New KnoWhys

“Search the prophets, for many there be that testify of these things.”

3 Nephi 23:5

LDS Conference Center by Hugh Millward via flikr.com

The Know

This weekend is the 186th Annual General Conference of The Church Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Every General Conference the Lord’s prophets and apostles teach, exhort, testify, and bear witness of Him and His truth. This often includes teaching from and testifying of the Book of Mormon. In doing so, they often speak of the different ways the Book of Mormon builds testimony in central doctrines of the Restoration.

In 2007, for example, Elder Russell M. Nelson, now the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, testified that the Book of Mormon upholds biblical teachings: “Love for the Book of Mormon expands one’s love for the Bible and vice versa. …The Book of Mormon restores and underscores biblical doctrines such as tithing, the temple, the Sabbath day, and the priesthood.”1

The late Elder L. Tom Perry, also of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, bore witness to the Book of Mormon’s role in Joseph Smith’s prophetic ministry and the Restoration during the October 2005 conference: “The Book of Mormon provides convincing evidence of the Prophet Joseph’s ministry and of the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ.”2

President Thomas S. Monson, Prophet and President of the Church, bore similar testimony at a BYU devotional in 2011: “Once you know that the Book of Mormon is true, then it will follow that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. You will have that burning testimony and knowledge that this church is true.”3

The most important role for the Book of Mormon is its witness of Jesus Christ. In 2011, Elder Tad R. Callister, then among the Presidency of the Seventy, boldly affirmed:

Would you like to have emblazoned on your soul an undeniable witness that the Savior descended beneath your sins and that there is no sin, no mortal plight outside the merciful reach of His Atonement—that for each of your struggles He has a remedy of superior healing power? Then read the Book of Mormon. It will teach you and testify to you that Christ’s Atonement is infinite because it circumscribes and encompasses and transcends every finite frailty known to man.4

No other book of scripture so powerfully testifies of the Savior’s life, ministry, and Atonement.

The Why

The Book of Mormon builds faith in the Bible, Joseph Smith and the Restoration, and ultimately Jesus Christ. This is the main reason why Church leaders so frequently draw upon it and testify of it. It is also why the Book of Mormon has long been considered the “keystone of our religion.”

In a recent fireside at Utah State University, Elder Neil L. Anderson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles invited everyone to personally make the Book of Mormon “the keystone of your faith.”5 As shown above, it can be the “keystone” in a wide variety of ways. To underscore all that the Book of Mormon has to offer, Elder Anderson taught that the book is “like an exquisite banquet table, 1,000 feet long” with a great feast which will “take [him] a lifetime and more to enjoy.”6

It is understandable why Church leaders draw so frequently from this rich smorgasbord of gospel teaching. Church leaders testify of the Book of Mormon out of a great love for its power and its teachings. “I love this Book of Mormon,” the late President Boyd K. Packer declared in 2001. “In a world ever more dangerous … the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ has the nourishing power to heal starving spirits of the world.”7

This weekend, the world once again has an opportunity to hear the testimonies of the Lord’s prophets and apostles as they bear witness of Him, His gospel, the Restoration, and of course, the Book of Mormon.

1. Elder Russell M. Nelson, “Scriptural Witnesses,” October 2007 General Conference Address.
2. Elder L. Tom Perry, “Blessings Resulting from Reading the Book of Mormon,” October 2005 General Conference Address.
3. President Thomas S. Monson, “Be a Light to the World,” BYU Speeches, November 1, 2011.
4. Elder Tad R. Callister, “The Book of Mormon—a Book from God,” October 2011 General Conference Address.
5. Julie Dockstader Heaps, “Elder Anderson addresses USU students about the Book of Mormon—‘the keystone of your faith’,” Deseret News, February 1, 2016.
6. Heaps, “Elder Anderson addresses USU students.”
7. President Boyd K. Packer, “The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” October 2001 General Conference Address.

LDS General Conference

ldsconf

Book of Mormon

General Authority

“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?”

2 Nephi 32:2

Speaking with the Tongue of Angels. The Triumph of Christianity over Paganism by Gustave Dore.

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.

Additional Images

1. Book of Mormon Central, “What is the Doctrine of Christ? (2 Nephi 31:21),” KnoWhy 58 (March 21, 2016)
2. See Joseph M. Spencer, An Other Testament: On Typology, 2nd edition (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholar, 2016), 51–52. Emphasis in 1 Nephi 1:8 and 2 Nephi 31:13 reflects Spencer’s own emphasis.
3. See David E. Bokovoy, “On Christ and Covenants: An LDS Reading of Isaiah’s Prophetic Call,” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 3 (2011): 38–39.
4. Spencer, An Other Testament, 51.
5. John W. Welch, “The Calling of Lehi as a Prophet in the World of Jerusalem,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004), 432.
6. Spencer, An Other Testament, 52.
7. See David Bokovoy, “‘Thou Knowest That I Believe’: Invoking the Spirit of the Lord as Council Witness in 1 Nephi 11,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 1 (2012): 1–23; Book of Mormon Central, “How Did God Call His Prophets in Ancient Times? (1 Nephi 15:8),” KnoWhy 17 (January 22, 2016).
8. Book of Mormon Central, “What is the Purpose of Baptism in the Book of Mormon? (2 Nephi 31:6–7),” KnoWhy 59 (March 22, 2016).
9. It may also be relevant that Lehi’s vision of the council was preceded by a “pillar of fire” (1 Nephi 1:6).
10. See Book of Mormon Central, “Has the Prophecy of the Lord’s House Established in the Mountains been Fulfilled? (2 Nephi 12:2),” KnoWhy 41 (February 23, 2016).
11. Margaret Barker, On Earth as It Is in Heaven (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 24.
12.1 Clement 34, quoted and discussed in Margaret Barker, Temple Mysticism: An Introduction (London: SPCK, 2011), 71.
13. William J. Hamblin, “The Sôd of YHWH and the Endowment,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 4 (2013): 147–154.
14. Spencer, An Other Testament, 52.
15. See Stephen O. Smoot, “The Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Mormon,” Studia Antiqua 12/2 (Fall 2013): 5–6 for the list of titles applied to members of the divine council, with several biblical references included for each.
16. On deification, see Keith E. Norman, “Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology,” FARMS Occasional Papers 1 (2000). See also Barker, Temple Mysticism, 63-71, where she unravels the divine singularities and pluralities of the ’elohim, the hosts of heaven, and the Angels of the Presence.

Ancient Israelite Religion

“I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.”

2 Nephi 33:6

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 (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 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 cornerstone of 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 most important role for the Book of Mormon is its witness of Jesus Christ. In 2011, Elder Tad R. Callister, then among the Presidency of the Seventy, boldly affirmed:

Would you like to have emblazoned on your soul an undeniable witness that the Savior descended beneath your sins and that there is no sin, no mortal plight outside the merciful reach of His Atonement—that for each of your struggles He has a remedy of superior healing power? Then read the Book of Mormon. It will teach you and testify to you that Christ’s Atonement is infinite because it circumscribes and encompasses and transcends every finite frailty known to man.4

No other book of scripture so powerfully testifies of the Savior’s life, ministry, and Atonement.

The Why

1. Elder Russell M. Nelson, “Scriptural Witnesses,” October 2007 General Conference Address.
2. Elder L. Tom Perry, “Blessings Resulting from Reading the Book of Mormon,” October 2005 General Conference Address.
3. President Thomas S. Monson, “Be a Light to the World,” BYU Speeches, November 1, 2011.
4. Elder Tad R. Callister, “The Book of Mormon—a Book from God,” October 2011 General Conference Address.
5. Julie Dockstader Heaps, “Elder Anderson addresses USU students about the Book of Mormon—‘the keystone of your faith’,” Deseret News, February 1, 2016.
6. Heaps, “Elder Anderson addresses USU students.”
7. President Boyd K. Packer, “The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” October 2001 General Conference Address.

LDS General Conference

ldsconf

Book of Mormon

General Authority

"And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies."

2 Nephi 25:26; cited 55 times in General Conference

The Know

Those who listen attentively to General Conference talks will often recognize words and phrases that sound familiar or that are clearly quoted from other sources, such as the scriptures, hymns, or the words of other modern Church leaders. The language we hear in this inspired setting is often saturated with sacred speech. Some of these words and phrases seem to be repeated frequently, becoming “treasured words” in the vocabulary of the Church. Some recognizable recent examples include:

“tender mercies” (1 Nephi 1:20; 8:8; referenced 24 times)
“the plan of salvation/happiness” (Jarom 1:2; Alma 42:8; referenced 597 times)
“a marvelous work and a wonder” (2 Nephi 25:17; referenced 56 times)
“eat, drink, and be merry” (2 Nephi 28:7; referenced 39 times)
“plain and precious” (1 Nephi 13:40; referenced 29 times)
“the field is white already to harvest” (D&C 4:4; referenced 25 times)
“seek ye out of the best books” (D&C 88:118; referenced 58 times)
“seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118; referenced 52 times)
“the worth of souls is great” (D&C 18:10; referenced 77 times)

To give just one example, the following paragraph from a conference talk by the late apostle Elder Neal A. Maxwell contains several unreferenced quotes from or allusions to holy scripture.

One cannot have adequate faith in a Christ whom he does not adequately know, “who is a stranger … far from the thoughts and intents of his heart” (Mosiah 5:13). Instead, by laying aside “every weight” of the world and the sins which so “easily beset us” (Hebrews 12:1) by looking unto Jesus and by feasting upon His words, we will be able to move forward with intellectual and spiritual vigor (2 Nephi 31:20). Otherwise, as Paul said, we can become wearied and faint in our minds (Hebrews 12:3). When we understand what was revealed to Adam— “[my] plan of salvation unto all men” (Moses 6:62) – then these doctrines are keenly relevant for tomorrow’s trial, Tuesday’s temptation, or next month’s surge of self-pity. After all, chastening, the trial of our faith, and patience are part of the plan (Mosiah 23:21).1

This practice of masterfully interweaving today’s prose with the treasured words of the past is not limited to any particular speaker but is a common practice that can be seen in many General Conference addresses and elsewhere. Those interested can go to websites such as scriptures.byu.edu, where they can search for words and phrases from the scriptures and discover where they have been used in General Conference talks and speeches by General Authorities and other Church leaders from 1830 to the present day. For example, a search for the phrase “tender mercies” brings up 30 examples, and “plan of salvation” shows up 590 times.

The Why

The practice of quoting and alluding to ancient scripture, even using it unreferenced as part of one’s own vocabulary when speaking, was a common practice among writers and speakers in ancient times as well.2 Hundreds of examples of this practice can be found throughout the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

When Jesus asks His Father, “why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46; Luke 15:34), He is using a line from Psalm 22:1 that would have been well known at the time.

Lehi, in 1 Nephi 8:8, declares: “I began to pray unto the Lord that he would have mercy on me, according to the multitude of his tender mercies.” He almost certainly hadd in mind Psalm 51:1, which states: “Have mercy upon me, O God … according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies,” although he does not state that he is quoting scripture. It is possible that he knew the passage so well that he simply included its language in his own thoughts, or he might have expected that his audience would recognize the reference and be inspired by his allusion to that holy text

Today’s teachers of the Gospel of Christ similarly incorporate the words of past servants of the Lord into their own vocabulary. In doing so, they breathe renewed life into timeless words and make them relevant to our lives today. Consider the following words of the late Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

In speaking of these wondrous things I shall use my own words, though you may think they are the words of scripture, words spoken by other Apostles and prophets.
True it is they were first proclaimed by others, but they are now mine, for the Holy Spirit of God has borne witness to me that they are true, and it is now as though the Lord had revealed them to me in the first instance.3

This practice not only comes naturally to those who know and love the scriptures, but the Lord and his servants also encourage it. Through Moses, the Lord has admonished His children to “lay up [his] words in your heart and in your soul” (Deuteronomy 11:18). Nephi invited all to “feast upon the words of Christ” (2 Nephi 32:3), and Alma taught his people that if they would plant the word of God in their hearts and nourish it there, “it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life” (Alma 32:41), bearing new fruit and going forth to bless new seasons of listeners and followers.

The Know

The book of Jacob is perhaps best known for the rich and compelling allegory of the olive tree. In this allegory in Jacob 5, the prophet Zenos likens the house of Israel to an olive tree. Besides offering a panoramic view of God’s plan involving the scattering and restoration of Israel, the allegory of the olive tree also carries deep personal application for individual readers (see chart).

But what are the ancient roots of this allegory? The beginning of Jacob 5 makes it clear that the allegory comes from “the words of the prophet Zenos, which he spake unto the house of Israel” (Jacob 5:1), but many readers may not be fully aware that the allegory has its roots in similar imagery found in the Bible and the broader world of the ancient Near East.

David Rolph Seely has noted how Zenos’s allegory shares features with other parables or allegories from ancient Near East cultures, including the Greeks, Egyptians, and especially the Israelites. “Comparative examples from the ancient Near East and specifically from the Old Testament serve to provide background for a reading of Zenos’s allegory of the olive tree and provide some understanding as to its ancient context. Similarities can be found in imagery, language, and function.”1

For example, Seely pointed to Isaiah 5:1–7, which compares the house of Israel to a vineyard that has been spoiled and ruined through apostasy. Israel is also likened to a plant (including an olive tree) in such texts as Exodus 15:17, Numbers 24:6, 2 Samuel 7:10, Psalm 80:8, Hosea 14:6, and Jeremiah 11:16; 23:41. The prevalence of this symbolism in the Bible led Seely and John W. Welch to conclude that “the image of the olive tree was well known and very significant” in ancient Israel.2 The apostle Paul, undoubtedly drawing from this biblical tradition, likewise utilized some of this olive imagery in his own treatment on the restoration of Israel through Christ’s grace (Romans 11:8–24).

At the same time, It should be recognized that Zenos’s allegory is in many ways is unique compared to what is found in the Bible. James E. Faulconer cautioned all readers against drawing too many quick parallels between the two, especially with Paul’s metaphor in Romans 11. There are many “differences in detail between Jacob 5 and Romans 11” which should make readers cautious about directly connecting the two (i.e. seeing Jacob 5 as simple plagiarism of Romans 11).

It is possible that "Paul and Zenos shared a common rhetorical tradition, one in which the olive tree stands for Israel, and its destruction and restoration are associated loosely with Israel’s apostasy and restoration.”3 That being so, Faulconer went on to ultimately postulate that "a third text or texts" may have "stood between Zenos and Paul. That text could have been a paraphrase or synopsis of Zenos's work, or perhaps a text on which Zenos's parable itself depended."4 Although the answer to this complex question will perhaps never be fully settled, it is clear that Zenos's very extensive allegorical imagery, while in several ways unique, shares much in common with the olive tree symbolism that is found in the world of the Bible.

The Why

The Book of Mormon affirms that God gives revelation “unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3; cf. Doctrine and Covenants 1:24). In other words, prophets do not receive and pronounce revelation in cultural isolation. Instead, they utilize the language, symbols, and customs familiar to them and their listeners in order to effectively communicate God’s will. This helps us identify the original background to Zenos’s ancient allegory as God revealed it to him. This in turn helps us to grapple with the hard work required to see the symbolisms in this allegory the ways that they would have been perceived in the context of societies that were masters of the valuable and life-sustaining craft of olive horticulture. With that being especially understood, one should all the more think of Jacob 5 as an exceptionally rich literary employment of biblical and ancient Mediterranean symbolism. As Seely concluded,

The prophecy of Zenos in Jacob 5 is a sophisticated extended comparison using elements of simile, metaphor, parable, and allegory. . . . While Jacob 5 is unique in its sophistication, there is evidence in the ancient Near East that Zenos’s allegory of the olive tree does not come out of a vacuum. There are other known examples in ancient Near Eastern literature of extended comparisons such as fables, parables, and perhaps even allegories, but there is nothing of the length and scope of Jacob 5.5

Understanding this background may help modern readers better appreciate the refined and realistic elegance of Jacob 5. That in turn will let them draw more deeply from this text and thereby more fully apply its principles and teachings in their lives.

The Know

The allegory of the olive tree (Jacob 5) is one of the most famous chapters in all of Latter-day Saint scripture. This prophetic fable yields a rich harvest to careful readers who have mined it for meaning. Readers from all walks of life have found its symbolism meaningful and edifying; however, some may wonder whether the story accurately depicts practices and scientific realities associated with growing and cultivating olives in the Mediterranean and what those details may symbolize.

Wilford M. Hess, a professor of botany (the scientific study of plants) at BYU, found that while there were a few unusual details, in several ways the allegory was consistent with established botanical principles for growing and cultivating olives.1 Hess later teamed up with additional researchers to further explore the botanical aspects of this great extended parable.2 Hess’s original research was greatly expanded upon as the researchers were able to address 56 questions about the allegory and olive cultivation.3

“Nearly all of the allegory in Jacob 5,” they concluded, “corresponds exceptionally well with both ancient and modern botanical principles and horticultural practices.” As such, “It is hard to imagine that its author was not personally familiar with the minute details and practices involved in raising good olives in a Mediterranean climate.”4

This is significant, since according to Hess, “Joseph Smith probably had little knowledge of olive trees in New York, as they will not grow in the northeastern United States.”5 While there was some information available in the Bible and other books from Joseph Smith’s time, the details were sparse.6

For example, central to the allegory is grafting, a technique for propagating olives which involves taking branches from one tree and inserting them into another. Hess explains, “the olive tree is among the easiest of trees to propagate, and it is very easily grafted. This principle is still extensively used today.”7

Jacob 5 describes a variety of different grafting scenarios. Crucial to the allegory is the grafting of branches from a wild olive tree into the roots of the tame but decaying tree with the hope of reviving the Master’s favored tree (Jacob 5:7–10, 17, 34). Hess and his collaborators included this as one of three more unusual practices described in the Zenos’s story.8 Yet it is neither impossible nor unprecedented. They explained:

Although it would also have been unusual for an olive grower to graft wild branches onto a tame tree, circumstances exist when it makes good sense to do so. Due to the vigor and disease resistance of certain wild species, grafting wild stock onto a tame tree can strengthen and revitalize a distressed plant.9

Consider, in this light, the servant’s words in Jacob 5:34: “Behold, because thou didst graft in the branches of the wild olive tree they have nourished the roots, that they are alive and they have not perished,” and hence the master could see the tree was “good.”

Many other elements in the allegory also draw meaningfully on a real life understanding of the delicate task of raising over many years and generations valuable crops of high quality olives. These elements include transplanting tender young branches, balancing the growth of the branches with the roots, nourishing, digging about, burning prunings and weeds, preventing decay and withering away, and laboring in teams at harvest time.10

The Why

Allegories are powerful stories, useful for teaching because they make lofty or complicated concepts relatable and understandable. In its original context, Zenos’s allegory resonated with his Israelite audience because they were familiar and experienced with olive cultivation.11 Jacob’s audience probably would not have known as much about raising slow-growing and climate-sensitive olive trees, but they would have related to the allegory because they saw themselves as a branch of the house of Israel, broken off from the mother tree and placed in a far corner of the vineyard (Jacob 5:14).

Even without understanding all the nuances of botany and olive cultivation, readers today can learn a great deal from Zenos’s allegory and Jacob’s application of it in his own teachings. Still, understanding technical botanical principles and best agricultural practices can deepen awareness of and appreciation for the precise gospel lessons embedded within this sweeping metaphor.

For example, knowing that it was highly unusual to graft wild branches into a domesticated tree teaches about the extent and effort the Lord makes to reclaim His lost children. Hess and co-authors explained:

Zenos’s allegory portrays the Lord of the vineyard as somewhat exasperated, trying all available options to revive his old, beloved tree, including the extraordinary step of experimenting to see if any good might come by grafting wild stock onto the branches of the natural tree. Although doing this would have been an unconventional, perhaps even desperate measure, the Lord will spare no effort to obtain again the desired fruit from his choice plant.12

Just as the Lord of the vineyard would stop at nothing to reclaim his favored tree, so too will Heavenly Father go to great lengths to reclaim His lost children, even resorting to unconventional, desperate, and perhaps even counterintuitive methods in hopes of implanting His love in their hearts, hoping that it may take root.

The Know

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints celebrates the anniversary of its founding on April 6. We at Book of Mormon Central want to help celebrate this occasion by highlighting the way in which the Book of Mormon played a central role in the early development of the organization of the Restored Church. One of the book’s many contributions is its divine role in guiding Joseph Smith and other early leaders of the Church in the creation of the Church’s administrative principles.

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery sought guidance from on high as they began to baptize and lead the early Saints in worship and found many important principles for doing so in the pages of the Book of Mormon. As LDS scholar John W. Welch explained, “The first evidence that the Book of Mormon was understood and used as a Church administrative guide came as early as the end of June 1829, shortly after the translation of the Book of Mormon had been completed.”1 In a three-page draft of a document entitled “Articles of the Church of Christ,” Oliver Cowdery quoted generously from the Book of Mormon on various topics regarding basic instructions for the administration of ordinances and other practices of the Church.2 A large portion of the document consists of long quotes regarding baptism, bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost, the sacrament, disciplinary procedures, and the manner of conducting church worship services. Welch noted that these passages come verbatim from the words of Christ in 3 Nephi 9, 11, 18, and 27, and from Moroni 3, 4, 5, and 6. Verses are also quoted from 2 Nephi 26; Alma 1, 12, 16, 34; and Ether 5.3

The following is a long sampling of the many administrative principles and instructions that can be found in the Book of Mormon:

Regarding the name of the Church: “Therefore ye shall call the church in my name” (3 Nephi 27:7—9)
At its foundation, the Church shall be built upon the doctrine of Christ and Gospel of Christ, including the Lord’s direction that these are “the things that ye must do in my church” (3 Nephi 11:31—40; 27:13—21)
Everything in the Church is to be done for Christ and in His name: “Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name” (3 Nephi 27:7)
Priesthood officers are to be ordained by those in authority: “And gave him power to ordain priests and teachers” (2 Nephi 5:26; Mosiah 23:16—18; 25:19) and “priests and elders” (Alma 6:1; Moroni 3:1—4)
These ordinations are to occur by the laying on of hands (Alma 6:1; Moroni 2:2)
It requires the bestowal of priesthood authority in order to baptize: “I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people” (Mosiah 18:13; 3 Nephi 11:19—22)
Jesus also “gave them power to give the Holy Ghost,” which was a bestowal of higher priesthood power (3 Nephi 18:36—37; Moroni 2:1—3)
In order to be baptized, one must have faith and repentance: “Repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One” (Alma 32:15—43; 2 Nephi 9:23; 31:11, 19; Mosiah 3:12; 4:10, 11, 26; 25:15) and confess one’s sins: “They came forth and did confess their sins and were baptized unto repentance” (Helaman 5:17; 16:1; Moroni 6:7)
Making covenants involves remembering, renewing, and keeping them (Mosiah 5:1—10; 18:13; 3 Nephi 18:6-11)
Infant baptism is not to be practiced, as it implicitly denies many important doctrines (Moroni 8:20—21)
Baptism is only for those who are “capable of committing sin” (Moroni 8:10)
Jesus gave the precise words of the baptismal prayer (3 Nephi 11:26—27)
He also gave the precise procedures and words to be used in giving the gift of the Holy Ghost (Moroni 2:2)
Those receiving baptism and the Holy Ghost are to be “numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered” (Mosiah 6:4; 26:35; Alma 6:3; Moroni 6:4)
The manner and words to be used in “administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church” are given (3 Nephi 18:6-11; Moroni 4—5; 6:6)
The faithful “must always pray unto the Father in [Christ’s] name” (3 Nephi 18:19, 23, 30)
Members shall “administer of [their] substance unto him that standeth in need” (Jacob 2:19; Mosiah 4:15—26; 18:27; Alma 1:27; 34:26—29; 35:9)
They shall bring “all the tithes into the storehouse” (3 Nephi 24:8—10)
Meetings are to be “conducted by the church after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost” (Moroni 6:9)
The Sabbath day is to be kept holy (Mosiah 18:23, 25)
Members shall serve as volunteers, “for if they labor for money they shall perish” (2 Nephi 26:31)
Temples are to be built and used for sacred worship (2 Nephi 5:16; Jacob 1:17; Mosiah 2:1, 5—6; 11:10; Helaman 3:9; 3 Nephi 11:1)
Missionary work is to go abroad (Mosiah 11, 18; 5:10—16; Alma 4—15; 31—34; 36:24; Helaman 6; 3 Nephi 20:30; 21:26; 27:1)
Disciplinary procedures are set forth (Mosiah 26:29, 32; 3 Nephi 18:28—33; Moroni 6:7—8)
Records are to be kept (1 Nephi 6:1—6; 9:1—6; Mosiah 1:3—7; Alma 37:1—18; 3 Nephi 23:6--13)4

The Why

From this long list and many other such instructions, it is not hard to see why one could well call the Book of Mormon a handbook of instruction for church administration.

Readers of the Book of Mormon often direct their attention to its storylines, biographies, doctrines, revelations, or geographic, literary or cultural details. Many do not usually realize the great debt that the Restored Church owes to the Book of Mormon for the myriad of practical guidelines for the administration of the Lord’s church that it provided the early Saints. It is actually quite amazing that such a coherent and useful set of statements of church policies, procedures, and practices could be embedded, often inconspicuously, in texts scattered throughout the Book of Mormon.

The Lord Jesus Christ established His Gospel and His Church among the Book of Mormon peoples. In fact, He told them the things that they “must do” in His church (3 Nephi 27:21). The principles that were revealed to these ancient peoples of God were recorded so that they could be of benefit to future generations as well, to those who would be tasked with restoring the revealed order of the Church of Jesus Christ.

For these reasons, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and other early Church leaders looked at the Book of Mormon as a powerful instructional resource, given by God, for how Christ’s church should be set up and how it should operate. They took the book seriously and paid close attention to its teachings. When they failed to do so consistently, the Lord reminded them to “to do according to that which I have written” in the Book of Mormon (D&C 84:57; emphasis added).

As John W. Welch has concluded:

The administrative principles embedded in the Book of Mormon are marvelous. When its instructions are assembled and brought together out of their narrative settings, the whole set of instructions is amazingly detailed and effective. The administrative dimension of the Book of Mormon is yet another layer of this miraculous book’s complexity. The Book of Mormon not only reveals the plain precious truths of the gospel but also conveys practical guidelines that work, all around the world, as an effective and dynamic church order.5

For these many reasons, the Book of Mormon should be held in high esteem in all religious circles as a foundational handbook of Christian organization and ministry.

The Know

Jacob’s record concludes with an account of his confrontation with Sherem, a “wicked man” (Jacob 7:23) who “preached many things which were flattering unto the people . . . that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ” (Jacob 7:2). Sherem denied that prophets could foresee the coming of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Concerning Jacob’s testimony of the coming of the Son of God, Sherem accused Jacob saying,

And ye have led away much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and keep not the law of Moses which is the right way; and convert the law of Moses into the worship of a being which ye say shall come many hundred years hence. And now behold, I, Sherem, declare unto you that this is blasphemy; for no man knoweth of such things; for he cannot tell of things to come (Jacob 7:7).

John W. Welch has looked closely at this episode in the Book of Mormon and has insightfully concluded that the whole incident, including Sherem’s accusations, Jacob’s defense, the vocabulary employed by both men, and the ultimate outcome, can be tied back to ancient Israelite jurisprudence.

“Although Sherem’s accusations did not result in a legal proceeding as such—no court was ever convened, no elders were assembled to sit in judgment, and no human witnesses were called to testify—his accusations were legally grounded,” wrote Welch. “His allegations arose out of several compelling legal issues that would have confronted any ancient Israelite who did not understand or accept the doctrine of Christ.”1

Specifically, it appears that Sherem accused Jacob of three capital offenses under the Law of Moses: “(1) causing public apostasy, (2) blasphemy, and (3) false prophecy.”2 This can be seen in Jacob 7:7, where Sherem accuses Jacob of leading “away much of this people” (apostasy), “blasphemy,” and not actually knowing of the coming of Christ, as man “cannot tell of things to come” (false prophecy).

“If we take Sherem’s arguments at face value, he essentially resisted the messianic clarifications introduced by the revelations of Lehi and Nephi,” Welch clarified. “He preferred a system of legal rules based on the law of Moses . . . without any foreshadowing in light of messianic expectation.”3 Of course, by appealing to a reasoned exploration of the scriptures (Jacob 7:10–11) as well as his own prophetic testimony (Jacob 7:12), Jacob was ultimately able to “confound [Sherem] in all his words” (Jacob 7:8). After asking for a “sign” to convince him (Jacob 7:13), Sherem eventually recognized his guilt and confessed his errors “unto God” before he “gave up the ghost” (Jacob 7:17–20).

The Why

Modern readers of this account may feel Sherem’s fate was unjust. After all, he conceded that Jacob was right and appeared to be repentant. However, as Welch explained, the outcome of this incident is understandable from an ancient Israelite legal perspective. Given the reported circumstances, Sherem, it appears,

had proved himself to be a false accuser and, in effect, a false witness. Having initiated a false complaint against Jacob and having testified that he believed in the scriptures while denying the Messiah, Sherem became subject to the provisions of Deuteronomy 19:16–21, which require the unflinching punishment of all who “rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong” (v. 16).4

Sherem himself acknowledged the deep seriousness of his wrongdoing. He greatly feared that he had committed "the unpardonable sin," having "lied unto God," and thus his case would be "awful" (7:19). While encouraging offenders to confess their wrongdoings, Hebrew law could leave it to God to carry out divine judgment incases such as Sherem's.

Recalling that Sherem accused Jacob of no less than three capital offenses, it makes sense from an ancient perspective why death was his ultimate outcome: he had falsely accused Jacob of crimes that would have resulted in the prophet’s death, and so he himself was liable for the same punishment. As Welch wrote, “Sherem’s offenses were not trifling ones. . . . Under the laws of the ancient Near East, the crimes of perjury—namely, the bearing of false witness under oath or the failure to prove one’s sworn accusation against another—were apparently vigorously prosecuted, and offenders were seriously punished.”5

While the interaction between Sherem and Jacob can be interpreted and applied on many levels, a close reading of this account from an ancient legal perspective helps modern readers better understand what is an important underlying issue at stake in the story: how to judge righteously and discern false accusers from those with legitimate grievances. This in turn set an important precedent for understanding subsequent narratives in the Book of Mormon that touch on this theme. As Welch concluded, "The case of Sherem set the tone of righteous judgment underlying all that follows in the Book of Mormon." This is illustrated by juxtaposing the figures of Sherem and Jacob, and contrasting their respective bahavior.

Sherem’s wrongful accusations set the pattern of unrighteous judgment and abuse of process. On the one hand, the essence of judging unrighteously is to be found in contentiousness, overconfidence, and showing disrespect for the Lord’s anointed high priest. On the other hand, Jacob’s success in faithfully and patiently withstanding Sherem’s affront would become the model of righteous judgment, allowing justice to be manifest in the overt judgments and revelations of God.6

The Know

In 1984, John W. Welch observed that after Jacob, some of the keepers of the small plates “do not appear eager to write, nor do they seem to have much to say.” While it is popular to see them as lazy or negligent, Welch continued, “It is interesting, however, that they manifest a strong sense of duty about writing what little they do.”1 Jacob 1:1–4 documents the mandate Nephi gave to his brother Jacob, and Jacob states that he passed this same commandment on to his son Enos (Jacob 7:27).

Welch delineates seven obligations that can be found in Nephi’s instructions in Jacob 1:1–4:

A record is to be kept on the small plates by way of commandment (Jacob 1:1–2).
The record must be personally written (Jacob 1:2).
The record must be preserved (Jacob 1:3).
The record must handed down within the lineage of Jacob from generation to generation (Jacob 1:3).
The record should include: (a) a few things which the writer considered most precious; (b) sacred preaching; and (c) great revelation or prophesying (Jacob 1:4). Welch stressed the important caveat, “The record keeper was only expected to record these things ‘if there were’ such things to be found in his lifetime.”2
The record was only to lightly cover the history of the people of Nephi (Jacob 1:2).
The words on the record were meant, “as much as it were possible for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of our people” (Jacob 1:4).3

The writings of Jacob and each of his descendants can be expressly evaluated on these criteria. The results are summarized in the following table:

Criteria	Jacob	Enos	Jarom	Omni	Amaron	Chemish	Abinadom	Amaleki
By way of commandment	Jacob 1:8	Jacob 7:27	Jarom 1:1	Omni 1:1	Omni 1:3	Omni 1:9	Omni 1:10–11	Omni 1:12
Personally Written	Jacob 3:14	Enos 1:1, 11, 17, 19	Jarom 1:1–2	Omni 1:1–3	Omni 1:4, 9	Omni 1:9	Omni 1:10	Omni 1:12
Preserved	Enos 1:18	Enos 1:13–17	Jarom 1:14	Omni 1:3	Omni 1:8	Omni 1:9	Omni 1:11	Omni 1:30
Handed Down	Jacob 7:27	Jarom 1:1	Jarom 1:15	Omni 1:3	Omni 1:8	Omni 1:10	Omni 1:12	Omni 1:25
Includes Few most precious things	Jacob 5:61, 74	Enos 1:2–8	Jarom 1:1	.	.	.	.	Omni 1:25
Has sacred preaching	Jacob 2–3	Enos 1:23, 26	Jarom 1:7, 11	.	.	.	.	Omni 1:13, 25
Contains revelation/prophecy	Jacob 4–6; esp. 4:4–14	Enos 1:19, 23, 26	Jarom 1:2, 4, 10	.	Omni 1:6	.	Omni 1:11	Omni 1:13, 25
Light on History	Jacob 1:9–16; 3:13	Enos 1:20–21	Jarom 1:5–13	Omni 1:3	Omni 1:5	.	Omni 1:10	Omni 1:12–29
Writing for the sake of Christ	Jacob 4:11–12; 6:8–9; 7:6, 11, 14, 19	Enos 1:8, 26–27	Jarom 1:11	Omni 1:2?	.	.	.	Omni 1:25–26
Writing for the sake of the people	Jacob 1:19; 7:21–23	Enos 1:9–11	Jarom 1:2, 12	Omni 1:2	.	.	Omni 1:10	Omni 1:26

While not every author satisfies every criterion, given the brevity of their writings they actually do an impressive job covering the basics of Nephi’s directive. Each of these writers makes a point of writing in the first person: “I, Jarom” (Jarom 1:1), “I, Omni” (Omni 1:1), or “I, Amaron” (Omni 1:4), thus discharging the personal obligation Nephi gave to Jacob and his successors, as Jacob reported: “that I should write” (Jacob 1:2).

Likewise, Chemish and others comment that they will write only a “few things” (Jacob 4:2; Jarom 1:1; Omni 1:4, 9, 22), as Nephi had also explicitly instructed (“few,” Jacob 1:2).

Even when these authors know of no new revelations, they typically certify that “I know of no revelation save that which has been written, neither prophecy; wherefore, that which is sufficient is written” (Omni 1:11; see also Jarom 1:2; Omni 1:25).

In addition, a careful reading of the vocabulary multiple of the small plates authors used reveals that even in their brief comments, they consciously “echo the instructions of Nephi in many respects.”4 Welch concluded, “the textual evidence is persuasive that the command of Nephi was followed by Jacob and his descendants as they wrote the books of Jacob, Enos, Jarom, and Omni.”5

The Why

As the plates passed through various hands, its authors were under mandate to adhere to certain criteria. Image by Book of Mormon Central.

Recognizing the faithful adherence of Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Amaron, Chemish, Abinadom and Amaleki to Nephi’s instructions provides a different perspective on these often overlooked Book of Mormon authors. “Although these writers,” explained Welch, “are most often thought of simply for their terseness and lack of substance, modern readers should not overlook the fact that their brevity was dictated in large part by the small size of the plates and by the specific limitations of Nephi’s command.”6

Using Nephi’s command as a template, modern readers can appreciate these small entries for their scribal attention to duty and detail. Although Nephi’s instructions to Jacob are soon forgotten by most people reading the Book of Mormon today, and probably passed just quickly through Joseph Smith’s consciousness as he labored over the task of rendering the text into English, Nephi’s mandate was not forgotten by Jacob and his seven successors.

Their diligent adherence to Nephi’s instructions explains why these small books follow a particular pattern in a manner that is worthy of admiration: “Modern readers should not underrate the consistent and subtle way in which the record shows that this command was dutifully obeyed to the end of this line of Jacob’s lineage.”7 While the temptation is to breeze through these brief entries on the small plates, careful reading and thinking about these often neglected voices rewards patient readers.

The Know

As Enos describes Nephite life in his day (fifth century BC), he says that they raised “many horses” (Enos 1:21). The mention of horses among domesticated animals kept by Book of Mormon peoples has raised questions in some people’s minds, due to the prevailing view that horses were not found in the Americas during pre-Columbian times. Horses are mentioned only on a few occasions in the Book of Mormon (the last mention is around the time of Christ):

Horses are mentioned once, in Moroni’s retelling of the record of Ether, as one of the animals that were “useful unto man” among Jaredites during the reign of Emer (Ether 9:19)
Nephi mentions wild horses among animals found on arrival in the Promised Land (1 Nephi 18:25)
Enos says that in his time, the Nephites raised “many horses” (Enos 1:21), but how and why they were used is not mentioned
King Lamoni had horses which Ammon and other servants prepared for a royal procession (Alma 18:9–10,12; 20:6)
Horses were included among the livestock and provisions the Nephites took when they left Zarahemla and withdrew for seven years into a more secure site as a defensive tactic against the Gadianton Robbers (3 Nephi 3:22; 4:4; 6:1)1

In this small handful of references, no text ever says that horses were ridden or used in battle. They are sometimes mentioned with chariots, but are never actually described as pulling them. It is hard to determine exactly what kind of role they played in the daily life of Book of Mormon peoples except to say that they were “useful.”

In 3 Nephi 4:4, horses are mentioned as being among the provisions “reserved for themselves … that they might subsist for the space of seven years.” The word "subsist" may imply that horses in that desperate time were used for food. Fortunately, the Nephites were successful in their defensive strategy and were eventually able to return to their own lands, "every man, with his family, his flocks and herds, his horses and his cattle, and all things whatsoever did belong unto them" (3 Nephi 6:1). These limited details seem to allow Brant Gardner’s observation, “The Book of Mormon ‘horse’ never fulfills the functions we expect of a horse.”2

Readers can interpret the presence of horses in the Book of Mormon in a variety of different ways.

1. Horses in the Archaeological Record

Perhaps the most straightforward approach is to assume that horses, which subsequently became extinct, were available in the area in which the Nephites and Lamanites lived. It is not unusual for primary source documents to mention things which archaeologists cannot prove. In fact, it is expected that authentic documents will give us new information about the past.3

Some evidence may indicate the presence of horses in America in pre-Columbian times. Dr. Wade Miller, an internationally respected geologist and paleontologist, ran Carbon-14 tests on several horse specimens found at archaeological sites throughout the Americas. Preliminary results have returned various dates from about 6000 BC to AD 1400.4 Daniel Johnson has collected and summarized the evidence for horses in ancient America. His data analyzes the anomalous dating of horse bones, art works, and the variety and distribution of horses in early post-Columbian times.5

2. Nephi Could Have Borrowed the Word "Horse"

Another approach to this question suggests that the word “horse” in the Book of Mormon is being used to refer to a different animal. Throughout history, when immigrants and travelers have encountered new, unfamiliar species, they have often applied labels from their own language which originally referred to different animals.6 In many cases, the borrowed term has become the common name.

For example, the Greeks coined the name hippopotamus, which literally means “river horse.”7 The American bison is still colloquially called buffalo—which technically refers to a different species—a practice that started with the French trappers who first explored the American West. The terms elk and robin were also applied to American animals by Europeans, even though they are used in reference to totally different species in the Old World.

Relevant to the issue of horses in the Book of Mormon is the linguistic confusion that the horse caused when the Spanish first arrived. Different Maya and Aztec groups applied their labels for deer or tapir to the Spaniards’ horses, lacking a better word.8 Perhaps Book of Mormon peoples made the same connection in reverse, applying their Old World term for “horse” to some other species.

3. "Horse" could be a Result of Translation

Translating with Oliver. Watercolor by Anthony Sweat.

It is also possible that “horse” is a “translator anachronism.” Brant Gardner explains, “We need look no further than the King James translation of the Bible for examples of anachronisms that occur only in translation and not in the text being translated.” One prominent example is the mention of candles, which were not invented in biblical times, though the term is used in reference to oil lamps. “Thus, the word candle is an anachronism, but only in the translation.”9

Without the original text, it is impossible to be sure whether “horse” is a loan-shift the Nephites made or an anachronism caused by translation, but in either case the word “horse” would not refer to what today’s readers might assume or expect. One should be aware of these possibilities while reading references to horses and other plants and animals not commonly thought to be in the Americas during Book of Mormon times.

The Why

Why horses are mentioned in the Book of Mormon is unstated. How they were used, when, and by whom, is left unsaid. Indeed, needing to say that they were useful on some occasions seems to imply something remarkable or unusual, otherwise the point would not need to be mentioned. In fact, in many cultures and on various topographies, horses are not useful, being hard to tame and costly to maintain.

While there is no definitive answer to why horses are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, each of these prospects creates room for further exploration, wondering, understanding, and especially faith. Each possible explanation also teaches important lessons about archaeology, ancient writings, and translations that need to be taken into account when considering information, insights, questions, and curiosities about the Book of Mormon.

1. Be Patient with the Archaeological Record

First, it is best to be patient with the archaeological record. There is still much work to be done, and lots to be learned about life in pre-Columbian America. The vast majority of Mesoamerican ruins remain untouched underneath thick jungle growth,10 and other areas in the Americas have received even less attention. Also, the preservation of animal bones is very poor in the humid jungles of Mesoamerica.11 Since the Book of Mormon text mentions horses rarely, the likelihood of finding bones or other remains of their horses becomes even more remote.

Still, several items mentioned in the Book of Mormon once considered anachronistic have since been verified.12 This is why John E. Clark, a Latter-day Saint and prominent Mesoamerican archaeologist, declared: “the Book of Mormon looks better with age.”13 Such findings should urge caution against making final judgments based on absence of evidence.

2. Book of Mormon Peoples, Unsurprisingly, Acted Like Real People

Second, Book of Mormon peoples should be expected to act and behave just as real people have throughout history. It is likely that, on arrival, Nephi had the same problem as many others have historically when encountering new species in the Promised Land. Hence, anthropologist and Book of Mormon scholar John L. Sorenson explained, “the Lehites would have followed [common naming practices] … in adapting their Hebrew nomenclature to apply to the new fauna they encountered.”14

3. A Divine Translation Should be a Real Translation

Finally, even a divine translation should be treated as a real translation, with all the complications that are attendant to rendering a text into a new language. Having carefully studied the translation of the Book of Mormon, Brant A. Gardner offers this important caution: “the very fact that we have the Book of Mormon in translation requires that we look at anachronisms in the text carefully. … In the vast majority of the cases, it is reasonable that we are seeing a translation anachronism rather than a historical anachronism.”15 Ultimately, any translation, but especially a divine translation, may purposefully and beneficially invite its readers to wonder about many things, thus encouraging them to further study while allowing them to exercise faith when confronting questions.

The Know

Both Jarom and Omni explicitly state that genealogy is one of their main reasons for writing on the small plates (Jarom 1:1; Omni 1:1). Genealogy was certainly important to Book of Mormon writers, especially the small plates authors. It was one of the reasons given for recovering the plates of brass, but Nephi gives few genealogical details when he reports the contents of those records (1 Nephi 3:3; 5:14: 6:1).

Jarom and Omni are also sparse on genealogy. Mothers and extended family members are never mentioned, only the immediate father-to-son lineage. “Neither Jarom nor Omni … record a genealogy,” observed Brant A. Gardner. “The only genealogical information,” Gardner continued, “is Jarom’s identification of his father’s name. Why is the one thing that the authors understood as the primary reason for keeping the record in the first place missing?”1

Apparently Nephi did not think the small plates were an appropriate place for long lists of forefathers (1 Nephi 6:1). This would seem to be at odds, however, with Jarom and Omni’s declarations that they wrote “to preserve our genealogy” (Omni 1:1). How were they preserving genealogy without recording an extended genealogy?

As Gardner has pointed out, “They do include genealogy insofar as they indicate their connection to the lineage that is caring for the small plates.”2 Each record keeper, both on the small plates and in Mormon’s abridgement, did give enough information for their lineages to be reconstructed; however, they are sometimes hard to keep straight. John W. Welch reasoned, “Keeping genealogy may have been a byproduct of this record-keeping tradition.”3

Tracing the lineage, as opposed to giving a expansive family history, was of supreme importance to ancient authors in both the Old and New Worlds. In 1976, John L. Sorenson noted, “In general terms we could expect a Mesoamerican codex to be … an annal of major events affecting a ruling lineage,” and the “Book of Mormon is an account of a lineage of priest-rulers” and “its scope is the much more limited one of recounting events mostly significant for a particular lineage.”4

In 1985, Sorenson began to more fully sketch out the concept of the Book of Mormon as a “lineage history.”5 This was expanded on in 1997,6 and finally in 2013 Sorenson provided his fullest comparison of the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican lineage histories.7“A lineage history records facts and notions significant for establishing the sociopolitical status of a group whose members claim descent (real or fictive) from a common ancestor.”8 By definition, genealogy was important to lineage histories. The small plates had become the Jacobite lineage history, and thus identifying their lineage was important.

In Mesoamerica, lineage histories were kept by priest-scholars, served as symbols of power for the ruling elite, contained the group’s origin story (which provided legitimacy to the elite lineages), and would be used to foretell the future.9The Book of Mormon served these same functions in Nephite society.10 Sorenson believed, “The Book of Mormon makes clear that it is such a lineage history.”11

The Why

Lineage continues to be important throughout the Book of Mormon, as evidenced by Mormon's own declaration of Lehite descent (3 Nephi 5:20). Understanding the Book of Mormon as a lineage history has important implications. As Sorenson noted, “The ‘history’ kept by a lineage is not, of course, a comprehensive account of everything taking place in the area.” Its concern is more limited to the things deemed important to that lineage group and impacting them most. Sorenson summarized:

All this information boils down to the fact that the Book of Mormon is a partial record of events, emphasizing what happened to one group of people, put in their own ethnocentric terms, in the midst of other peoples each with its own version of events.12

The Book of Mormon itself seems to reflect the reality of competing lineages with alternative histories.13“The difference,” Sorenson explained, “is important if we are to relate the [Book of Mormon] to archaeological finds.”14

Instead of expecting clear and obvious archaeological correlations, the relationship to a lineage history is subtler. Sorenson pointed out examples from Mesoamerican lineage histories, which “may have been accurate from the point of view of the intruding elite,” but “the tradition they passed down did not reflect the broader flow of events in the geographical area and certainly failed to have a noticeable impact on the archaeological record."15

This also sheds light on the importance of keeping personal and family histories today. Personal and family histories preserve not only the warm memories of important family occasions, but also transmit traditions and heritage to new generations.

While Book of Mormon writers took pride in the noble mortal lineage, they taught that the most important lineage was the divine lineage of Christ. The people become "the children of Christ" and are thereby "made free" (Mosiah 5:7-8); Christ's seed are those who listen to and follow the prophets, thus becoming "heirs of the kingdom of God" (Mosiah 15:11). This divine genealogy was not limited to the royal or priestly families, but was extended to all who would come unto Christ. This remains true today, as those who covenant to follow the Savior, according to Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "In spiritual and figurative terms...become the sons and daughters of Christ, heirs to his kingdom."16

The Know

When the people of Zarahemla met the elder Mosiah, they showed him a “large stone … with engravings on it” which Mosiah was able to interpret “by the gift and power of God.” The stone “gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people,” and also “spake a few words concerning his fathers” and related the origin of the Jaredites “from the tower” (Omni 1:20–22).

Early Latter-day Saints living in Nauvoo were interested to learn that explorers John Lloyd Stephens and Fredrick Catherwood had discovered a large, engraved stone among the ruins of Quiriguá in Guatemala. In October 1842, with Joseph Smith at the helm as editor, the Times and Seasons reported, “that a large stone with engravings upon it” had been found by Stephens, “among the left remembrances of the, (to him), lost and unknown.”1 This was seen as favorable evidence for the Book of Mormon by these first generation Mormons.

Today, the large carved stones, called stelae (singular, stela), of the Maya and other Mesoamerican cultures are well known. Brant A. Gardner explained, “Mesoamerica is unique in the Western Hemisphere for its writing systems. … Part of that tradition includes inscriptions on stelae, or large stones.”2 These were called lakam-tuun by the Maya, which literally meant “large stone,” just as it is in Omni 1:20.3 LDS Mesoamericanists Mark Wright and Kerry Hull have both pointed out the potential significance of this connection.4

Comparing and contrasting the content on stelae with other writing media in the Mesoamerican area, John L. Sorenson explained:

The other large class of documents of which we know consisted of inscribed stones. Those too typically were written in double columns. Again some human figure or a more complex historical or mythological scene would be presented. Sometimes it was the texts that were primary, and the art secondary, and at other times, the reverse.5

Most stelae were meant to memorialize the king and his accomplishments.6 Mesoamerican art historians Maline D. Werness-Rude and Kaylee R. Spencer said, “Stelae most often depict the visages of a king,” and that “stelae must be seen … as historical records of past activities.” They added,

Inscriptions carved on the sides and often the backs of the sculptures specifically anchor the ruler’s actions within time and space. They also often name particular gods and ancestors …. Both text and iconography create parallels between the sitter’s actions and those of past kings and queens—ancestors whose activities other stelae … recount.7

The origin of this practice began with the Olmec, a culture in mesoamerica contemporary with the Jaredites.8 By 400 BC stelae typically focused on a king or ruler, depicting him as a warrior, providing a record of his actions, and listing off the ruler’s ancestors.9 These details are broadly consistent with the brief description given in Omni 1:20–22.10

The Why

The monumental inscriptions of Mesoamerica were not widely known in the United States until after Stephens and Catherwood published their findings in 1841.11 The excitement in and around Nauvoo over their findings in 1842 indicates that Joseph Smith and early Latter-day Saints were most likely unaware of things like stone inscriptions found in the Americas previously.

Even as awareness of Mesoamerican stelae grew, the inscriptions remained undecipherable, and as such the understanding of their contents was limited. Before the 1960s, most scholars believed that Mesoamerican monuments had no historical content whatsoever, but exclusively depicted and described gods and myths.12 Yet the Book of Mormon described a “large stone” engraved with the history of a king, his battles, his ancestors, and the origins of his ruling lineage.

Today, it is easy to take for granted the evidence for large stone monuments from Mesoamerica and assume it is of little or no significance for the Book of Mormon. Such an attitude, however, fails to appreciate how unknown the practice was in Joseph Smith’s own time and the fact that it took 130–160 years for linguists and epigraphers to catch up with Amaleki’s description in Omni 1:20–22.13

The more scholars learn about Mesoamerican stelae, the more comfortably Coriantumr’s stela fits the description. This is one instance where archaeology now strongly supports the Book of Mormon, whereas it did not seem to before. Realizing this underscores the importance of patience when it comes to comparing a text like the Book of Mormon to the archaeological record.14

The Know

When Mormon decided to include the small plates with the rest of his abridgment, he gave an editorial explanation for why this material was included (Words of Mormon 1:1–11).1 Mormon began by explaining that he is about to pass the record on to his son, Moroni, and that he has witnessed the near annihilation of his people (Words of Mormon 1:1–2). He then explained:

And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi. (Words of Mormon 1:3)

Mormon went on, “The things which are upon these plates pleasing me … I chose these things, to finish my record upon them” (Words of Mormon 1:4–5). “I shall take these plates,” Mormon said, “and put them with the remainder of my record.” He did this, being prompted by the Spirit, “for a wise purpose” (Words of Mormon 1:6–7). Mormon expresses his hope that his people may “once again come to the knowledge of God” (Words of Mormon 1:9), and then relates what happened to these plates and how they ended up in his possession in the first place (Words of Mormon 1:10–11).

Altogether, Words of Mormon 1:3–11 explains: (a) how and when Mormon found the small plates; (b) how they became part of the larger archive at his disposal; (c) his summary of their contents; (d) and his reasons for appending them to his larger record. In short, everything a reader would expect to learn in an introduction. Yet Mormon placed his explanatory material at the end, not the beginning.

Similarly, the Title Page of the Book of Mormon was, according Joseph Smith, “a literal translation taken from the last leaf of the plates.”2 This is consistent with a common ancient practice known as subscriptio, where introductory information, such as “the indication of the name of the writer/author and the title of the book” is placed “right at the end, after the last line of the text.”3 Walter Burkert, an expert in the Classics, believed that the attestation of this practice in Greek literature was “a detailed and exclusive correspondence which proves that Greek literary practice is ultimately dependent upon Mesopotamia.”4

The Why

Drawing on the work Burkert, William J. Hamblin noted that if the practice of subscriptio is “proof,” as Burkert said, of the dependence of Greek literature on Mesopotamian influence, “cannot the same thing be said of the Book of Mormon—that the practice of subscriptio represents ‘a detailed and exclusive correspondence’ which offers proof that the Book of Mormon is ‘ultimately dependent’ on the ancient Near East?”5

While proof maybe a strong word, it is certainly true that, as Hamblin pointed out, “This idea would have been counterintuitive in the early nineteenth century when title pages appeared at the beginning, not the end, of books.”6 This is evident in the fact that although he found it on the “last leaf,” the title page was published in the front, not the back, of the Book of Mormon.

This ancient practice is not only evident in the placement of the title page, however, but also the location of Words of Mormon. The practice of subscriptio explains why Mormon placed his explanation of the small plates at the end, not the beginning, of the record.

The Know

The Why

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

Additional Images

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

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

1. Horses in the Archaeological Record

2. Nephi Could Have Borrowed the Word "Horse"

3. "Horse" could be a Result of Translation

The Why

1. Be Patient with the Archaeological Record

2. Book of Mormon Peoples, Unsurprisingly, Acted Like Real People

3. A Divine Translation Should be a Real Translation

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading