New KnoWhys

“Wo unto the wise in their own eyes and the prudent in their own sight!”

2 Nephi 15:21; Isaiah 5:21

Laman and Lemuel struggled with pride, which kept them from fully accessing the Spirit. Image courtesy of Joseph Brickey.

The Know

One of the many themes found in the writings of Isaiah is that of pride. A universal sin, pride overcame the ancient Israelites of Isaiah’s day just as it overtakes many in our day. It likewise infected Nephi’s people, and so he incorporated warnings against pride by quoting Isaiah that spoke of its dangers and then offering his commentary.

As BYU professor David Rolph Seely wrote, “Pride is a central theme of the prophecies of Isaiah that Nephi quotes and also of Nephi’s own prophecies. Recognizing this theme can help us better understand and appreciate these passages and to identify the metaphors used by Isaiah and Nephi to warn us against pride.”1

Seely identified the theme of pride in the following Isaiah chapters that are also quoted in the Book of Mormon:

Per his explicitly stated method, Nephi “likened” these scriptures (originally about the destruction of Judah, Syria, Assyria, and Babylon) to his situation and the situation that would befall his descendants, who would likewise become proud and thus reap God’s judgment.

But as Seely elaborated, besides merely quoting Isaiah passages with the theme of pride and likening them to his descendants, Nephi also developed his prophetic commentary on this subject in his subsequent prophecies about the last days. For example, Nephi utilized Isaiah 3:15 (= 2 Nephi 13:15) and Isaiah 5:21 (= 2 Nephi 15:21) in his commentary on the pride of latter-day Gentiles in 2 Nephi 26:20. Likewise, Nephi utilizes the language of Isaiah 2:8 (= 2 Nephi 12:8) in his warning against relying “on the arm of flesh” in 2 Nephi 28:31.

Thus, Nephi’s extensive commentary in 2 Nephi 25–30 can be seen as a reflection on and adaption of many of the Isaiah chapters quoted earlier. Nephi can thus be seen as first introducing his readers to the theme of pride with these selections from Isaiah and subsequently developing a prophetic warning against this sin in later chapters.

As Seely explained, “Isaiah looks into the future and sees the destruction of a series of nations and peoples, and in each case he cites pride as the cause of their rejection of the Lord and of their eventual scattering and destruction. In his prophecy about the history of the Jews, Lehites, and Gentiles, Nephi also identified, often in the language of Isaiah, the main challenge that each of these groups faces as pride.”2

The Why

Since pride is a sin that affects everyone to varying degrees, it is understandable why Nephi would be inspired to include a discussion of and warning against it in his writings. The ultimate manifestation of pride is rejection of the Savior and his commandments, something Nephi was keenly and tragically aware would be done by his people.

“Nephi [described] how the Messiah will present himself to [the Jews, Nephites, and gentiles] and how in each case the main reason for their rejection of the Messiah and his gospel is pride,” Seely explained. “Ultimately, however, through the revelation of the Book of Mormon to the gentiles, each group will repent of its pride, be brought back to a knowledge of the Messiah, and enter into a covenant with the Lord.”3 Nephi’s writings thus act as a prophetic precaution against pride for latter-day readers.

Additionally, this took on a personal nature for Nephi himself. “On a more personal level, Nephi identifies pride as one of the main reasons that his brothers Laman and Lemuel reject the teachings of their father and of Nephi,”4 Seely remarked. Nephi himself struggled with pride (2 Nephi 4:17–18), but, as Seely reminded us, overcame that by humbly submitting to the Lord (1 Nephi 2:16).

Besides describing the dangers of pride even more prominently than the Bible, the Book of Mormon also teaches that humility, faith, patience, and charity are antidotes to fight this chronic sin. “As we read the warning against pride pronounced with eloquence by Isaiah and in plainness by Nephi, and as we study their other prophecies” we can liken their words to our lives and benefit from their wisdom and guidance (2 Nephi 11:8).5

The Know

Nephi explained that one important key to understanding Isaiah is knowing “the manner of prophesying among the Jews” (2 Nephi 25:1). He mentions that his people struggled with Isaiah precisely because they did not know this manner of prophecy.1This is a problem that persists for many people today.

One common idiom found in Nephi’s quotation of Isaiah is a great example of something that is better understood when the ancient Israelite cultural background is brought into the picture. It is the phrase, “For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still” (see 2 Nephi 15:25; 19:12, 17, 21; 20:4).

Latter-day Saints typically understand the Lord’s outstretched hand as a sign of the Lord’s mercy toward Israel: Despite his anger, the Lord continues to extend his mercy.2 Within the ancient Israelite and broader ancient Near Eastern context, the meaning of this phrase was quite the opposite.

John Gee, a Latter-day Saint and professional Egyptologist, explained, “The English sentence is constructed to say that in spite of the punishments afflicted (‘for all this’), the punishments do not satisfy the Lord’s anger (‘his anger is not turned away’).” Gee continued, “In other words, to the contrary (‘but’), the hand of the Lord is still ‘stretched out.’” Gee thus concluded, “So a stretched out hand, by any careful reading of the English, is a hand administering punishment,”3 or, at least, threatening or beginning to do so.

This is not just a product of the English translation, either. “The Hebrew is also clear on the subject. The idiom is yadô neṭūyâ, which means that the hand is hanging over, threatening or bent. It is thus a threatening gesture.”4 The two lines form a synonymous parallelism, both stressing the anger of the Lord.5 Biblical scholar J.J.M. Roberts, explained,

Despite the judgments, Israel had remained adamant in its sinful rebellion, and God’s anger remained unabated. This point is made by the refrain, “For all this his anger is not turned away and his hand is stretched out still,” which is repeated three times … each time following an account of judgment.6

Similar imagery is also found in Canaanite, Akkadian, and Egyptian sources, all in the context of the punishing hand, fighting against the forces of evil and opposition.7“This is the background of God as a punishing warrior that Isaiah utilizes in his prophecies, which are then quoted in the Book of Mormon.”8

This connotation of punishment is most clear in Isaiah 5:25 (2 Nephi 15:25), where the idiom stretched forth/out his hand is used twice (emphasis added):

Therefore, is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them; and the hills did tremble, and their carcasses were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

The Why

One important lesson to be drawn from this is to realize how easy it can be to misunderstand a particular phrase of scripture.9 As with Nephi’s people, modern readers often struggle to correctly read the ancient scriptures, not knowing enough “concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews” (2 Nephi 25:1).

While today it is easy to understand why people might commonly see the outstretched hand of God as a gesture of blessing, in the ancient world the hand of God was sometimes used in a negative sense, as it is in this case. This dramatically changes the way God is portrayed in these Isaiah passages. Rather than portraying God as angry yet still merciful, these verses focus on God in righteous indignation and divine wrath.

Understanding this emphasizes the prophet’s recognition of the serious consequences of Israel’s sins and their continuing unrepentance. God’s hand is still outstretched toward Israel as a stern warning. While this is ominous, it is still to be understood that he has not given up on his people (see Jacob 5:47). For their sins, the people will still be punished, but this will be for their eternal benefit, to bring them to repentance.

Although this expression in Isaiah 9:12 and other Isaiah passages does not convey God’s mercy as simple and immediate, plenty of other passages of scripture, especially in the Book of Mormon, stress the ultimate mercy and pervading compassion of the Lord. Other prophets use similar imagery to depict the merciful embrace of the Lord, but in those cases a different idiom is used, namely that of extending the arms of his love (see, for example, 2 Nephi 1:15; Mosiah 16:12; Mormon 5:11).10

Few spiritual lessons are more important and more wonderful to learn in life than coming to know and feel, as did the Prodigal Son, the encircling arms of the Father, falling on the neck of the repentant son (Luke 15:20). God’s welcome is always waiting, but in the meantime, his arm shakes to warn all transgressors of the dire, impending consequences of choosing to persist in disobedience.

Reading Isaiah 9:12 similar passages in Isaiah 2–14 with the proper understanding of the cultural background and style of ancient Israel opens up additional meanings in the great words of Isaiah. Understanding Isaiah is difficult enough as it is. Hence, it all the more important that Nephi’s guidance is followed, especially when it allows us to adjust and dig more deeply to cultivate the roots of cherished passages of scripture.

The Know

Four years before the first word of the Book of Mormon was translated, Isaiah’s words were connected to that sacred record. When Moroni visited the boy Joseph Smith on September 23, 1823, sources indicated that he quoted as many as 31 biblical passages. Of these, ten were from Isaiah.1 The longest quotation was from Isaiah 11, which Moroni said “was about to be fulfilled” (Joseph Smith—History 1:40). Moroni, it would seem, was making a connection between the prophecy in Isaiah 11 and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Isaiah 11 talks about “a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people” and says that the Lord “shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth” (2 Nephi 21:12; Isaiah 11:12). A similar prophecy also appears in 2 Nephi 15:26 (Isaiah 5:26), which reads: “And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth.”

While in Far West, Missouri, Joseph Smith fielded some questions on Isaiah, including the question, “What is the root of Jesse spoken of in the 10th verse of the 11th chapter?” (D&C 113:5). Joseph responded, “it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the last days” (D&C 113:6).

While it is uncertain whether this is referring to Jesus, Joseph Smith, or someone else, Latter-day Saints have often interpreted it as including a reference to Joseph,2 for it was through Joseph that the priesthood and the keys were restored, including the keys for the gathering of Israel (D&C 110). While it is not known if Joseph was a descendant of Jesse, the Book of Mormon tells us that he is a descendant of Joseph (2 Nephi 3:6, 15).

Since the earliest days of the Restoration, Latter-day Saints have interpreted the coming forth of the Book of Mormon as the “ensign” meant to signal to all nations that the gathering of Israel has begun.3 In his prophetic commentary following the Isaiah block, although not using the word “ensign,” Nephi would link the coming forth of the Book of Mormon with the gathering of Israel, saying, “And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also” (2 Nephi 29:8). To the same end, the resurrected Lord promised that the coming forth of the Book of Mormon would be “a sign” to the world of the beginning of the final gathering and fulfillment of God’s covenants (3 Nephi 21:1–7).4

The Why

Ann Madsen observed, “Joseph Smith was inspired, motivated, and empowered profoundly by his connection to Isaiah’s teachings.”5 This connection began with the First Vision when the Savior used the words of Isaiah to describe the state of the Christian world (see Joseph Smith—History 1:19; cf. Isaiah 29:13). The connection between the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and Isaiah 11:10–13 was suggested to Joseph Smith by Moroni’s quotation of it when he first visited Joseph in 1823. Thus, the Restoration was both predicted in and influenced by the writings of Isaiah.

Seeing Joseph Smith as the root of Jesse and the Book of Mormon as the ensign signals to all people that God has set his hand to commence the conclusion of his gathering work in the last days. The Book of Mormon is clearly no ordinary book, but is much more, even a miraculous work and a miracle (as the Hebrew in Isaiah 29:14 can be translated). It is the Father’s sign that he has “set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people” (2 Nephi 21:11; 3 Nephi 21:7).

The Book of Mormon beckons to all to come, to hear, and to receive the call, that “the work of the Father” (3 Nephi 21:26) may go forth. By this signal, all can see that “the field is white already to harvest” (D&C 4:4). Going forth under this banner, everyone who desires to serve God and is called to the work “layeth up in store that he [or she] perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his [or her] soul” (D&C 4:4).

The Know

2 Nephi 25 presents the beginning of Nephi’s inspired commentary on Isaiah 2:14, which he had just copied into his own record (comprising 2 Nephi 12:24). Nephi speaks about the scattering of Israel after their rejection of Christ and His Gospel, and then declares that they would eventually be persuaded to believe in their Savior, Jesus Christ. 2 Nephi 25:16 contains a distinctive phrase, “with pure hearts and clean hands,” which is almost certainly a quote from Psalm 24, a psalm about entering the Jerusalem Temple and seeing the face of the God of Israel.1

Psalm 24 depicts those wanting to enter the Jerusalem Temple as asking at the temple gates, “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who shall stand in his holy place?” and receiving the answer, “He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart” (Psalm 24:3–4).2 Reading further into Psalm 24, one encounters the idea that the group of people desiring to enter the temple have it as their goal there to see “the face of the God of Jacob” (Psalm 24:6 NIV, ESV).3 Alma picked up on this very idea when he, too, quoted from Psalm 24 in Alma 5:18–19 (emphasis added):

Or otherwise, can ye imagine yourselves brought before the tribunal of God, with your souls filled with guilt and remorse … Can ye look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands? … Can you look up, having the image of God engraven upon your countenances?

Both Psalm 24:6 and Alma’s use of that passage can be understood to associate entering the temple with seeing the face of God.4

If Nephi was consciously pointing his audience to a biblical psalm regarding temple entry and seeing the face of Jehovah, why do so here, in his commentary on Isaiah? What does entering the temple have to do with Nephi’s point about the Jews recognizing the Messiah?

The Why

In 2 Nephi 25:16, Nephi stated that the Jews will be scattered until they begin to “believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind,” and “worship the Father in his name,” and “not look forward any more for another Messiah.”

In conjunction with that occurrence, Nephi then quoted from Psalm 24. Since, in the mind of most ancient Israelites, terms such as atonement, worship, and name of God likely referred to elements of the temple, invoking this memorable phrase from Psalm 24 would have made sense to Nephi and his people in this context. Properly worshipping in a holy temple, they will be able to recognize the face of the true Messiah.

The fact that Nephi quoted Psalm 24 in the context of the Jews recognizing their Messiah and also in the beginning of his inspired commentary on Isaiah chapters 2-14 has further significance. The Isaiah passages he chose started off with a prophecy of how people will gather themselves to the Temple, “the mountain of the Lord’s house” (Isaiah 2:2; 2 Nephi 12:2).5 So Nephi would have seen the relevance of Psalm 24:3-4 to his point at hand.

Just as Isaiah’s prophetic witness in this part of the Book of Mormon began by inviting all people to come to the temple of the Lord, Nephi’s six-chapter-long prophecy and commentary began with a call for the Jews and all other people to be worthy to enter the temple, having “pure hearts and clean hands,” so that they will be able to recognize their Savior and be gathered to Him in the latter days.

The connection between living worthily and someday seeing the face of Christ should not be lost on any modern students of the scriptures. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught: “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8; also quoting Psalm 24). 1 John 3:2, similarly alluding to Psalm 24, states of those who are ready: “We know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

The Know

According to Robert A. Cloward, “In the doctrinal and devotional writings of this dispensation, no chapter of Isaiah is more often cited” than Isaiah 29.1 The precedent was set by the Lord himself in 1820, when he paraphrased Isaiah 29:13 while telling Joseph Smith that none of the churches available at the time were true (see Joseph Smith—History 1:19). Many centuries earlier, however, the prophet Nephi linked Isaiah 29 to this dispensation by using several phrases and sometimes long blocks of text from Isaiah 29 and likening them to Joseph Smith and the restoration.

Isaiah 29 permeates Nephi’s writings, especially 2 Nephi 25–30.2 What is curious about Nephi’s use of Isaiah 29 is that he never outright quotes this chapter, like he does with Isaiah 48–49 (1 Nephi 21–22) and Isaiah 2–14 (2 Nephi 12–24). Instead, he makes frequent use of Isaiah 29 as part of his “own prophecy” wherein he spoke “somewhat concerning” the words of Isaiah he had just copied from the plates of brass (2 Nephi 25:7, 1).

This has led a number of LDS scholars to the conclusion that Nephi is not actually quotingIsaiah 29 verbatim in 2 Nephi 27. Rather, Nephi is using Isaiah’s verbiage—and expanding on it—to express his own prophecy. “In his ‘own prophecy,’ Nephi uses many words and themes … from other chapters of Isaiah, including words that sound like Isaiah 29,” Cloward observed. “He attributes none of these to Isaiah. In fact, he repeatedly claims the words are his own or attributes them to the Lord.”3

Nephi had seen the Restoration and coming forth the Book of Mormon in vision (1 Nephi 13:32–42). When Nephi read about “a book that is sealed,” taken by men to “one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee,” and then subsequently taken to “him that is not learned” (Isaiah 29:11–12), he found apt words to adopt in describing certain events which would unfold in the life of Joseph Smith (2 Nephi 27:15–19).

Isaiah’s description of “speech … whisper[ing] out of the dust” with a “familiar spirit” naturally reminded Nephi that the book he saw would come up out of the ground, carrying a spirit that resonates in the hearts of truth seekers everywhere (Isaiah 29:4; cf. 2 Nephi 26:16). Its powerful message would penetrate the hearts of those who were spiritually “deaf” and “blind” and lead their souls “out of obscurity, and out of darkness” (Isaiah 29:18; cf. 2 Nephi 27:29).

In Isaiah, Cloward explained, the sealed book is symbolic. “No specific book is mentioned” by Isaiah, whose “concern was the lost vision of his people, not books. … Isaiah’s symbolic sealed book is still sealed today.”4 But Nephi’s sealed book is real, and it has come forth in the latter-days.

It was Nephi who made Isaiah’s symbolic book into a literal book. Nephi likened the symbolic book in Isaiah’s simile to a literal, specific record the Lord had commanded him to write on gold plates. Nephi also foretold the latter-day role of his record in restoring vision, understanding, and doctrine to the house of Israel.5

There are both ancient and modern precedents for this kind of practice. Brant A. Gardner has suggested that this is akin to the later Jewish concept of pesher, an interpretive commentary on scripture that was believed to be inspired, attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient sources.6 In more contemporary times, when Elder Bruce R. McConkie bore his final testimony, he insisted, “I shall use my own words, though you may think they are the words of scripture.”7

The Why

The understanding that Isaiah 29 and 2 Nephi 27 are distinct and separate prophecies has several implications. First, it clarifies the interpretation of Isaiah 29 in context, as a prophecy about the fall and restoration of Jerusalem, specifically.8

Second, instead of assuming that Nephi is giving a more accurate version of Isaiah 29, the expansions and rewordings can be understood as Nephi’s adaptations to what he saw in vision. Nephi recognized Isaiah’s words as suitable for describing his vision, but not necessarily perfect. So, as he adapted Isaiah’s words, he made expansions and emendations as he saw fit to reflect more accurately the future events he witnessed. This also means there is no need to expect more ancient manuscripts of the Isaiah text to confirm any of Nephi’s changes.

Third, if Cloward is correct, this means that it was Nephi’s prophecy, not Isaiah’s, that was fulfilled with Martin Harris’s visit to Charles Anthon and other scholars.9 The attribution of these events as a fulfillment of Isaiah 29 began with Joseph Smith and Martin Harris themselves. However, 2 Nephi 27 was not translated until a year after these events transpired, so it is not surprising that they would apply Isaiah 29 to these events instead.10

Finally, this provides yet another glimpse into the process of “likening.”11 This time, however, Nephi’s likening is different. Instead of direct quoting, followed by application, Nephi is actively applying Isaiah’s words while quoting them by adapting them to his prophetic vision. Furthermore, with the Joseph Smith Translation of Isaiah 29, there is yet another layer of likening, this time from a modern-day prophet.

Specifically regarding the JST Isaiah 29, Cloward noticed, “the Prophet confirmed that KJV Isaiah 29 and 2 Nephi 26–27 are different and independent texts. He consciously used part of each.”12 By doing so, “Joseph Smith chose to give the inspired translation of two-thirds of Isaiah 29 an application more apropos to the latter days. By copying Nephi’s words into the JST from verse 8 to the end, Joseph Smith likened Isaiah 29 to his own dispensation.”13

From Isaiah to Nephi to Joseph Smith, the words of Isaiah 29 have taken on new and relevant meanings for different times and places.14“In this process, Isaiah’s sealed book was reinterpreted as Nephi’s gold plates and as Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon. Isaiah’s dust of death was reinterpreted as Nephi’s source of renewed life and as Joseph Smith’s Cumorah. … This is the process of likening. Prophets do it readily. Students of the scriptures are urged to liken as well. … As readers do this, the Lord can reveal new truths to them and enlarge their understanding.”15

The Know

Book of Mormon authors stressed on a number of occasions that the Nephite record was to be “sealed” by the power of God (Book of Mormon Title Page; 2 Nephi 26:17; 27:7–21; 30:3; Ether 3:27; 4:5; 5:1; Moroni 10:2). But was this a physical sealing, a spiritual one, or both? And why would someone seal a record at all?

John W. Welch has highlighted the fascinating and widespread ancient practice of finalizing documents, especially important legal (and by analogy covenantal documents), by having them doubled, sealed, and witnessed as part of their preservation and authentication.

Essentially, a document deemed worthy enough for preservation or one that needed additional authentication would be (1) duplicated (typically in an abridgement) or written in two parts, with one part sealed with wax or clay impressions, (2) witnessed by two or three parties, and (3) stored for preservation (typically in an archive or some form of earthenware). The legal ramifications for such a practice were, in part, that if disputes arose over a contract, for example, the document could be brought forth to settle the dispute. Being sealed and witnessed, the document could be counted on as carrying the utmost authenticity.1

Welch explained, “The basic concept of preserving important ancient documents by preparing them in two parts and then sealing one of the two was common throughout much of the ancient world.” One can see this occurring in the Book of Mormon, where the composition of the plates followed a similar pattern. As such, “this practice seems to have been known to Nephi and may well have influenced his prophetic expectations and statements about the final form of the Nephite records.”2 Indeed, we would only expect this to be the case with an ancient record like the Book of Mormon, as Welch stressed that this practice would have been “paradigmatic for Nephi and the plates of Mormon.”3

Welch has also documented this phenomenon occurring throughout Near Eastern history. Importantly, it is known to have occurred in ancient Israel circa 600 BC, thus dating this practice contemporaneously to the opening of the Book of Mormon.4 Two clear examples from that time period are found in Jeremiah 32:9-14 and Ezekiel 2:9-10.

The Why

Welch has explained how this is directly relevant to the Book of Mormon. “One portion of the Nephite record was sealed; the other part was open,” he wrote. “Consistent with the ancient practices and requirements” and “for security and preservation, the plates were buried; they were both sealed and sealed up.”5 In other words, part of the Book of Mormon plates were physically sealed, and the entire set of plates were sealed up, that is, hidden in the earth for preservation, following ancient practice.

With this we can better understand what the Book of Mormon means when it refers to itself as a “sealed” book. It is a book that, for all intents and purposes, an official agent has notarized, making it binding and authentic. Thus, the compilers of the Book of Mormon can now be seen as being consistent with ancient legal formalities. "To the ancient mind," Welch noted, "formalities such as these were the essence of the validating and conserving documents and proclamations of utmost significance. More specifically, the Book of Mormon is indeed a binding document, a legal warning, a proclamation, a testament, covenant, and contract. Its provisions are about covenants of the Lord." Readers can therefore better understand why Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni "would associate this legal form [of sealing a document], typically used for legal contracts, with the final presentation of the Nephite records.6

Normally, an ancient Israelite would have called two or three witnesses to affix their seals and to stand as witnesses that the finished document was authentic and truthful, but, of course, Moroni had no one around to serve this role. Turning instead to the Three whom he and all people can always call upon, he assured his readers that if they would inquire with a sincere heart and with real intent, then the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost would stand as his witnesses to testify the truth of this record as of all things (Moroni 10:4-5).

The Know

As part of his prophecy about the Restoration and coming forth of the Book of Mormon, Nephi saw that “at that day when the book shall be delivered … [it] shall be hid from the eyes of the world.” Nephi did, however, specify that “three witnesses shall behold it, by the power of God … and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein” (2 Nephi 27:12).

It is likely that the translation of this passage prompted Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris to seek an opportunity to see the plates as the Three Witnesses Nephi mentioned.1 Oliver remembered, “It was a clear, open beautiful day” when they saw the angel and the plates,2 probably in late-June 1829.3 Though they each left the Church for a time, all three frequently, and unashamedly, bore witness to seeing the plates throughout their lives.4

In addition to the three, Nephi also saw that there would “be a few [which shall view it] according the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men” (2 Nephi 27:13). In 1 Peter 3:20, the author talks about “the days of Noah … wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water” (emphasis added). Since Nephi also used the word few, it is plausible that Joseph Smith understood that word to call for eight further witnesses.

It was probably later that same week in June 1829, that the eight further Book of Mormon Witnesses were shown the plates and, unlike the Three, they were allowed to handle them.5 These were Joseph Smith Sr., Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith, Hiram Page, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., and John Whitmer. Like the Three Witnesses, none of the Eight ever denied their testimony, despite some leaving the Church.6

These witnesses were expected to “testify to the truth of the book and the things therein” and “to bear testimony of [God’s] word unto the children of men” (2 Nephi 27:12–13). While this was fulfilled with their statements published in the Book of Mormon, each of these men took their call to testify seriously and made several statements throughout their lives describing their experience with the plates.7

In March 1876, when only he and his brother David remained of the eleven witnesses, John Whitmer reflected:

I have never heard that any one of the three or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon. … Our names have gone forth to all nations, tongues and people as a divine revelation from God. And it will bring to pass the designs of God according to the declaration therein contained.8

Nephi also stated that the Lord would show the plates to “as many witnesses as seemeth him good” (2 Nephi 27:14). Many Latter-day Saints are not aware that, consistent with this verse of scripture, there were other, “unofficial” witnesses to the plates. Most of these people had accidental or incidental experiences with the plates. Josiah Stowell, for instance, caught a glimpse of the plates when a corner of the covering slipped off as Joseph handed them to him.9

Significantly, Mary Whitmer, mother of four of the Eight Witnesses, had a divinely sanctioned encounter. She was shown the plates by the angel Moroni.10 Other women, such as the prophet’s mother Lucy, and his wife Emma, interacted with the plates, bore witness of their reality and testified to the truth of the Book of Mormon.11

The Why

According to President Ezra Taft Benson, the witnesses to the Book of Mormon are part of the Lord’s “built in … proof system of the Book of Mormon.”12 Many have commented on the evidentiary value of the witnesses.

Terryl Givens, for example, said that their testimonies provide “an evidentiary spectrum, satisfying a range of criteria for belief.”13 Richard Lloyd Anderson similarly noted, “The testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses balance the supernatural and the natural.”14

Steven C. Harper, of the Church Historical Department, wrote that the witnesses’ testimonies “are some of the most compelling evidence in favor of its miraculous revelation and translation” and went so far as to say that, “For believers,” such testimony “approaches proof of Joseph Smith’s miraculous claims.”15

Richard L. Bushman explained that, “The witnesses’ statements were an effective demonstration of authenticity for a skeptical age.” To that, he added, “Secular historians have never come to grips with the fact that none of the eleven who saw the plates (in addition to Joseph Smith) ever recanted.”16

Yet there is more value to their witness than mere evidence. Each of the witnesses—in his or her own, unique way—offers an example of dedication, commitment, faith, and sacrifice. None were neutral observers. They were faithful and committed individuals, who were granted their witness because of their hard work, sacrifice, and dedication.

After seeing the plates, all of them bore witness to what they knew to the end of their lives, even as some “tended to compete rather than cooperate with [Joseph Smith’s] leadership.”17 When outside the Church, some faced immense peer-pressure to deny their testimonies, yet held firm to what they saw and heard.

For example, William E. McLellin was an early Mormon who personally knew all of these Book of Mormon Witnesses. In a recently found collection of his writings, McLellin tells of instances where one of the witnesses stood by his testimony even when subjected to “beating and pounding . . . with whips and clubs.” On another occasion, with their lives threatened by mobbing and lynching, David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery adamantly testified to McLellin, “Brother William, God sent his holy angel to declare the truth of the translation of it to us, and therefore we know. And though the mob kill us, yet we must die declaring its truth.” Said McLellin, “Boys, I believe you. I can see no object for you to tell me falsehood now, when our lives are endangered.”18

People the world over have much to learn today from—and owe a deep debt of gratitude to—the Book of Mormon Witnesses as well as many others involved in the early events of the Restoration.

The Know

As Nephi prophesied about the latter days, he took time to observe the ways that Satan will attempt to lead people astray. A great deal can be gleaned about the Devil’s methods by studying all of 2 Nephi 28. Embedded in this chapter, observed John and Gregory Welch, “are many phrases that describe the conduct of those who follow the devil.” They went on to point out that many of the things Nephi described “will pervade much of society in the latter days.”1

Much of what Nephi saw can be “well disguised as the philosophies and tendencies” that permeate the thinking of the world, and seem harmless and well intentioned. Miriam Horwinkle, documented many of these ideologies and tactics found in 2 Nephi 28 (see table).2 She found 48 in all, scattered throughout 2 Nephi 28:3–30.

Perhaps best known among these is the warning against an attitude of complacency. “All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well,” is one of the many lies Satan will tell (2 Nephi 28:21, cf. vv. 24–25). Significantly, this is complacency within the church in Zion.

Although typically separated from the notion of “all is well,” the further declaration, “We have received, and we need no more!” (2 Nephi 28:27) can be seen as a symptom of complacency. Such an arrogant declaration may project the false belief that one already knows, and hence the prophets and apostles are no longer needed to speak and guide the church or the world today. Those who think this way tend to be “angry because of the truth of God” (2 Nephi 28:28), and instead put their “trust in man” or the philosophies of men, or make “flesh [their] arm” (2 Nephi 28:30).

Taken this way, Nephi’s explanation that “he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness” can indicate the need for durable gospel paradigms (2 Nephi 28:28)—which, of course, start with a firm testimony in Jesus Christ, who is the rock (see Helaman 5:12).

Alternatively, the overconfident exclamation, “we need no more,” may reflect the attitude that one has studied and learned enough, or that one’s worldview and assumptions are fully well grounded. Interpreted this way, getting people to say “we need no more” could represent Satan’s tactic of making people reluctant to adjust their assumptions. Satan thus prevents people from accommodating new information which challenges their faith, or to questioning the biases of views that denigrate faith.

Take that way, being “built upon a sandy foundation” then represents rigid and fragile paradigms which do not hold up well when new information challenges one’s faithful assumptions. One way or the other, these people are enticed into insecurity, and frequently find themselves in the midst of a faith crisis—that is, they “trembleth lest [they] shall fall” (2 Nephi 28:28).

The Why

Anyone familiar with sporting competitions understands the importance of knowing the tactics and tendencies of your opponent. If we are not aware of Satan’s strategies, and do not remain vigilant in our efforts to resist his temptations, then it will be easy for him to “pacify and lull” us “away into a carnal security” (2 Nephi 28:21). He will be able to lead us with a small rope, “by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth [us] with his strong cords forever” (2 Nephi 26:22).

The specific consequences of thinking “we have enough” are made clear by Nephi (2 Nephi 28:29). Those who build upon the rock are able to learn “line upon line, precept upon precept.” Because they can and will accommodate new information, the Lord “will give more.” Those, like his brothers Laman and Lemuel, who resist new instructions and instead say, “we have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.” This can be seen, time and time again, as those who struggle to fit new information into their paradigms lose the faith in what they already know.

As Dennis L. Largey put it, though Nephi “our Heavenly Father has righteously opened to us his children the unholy playbook of those identified as his enemies.”3 This is why a pair of Latter-day Saint scholars have said, "The devil hates the Book of Mormon because it exposes his tactics"4 There is probably not any other place in scripture or religious literature that lays this all out more clearly, cogently, and compellingly. That is reason enough to be grateful for the Book of Mormon. Those interested in embracing the great plan of the Holy One should study 2 Nephi 28 carefully in order to better prepare themselves against these ploys of the “cunning plan of the evil one” (2 Nephi 9:28; cf. Alma 28:13; Doctrine and Covenants 10:12, 23).

The Know

Nephi anticipated some of the objections latter-day readers may have against the Book of Mormon. Some might exclaim, “A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible” (2 Nephi 29:3). In response to this criticism, Nephi emphasized that God may speak to whomever He pleases, and when He does, the records produced by those people so spoken to will be beneficial to His children. “Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word?” Nephi presented the Lord asking rhetorically, “I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also” (2 Nephi 29:8).

Nephi’s mentioning of the testimony of “the two nations” that would “run together” brings to mind the passage in Ezekiel 37 well-known to Latter-day Saints. “The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand” (Ezekiel 37:15–17).

Latter-day Saints have traditionally interpreted the two sticks (in Hebrew literally “tree” or “wood”) as being the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Looking further at the context of Ezekiel 37, one finds that these sticks are symbolic of the tribes of Israel being consequentially reunited and restored.1“And I will make them [the sticks of vv. 16–17, 19] one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all” (Ezekiel 37:22).

After the days of Solomon, Israel divided into two kingdoms—the Kingdom of Judah in the south, and the Kingdom of Israel in the north, where the lands of Ephraim and Manasseh (sons of Joseph) were found. Lehi was from the tribe of Manasseh. Prophets such as Ezekiel, who was taken from Jerusalem to Babylon shortly after the time when Lehi departed into Arabia, looked forward to a time when all the broken parts of the two kingdoms of Israel would be reunited, physically and spiritually.

In addition to symbolizing the records and tribes, the sticks that Ezekiel prophetically uses may also symbolize the ability of the Lord to shepherd and rule over these kingdoms. Zechariah 11:7 speaks of the Lord taking “two staves,” or shepherd’s staffs. One he called “Beauty” (or Favor) and the other “Bands” (or Union), and with them he fed his flock. But then he cut the one staff, that he might break the covenant he had made with the people (Zechariah 11:10), and he cut the other that he might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel (Zechariah 11:14). While there is no general consensus on the date of this part of the book of Zechariah, it seems to include an early reference to the scattering of Israel and then forward to the reunion and reestablishment of God’s people.

Thus, readers should be careful to distinguish the symbols of the sticks (the tribes), the record of the sticks (the written scriptures), and the covenants between Jehovah and his ancient people. This distinction between the sticks and the record of the sticks is made in Restoration scripture: “Behold . . . the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim” (Doctrine and Covenants 27:5, emphasis added).

The testimony of the two nations spoken of in 2 Nephi 29 undoubtedly includes a testimony of God’s redemptive plan for Israel in the last days. This includes a unification of the records of the two nations, and hence Nephi is explaining that when the two nations are gathered, their records will also come together. The Book of Mormon can therefore be seen as part of the fulfillment of prophecies like Ezekiel 37 because it is part of the gathering and reunification process.

Nephi specifically stressed that the Jews and the Nephites would both produce records (the Bible and the Book of Mormon, respectively) that would come together to “show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed forever” (2 Nephi 29:14). This covenant included the promise that Abraham’s seed would become great, receive the gospel of salvation, and inherent a land of promise (Genesis 17:1–8; Abraham 2:9–11). The Bible and the Book of Mormon together affirm that this will in some way transpire for modern remnants of the House of Israel.

The Why

Nephi understood that multiple witnesses were crucial to authenticate his teachings. He therefore enlisted prophets such as Isaiah and his own brother Jacob, and evidently other allies such as Ezekiel and Zechariah, as witnesses to his teachings concerning the Messiah and the redemption of Israel.2 In doing this, Nephi was keeping in harmony with biblical law, which stipulated the need for witnesses (both mortal and divine) to properly execute legal decisions and authenticate religious claims (cf. Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; Hebrews 10:28; 1 Timothy 5:19).3

Further, Nephi alluded to the history of Israel and the divided monarchy that would have been known to and meaningful for his own people. Coming from one of the tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel, these prophetic promises would have reassured Nephi’s people that God would not forget them and that they would be restored and reunited.

On yet another level, this example of multiple testimonies from different sources encourages modern people to search for truth in more than just one book or source. “Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written” (2 Nephi 29:10). While this verse particularly applies to the Book of Mormon, its meaning expands beyond even the Nephite record to all books and other sources of edification and enlightenment (cf. Doctrine and Covenants 88:116).

The Know

In his prophecies of the last days, Nephi remarked that the Book of Mormon would be carried “forth unto the remnant of [his] seed." Upon receiving the Book of Mormon and the gospel of Jesus Christ, the remnant of Nephi's seed would “rejoice,” for then “they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.”1

The Prophet Joseph Smith made an important textual emendation to this passage in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, where the phrase “a white and a delightsome people” was changed to “a pure and a delightsome people.” According to Royal Skousen, “The 1840 change of white to pure seems to be a conscious one and was probably made by Joseph Smith as part of his editing for the 1840 edition. The change does not appear to be an accidental error based on any visual or phonetic resemblance between the two words.”2

The original reading of “white and delightsome” was retained in the LDS textual tradition until the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon, where it substituted “white” with the “pure” for the 1840 edition.3 The reading of “pure” has been retained in the 2013 LDS edition of the text.

This textual discrepancy understandably raises concerns for many readers. How could the Book of Mormon be inspired if it supposedly has what many assume to be “racist” teachings—in this case that having white skin is somehow a sign of divine favor? To answer this question—or to even see if this is the right question to ask—we need to first try to understand the Nephite concept of “race” (assuming they even conceived of “race” similarly to how we do today) and then reflect on what we might learn from it to improve our own ethical and spiritual sensitivities.

First, it is critical to underscore the fact that modern sociologists, historians, and cultural anthropologists are coming to see “race” as being largely, if not solely, a social construct and not a biological feature. Many are no longer sure we have a clear definition of “race” anymore (if we ever did). Improved biological science (including advances in understanding human genetics and ancestry) and complicating cultural factors (international travel, cultural exchange, intermarriage, etc.) are largely erasing old racial categories.4 Any discussion of “race” or “racism,” therefore, must be careful to define these and similar concepts.

It is understandable how some, without this nuanced understanding, could read the Book of Mormon as a text that portrays the Nephites as having what we today would deem “racist,” or more properly ethnocentric, attitudes towards non-Nephites. “Could the Nephites have been racist in their views of the Lamanites?” asked John A. Tvedtnes. “Perhaps, in the same sense that the biblical patriarchs were racist when it came to their pagan neighbors—the Hittites, the Canaanites, and the Amorites—and did not want their offspring to marry these unbelievers.”5

Brant A. Gardner remarked that “the Book of Mormon is, in fact, racist,” but quickly added that it is “not at all ['racist'] in the usual sense of the term.”6 Rather than being a form of modern racism that bases antipathy on a difference of skin color, Gardner reads Nephite “racism” as an ethnocentrism “along the insider/outsider boundary, not the white/dark boundary.”7 Gardner concluded that “the ‘skin of blackness’ was certainly intended to be a pejorative term, but it was not a physical description.”8

It should not be overlooked that the Book of Mormon itself condemns this Nephite ethnocentrism. Jacob slammed Nephite ethnic pride when he declared, “Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you. . . . Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins” (Jacob 3:5, 9). Clear at the end of Nephite history, tribalism and ethnocentrism was eschewed, and portrayed as leading to hatred, wickeness, pride, vanity, and rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (4 Nephi 1:38–43). Whatever ethnocentric attitudes the Nephites may have exhibited were thus condemned by the Book of Mormon prophets.

The Why

Why might Joseph Smith have made this textual change in 2 Nephi 30? Skousen elaborated that “the editing change to pure may represent a conscious attempt at avoiding what was perceived as a difficult reading (the Nephites were supposed to be light skinned), which therefore explains why the change from white to pure was made here—and only here—in 2 Nephi 30:6.”9 In other words, Joseph Smith may very well have recognized the possible racial undertones in this passage if interpreted that way and ultimately wished to avoid them.

While it is certainly possible that this change reflected the racial attitudes of early members of the Church, who assumed many of the views of their 19th century environment,10 Tvedtnes argued convincingly that the change may have occurred to emphasize that the text is speaking of a spiritual, not biological, condition. “Is the Prophet’s change from ‘white’ to ‘pure’ justified in the scriptural context? The answer is yes. The terms white and pure are used synonymously in Daniel 7:9, Revelation 15:6, and Doctrine and Covenants 110:3. They are also found together in a number of passages where they clearly refer to those who are purified and redeemed by Christ (Alma 5:24; 13:12; 32:42; Mormon 9:6; D&C 20:6).”11

Skousen likewise wrote that “when white collocates with pure, we find that the passages describe a state of righteous perfection (referring either to the righteous at the day of judgment, to the garments of the righteous at that day, or to the fruit of the tree of life). In most of these passages pure and white collocate with the word spotless; all of these adjectives emphasize [spiritual] purity and cleanliness.”12 Being “white” (or “pure”) and “delightsome” in the eyes of God therefore has nothing to do with skin pigmentation or ethnicity, but rather with spiritual and moral uprightness or personal and collective holiness.

Alma the Younger, for example, testified that all whose “garments are washed white; yea [whose] garments [are] purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him . . . who should come to redeem his people from their sins,” shall “have a place to sit down in the kingdom of God, with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, and also all the holy prophets, whose garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure and white” (Alma 5:21, 24).

Regardless how past Church members and leaders or ancient prophets may have interpreted skin color, one thing is clear: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”13

The Book of Mormon affirms that salvation through Christ is available to everyone. Skin color (as well as gender, ethnicity, economic status, or any other such conditions) does not bar one from finding the fullness of Heavenly Father's blessings in this life and salvation in the life to come through abiding the laws, ordinances, and precepts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As Nephi affirmed, the Lord invites “all the children of men . . . to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female.” He remembers all who ever have or ever may come unto him, “both Jew and Gentile,” as “all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33).

The Know

Shortly before transferring custody of the plates to his brother Jacob, the prophet Nephi explained what he called “the doctrine of Christ” (2 Nephi 31:2, 21). This doctrine, Nephi assured his readers, was necessary to follow to obtain a promise of eternal life from God. “Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life” (2 Nephi 31:20).

The Lord has declared that the Book of Mormon contains “the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (Doctrine and Covenants 20:8–9; cf. 42:12).1 It is important to note here that the Book of Mormon appears to use the words “gospel” and “doctrine” (of Christ) synonymously, as is seen in Sherem’s words to the prophet Jacob. “I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye [Jacob] call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ” (Jacob 7:6).2

So what is this “doctrine” or “gospel of Christ” Nephi and other Book of Mormon prophets spoke of? Furthermore, how can the Book of Mormon contain a fullness of this doctrine if it doesn’t explicitly include such teachings as salvation for the dead, eternal marriage, eternal progression, and other distinctive Latter-day Saint concepts?

Nephi taught that the doctrine of Christ consists of specific foundational principles: faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end (2 Nephi 9:24; 31:14–20; cf. 3 Nephi 11:31–41; 27:13–22).3 Hence, what constitutes the doctrine of Christ as contained in the Book of Mormon is a limited set of teachings that focus us on Christ’s atonement and salvific work. Noel B. Reynolds explained,

In a decree from the beginning, the Father had promised salvation to all who would come to him through faith on his Son, repentance and baptism, receiving the remission of sins through the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and by enduring in faith, hope, and charity to the end of mortal life. This central teaching gave coherence and foundation to all the teachings of the Book of Mormon prophets, focusing all religious hope and knowledge on the atonement of Christ, which makes the fulfillment of the Father’s promise [of eternal life] possible.4

The Why

Nephi indicated that he wished to speak “plainly” about the doctrine of Christ because of how important it would be for God’s children to straightforwardly understand this doctrine in their lives (2 Nephi 31:2–3). This may very well explain why Nephi limited his formulation of the doctrine of Christ to the set of plain teachings examined above.

As such, the Book of Mormon can rightly be said to contain the fullness of the gospel even without explicitly mentioning every doctrine that has been revealed over the course of the Restoration. While it is common today for Latter-day Saints to use the term “gospel” in speaking of any doctrine revealed in the latter-days, a close reading of the Book of Mormon indicates that the text has something very specific in mind when it talks about the doctrine or gospel of Jesus Christ.

President Ezra Taft Benson taught, “The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation.”5 The gospel of Christ, in its fullness, is found plainly in the pages of the Book of Mormon. It is the gospel of salvation that will ensure all those who “press forward with steadfastness in Christ” eternal life in God’s kingdom (2 Nephi 31:20).

The Know

2 Nephi 31 records Nephi’s explanation of the purpose behind Jesus’ baptism, an event that Nephi had previously foreseen in vision (1 Nephi 11:27), in an attempt to expound “in plainness” upon “the doctrine of Christ” (2 Nephi 31:2–3). Although the ordinance of baptism is prominently featured in the New Testament, the precise purpose and meaning of baptism is left relatively vague. In the Book of Mormon, however, the reasons for and necessity of baptism by water are made abundantly clear. The purpose of Jesus’ baptism, as foreseen and understood by Nephi, serves as a model for baptism throughout the rest of the Book of Mormon narrative.

Noel B. Reynolds, an emeritus professor of Political Science at BYU and former director of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), highlighted the fact that the New Testament uses two different metaphors for what the act of baptism represents. The first is the idea of purification, or the washing away of sins, as can be seen in Acts 22:15–16. The second is the idea that it is a representation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as introduced by Paul (Romans 6:4).1

The Book of Mormon has a third, and very important, metaphor of the main purpose of baptism. Reynolds demonstrates that for Nephi and subsequent Book of Mormon figures, baptism principally serves as an outward sign or open witness of one’s repentance and commitment to follow Jesus Christ.2 Instead of cleansing from sin, Reynold’s notes, “the Book of Mormon consistently points to a different symbolism: the making of a covenant.”3 The cleansing then comes by the purifying fire of the Holy Ghost (3 Nephi 12:2).

This distinction is of great importance and clarifies a doctrine that Christ, in the New Testament, declared to be essential for entrance into the kingdom of God (John 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21). As LDS scholar Craig Ostler has also argued, although the baptism of Jesus is the “first common topic” in the four Gospels, “the importance of baptism as an ordinance of the gospel of Jesus Christ and an understanding of why baptism is given such a place of importance are not generally as familiar.” He also rightly notes that “the Book of Mormon clarifies the covenant nature of baptism.”4

Indeed, Nephi explains that the reason why a sinless Jesus would need baptism is not for the remission of sins but to publicly witness the making of his covenant to be obedient to the Father. As 2 Nephi 31:7 states, “But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.” In fact, in the ancient world, the swearing of an oath, the bearing of a testimony in court, or the making of a contract or covenant was often accompanied by outward gestures, submission to an ordeal, and the invocation of the name of the god who would attest to its enforcement.

Subsequent narratives regarding the ordinance of baptism in the Book of Mormon decisively follow this precedent. When Alma baptizes his followers at the waters of Mormon, he emphasizes the fact that their baptism serves “as a witness before [God] that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you” (Mosiah 18:10). The first baptism he performs, for the man Helam, includes the words: “I baptize thee … as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead” (Mosaiah 18:13).

Later, the people of King Limhi demonstrated that they held this same understanding of the purpose of baptism. Mosiah 21:35 states: “They were desirous to be baptized as a witness and a testimony that they were willing to serve God with all their hearts.”

The accounts of baptisms performed shortly before Jesus’ ministry among the Nephites confirm that this reason for baptism—“as a witness and a testimony before God”—was perpetuated until the time of Christ (3 Nephi 7:25). One of the most important of Christ’s actions during his visit to the Nephites was the establishment of the ordinance of the Sacrament. Jesus’ own teachings regarding the purpose of the Sacrament (3 Nephi 18:7, 10–11) as well as the words of the sacramental prayers (as recorded in Moroni 4–5), according to Reynolds, “precisely recapitulate the converts’ witnessing to the Father, renewing their prior witness of the covenant they had made to take upon themselves the name of Christ, to keep his commandments, and to remember him always.”

The Why

One of the purposes of the Book of Mormon is the restoration of “plain and precious” truths that have been lost or obscured.5 The teachings contained in the Book of Mormon regarding the purpose of baptism are unique and exceptional in all of ancient scripture for their clarity, specificity and consistency. In contrast to biblical descriptions of baptism, the Book of Mormon provides profound insight into the covenantal nature of this ordinance, what the individual is signaling to God when he or she chooses to be baptized, and the way in which God responds to the believer’s commitment.

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon demonstrates how the act of baptism fits into the larger picture of the “doctrine” and “gospel” of Christ. One may be led to assume, without the teachings contained in the Book of Mormon, that the act of baptism, on its own, can provide the believer with a remission of sins. However, the teachings of the Book of Mormon indicate that baptism is one part of an organic whole that includes faith, repentance, baptism, the reception of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. The text makes clear that baptism without repentance or the purifying effect of the Holy Ghost is not enough to wash away sins. As Noel Reynolds noted:

A surprising implication of this Book of Mormon language is that the covenant the convert signals at baptism is actually made before baptism and is the central element of repentance. Genuine repentance always includes a deliberate commitment by the penitent person to turn to Christ and walk in his path—taking his name upon oneself and keeping his commandments. Baptism and repentance are thus linked together: baptism completes repentance.

The Book of Mormon introduces the idea that baptism is the sign that we give to God that we are committed to following Christ and keeping His commandments. Thus, in the sacrament prayers inaugurated by Jesus himself and preserved by the Book of Mormon, we renew our baptismal covenants and witness anew our willingness to keep the commandments that have been given to us (3 Nephi 18:7, 10; Moroni 4-5). The remission of sins comes not simply by being washed in water but by reception of the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, as recognition by God of our repentance and willingness to enter a covenant relationship with him. Because the covenant we make at baptism is essential to our salvation, the clarity that the Book of Mormon brings to the subject is both urgent for all people to understand and also as a display of God's mercy and generosity toward all who have faith, repentance, and humble themselves before Jesus, their Lord.

The Know

As Nephi laid out the key elements in the “doctrine of Christ,”1 he mentioned being able to

“speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel” (2 Nephi 31:13–14). This perplexing phrase must have been confusing for his people, because Nephi then added, “I suppose that ye ponder somewhat in your hearts concerning that which ye should do after ye have entered in by the way” (2 Nephi 32:1).

In response to his people’s confusion, Nephi explained, “Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost? Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ” (2 Nephi 32:2–3).

Joseph M. Spencer, a student of philosophy and theology, recently suggested that Lehi’s interaction with angelic beings in 1 Nephi 1 may shed some light on what it means to “speak with the tongue of angels.” Specifically, Spencer noticed the similarity of language in 1 Nephi 1:8, where Lehi saw “God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God,” and 2 Nephi 31:13, where Nephi says “ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.”2

The act of singing and praising God is one of the functions of the heavenly hosts in ancient Israelite belief (see Psalm 103:20–22).3 After noting that Lehi joined in singing praises to God (1 Nephi 1:14), Spencer pointed out, “Lehi at first sees this whole scene from a distance, but one of the angelic figures brings him a book, and then, it seems, inducts him into the chorus of angels around the throne.”4 LDS scholar John W. Welch also made this connection. “[Lehi] spontaneously and eloquently joined the heavenly host in praising God. By so doing, he functionally, if not constitutionally, joined the council as one of its members.”5

Spencer proposed, “Nephi offers in 2 Nephi 31 a promise that the obedient can, as Lehi had done, join the angelic council to sing and shout praises.” 6Comparing 2 Nephi 32:2–3 to Nephi’s experience speaking with an angel (1 Nephi 11) and Isaiah’s heavenly vision (Isaiah 6; quoted by Nephi, 2 Nephi 16) strengthens Spencer's suggestion.

An angel guided Nephi through his sweeping vision in 1 Nephi 11–14. Before he speaks with the angel, however, Nephi is interviewed by “the Spirit of the Lord” (1 Nephi 11:1–6). LDS Biblical scholar David Bokovoy has argued that the Spirit was functioning as a “council witness” proving Nephi’s worthiness to receive higher knowledge from the divine assembly.7 In Nephi’s experience, it was through the Holy Ghost’s witnessing power that he was able to speak with angels (cf. 2 Nephi 32:2–3).

In 2 Nephi 31:13–14, first Nephi, then the Son, makes receiving the Holy Ghost a prerequisite to speaking with the tongue of angels. In each case, the Holy Ghost is dubbed the “baptism of fire,” and Nephi stresses that “a remission of your sins” comes “by fire and by the Holy Ghost,” after water baptism (2 Nephi 31:17).8

This shares the similar imagery with Isaiah’s vision, quoted by Nephi, where a seraph (sārāp)—meaning “fiery one”—purges Isaiah of his sins by placing a hot coal to his mouth (2 Nephi 16:6–7; Isaiah 6:6–7). Isaiah then becomes a member of the heavenly hosts and speaks/participates in the council (2 Nephi 16:8; Isaiah 6:8).9 In other words, after being cleansed from sin by fire, Isaiah spoke “with the tongue of angels.”

These sacred expressions, in the ancient mind, connected the angels of heaven with the white-robed priests of the temple. Isaiah was in the temple when he saw a “fiery one” (Isaiah 6:6); and Nephi was on a high mountain—a symbolic temple—when he was escorted by an angel, even the holy Spirit of the Lord (1 Nephi 11:11).10

Lehi’s seeing the pillar of fire coming down upon “a rock” (1 Nephi 1:6) may well have signaled for him the arrival of God at His temple built upon a rock (Psalms 27:5). Those who ministered in the House of the Lord were spoken of as angels, for example in the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls, all the members of the Lord’s council are spoken of as “those who share a common lot with the Angels of the Face” (1QH 6).11

In early Christian writings, this long-standing imagery was also perpetuated: “Christian teachers said that the Church on earth was like angels, both in respect of worship and of unity,” and thus Clement of Rome admonished Christians to “think of the vast company of angels who all wait on [God] to serve his wishes . . . . In the same way we ought ourselves in a conscious unity, to cry to him as it were with one voice, if we are to obtain a share of his glorious great promises.”12

The Why

Having only recently completed the construction and dedication of a temple in his land of promise, Nephi’s thoughts and expressions draw heavily upon the House of the Lord. In that holy context, those officers were received as ones speaking with power and authority, as “angels” or messengers or ministers, of the Lord.

Today, worthy Latter-day Saints ritually ascend into the presence of God in temples across the world.13 For Lehi, Nephi, Isaiah that ritual experience symbolized a literal ascent into the Lord's presence. And that invitation for all who are worthy to come into the Lord’s presence and be exalted as a member of the heavenly assembly—one of the sons of God—has been extended in these last days (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:50–62).

In 2 Nephi 31–33, Nephi invites all his people to “speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel” (31:13), to renew their willingness to covenant with the Father (31:14), to “know the gate by which ye should enter” (31:17), and having “entered in” (31:18) to hear the Father say, “Ye shall have eternal life” (31:20). Nephi promises that God “will consecrate thy performance . . . for the welfare of thy soul” (32:9), and he prays continually for his people “that the Lord God will consecrate my prayers for the gain of [the] people” (33:3–4). These and other temple terms here befit the voice and tongues of angelic priests—mere mortals, yes, but sanctified and made holy as saints of God.

Ultimately Nephi invites all his readers to find the way to enter into the presence of the Lord and to participate in the divine council as one of the “angels.” Joseph Spencer refers to this as “angelicization,”14 but since the “angels” or the hosts are divinities sometimes called “gods” and “sons of God” in the Old Testament,15 the common scholarly term “deification” could apply.16 Latter-day Saints typically call this exaltation.

Anyone speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost is, in one important sense, "speaking with the tongue of angels." But we have explored another exalted meaning which enriches Nephi's specific language. In addition to demonstrating the beauty, sophistication, and complexity of the Book of Mormon, this new interpretation brings clarity to an unusual phrase in Nephi’s writing. It also inspires sacred worship today and serves to show that a significant Restoration doctrine (exaltation) often thought to be absent in the Book of Mormon is taught by one of the earliest prophet-writers in the book.

The Know

As Nephi finished his record, he had spent more than a decade reflecting on his many incredible, faith-building experiences (2 Nephi 5:28–34). He and his family had survived the Arabian deserts, crossed vast oceans, and established themselves in a new land. Reflecting on his nearly complete record, Nephi felt a keen sense of inadequacy in his writing, and recognized the need for the Holy Ghost to carry his words to the hearts of readers (2 Nephi 33:1–5).

Knowing he was writing his final words, Nephi sought to leave his people—and future generations—a final witness of Christ. “I glory in plainness,” he declared, and “I glory in truth.” Most significantly, though, he professed, “I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell” (2 Nephi 33:6).

Already at this point, Nephi has made the public testimonies of himself, his brother Jacob, and Isaiah the central focus of his record.1 Here, the record is more personal, because the atonement was deeply personal for Nephi—he gloried in his Jesus, who redeemed his soul. Nephi keenly felt the need for a Reddeemer for he had lamented his personal sins (2 Nephi 4:17–19).

Nephi’s knowledge of the Redeemer came from a variety of sources. First, he knew of the Messiah through the words of his prophet-father. Lehi had spoken “plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world” (1 Nephi 1:19). Lehi had foreseen the very time when the Messiah would come and foretold of his baptism, ministry, death, and resurrection (1 Nephi 10:4–12). Lehi expressed his final testimony, at the beginning of 2 Nephi, in the same words used by Nephi at the end of 2 Nephi: “Behold, the Lord hath redeemed my soul from hell” (2 Nephi 1:15).

Second, Nephi also learned of the Messiah from the writings found on the plates of brass. Prophets such as Zenock, Neum, and Zenos had each prophesied of the Messiah, and Nephi learned from their words (1 Nephi 19:10–12) how the Son would overcome death and bring to pass redemption and eternal life (Helaman 8:13–20). Nephi particularly revered the prophet Isaiah and felt personally connected to the Redeemer (Isaiah 11:26; 12:12; 1 Nephi 11:27; 2 Nephi 30:12-15) through his Messianic prophecies.2 He extensively quoted from Isaiah and used his prophecies as a springboard for his own.3

Finally, but most importantly, Nephi had his own, personal spiritual experiences which taught him of the Savior. He saw Jesus’s miraculous birth, life, ministry, and death in an angel-guided vision (1 Nephi 11). Nephi had seen his Redeemer (2 Nephi 11:2), and he spoke fondly of the time in which he had “seen his day” (2 Nephi 25:13; cf. vv. 12–14). Later, quite plausibly in a clear and open manifestation4 in the holy of holies of his temple,5 Nephi heard the voices of both the Father and the Son testify of the Son and His doctrine (2 Nephi 31:11–15).

Nephi’s testimony of Christ compelled him to charity, desiring that all would come unto Christ (2 Nephi 33:8–10). Nephi explained, “we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins” (2 Nephi 25:26).

The Why

At the end of 2 Nephi, we can read the final reflections of a great prophet sobered by life’s experience. “Earlier in the Book of Mormon,” H. Dean Garrett observed, “we saw Nephi as an energetic, dynamic, idealistic young leader, but in his farewell we see a seasoned, mature, disciplined prophet-leader, who had a deep sense of his mission.”6

Nephi’s farewell is candid, heartfelt, and passionate. Elder Russell M. Nelson reflected, “Nephi’s personality comes to life as we read his closing testimony. He reveals his strengths, his perceived weaknesses, his frustrations, his delights, and, finally, his sterling commitment to obey God.”7 His last words give us a glimpse of what he knew to be most important.

Here, with the limited space he had left, Nephi choose to bear witness of Jesus Christ. “From his farewell statement we gain insights … into his personal relationship with the Lord.”8 That Nephi chose to reiterate his witness of Christ here is an indication to the reader that he highly valued his relationship with the Lord and that his testimony should be taken seriously. Such seriousness can be seen throughout Nephi’s record and the prophetic sources he drew faithfully and plainly upon.

Nephi’s account is brimming with the significance of Jesus Christ and his mission, affirmed through prophetic testimony, parental teaching, scriptural witnesses, and profound spiritual experiences. This gives sincere followers of Christ everywhere a model of spiritual behavior to follow in seeking to gain, build, or strengthen their own relationships with Jesus Christ. The counsel of “goodly parents” (1 Nephi 1:1), teachings of modern prophets and apostles, dedicated scripture study, and recognizing personal revelation and spiritual experiences will all help draw us closer to the Savior.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland wrote, “Nephi offered beauty and power in his concluding testimony. It is a grand climax to a written record and a perfect epitaph to a faithful life.”9 By following Nephi’s example, disciples of Christ today can join him in declaring, with conviction, “I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell” (2 Nephi 33:6).

The Know

Quotations from and allusions to the Old Testament Psalms appear in four places in the book of Jacob. Jacob uses words and phrases from Psalms 95, 118, and 145, as demonstrated in this chart:

Book of Jacob	Book of Psalms
Jacob 1:7“that they might enter into his rest, lest by any means he should swear in his wrath they should not enter in, as in the provocation in the days of temptation while the children of Israel were in the wilderness”	Psalm 95:8, 11“as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness … Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.”
Jacob 4:10“in great mercy, over all his works”	Psalm 145:8–9“of great mercy … and his tender mercies are over all his works.”
Jacob 4:15–17“they will reject the stone upon which they might build … how is it possible that these, after having rejected the sure foundation, can ever build upon it, that it may become the head of their corner?”	Psalm 118:22“The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.”
Jacob 6:6“Yea, today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts”	Psalm 95:7–8“To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your heart”

Nephi had consecrated Jacob as a temple priest and teacher (2 Nephi 5:26), and thus Jacob would have known and used psalms in his administration of temple rites and ordinances.1 Psalms 95, 118, and 145 are known especially for their use in ancient Israelite temple worship and later Jewish ritual.

Psalms scholar Hermann Gunkel described Psalm 95 as a temple hymn sung when worshippers journeyed to Jerusalem and sought “entry into the sanctuary.”2 The setting of Jacob’s discourse in Jacob 2–3 is explicitly stated to be the Nephite temple (Jacob 2:2). Psalm 95 is also cited in Alma 12 which, combined with chapter 13, similarly contains much temple imagery and references to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Psalm 118 has long been understood as messianic and tied to the ancient Israelite Feast of Tabernacles,3 one of the ancient Israelite pilgrimage festivals at the Jerusalem temple. The psalm depicts the righteous passing through the temple gates in procession and circling around the altar of the temple. Jacob evidently understood Psalm 118 messianically and used it appropriately in a temple setting.

Psalm 145 has literary ties to Psalm 118, and many ritual elements related to the temple. Psalm 145 is part of Jewish religious ceremonies and is recited in the modern Jewish commemoration of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Appropriately, Jacob 4 also focuses on the atonement of Christ. It is significant that both Jacob 4 and Psalm 145 focus on themes such as “the name” of God (Jacob 4:5–6; Psalm 145:1–2, 21), “righteousness” (Jacob 4:5; Psalm 145:7), “grace” (Jacob 4:7; Psalm 145:7-9), and works/creation (Jacob 4:8; Psalm 145:5).

The Why

The Psalms have a long history of use in religious worship, particularly worship centered at the temple. That history would have been important to Jacob and his people. Pilgrims sang psalms on their way to the temple and as they entered its holy grounds. They were greeted by choruses that sang psalms on the temple steps. And likely, these holy hymns were sung or chanted as the ancient temple sacrifices and ordinances were performed. Anyone who participated in temple worship in an Israelite or Nephite temple would have known these Psalms and would have recognized them as an important part of the worship services.

The Psalms have often been called “the hymn book of the temple” because many of them appear to have been used in ancient Israelite temple worship or feature a temple setting and temple imagery.4 Thus, in his role as a consecrated teacher and priest who officiated in and taught at the temple, it is no surprise that Jacob employed language from psalms. A shorthand allusion to one part of a psalm would have effectively brought to mind all the rest of the words of that psalm.

Jacob very likely had access to at least some of the Psalms, either from the plates of brass or from memory. The Israelites, especially the priests and Levites, likely knew the Psalms and sang them regularly, similar to the way we know the hymns from our modern hymn books. Jacob worked as a priest in the Nephite temple and would, therefore, be expected to know the priestly traditions of the ancient Israelites. The fact that Jacob appropriately uses temple psalms for temple contexts underscores the reality that Jacob was culturally an ancient Israelite. More importantly, that he quotes from the Psalms demonstrates his familiarity and love for these scriptures.

As modern readers of Jacob’s words recognize these quotations from and allusions to the Old Testament Psalms in his text, they can better visualize the temple setting of many of his words. With this realization, Jacob’s status as the chief priest over the Nephite people gains further legitimacy and credibility. The consistency of the background narrative of Jacob’s priestly role in comparison to biblical temple priests supports the historicity and deep religiosity of the Book of Mormon.

The Know

On August 25, 1829, a prosperous landowner named Martin Harris and a young publisher named Egbert B. Grandin entered into a contract. For $3,000 (around $70,000 today1) Grandin agreed to print 5,000 copies of the Book of Mormon.2 Sensing Harris’s very real concern for putting his livelihood at risk (the farmer would have to mortgage his property to Grandin in order to secure the funds necessary to pay for the printing), the Prophet Joseph Smith received a lovingly firm revelation for his friend and benefactor in the summer of 1829. “Thou shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth and the word of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 19:26).3 The sale of the Book of Mormon was announced on Friday, March 26, 1830, in Grandin’s newspaper The Wayne Sentinel.4

With the important exception of a number of converts, early reactions to the Book of Mormon were almost universally negative, especially in the press. One contemporary paper dismissed the Book of Mormon as “a bungling and stupid production.” The author sneered, We have no hesitation in saying that the whole system is erroneous...There is no redeeming feature in the whole scheme; nothing to commend it to a thinking mind.5

Today one finds a much different attitude towards the Book of Mormon by most readers. It is now widely recognize the book as a “classic” work of great religious, historical, and literary value. But what exactly is a classic? While it’s true that the answer to this question is debated, typically a classic is defined as any work of literature, music, drama, or art that has lasting and universal appeal, first-rate creative or aesthetic quality, profound insight into the deepest realities of the human condition, and otherwise generates thoughtful reflection throughout the lives of those who interact with the work in question.

One might qualify the Book of Mormon as a classic by looking at the number of respectable presses that have published the book. This includes Yale University Press,6 University of Illinois Press,7 Doubleday,8 and Penguin Books.9

The latter is especially noteworthy, as "for more than sixty-five years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world, providing readers with a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines.” The value and significance of titles published under the Penguin imprint “is incalculable, and their loss or destruction would diminish us all.”10

Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp introduced the Penguin edition by affirming, “However one decides to think about this book, it is a fascinating tale well worth reading for a number of reasons.”11 And the eminent physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson related that he personally “treasures” the Book of Mormon for its “dramatic story in a fine biblical style.”12

As a classic, the multi-faceted Book of Mormon can be read not only for its valuable religious teachings or for its impact on American religious history, but also for its high literary quality and compelling narrative.13 This was recognized by David Noel Freedman, a widely respected non-Mormon biblical scholar, who reportedly remarked, “Mormons are very lucky. Their book is very beautiful.”14

The Book of Mormon can be studied academically as well. Indeed, it continues to attract considerable attention in mainstream academia, with Mormon and non-Mormon scholars analyzing the text from a number of vantages.15 Summarizing this body of work, Grant Hardy rightly concluded that however Joseph Smith brought it forth, "the Book of Mormon is a remarkable text, one that is worthy of serious study.”16

So far-reaching is the Book of Mormon’s influence as a classic that it has been ranked among the most influential works of American literature by no less than the Library of Congress.17 Commenting on this achievement, the non-Mormon scholar of American religion Stephen Prothero called the Book of Mormon “America’s most influential homegrown scripture,”18 a sentiment shared by others, including the historian Daniel Walker Howe, who simply remarked, “The Book of Mormon should rank among the great achievements of American literature.”19

The Why

Why does the Book of Mormon deserve to be called a classic? Notwithstanding the attacks of early and contemporary antagonists, the Book of Mormon continues to be read, studied, and cherished by millions of believers and non-believers around the globe. Well over 150 million copies of the Book of Mormon in 110 languages have been printed since its initial 5,000 copy run in 1830.20 Terryl Givens observed that even those who consider Joseph Smith the author of the Book of Mormon must recognize that “he authored the most influential, widely published and read book ever written by an American.”21

This book has emerged as a unique scripture with lasting appeal. It appeals to people in cultures all around the world. While it contains sections that are unadorned narrative, it also features passages that have been praised for their first-rate creative and aesthetic qualities. Its ethical and religious messages offer profound insights into the deepest realities of the human condition, and generate thoughtful reflection throughout the lives of those who approach the text with real intent and prayerful searching.

Whether one believes the Book of Mormon is ancient scripture or nineteenth century American literature, it is a classic that has had a profound effect on millions of men and women. One early reader of the Book of Mormon, Parley P. Pratt, remembered his first encounter with the book as leaving an indelible impact on his life. “I opened it with eagerness, and read its title page,” he recalled.

I then read the testimony of several witnesses in relation to the manner of its being found and translated. After this I commenced its contents by course. I read all day; eating was a burden, I had no desire for food; sleep was a burden when the night came, for I preferred reading to sleep. As I read, the spirit of the Lord was upon me, and I knew and comprehended that the book was true, as plainly and manifestly as a man comprehends and knows that he exists. My joy was now full, as it were, and I rejoiced sufficiently to more than pay me for all the sorrows, sacrifices and toils of my life.22

The Know

Not long after the early Nephites established themselves in the New World, the prophet Jacob felt compelled to condemn the wickedness he saw in their burgeoning society. Jacob delivered a condemnatory speech at the temple where he chastised the Nephites for their “wickedness and abominations” (Jacob 2:10), specifically their pride (Jacob 2:13, 16, 20, 22), materialism (Jacob 2:13, 17–19), and sexual immorality (Jacob 2:23–35).

Concerning their “whoredoms” (Jacob 2:23, 28, 33), Jacob specifically mentioned unauthorized polygamy as an iniquitous practice. “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. . . . Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old” (Jacob 2:24, 26). Jacob therefore categorized such unauthorized instances of polygyny and concubinage (a man marrying multiple women), as sinful, for, he said, God “delight[s] in the chastity of women” (Jacob 2:28), and would not tolerate lascivious men abusing women (Jacob 2:32–33).

That being the general rule, Jacob went on to qualify that law, saying that plural marriage is justifiable but only when God commands it. “Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things” (Jacob 2:29–30). As Latter-day Saint researcher Brian Hales commented, “The Nephite prophet Jacob reiterates a commandment given to his father Lehi establishing monogamy as the rule and polygamy as only a divinely commanded exception.”1

Early Nephite polygyny may be better understood by situating it in a pre-Columbian Mesoamerican context. Brant A. Gardner, who did graduate work in Mesoamerican ethnohistory, noted that in the ancient Maya’s patriarchal society—as in many civilizations—a higher social and economic status could be signified by a man’s material possession or the number of his wives (and often both).

“The Mesoamerican picture of developing social distinctions is precisely the type of threat that the early Nephite community is facing [at this time]. There is pressure for social hierarchies and that pressure is related to multiple wives” and the accumulation of wealth through trade and diplomatic relations. Gardner also conjectured that “Nephite polygyny involved elite men’s arranging diplomatic marriages to assure commercial or political alliances,” a practice known from ancient Mesoamerica and ancient Israel.2

This would explain why Jacob condemned David and Solomon, but not other biblical figures, such as Abraham and Jacob. As recounted in the Old Testament, David and Solomon both sinned by engaging in unauthorized plural marriages.

This in turn led both David and Solomon to break their covenants with God, resulting in eventual disaster for the Israelite kingdom (1 Kings 11:9–11). That Jacob speaks ill of these biblical polygamists but not righteous men such as Abraham and Jacob, who also married multiple wives (Genesis 16:1–3; 29–30), would seem to indicate that the “whoredom” that Jacob condemned wasn’t plural marriage itself, but rather women being exploited for social and material benefit in relationships unapproved by God.

The Why

Why did Jacob include such a lengthy condemnation of unauthorized polygamy in his speech? Besides the immediate issue of wealth and immorality facing the Nephite community, Jacob may have intended to build upon or clarify one provision in biblical law, which allowed for and regulated polygamy (Deuteronomy 21:15–17).3 His father Lehi had expressly told his sons that "they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none" (Jacob 3:5). Jacob now extended Lehi's restruction to all the Nephites as a condition they needed to observe. It is obvious that Jacob did not want the potential abuses of polygamy to corrupt the fledgling Nephite community, and so he singled out the sins of David and Solomon as a strong example of the need to guard against lustful or exploitative behavior.

As biblical scholar Michael Coogan has written, “Polygyny [in the ancient world] had a payoff: it increased the number of offspring, who were valuable in their own right as sources of labor. It also was a status symbol, showing that a man or his family had the assets to come up with bride-prices for and to support several wives.”4 Jacob did not authorize this among the Nephites, and gave prophetic guidance to the men of his community on how to overcome these abusive practices.

Unfortunately, later Book of Mormon peoples saw the rise of wicked kings such as Noah, the son of Zeniff, who “did not keep the commandments of God” by taking “many wives and concubines” (Mosiah 11:2). This was one factor which “did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness” (Mosiah 11:2). This included his priests, who followed Noah in taking “many wives and concubines” (Mosiah 11:4). Interestingly, this passage also links the polygamy of Noah and his priests with wealth and economic exploitation (Mosiah 11:3, 6). This clearly indicates that Jacob anticipated (unfortunately correctly) that these practices would be a problem for later generations, particularly in his very city, the city of Nephi.

In our own day, prophets are needed to reveal or clarify when God authorizes certain practices and how He wants those practices to be conducted. In the case of plural marriage, “The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise” (Official Declaration 1 heading), or, in Jacob’s language, “if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to practice plural marriage]; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things” [i.e. the commandment to be married and have sexual relations with only one wife]" (Jacob 2:30; 3:5).

The Know

The prophet Nephi made two separate records, and called them both “the plates of Nephi” (1 Nephi 9:2). One set of plates was for “a full account of the history” of Nephi’s people (1 Nephi 9:2), and the other was “the ministry and the prophecies” had among the people (1 Nephi 19:3). When Nephi was about to pass away, he placed the record focused on the ministry into the hands of his younger brother, Jacob, whom he had earlier appointed as a priest and teacher (2 Nephi 5:26).

Jacob is the one who designated the two sets as the “small plates” and the “the larger plates” (Jacob 1:1; 3:13). But then, speaking of the small plates commissioned to him, he says, “These plates are called the plates of Jacob, and they were made by the hand of Nephi” (Jacob 3:14). So, Jacob seems to rename the plates Nephi made and named when he starts writing on them.

This detail may help explain an apparent discrepancy that people have wondered about in the accounts of the lost 116 pages. As early as the summer of 1828, the Lord called the lost portion “an abridgment of the account of Nephi” (D&C 10:44). The preface to the 1830 edition, however, referred to this portion as the “an account abridged from the plates of Lehi.”1

The Book of Mormon text never mentions Lehi making any plates. S. Kent Brown, former professor of ancient scripture at BYU, argued that Lehi’s record was a diary-like account kept on perishable materials.2 Nephi says that he “did engraven the record of [his] father” onto his own plates (1 Nephi 19:1). This portion of the large plates could reasonably be called both “the account of Nephi” (because Nephi made the plates and diligently engraved them) and also “the plates of Lehi” (because Lehi was the ultimate author of that part of the underlying record).

David E. Sloan proposed that Jacob 3:14 should be understood as providing textual evidence for this practice:

Although Nephi made the small plates of Nephi, the portion of the small plates that contained the record of Jacob was referred to as the “plates of Jacob.” In the same way, although Nephi made the large plates of Nephi and wrote on them, the portion of the large plates upon which he copied the record of Lehi was referred to as the “plates of Lehi.” Therefore, Mormon’s abridgment of Lehi’s record found on the large plates could accurately be described as “an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon.”3

The Why

The Book of Mormon consists of a complex set of different records, accounts, and plates. Diligent study is needed to fully understand and appreciate the relationship of all these different chronicles. There is something to be learned from every statement. When detailed study is done, impressive consistency emerges in how these records are identified and labeled.

From Jacob 3:14 we learn that some records or plates carried multiple labels. The portion of the plates of Nephi which Jacob authored was specifically designated “the plates of Jacob,” even though Nephi made the plates themselves and left them blank for the use of future writers. This practice appears to explain why the lost portion of the translation was described as an abridgement of both “the account of Nephi” and “the plates of Lehi.”

There may also be practical reasons why Jacob felt it was appropriate to call these plates “the plates of Jacob.” First, it would distinguish them from the other plates of Nephi, which were being passed along through the royal lineage.

Second, as English scholar John S. Tanner pointed out, “After passing into Jacob’s hands, the small plates became increasingly focused on the history of Jacob’s family rather than on the history of the whole Nephite group.”4 Indeed, Nephi had instructed Jacob to “preserve these plates and hand them down unto [his own] seed, from generation to generation” (Jacob 1:3). He probably had reason to expect that these plates were going to be more about the history of his own lineage and, therefore, felt titling them as the “plates of Jacob” was more appropriate for this set of records.

Meanwhile, with the large plates taking on a broader scope as a history of the people as a whole, kept by the kings, naming the plates after the founding patriarch and calling them “the plates of Lehi” would also have been appropriate. Possessing a record named after Lehi, the first leader of the Lehite community, would have added to the legitimacy of the Nephite line as the proper successor of Lehi’s authority and legacy.

Together, this shows that patient reflection and further study often resolves apparent discrepancies, like the one mentioned here, not only with answers but insights. There are reasons for renaming at least parts of both of the original “plates of Nephi” that make sense in light of the practical circumstances of the writers as well as in the different purposes to which those plates were dedicated.

The Know

The exceptional Allegory of the Olive Tree found in Jacob 5 is preceded, in Jacob 4, by a lengthy discussion from Jacob on what he and his colleagues “knew of Christ” (Jacob 4:4). Jacob then turned from speaking of “the atonement of Christ, [the] Only Begotten Son” (Jacob 4:11) to the idea that the Jews would “stumble” and “reject the stone upon which they might build and have safe foundation” (Jacob 4:15). It is apparent that Jacob was drawing these ideas from at least three different sources in the scriptures1 (i.e., the plates of brass or Old Testament)—Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 8:14–15; Isaiah 28:16—in the following manner:

And now I, Jacob, am led on by the Spirit unto prophesying … that by the stumbling of the Jews [Isaiah 8:14] they will reject the stone [Psalm 118:22] upon which they might build [Psalm 118:22] and have safe foundation [Isaiah 28:16]. But behold, according to the scriptures, this stone shall become the great, and the last, and the only sure foundation [Isaiah 28:16], upon which the Jews can build [Psalm 118:22]. And now, my beloved, how is it possible that these, after having rejected [Psalm 118:22] the sure foundation [Isaiah 28:16], can ever build upon it, that it may become the head of their corner? [Psalm 118:22] (Jacob 4:15–17)

The context of Psalm 118 and both Isaiah passages have two main things in common: (1) a temple setting, featuring the building of the temple (with the foundation, cornerstone, etc.), and (2) the involvement of the Messiah. In light of this fact, one can see that Jacob was likely making a beautiful and powerful play on words. The Hebrew word used for "son" in this passage is "ben," while the Hebrew word for "stone" is the similar-sounding "eben."

When Jacob refers to the stone of the stumbling, he is simultaneously referring to the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Jacob identified Christ with the imagery of the cornerstoneo f the foundation of the temple. Together, the passages speak of the Jews rejecting the “sure foundation” (Christ) of their spiritual temple and stumbling because of their rebellion but later accepting Christ as “the head of their corner.”

Jacob finished this segment of his teachings with the following question for his people:

And now, my beloved, how is it possible that these [the Jews], after having rejected the sure foundation [Christ], can ever build upon it, that it may become the head of their corner? (Jacob 4:17)

This question leads directly into Jacob’s attempt to “unfold this mystery” unto his people (Jacob 4:18) by sharing the prophet Zenos’ allegory of the olive tree.

The Why

The themes of the Allegory of the Olive Tree were revealed to Zenos and other ancient prophets in order to guide the people of Israel, to reveal to them what the Lord had in store for them, and how he would redeem them when they rebelled and went astray. Several sections in the Old Testament record how often Israel did “stumble” and the efforts the Lord made, through His prophets, to care for the fruit of His vineyard.

Jacob was afraid that the Nephite people, who had fled a culture of spiritual ignorance in Jerusalem, would likewise fail to understand God’s plans for the House of Israel and fail to recognize the essential role of His Only Begotten Son. For this reason, Jacob went to great lengths to teach his people the revealed knowledge that he possessed regarding Jesus Christ’s atoning mission.

The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon did not contain a chapter break between Jacob 4 and 5. Without that chapter break, readers can plainly see how Jacob’s discussion of the atonement and the rejection of the Son/stone (ben/eben) leads seamlessly and fittingly to his recitation of the Allegory of the Olive Tree. This allegory illustrates how the Lord of the vineyard tenderly cared for his decaying “tame” olive tree (representing the house of Israel). The Lord of the vineyard labored with his servants to remove all the bad fruit. Thereafter, the natural fruit became good again (a symbol of restoration or salvation for the House of Israel).

Jacob, acting as prophet-priest, makes clear his purpose for using Zenos’ allegory as he speaks further with his own words of prophecy in Jacob 6. He asks the people if they will reject these “words which have been spoken concerning Christ” (Jacob 6:8). He testifies that the Lord will give the house of Israel another, but final, chance to accept their Savior.

And the day that he shall set his hand again the second time to recover his people, is the day, yea, even the last time, that the servants of the Lord shall go forth in his power, to nourish and prune his vineyard; and after that the end soon cometh (Jacob 6:2).

Jacob knew that the prophecy of Zenos applied to his own people and all who belonged, or would belong, to the house of Israel whether through birth or adoption. He thus cried out in charity and sincere concern:

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I beseech of you in words of soberness that ye would repent, and come with full purpose of heart, and cleave unto God as he cleaveth unto you. And while his arm of mercy is extended towards you in the light of the day, harden not your hearts.

This invitation is mercifully still available to all.

The Know

The Book of Mormon prophet-priest Jacob cites the prophet Zenos as the source of the Allegory of the Olive Tree that he shares in Jacob 5. The quotations of Zenos’ prophecies throughout the Book of Mormon demonstrate that the writings of Zenos were popular among the Nephites.1 His words were likely present on the plates of brass that the family of Lehi possessed, although they are not found in the Old Testament today.

“How, one wonders, could an important prophet like Zenos, if he ever existed, have simply dropped out of sight without leaving a trace of himself in the Bible or anywhere else?”2 This was the late BYU professor Hugh Nibley’s question in 1967 regarding the lack of direct reference to Zenos outside of the Book of Mormon. Nibley’s response to this mystery was to attempt to connect Zenos to a similarly-named figure found in some ancient Jewish religious texts.

Nibley began with a text called Biblical Antiquities, attributed to an unknown author “Pseudo-Philo.” Though Biblical Antiquities was written around the time of Christ, it likely contains considerably older material. Biblical Antiquities gives a history of the Jews from the Creation to the destruction of Jerusalem. It includes stories about a great prophet-leader named Cenez. In some versions of the text, the name Cenez is spelled Zenec or Zenez (variants of the name Cenez). Pseudo-Philo makes a connection between this figure and the biblical character Kenaz, who lived between the time of the conquest of Canaan and Israel’s judges (Joshua 15:17; Judges 1:13; 1 Chronicles 4:13). This identifies Cenez as the first judge over Israel and attributes to him many words and deeds. Nibley determined that by comparing the words and deeds of Cenez in Biblical Antiquities to Zenos in the Book of Mormon, some interesting parallels might emerge.

In 1994, BYU professor John W. Welch developed and highlighted these comparisons in his article, “The Last Words of Cenez and the Book of Mormon.”3 The following chart outlines several of the principal similarities.

Pseudo-Philo’s Story of Cenez	Jacob 4-6
Cenez gave a farewell speech to an assembly when it was “near for him to die.”	Jacob’s farewell speech was addressed to an assembly (Jacob 5:1; 6:1, 5–6, 11), evidently near to his death (Jacob 6:13).
Cenez revealed to the people what the Lord had shown him He would do “in the last days.”	Jacob prophesied what the Lord would do when He set his hand “the second time to recover his people, …even the last time” (Jacob 6:1–2).
Cenez shared the words of his father in order to encourage Israel to “stay in the paths of the Lord.”	Jacob retold the words of Zenos about the Allegory of the Olive Tree to encourage his people to “continue in the way which is narrow” (Jacob 6:11).
The revelation to Cenez’s father included the notions of the Lord “toiling” on behalf of Israel, planting a “great vineyard”, and taking care of a chosen “plant”.	The words of the prophet Zenos recorded in Jacob 5 relate how the Lord worked in his vineyard, taking care of the tame olive tree.
Cenez’s father was told that, despite the Lord’s work, Israel would become corrupt.	In the allegory of the olive tree, the Lord is dismayed by the decaying of the tree and corruption of the fruit (Jacob 5:3, 39, 42).
The plant that the Lord had chosen would not yield up its fruit to him because it would not recognize him as its planter and would destroy its own fruit.	Jacob prophesied that the Jews would not recognize the prophets (Jacob 4:14), would reject Christ (4:15) and would cause themselves to stumble.

These parallels help to place the words of Zenos in a possible historical setting. However, after careful analysis, Welch concluded that a direct identification between Cenez and Zenos is not likely. What is more probable is that there was an earlier ancient source than the surviving story of Cenez which inspired the vineyard imagery found in the Book of Mormon.

Interestingly, David Rolph Seely and John Welch go on to argue for the existence of a common ancient source standing behind the olive tree/vineyard imagery that is found in many places in the Old Testament.4 They note that in the Old Testament one can find the symbol of the olive tree, or vine (the two are sometimes used synonymously), used to describe Israel with either positive or negative connotations. Passages such as Exodus 15:17, 2 Samuel 7:10, Psalms 1:3; 52:8, Hosea 14:4–8, and Isaiah 4:2 focus primarily on the positive aspects of the Lord planting, taking care of, and blessing the tree. Others, such as Psalm 52:5; 80:15–16, Isaiah 5:1–7; 17:9–11; and Jeremiah 11:14–17 feature the uprooting, burning, destruction, and cursing of the tree. Both dimensions, of course, are found in Zenos’s extended allegory.

Seely and Welch thus conclude that it is reasonable to postulate the existence of a fuller account of the olive tree allegory that predates most or all of these diverse and more partial uses.

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

The Why

The ancient prophet Zenos provided a sweeping vision of the future of the House of Israel with his Allegory of the Olive Tree. The fact that the Lord provided Israel with this information through His prophet is a testament to His love and mercy. God knew that Israel would reject His teachings and that these choices would cause them to stumble and suffer. Through revelations such as the Allegory of the Olive Tree, the Lord made clear to Israel what would happen to them while at the same time offering them hope for how they could be redeemed to eventually reclaim their promised blessings through the work of the devoted servant who begged for patience and did the will of the Lord of the vineyard.

Ancient prophets existed whose writings do not currently appear in today’s Bibles or in any other authentically surviving source. Many of these are mentioned in the text of the Bible itself, including the books of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15), Iddo the prophet (2 Chronicles 13:22), Jehu (2 Chronicles 20:34), and others. Similarly, there are ancient prophetic writings that are lost and may never be uncovered.

The Allegory of the Olive Tree is a valuable piece of prophetic writing that was of great worth to the Nephite people. Although we do not have direct evidence for a prophet Zenos from texts outside of the Book of Mormon, it is possible to see the significant influence of his writings on Book of Mormon authors and potentially on other biblical authors as well.

The Allegory of the Olive Tree serves as both a warning and a call to action for members of the Church today. It warns everyone in the household of faith against the dangers of apostasy. It graphically communicates the doctrine that the Lord will one day judge all mankind and separate the righteous from the wicked. It also informs all people that this is a great day of opportunity in which the servants of the Lord are called, for the last time, to labor with all diligence in the vineyard. This is the day for members of scattered Israel, even from the most remote parts of the world, to be reunited through God’s servant and thereby enjoy the blessings promised in God’s covenants with His beloved children.

The fact that the remarkable writings of Zenos are contained in the Book of Mormon and that they present teachings as grand as the Allegory of the Olive Tree is a strong indication of the inspired origins of the Book of Mormon and that it truly restores to the world many “plain and precious” things that have long been lost.

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading