an offering unto him.” This is similar to an ancient Jewish text which states that when someone gave a grain offering, God would “account it as though he had offered his own soul to Me”.2 This invokes the image of giving ourselves to God as though we were putting ourselves on the altar and consecrating ourselves to Him.

This connection is strengthened by other uses of the phrase whole soul in the Book of Mormon. Enos 1:9 and Mosiah 26:14 state that people poured out their whole souls to God. As used in the Book of Mormon, this refers to a person praying fervently to God. However, it can be understood in another way as well. The idea of a person pouring out their whole soul makes sense when understood in light of the grain offering. As an essential part of this offering, the worshipper had to “pour” oil onto the pile of flour (Leviticus 2:2).3 Thus, a person pouring out their soul to God fits with the imagery of the grain offering.

There is another sacrifice in the Law of Moses that helps to explain the idea of offering your whole soul to God. Leviticus 1 describes a sacrifice that the King James Translation calls a “burnt offering,” but which can also be translated as a “whole offering.”4 This is because the priest would offer up the entire animal as a burnt offering, rather than saving some of the meat as food, as they were sometimes required to do.5 The command in Omni 1:26 to “offer your whole souls as an offering” to God may connect to this type of burnt offering. Just as the whole animal was offered, we are to offer our “whole souls” to God.   

Deuteronomy 6 may also help to explain what this phrase means. Nephi’s statement that you must worship Christ “with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul” is similar to Deuteronomy 6:5: “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” The phrase “all thy soul” could also be translated as “your whole soul,” exactly the same phrase that appears in the Book of Mormon.6 This suggests that loving God with all our might, mind, and strength is part of how we can worship God with our “whole soul.”

This interpretation is supported by Words of Mormon 1:18, which states that, “king Benjamin, by laboring with all the might of his body and the faculty of his whole soul, and also the prophets, did once more establish peace in the land.” This verse states that King Benjamin worked with all his might and his whole soul in order to bring peace. As in 2 Nephi 25:29, working with all your might is part of worshipping with all your might and dedicating you whole soul to the work of God.

The Why

God commands us to dedicate our “whole souls” to Him because He is willing to do the same for us. In Jeremiah 32:41 God states, “I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul.” We are asked to symbolically put ourselves on the altar and offer ourselves to God, but Christ literally “offereth himself a sacrifice for sin” (2 Nephi 2:7) for all of us through his atoning death.7 In His life, He gave all the faculties of His “might, mind, and strength” for us, and dedicated the energies of His “whole soul” to other people and to God.

Giving our whole souls to God in whatever small ways that we can, brings us closer to Him. As Brigham Young stated, “When the will, passions and feelings of a person are perfectly submissive to God and his requirements, that person is sanctified. It is for my will to be swallowed up in the will of God, that will lead me into all good, and crown me ultimately with immortality and eternal lives.”8

In relation to offering ourselves to God, Neal A. Maxwell stated, “We tend to think of consecration in terms of property and money ... but there are various ways of ‘keeping back part,’ and these ways are worthy of your and my pondering.”9 Ultimately, “there are a lot of things we can refuse to put on the altar. This refusal may occur even after one has given a great deal.”10 Sometimes, “we may mistakenly think, for instance, having done so much, that surely it is all right to hold back the remaining part of something. Obviously, there can be no complete submissiveness when this occurs.”11

He continued, referring to Mosiah 15:7, “as I have thought about consecration, it has seemed to me that ... it’s related to the Atonement in a way that is quite profound. ... Perhaps the ultimate demand made by discipleship [is our] willingness to have ourselves and our wills ‘swallowed up’ in the will of our Father.”12

Elder Maxwell also offered a caution, “There’s an almost infinite variety in the number of ways you and I can hold back a portion.”13 One individual, “might be very giving as to money, or in even serving as to time, and yet hold back a portion of himself or herself.”14 Another person “might share many talents, but hold back ... a pet grievance, keeping himself from surrendering that grievance where resolution might occur.”15 Yet others “hold back by not allowing themselves to appear totally and fully committed to the Kingdom, lest they incur the disapproval of a particular group wherein their consecration might be disdained.”16 Unfortunately, “some give of themselves significantly, but not fully and unreservedly.”17

May we all give of ourselves, “fully and unreservedly” and offer our “whole souls” as an offering to God, remembering that He has offered Himself for us.

• 1. See 2 Nephi 25:29; Enos 1:9; Omni 1:26; Words of Mormon 1:18; Mosiah 2:20–21; 26:14.
• 2. See b. Menah 104b, referred to in Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1 –16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible Commentary, Volume 3 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991), 179.
• 3. See Milgrom, Leviticus, 179.
• 4. See Milgrom, Leviticus, 172–173.
• 5. See Milgrom, Leviticus, 172–173.
• 6. The King James version of Jeremiah 32:41 renders this Hebrew phrase as “whole soul.”
• 7. Book of Mormon Central, “How the Law of Moses Teaches about the Atonement (Alma 34:14),” KnoWhy 424 (April 12, 2018).
• 8. Journal of Discourses 2:123 (1853).
• 9. Daniel C. Peterson, “Elder Neal A. Maxwell on Consecration, Scholarship, and the Defense of the Kingdom,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 7 (2013): xv. This article was published in abridged form in Neal A. Maxwell, “Discipleship and Scholarship,” BYU Studies 32, no. 3 (1992): 5–9.
• 10. Peterson, “Consecration,” xv.
• 11. Peterson, “Consecration,” xv–xvi.
• 12.Peterson, “Consecration,” xvi.
• 13. Peterson, “Consecration,” xvi.
• 14. Peterson, “Consecration,” xvi.
• 15. Peterson, “Consecration,” xvi.
• 16. Peterson, “Consecration,” xvii.
• 17. Peterson, “Consecration,” xvii.

The Know

One way that the Book of Mormon provides a valuable view of history is that it records the spiritual condition of various peoples over the course of many generations. Mormon, as the primary abridger and editor of this lengthy record, was particularly aware of how the Nephites’ degree of pride or humility cycled over time.1 One of Mormon’s historical summaries stands out, in particular, because it emphasizes how the typical transition from receiving blessings to engaging in prideful behavior was avoided.2 This summary, found in Alma 62:48–51, uses a chiasm to emphasize this point:3

While the outer layers of this chiasm concern the prosperity that the people were experiencing, the central elements (D and D’) emphasize what the people did to avoid the pride that usually follows such prosperity. In each central element, the concept of being humble or “not lifted up” is coupled with the people’s remembrance of God’s blessings, suggesting a direct relationship between these concepts.4

Notably, this chiasm alludes to words in Lehi’s famous prophecy about prosperity, which were picked up on by other Nephite prophets and repeatedly expressed throughout the Book of Mormon.5 As the following chart demonstrates, in many of these restatements the concepts of remembering or forgetting are directly related to prospering in the land or being cut off from the Lord’s blessings.

Readers should also be aware that the inner and outer sections of the chiastic structure found in Alma 62:48–51 closely mirrors the same inner/outer sections in the famous chiastic masterpiece found in Alma 36:6

The Why

The way that the chiasm in Alma 62:48–51 connects to other passages that discuss Lehi’s promise of prosperity, as well as its shared inner/outer elements with Alma 36, suggests that its structure is both sophisticated and intentional. Recognizing a chiastic structure focuses our attention on words and key themes that their writers wanted us to note in particular. This helps us better understand the original intent of the Book of Mormon’s authors, which we otherwise might not have absorbed so completely.7

Chiasmus can also emphasize a reversal. At the turning point, the text reaches a climax or pinnacle and from that point it reverses its path and returns to the point of departure. In the process of this thought pattern, the reader is able to see the original idea in a new light. In this way, chiasmus helps listeners to turn around and go in a better direction. A famous chiastic proverb says, “Those who fail to prepare, prepare to fail.” This saying has power precisely because it stops people in their tracks and turns them around.

Typically, the Nephites experienced pride, wickedness, and destruction after periods of righteousness and blessings. In this instance, however, remembering the Lord helped them avoid this negative cycle. They steadily increased in both righteousness and prosperity, without having to be humbled first by war, famine, or some other type of destruction. The underlying chiastic structure in Alma 62:48–51 helps readers to similarly stop their regression deeper into the pride cycle and reverse that course headed to disaster. It shows how remembering the Lord—particularly the way He has blessed us—can help us retain humility in times of prosperity, just as the Nephites did.

Readers today can learn much from this chiastic message. While there is still much poverty in the world, many societies have been blessed beyond anything that previous generations have known. Technology and science have led to advances in food production, medicine, communication, transportation, health practices, and many other unprecedented blessings.

If we are not careful, however, we will face the same types of humbling tragedies recorded in the Book of Mormon. As Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin has taught, “There is something about prosperity that brings out the worst in some people.”8 Fortunately, the chiasm in Alma 62:48–51 shows that remembering the Lord and keeping his commandments brings out the best in people, even in times of great prosperity. By entering into sacred covenants to remember the Savior,9 and then by keeping those covenants, we can remain humble and grateful, even during the most prosperous of times.

• 1. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the ‘Pride Cycle’ Destroy the Nephite Nation? (3 Nephi 16:10),” KnoWhy 195 (September 26, 2016).
• 2. Although Mormon was certainly responsible for recording this historical summary in the Book of Mormon, it is not clear whether or not he was its original author.
• 3. For another example of the Book of Mormon’s use of chiasmus in its summaries of historical content, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Was Chiasmus Used in Nephite Record Keeping? (Helaman 6:10),” KnoWhy 177 (August 31, 2016).
• 4.Throughout the Bible and Book of Mormon, the concept of remembrance is often associated with keeping the commandments. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Helaman Want His Sons to Remember to Build upon the Rock? (Helaman 5:12),” KnoWhy 332 (June 28, 2017); Louis Midgley, “To Remember and Keep: On the Book of Mormon as an Ancient Book,” in The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed. Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 95–137; Louis Midgley, “The Ways of Remembrance,” 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), 168–176; Louis Midgley, “‘O Man, Remember, and Perish Not’ (Mosiah 4:30),” 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), 127–129.
• 5. See Book of Mormon Central, “What does it Mean to ‘Prosper in the Land’? (Alma 9:13),” KnoWhy 116 (June 7, 2016); Book of Mormon Central, “How Is Prosperity Defined in Nephi’s Small Plates? (Words of Mormon 1:6),” KnoWhy 383 (November 21, 2017).
• 6.See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Was Alma Converted? (Alma 36:21),” KnoWhy 144 (July 15, 2016).
• 7.For further examples of how chiasmus can helps us better understand the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, “What Can We Learn from 10 of the Best Chiasms in the Book of Mormon? Part 1,” KnoWhy 349 (August 7, 2017); Book of Mormon Central, “What Can We Learn from 10 of the Best Chiasms in the Book of Mormon? Part 2,” KnoWhy 352 (August 14, 2017); Book of Mormon Central, “What Can We Learn from 10 of the Best Chiasms in the Book of Mormon? Part 3 (Alma 36:18),” KnoWhy 355 (August 20, 2017).
• 8. Joseph B. Wirthlin, “Journey to Higher Ground,” Ensign, November 2005, online at lds.org.
• 9. See Book of Mormon Central, “At Baptism, What Do We Covenant to Do? (Mosiah 18:10),” KnoWhy 97 (March 11, 2016). See also, Gerrit W. Gong, “Always Remember Him,” Ensign, May2016, online at lds.org.

The Know

It has been common in LDS scholarship to compare Lehi, the founding patriarch-prophet of the Book of Mormon, to perhaps the most famous prophet in the Jerusalem of Lehi’s time, Jeremiah.1 Because Jeremiah had been prophesying in Jerusalem before the beginning of 1 Nephi 1, it is almost certain that Lehi knew him. Lehi’s prophetic message regarding the destruction of Jerusalem was similar to that of Jeremiah, so comparisons between the two prophets come naturally.

However, there were many other prophets called by God at roughly the same time (1 Nephi 1:4), including Habakkuk, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others.2 A study of the words and phrases used in the accounts of the prophetic callings and visions of these contemporaries reveals similarities that go beyond the common message of Jerusalem’s destruction.

When Lehi received his first vision, as recorded in 1 Nephi 1, “he saw and heard much; and because of the things which he saw and heard he did quake and tremble exceedingly.” He then went home and “cast himself upon his bed, being overcome with the Spirit and the things which he had seen” (vv. 6–7).

Some elements in Lehi’s reaction are unique to Lehi, but several are also similar to reactions of other prophets in his day.3 For example, when Habakkuk saw the destruction that would accompany the Lord’s coming, he exclaimed: “When I heard, my belly trembled; my lips quivered at the voice: … I trembled in myself, that I might rest at the day of trouble” (Habakkuk 3:16). Daniel also had dream visions while lying in his bed (Daniel 7:1) and was similarly exhausted after receiving a heavenly visitation. He recorded: “[W]hen he came, I was afraid and fell upon my face: … And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days … I was astonished by the vision and did not understand it” (ESV/KJV Daniel 8:17, 27).

In Lehi’s dream, he was “carried away in a vision,” “saw the heavens open” and “saw God sitting upon his throne,” surrounded by angels (1 Nephi 1:8). In one of his earliest visions, Ezekiel recalled “that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God” (Ezekiel 1:1). He then saw the Lord seated on his throne, accompanied by angelic beings, just like Lehi did.4 Later, when Ezekiel was shown his famous vision of the valley of dry bones, he likewise reported that the “hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the Lord” (Ezekiel 37:1).5

In addition to beholding a being descending out of heaven whose brightness was “above that of the sun at noon-day,” Lehi saw twelve others whose “brightness did exceed that of the stars of the firmament” (1 Nephi 1:10). He was likely being shown the “Lamb of God,” as well as the “twelve apostles of the Lamb,” as they would appear in their future, glorified, resurrected state (1 Nephi 12:6, 9). Similarly, Daniel was later shown that when the “wise” (those destined for “everlasting life”) and “they that turn many to righteousness” are resurrected, they “shall shine as the brightness of the firmament … as the stars for ever and ever” (Daniel 12:2–3).

One of the central features of many of these prophets’ visions is the giving of a heavenly book for the prophet to read which revealed future events. Nephi recorded that “the first [heavenly messenger] came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read. And it came to pass that as he read, he was filled with the Spirit of the Lord” (1 Nephi 1:11–12). In a similar manner, when Ezekiel saw the Lord on his throne, he was given “a roll of a book” (a scroll). Ezekiel recorded that “the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me” (Ezekiel 2:2, 9).6 Daniel was also shown a heavenly book about future events that he was instructed to seal up and which would remain sealed “till the time of the end” (Daniel 12:1, 4, 9).7

The contents of the revelation may have initially brought fear, but by the end of this interaction with the divine, the prophet often felt great joy and a desire to praise God for His mercy and marvelous works. For instance, Lehi’s “soul did rejoice, and his whole heart was filled because of the things which he had seen” in his vision (1 Nephi 1:15). After Ezekiel was commanded to “eat” the scroll of prophecy that the Lord had given him, he partook and said that “it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness” (Ezekiel 3:3). And Habakkuk, who had been greatly afraid of the vision he was shown, ended his account by praising God and exclaiming: “Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation” (Habakkuk 3:18).8

The Why

Although comparisons between Lehi and Jeremiah are natural and welcome, comparing Lehi to other contemporary prophets is also a very fruitful endeavor. Lehi had prophetic points in common with all of his true prophetic contemporaries, including Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Habbakuk.

The content and style of Jeremiah’s visions can be seen as somewhat different from the visions of some of these other prophets. Jeremiah’s prophecies have been called “introspective, self-revelatory and biographical, more private cries of distress than prophetic.”9 In this regard, Lehi’s visionary dream of the tree of life (1 Nephi 8) was deeply introspective, spiritually enlightening, and had direct bearings on his personal concerns about his sons who were turning away from the path that leads to eternal life and joy. Lehi and Nephi (in 2 Nephi 4) were introspective, much as Jeremiah was a “suffering prophet.”

At the same time, Ezekiel epitomized the “visionary prophet,” and so did Lehi. Ezekiel is considered to be “the first apocalyptic prophet,” or the first biblical prophet to emphasize visions over words and the revelation of heavenly “mysteries” regarding the events of the end times.10 The book of Daniel is similar to Ezekiel in many ways, especially regarding the emphasis on visions and on the revelation of God’s mysteries.  The Book of Mormon refers to Lehi as a “visionary man.”11 Like Ezekiel and Daniel, he dreamed dreams and saw visions.

While some people in Jerusalem at the time, which Laman and Lemuel seemed to follow, used the idea of “visionary” in a pejorative manner,12 Numbers 12:6 unequivocally declares: “If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.”13

Thus, Lehi was not a false prophet, nor was the content of his visions odd or anachronistic for his time period. He was a prophet in the fullest sense of the word. His visions fit into the style of wide-scale, symbolic prophecy recognizable in the books of Ezekiel, Daniel, and other Old Testament prophets—a style that would be termed “apocalyptic” in its later Jewish literary manifestations.14 At the same time, Lehi was introspective, inspiring, and personal.

Modern readers can take an important lesson from this. The Lord talked to Jeremiah in a different way than he talked to Ezekiel, and he may speak to each of us differently as well. That is as it should be, for the Lord “speaketh unto men according to their … understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3). He may also speak to each of us, as He did to Lehi, in many ways (cf. Isaiah 55:8–9). We should not expect our spiritual experiences to be the same as those of our friends or family, nor should we expect revelations to come to us all in the same manner of speaking or mode of communication. The Lord speaks to us as complicated individuals with complex problems that He knows and understands best of all.

• 1.See, for example, David Rolph Seely and Jo Ann H. Seely, “Lehi and Jeremiah: Prophets, Priests, and Patriarchs,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004), 357–380; Aaron P. Schade, “The Kingdom of Judah: Politics, Prophets, and Scribes in the Late Preexilic Period,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, 299–336.
• 2.For more on the Old Testament prophets that would have been contemporary with Lehi, see David Rolph Seely and Robert D. Hunt, “Dramatis Personae: The World of Lehi (ca. 700–562 B.C.),” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, 41–64. Although many modern biblical scholars consider much of the book of Daniel to have been composed centuries after the time of Lehi, much of the content of his visions is comparable to that of Ezekiel and Isaiah and therefore is fruitful for comparison here.
• 3.See also Deuteronomy 2:25; 1 Samuel 3:15; Ezekiel 1:28; Daniel 7:15, 28; 10:8, 16; Hebrews 12:21 (drawing on LXX Deuteronomy 9:19). See also, Book of Mormon Central, “Why Are People Exhausted by Powerful Spiritual Experiences? (Alma 19:6),” KnoWhy 460 (August 21, 2018). 
• 4.See Ezekiel 1:5–28; cf. Ezekiel 8:3; cf. Isaiah 6. Although the language used in Ezekiel 1 can be confusing, what the prophet was saying, essentially, is that the Lord came to him on a mobile throne-chariot, which was pulled, or at least accompanied, by unique angelic beings. This celestial entourage had been represented by the furnishings of Solomon’s Temple (the ark, cherubim, wheeled lavers, etc.) which is possibly why Ezekiel called them “living creatures,” to differentiate them from their manufactured representations in the temple. See W. Boyd Barrick, “The Straight-Legged Cherubim of Ezekiel’s Inaugural Vision (Ezekiel 1:7a),” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44, no. 4 (October, 1982): 543–550.
• 5.Cf. Ezekiel 3:12, 14.
• 6.See also Ezekiel 3:1–3; Isaiah 34:16; Zechariah 5:1–2; Revelation 5:1–5; 10:8–11.
• 7.Cf. Habakkuk 2:2.
• 8.See Book of Mormon Central, “How Can One ‘Feast upon the Words of Christ? (2 Nephi 32:2),” KnoWhy 306 (April 28, 2017).
• 9.Moshe Reiss, “Jeremiah, the Suffering Prophet, and Ezekiel, the Visionary,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 32, no. 4 (2004): 233–238.
• 10.See Reiss, “Jeremiah, the Suffering Prophet,” 236. See also, Ostler, “The Throne-Theophany,” 67; Rowland, The Open Heaven, 193–247; Silviu Bunta, “In Heaven or on Earth: A Misplaced Temple Question About Ezekiel’s Visions,” in With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic, and Mysticism in Honor of Rachel Elior, Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, 2, ed. Daphna V. Arbel and Andrei A. Orlov (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 28–44.
• 11.Book of Mormon Central, “What Did It Mean for Lehi to Be a Visionary Man? (1 Nephi 5:4),” KnoWhy 457 (August 9, 2018); John A. Tvedtnes, “A Visionary Man,” 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); Matthew Roper, “Scripture Update: Lehi as a Visionary Man,” Insights 27, no. 4 (2007): 2–3.
• 12.See Neal Rappleye, “The Deuteronomist Reforms and Lehi’s Family Dynamics: A Social Context for the Rebellions of Laman and Lemuel,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 16 (2015): 92–93.
• 13.See Rappleye, “The Deuteronomist Reforms,” 92–93.
• 14.For more on why there were different views on prophetic style in the Jerusalem of Lehi’s time, see Kevin Christensen, “The Temple, the Monarchy, and Wisdom: Lehi’s World and the Scholarship of Margaret Barker,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, 449–522; for more on “apocalyptic” literature in the Book of Mormon, see Blake T. Ostler, “The Throne-Theophany and Prophetic Commission in 1 Nephi: A Form-Critical Analysis,” BYU Studies Quarterly 26, no. 4 (1986): 67–95; Richard Dilworth Rust and Donald W. Parry, “Book of Mormon Literature,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, N.Y.: Macmillan, 1992), 1:184; Charles Swift, “Lehi’s Vision of the Tree of Life: Understanding the Dream as Visionary Literature,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 2 (2005): 52–63; Jared M. Halverson, “Lehi’s Dream and Nephi’s Vision as Apocalyptic Literature,” in The Things Which My Father Saw: Approaches to Lehi’s Dream and Nephi’s Vision (2011 Sperry Symposium), ed. Daniel L. Belnap, Gaye Strathearn, and Stanley A. Johnson (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 53–69; Nicholas J. Frederick, “Mosiah 3 as an Apocalyptic Text,” Religious Educator 15, no. 2 (2014): 40–63; Book of Mormon Central, “Why Are Lehi’s First Visions So Similar to Much Later Apocalyptic Writings? (1 Nephi 1:8),” KnoWhy 459 (August 16, 2018); Book of Mormon Central, “Should Nephi’s Vision Be Called an Apocalypse? (1 Nephi 11:2–3),” KnoWhy 471 (August XX, 2018).

The Know

When abridging the record of 3 Nephi, Mormon reported on several civic-related building projects that occurred during a period of “great peace in the land” (3 Nephi 6:6). Along with the building of new cities and the repairing of old ones (v. 7), “there were many highways cast up, and many roads made, which led from city to city, and from land to land, and from place to place” (v. 8). Even after falling into disuse and disrepair, prominent highways often leave behind a large amount of non-perishable material. For this reason, readers may wonder if the remains of any ancient highways have been found in the Americas.

Notable systems of highways were indeed constructed by several ancient American societies,1 and their remains have long been studied by archaeologists.2 The ancient Maya, in particular, constructed and used highways (also known as causeways or sacbeob) in a manner that fits several details from the Book of Mormon. Concerning the features of these highways, Mesoamerican scholar Mark Wright has explained,

Although they varied in height and width, their construction was generally composed of rubble lined with large stones at the edges and large cobblestones in the interior, progressively getting smaller from bottom to top, finally gradating to fine gravel near the surface and topped with fine powdered limestone (called sascab), which was pressed smooth with stone rollers.3

The “66 feet (20 m) wide and up to 7 feet (2 m) high” road at Dzibilchaltun in the lowland Maya area was constructed in such a manner and dates close to the time when major networks of highway were being built in the Book of Mormon.4 Commenting upon this and similar structures, anthropologist John L. Sorenson remarked that such “massive construction surely qualifies as ‘cast up’,” as mentioned in 3 Nephi 6:8.5

Ancient Maya roads were often used to connect major districts or building complexes within sprawling cities. Metropolises like El Mirador, which thrived during Book of Mormon times, had numerous causeways that branched out from the city center like spokes on a wheel.6 It’s possible that the “highway which led to the chief market” near Nephi’s garden tower was this type of major thoroughfare (Helaman 7:10).7 Major sites had dozens of such roads. For instance, more than 80 causeways have been documented at Chichen Itza alone.8

In addition to inner-city causeways, longer highways connected main city centers with outlying satellite communities. Some, like the 62 mile (100 km) Coba Yaxuna sacbe,9 even spanned dozens of miles to reach other independent cities or settlements. These findings are consistent with statements in the Book of Mormon about the construction of “many highways … which led from city to city, and from land to land, and from place to place” (3 Nephi 6:8; emphasis added).10

Also of interest is that, according to Anthropologist Justine M. Shaw, “Nearly all Maya causeways are straight” and “even when features of moderate size lie in the projected path of a sacbe, every effort is made to maintain the same line, even to the point of covering earlier constructions.”11 If Nephite highways adhered to this type of rigidly straight alignment, the resulting imagery would have nicely reinforced Alma’s message to the people of Gideon:

I perceive that ye are in the path which leads to the kingdom of God; yea, I perceive that ye are making his paths straight. I perceive that it has been made known unto you, by the testimony of his word, that he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong. (Alma 7:19–20)12

Although hundreds of miles of these ancient “cast up” roads have been identified and studied throughout Mesoamerica,13 a laser technology known as LiDAR has recently revealed previously unknown networks of highways.14 This development shows just how easy it is for even prominent structures to go undetected beneath the dense jungle foliage in Mesoamerica.15 It also suggests that many more miles of ancient highways are just waiting to be discovered under the forest canopy.

The Why

Most societies today value highways for their utility in transporting people and goods. Although the ancient Maya certainly used highways for these purposes, the primary reasons for their construction were likely political and religious in nature.16 Shaw has suggested that highways offered “unique physical, symbolic, cosmological, social, and political ties” for the kin-based rulers who were most likely responsible for their construction.17 She further pointed out that their “most likely intended purpose may be that of religion, most specifically for processions.”18

This point is fascinating considering that King Lamoni seems to have planned a stately procession before his conversion. In Alma 18:9 readers learn that Lamoni “had commanded his servants … that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi; for there had been a great feast appointed at the land of Nephi, by the father of Lamoni, who was king over all the land.”19 If the Lamanites had built up prominent highways, Lamoni and his retinue of servants may have intended to use them for ceremonial purposes on their way to a politically, and possibly religiously, significant feast.20

With these details in mind, it is possible that the Nephites and Lamanites viewed highways much like the ancient Maya did—as symbolic “physical devices through which powerful forces flowed to connect material spaces and the peoples who populated them.”21 If so, this may actually help explain why the construction of major highways was mentioned in the Book of Mormon in the first place.

In Helaman 14:24, Samuel the Lamanite prophesied that “many highways shall be broken up” as a sign of Christ’s death. Mormon, always attentive to the fulfillment of prophecy, then mentioned the major construction of highways in 3 Nephi 6:8, as well as the fulfillment of Samuel’s prophecy only two chapters later: “And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough” (3 Nephi 8:13).

If highways were seen as symbols of political and spiritual power that connected rulers and peoples together, then their destruction may have represented the severing of this power, as well as the breakdown of their society (see 3 Nephi 7:2). In turn, this haunting imagery, derived from the aftermath of major natural disasters,22 set the stage for Christ’s unifying ministry (see 4 Nephi 1:17).23 With these possibilities in mind, Mormon’s emphasis on the construction of highways in 3 Nephi 6:8 seems to be more than mere happenstance. It subtly sets up the fulfillment of Samuel’s prophecy, while at the same time conveying a symbolic message that makes especially good sense in a Mesoamerican context.

It may be impossible to know whether or not the Nephites or Lamanites built or used any of the known ancient highways in Mesoamerica. Yet the physical forms and symbolic functions of these highways are remarkably consistent with what is described in the Book of Mormon. At the same time, they are not a feature of ancient American societies that was well-known or expected at the time of the Book of Mormon’s translation.24 For these reasons, the remnants of ancient American highways offer another intriguing evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

• 1. See Justine M. Shaw, “Maya Sacbeob: Form and Function,” in Ancient Mesoamerica 12 (2001): 268.
• 2. For instance, see Alfonso Villa Rojas, “The Yaxuna-Cobá Causeway,” Contributions to American Archaeology 2, no. 9 (1934).
• 3. Mark Alan Wright, “The Cultural Tapestry of Mesoamerica,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22, no. 2 (2013): 14.
• 4. 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), 357.
• 5. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex, 357.
• 6. See Wright, “The Cultural Tapestry of Mesoamerica,” 14.
• 7. See 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); Wallace E. Hunt Jr., “The Marketplace,” 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), 196–200; John L. Sorenson, “Nephi’s Garden and Chief Market,” 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) 236–238.
• 8. See Francisco Pérez Ruiz, “Recintos amurallados: Una interpretación sobre el sistema defensivo de Chichen Itza, Yucatán,” in XVIII simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2004, ed. Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor E. Mejía (Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología), 882–883. For an English version of this publication, see Francisco Pérez Ruiz, “Walled Compounds: An Interpretation of the Defensive system at Chichen Itza, Yucatan,” online at famsi.org.
• 9. See Shaw, “Maya Sacbeob,” 266.
• 10. Mormon’s three-fold poetic description of highways and roads leading from (1) “city to city,” (2) “land to land,” and (3) “place to place” is interesting because Shaw has argued that the ancient Maya seemed to have grouped their roads into three major categories: (1) local intrasite,  (2) core–outlier intrasite, and (3) intersite. See Shaw, “Maya Sacbeob,” 262. Although it is uncertain, it’s possible that Mormon’s description of “place to place” refers to the “local intrasite” roads, that “land to land” refers to “intersite” roads, and that “city to city” is a description of “core–outlier intrasite” roads. Shaw explained that her “proposed groupings appear to have been a reality for the Lowland Maya. Although I do not insist that the Maya themselves would have classified Sacbeob in this manner, and I realize that the measurements and sample are a product of archaeologists’ foci, the divisions are apparently related to something in the real world. The groups are possibly related to the distance normally walked by site inhabitants in a day, the length easily traversed by participants in a ritual, or the span over which political control may have been exerted and maintained under certain conditions” (p. 266). Support for the idea that the Nephites at least conceived of one of these categories (a day’s journey) comes from Helaman 4:7: “And there they did fortify against the Lamanites, from the west sea, even unto the east; it being a day’s journey for a Nephite, on the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country” (emphasis added).
• 11. Justine M. Shaw, “Roads to Ruins: The Role of Sacbeob in Ancient Maya Society,” in Highways, Byways, and Road Systems in the Pre-Modern World, ed. Susan E. Alcock, John Bodel, and Richard J. A. Talbert (Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2012), 137.
• 12. This passage is interesting because it is the only symbolic path in the Book of Mormon that is certainly described as being “straight” (meaning not crooked) instead of “strait” (meaning narrow). All other instances of “strai[gh]t” paths are more ambiguous. See Paul Y. Hoskisson, “Straightening Things Out: The Use of Strait and Straight in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 2 (2003): 62; Book of Mormon Central, “Is the Path to Eternal Life ‘Strait’ or ‘Straight’? (1 Nephi 8:20),” KnoWhy 456 (August 7, 2018).
• 13. See Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex, 356–357: “Roads were made and used for at least 2,500 years before the Spanish conquest, beginning with the Olmec people at San Lorenzo. Hundreds of miles of them have now been discovered in locations ranging from the state of Zacatecas on the north to Yucatan and Atlantic Guatemala on the south.”
• 14. See “4 Ways the New Maya Discoveries May Relate to the Book of Mormon,” Book of Mormon Central Blog, February 5, 2018, online at bookofmormoncentral.org. See also, Brigit Katz, “LiDAR Scans Reveal Maya Civilization’s Sophisticated Network of Roads,” February 3, 2017, online at smithsonianmag.com; Tom Clynes, “Exclusive: Laser Scans Reveal Maya ‘Megalopolis’ Below Guatemalan Jungle,” February 1, 2018, online at news.nationalgeographic.com.
• 15. See Wright, “The Cultural Tapestry of Mesoamerica,” 14; Michael R. Ash, “Archaeology and the Book of Mormon,” online at fairmormon.org; William J. Hamblin, “Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2, no. 1 (1993): 193–196.
• 16. Shaw, “Roads to Ruins,” 139.
• 17. Shaw, “Roads to Ruins,” 135.
• 18. Shaw, “Roads to Ruins,” 139.
• 19. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Is the Nature and Use of Chariots in the Book of Mormon? (Alma 18:9),” KnoWhy 126 (June 21, 2016). The Lamanite system of kingship is quite similar to the systems of rulership found among the ancient Maya. And it is likely that, among other things, Lamoni would have traveled to the feast to pay tribute to his father. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Did it Mean to be ‘King Over All the Land’? (Alma 20:8),” KnoWhy 128 (June 23, 2016).
• 20. For evidence that feasts in ancient Mesoamerican societies held both religious and political significance, see Lisa J. LeCount, “Like Water for Chocolate: Feasting and Political Ritual among the Late Classic Maya at Xunantunich, Belize,” American Anthropologist, New Series 103, no. 4 (2001): 935–953; Keith Eppich, “Feast and Sacrifice at El Perú-Waka’: The N14-2 Deposit as Dedication,” The PARI Journal 10, no. 2 (Fall 2009):1–19. Although it is impossible to know if the Lamanites held religious feasts, there is good evidence that the Nephites observed the holy days of their Israelite tradition. See Book of Mormon Central, “Did the Nephites Have a ‘Holiday Season’ Like We Do Today? (Mosiah 2:4),” KnoWhy 394 (December 28, 2017); Book of Mormon Central, “Did Jacob Refer to Ancient Israelite Autumn Festivals? (2 Nephi 6:4),” KnoWhy 32 (February 12, 2016).
• 21. Shaw, “Roads to Ruins,” 134.
• 22. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Caused the Darkness and Destruction in the 34th Year? (3 Nephi 8:20),” KnoWhy 197 (September 28, 2016).
• 23. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the Peace Last So Long in 4 Nephi? (4 Nephi 1:16),” KnoWhy 225 (November 17, 2016).
• 24. It’s likely that ancient American highways were first brought to the attention of the American public by John Lloyed Stephens and Frederick Catherwood more than 10 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon. Among the many roads discussed in his travels, Stephens mentioned “a great paved way, made of pure white stone, called in the Maya language Sacbé, leading from Kabah to Uxmal, on which the lords of those places sent messengers to and fro, bearing letters written on the leaves and bark of trees.” John L. Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Yucatan, 2 vols. (New York, NY: Harper and Brothers, 1843), 1:415. See also, John E. Clark, Wade Ardern, and Matthew Roper, “Debating the Foundations of Mormonism: The Book of Mormon and Archaeology,” 2005 FairMormon conference presentation, online at fairmormon.org.

The Know

In 1 Nephi 11–14, Nephi had a vision in which heavenly messengers showed him various things that would happen in the future. They also explained to him the symbolic vision of his father. Nephi’s vision is similar in many ways to known as apocalyptic texts, such as the Book of Daniel and the Book of Enoch.1 It is even more similar to texts in the Old Testament, like Zechariah, that are generally considered to be the forerunners of fully developed apocalyptic literature.2 Yet because those texts were written well after Lehi and Nephi left Jerusalem, one might wonder how a vision, like the ones found in 1 Nephi, could turn up in the sixth century BC. New evidence from an Assyrian text provides a possible explanation for the apocalyptic nature of Nephi’s vision.

A text called The Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince, written in the Akkadian language, depicts a visionary named Kummay, who was shown a vision of the underworld.3 According to Richard J. Clifford, a scholar of apocalypticism, this text is of interest “as a precedent for the tours of heaven and hell that are popular in later … apocalypses.”4 This text is especially interesting for Book of Mormon studies because it dates from the early seventh-century BC, shortly before the time of Lehi.

This text is similar to 1 Nephi 11–14. In it, the Assyrian prince Kummay experienced an expansive vision.5 In a similar way Nephi, who would eventually become king, experienced a significant vision. Such elevating experiences typically validated royal prerogatives.

The Assyrian prince asked to receive the vision, and consequently the gods granted his desire.6 Nephi likewise asked the Spirit of the Lord if he could see what his father had seen, and was granted a vision based on this request (1 Nephi 11:3).

Kummay was shown an ideal king called the exalted shepherd, who was given responsibility over many things by the god of the underworld.7 Nephi was similarly told that “there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth” (1 Nephi 13:41), and in his vision the kingdom of Christ was celebrated (see v. 37).

Kummay saw strange symbolic objects, as did Nephi, and the god Nergal explained to Kummay some of what he was seeing, just as the Spirit of the Lord did for Nephi.8

In the Assyrian text, the god Nergal decreed broad destruction on Kummay’s people: “may distress, acts of violence and rebellion together bow you down so that, by their oppressive clamour, sleep may not come to you.”9 Nephi was similarly told that his people would experience calamities, and even that they would eventually be destroyed (1 Nephi 12:19–20).

In addition, Kummay was told that if he forgot this important god, then the god would “pass a verdict of annihilation” on him.10 This idea also occurs in the Book of Mormon (see 2 Nephi 1:20).

Biblical scholar Robert Gnuse has argued that some parts of the Old Testament, written in northern Israel, show signs of Assyrian influence. According to him, some these texts date roughly 100 years before Lehi.11 Because Lehi was from the tribe of Manasseh, in northern Israel, these connections make sense. With this in mind, the similarities between this Assyrian text and the Book of Mormon suggest Nephi’s vision is not anachronistic or out of place. Nephi’s vision is similar to texts from the Ancient Near East that people like Lehi and Nephi would have known about.

Some material in the book of Isaiah helps to support this idea. Isaiah 24–27 is generally known as the “Isaiah Apocalypse,” and contains some ideas that one also finds in later apocalyptic literature. Many biblical scholars have assumed that this part of Isaiah was written many years after Lehi left Jerusalem. However, Christopher Hays has argued, based on the language of those chapters, that they were likely written well before Lehi left Jerusalem.12 Matthew Scott Stenson has noted that Isaiah 49:23–26 is similar to apocalyptic as well.13 This helps to explain how apocalyptic texts could have appeared in the Book of Mormon.

The Why

Because The Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince was not discovered until 1849, well after the Book of Mormon was published, the similarities between this ancient Assyrian text and the Book of Mormon serve as evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Because of this historically early instance of apocalyptic experience and expression, it is not inappropriate to include Nephi’s account of his expansive vision in 1 Nephi 11–14 as apocalyptic. 

The discovery of this Assyrian text does something else as well: it helps us see in Nephi’s writing one way that God communicates with His children. God could have answered Nephi’s prayer and explained Lehi’s vision using many modes of revelation and communication. But above all, God appears to have explained Lehi’s vision to Nephi in a manner that Nephi was likely familiar with. Because of texts like The Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince, Nephi could well have been already familiar with the rudiments of the early apocalyptic tradition, so when he experienced his vision, the way in which he experienced it would have made good sense to him.

We experience things similarly today.14 God reveals truths to us individually and to prophets speaking to us collectively today in ways that allow us to understand in our own cultural context, just as He did in ancient times. The Lord revealed in the early days of this dispensation of the gospel: “Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding” (D&C 1:24). Applying this principle, BYU Professor Mark Wright has helpfully noted, “Modern Latter-day Saints believe in continuing revelation, collectively and individually, and cultural context continues to influence the manner in which divine manifestations are received by individuals entrenched within the various cultures that comprise the worldwide church.”15

• 1. For more on apocalyptic, see Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1982), 49–70; Klaus Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1970), 28; John J. Collins, “From Prophecy to Apocalypticism: The Expectation of the End,” in The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, ed. John J. Collins (Lexington: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1998), 1:145–159.
• 2.Isaiah 24–27, as well as Ezekiel are also seen as forerunners of apocalyptic. See Silviu Bunta, “In Heaven or on Earth: A Misplaced Temple Question About Ezekiel's Visions,” in With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic, and Mysticism in Honor of Rachel Elior, ed. Daphna V. Arbel and Andrei A. Orlov, Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, 2 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 28–44. Some have assumed that this material from Isaiah was written after Lehi’s time, however, linguistic analysis shows that it dates from before the time of Lehi. See Christopher Hays, “Hebrew Diachrony and Linguistic Dating in the Book of Isaiah,” presentation given at the 2017 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting.
• 3. See Richard J. Clifford, “The Roots of Apocalypticism in Near Eastern Myth,” The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, 3 vols., ed. John J. Collins (New York, NY: Continuum Publishing Company, 2000), 1:14–15.
• 4. Clifford, “The Roots of Apocalypticism,” 1:15.
• 5. For more on the role of visions in apocalyptic, see Rowland, The Open Heaven, 70, as well as John J. Collins, “Toward the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia 14 (1979): 9.
• 6. See Seth L. Sanders, “The First Tour of Hell: From Neo-Assyrian Propagands to Early Jewish Revelation,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 9, no. 2 (2009): 157.
• 7. See Clifford, “The Roots of Apocalypticism,” 1:15.
• 8. See Clifford, “The Roots of Apocalypticism,” 1:15.
• 9. Alasdair Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, State Archives of Assyria 3 (Helsinki, FI: Helsinki University Press, 1989), 74.
• 10. Livingstone, Court Poetry, 74.
• 11. Robert Karl Gnuse, The Elohist: A Seventh-Century Theological Tradition (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2017), 63.
• 12. See Christopher Hays, “Hebrew Diachrony and Linguistic Dating in the Book of Isaiah,” SBL Presentation (Boston, MA, 2017).
• 13. Matthew Scott Stenson, “Lehi’s Dream and Nephi’s Vision Apocalyptic Revelations in Narrative Context,” BYU Studies Quarterly, 51, no. 4 (2012): 155–179.
• 14. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does the Lord Speak to Men ‘According to Their Language’? (2 Nephi 31:3),” KnoWhy 258 (January 6, 2017).
• 15. Mark Alan Wright, “‘According to Their Language, unto Their Understanding’: The Cultural Context of Hierophanies and Theophanies in Latter-day Saint Canon,” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 3 (2011): 65.

The Know

Ancient warfare was bloody, brutal and deadly. In his account of one battle, Mormon wrote of “the heavy blows of the Nephites with their swords and their cimeters which brought death at almost every stroke” (Alma 43:37). The word cimeter is an older spelling of the word scimitar, a curved sword that usually has a cutting edge on the convex or outer side. Some skeptical readers have claimed that the term cimeter in the text is out of place since it was widely believed that the weapon was not invented until after the rise of Islam (ca. 7th century AD)—much too late to be used by the Nephites.1 Once considered a stumbling block to readers, it is now known that this weapon, in various forms, was known in both the Old World and the New in both Biblical and Book of Mormon times.

The weapon is depicted in the ancient Near East as early as 2000 B.C.2 Rare archaeological specimens of this weapon have been found sometimes with the cutting edge on the outer or convex side while others are double-edged, such as the “curved sword sharpened on two sides” discovered at Shechem, a Canaanite city, which dates to 1800 BC.3 Representations in ancient Near Eastern military art “show mostly the employment of the inner blade; that of the outer one is however also perhaps to be found. Preserved oriental scimitars have the blade outside.”4 According to Boyd Seevers, curved swords may have been the more common sword in ancient Israel.5

Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars now know that the Hebrew term kidon refers to a scimitar.6 In 1 Samuel 17:45, when David faced Goliath, he declared, “You come against me with a sword [hereb] and spear [hanit] and scimitar [kidon], but I come against you with the name of Yahweh Sabaoth, god of the ranks of Israel” (1 Samuel 17:45).7 Some writers have thought it strange that the Lamanite chieftain Zerahemnah would carry both a sword and a cimeter, but as Paul Hoskisson has observed, the biblical text says the same about Goliath.8

Curved sword-like weapons which can accurately be called scimitars were also an important element in ancient pre-Columbian American warfare. Ross Hassig, an authority on ancient American warfare, identified a curved weapon portrayed in Postclassic Mesoamerican art which he calls a “short sword.”9 This was a curved weapon designed for slashing and consisted of a flat hard wooden base approximately 50 centimeters (20 inches) long into which were set obsidian blades along both edges. “It was an excellent slasher and yet the forward curve of the sword retained some aspects of a crusher when used curved end forward.”10

Pre-Columbian representations show that these sometimes had a sharpened tip of wood or obsidian as well. The lightness of the short sword enabled a soldier to carry it along with other weapons. “Soldiers could now provide their own covering fire with atlatls while advancing and still engage in hand-to-hand combat with short swords once they closed with the enemy.”11 A lighter weapon such as a curved short sword would have enabled a warrior like Zerahemnah to continue to engage an enemy up close even if he lost control of his sword in battle or the blades became too chipped to be effective.12

Once thought to be a Post-Classic invention (ca. AD 900–1500),13 evidence for this and other scimitar-like weapons goes back into Classic (AD 300–900), and pre-Classic times (1500 BC–AD 300).14 For example, a monument from Tonina, Mexico, which dates to AD 613 and shows a noble posing with a curved “scimitar-like flint blade.”15 Curved scimitar-like long daggers are portrayed in the hands of warriors at Teotihuacan, ca. AD 450.16

Ann Cyphers, the leading archaeologist at San Lorenzo (ca. 1500–900 BC), observed that one monument displays a weapon that “has a curved body with eleven triangular elements encrusted in the sides.”17 Another monument at the same site displays “an object in the form of a curved macana with 14 triangular points” including one on the tip.18 Thus, curved, scimitar-like weapons appear to go back to Book of Mormon times.

The Why

Once considered out of place in a record describing ancient warfare, it is now known that cimeters were a significant tool in the arsenal of ancient weaponry in both the Old World and the New. The evidence for their existence in ancient Mesoamerica during the time of the Book of Mormon is a striking confirmation of the accuracy of the Nephite account and suggests the need for patience and more careful study about other elements of the text which may at first seem strange to modern readers.

Cimeters were very effective, deadly weapons in what Mormon calls the grim “work of death” (Alma 43:37; Helaman 4:5). Mentioned first as a Lamanite weapon (Enos 1:20), this weapon was soon adopted by the Nephites (Mosiah 9:16), following a subsequent pattern of opponents quickly adopting and adapting to the clever military innovations of their adversaries. Swords, cimeters, special armor, decoy tactics, and more sophisticated fortifications, were effective elements of Nephite military strategies for a time, but eventually, they failed to protect those people when they forgot their God. Sooner or later an enemy will be smarter, stronger, or more numerous, showing the futility of trusting alone in one’s strength (Helaman 4:13) or the “arm of the flesh” (2 Nephi 4:34).

President Spencer W. Kimball once warned, “We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God.”19

There is wisdom in individuals being prepared for the future, natural disasters and potential physical dangers from those of ill will. Prophets ancient and modern have and will continue to counsel us how to more fully prepare and protect ourselves in a way that is consistent with the principles and covenants of the Gospel. But the Book of Mormon warns us how easily the tools of our defense can become the weapons of our rebellion (Alma 23:7). Like the righteous of old, we can ultimately only find peace and protection by following the counsel of living prophets and apostles and looking to our Savior and Heavenly Father for direction and deliverance in times of trouble.

• 1. John Hyde Jr., Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs (1857), 234-35;  Samuel Hawthornthwaite, Adventures Among the Mormons (1857), 69; W. E. Riter to James E. Talmage, 22 August, 1921, in Brigham D. Madsen, ed., B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985), 35-37,Gordon Fraser, Joseph Smith and the Golden Plates (1964), 58; James Spencer, The Disappointment of B.H. Roberts (1991), 4; Earl Wunderli, An Imperfect Book: What the Book of Mormon Tells Us About Itself (2013), 36; John Christopher Thomas, A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon (Cleveland, Tennesee: CPT Press, 2016), 420.
• 2. Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1963), 1: 10–11, 78–79, 172, 204– 207; William J. Hamblin, Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC. (London and New York: Rutledge, 2006), 66–71, 279–280.
• 3.“Arms and Weapons,” in The Biblical World: A Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer (New York: Bonanza Books, 1966), 93.
• 4. G. Molin, “What is a Kidon?” Journal of Semitic Studies 1, no. 4 (October 1956: 336).
• 5. Boyd Seevers, Warfare in the Old Testament: The Organization, Weapons, and Tactics of Ancient Near Eastern Armies (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2013), 58: “Likely the typical early Israelite sword was a sickle-sword, which had a handle attached to a straight shaft that continued into a curved blade.” A visual of such swords is found on p. 121, fig. 4.2, which is an image of Egyptian scimitars.
• 6. Paul Y. Hoskisson, “Scimitars, Cimeters! We have scimitars! Do we need another cimeter?” in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and William B. Hamblin (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 352–359; Molin, “What is a Kidon?” 334–337; Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel (New York and Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1965), 1:242.
• 7. See P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., 1 Samuel (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 285.
• 8. Hoskisson, “Scimitars, Cimeters!” 355.
• 9. Ross Hassig, War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1992), 112–113;  Hassig, “Weaponry,” in Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America: An Encyclopedia, ed. Susan Toby Evans and David L. Webster (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 2001), 810–811; Hassig, Mexico and the Spanish Conquest (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006), 23–24; Hassig, “La Guerra en la Antigua Mesoamerica,” Arqueologia Mexicana 14, no. 84 (Marzo-Abril 2007): 36; Esperanza Elizabeth Jimenez Garcia, “Iconografia guerrera en la escultura de Tula, Hidalgo,” Arqueologia Mexicana 14, no. 84 (Marzo-Abril 2007): 54–59.
• 10. Hassig, War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica, 113.
• 11. Hassig, Mexico and the Spanish Conquest, 23–24.
• 12. Chipped and broken obsidian blades could be easily replaced after battle, but this could not likely be done during melee.  Elite warriors likely had body guards or servants who may have helped carry equipment when needed. Goliath, for example, had a shield bearer (1 Samuel 16:7), and Alma and the Lamanite king are said to have had guards who could sometimes assist them (Alma 2:32–33).
• 13. Hassig, War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica, 112–113.
• 14. Matthew Roper, “Swords and ‘Cimeters’ in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8, no. 1 (1999): 35–40.
• 15. Mary Miller and Simon Martin, Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya (New York: Thames and Hudson, 2004), 188, plate 106. A figurine now displayed in the Museo Regional de Campeche, which likely dates from the same period, portrays a warrior wearing a death mask who grasps an unhappy captive in his right hand and a curved weapon in his raised left hand with which he is about to decapitate his victim. The weapon in the figure’s left hand has been called an ax by some scholars, but given its curved form it could just as well be a scimitar. See Linda Schele, Hidden Faces of the Maya (1997), 100–101.
• 16. Arthur G. Miller, The Mural Painting of Teotihuacan (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1973), 85, 116, 162.
• 17. Ann Cyphers, Escultura Olmeca de San Lorenzo Tenochtilan (Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 2004), 145, talking about Monument 78.
• 18. Cyphers, 159. Monument 112 portrays a figure with a curved dagger in his belt. See Cyphers, 190, figure 26.
• 19. Spencer W. Kimball, “The False Gods We Worship,” Ensign, June 1976, online at lds.org.

The Know

The speeches in the Book of Mormon sometimes contain long quotations from the Old Testament. Abinadi quoted much of Isaiah 52 and all of Isaiah 53, Nephi read Isaiah 48–49 from the Plates of Brass (see 1 Nephi 20–21), most of Jacob 5 is a quotation from Zenos, and Jesus quoted large sections from Isaiah, Malachi, and Micah.1 Today, people rarely read long blocks of text out loud to an audience during a speech. But an examination of literacy in the ancient world shows that this was actually a common practice during Book of Mormon times.

Biblical scholar Joachim Schaper has argued that in ancient Israel, “just like in any other ancient culture,” people read books out loud to a gathered audience rather than reading quietly to themselves.2 One possible reason for this is simply the cost of creating books. Today, it is easy to print off multiple pages of text or to buy a mass-market paperback. But in the ancient world, when books had to be created one letter at a time by scribes, books were much more expensive.3 Therefore, even if many people in a society were literate, not many people would have had access to books. This explains why people would gather around to hear a book read, rather than reading silently like we often do today.4

As Schaper observed, “written texts … provided the basis on which literate Israelites ‘performed’ texts on significant occasions.”5 Schaper has suggested that Nehemiah 8 is a good illustration of this principle.6 Nehemiah 8:1–3 states that all the people gathered together and Ezra “read the Law of Moses to the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.” Deuteronomy 31:11, similarly notes that all Israel (men, women, and children) were commanded to come once every seven years to the house of the Lord to hear the whole book of Deuteronomy "read . . . before all Israel in their hearing."

One finds the same thing in the Book of Mormon as well. 1 Nephi 19:22 states that “Nephi, ... did read many things” to his brothers “which were engraven upon the plates of brass.”7 Verse 23 specifies, “I did read many things unto them which were written in the books of Moses; but that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah.”8 Nephi then “spake unto them, saying: Hear ye the words of the prophet, ye who are a remnant of the house of Israel, a branch who have been broken off; hear ye the words of the prophet, which were written unto all the house of Israel” (1 Nephi 19:24).9

The Why

Immediately following this emphasis on reading the Plates of Brass aloud to his brothers, telling them to hear the words of the prophet, Nephi read them two chapters of the book of Isaiah, allowing them to literally hear those words (see 1 Nephi 22:1). In an ancient context, Nephi reading long blocks of text to his brothers makes sense, because this is how people experienced books in the ancient world. Rather than being out of place, these blocks of text inserted into speeches allowed people to experience texts the way they always experienced them in the ancient world.10

When understood in their ancient context, these long quotations from the scriptures begin to make more sense. Rather than being a strange Nephite quirk, or filler that Joseph Smith inserted to make the book longer, as some might even assert, these long excerpts inserted into speeches are simply a reflection of how people experienced books in ancient times.11

Today, modern people do not gather together to have texts read aloud to them as often as ancient people did.12 But religious gatherings, such as sacrament meetings and General Conference, allow people to gather together to hear scripture being read to them. Sometimes this involves people reading and commenting on verses from ancient or modern scripture, but it involves people reading carefully prepared talks that are like scripture for our day.    

Gathering together to listen to General Conference or sacrament meeting talks can give us all a sense of what it might have been like in ancient times to gather together to hear the scriptures being read aloud. We were not present to hear Abinadi, Nephi, or Jesus teach about and read from the scriptures, and most of our experience with the scriptures involves reading silently to ourselves. But listening to the speakers in our meetings allows us to be present with them in spirit as we experience, in a small way, what they experienced in ancient times.

• 1. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Jesus Mix Together Micah and Isaiah (3 Nephi 20:25),” KnoWhy 214 (October 21, 2016).
• 2. See Joachim Schaper, “Hebrew Culture at the Interface Between the Written and the Oral,” in Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writings: Ancient Literacy, Orality, and Literary Production, ed. Brian Schmidt (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 333.
• 3. Schaper, “Interface Between the Written and the Oral,” 333.
• 4. Schaper, “Interface Between the Written and the Oral,” 333.
• 5. Schaper, “Interface Between the Written and the Oral,” 333.
• 6. Schaper, “Interface Between the Written and the Oral,” 333.
• 7. Emphasis added.
• 8. Emphasis added.
• 9. Emphasis added.
• 10. For more on oral reading of texts and the Book of Mormon, see David B. Honey, “Ecological Nomadism versus Epic Heroism in Ether: Nibley's Works on the Jaredites,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 2, no. 1 (1990): 143–163. See also, Book of Mormon Central, “Why Is The Book of Ether an Epic?” KnoWhy 241 (November 29, 2016).
• 11. See Book of Mormon Central, “How Might Isaiah 48-49 be “Likened” to Lehi's Family? (1 Nephi 19:23),” KnoWhy 23 (February 1, 2016).
• 12. For more on gathering together to hear texts read, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the Nephites Stay in Their Tents During King Benjamin’s Speech? (Mosiah 2:6),” KnoWhy 80 (April 18, 2016); Terrence L. Szink and John W. Welch, “An Ancient Israelite Festival Context,” in King Benjamin’s Speech: “That Ye May Learn Wisdom” (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 184; John A. Tvedtnes, “King Benjamin and the Feast of Tabernacles,” in By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, 2 vols., ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 2:197–237.

The Know

The opening chapters of the Book of Mormon preserve an account of a dream or vision of the tree of life granted to the prophet Lehi (1 Nephi 8). This vision contains many elements which have become familiar–––almost household–––among Latter-day Saint readers: a dark and dreary wilderness (v. 4), an angelic guide (v. 5), a large and spacious field (v. 9), the tree of life with white fruit (v. 10), a river of water (v. 13), a rod of iron (v. 19), a strait and narrow path (v. 20), mists of darkness (v. 23), and a great and spacious building (v. 26). Lehi’s Tree of Life vision has become iconic for its powerful symbolism and profound doctrine.

Remarkably, many of these elements are reported to have been witnessed by Joseph Smith, Sr. in a dream or vision he had many years before the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. As reported by Joseph Sr.’s wife, Lucy Mack Smith, the Smith family patriarch began experiencing peculiar dreams starting in the year 1811. During this time, according to Lucy, Father Smith, like his son Joseph some years later, “became much excited upon the subject of religion; yet, he would not subscribe to any particular system of faith.”1

Uncommitted to any particular religious denomination, Joseph Sr. sought after the true gospel of Jesus Christ on his own. Lucy recalled her husband deeply “contemplating the confusion and discord that reigned in the religious world” during that time.2 As preserved in Lucy’s memoir, Father Smith received the following vision during his period of religious questioning and seeking:

1811 Vision of Joseph Smith, Sr. 3

“I thought . . . I was travelling in an open desolate field, which appeared to be very barren; and while thus travelling, the thought suddenly came into my mind, that I had better stop and reflect upon what I was doing before I went any farther. So I asked myself, what motive can I have in travelling here, and what place can this be? My guide who stood by me, said; ‘this is the desolate world; but travel on.’ The road was so broad and barren, that I wondered why I shall should travel in it; for, said I to myself, broad is the road, and wide is the gate that leads to death, and many there be that walk therein; but narrow is the way, and straight is the gate that leads to everlasting Life, and few there be that go in thereat.” I travelled a short distance farther, and came to a narrow path; I entered it, and traveling a short proceeding some distance farther, beheld a beautiful stream of water, which ran from the east to the west. Of this stream, I could see neither the source nor the outlet < its mouth >; but as far as my eyes could extend, I could see a rope running along the bank, about as high as a man could reach; and beyond me was a low but very pleasant valley, in which stood a tree, such as I had never seen before: it was exceedingly handsome, insomuch that I looked upon it with wonder and admiration: its beautiful branches spread themselves, somewhat, in the form of an umbrella; and it bore a kind of fruit, in shape, much like a chesnut burr, and as white, or whiter than snow:

“I gazed upon the fruit with considerable interest— presently the burrs or shells began to open, and shed their particles, or the fruit which they contained, which was of dazzling whiteness. I drew near and began to eat of it, and I found it delicious beyond description; and, as I was eating, I said in my heart, I cannot eat this alone, I must bring my wife and children, that they may partake with me. Accordingly, I went and brought the family; which consisted of a wife and seven children; and we all commenced eating and praising God for this blessing— we were exceedingly happy, insomuch that our joy could not easily be expressed. While we were engaged in this manner, I beheld a spacious building, standing opposite the valley that we were in, which building appeared to reach to the very heavens. It was full of doors and windows, and they were all filled with people that were very finely dressed: when these people observed us in the low valley, under the tree, they pointed the finger of scorn at us; and treated us with all manner of disrespect and contempt. But their contumely we utterly disregarded. I soon turned to my guide, and inquired of him, the meaning of the fruit. He told me it was the pure love of God shed abroad in the hearts of all those who love him and keep his commandments. He then commanded me to go and bring the rest of my children— I told him we were all there. ‘No; he replied, ‘look yonder, you have two more, and you must bring them also.’ So I raised my eyes, and I saw two small children, standing some distance off. I immediately went to them and brought them to the to the tree; and they commenced eating with the rest; and we all rejoiced together. The more we eat the more we seemed to desire, until we even got down upon our knees, and scooped it up, eating it by double-hand-fulls.

“After feasting in this manner a short time, I asked my guide what was the meaning of the spacious building that I saw. He replied, ‘it is Babylon, it is Babylon; and it must fall: the people in the doors and windows, are the inhabitants thereof; who scorn and despise the saints of God because of their humility.’ I soon awoke, clapping my hands together for joy.”

Several parallels between Lehi’s and Joseph Sr.’s visions are immediately recognizable:

These parallels demonstrate a clear relationship between the Book of Mormon and Lucy’s recounting of her husband’s dream. Because Lucy remembered Joseph Sr. having this dream in 1811, years before the publication of the Book of Mormon, the skeptical view has usually been that Joseph Smith merely used details of his father’s dream and reworked them into his own text.4 For many reasons, however, the skeptical view is debatable.

Because “there is no evidence that Lucy Mack Smith committed her material to writing before 1845, and because the Book of Mormon was written in 1829,” questions about the direction of textual dependence between these two sources can justifiably be raised.5 It could just as easily be argued, and indeed seems more likely, that Lucy’s account, or the sources she relied on (more on this below), is dependent on the text of the Book of Mormon.

For instance, Lucy’s retelling of her husband’s dream includes this passage: “I soon turned to my guide, and inquired of him, the meaning of the fruit. He told me it was the pure love of God shed abroad in the hearts of all those who love him and keep his commandments.”6 This language is drawn directly from Nephi’s own explanation for the meaning of the tree of life: “It is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men” (1 Nephi 11:22, emphasis added).7

Recent analysis by Sharalyn D. Howcroft indicates a complex compositional history behind Lucy’s memoir which further complicates matters.8 Based on her research, Howcroft concluded that Lucy’s history was “an even more layered production” than previously realized, which should encourage “historians to begin using Lucy’s history with caution.”9 The layers uncovered by Howcroft include apparently significant scribal input and editing by Martha and Howard Coray, who acted as Lucy’s scribes in the production of her history.

Rather than being “a work of singular authorship,”10 as it has been routinely understood by average readers, Lucy’s history should more appropriately be viewed as “an example of scribal publication that heavily draws upon pre-existing texts to flesh out the lives of the extended Smith family.”11 Besides the sources identified by Howcroft,12 including potentially a source from Joseph Sr.,13 it seems likely from the example above that Lucy’s history also drew from the language of the Book of Mormon and other scriptures.14 In light of this, since there is no extant firsthand source for the vision from Joseph Sr.,15 much less one which predates the published Book of Mormon, “the complex nature of possible influences in narrating [Joseph Sr.’s] dream experience over so lengthy a period of time is beyond any certain reconstruction.”16

None of this is to say that Lucy or the Corays were intentionally lying or deceitful in how they told the account of Joseph Sr.’s vision. Authorial and editorial practices in the nineteenth century were not always as rigid as they are today, and scribes often reformatted or repurposed source material as they felt appropriate to craft a compelling story.17 It would therefore be unfair to judge Lucy or the Corays based on modern editorial standards. Rather, this point is brought up merely to raise awareness of the high probability that Lucy’s retelling of the dream Joseph Sr. had over thirty years before the time of its recording was heavily influenced by the language of the Book of Mormon.18

The Why

The prophet Joel foretold a time when God would “pour out [his] spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions” (Joel 2:28). Before accepting the restored gospel in 1830,19 Joseph Sr. was a religious “seeker,” or one “who took the Bible and personal prayer seriously but felt that mainstream Christianity had departed from the Bible” and so sought after the pure teachings of Christ on his own.20 He was a man of great faith, but also skeptical of the religious denominations of his day.21

In accordance with Joel’s prophecy, Joseph Sr.’s faith was strong enough that, like his son, he was blessed with remarkable dreams and visions.22 There can be little doubt that Joseph Sr.’s visions played an important role in prompting him to believe the testimony of his son Joseph concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and to finally join himself to a religious denomination by becoming a member of the restored church of Jesus Christ.

Skeptics might dismiss the similarities between Joseph Sr.’s and Lehi’s dreams as evidence of fraud (an idea never entertained by any members of the Smith family). But that need not be the default conclusion. Whatever role the Book of Mormon likely had in shaping Lucy Smith’s memory of her husband’s dream (or in shaping Joseph Sr.’s own memory of the dream as preserved by Lucy), there is nothing preventing God from granting comparable visions to spiritually inquisitive men and women from any time or place.23

Speaking of spiritual gifts, including gifts of revelation and prophecy, the prophet Moroni exhorted his readers to “remember that [God] is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that all these gifts of which I have spoken, which are spiritual, never will be done away, even as long as the world shall stand” (Moroni 10:19).

• 1.Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, 52, online at josephsmithpapers.org.
• 2.Lucy Mack Smith, History, 52.
• 3.Lucy Mack Smith, History, 53­–55
• 4. Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, 2nd rev. ed. (New York, NY: Knopf, 1971), 58; Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2004), 14–15, 131, 395.
• 5. C. Wilfred Griggs, “The Book of Mormon as an Ancient Book,” in Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1982), 95n4.
• 6.Lucy Mack Smith, History, 54–55, emphasis added.
• 7. See The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon, upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi (Palmyra, NY: Joseph Smith Jr., 1830), 25, online at josephsmithpapers.org.
• 8. Sharalyn D. Howcroft, “A Textual and Archival Reexamination of Lucy Mack Smith’s History,” in Foundational Texts of Mormonism: Examining Major Early Sources, ed. Mark Ashurst-McGee, Robin Jensen, and Sharalyn D. Howcroft (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018), 298–335.
• 9. Howcroft, “A Textual and Archival Reexamination of Lucy Mack Smith’s History,” 299.
• 10. Howcroft, “A Textual and Archival Reexamination,” 323.
• 11. Howcroft, “A Textual and Archival Reexamination,” 325, emphasis added.
• 12. Howcroft, “A Textual and Archival Reexamination,” 307–315.
• 13. Howcroft, “A Textual and Archival Reexamination,” 324–325, has pointed out that “the dominant use of first-person point of view in [the account of Joseph Sr.’s vision] suggests it was “not dictated by Lucy but came from earlier manuscripts written by Joseph Smith Sr. prior to his death in 1840.”
• 14. See also Lucy Mack Smith, History, 14 (=Matthew 6:20), 70 (=Psalm 136:1), 142 (=Luke 18:4); Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845, page [2], bk. 14 (=Ecclesiastes 12:7; Matthew 6:23), online at http://www.josephsmithpapers.org. These and many additional biblical citations and allusions have been identified throughout Lucy’s history by Lavina Fielding Anderson, ed., Lucy’s Book: Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s Family Memoir (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2001), passim.
• 15. A description of the vision of Joseph Sr. with the clear parallels to Lehi’s vision is not extant in any of the Corays’ earlier sources, being preserved in the manuscript known today as Fair Copy 2. Howcroft, “A Textual and Archival Reexamination,” 312, n. 50.
• 16. Griggs, “The Book of Mormon as an Ancient Book,” 95, n. 4.
• 17. Howcroft, “A Textual and Archival Reexamination,” 326. This is also evident in much of Joseph Smith’s published history. See the discussion in Dean C. Jessee, “The Writing of Joseph Smith’s History,” BYU Studies 11, no. 4 (1971): 439–473; “The Reliability of Joseph Smith’s History,” Journal of Mormon History 3 (1976): 23–46.
• 18. See further Blake T. Ostler, “The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 20, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 71.
• 19. Joseph Sr. was baptized into the newly organized Church of Christ by Oliver Cowdery on April 6, 1830. See “Smith, Joseph, Sr.,” online at josephsmithpapers.org.
• 20. Donald L. Enders, “Faithful from the First,” Ensign, January 2001, 52; Richard L. Anderson, Joseph Smith’s New England Heritage, rev. ed. (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2003), 141–142.
• 21.“Joseph Sr. hungered for the truth. But he felt that attending no church at all was preferable to the wrong one. Following the counsel of his father, Joseph Sr. searched the scriptures, prayed earnestly, and believed that Jesus Christ had come to save the world. Yet he could not reconcile what he felt to be true with the confusion and discord he saw in the churches around him.” See “Ask in Faith,” in Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days, online at history.lds.org.
• 22. Lucy recounted at least seven visions which her husband had during approximately the years 1811–1819. Howcroft­, “A Textual and Archival Reexamination,” 312; A. Gary Anderson, “Smith, Joseph Sr.,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols. ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 3:1348.
• 23. Scripture preserves many accounts of prophets sharing similar visionary experiences. For example, Nephi and John saw the same vision of the last days (1 Nephi 14:18–30). Concerning the vision of the sons of perdition, the Lord declared, “Nevertheless, I, the Lord, show it by vision unto many, but straightway shut it up again” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:47). Throne theophanies are likewise often very similar in scriptural accounts. See Book of Mormon Central, ‟How Did God Call His Prophets in Ancient Times?” KnoWhy 17 (January 22, 2016). In light of this, the idea that the Lord may have shown Joseph Sr. something very similar to the vision of the tree of life in the Book of Mormon isn’t nearly as much of a stretch, and in fact might even explain why Lucy retold her husband’s vision in language from the Book of Mormon in a way that would emphasize the similarities. 

The Know

The modern chapter heading of 1 Nephi 1 indicates that the opening events began “about 600 BC.” For hundreds of years, the Nephites measured time by how long it had been since Lehi left Jerusalem.1 Knowing exactly when Lehi left would go a long way in figuring out the timing of many other Book of Mormon events.

Is it possible to be more specific about the when Lehi left Jerusalem? Scholars have used the information in the Book of Mormon to suggest a few different possibilities.

597–596 BC

Lehi began his ministry “in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah” (1 Nephi 1:4).2 The Bible reports that King Nebuchadnezzar appointed Zedekiah as king of Judah, after Nebuchadnezzar took the city of Jerusalem and deposed Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:9–17; 2 Chronicles 36:9–10; Jeremiah 37:1). Records reporting the activities of Babylonian kings provide the very day Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem: March 10, 597 BC.3 This leads many Book of Mormon scholars to conclude that Lehi left around 597–596 BC, within the first year of Zedekiah’s reign (cf. 3 Nephi, headnote).4

588–587 BC

After returning for Ishmael’s family, Nephi mentioned the prophet Jeremiah being “cast into prison” (1 Nephi 7:14). It wasn’t until toward the end of Zedekiah’s reign that Jeremiah was imprisoned, about 588–587 BC (Jeremiah 32–33; 37–38).5 Because of this, some Book of Mormon scholars think Lehi stayed in Jerusalem through most of Zedekiah’s reign and departed closer to 588–587 BC.6 Others, however, point out that there were other times Jeremiah was imprisoned.7

605 BC

Shortly after Nephi and his brothers returned, Lehi prophesied that in “six hundred years from the time [he] left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews—even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world” (1 Nephi 10:4; 19:8; 2 Nephi 25:19). Since Christ was born around 5 BC,8 there’s obviously less than 600 years between either 597 or 588 BC.

This problem led Jeffrey R. Chadwick to argue that Lehi departed in late 605 BC. He proposed that in 609 BC, when the Egyptians killed Jehoahaz and appointed Eliakim as king, the “people of the land” did not recognize the Egyptian vassal as the legitimate king, but instead considered young Zedekiah as the rightful heir. If this is true, the first year of Zedekiah’s reign mentioned by Nephi could be 608 BC, and Lehi could have left at 605 BC, a full 600 years before the birth of Christ.9

Different “Years”

Others have suggested that the Nephites counted their years differently from the traditional solar (365-day) year. For example, the Maya had two different “years”: the 365-day haab, and the 360-day tun.10 John L. Sorenson pointed out, “If we mark off 600 tun years from Zedekiah’s first year, 597–596 BC … [it] brings us into the year overlapping 5–4 BC, an acceptable date for Christ’s birth.”11

Ancient Israelites, on the other hand, used a lunar calendar of approximately 354 days, with an extra month added once every 2–3 years to keep it in sync with the solar year.12 Randall Spackman noted, if the Nephites did not add the extra month—like the “Muslim year” still used today in much of the Middle-East—then “600 strict lunar years” would pass between 588 BC and 5 BC.13 Thus, whether Lehi left in 597 or 588 BC, there are ways, based on ancient precedent, to count off 600 years until Christ was born (3 Nephi 1:1).

The Why

It is not our purpose here to adjudicate between these various proposals, ranging between 605–588 BC, for when Lehi left Jerusalem. It is enough to know that it was “about 600 BC,” as stated in the chapter heading in latest edition of 1 Nephi 1. When dealing with ancient history, it is not surprising to have ambiguity in the chronology or timing of particular events. Chronological problems and contradictions are not unknown in many authentic ancient historical documents.14

Even Mormon seems a little uncertain about how many years had passed between when Lehi left Jerusalem and the chronologically crucial time when King Mosiah took the throne, which Mormon estimated was “in the whole, about four hundred and seventy-six years” (Mosiah 6:4). Like historians today, Mormon apparently had some uncertainty about the timing of things that happened so many centuries before.

Why then would anyone want to delve into this on-going chronological inquiry? For several reasons. It can be worthwhile to explore these different possibilities. Some proposals are stronger than others and one approach will solve certain problems better than another, but all offer possible implications about the context of the early chapters of the Book of Mormon. All of the different proposals fall within a very eventful 20-year window. Each proposed departure date creates a different social and political context for the opening chapters of the Book of Mormon, yielding a variety of insights into why the Book of Mormon begins the way it does.

For many, Lehi’s 600-year prophecy is central to the Book of Mormon. For this reason, it is useful to know whether Lehi left in 588, 597, or 605 BC. Either way, the Nephites may well have meticulously and accurately counted off 600 years between that time and Christ’s birth, depending on which ancient method of counting years they used and adopted.

But the events of 3 Nephi 1 suggest that even the Nephites experienced some confusion in knowing beforehand the exact timing of Christ’s coming, despite the fairly specific prophecies of Lehi and Samuel the Lamanite.15 When Nephi said that a Messiah would come “even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem” (1 Nephi 10:4; 19:8; 2 Nephi 25:19), was he thinking 600 years to the day? Or the month? Or just within six centuries?16

This uncertainty on the exact timing of Lehi’s departure and its relationship to the birth of Christ actually helps us to take stock of our own present situation. Thinking about the years of wondering and waiting experienced by the Nephites helps us to realize that we, likewise, live in a time in which we anticipate the prophesied coming of Christ—his second coming.

The Savior declared “that the day and hour” of his coming “knoweth no man” (Matthew 24:36; cf. Mark 13:32), a fact which has been reiterated in modern revelation (see Doctrine and Covenants 49:7; 133:11). Thus, like the faithful Nephites, we too must “watch steadfastly” for the signs of his coming (3 Nephi 1:8; cf. Matthew 25:13), and be prepared to greet him whenever that glorious time arrives.

• 1. See 2 Nephi 5:28, 34; Jacob 1:1; Enos 1:25; Jarom 1:5, 13; Omni 1:3, 5; Mosiah 6:4; 29:46; 3 Nephi 1:1; 2:6.
• 2. It’s possible that the original text of the Book of Mormon simply read “in the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah,” without “first year of the.” In the Printer’s Manuscript (the Original is not available here), “first year of the” is inserted above the line. See Royal Skousen and Robin Scott Jensen, eds., Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 1–Alma 35, Revelations and Translations, vol. 3, part 1, The Joseph Smith Papers (Salt Lake City, UT: Church Historians Press, 2015), 21. Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, 6 parts, 2nd ed., Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, vol. 4 (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2017), 1:59 considers this just a copyist error, but it’s possible “first year of the” was not in the original text. While this seems like an insignificant difference, based on how ancient Israelites likely counted regnal years, the commencement of the reign of a king and the commencement of the first year of the reign of a king could indeed refer to different time-periods. See Neal Rappleye, “Jerusalem Chronicle (ABC 5/BM 21946),” Nephite History in Context 1 (November 2017): 1–5, esp. n.19 for a detailed explanation.
• 3. See Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 256 §437. Finegan gives the date at March 16, but this is based on the Julian calendar. March 10 is the corrected date based on the Gregorian calendar we currently use. See Rappleye, “Jerusalem Chronicle (ABC 5/BM 21946),” 1–5, esp. n.15.
• 4. See Jay H. Huber, “Lehi’s 600-Year Prophecy and the Birth of Christ,” FARMS Preliminary Report (1982): 22; Robert F. Smith, “Book of Mormon Event Structure: The Ancient Near East,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5, no. 2 (1996): 98–101, 122–123; David Rolph Seely, “Chronology, Book of Mormon,” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 197–199.
• 5. Smith, “Book of Mormon Event Structure,” 125.
• 6. Randall P. Spackman, “The Jewish/Nephite Lunar Calendar,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7 (1998): 48–59, 71; Randall P. Spackman, “Introduction to Book of Mormon Chronology: The Principal Prophecies, Calendars, and Dates,” FARMS Preliminary Report (1993): 6–12; Jerry D. Grover Jr., Translation of the “Caractors” Document (Provo, UT: Grover Publications, 2015), 70–73, 209–210. Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1:66 n.25 says that he follow’s Spackman’s chronology.
• 7. S. Kent Brown and David Rolph Seely, “Jeremiah’s Imprisonment and the Date of Lehi’s Departure,” Religious Educator 2, no. 1 (2001): 15–32; Book of Mormon Central, “How Could Nephi Have Known about Jeremiah’s Imprisonment? (1 Nephi 7:14),” KnoWhy 463 (August 30, 2018).
• 8. See Book of Mormon Central, “How Does the Book of Mormon Help Date the First Christmas? (3 Nephi 1:13),” KnoWhy 255 (December 21, 2016); Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “Dating the Birth of Jesus Christ,” BYU Studies 49, no. 4 (2010): 5–38; Lincoln H. Blumell and Thomas A. Wayment, “When Was Jesus Born? A Response to a Recent Proposal,” BYU Studies 51, no. 3 (2012): 53–81; John A. Tvedtnes, “When Was Christ Born?” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 10 (2014): 1–33.
• 9. Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “Dating the Departure of Lehi from Jerusalem,” BYU Studies 57, no. 2 (2018): 7–51.
• 10. For background on Mesoamerican calendrics, see Mary Miller and Karl Taube, An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico (London: Thames and Hudson, 1993), 48–54; Janine Gasco, “Calendrics,” in Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America: An Encyclopedia (New York: Routledge, 2001), 90–92; John S. Justeson and Terrence Kaufman, “Calendars and Calendrical Systems: Mesoamerican Calendar,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, 3 vols., ed. Davíd Carrasco (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1:121–24. Among the Maya, the terms tun and haab were actually interchangeable for both the 360-day and 365-day period, demonstrating that they regarded the 360-day period as a “year.” See Neal Rappleye, “‘The Time is Past’: A Note on Samuel’s Five-Year Prophecy,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 29 (2018): 25–27.
• 11. John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985), 273. For a full Book of Mormon chronology using the tun as the year, demonstrating that 600 tuns can be counted off using from a May 596 BC departure to a September 5 BC birth of Christ, see Robert F. Smith, ed., Book of Mormon Critical Text: A Tool for Scholarly Reference, 3 vols. (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1984–1987), 3:1321–1325.
• 12. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 31–32 §61.
• 13. Spackman, “Jewish/Nephite Lunar Calendar,” 57.
• 14. For example, when taken at face-value, the combined chronologies of Israel’s and Judah’s kings add up to different totals for the same time-span, and both are too long to be consistent with external dates. See Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, new rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1983), 15–17, 36–37.
• 15. On this confusion, and the possibility that the use of different ancient calendars contributed to it, see Rappleye, “The Time is Past,” 21–30. Also note, Samuel’s prophecy said, “Behold, I give unto you a sign; for five years more cometh, and behold, then cometh the Son of God to redeem all those who shall believe on his name” (Helaman 14:2). Samuel’s words did not say how many months after the remaining five-year repentance time would see the coming of the Son of God.
• 16. See Tvedtnes, “When Was Christ Born?,” 15–16.

The Know

The best-known words in all of the Book of Mormon may very well be Nephi’s opening line: “I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents…” (1 Nephi 1:1). While many Latter-day Saints know these words by heart, most people may not be aware that many ancient Near Eastern texts begin this way, and these texts help explain why Nephi would start his record the same way.

In fact, these words may have signaled his authority in writing as king and ruler over his people. A few of the best examples of inscriptions beginning this way come from a king named Barrakab, who put up three large monuments in ancient Syria commemorating his triumphs as king.1 They all begin with the words, “I, Barrakab, son of Panammu…”2 Another inscription begins with the words, “I, Panammu, son of Qirel…”3 These all date to around 750 BC, from before the time of Lehi.4 And these are not the only inscriptions like this. There is one from Moab from 835 BC,5 and three from Phoenicia from 820, 690, and the fifth century BC.6 Just like 1 Nephi 1:1, many of these texts, when translated literally, could be rendered as “I, (name), having been born of (reference to parentage).”7

The wide distribution of these texts, both in time and place, suggest that this formula was a common way to begin monuments during the time of Lehi. First-person usage is not completely unheard of in ancient texts, as appears periodically throughout the Book of Mormon, but this introductory formula is not the only similarity between 1 Nephi and these texts. 1 Nephi 1:1 goes on to state, “having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days…” Some of the ancient Near Eastern inscriptions also continue, immediately after the introductory formula, to discuss their afflictions and the mercy and blessings of their god upon them, just like 1 Nephi does.

One stela, written by King Mesha of Moab around 835 BC, is a good example of this.8 It begins with the words “I, Mesha, son of Chemosh-yatti …” and quickly transitions to a discussion of the afflictions he and his people had suffered, and how his god Chemosh saved his people from their oppressors.9 The inscription by Panammu similarly states that the people suffered “devastation” but that the gods “restored” the land.10 Even the use of the phrase, “in my days,” in 1 Nephi 1:1 resonates with these inscriptions. Four of these inscriptions use this exact phrase to talk about the writer’s own life, as Nephi did.11

The Why

Writing a book introduction that was similar to the introduction on a monumental inscription might seem strange at first. What connection could Nephi’s record possibly have to these inscriptions?12 Yet when both 1 Nephi and the inscriptions are viewed in their context, this connection makes sense.13 These monumental inscriptions were often put up to commemorate the victory of the king over his enemies.14

Nephi was a king as well. The title of 1 Nephi specifically mentions this: “The First Book of Nephi, His Reign and Ministry.” Like the kings who created the monuments, Nephi spent much of his life dealing with challenges. He had to achieve victory over many opponents, first over Laban, and then over his brothers. So, writing something commemorating these victories would be a reasonable thing for him to do.

Moreover, these inscriptions also contain an important element that may have attracted Nephi: they attribute their victories to the gods. Nephi knew that he owed all his victories to the true God, and that He was the one who had helped him through all his trials. He expresses this clearly in 1 Nephi 1:1, “having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God…”

Another possible consideration for Nephi when writing his introduction this way was the opportunity for Nephi to show his appreciation to his parents. The other inscriptions all mention the king’s father, but it is interesting that Nephi mentions his “parents” rather than just his father. This sign of appreciation for both his father and his mother is significant by its contrast to the standard for that just mentions the king’s father. 

There may also have been one final thing that could have attracted Nephi to this style of introduction: its ability to communicate to future generations. Monumental inscriptions were carved on stone so they would be permanent, telling future generations about the king’s struggles and the role of the deities in overcoming those struggles. One of them even stated, “What I, Matiel, have written will serve as a reminder to my son and to my grandson who come after me.”15 Nephi likely wanted his record to serve the same purpose: to tell future generations of his struggles and triumphs, and the role God played in helping him through all his trials.

The permanence of both stone monuments and metal plates can remind us of the importance of preserving records for the next generation, just as the Church is careful to do today. By beginning the way it does, Nephi’s account can remind all its readers that God can help us overcome our challenges in life, and that our stories can likewise be told in a way that can bring hope to others.

• 1. See John Gibson, Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 3 vols. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1975), 2:89, 92, 93.
• 2. Gibson, Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 2:89, 92, 93.
• 3. Gibson, Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 2:64.
• 4. See Gibson, Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 2:61, 87, 92, 93.
• 5. See K. A. D. Smelik, “The Inscription of King Mesha,” in The Context of Scripture, 3 vols., ed. William W. Halo (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 2:137.
• 6. See K. Lawson Younger, “The Kulamuwa Inscription,” in The Context of Scripture, 3 vols., ed. William W. Halo (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 2:147; K. Lawson Younger, “The Azatiwada Inscription,” in Context of Scripture, 2:149; Stanislav Segert, “The Inscription of King Yehawmilk,” in Context of Scripture, 2:151.
• 7. See Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (2018), s.v., “Br.” Online at cal.huc.edu.
• 8. See Smelik, “The Inscription of King Mesha,” 2:137.
• 9. Smelik, “The Inscription of King Mesha,” 2:137.
• 10. K. Lawson Younger, “The Hadad Inscription,” in Context of Scripture, 2:156.
• 11. See Smelik, “The Inscription of King Mesha,” 2:137; Younger, “The Kulamuwa Inscription,” 2:148; “The Azatiwada Inscription,” 2:149; “The Hadad Inscription,” 2:156. Other similar examples could be mentioned. For instance, The prologue of the laws of Lipit-Ishtar reads “I, Lipit-Ishtar, son of the god Enlil . . .” and other “I, Lipit-Ishtar” or first-person expressions. And the prologue and epilogue of the Laws of Hammurabi contain first-person affirmations, “I am Hammurabi, Enlil’s chosen shepherd . . . .” These texts, too, state the problems and suffering that had existed in the land before these kings enacted their laws.
• 12. It is likely that Nephi intentionally alluded to this, as he likely knew about this way of making inscriptions through his scribal training. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Is It Good to Seek Both Spiritual and Secular Learning? (1 Nephi 19:4),” KnoWhy 444 (June 9, 2017).
• 13. See Book of Mormon Central, “How is the Phrase ‘Make a Record’ an Evidence for the Book of Mormon? (1 Nephi 1:1),” KnoWhy 324 (June 26, 2018).
• 14. See Smelik, “The Inscription of King Mesha,” 2:137; Younger, “The Kulamuwa Inscription,” 2:148; “The Azatiwada Inscription,” 2:149; “The Hadad Inscription,” 2:156.
• 15. This inscription comes from the md 8th century. See Gibson, Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 2:19, 33.

The Know

Moroni 9 contains a letter from Mormon, written to his son Moroni, which describes the spiritual decline of their people.1 Although Mormon never said when he wrote this letter, it may be possible to identify its historical context and the approximate date of its composition by comparing its details with Mormon’s own record.2 In particular, it appears that the contents of Mormon’s letter correlate with the historical events and spiritual themes found in Mormon 4, 5, and 6.

Losses in Battle

In his letter, Mormon stated, “I have had a sore battle with the Lamanites, in which we did not conquer” and in which “we have lost a great number of our choice men” (Moroni 9:2). This battle likely took place during a series of Nephite retreats and losses reported in Mormon 5:3–7, which occurred after Mormon resumed his command of the Nephite armies.  

Intense Anger and Hardened Hearts

In Moroni 9:4–5, Mormon mentioned that the Nephites had “harden[ed] their hearts” against the word of God and that “so exceedingly do they anger that it seemeth me that they have no fear of death; and they have lost their love, one towards another.” Likewise, in Mormon 4 we learn that “every heart was hardened” (v. 11) and that the Nephites “did go against the Lamanites with exceedingly great anger” (v. 15). In each case, a desire for “revenge” was a strong motivating factor (see Moroni 9:5; cf. Mormon 4:15).

Perseverance

In Moroni 9:6, Mormon declared, “And now, my beloved son, notwithstanding their hardness, let us labor diligently; for if we should cease to labor, we should be brought under condemnation.” This same theme, of continuing to strive for the Nephites’ spiritual welfare despite their wickedness, is found in Mormon 5:1: “And it came to pass that I did go forth among the Nephites, and did repent of the oath which I had made that I would no more assist them.”

Prisoners and the Suffering of Women and Children

Mormon reported to Moroni that “the Lamanites have many prisoners, which they took from the tower of Sherrizah; and there were men, women, and children” (Moroni 9:7; cf. Moroni 9:16). The taking of Nephite prisoners was also mentioned in Mormon 4:13–14: “And it came to pass that the Lamanites did … take many prisoners both women and children, and did offer them up as sacrifices unto their idol gods.” It is also implied in verse 21.3

Destruction and Desertion

Mormon declared that he knew his people “must perish except they repent” (Moroni 9:22). He also mentioned that “many of our brethren have deserted over unto the Lamanites, and many more will also desert over unto them” (v. 24). This matches the scene of destruction, desertion, and retreat found in Mormon’s own record. As his people lost battles and fled northward, Mormon declared that they “began to be swept off … even as a dew before the sun” (Mormon 4:18). Mormon’s prediction in Moroni 9:24 that even more Nephites would join the Lamanites was fulfilled in Mormon 6:15, which reports that some Nephites survived their last battle because they “deserted over unto the Lamanites.”4

Securing the Records

Mormon wrote to Moroni, “I trust that I may see thee soon; for I have sacred records that I would deliver up unto thee” (Moroni 9:24). In Mormon 4:23 we learn that Mormon “did go to the hill Shim, and did take up all the records which Ammaron had hid up unto the Lord.” Then, at the Nephites’ final battle with the Lamanites, Mormon reported that he hid these records up at Cumorah, all except “these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni” (Mormon 6:6).5

Dating the Letter

It is uncertain how long Mormon had been separated from Moroni when he composed his letter. Nor can it be determined how much time transpired between the events reported in his letter and the time of its composition. Yet, despite these uncertainties, several details of the letter suggest that it was written sometime between AD 375 and 380:

1. Mormon’s language implies that he was personally involved in a “sore battle” which the Nephites lost (Moroni 9:2). From this detail, we can confidently date Mormon’s letter to no earlier than the year 375, when Mormon resumed command of the Nephite armies (see Mormon 5:1).6
2. Mormon’s report of a “sore battle” also likely dates his letter to no later than the year 380. This is because after 380 no more battles were reported and the Nephites began to gather at Cumorah for their final conflict (see Mormon 5:6–6:5).
3. Mormon expected to see Moroni “soon” so that he could deliver “sacred records” to him (Moroni 9:24). This statement was likely made sometime after Mormon retrieved the records from the hill Shim in the year 375 (Mormon 4:23) but certainly before the final battle in 385, when Mormon and Moroni were reunited.7
4. Mormon counseled Moroni to continue to labor with the people (Moroni 9:6). This may reflect Mormon’s personal decision to repent of his oath and again lead the Nephites in battle in the year 375 (Mormon 5:1).
5. Mormon’s concern about his people’s utter destruction, as well as his comments about Nephites deserting to the Lamanite army (Moroni 9:3, 22–24), suggest that the Nephites were in the final stages of their struggle against the Lamanites. This, again, fits a time frame of 375–380 very well.

The Why

The above analysis indicates that Mormon’s letter was composed in a real historical setting which can be reliably approximated through a careful reading of the text. This type of internal consistency and realism provides a subtle evidence of the Book of Mormon’s historical authenticity.8 Mormon was a real person engaged in a terrible military conflict, and his personal letter to his son reflects the horrific circumstances of a specific period of his life and of Nephite history.

Understanding the context of this letter’s composition can also help us better understand its contents and why Moroni included it in his record in the first place. In one sense, Mormon’s personal letter acts as his final warning for latter-day readers. Mormon declared that if his people were destroyed, it would be because they were “like unto the Jaredites … seeking for blood and revenge” (Moroni 9:23). Just as Mormon could look back and see a relationship between his people’s impending destruction and the destruction of the Jaredites, modern societies can look to Mormon’s record and recognize that they face similar calamities if they don’t repent.9

Yet, despite his terrible grief, Mormon’s hope for a brighter future shines through.

My son, be faithful in Christ; and may not the things which I have written grieve thee, to weigh thee down unto death; but may Christ lift thee up, and may his sufferings and death, and the showing his body unto our fathers, and his mercy and long-suffering, and the hope of his glory and of eternal life, rest in your mind forever. (v. 25)

Few people have had more cause to be depressed and without hope than Mormon. His letter not only recounts the terrible atrocities of his people, but it also expresses his growing certainty that they would be destroyed. Recognizing the dismal historical context of Mormon’s letter only amplifies its profound message of hope and faith in Jesus Christ. Moroni likely saw this personal and intimate message of hope, in the face of such indescribable horrors, as a fitting summary of the Book of Mormon’s primary purpose.10

• 1. Moroni also recorded another letter from his father, found in Moroni 8. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Moroni Include Mormon’s Condemnation of Infant Baptism? (Moroni 8:12),” KnoWhy 253 (December 15, 2016).
• 2. For studies on the chronology of this letter, as well as Mormon’s letter found in Moroni 8, see Sidney B. Sperry, Book of Mormon Compendium (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1975), 491; Alan C. Miner, “A Chronological Setting for the Epistles of Mormon to Moroni,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no 2. (1994): 94–113; Joseph M. Spencer, “On the Dating of Moroni 8–9,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 22 (2016): 131–148.
• 3.Mormon 4:21: “And when they had come the second time, the Nephites were driven and slaughtered with an exceedingly great slaughter; their women and their children were again sacrificed unto idols.” See also, Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the Lamanites Sacrifice Women and Children to Idols? (Mormon 4:4),” KnoWhy 229 (November 11, 2016).
• 4. After the destruction at Cumorah, Moroni wrote that the Lamanites “put to death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ” (Moroni 1:2). This suggests that denying Christ was necessary for the Nephites to join the Lamanites.
• 5. For information about the Hill Cumorah, see Book of Mormon Central, “Where Did the Book of Mormon Happen? (2 Nephi 1:8),” KnoWhy 431 (May 18, 2018); “How Are Oliver Cowdery’s Messenger and Advocate Letters to Be Understood and Used? (Mormon 6:6),” KnoWhy 453 (July 26, 2018); “Who Was Zelph? (Helaman 6:6),” KnoWhy 336 (July 7, 2017); “How Could So Many People Have Died at the Battle of Cumorah? (Mormon 6:14),” KnoWhy 231 (November 15, 2016).
• 6. Mormon refused to lead the Nephites between the years 362–375 (Mormon 3:11; 5:1). Only Nephite victories are record for the battles that took place between 359–362 (Mormon 3:7–8). And before that, there were ten years of peace between 350–359 (v. 1). This means that there are no references to lost battles between the years 350–375 in which Mormon could have fought. And any losing battle before the year 350 would seem far too removed from the other details of Mormon’s letter for it to be plausibly referenced. For the importance of the 10 years of peace, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why is the 10-Year Peace Treaty Important? (Mormon 3:1),” KnoWhy 228 (November 10, 2016).
• 7. Although the Book of Mormon was likely part of the “sacred records” to which Mormon was referring, this assumption isn’t certain. It’s possible, for example, that Mormon may have kept the plates of the Book of Mormon with him (not at Shim) so he could work on finishing it before his people were destroyed.
• 8. For more on the Book of Mormon’s complexity and consistency, see Book of Mormon Central, “Evidences of the Book of Mormon: Internal Complexity,” online at bookofmormoncentral.org.
• 9. See “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, November 1995, online at lds.org.
• 10. See Book of Mormon Central, “How Can the Book of Mormon Survivors Give Us Hope? (Mormon 8:3),” KnoWhy 393 (December 26, 2017).
• 11. This chart is adapted, with a few changes to dates and descriptions, from Spencer, “On the Dating of Moroni 8–9,” 136–138.

The Know

Sometimes, when reading the Book of Mormon, we find examples of things that exist in later Jewish sources, but that we have no evidence of from Book of Mormon times. 3 Nephi 4 records that the robber Zemnarihah was hanged, and that the tree he was hanged on was cut down.1 This is similar to Rabbinic teaching written years after Lehi left Jerusalem.2 As another example, a Jewish book from around the time of Jesus known as Biblical Antiquities, written by an unknown author called Pseudo-Philo, contains material that is very similar to Jacob 4–6.3

Such findings pose an interesting question: How could there be so many legal and literary similarities between details found in the Book of Mormon and texts written so many years after Lehi left Jerusalem?4

One possible answer to this question is that these early Jewish texts may well preserve details from hundreds, if not thousands, of years before they were written.5 The works of a Rabbi known as Rav from the third century A.D. is a good example of this. In his writings, Rav analyzed a verse which reads, “By his power he stilled the Sea; by his understanding he struck down Rahab” (Job 26:12, NRSV). This is generally understood to be a reference to the ancient image of God waging war against a cosmic monster that was thought to live in the sea.6 This idea is preserved in other parts of the Old Testament (see Isaiah 27:1), so, one might have expected that Rav would turn to another Old Testament verse to explain this passage.7 Instead, he turned to an ancient Near Eastern text from more than 1400 years before his own time.

In that case, at a site called Ugarit, north of Israel, archaeologists discovered in the 1930s a document from roughly 1200 BC, describing this cosmic monster.8 This text refers to the monster as the “Prince of the Sea,” a phrase that only appears in this text and not in the Old Testament.9 Surprisingly, this is the exact phrase that Rav used to describe the monster. In Rav’s commentary, God spoke to the “Prince of the Sea,” and gave him an order.10 When he refused, “God trampled on him and killed him, as it is said, ‘By his power he beat down the sea, and by His understanding He smote Rahab.’”11 This is one intriguing example of a rabbinic Jewish source preserving things from centuries before its own time.

Another example of this comes from a rabbinic commentary on Job 9, written in the land of Israel in Roman times. Job 9:8 states that God “spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.” The Rabbis commenting on this biblical verse connected it to an ancient Babylonian text known as the Enuma Elish.12 In this text, the God Marduk killed the sea-monster Tiamat and created the world’s oceans from her body.13

The Rabbis who commented on the verse in Job described treading on the waves of the sea using a word that is never used in biblical texts to describe this event.14 However, almost exactly the same word appears in the Enuma Elish to describe the killing of Tiamat.15 This rabbinic text reads, “What did God do? He trampled the water, and walked on it … as it is said, ‘He walked on the back of the sea’.”16

The Why

Ultimately, we cannot always know why or how some similarities exist between the Book of Mormon and ancient Jewish texts written after Lehi’s time. Some of these similarities may simply stem from two groups of people independently interpreting passages from the Old Testament in similar ways. However, the specific examples discussed above present several other possible explanations. In at least some cases, the Rabbis and other ancient Jewish authors may have preserved, through their oral laws, various expressions and practices that go back to times well before the life of Lehi. These things may have been preserved from that common cultural source also by the Nephites. Legal systems and norms were remarkably stable in the ancient Near East, and numerous practices were in fact handed down from generation to generation.

Indeed, changing the law in ancient societies was relatively rare. They had high respect for their laws (see Psalm 19:7-9). Among the Nephites, amending the law was even discouraged as a form of possible “wickedness” (see Mosiah 29:23). And since the Nephites aimed to obey the law strictly (2 Nephi 5:10; Jarom 1:5; Alma 30:2-3), they would have been careful to follow important practices of their inherited laws. These perspectives go a fair distance toward explaining why, not just a few, but many practices of the Nephites find counterparts in Talmudic provisions.17

These attitudes are instructive for us today. Any society based on the rule of law needs to encourage respect for established precedents and honorable officials. Such respect is nurtured by honoring, preserving, and sustaining the law. Just as the ancients preserved texts and traditions over the centuries, we are reminded of the importance of preserving honorable traditions today. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has taken great care to keep and preserve records for future generations, often at great expense and sacrifice,18 and as commanded by scripture: “A record shall be kept” (D&C 21:1). Such efforts remind us of how important fundamental continuity is the Church.

The same can be said on a personal and family level as well. The people who preserved stories and ideas in ancient times did not know whom they would be benefitting, or in what way. However, the effort they spent in preserving these things proved to be useful to generations yet unborn. Our efforts to keep records by keeping personal journals and writing family histories may also prove to be important to our descendants many years in the future,19 preserving the blessings of liberty not only to ourselves but also to our posterity.20

• 1. For more on this, see John W. Welch, “The Execution of Zemnarihah,” 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), 250–252.
• 2. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the People Cut Down the Tree after Hanging Zemnarihah? (3 Nephi 4:28),” KnoWhy 67 (March 31, 2016).
• 3. See Book of Mormon Central, “Is Anything Known of the Prophet Zenos Outside of the Book of Mormon? (Jacob 5:1),” KnoWhy 67 (March 31, 2016).
• 4. For other examples, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Moroni Refer to Vessel Impurity in Condemning the Central Government? (Alma 60:23),” KnoWhy 169 (August 19, 2016); Book of Mormon Central, “Did Alma Counsel His Sons During the Passover? (Alma 38:5),” KnoWhy 146 (July 19, 2016).
• 5. For more on similarities between Rabbinic texts and interpretations and the Book of Mormon, see Bradley J. Kramer, Beholding the Tree of Life: A Rabbinic Approach to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2014), xi–xix. On the question of the relevancy of later Jewish provisions to the understanding of biblical laws or passages in the Book of Mormon, see John W. Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 2008), 32-33. For discussions by Jewish scholars of connections between rabbinic law to ancient Near Eastern and Biblical law, see Reuven Yaron, “Biblical Law: Prolegomena,” in Jewish Law in Legal History and the Modern World, ed. B. Jackson (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 27-44; Alexander Rofe, “Methodological Aspects of the Study of Biblical Law,” in Jewish Law Association Studies 2 (1968): 13-16.
• 6. For more on this, see Daniel Belnap, “’I Will Contend with Them That Contendeth with Thee’: The Divine Warrior in Jacob’s Speech of 2 Nephi 6–10,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 17, no. 1–2 (2008): 20–39.
• 7. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Jacob Choose a ‘Monster’ as a Symbol for Death and Hell? (2 Nephi 9:10),” KnoWhy 34 (February 16, 2016).
• 8. Irving Jacobs, The Midrashic Process: Tradition and Interpretation in Rabbinic Judaism, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 155.
• 9. Jacobs, The Midrashic Process, 155.
• 10. Jacobs, The Midrashic Process, 155.
• 11. Jacobs, The Midrashic Process, 155.
• 12. Jacobs, The Midrashic Process, 156.
• 13. Jacobs, The Midrashic Process, 156.
• 14. Jacobs, The Midrashic Process, 156.
• 15. Jacobs, The Midrashic Process, 156.
• 16. Jacobs, The Midrashic Process, 156.
• 17. For a list of references to sixteen rabbinic conventions found in the Book of Mormon, including practices regarding burial, courts, punishments, ostracism, ban, perjury, witnesses, etc., see Welch, Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, 492.
• 18. See, for example, the Granite Mountain Records Vault was carved out of solid rock as a way of preserving important genealogical and church records for future generations. See, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Granite Mountain Records Vault,” online at mormonnewsroom.org.
• 19. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Is It Important to Keep Records? (1 Nephi 9:5),” KnoWhy 345 (July 28, 2017).
• 20. Preamble to the United States Constitution.

The Know

In the Book of Mormon, being clean is important. 1 Nephi 10:21 states that “if ye have sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found unclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast off forever.” This verse suggests that doing “wickedly” is symbolically connected to being unclean. Looking carefully at ritual cleanliness laws in the Old Testament in light of the Day of Atonement ceremony can help explain how we can become symbolically clean and enter into the presence of God.

According to the Law of Moses, many things could make a person ritually unclean. The Medieval Jewish writer Maimonides stated that there are so many different kinds of uncleanliness, that at any given moment, “only a few people are clean” based on the ritual cleanliness laws of the Old Testament and Jewish law.1 One of the main issues with being unclean was that it meant that a person had to be separated from other people for the rest of the day, and in that way were cut off from the covenant people for a period of time (see Leviticus 11:24–40).2

Although being unclean under the early Mosaic Law was essentially addressed as a physical problem (see Leviticus 5:2–3, 11:47), according to Leviticus 10:10 Aaron was supposed to make a distinction between the “holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean.” This seems to involve and connect both the physical and spiritual aspects of being clean and unclean. An ancient commentary on Leviticus called the Sifra, commenting on Leviticus 19:2 similarly states, “‘Ye shall be holy,’ which is to say, obedient to His commandments,” and goes on to explain that breaking commandments brought upon a person a kind of uncleanness.3

This connection between spiritual and physical uncleanness implies that if someone is cut off from the physical presence of the people of God for being physically unclean, then they would be cut off spiritually from God Himself for being spiritually unclean until that condition of impurity was removed. Amulek explained this in Alma 11:37 when he stated that “no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven … therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.” Later on, in Alma, we are even told that our uncleanness means that we will be cast out if we do not repent (Alma 40:26).

Therefore, in a spiritual sense, Maimonides was right. There are so many ways in which a person can become spiritually unclean that humanity is seemingly left without hope. Only Christ can bridge that gap between unclean or sinful humanity and an ultimately clean and purely righteous God, and the Nephite understanding of the Law of Moses helps to explain this point.4

One set of Mosaic rituals performed on the Day of Atonement, illustrates this well. Leviticus 16 explains the rituals of Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement. The sacrifices on this day were meant to cleanse the entire nation of their sins (see Leviticus 16:21). It was particularly meant to redeem the temple from the uncleanness acquired through unworthy patrons who may have come to the temple after becoming unwittingly unclean (v. 33).5 If a person became aware that he or she had sinned “through ignorance,” they were to bring a personal sacrifice as a “sin offering” (Numbers 15:27–29), but the high priest’s sacrifice on Yom Kippur atones for all defiling transgressions—even those that remain unknown to us.

On that day, the high priest would offer a bullock, a ram, and a goat and set aside a second goat for another offering (Leviticus 16:14–15, 21). Then the high priest would do something that he did only once a year: he would go into the Holy of Holies and cleanse that most sacred place with the blood of the animals he had sacrificed (v. 19). That accomplished, he would put his hands on the second goat and symbolically transfer the sins of all the children of Israel onto that animal (v. 21). Finally, a previously appointed man would lead that goat out into the desert, away from the people, thus symbolically taking away the sins of the nation (v. 21). 

The Book of Mormon sometimes appears to refer to this Day of Atonement ordinance, and part of the reason it does may be to emphasize the universal nature of the Christ’s Atonement.6 The universal Atonement, in opposition to the universal uncleanness humans experience, is illustrated in 2 Nephi 2:10. This verse states that it is the intercession for all that brings all men to God, and it is this universal intercession that answers “the ends of the atonement,”7 as people turn away from “all their sins” (Mosiah 27:35; 3 Nephi 3:25; 5:3; 27:19; Moroni 6:2). 

There is an additional aspect of the Day of Atonement that is expanded upon in the Book of Mormon, and that is salvation for accidental defilers. In Leviticus, it seems that the Day of Atonement takes care of only those who accidentally bring uncleanness into the sanctuary. 2 Nephi 9:26 seems to expand this celestial bounty even to those “who have not the law.”8This means that those who may defile unwittingly in a spiritual sense, because they do not even know that defilement can occur, can still be redeemed by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God.9

In the same way, Mosiah 3:11 also states that the blood of Christ atones for the sins of those who have died “not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned,” which likely includes both those who sinned ignorantly because they did not understand the concept of sin, as well as those who know the law, but accidentally might have contacted any impurity that would defile the sanctuary as well.10

One final connection to the Day of Atonement comes in Mosiah 4:2, when the people felt the forgiveness of God, and they asked that the Atoning blood of Christ be “applied” to them. The concept of atoning blood being “applied,” may refer to Leviticus 16:14–19, 27, in which the priest would apply blood to various parts of the temple, thus purifying them.11 In the same way, Christ’s blood, symbolically applied to us, through His Atonement, can cleanse us from the symbolic impurity we all experience through sin.12 Leviticus puts it well, “It is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 7:11).

The Why

All of this is vitally important. Understanding and receiving the blessings of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and knowing Him as the One whom the Father sent is what eternal life is all about (John 17:3). More than any other book of scripture, the Book of Mormon clarifies the full operation of His Atonement in our day.

At first glance, it may be difficult to see how the ancient laws of Moses relate to Christians living in the 21st century. Christians today no longer keep the Law of Moses, so the ritual cleanliness paradigm for cleansing physical impurity may seem distant and unimportant. But Jesus said that His purpose was not to destroy even one jot or tittle of the law, but “to fulfil” and give eternal purpose to even “the least of these commandments” and principles (Matthew 5:17-19).

Modern people may no longer think of “sin” as including an unintended mistakes or inadvertent errors. However, all people are spiritually unclean. Sometimes we are unaware of our spiritual deficiencies and shortcomings. Sometimes we are self-deceived, not acknowledged our problems, things that we may have said or done that still are harmful to other people and must therefore cause sorrow to God. For all such things, everyone must still offer their own sacrifice in humbly asking Jesus Christ to apply His atoning blood to cleanse us. Christians no longer offer animal sacrifices, but today each person is expected and required to offer consciously instead “a sacrifice [of] a broken heart and a contrite spirit” (3 Nephi 9:20). 

Every Christian today must believe in and accept Christ’s atonement to the same degree that the righteous prophets, priests, and kings in ancient Israel did. While recognizing that “to do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice” (Proverbs 21:3), this did not mean that sacrifice was unimportant. And while “the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination” (Proverbs 15:8), the sacrifices of the righteous were always a delight unto the Lord (Deuteronomy 33:19; Psalms 4:5; 51:19).  We must sacrifice wholeheartedly as the Lord has now commanded and look willingly to Him, allowing His atoning blood to cover our countless sins.

The people in the Book of Mormon had great faith that the redeeming Messiah would come in the future. Nephi declared, “Notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled. … Wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith” (2 Nephi 15:24–25). The Nephites dedicated themselves to “look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given” (2 Nephi 25:24–27). We can look back on both the Law of Moses and Atonement of Christ, and know why the Law was given. The saints of God must have just as much faith in Christ’s coming in the past as those people had in His coming in the future. His atonement is infinite and eternal, truly reaching into all time: past, present, and future.

Christ did come. His blood atones for the sins—of all kinds—of all people. Each human being has sinned, sometimes unwittingly, and each human being experiences the anguish of being in a fallen condition. Only Christ can make each person completely clean, without spot. His atonement reaches every fiber of our being. Through Him, all people can become absolutely clean. All He asks is that each person willingly turn to Him, thank Him for all that He has done, cured, and fixed, and continue to lovingly and faithfully walk the path that leads to Him.

• 1. He explained that “even if a person does not touch a beast that died of its own accord, he can scarcely avoid touching one of the eight kinds of creeping animals, the dead bodies of which we find at all times in houses, in food and drink, and upon which we frequently tread wherever we walk.” If a person manages to avoid any of these things, a person may then accidentally “touch a woman in her separation, or a male or female that have a running issue, or a leper, or their bed.” Even if a person has cleansed themselves from all these things, they are not allowed to enter the temple precincts until the next day. Therefore, a person “is again, during the night, subject to becoming unclean … and may rise in the morning in the same condition as the day before.” Even if someone avoided all that, they would still have to immerse themselves in water to be considered clean enough to go to the temple. Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, trans. Michael Friedländer, (London: Routledge, 1904), 367–368.
• 2. Jonathon Riley, “Atonement for the Soul: Ritual Cleanliness and the Return to God,” presentation given at the 2011 BYU Religious Education Student Symposium.
• 3. Jonathon Riley, “Atonement for the Soul.”
• 4. Jonathon Riley, “Atonement for the Soul.”
• 5. Jonathon Riley, “Atonement for the Soul.”
• 6. The word atonement occurs 75 times in the Law of Moses alone, so the word atonement in the Book of Mormon does not always imply Day of Atonement imagery.
• 7. Jonathon Riley, “Atonement for the Soul.”
• 8. For more on the relationship between this speech and the Day of Atonement, see Book of Mormon Central, “How is Jacob’s Speech Related to Ancient Israelite Autumn Festivals? (2 Nephi 6:4)” KnoWhy 32 (February 12, 2016).
• 9. Jonathon Riley, “Atonement for the Soul.”
• 10. See Book of Mormon Central, “Did the Nephites Have a “Holiday Season” Like We Do Today? (Mosiah 2:4),” KnoWhy 394 (December 28, 2017).
• 11. For more on this, see Terrence L. Szink and John W. Welch, “King Benjamin’s Speech in the Context of the Ancient Israelite Festivals,” in King Benjamin’s Speech: “That Ye May Learn Wisdom”, ed. John W. Welch and Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 174–177.
• 12. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does King Benjamin Emphasize the Blood of Christ? (Mosiah 4:2),” KnoWhy 82 (April 20, 2016).

The Know

The Book of Mormon describes itself as “an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites” as well as “an abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared,” which was “sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God” (Book of Mormon Title Page). The Book of Mormon’s claimed ancient provenance–––its purported authors, compilers, and editors, as well as their source material–––is very clearly delineated throughout its pages.1 So too are its claimed ancient historical settings.2 To cite just one example, Mosiah 2–5 preserves a speech purportedly delivered by an ancient king named Benjamin around the year 124 B.C. in the land of Zarahemla and recorded by scribes who “sent forth” his words to the people (Mosiah 2:8).

Joseph Smith, the “author and proprietor” and “translator” of the Book of Mormon,3 provided explicit accounts throughout his life as to how he produced the book.4 According to his own description, Joseph was visited by an angel on the evening of September 21, 1823. Joseph identified this angel on multiple occasions as Moroni, the final author and editor of the Book of Mormon.5 Moroni informed young Joseph of “a book . . . written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang” (Joseph Smith­­­–––History 1:34).6 These plates were delivered to Joseph by the angel Moroni four years later to the day (JS–––History 1:59).7 Through divinely prepared seer stones, Joseph was able to translate the record by “the gift and power of God.”8

Joseph Smith set some very high stakes with his account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. As one historian recognized, Joseph “rested his own veracity, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the reality of his prophetic mission, and the legitimacy of his church on the existence of the plates”9 In other words, Joseph Smith made stark and matter-of-fact assertions about the angel, the plates, and the method of the translation. Therefore, if these declarations are not true, then his credibility as an inspired prophet, as well as the credibility of his claim of having restored the church of Jesus Christ, is fatally undermined.10

The coming forth of the Book of Mormon under such dramatic and miraculous circumstances compels everyone to decide for him or herself whether to accept the book–––and thereby the statements of Joseph Smith–––or not. “The strong historical assertions of the [Book of Mormon] seem to allow for only three possible origins,” scholar Grant Hardy observed. “As a miraculously translated historical document, as a fraud (perhaps a pious one) written by Joseph Smith, or as a delusion (perhaps sincerely believed) that originated in Smith’s subconscious.”11Ultimately everyone must make a decision at some point about whether the book is what it claims to be.

In order to bypass this situation, some have proposed that the Book of Mormon should be read as non-historical and yet as inspired scripture–––that is, as nineteenth century inspired fiction.12 One proponent of this approach has argued that “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should confess in faith that the Book of Mormon is the word of God but also abandon claims that it is a historical record of the ancient peoples of the Americas. We should accept that it is a work of scripture inspired by God in the same way that the Bible is inspired, but one that has as its human author Joseph Smith, Jr.”13

Another proponent of the “inspired fiction” theory for the Book of Mormon has claimed that Joseph Smith utilized vast amounts of reworked biblical material to create “new holy fictions.”14 In this way, this author alleged, Joseph Smith was the “inspired author” of the Book of Mormon because he created new fictional scripture in the same way that ancient biblical authors created fictional scripture.

Finally, another advocate for reading the Book of Mormon as “inspired fiction” has argued that the book was produced by a method called “automatic writing.” Automatic writing is the phenomenon where texts are allegedly written with no conscious or deliberate effort, and instead are the result of the author’s or scribe’s subconscious or supernatural powers. If the Book of Mormon was produced in this manner, the argument goes, then Joseph Smith could not have been consciously attempting to deceive anyone. Therefore his integrity might remain intact, and the book might be read as inspired scripture while not having any historical authenticity.15

The Why

These efforts to read the Book of Mormon as “inspired fiction” may be well-meaning, but they are logically incoherent. Daniel Peterson has succinctly laid out the logical problem with this theory. “If the plates really existed, somebody made them. And if no Nephites existed to make them, then either Joseph Smith, or God, or somebody else seems to have been engaged in simple fraud. The testimony of [those associated with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon] exists, I think, to force a dichotomous choice: true or false?”16 Failing to provide an explanation for this dichotomy ignores an essential aspect of the Book of Mormon.17

Even worse, rather than preserving the Book of Mormon’s inspired teachings as intended, the “inspired fiction” theory actually harms the believability and power of the book’s testimony of Jesus Christ. “From the title page to the book’s final declaration,” wrote Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, “this testament reveals, examines, underscores, and illuminates the divine mission of Jesus Christ. . . . The Book of Mormon has many purposes, but this one transcends all others.”18

The Book of Mormon attempts to persuade all men and women that “Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God” (Book of Mormon Title Page) not only by describing the inspired teachings of ancient prophets who foretold his birth, life, ministry, Atonement, death, and Resurrection, but also by narrating the actual appearance of the resurrected Jesus to the ancient Nephites in the New World (3 Nephi 11–26). If these ancient prophets never existed, and if a resurrected Jesus never actually appeared to the ancient Nephites, then the Book of Mormon loses all its credibility as another testament of Jesus Christ.

This point is reinforced by the fact that two different Book of Mormon prophets warn their readers that they will one day stand face to face with them and be held accountable for whether they accepted or rejected their teachings. “And now, my beloved brethren,” the prophet Nephi wrote in his concluding remarks,

Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that [the words in Nephi’s record] are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. . . . for these words shall condemn you at the last day. For what I seal on earth, shall be brought against you at the judgment bar; for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and I must obey. Amen. (2 Nephi 33:10–11, 14–15)

The prophet Moroni similarly declared,

And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust? I declare these things unto the fulfilling of the prophecies. And behold, they shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the everlasting God; and his word shall hiss forth from generation to generation. And God shall show unto you, that that which I have written is true. (Moroni 10:27–29)

But if Nephi and Moroni are not real individuals and are instead fictional characters created by Joseph Smith, then these warnings are powerless, since it is impossible for fictional characters to meet people in real life.

For these and other reasons the prophetic leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have emphasized the profound importance of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.19 Indeed, as the Prophet Joseph Smith himself made clear, “Take away the Book of Mormon, and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none.”20

• 1. Grant R. Hardy and Robert E. Parsons, “Book of Mormon Plates and Records,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, N.Y.: Macmillan, 1992), 1:195–201; Richard Lyman Bushman, “The Gold Plates as Foundational Text,” in Foundational Texts of Mormonism: Examining Major Early Sources, ed. Mark Ashurst-McGee, Robin Jensen, and Sharalyn D. Howcroft (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2018), 13–36.
• 2. On the Old World historical setting for the Book of Mormon, see John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely, eds., Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004); Warren P. Aston, Lehi and Sariah in Arabia: The Old World Setting for the Book of Mormon (Bloomington, IN: Xlibris, 2015). The New World setting for the book is much less certain, but the most recent systematic attempts to situate such can be accessed in John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2013); Brant A. Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2015).
• 3. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon named Joseph Smith as the “author and proprietor” of the text. The next published edition of the book named him as the “translator.” For the significance of this, see Miriam A. Smith and John W. Welch, “Joseph Smith: ‘Author and Proprietor’,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), 154–157; Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part One: 1 Nephi – 2 Nephi 10 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2014), 35–36.
• 4. See Kent P. Jackson, “Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001), 127–133; John W. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, 2nd ed., ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2017), 79–228; “The Gold Plates and the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” online at www.josephsmithpapers.org. For a narrative synthesis of these sources, see Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2018), 20–42, 54–75.
• 5. See “Angel Moroni,” online at history.lds.org/saints.
• 6. See also “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 5, online at www.josephsmithpapers.org.
• 7. See “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],”8, online at www.josephsmithpapers.org.
• 8. See for instance “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 261, online at www.josephsmithpapers.org; “Book of Mormon Translation,” online at lds.org/topics/essays; Richard E. Turley Jr., Robin S. Jensen, and Mark Ashurst-McGee, “Joseph the Seer,” Ensign, October 2015, 49–54.
• 9. Bushman, “The Gold Plates as Foundational Text,” 15.
• 10. See Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1984), 187–188; Terryl Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2002), 64; The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction (New York, N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 2009), 105; “Foreword,” in Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex, xiv; Paul C. Gutjahr, The Book of Mormon: A Biography (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 2012), 61.
• 11. Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2010), 6.
• 12. Anthony A. Hutchinson, “The Word of God Is Enough: The Book of Mormon as Nineteenth-Century Scripture,” in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1993), 1–19; Robert M. Price, “Joseph Smith: Inspired Author of the Book of Mormon,” in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2002), 321–366; Scott C. Dunn, “Automaticity and the Book of Mormon,” in American Apocrypha, 17–46.
• 13. Hutchinson, “The Word of God Is Enough,” 1.
• 14. Price, “Joseph Smith: Inspired Author,” 347.
• 15. Dunn, “Automaticity and the Book of Mormon,” in American Apocrypha, 17–46.
• 16. Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor's Introduction—Not So Easily Dismissed: Some Facts for Which Counterexplanations of the Book of Mormon Will Need to Account,”FARMS Review 17, no. 2 (2005): xxiv.
• 17. The most recent attempt to explain an inspired yet non-historical Book of Mormon comes from Ann Taves, “History and the Claims of Revelation: Joseph Smith and the Materialization of the Golden Plates,” Numen: International Review for the History of Religions 61, no. 2–3 (2014): 182–207; reprinted in The Expanded Canon: Perspectives on Mormonism and Sacred Texts (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2018), 93–119; Revelatory Events: Three Case Studies in the Emergence of New Spiritual Paths (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2016); Revelatory Events: Three Case Studies for the Emergence of New Spiritual Paths (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2016), 50–65. Taves, a non-Mormon professor of religious studies, makes a good-faith and charitable attempt to read the Book of Mormon as inspired nineteenth century fiction and scripture. Her arguments, however, essentially amount to making Joseph Smith into a pious fraud, as she hypothesizes that Joseph fabricated a set of plates as a sort of artifactual/religious placebo to “materialize” what were otherwise intangible visionary experiences. While this hypothesis may be earnest in its attempts to bridge the divide on Book of Mormon authenticity, it ultimately fails for the same reasons as other iterations of the theory. See further the comments in Kevin Christensen, “Playing to an Audience: A Review of Revelatory Events,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 65–114.
• 18. Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1997), 4.
• 19.“The Church stand[s] or fall[s] with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try and disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon is true . . . then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it.” Ezra Taft Benson, A Witness and a Warning (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1988), 18–19. “One has to take a do-or-die stand regarding the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. Reason and righteousness require it. Joseph Smith must be accepted either as a prophet of God or else as a charlatan of the first order, but no one should tolerate any ludicrous, even laughable middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take––morally, literarily, historically, or theologically.” Holland, Christ and the New Covenant, 345–46.
• 20. See “Minutes and Discourse, 21 April 1834,” 44, online at www.josephsmithpapers.org, spelling standardized.

The Know

Just before recording Christ’s ministry at the temple in Bountiful,1 Mormon gave this puzzling chronological detail:

And it came to pass that in the ending of the thirty and fourth year, behold, I will show unto you that the people of Nephi who were spared … did have great favors shown unto them, and great blessings poured out upon their heads, insomuch that soon after the ascension of Christ into heaven he did truly manifest himself unto them. (3 Nephi 10:18; emphasis added)

At first glance, it might seem like Mormon was saying that Christ visited the Nephites sometime near the end of the 34th year. Because Christ’s resurrection happened at the beginning of the same year (see 3 Nephi 8:5), this interpretation would require that most of the year had transpired between the two events. Another possibility, however, is that Mormon was simply saying that Christ’s ministry occurred sometime before or by the end of the 34th year.2 If so, then Mormon’s description of Christ visiting the Nephites “soon after” his ascension would seem to support a timeframe closer to the beginning of the year.

Due to conflicting interpretations about this passage, as well as a number of other textual considerations, various scholars have proposed differing views about the timing of Christ’s visitation to the Nephites.3 This confusion may lead readers to wonder why Mormon wasn’t more specific in detailing the chronology of this important event in the first place.

Legal scholar John W. Welch has explained that “Indeed, as one moves further into Nephi’s book, time references fade into the background and eventually disappear entirely.”4Welch proposed that this noticeable lack of time-related references may be due to the symbolic nature of Christ’s ministry at the temple in Bountiful. In particular, he has seen Christ’s visitation as being connected to meaningful features of the temple’s holy of holies.5 This inner sanctum was the most sacred location in ancient Israelite temples, a place where “it was as if time stood still, inasmuch as the temporal world was transcended there.”6

If Christ’s ministry in 3 Nephi is symbolically considered to be a holy of holies, then the confusion over its timing would actually make a lot of sense. Welch concluded, 

These record keepers do not seem to want their readers to be thinking about time, [a desire for] which is characteristic of sacred experiences in which time is left behind and the broader vistas of eternity are opened to spiritual eyes. As a result, 3 Nephi has no usual storyline, no heroic action scenes, and no sensational narrative attractions. These chapters [3 Nephi 11–28] blend into one great whole, as supernal truths and texts usually do.7

The Why

In a fortunate irony, it seems that the confusion about the timing of Christ’s visitation in 3 Nephi may actually be a clue to the text’s deeper symbolic meaning. This situation teaches an important principle: what the scriptures don’t say is sometimes just as important as what they do say. Whenever we are puzzled or confused about something, we might productively ask ourselves what information we are lacking and then ponder upon why it might not be available.

In this case, the lack of time-related details in the record of Christ’s ministry suggests something about God’s eternal nature and the perspective we need when approaching Him. Doctrine and Covenants 88:13 states that God is “in the bosom of eternity” and “in the midst of all things.” From His eternal perspective, He gazes upon the past, present, and future. “Endless” is His name, says Doctrine and Covenants 19:10, and eternal life is what He promises to all those who keep His commandments.8 In order to come into God’s presence, we must therefore learn to share His eternal view.

In many ways, this reorientation of perspective—from finite to infinite and from mortal to immortal—characterizes Christ’s temple sermon. He taught His followers to lay up treasures in heaven rather than upon earth, “where moth and rust doth corrupt, and thieves break through and steal” (3 Nephi 13:19). He taught them to “take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on” (v. 25). Instead, they were to trust that their “heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things” (v. 32). Finally, Christ summarized, “Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof” (v. 34).

In other words, they were to focus their minds on heavenly things first and then earthly things would follow (see 3 Nephi 13:33). In keeping with this theme, Mormon’s usual attention to chronology is replaced by a sublime focus on Christ’s temple-related teachings, covenants, and blessings. With Mormon as our guide, it’s as if we too get to enter a scriptural holy of holies, a place where time stands still and eternal principles and truths are manifested unto all who are spiritually prepared. As we read of Christ’s ministry at the temple, we can feel His presence in our lives and, for at least a brief period of time, symbolically join Him in eternity.

• 1. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Jesus Deliver a Version of the Sermon on the Mount at the Temple in Bountiful? (3 Nephi 12:6),” KnoWhy 203 (October 6, 2016); Book of Mormon Central, “Why is the Sermon at the Temple Echoed throughout the Rest of 3 Nephi? (3 Nephi 16:6),” KnoWhy 208 (October 13, 2016).
• 2. An example of this same type of phrasing, with “in the end” most likely meaning “by the end” can be seen in Helaman 2:13: “And behold, in the end of this book ye shall see that this Gadianton did prove the overthrow, yea, almost the entire destruction of the people of Nephi.” Because Gadianton’s influence was not strictly confined to the end of the account which Mormon took from the “book of Nephi” (v. 14, emphasis added), it follows that Mormon’s mention of “in the end” appropriately means “by the end.” Only when readers carefully follow the Gadianton movement throughout Mormon’s record do they see how his influence eventually led to ultimate destruction.
• 3. For those who favor or assume a later date, see Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 5:327–330; S. Kent Brown, “When Did Jesus Visit the Americas?” in From Jerusalem to Zarahemla: Literary and Historical Studies of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1998), 146–156; Joseph F. McConkie, Robert L. Millet, and Brent L. Top, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1987–1992), 4:50; Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1981), 4:307; J. N. Washburn, Book of Mormon Lands and Times (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1974), 186; Sidney B. Sperry, Book of Mormon Studies (Salt Lake City: Deseret Sunday School Union Board, 1947), 101; The Book of Mormon Testifies (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1952), 294; Book of Mormon Compendium (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1968), 401. For scholars who lean towards or assume an earlier timing of Christ’s visitation (although not necessarily immediately after his resurrection), see John W. Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 36–42; John A. Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book: Insights from a Book of Mormon Scholar (Salt Lake City, UT: Cornerstone Publishing, 1999), 251–269; Reid E. Bankhead and Glenn L. Pearson, The Word and the Witness: The Unique Mission of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1970), 34; Milton R. Hunter, Christ in Ancient America (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1959), 97–98; James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Reference Library mass-market edition (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1990; first published in 1916), 673.
• 4. John W. Welch, “Seeing Third Nephi as the Holy of Holies of the Book of Mormon,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 19, no. 1 (2010): 46.
• 5. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Makes 3 Nephi the Holy of Holies of the Book of Mormon? (3 Nephi 14:13–14),” KnoWhy 206 (October 11, 2016).
• 6. Welch, “Seeing Third Nephi as the Holy of Holies,” 46.
• 7. Welch, “Seeing Third Nephi as the Holy of Holies,” 46–47.
• 8. Catherine Corman Parry, “Eternal Life,” in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 2:464–465.

The Know

Following the visit of the resurrected Jesus to the New World, His disciples traveled about preaching His gospel. They then “gathered together and were united in mighty prayer and fasting” (3 Nephi 27:1). In response, “Jesus came and stood in the midst of them, and said unto them: What will ye that I shall give unto you?” (v. 2). A question must have arisen among the people, for the disciples asked to know by what name they should call Christ’s Church. Jesus answered, “ye shall call the church in my name” (v. 7). In association with this commandment, Jesus taught several principles that help establish and clarify its doctrinal basis. These principles become unmistakably clear in the following summaries.

Christ’s Followers Should Avoid Murmuring and Disputations

Although Jesus was surely happy to give further light and knowledge to His people, He wasn’t pleased that this question had arisen because of “disputations” among them. (3 Nephi 27:3). With emphatic concern, he asked, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, why is it that the people should murmur and dispute because of this thing?” (v. 4). While asking questions and counseling together is good, arguing over points in Christ’s true doctrine or Church is not.

The Scriptures Already Have the Answer

Rather than simply delivering a new revelation, Jesus directed his disciples to a teaching already contained in their scriptures. He asked, “Have they [the people] not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name?” (3 Nephi 27:5). The instruction to take upon oneself the name of Christ is found in several previous Nephite scriptures, including 2 Nephi 31:13; Mosiah 5:8, 10; Mosiah 25:23; Alma 34:38; and Alma 46:18.

We Must Do All Things in the Name of Christ

Jesus further taught His disciples that “whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name” (3 Nephi 27:7). He then asked, “And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church” (3 Nephi 27:8).

This principle provides the underlying basis for Christ’s commandment regarding the name of His Church. Names carried great significance in the ancient world: they were intentionally given, carefully used, and scrupulously guarded, as in the commandment to use the name of the Lord properly and not take it in vain (Exodus 20:7). When members of Christ’s Church covenant to follow Him, they take upon themselves His name, both individually and collectively. They become witnesses of Jesus Christ and emissaries of His true gospel. As such, everything they do should be a reflection of Christ’s good name.

Christ’s Church Must Be Built upon His True Gospel

Jesus clarified, however, that simply naming a church after Him isn’t enough. He will only accept a church named after Him “if it so be that they are built upon my gospel” (3 Nephi 27:8). For this reason, the members of Christ’s true Church each have a responsibility to follow the true gospel, upon which His Church is always built. Otherwise, any misconduct would result in a misappropriation or denigration of His name.

The Why

On August 16, 2018, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a statement from the living prophet, President Russell M. Nelson. He declared, “The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He has revealed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with His will.”1

Following this statement, the Church provided an updated style guide “which provides direction on how to properly refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”2 Among other things, the guidelines stipulate that the name Mormon, although it is a name that Latter-day Saints revere and honor, should not be used as a reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the members who belong to it.3 In every way, each of the principles that Christ taught about the name of His church in 3 Nephi 27 can apply to how Latter-day Saints and others understand and receive this counsel.

Christ’s Followers Should Avoid Murmuring and Disputations

Christ’s counsel about disputations certainly applies today, with various social media platforms making it easier than ever to fall into contentious arguments and debates. Some may feel that the full name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is too long for practical use. Others might suppose that trying to get millions of people to adjust the way they refer to the Church or its members is too great a task and not worth the effort.

Whatever our personal feelings may be at the moment, Jesus taught His disciples that they should avoid murmuring and disputing over this matter. As we allow the “Spirit of Christ” to direct our opinions and feelings (Moroni 7:16), eventually we will come into a “unity of the faith” (Ephesians 4:13).

The Scriptures Already Have the Answer

President Nelson clarified that this recent announcement does not reflect a name change for either the Church or its members. Instead, it merely corrects an error that has crept into the Church over time.4 All along, the scriptures have stated clearly that Christ’s followers should be called after His name. Moreover, the specific name by which Christ’s Church should be called in these latter-days is given in Doctrine and Covenants 115:4: “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

In 1990, then Elder Nelson explained, “Note carefully the language of the Lord. He did not say, ‘Thus shall my church be named.’ He said, ‘Thus shall my church be called.’ … Before any other name is considered to be a legitimate substitute, the thoughtful person might reverently consider the feelings of the Heavenly Parent who bestowed that name.”5

We Must Do All Things in the Name of Christ

The principle that Christ’s followers should do “all things in the name of Christ” is what guides the naming of Christ’s Church in these latter days, just as it did in ancient times (3 Nephi 27:7). Although Mormon was a great man, the Church does not belong to him, just like it does not belong to Moses (v. 8). The Church belongs to Jesus Christ, whose holy name its members take upon themselves at baptism and reverence throughout their lives. Elder M. Russell Ballard asked, “Do we realize how blessed we are to take upon us the name of God’s Beloved and Only Begotten Son? Do we understand how significant that is? The Savior’s name is the only name under heaven by which man can be saved (see 2 Nephi 31:21).”6

Elder Ballard further taught,

A majority of people are still not sure that Mormons are Christian. … Surely it would be easier for them to understand that we believe in and follow the Savior if we referred to ourselves as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In this way, those who hear the name Mormon will come to associate that word with our revealed name and with people who follow Jesus Christ.7

Christ’s Church Must Be Built upon His True Gospel

Through the prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord restored the true gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth.8 As part of this restoration, Joseph Smith was also given priesthood authority and was commanded to reestablish the Church of Christ.9 Recognizing Jesus Christ’s direct hand in restoring both His gospel and His Church to the earth can help its members better understand why the lives they lead must be worthy of the name by which they are called. It can also help people see why the Lord Himself affirmed that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30; emphasis added).

• 1. See “The Name of the Church” Newsroom, August 16, 2018, online at mormonnewsroom.org.
• 2.“Style Guide — The Name of the Church,” Newsroom, accessed September 20, 2018, online at mormonnewsroom.org.
• 3.“Style Guide — The Name of the Church,” Newsroom, accessed September 20, 2018, online at mormonnewsroom.org.
• 4. Russell M. Nelson, “The Correct Name of the Church,” Ensign, November 2018, online at lds.org.
• 5. Russell M. Nelson, “‘Thus Shall My Church Be Called’,” Ensign, May 1990, online at lds.org.
• 6. M. Russell Ballard, “The Importance of a Name,” Ensign, November 2011, online at lds.org. See also, Mosiah 5:8–10.
• 7. Ballard, “The Importance of a Name,” online at lds.org.
• 8. Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the Lord Quote the Book of Mormon When Reestablishing the Church? (3 Nephi 11:24),” KnoWhy 282 (March 3, 2017).
• 9. See Book of Mormon Central, “What Did the Book of Mormon Teach Early Church Leaders about the Order and Offices of the Priesthood? (Alma 13:8),” KnoWhy 330 (June 23, 2017); Book of Mormon Central, “What Does the Book of Mormon Teach about the Priesthood? (Mosiah 23:17),” KnoWhy 289 (March 20, 2017); Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Joseph And Oliver Seek Authority To Baptize? (3 Nephi 11:24–25),” KnoWhy 279 (February 4, 2017).

The Know

Often, when we think about the translation of the Book of Mormon, we immediately think of how Joseph Smith miraculously translated its Reformed Egyptian characters into English.1 This is certainly appropriate, considering that this event was one of the most miraculous occurrences of this dispensation.2 But translations of the Book of Mormon into other languages have also been miraculous, in their own small way.

At least portions of the Book of Mormon have been translated into 111 languages, from Danish (1851), Welsh (1852) and Hawaiian (1855),3 to Pohnpeian, Sesotho, and Tshiluba, announced in 2017.4 Each translation has been a major effort of dedication, and many have been accompanied by miracles. The translation of the Book of Mormon from English into Ukrainian is one such small miracle in Church history.

1991 was a difficult year for Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union had become increasingly unstable, with an attempted coup in August of that year, and the USSR would be officially non-existent by New Year’s Eve.5 Hyperinflation gripped the economies of new Eastern European countries like Ukraine, and people were struggling to survive.6 One of these people was a woman named Zoya Gulko, a Ukranian of Jewish descent, who was working full-time teaching English in Kiev.7

This time of turmoil left Zoya and her husband Slava wondering what they could do to come to know God and find meaning in their lives.8 Although both of them were atheists, they tried various things to discover God’s existence, looking into Judaism, Bahaism, and Protestant Christianity.9 Eventually, they discovered The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and were baptized on December 8, 1991.10

Around this time, Howard L. Biddulph, president of the Ukraine, Kiev mission, and Elder Steven Struk, from the Church Translation Department, began looking for someone to translate the Book of Mormon into Ukranian.11 At the time, it was very uncommon to find a Ukranian person who spoke English well enough to translate a lengthy document like the Book of Mormon.12

To make things more complicated, the Translation Department of the Church had determined that only a member of the Church would be allowed to translate the Book of Mormon into another language.13 The two men prayed desperately that, somehow, someone fluent in both languages would join the Church, allowing Ukrainians to read the Book of Mormon in their own language, and not just in Russian.14 It was shortly after this that Zoya was baptized.15 As an English teacher, she was truly an answer to their prayers.16

But, even still, there was one obstacle in the way of the translation. Translating the Book of Mormon into another language usually takes years to complete, even when someone is able to dedicate themselves to the task full-time.17 Because of the difficult economic circumstances facing Ukraine at the time, Zoya was not able to quit her full-time job as a teacher in order to dedicate herself to translating the Book of Mormon.18

According to President Biddulph, nobody was quite sure how she could possibly translate the Book of Mormon in a timely manner while working full-time, but she accepted the assignment anyway, knowing God would help her. And help her He did! Zoya completed the initial manuscript of the Ukrainian translation of the Book of Mormon in nineteen months, despite working full-time as an English teacher and serving as the district Young Women’s president in Kiev.19    

President Biddulph stated that Zoya told him of “sacred experiences that came to her during the process of translation late into the night. She experienced the power of revelation and the gift of tongues in which words came to her in a spiritual stream, beyond her previous understanding and ability.”20 Because of this experience, “her testimony of the Book of Mormon as a holy scripture of God has become profoundly strong.”21    

The Why

Translations like this show that the Spirit of the Lord continues to manifest the gift of "the interpretation of languages" (Moroni 10:16) today in this and many other ways. Moroni 10:16 counts the gift of "the interpretation of languages and of divers kinds of tongues" among the gifts that Moroni hopes will not be denied. He counts on many gifts of the Spirit to bring forth, bear testimony of, and help with the understanding of the Book of Mormon record as he seals and buries it. How else could he imagine that anyone could read and receive his record at some future day except through such gifts? Among the gifts he mentions in Moroni 10:9-16 are wisdom, miracles, prophesy, beholding angels and ministering spirits, interpretation of languages. All these were part of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon

Stories like this teach us something else as well. Sometimes, when we are weighed down by the burdens of life, it might be easy to think we just cannot do everything we need to.22

We may feel overwhelmed and burned out and wonder how we can go on. However, Zoya’s story is a reminder that God has a habit of making things work out unexpectedly. It was just as President Biddulph and Elder Struk were praying desperately for someone to translate the Book of Mormon into Ukranian, perhaps wondering how they were ever going to find the right person, that Zoya was baptized.

In the same way, Zoya finishing her translation of the Book of Mormon on time probably seemed impossible to her when she received the assignment. How could she possibly translate such a long and complex book while still working full-time to support her family? Yet, somehow, God blessed her with the ability to translate the book in record time, despite all the obstacles in her path and the burdens she would still have to bear.

One finds something similar in the Book of Mormon, when Alma and his people were in bondage.23 Mosiah 24:15 states that “the burdens which were laid upon Alma and his brethren were made light; yea, the Lord did strengthen them that they could bear up their burdens with ease, and they did submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord.”24

Just as God blessed Zoya and Alma’s people when they were bearing a heavy load, God will bless us when we put our trust in Him. Through God’s help, we can perform the seemingly impossible tasks we need to perform in life, and God can, through small miracles in our lives, help us do everything He has asked us to do.

• 1. See John W. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd edition (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2017), 76–213.
• 2. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the Book of Mormon Come Forth as a Miracle? (2 Nephi 27:23),” KnoWhy 273 (February 10, 2017)
• 3. See W. Jeffrey Marsh, “Brigham Young and the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10, no. 2 (2002): 15.
• 4. See, “Church to Translate Scriptures in 34 More Languages; Will Release Portions Online,” October 10, 2017, online at lds.org.
• 5. Howard L. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks: Stories of Conversion and Faith in the Former Soviet Union (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1996), 1.
• 6. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 77.
• 7. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 74.
• 8. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 75.
• 9. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 75.
• 10. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 76.
• 11. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 77.
• 12. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 77.
• 13. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 77.
• 14. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 77.
• 15. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 77.
• 16. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 77.
• 17. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 77.
• 18. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 77.
• 19. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 77.
• 20. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 77.
• 21. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 77.
• 22. For more on how the Book of Mormon helped other early pioneers, see Book of Mormon Central, “What Did the Book of Mormon Teach the Early Saints about Enduring Persecution? (2 Nephi 26:8),” KnoWhy 339 (July 14, 2017).
• 23. For more on this topic, see Book of Mormon Central, “How Does the Lord Make Our Burdens Light? (Mosiah 24:15),” KnoWhy 102 (May 18, 2016).
• 24. For more in this idea, see David A. Bednar, “Bear Up Their Burdens with Ease,” Ensign (May 2014), 90.