New KnoWhys

“Thou art a king and a ruler over this people, whom the Lord our God hath given us.”

Mosiah 1:10

King Benjamin's Speech by Minerva Teichert

The Know

The book of Mosiah begins rather abruptly. Unlike the other books in the Book of Mormon, the book of Mosiah does not begin by introducing a speaker or author/editor but, instead, oddly jumps right into the details of King Benjamin’s peace and preparations to crown his son Mosiah as king.1 After a few final verses in Words of Mormon 1:13–18, the book of Mosiah begins:

“And now there was no more contention in all the land of Zarahemla, among all the people who belonged to king Benjamin, so that king Benjamin had continual peace all the remainder of his days. . . . And it came to pass that after king Benjamin had made an end of teaching his sons, that he waxed old, and he saw that he must very soon go the way of all the earth; therefore, he thought it expedient that he should confer the kingdom upon one of his sons” (Mosiah 1:1, 9).

Mosiah was chosen to succeed his father as king, and so a proclamation was ordered “throughout all this land among all this people, or the people of Zarahemla, and the people of Mosiah who dwell in the land, that thereby they may be gathered together” (Mosiah 1:10).

At this public gathering Mosiah was to be declared king (Mosiah 1:10), and also at this gathering Benjamin gave his unforgettable and masterful speech that touched on the atonement, the importance of balancing justice and mercy, the nature of God, and other crucial gospel teachings (Mosiah 2–6). For his part, Mosiah reigned as a righteous king who followed the inspired teachings of his father. “And it came to pass that king Mosiah did walk in the ways of the Lord, and did observe his judgments and his statutes, and did keep his commandments in all things whatsoever he commanded him” (Mosiah 6:6).

While the doctrinal content of Benjamin’s speech is the most valuable to readers, scholars such as Stephen D. Ricks have noticed that “many features of this coronation ceremony reflect ancient Israelite culture.”2This includes: (1) “the significance of the office of king,” (2) “the coronation ceremony for the new king,” (3) “the order of events reported [which] reflects the ‘treaty/covenant’ pattern well-known in ancient Israel and the ancient Near East,” and (4) “an interrelated cluster of concepts in Israelite religion [that] connects the themes of rising from the dust, enthronement, kingship, and resurrection.”3

As Ricks explores at length, these elements combined to serve something of a dual purpose. On one level, they reinforced the doctrinal underpinnings of the plan of salvation. For example, the theme of rising from the dust can be compared to our mortal journey and resurrection, while enthronement and kingship represent our return to God's presence (cf. Revelation 3:21).

At the same time, they focused the people’s attention on the important fact that the kingship (and by extension the covenantal commitment of the community) was being renewed and perpetuated. The “themes of kingship, covenant-making, rising from the dust, coronation, and resurrection,” all of which are found in Benjamin’s speech, “were closely linked in the minds of ancient Israelites.”4 It is therefore not at all surprising that Benjamin would utilize the opportunity of his son’s coronation to once again teach the fundamentals of the plan of salvation. Much like Jacob did before him, Benjamin couched his discourse in cultural terms and on a culturally significant occurrence that would facilitate his audience’s receptivity to his teachings.5

The Why

Paraphrasing Hugh Nibley, Ricks observed, “One of the best means of establishing a text’s authenticity lies in examining the degree to which it accurately reflects in its smaller details the milieu from which it claims to derive.”6 The small details in Mosiah 1–6 illustrate the doctrinal and historical authenticity and richness of the Book of Mormon. Far from a warmed-over appropriation of nineteenth-century frontier revivalism,7 Benjamin’s speech deftly incorporates elements that accurately reflect many elements of ancient Israelite kingship and covenant ideology. As Ricks concluded, “That the covenant ceremonies in both the Old Testament and the book of Mosiah reflect an ancient Near Eastern pattern prescribed for such occasions may provide another control for establishing the genuineness of the Book of Mormon.”8

Additionally, the powerful emphasis Benjamin put on these specific regal themes and doctrines at his son’s coronation helps readers focus on the King of Kings and His central role in God’s eternal plan. “This sermon ranks as one of the most important in scripture,” Ricks rightly observed. “It serves to fulfill one of the primary purposes of the Book of Mormon by placing central focus and highest importance on the life, mission, atonement, and eternal reign of the heavenly King, Jesus Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent.”9

The Know

Following King Benjamin’s proclamation, his people gathered together from throughout the land of Zarahemla to go up1 to the temple to hear the words of their king (Mosiah 2:1). As they congregated around the temple with their families, the people set up tents for their families, each tent having its door open towards the temple. The people remained in their tents as they listened to King Benjamin speak (Mosiah 2:5–6).

The reason why they did these things is not explained in the text. Mosiah 2:7 explains that the multitude was so great that Benjamin had to have a tower constructed so that his voice would reach more people. It seems that this problem could have been partially prevented by the gathered families setting up their tents elsewhere and gathering themselves in closer to the temple, without the tents. Why did they have to remain in their tents?

LDS scholars have argued convincingly that this gathering at the temple to hear a speech was no ordinary occasion, but that the account in Mosiah 2–6 closely resembles what we know about ancient Israelite temple pilgrimage festivals.2 One of the most important of these, and one which has many parallels to King Benjamin’s temple gathering, is the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot in Hebrew). The following chart illustrates some of the interesting similarities:

Feature	Old Testament	King Benjamin's Speech
Travel to the temple (with family)	Deuteronomy 16:14; 31:10–12	Mosiah 2:1, 5
Remain in booths/tents	Leviticus 23:41–44; Exodus 33:8; 1 Kings 8:55–56; Hosea 12:9	Mosiah 2:5, 6
Speaker on platform	Nehemiah 8:4	Mosiah 2:7
Sacrifices	Numbers 29:12–34; Exodus 24:5	Mosiah 2:3
Reading law and renewal of covenant; commandments	Deuteronomy 4:1-9, 11–25; 31:11; Nehemiah 8:1–3, 5	Mosiah 2:13, 22, 31, 41; 4:6, 30; 4:1–3; 5:1–8
Blood of the covenant applied to people3	Exodus 24:8; Leviticus 16:14, 19	Mosiah 3:11; 4:2
Blessings/curses	Deuteronomy 27:14-26	Mosiah 2:22, 33
Ritual response, prostration on ground	Nehemiah 8:6	Mosiah 4:1; 5:2

The Why

If King Benjamin’s speech in Mosiah 2–6 took place as part of a Nephite celebration of the ancient Israelite Feast of Tabernacles, that would explain many of the elements described in the narrative as found in the Book of Mormon, including the details regarding the setting up of tents around the temple and the people remaining in them to hear their king speak.

LDS scholars Terrence L. Szink and John W. Welch commented on this:

It is evident in Benjamin’s speech that the tents are ceremonially significant. … Everyone had a tent, not just those who had come from out of town and needed a place to stay. Furthermore, they all remained in their tents during the speech, surely for ceremonial reasons. If it had not been religiously and ritually important for them to stay in their tents, the crowd could have stood much closer to Benjamin and been able to hear him, obviating the need for written copies of his words to be prepared and circulated (see Mosiah 2:8). Apparently Benjamin considered it more important for the people to remain in their tents than to have them stand within close hearing distance of the speaker.4

The ancient Israelites were commanded to build ceremonial booths/tents, temporary shelters made from tree branches (see Leviticus 23:40), as part of the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles. According to Leviticus 23:42-43, the Lord commanded: “Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: so that your generations may know that I had the sons of Israel live in booths when I brought them out from the land of Egypt.” The Lord wanted his people to remember what their forefathers had gone through and how He, their God, had delivered them from bondage and from their afflictions.

Szink and Welch further explain, regarding the Nephite gathering: “To the Nephites, their festival use of tents may also have symbolized the time when Lehi and his family had ‘dwelt in a tent’ (1 Nephi 10:16), for Benjamin convenes his celebration in part to remember the distinctiveness of his people, whom ‘the Lord God hath brought out of Jerusalem’ (Mosiah 1:11).”5The idea of remembering is a key factor in covenangt renewal and in living the gospel, as we see in King Benjamin’s speech, where he speaks of "remembering" fifteen times.6/p>

Remembering our covenants is not only important to King Benjamin, but also to the Book of Mormon as a whole. One of the expressed purposes of the book, as outlined by Moroni on the title page of the book, is to help readers to remember “the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever.” Just as the Israelites and Nephites built booths/tents to remind them of what God had done for their forefathers and the covenants he had made with them, so we have the Book of Mormon, the Temple, and so many things that can serve as reminders to us as well. From King Benjamin's counsel, we can learn that "remembering" our promises to the Lord will turn our thoughts and actions to him. As the children of Israel in the wilderness and the Nephites in the promised land learned, if we "remember" the Lord, we can find shelter from life's storms.

The Know

Although the precise ancient Israelite understanding of “hell” is not clear from the text of the Hebrew Bible, the idea of a place for the wicked to endure the fiery wrath of God appears in a number of passages.

Deuteronomy 32:22– “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell (Hebrew: sheol), and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.”
Isaiah 26:13–19– Although the wicked dead are punished, the righteous dead will arise and shout for joy.1
Isaiah 30:33– “For Tophet (Heb: a place of burning; synonymous with Gehenna)2 is ordained of old; yea, for the king (of Assyria) it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.”
Isaiah 66:24– “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.”
Jeremiah 7:31–32; 19– Just as the people of Jerusalem sacrificed their children and burned incense to false gods at Topheth/Gehenna, the Lord would likewise make it a place for the punishment of his people.

It is apparent from these examples that around the time that Lehi left Jerusalem, and well before, the valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) was associated with burning, destruction and the fiery wrath of God in the minds of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. This was clearly still the case in New Testament times.3

Although this imagery was apparently familiar to King Benjamin, and is referenced in his use of the words “unquenchable fire” and “flame,” he, or the angel of the Lord who had revealed these doctrines to him, chose to speak of the concept of eternal punishment metaphorically. The text states that this torment is “like an unquenchable fire” (Mosiah 2:38) and “as a lake of fire and brimstone” (Mosiah 3:27).

Benjamin’s speech goes on to build upon this metaphorical sense by emphasizing that these feelings of fiery wrath do not come from an actual pit of fire, or the like, but from the sinner’s awakening “to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations,” which “doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord into a state of misery and endless torment” (Mosiah 3:25). This sense of guilt, says Benjamin, “doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever” (Mosiah 2:38).

This concept of experiencing “hell” through the pain and anguish of a guilty conscience can be found in the Old Testament as well. The Psalmist, for example, lamented that “the sorrows of hell compassed me about” (Psalm 18:5) and that the “pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow” (Psalm 116:3). These sentiments parallel with those of Alma the Younger, who recounted that he was “tormented with the pains of hell” and “harrowed up by the memory of my sins” when he remembered his rebellion against God. He wished that he “could be banished and become extinct both soul and body, that I might not be brought to stand in the presence of my God, to be judged of my deeds” (Alma 36:12–17).

This anguish because of sin and the desperate desire for forgiveness is expressed again in Psalm 51:

Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

The Why

Since King Benjamin emphatically warned his people of the pains of hell in his famous covenant speech to all of his people, it is good to wonder why it was so important for him to communicate that topic to them. What methods does he prescribe for them to avoid this “awful situation” (Mosiah 2:40)?

The Book of Mormon teaches that Satan and hell are real. King Benjamin wanted his audience to understand the pain and anguish of guilt that comes from sin. Throughout his speech, he then gives many instructions about how this “unquenchable fire” can be avoided.

For example, King Benjamin was concerned to unite his people and prevent rebellion among them. In Mosiah 2:32, he admonishes them to “beware lest there shall arise contentions among you,” warning them that in doing so, they “list to obey the evil spirit.” Jesus would later warn the Nephite people of the same evil (3 Nephi 11:29). Benjamin advised his people that whoever decided to obey the evil spirit and remained and died in their sins “drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge” (Mosiah 2:33).

The nature of this “punishment,” according to King Benjamin, would be mental torment that we inflict upon ourselves because of our awareness of our own guilt. The words used to describe this anguish are harrowing indeed, but this good king also explained to his people how they, through the atonement of Christ, could escape this awful predicament. He explained to his people the key to following Christ so that they “might receive remission of their sins” (Mosiah 3:13). In Mosiah 3:19, King Benjamin explained:

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

If they would not rebel against God, that “withdraw[ing] yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord” (Mosiah 2:36), then they could look forward to a much brighter future. Benjamin provided them with that hope, encouraging them to focus on the good, in Mosiah 2:41:

And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

The Know

At a ceremonial pause in King Benjamin’s coronation speech, all the people cried out with one voice, “O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins” (Mosiah 4:2). The people’s invocation of Christ’s blood comes as no surprise, since King Benjamin, while relaying the message of an angel, had mentioned the atoning blood of Christ five times in his immediately preceding words (Mosiah 3:7, 11, 15, 16, 18). This emphasis on blood is likely related to the ritual festival context of King Benjamin’s speech.1

Israelite priestly rituals on the Day of Atonement involved daubing and sprinkling blood to purify various parts of the temple (Leviticus 16:14–19, 27).2 It is perhaps ritually significant that Benjamin mentioned the words “atone” or “atonement” seven times (Mosiah 3:11, 15, 16, 18, 19; 4:6, 7), the same number of times blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat and the altar (Leviticus 16:14, 19).3

In some cases, the sprinkling of blood in ancient Israelite and Near Eastern covenant rituals may have carried the connotations of kinship between God and man.4 This is reflected in Mosiah 5:7–8, where king benjamin connected this group of atonement "ideas with a new kinship relationship through covenant making.”5

Hearing about the atoning blood of Christ “could hardly have been set more vividly in the minds of his people” while witnessing the sprinkling of blood on the altar.6 As vivid as that Israelite setting likely was, king Benjamin's language and imagery of blood would have been further intensified by the New World environment of the Nephites.

Ancient Mesoamerican peoples also had harvest festivals and coronations.7 Crowning the king was among the rites and rituals often performed during these celebrations.8 On such occasions, there would be "an enthronement ceremony wherein the ruler sits upon a wooden tower or scaffold to receive the emblems of rulership," as depicted on the murals at San Bartolo (ca. 100BC).9

From their elevated position atop the tower, the king would perform a bloodletting ritual, which "required that blood [be] drawn from different and specific parts of the body, depending on the ritual."10To draw the blood, often a sensitive area, like the tongue, would be pierced. These rituals, also attested at San Bartolo,11 were believed to open up doorways connecting the divine and earthly worlds.12 It additionally servec to show that the earthly king was divine.

The Why

While bloodletting was an act of divine kingship, it is not to suggest that either Benjamin or his successor Mosiah performed a bloodletting ritual, or that these Book of Mormon kings saw themselves as divine. Benjamin specifically disclaimed being divine (Mosiah 2:10, 26); instead, he taught of the true divine king, whose blood would be shed for his people. “The Messiah was the self-sacrifice for his people.”13

Cultural awareness of these vivid and often graphic rituals would have further impressed the minds of Benjamin’s listeners as they learned of the “atoning blood of Christ,” especially as they learned of how the Messiah would bleed “from every pore” (Mosiah 3:7). Brant A. Gardner explained, “For Mesoamericans, the Messiah’s bleeding from every pore would indicate the measure of his self-sacrifice, involving, as it was, his entire body.”14

Gardner, however, gave an important caveat. “While [Benjamin’s Mesoamerican audience] … would have been culturally disposed to attribute other-worldly power to blood, atonement was not part of their understanding.”15 For this, one must draw on the Israelite rituals of atonement and purification through blood rituals—and this is exactly what Benjamin did, declaring: “the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood” (Mosiah 3:15, emphasis added).

In Mesoamerican conceptions of bloodletting, the blood of divinely anointed kings would serve as a conduit to connect the human and divine. In Israelite ritual, the blood sacrifice of animals atoned for sins and purified the community, making the Lord their kinsmen through covenant. In Benjamin’s speech, the blood of a divine Messiah—the “anointed one”—atones and purifies his people, reconciling the human and the divine, and creating a covenantal relationship between them and Christ as “his sons and his daughters” (Mosiah 5:7).

Hence, Gardner observed, “Benjamin purposefully invokes the image of the Messiah’s atoning blood, not only setting up associations with the Mesoamerican conceptions of blood sacrifice but also with the blood sacrifices of the Mosaic law.”16 The combined perspectives of both the Old and New World background of the Nephites merge together in Benjamin’s speech to powerfully communicate the efficacious, redeeming power of Christ’s blood.

The Know

King Benjamin’s speech in Mosiah 2–5 can well be called a masterpiece of oratory.1 Just one way in which this is so is in the unmistakable presence of chiasmus and other parallelisms in the speech’s structure. “A stunning array of literary structures appears in Benjamin’s speech, purposefully and skillfully organized,” noted John W. Welch. “Benjamin’s use of chiasmus, all types of parallelisms, and many other forms of repeating patterns adds focus and emphasis to the main messages and the persuasive qualities of this text.”2

Welch explains that King Benjamin’s speech does not contain just one or two simple parallelisms, but rather multiple kinds that are spread throughout the text in intricate ways. In addition to chiasmus, “Benjamin’s speech features [many additional parallelistic] techniques.”3 His lengthy chapter on this subject goes on to provide numerous examples and citations of literature that define and explore the literary purposes behind these various kinds of parallelisms.

An elegant statement in Benjamin’s Speech, making use of directly parallelistic couplets, is his admonition of belief in Mosiah 4:8-10. Notice the reinforcing rhythms found in the pairs of word and redoubled echoes of Benjamin’s eight-part elegy:

1 And this is the means whereby salvation cometh,
And there is none other salvation save this which hath been spoken of.
2 Neither are there any conditions whereby man can be saved
Except the conditions which I have told you.
3 Believe in God, believe that he is
And that he created all things both in heaven and in earth.
4 Believe that he has all wisdom
And all power both in heaven and in earth.
5 Believe that man doth not comprehend all the things
Which the Lord can comprehend.
6 And again believe that ye must repent of your sins
And forsake them.
7 And humbleyourselves before God
And ask in sincerity of heart that he would forgive you.
8 And now if you believe all these things
See that ye do them.

As another example, an important instance of another type of parallelism in Benjamin’s speech is the chiasm in Mosiah 5:10–12. It comes in the middle of the final section of the speech as something of a resounding climactic finale.

And now it shall come to pass,
(A) that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ
(B) must be called by some other name;
(C) therefore, he findeth himself on theleft hand of God.
(D) And I would that ye should remember also,
that this is the name that I said I should give unto you
(E) that never should be blotted out,
(F) except it be through transgression;
(F’) therefore, take heed that ye do not transgress,
(E’) that the name be not blotted out of your hearts.
(D’) I say unto you, I would that ye should remember
to retain the name written always in your hearts,
(C’) that ye are not found on theleft hand of God,
(B’) but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called,
(A’) and also, the name by which he shall call you.

This chiasm, discovered by John W. Welch in 1967 while on his mission in Germany,4“successfully builds to its climax and intensifies its final exhortation against transgression by the striking introduction of these carefully chosen and intentionally reiterated terms.”5 Since the initial discovery of this chiasm, Welch and other scholars have extensively analyzed the presence of chiasmus and other Hebrew poetic structures in the Book of Mormon, including their important roles in communicating textual meanings as well as their significance for locating the book’s cultural and literary historicity.6

The Why

The use of all kinds of parallelisms in a speech such as Benjamin’s can serve many important purposes. For example:

It adds dignity to a formal occasion, such as a royal coronation, to have a guiding text that is carefully organized according to traditional literary forms.

It adds emphasis to a serious declaration, such as a proclamation of a new monarch, to have important points repeated, calling double attention to each point of explanation and instruction.

It adds balanceat a covenant making moment, such as Benjamin’s placing his people under covenant to obey their new leader as God’s continuing servant on earth, to have the reciprocal obligations and blessings of that covenant tied together.

It adds order to a deeply concentrated presentation, such as Benjamin’s masterful oration, to have words or phrases introduced in one sequence and then to have them repeated in a directly parallel or inverted parallel order, which makes the structure and details of this text impressive, memorable, and actually easier to memorize.

As summed up by Welch, “King Benjamin created parallelisms to achieve a harmony or synthesis of his ideas.”7

Although one cannot know absolutely whether Benjamin intentionally created the chiastic patterns observable in his speech, or whether they emerged as something second nature to his way of thinking and writing, the presence of various forms of parallelism and chiasm in Benjamin’s speech is significant in any literary evaluation of its qualities. It demonstrates that this text was composed carefully, meticulously, purposefully, and elegantly, in a manner consistent with the basic parallelistic norms of ancient Hebrew style.8

By including many parallelistic forms in his oration (whether in the spoken oration or in the finalized text, or perhaps both), Benjamin utilized a method that very effectively communicated his important messages. Not only does the presence of these forms provide evidence for the Book of Mormon’s Hebraic roots, it also helps modern readers appreciate the beauty of the text and focus their attention on the key points of rich doctrine that it contains.

The Know

Mormon, as he “searched among the records which had been delivered into [his] hands” (Words of Mormon 1:6), found the stories of two early Nephite kings who greatly impressed him as men who were both righteous leaders and faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. He regarded Benjamin as “a holy man” (Words of Mormon 1:17), and his son, Mosiah, as one who “did walk in the ways of the Lord” (Mosiah 6:6).

Mormon saw Benjamin as an example of a righteous leader who had labored “with all the might of his body and the faculty of his whole soul” and was able to “once more establish peace in the land” (Words of Mormon 1:18), and his son was the same manner of disciple-leader. Unlike some other Nephite leaders, such as the wicked King Noah, Kings Benjamin and Mosiah led by righteous example and could be held up as models of discipleship for centuries to come.

The late Elder Neal A. Maxwell commented on one of the greatest prescriptions for discipleship in all of holy writ, namely King Benjamin’s admonition to cast off the natural man in Mosiah 3:19. Elder Maxwell noted: “Casting off the natural man and struggling to become a follower of Christ is the disciple’s first step. It is delineated by Benjamin with a specificity and intensity that make this sermon one of the greatest on record.”1

For instance, Benjamin famously said: “For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father” (Mosiah 3:19).

Benjamin and his son Mosiah after him were men of this kind. Benjamin’s words to his people demonstrate his amazing humility: “I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been … kept and preserved … to serve you with all the might, mind and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me” (Mosiah 2:11).

He admonished the people to be “in the service of your fellow beings” only after he had set the example of doing so himself. He was able to declare: “And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne” (Mosiah 2:14).

The image of their king laboring together with his people would have been an inspiring sight. His subjects certainly loved him for that and would have done anything he asked of them. What he asked was simple: “Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another?” (Mosiah 2:18).

King Benjamin’s sense of duty, however, was due not only to his love for his fellow man, but even more so because of his love for God. This is why he taught them: “And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.” (Mosiah 2:17).

Benjamin’s love for Jesus Christ is abundantly clear from the words of his speech. He loved Christ enough to serve him and to preach his gospel to the Nephite people. Benjamin and Mosiah knew the “greatness” and “goodness” of God and wanted their people to “be filled with the love of God” (Mosiah 4:11–12).

The Why

Benjamin and Mosiah were beloved and effective leaders because they loved God and loved their fellow human beings and that love led them to serve. They were outstanding examples of practicing what they preached. Benjamin’s speech reflects the kind of good sense and keen judgment that comes only from a long life of concrete experience.

As Elder Maxwell noted, King Benjamin embodied the virtues of discipleship that he encouraged his listeners to develop: meekness, humility, patience, love, and spiritual submissiveness. Benjamin’s speech is great oratory, not only because it addressed great themes, but because it does so while remaining completely in touch with real life. His comments rise to the level of proverbial wisdom on such topics as service, leadership, human nature, responsibility and accountability, indebtedness to God, humility, grace, obedience, gratitude, peace, contention, charity, and the importance of children. His wisdom is not dispensed in broad platitudes but is given with specific instructions that fully enable success.

Everyone called to be leaders, teachers, parents, and disciples of Christ today can learn much by following the examples of Benjamin and Mosiah, as they presided over a period of peace and unity among the Nephite people which came about because they led by example and were true leader-servants. For all of these reasons, they were rightly admired and respected by their people.

The Know

King Limhi was the “third in a line of kings (ca. 121 B.C.) that ruled over a group of Nephites who had left Zarahemla around 200 B.C.”1 The son of the wicked king Noah and the grandson of Zeniff, he is portrayed in the Book of Mormon as a just man who had concern for his people and faith in God. Upon his encounter with Ammon, he is quoted as exclaiming, “O how marvelous are the works of the Lord, and how long doth he suffer with his people” (Mosiah 8:20).2

Limhi might have been lost to history were it not for Mormon’s extensive quotations of his speeches. As John Gee pointed out, “Direct quotations of Limhi occur in the following places in the record: (1) The trial of Ammon, Amaleki, Helem, and Hem (Mosiah 7:8–15); (2) an official address given to all his subjects at a covenant renewal ceremony (Mosiah 7:17–33); (3) the discussion with Ammon about the records (Mosiah 8:5–21); and (4) the interrogation of the king of the Lamanites (Mosiah 20:13–22).”

This is rather significant for the text, as Gee insightfully pointed out.

Something subtle and quite authentic has been done here in the Book of Mormon. All the direct quotations derive from situations where an official scribe would be on hand to write things down: a covenant renewal ceremony where the king would have ‘caused that the words which he spake should be written’ (Mosiah 2:8), two trials, and an inspection of the records where Limhi obviously hoped to get a translation of some otherwise mysterious records (Mosiah 8:6, 11–12). The quotes come from other official (i.e., court) records, scriptures, and personal accounts (e.g., Zeniff’s first-person narrative).3

Gee contrasts the authenticity of Mormon’s quotations (which were drawn from contemporaneous sources) of Limhi with the sometimes more fanciful methods of ancient writers such as Thucydides or Herodotus, “whom scholars have taken to task for composing long speeches and putting them in the mouths of the heroes who are engaged in the middle of battle and under fire.”4 Mormon’s quotations are also different from “novelist[s] of Joseph Smith’s day” such as Solomon Spaulding, who peppered their writings with “long quotations” and “long clandestine conversations” in implausible locations. This would indicate that “the Book of Mormon is not a typical product of Joseph Smith’s environment.”5

Readers can therefore rely upon Mormon’s quotations of Limhi. This is significant, since Gee goes on to explain that we can learn some very important things about Limhi’s character from these quotations. “The major speeches of King Limhi [carefully quoted by Mormon] are dotted with quotations from previous records and prophecies, some of which are no longer available to us,” Gee observed. “These speeches seem to show a man very well versed in his records. From these it seems that Limhi had spent a good deal of time studying and memorizing the records of his people.”6

The Why

By exhibiting Limhi’s personality in his carefully preserved quotations, Mormon was able to use the king as a positive example of one who greatly benefited from knowing the scriptures. “Limhi...was the first to want to read the record of a lost people contained in twenty-four golden plates.”7 This set off a series of inspired choices on the part of Limhi and his people that eventually led to their deliverance and conversion to the gospel (Mosiah 21–25).

Readers today can therefore look to Limhi (who is preserved in Mormon’s careful editorial work) as a righteous example, unlike his father Noah. As Gee concluded, “Limhi’s passionate interest in records and scriptures might also explain why he was righteous in spite of the wickedness of his father (Mosiah 11:1–15; 19:17), the court (Mosiah 11:4–11; 12:25–29, 37; 13:11; 17:2, 11–12), and the people in general (Mosiah 7:24–25; 23:9, 12). Furthermore, unlike Noah and his priests (Mosiah 12:25–30; 13:7–8, 11), Limhi takes these things seriously (Mosiah 7:26; 21:31–35). We need look no further than Limhi for reasons to be serious about studying our scriptures.”8

The Know

In Mosiah 8, Ammon, "a strong and mighty man, and a descendant of Zarahemla" (Mosiah 7:3), included a discourse on the nature of prophethood, seership, and divine translation. In response to King Limhi’s request for a translation of some sacred records (Mosiah 8:11–12), he spoke of “a man [Mosiah] that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God.” The instruments of translation, which Ammon called “interpreters,” could only be used when divinely commissioned. “Whosoever is commanded to look in them,” Ammon taught, “the same is called seer” (Mosiah 8:13).

With this information in mind, Limhi reasoned that “a seer is greater than a prophet” (Mosiah 8:15). Ammon concurred, and explained,

A seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God. But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known. (Mosiah 8:16–17)

Ammon drew a distinction between prophethood and seership. A prophet, a spokesperson for God, can with divine authority foretell what would, could, or should occur if people behave in certain ways (such as promised blessings for keeping the commandments or promised woes for falling into apostate behavior).1 While each dispensation has great Prophets (capital P) who stand at the head of God’s covenant people or God’s church with priesthood keys, individuals, both men and women, can act as prophets or prophetesses (lowercase P) in their respective lives, families, and ecclesiastical roles (cf. Exodus 15:20; Numbers 11:29; Judges 4:4; Isaiah 8:3; 2 Kings 22:14; Luke 2:36; Acts 11:27; 21:10; Revelation 19:10).

A seer, however, is more than a prophet who pronounces divine judgment or foretells the future. A seer is one who “through faith, might work mighty miracles” by the use of “means” (divine instruments) prepared by God (Mosiah 8:18).2 As Ammon explained, seership is greater than prophethood because a seer unlocks what happened in the past, including mysteries, secrets, obscured teachings, lost scripture, and hidden knowledge. As Limhi acknowledged, the instruments of seership are “doubtless prepared for the purpose of unfolding all such mysteries to the children of men” (Mosiah 8:19). In this way, a seer goes beyond the gifts granted to prophets and is therefore “greater” both regarding power and responsibility.

The Why

The Book of Mormon’s description of seership finds a home in the world of ancient Israel. After all, “The Bible . . . mentions people receiving spiritual manifestations by means of physical objects such as rods, a brass serpent on a pole . . . an ephod (a part of the priestly clothing that included two precious stones), and the Urim and Thummim.”3 Indeed, seers are mentioned in the biblical record as having had a presence in Israel’s society (1 Samuel 9:9, 11, 19; 2 Samuel 15:27; 24:11; 2 Kings 17:13; Micah 3:7; Amos 7:12; Isaiah 30:10), and the enigmatic “Urim and Thummim” of the Old Testament (Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8; Numbers 27:21; Deuteronomy 33:8; 1 Samuel 28:6) appear to have had an oracular function in biblical religion.4 The Book of Mormon in this instance is thus consistent with the biblical tradition.

Joseph Smith himself is designated a “seer” in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants (2 Nephi 3:6; Doctrine and Covenants 21:1). He can rightly be called such since with divine instruments he not only translated the Book of Mormon but also glimpsed the distant past of ancient America.5 As Richard E. Turley Jr., Robin S. Jensen, and Mark Ashurst-McGee explained, “Seer stones . . . appear in historical accounts describing Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon translation.”6 The exact nature of the Book of Mormon translation is not fully understood.7 Nevertheless, historical evidence indicates that Joseph the Seer first saw and then read the translated words of the Book of Mormon that appeared in either the Nephite “interpreters” (also called “spectacles” or later the Urim and Thummim) that were recovered with the plates or in his individual seer stone that he had previously used in certain folk magic activities.8

With the restoration of God’s ancient order in our time came the gift of seership again. Steven C. Walker commented, “The ancient calling of seer remains active through modern times,” as “in the modern Church, members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles serve as seers. These fifteen apostolic officials are designated prophets, seers, and revelators who direct the Church by means of divine revelation.”9

The Know

When Zeniff takes a group of Nephites back up to the land of Nephi, seeking to reclaim “the land of [their] fathers’ first inheritance,” they “began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds” (Mosiah 9:1, 9; cf. Mosiah 7:22). Included in their list of crops are wheat and barley, two Old World grains long believed to be absent in the pre-Columbian New World. Yet, for barley at least, this assumption is mistaken.

There are actually three types of wild barley native to the Americas, something scientists have been aware of for a long time. In wasn’t until 1983, however, that archaeologists first uncovered a domesticated form of barley native to the Americas in Arizona in a pre-Columbian (ca. AD 900) context.1

“Little barley,” as scientists call it, has since been found throughout the Mississippi River valley,2 where it was a major staple during the Middle (ca. 200 BC–AD 500) and Late Woodland (ca. AD 500–1000) periods,3 though “likely cultivated specimens” have also been found dating to as early as 800 BC in Iowa.4 According to two non-LDS scholars, “extensive archaeological evidence also points to the cultivation of little barley in the Southwest and parts of Mexico.”5

The Why

Over time, more and more evidence for domestication of little barley in the Americas has emerged over an increasingly wider span of both time and geography. Little barley may have diffused to other regions of the Americas which were known to trade with the southwest and eastern United States, including the exchange of crops.6 In any case, evidence demonstrates that in at least some parts of the Americas, a type of barley was a highly important crop during Book of Mormon times.

This has important implications for the Book of Mormon. In the second and first centuries BC, barley played a significant role in Nephite society, not only as food, but as a measurement of exchange (Alma 11:1–19), just as it did in ancient Near Eastern economic systems.7 Evidence from what is often called archaeobotany (the study of plants remains at archaeological sites) now confirms that a species of barley was highly important to some cultures in the Americas at this time.

This is another example that illustrates the benefits that come with patience in archaeology.8 John L. Sorenson commented, “That such an important crop could have gone undetected for so long by archaeologists justifies the thought that wheat might also be found in ancient [American] sites.”9 Questions remain about Nephite crops, animals, and material culture, but discoveries like little barley illustrate the wisdom in keeping an open mind and avoiding hasty judgments while considering and exploring what the Book of Mormon says about Nephite life.

The Know

The Book of Mormon only mentions one beverage among the Nephites and Lamanites: wine. During King Noah’s reign in the land of Nephi, for instance, it mentions that he had “planted vineyards round about in the land,” had “built wine-presses, and made wine in abundance,” thus he and his people became wine-bibbers (Mosiah 11:15). Wine is also mentioned in several other places throughout the Book of Mormon, including for the sacrament during the risen Lord’s ministry among the Nephites.1

Because there is a wide variety of different wines, “made from fermented grapes or other fruits,”2 it is impossible to be certain what kind of drink is meant, beyond assuming it’s a fermented fruit juice. Moreover, the Hebrew word for “vineyard” can mean an oil orchard. So these terms are broader in meaning than modern English readers might think.3

Alcoholic beverages were made from a variety of fruits in the Americas before Columbus. These include bananas, pineapple, and agave, among others. Natives also used palm sap and tree bark with honey to make alcoholic beverages in pre-Columbian times. All of these were called “wine” by the Spaniards who first mentioned them in their writings. Spanish sources also spoke of “vineyards” of agave plants.4

The Book of Mormon itself never actually mentions grapes, but it does mention “wine-presses” (only once, Mosiah 11:15),5 perhaps indicating grape-based wine. American species of grapes were known to grow in the Gulf Coast and Yucatan areas, and some natives in northern Mexico reportedly made red wine from native grapes.6

There is no question that grapes and vineyards can grow in a number of areas throughout North and South America, including near Guatemala City where the Chateau DeFay winery and vineyards were established in 2008.7 So it is possible that either the Lehites or the Mulekites brought grape vines with them, which were then cultivated amongst Book of Mormon peoples. There is also some evidence that the Old World grape was known and used for winemaking at one site in Chiapas, Mexico dating to between the first centuries BC and AD. John L. Sorenson explained:

Our understanding of wine in ancient Mesoamerica was enhanced 30 years ago when Martínez M. excavated a site of Late Pre-Classic date (first centuries BC and AD) beside the Grijalva River in Chiapas …. There he carefully recovered and studied all traces of plant remains. He found seeds of Vitis vinifera, the wine grape known in Europe, from which he concluded that the fruit had been used to manufacture wine equivalent to that of the Old World.8

Sorenson then concluded, “Thus the Book of Mormon statements about wine could turn out to refer either to that drink in the usual European sense or to alternative Mesoamerican intoxicants that were based on other fruits.”9

The Why

Based on the above evidence, the production and use of wine in the Book of Mormon is not problematic from a historical standpoint. Without more information, however, it is impossible to be certain what kind of beverage “wine” meant in the Book of Mormon. It is likely that many, if not all, of these fermented beverages were known and used by Book of Mormon peoples, and “wine” may very well have been a catch-all term for all the varieties of alcoholic drinks available to them.

Still, being aware of the different possibilities invites questions perhaps never before considered. For example, visualize that sacred moment when the risen Lord asked the disciples to retrieve both bread and wine for the sacremant (3 Nephi 18:1–3, 8), and then shortly thereafter Lord Himself miraculously provided wine and bread for a second performance of that sacred ritual (3 Nephi 20:5–8). Was the miraculous wine from the Savior the same variety of wine the disciples brought? If not, why not?

Although speculative, one possible answer is that perhaps the available native wine did not strongly enough symbolize the blood of Christ.10 While accepting the disciples' humble offer the first time, for the second occasion Christ may have chosen to miraculously produce traditional red wine from the Old World in order to more strongly convey to them His important teaching, “he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled” (3 Nephi 20:8).

This could have provided a powerful visual for Nephites accustomed to drinking yellowish colored wines. Even if this is not the case, being aware of the different possible types of wine allows readers to better visualize Book of Mormon life. This is especially insightful with wine, since it is so frequently mentioned within the text of the Book of Mormon.

The Know

During the cross-examination of Abinadi, the priests of Noah asked him, “What meaneth the words” of Isaiah 52:7–10 (Mosiah 12:20–24). Although Abinadi reacted as if they asked out of ignorance (Mosiah 12:25), Mormon said their purpose was to “cross him, that thereby they might have wherewith to accuse him” (Mosiah 12:19). In order for this to work, the priests could not have been clueless questioners with no ideas about the meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy.1

In ancient Israelite law, a “false prophet” was not simply someone whose prophecy did not come true—something too difficult, if not impossible to prove. Anyone who spoke in contradiction to the word of previously accepted prophets could also be deemed a false prophet.2 As such, there must have been a commonly accepted interpretation of Isaiah 52:7–10 which they believed would expose Abinadi as a false prophet.3 Abinadi had come among the people warning of the consequences of sin and riotous living (Mosiah 12:1–12), and his message was the polar opposite of the “glad tidings” Isaiah said would be the message of a true prophet (Mosiah 12:21; Isaiah 52:7).4

The people of Zeniff’s colony likely saw themselves as fulfilling this prophetic passage from Isaiah. After all, they had returned from the lowlands of Zarahemla and established themselves “upon the mountains,” and were seeking to “bring again Zion” in their original land of inheritance, which they had “redeemed” from the Lamanites (compare the words in Mosiah 12:21–24 and Isaiah 52:7–10).5“In the face of Isaiah’s prophecy and its apparent glorious fulfillment by Zeniff’s people, how did Abinadi dare accuse both the king and his people of falling under God’s worst judgments?”6

The Why

Given this background, the exchange between Abinadi and the priests begins to make greater sense. Noah’s priests were not just quizzing Abinadi on his scriptural knowledge; they were looking for a legal cause of action “wherewith to accuse” Abinadi. False prophecy being a capital offense, those found guilty of it were worthy of death (Deuteronomy 18:30). It is in response to this charge that Abinadi quoted Isaiah 53, thereby supplying the fuller context of the passage used by the priests. Abinadi followed by expounding upon both Isaiah 52 and 53 as he testified of the Redeemer (see Mosiah 13–16).7 His exposition was legally relevant and textually persuasive.

When Abinadi finally got around to providing an interpretation of Isaiah 52:7–10, he applied its words regarding good tidings, peace, and salvation first to the prophets (Mosiah 15:11–17). Then, he applied it ultimately to the Redeemer himself (Mosiah 15:18–19). A similar interpretation can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.8 A text about Melchizedek, from the mid-first century BC, quotes Isaiah 52:7, and then says: “Its interpretation; the mountains are the prophets … and the messenger is the Anointed one of the spirit.”9

This is an interpretation from a Jewish source nearly contemporary with Abinadi that includes both the prophets and “the anointed one” (the “messiah” in Hebrew).10 Although the Dead Sea Scrolls author was applying this to Melchizedek, Dana Pike pointed out that Melchizedek is a type of Christ.11 Furthermore, just as Melchizedek is called the “king of Salem” (in Hebrew, “king of peace”; Genesis 14:18; cf. JST Genesis 14:33; Alma 13:18), Abinadi describes the Redeemer as “the founder of peace” (Mosiah 15:18; cf. Isaiah 9:6).

Although the priests did not interpret the text this way, Abinadi demonstrated that the passage did not necessarily apply to Noah and his people, as they likely thought (Mosiah 13:27–35). Abinadi’s argument was thus linguistically sophisticated and theologically impressive.

In the end, the priests’ charge of false prophecy did not stick, and after coming up with yet another charge, that of blasphemy, which Abinadi also withstood (Mosiah 17:7–8), Abinadi was finally executed for having reviled against the king (Mosiah 17:12; see Exodus 22:28).12 Thanks, however, to the priests’ accusation of false prophecy, readers today can ultimately benefit from, learn from, and cherish Abinadi’s inspiring explanation of Isaiah’s words as well as Abinadi’s testimony of the redeeming power of the Atonement. That was a testimony which Abinadi sealed with his blood (Mosiah 17:12–20).

The Know

In Mosiah 12, we read of Abinadi returning to the people of King Noah after they had rejected his message two years before. On that earlier occasion, he had prophesied of coming judgment from the Lord against King Noah and his people. King Noah’s response had been, “Who is Abinadi, that I and my people should be judged of him, or who is the Lord, that shall bring upon my people such great affliction?” (Mosiah 11:27). Noah issued a warrant for Abinadi's arrest, on charges of inciting malcontent and provoking contentions (Mosiah 11:28). Knowing that he would likely be apprehended on sight, Abinadi came to preach again, but this time in disguise (Mosiah 12:1), hoping again to find a large public audience for his renewed prophecy of affliction and destruction. On this second occasion, Abinadi may well have assumed that he would be arrested, even hoping to gain an audience with King Noah himself.

Abinadi could not have picked a better time for these two prophetic moments than the Israelite festival of Pentecost (Greek, Pentekoste, “fiftieth”; Hebrew, Shavuot, “Weeks”), which seems to perfectly fit Abinadi’s message and situation. Pentecost was a pilgrimage festival that took place in the spring, the fiftieth day after Passover, which celebrated the giving of the Law to Moses on Mount Sinai (see Exodus 34:22; Deuteronomy 16:10). Pentecost was a time when all the people gathered at the temple to celebrate the first grain harvest and to commemorate the deliverance from bondage in Egypt as well.

According to LDS scholars John W. Welch, Gordon C. Thomasson, and Robert F. Smith:

Both of Abinadi’s speeches deal with the themes of Pentecost. He reversed the festival’s blessings and rejoicing, and turned them into curses and predictions of gloom. At the time when a bounteous grain season would have been at hand, Abinadi cursed the crops … (Mosiah 12:6). While Israel’s deliverance from bondage was traditionally being celebrated, Abinadi called upon Exodus terminology to proclaim the bondage and burdens would return to the wicked people in the city of Nephi … (Mosiah 11:21, 23) …1

They go on to point out a number of very interesting parallels between Abinadi’s prophetic mission and the festival of Pentecost, including the following points:

The giving of the Ten Commandments: At a time when the priests of King Noah would have been celebrating and pledging allegiance to the Ten Commandments given to Moses, Abinadi rehearses those commandments and accuses them of not teaching, living, or even understanding them properly (Mosiah 12:27–37).
Shining face: Abinadi’s “face shone with exceeding luster, even as Moses’ did while in the mount of Sinai” (Mosiah 13:5, compare Exodus 34:29–30).
Three days: The festival of Pentecost apparently lasted for three days (see Exodus 19:11), which may be the reason Abinadi’s trial was postponed for three days (Mosiah 17:6).
Psalms 50 and 81: Hebrew University professor Moshe Weinfeld argued that Psalms 50 and 81 were likely sung at Pentecost.2 There are several parallels between the text of Abinadi’s words and these psalms.3
- “Our God shall come” (Psalm 50:3); On “the third day the Lord will come down” (Exodus 19:11); “God himself shall come down” (Mosiah 15:1).
- Psalm 50:4–7 has been described as God’s lawsuit against his people; Abinadi’s words have been called a “prophetic lawsuit.”4
- In order to teach the law, one must keep it or be cursed (Psalm 50:16, 22); this is the essence of Abinadi’s accusation: “If ye teach the law of Moses why do ye not keep it?” (Mosiah 12:29).
- Psalm 50:15 promises that "in the day of trouble," if the righteous will call upon God, He "will deliver" them. Abinadi declares that if the wicked people of King Noah call upon God, He "will not hear their prayers, neither will [He] deliver them" (Mosiah 11:25).5
- The use of Psalm 50:16-21 at Pentecost could indicate that the day became known as one of stern admonition. People who rejected instruction and collaborated with lawbreakders were chastised. Transgressors were reprimanded publicly. These traditions align with the way in which Abinadi approached the delivery of the Lord's message to King Noah.6
- "I am the Lord thy God, who hath brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2) These words of the Lord to Moses on Sinai are echoed in both Psalm 81:10 and Mosiah 12:34.

The Why

Understanding the context of Abinadi’s words as he prophesied against King Noah and his people helps readers appreciate the impact of his message. His words and actions were grounded in the words of the Lord, the heritage of the prophets, and the cultural understandings of his people.

Abinadi would have wanted to come into the city of Nephi to preach at a time when there was a large group of people gathered together to hear his message. A festival day would have been the ideal time for Abinadi to return and share the message of judgment the Lord wanted the people, and King Noah in particular, to hear.

The most appropriate festival day to share this message of judgment would have been the feast of Pentecost/Weeks, the day that the Law was celebrated. A close study of the words attributed to Abinadi reveals many parallels with the themes and imagery of Pentecost.

On this occasion, as Abinadi warned the people that they would have "burdens lashed upon their backs" (Mosiah 12:5), his audience would have readily recalled the burdens their Israelite ancestors bore in Egypt. As he rehearsed the Ten Commandments, at that very time of the year, disobedient members of his audience would have been particularly pricked in their hearts. When Abinadi's face shone, in that similar context, even Noah and his priests would have seen the connection, as they backed off (Mosiah 13:5), allowing Abinadi to speak "with power and authority from God" for the rest of chapters 13, 14, 15, and 16. On that day it was for them as if Moses himself stood before them and delivered the words that God had sent His prophet to deliver.

Ultimately, Abinadi was wrongfully put to death, even by fire, having in the beginning issued a similar curse against Noah that Noah's life "shall be valued even as a garment in a hot furnace" (Mosiah 12:3). On Pentecost it could not have escaped anyone's notice that this reference to a "furnace" hearkened back to Mount Sinai. It was covered with lightning, fire and smoke "as the smoke of a furnace" (Exodus 19:18), as Moses went up into the mount to speak with God, while the unworthy people stayed below "lest [the Lord] break forth upon them" and consume them with fire.

As BYU Professor of Law John W. Welch concludes:

Taken together, these details all point to one conclusion: No other day on the ancient Israelite calendar fits the message, words, and experience of the prophet Abinadi more precisely or more appropriately than does the ancient Israelite festival of Pentecost. It is thus ironic that, at the very time when Noah and his people would have been celebrating the law, the most unfortunate judicial result in Nephite history should have taken place.7

The Know

Isaiah 53, known as the “Song of the Suffering Servant,” has powerfully inspired Christians and Jews alike, and is a subject of instense investigation by academics.1 When Abinadi stood before the court of Noah, accused of false prophecy, he turned to this commanding and enduring text for his defense. He then built on Isaiah’s messianic words, testifying that “God himself shall come down … [and] suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people” (Mosiah 15:5).

While all of this was part of Abinadi’s legal argument, Isaiah 53 and Abinadi’s subsequent testimony of Christ is more than just a legal brief.2 Because of Abinadi's immediate surroundings and circumstances, the idea of a suffering Messiah likely resonated with him.

Among scholars, there is no consensus on the origins and interpretation of Isaiah 53.3 Interpretations range from the Suffering Servant being a royal figure,4 to being inspired by the inspired by the “intercession and suffering of certain prophetic figures.”5

The tale of Abinadi brings to life the prophetic figure as a Suffering Servant. He suffered the ultimate fate at the hands of the very people he had come to serve. His narrative mirrors Isaiah 53 in a number of ways.

It seems likely that Abinadi would have personally identified with Isaiah’s portrayal of the Suffering Servant. The Servant was “despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (Mosiah 14:3; Isaiah 53:3). As one Isaiah scholar put it, “the Servant [had] to take the lowest place, to brave the scorn, and even worse, the dismissal of the very ones he came to serve.”6 Similarly, Abinadi was sent twice to call Noah and his people to repentance, for which he was scorned, rejected, imprisoned, accused, scourged, and executed by them (Mosiah 11:26–29; 13:9, 17, 19; 17:5–20).

Abinadi had reason to take special note of this Servant bearing the griefs, carrying the burdens and sorrows of his people, being taken from prison and being brought as a lamb to the slaughter (Mosiah 14:4, 7-8; Isaiah 53:4, 7-8). He could also have been struck by the extent to which the people of Noah, like sheep who had "gone astray," everyone having turned to their own iniquitous way (Mosiah 14:6; Isaiah 53:6).

King Noah and his priests provided an interesting contrast to the Suffering Servant. The Servant was “esteemed … not” (Mosiah 14:3; Isaiah 53:3), meaning “the Servant has none of the outward accouterments of power, position, and success.”7 On the other hand, Noah enjoyed riches and power, having many wives and concubines,8“many elegant and spacious buildings … ornamented … with fine work” had “a spacious palace, and a throne” and his priests had “seats which were set apart … above all the other seats … ornamented with pure gold” (Mosiah 11:3–14).

While Noah “did walk after the desires of his own heart,” the Servant or the Son of God “subjected the flesh to the will of the Father” (Mosiah 15:2; 11:2). Noah “did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord” (Mosiah 11:2), but the Servant “was wounded for … transgressions” of others, made “an offering for sin” and “bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors,” thereby making them clean (Mosiah 14:5, 10, 12; Isaiah 53:5, 10, 12).

The Why

Recent scholarship suggests that prophetic suffering, typically at the hands of those whom they are called to serve, gave birth to Isaiah 53. In this light, it is noteworthy that this particular prophecy plays a central role in the story of Abinadi, the only narrative in the Book of Mormon about a prophet suffering the ultimate price—death—dealt by those whom he sought to aid.

Many today continue to find insight and reassurance in Isaiah’s powerful and poetic words about the Suffering Servant. It is likely that Abinadi not only used it as a legal defense, but also as a personal refuge and comfort. Like many prophets before and after him, he was consoled in the knowledge that though he suffered rejection and persecution, the Savior—the true Suffering Servant—would descend below all things (Doctrine and Covenants 88:6), that “he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows … and with his stripes we are healed” (Mosiah 14:5; Isaiah 53:5).

This also likely sent a powerful message to Noah and his wicked priests: while they mistakenly thought they were the Lord’s messengers by misapplying Isaiah 52:7–10,9 the contrast between them andther Servant in Isaiah 53 underscores how far they were from true servants of the Lord.

Although Abinadi may have thought his preaching was fruitless, at least one of Noah’s priests was touched (Mosiah 17:2–4). When Alma the Elder set up his fledgling community, he based his teachings on the words of Abinadi and Isaiah. Alma put his people expressly under covenant “to bear one another’s burdens" as the Servant would bear, and to "mourn with those that mourn" or grieve, and "stand in need of comfort,” and to "serve [the Lord] and keep his commandments" and "come into the fold of God, and to be called his people," not walking "every one to his own way" (Mosiah 18:9, 10; 14:6; Isaiah 53:6).

The Know

As the priests of the apostate King Noah interrogated him, the prophet Abinadi exhorted, “I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.” Because “he dwelleth in the flesh,” Abinadi clarified, “he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son.” Therefore, he can be called “the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son.” As Abinadi concluded, “And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (Mosiah 15:1–4).

This somewhat perplexing teaching has received much attention by Latter-day Saint doctrinal and scriptural commenters.1 While views on this passage are somewhat varied, the point most interpreters derive is that this passage is about and fluidity of Christ’s titles and roles, not that He is “one God” with the Father as in a Trinity.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve clarified in a 1916 doctrinal treatise that Christ is the “father” in that He is the creator of the earth, the “father” of those who accept his gospel, and has the authority of God the Father by divine investiture.2 This is affirmed in the Book of Mormon by prophets such as Benjamin, who declared, “And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning” (Mosiah 3:8; cf. Helaman 14:12).3 Taken in isolation, it would be easy to read Mosiah 15 as somehow teaching the doctrine of the Trinity. However, this reading quickly breaks down when the passage is viewed more broadly within the backdrop of the Book of Mormon’s overall theology about God the Father and his Son (cf. 3 Nephi 1:14; 9:15; 20:31; Mormon 9:12; Ether 3:14).4

It is also significant how this passage is illuminated when read in an ancient Mesoamerican context. Mark Alan Wright and Brant Gardner have commented on the so-called ancient Mesoamerican “deity complexes,” or the phenomenon in which “a single god could be represented with a variety of differing characteristics or manifestations. Their names, attributes, and domains of influence were fluid, yet they retained their individual identity. Each of the elaborations that a modern reader might see as a different deity was actually considered to be merely an elaboration of the complex essence of one particular deity.”5In other words, ancient Maya religion allowed for a single deity to take on a number of interchanging titles and attributes, but remain a single, unique deity.

With this in mind, Wright and Gardner argued that “Abinadi’s explanation in Mosiah 15 of how Christ is both the Father and the Son could also be read as an example of multiple manifestations of a single deity,” and therefore can easily be understood as an ancient Nephite version of the Maya deity complex. What changes isn't Christ's inherent nature or relationship to God the Father (they don't suddenly become "one God" in a Trinitarian sense), but rather the roles, attributes, and titles Christ carries based on the context of how he's being depicted or described.

Wright and Gardner emphasize that the Nephites lived in a world that "might" easily reenvision the Nephite God (with multiple names) as a deity complex, being composed of distinctive manifestations in different circumstances." As such, "The Book of Mormon can be read as teaching that each deity [i.e. God the Father and Jesus Christ] had his own identity and at times was described in terms of different manifestations."6

The Why

Book of Mormon prophets taught that Jesus fulfilled a number of roles and could therefore rightly carry many titles. He is therefore called, for example, God’s Only Begotten Son (Jacob 4:5), the Eternal Judge (Moroni 10:34), the Holy Messiah (2 Nephi 2:6), the King of Heaven (2 Nephi 10:14), the Mediator (2 Nephi 2:28), the Messiah (1 Nephi 1:19), and the Redeemer of Israel (1 Nephi 21:7). In fact, Susan Easton Black has documented well over 100 different names or titles for Jesus in the Book of Mormon, each one “signif[ying] an attribute or characteristic of Christ and reveal[ing] something unique, essential, and deeply inspirational about him.”7

Understanding this wide-spread practice allows modern readers to relate to the strong inclination of many ancient cultures to shower their deities with numerous titles and appellations. According to Wright and Gardner, “The Maya deity complexes similarly expanded the qualities of the underlying deity, albeit with a more complete elaboration than just a name.”8

Comprehending this fullness of names used for Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon helps readers to appreciate His many roles, attributes, powers, positions, and personal qualities. Contemplating this array also draws to attention the personal relationships that each major writer in the Book of Mormon individually had with their Holy Messiah, their mighty Savior, and the Son of the Everlasting God.9

By viewing the Book of Mormon in this light, readers can more fully appreciate the variety of formulas used in the text to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son. This of course includes Abinadi’s discourse, which focused on Christ’s role as the God of Israel and father of creation condescending to earth to atone for His people (cf. 1 Nephi 11).

As Paul Y. Hoskisson has written, “There can be no doubt that Abinadi knew the Savior, that he knew about the Savior, and that he understood the unique role and nature of the Savior many years before Christ would condescend to be born among the children of Adam.”10

Each of these formulas, accordingly, significantly contain unique meanings and therefore, in many ways, invite all readers of the Book of Mormon to come unto Him, to think carefully about how Christ fulfills for them His various roles under the direction of his Father, and to succeed in becoming more like Him in word and in deed.

The Know

As Abinadi explained to the priests of Noah the manner in which God would gain “victory over death,” he declares that God “breaketh the bands of death” (Mosiah 15:8, emphasis added). This phrase in English is exclusive to the Book of Mormon in the LDS Standard Works,1 and it appears for the first time here. Abinadi used the phrase four more times (Mosiah 15:9, 20, 23; 16:7) and it is employed frequently in the teachings of Alma the Younger, whose father, Alma the Elder, was converted by Abinadi’s teachings.2

There is no way to know for certain how Abinadi knew this phrase and why it does not appear in the Book of Mormon prior to his use of it. The exact phrase never appears in the King James Version of the Bible at all; although Psalm 73:4 (“For there are no bands in their death”) and Psalm 107:14 (“He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder”) carry similar wording and meaning.

There is, however, a phrase in the Hebrew of the Old Testament—heveli-mot—that can be translated “bands of death” (as in the Darby Bible Translation). The phrase appears in Psalms 18:4 and 116:3, where it is translated variously as “cords of death” (Psalm 18:4; NIV, ESV, NASB, ISV, ASV, ERV, WEB), “ropes of death” (NLT, HCSB), or “snares of death” (Psalm 116:3; ESV), although the KJV renders it as “sorrows of death.”

The Psalmist expresses well the horror of being caught in these bands, or cords, of death and hell: “The cords of death encompassed me; the torrents of destruction assailed me; the cords of Sheol entangled me; the snares of death confronted me” (Psalm 18:4, ESV).

The Hebrew word hevel expresses an impressive array of meanings, including “cord, rope, band, snare” or “pain, pang, travail”—symbols of captivity and subjection. It can also refer to “binding” or “pledging,” as in the binding nature of a covenant. In a similar sense, it can refer to the covenant people or land (the “allotted” or “measured” portion; see Deuteronomy 32:9; Psalm 78:55), as it signifies the “measuring-cord” that is used to measure out the inherited portion, the temple, or one’s fortune/destiny (see Psalm 16:5).3 It appears that the word was used for that which could bind you either to the pain and sorrow of death and hell or to the promised blessings and inheritance of the Lord.

Further, it is noteworthy that the word hevel is often used in the context of biblical symbolism for redemption. For example, one of the ways the word is used is in reference to the pains of labor when a woman gives birth, which imagery is used metaphorically for the exile and trials of the covenant people. This can be seen in Isaiah 26:16–18, where it says of Israel and their apparent failure to obtain his promised blessings:

Lord, in trouble have they visited thee, they poured out a prayer when thy chastening was upon them. Like as a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs (hevel); so have we been in thy sight, O Lord. We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.

Despite Abinadi's execution at the bands of death, all mankind will ultimately overcome death through Christ. Painting of Abinadi by Patrick Devonas.

In the next verse (Isaiah 26:19, KJV), the Lord responds with the promise to Israel that “thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body they shall arise,”4 and declares that He would finally come in judgment to redeem His people.

Similar childbirth and atonement/redemption imagery can be found in Isaiah 37:3, Hosea 13:9–14,5 Micah 4:9–10, in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QHodayota XI:8–11), and in the New Testament in John 16:20–22 (see also Revelation 12). Most of these passages speak of the people of Israel going through a time of crisis (which is compared to a woman in the pain of childbirth) and then being delivered by the promised king, the Messiah. This symbolism emphasizes both the sorrow and pain inherent in the word hevel, but it also signifies the fulfilling of the eternal covenants that the Lord has made with His people. Also found in this connection is the image of breaking free or breaking through, whether it be the waters of birth breaking or the breaking free of restraints, sorrows, pains, and so on.

It is interesting to note how all of this imagery parallels that of baptism: the descent into the water, death, being raised up and emerging forth from the water, being born again with new life. Psalm 18, with its use of the word hevel, is a poignant example of this. The psalm presents a royal figure (v. 50) suffering in the "bands of death" and drowning in the "floods of destruction" (v. 4, translating the Hebrew). The king cries out to God and is then saved miraculously. Verse 18 states: "He reached down from on high and took hold of me; he drew me out of deep waters" (NIV). Verse 19 then implies that the king has ascended to a safe place, perhaps to heaven. This baptismal-type imagery, along with that of birth, breaking the bands of death, and the other symbols discussed, paint a consistent picture of the salvation that God provides for His righteous children.

The Why

Abinadi’s phrase, “bands of death,” although appearing to be original or unprecedented in the scriptures, actually has some surprising parallels in the holy writings of ancient Israel. These parallels, involving the Hebrew word hevel, are very much in line with Abinadi’s usage.

There are significant similarities between the biblical and early Jewish passages discussed above and Abinadi’s treatment regarding the coming of Christ to save his people. Furthermore, Abinadi gives more detail than other sources. For example, Isaiah 26:19 may or may not be referring to the resurrection of the Messiah, but for Abinadi there is no question that Christ’s death and resurrection will break the bands of death. He declares:

Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father. And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men…But behold, the bands of death shall be broken, and the Son reigneth, and hath power over the dead; therefore, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead. And there cometh a resurrection, even a first resurrection; yea, even a resurrection of those that have been, and who are, and who shall be, even until the resurrection of Christ—for so shall he be called. (Mosiah 15:7–8, 20–21)

Abinadi's imagery of the Son becoming "subject even unto death" and being "swallowed up" is very much in line with the metaphors of drowning and baptism discussed above. Christ then "breaketh the bands of death" and, in Mosiah 15:9, "ascended into heaven" as did the king in Psalm 18. Because Christ has broken the bands of death, the "children" of God are enabled to be born again, to come forth from death into eternal life (Mosiah 15:30). The richness of the symbolism of redemption found in the Old Testament is present in the words of Abinadi, in new and powerful expressions.

The likelihood that Abinadi was familiar with these nuances of the Hebrew word hevel and purposefully used the phrase heveli-mot, or “bands of death” in English, even though this phrase does not appear in the KJV Bible, adds depth to our understanding of Abinadi’s words. It also adds another detail in support of the historicity and truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Abinadi assuredly knew well these key concepts of the Hebrew words and texts and understood their relevance and applicability to the mission of the Messiah, the Son of God.

The Know

Abinadi’s confrontation with the wicked king Noah and his priests (Mosiah 12–16) concluded with the prophet enacting a dramatic gesture. The text records that “after Abinadi had spoken these words he stretched forth his hand and said: The time shall come when all shall see the salvation of the Lord; when every nation, kindred, tongue, and people shall see eye to eye and shall confess before God that his judgments are just” (Mosiah 16:1).

The added detail of Abinadi raising or stretching out his hand (or “hands” in the Printer’s Manuscript1) as he prophesied may seem insignificant, but as David Calabro has observed, “The gestures described in passages of scripture, rather than being just incidental ornaments, contribute to the meanings of those passages; understanding the meanings of gestures therefore leads to a fuller understanding of the scriptural message.”2

In the case of stretching forth the hand(s), which is found throughout the Book of Mormon as a prophetic gesture (1 Nephi 17:54; Mosiah 12:2; Alma 10:25; Alma 13:21; 15:5; 19:12; 32:7; 3 Nephi 11:9; 12:1), Calabro suggests that this action “seems to increase the force or urgency of the speech” being delivered by the prophet.3 In stretching forth their hand(s), the prophets increase the drama or emotional appeal in their pleadings with their audiences to hearken to their words. This makes perfect sense in the context of Abinadi’s final message in Mosiah 16, which urgently warned of God’s judgment and punishment of the wicked and unrepentant.

Additionally, Calabro noted how this gesture in the Book of Mormon finds a home in the ancient world. The Hebrew Bible, for instance, records how Moses “stretched out his hand over the sea” in leading the Israelites out of Egypt (Exodus 14:21, 27).4 Thus stretching forth the hand(s) would seem in some cases to also convey supernatural ability. Additionally, ancient Egyptian iconography portrays actions of speech “in which an individual stretches forth the hand in vertical position toward the addressee.”5 That being said, this gesture may serve several purposes, as the Book of Mormon’s uses of the ritual gesture of stretching forth the hand(s) carry, in Calabro’s words, a “diversity of interpretations” or meanings depending on the context of the passage.6

The Why

Readers of the Book of Mormon should be attentive to the small details in the text, since it’s often the small details that illuminate the text most meaningfully. “Understanding how [ritual] gestures [in the Book of Mormon] function helps to illuminate the scriptural passages in which they are mentioned,” Calabro concluded. “For example, knowing that the stretched-forth hand accompanying speech is [often] a plea for contact and acceptance makes Abinadi’s use of the gesture while delivering a message that would lead to his martyrdom especially vivid.”7

In stretching forth his hand, Abinadi increased the force, drama, urgency, and emotional appeal of his strong words to King Noah and his priests. Abinadi’s gesture, like Moses raising his hand over the sea, would have signaled to Noah’s court a supernatural warning and a divine presence.

Much like stage actions accompanying a spoken recitation, the actions of the participants in a given account as described in the Book of Mormon add meaning, substance, and depth to the narrative. They may also illustrate the text’s ancient cultural context.8

With all of this in mind, attentive readers can draw vivid meaning from the scirptures. Just as the prophet Abinadi stretched forth his hand to the stubborn priests of Noah, his powerful words continue to reach out to readers everywhere who earnestly desire to see the salvation of Lord and to confess to God that His judgments are just.

The Know

Speaking of Christ's coming, Abinadi used past tense verbs,1 and then explained his way of speaking by adding that he was “speaking of things to come as though they had already come” (Mosiah 16:6, emphasis added). Using past tense verbs or participles to speak of something that will yet happen in the future may seem unusual to modern readers, but this is actually a recognized characteristic of ancient Hebrew prophecy. Abinadi’s grammatical usage is not unique in the Book of Mormon. It can be found in several passages in the Bible.

BYU professor Donald Parry has noted: “Old Testament prophets prophesied using these forms (past tense, past participle verb forms) ‘to express facts which are undoubtedly imminent, and therefore, in the imagination of the speaker, already accomplished.’”2 Parry and others refer to this usage as “the prophetic perfect.”

He cites an example of the use of the prophetic perfect in Isaiah’s prophecy of the Savior’s atoning suffering in Isaiah 53. Isaiah uses the past and perfect tenses to describe a series of events that would happen more than seven hundred years in the future.3

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. (Isaiah 53:4-7, as quoted in Mosiah 14:4-7).4

The Book of Mormon prophets were, no doubt, very well versed in this prophetic style of Isaiah and other Old Testament prophets. In fact, Abinadi had just finished quoting Isaiah 53 when he spoke to the priests of Noah in the same manner (Mosiah 14). His explanatory interjection, “speaking of things to come as though they had already come,” was most likely for the benefit of the priests who had apparently neglected their study of scripture and perhaps lacked many copies to study. It also reinforces Abinadi's testimony that the words of the prophet in Isaiah 52 and 53 were still to be fulfilled in the future, not that they had been fulfilled already as Noah's priests may well have held.

Lehi and Nephi, who were much closer, chronologically, to Isaiah, also made use of the prophetic perfect. As Parry points out, Lehi declared, “I have obtained a land of promise” (1 Nephi 5:5, emphasis added), long before he ever reached the promised land. Nephi said the following of Jesus’ baptism hundreds of years before the event: “Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove” (2 Nephi 31:8, emphasis added).

Many more examples of this style of ancient Hebrew prophetic speech occur in the Bible and Book of Mormon.5

The Why

Recognizing the presence of the prophetic perfect in the Book of Mormon explains why Nephite prophets spoke as they did. It also helps establish its veracity and reliability as an ancient religious text written by prophets who came from the ancient Israelite prophetic milieu found in the Old Testament. The fact that Lehi, Nephi, and other Book of Mormon prophets speak of events that they have seen in vision in the past or perfect tense authentically links them with the Israelite prophetic tradition.

Although it is not known exactly why the prophets spoke after this manner, it may have been because they had seen these events in vision. Thus, it was natural for them to report what they had seen by using past tense verbs in speaking of what they had already witnessed.

Knowing that their use of past tense verbs might be confusing to some, the early Book of Mormon author Jarom went out of his way to explain that the use of the prophetic past was a conscious Nephite linguistic practice. He encouraged faithful readers to look forward to the future while at the same time believing in God’s foreordained past. Jarom states:

Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers, did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to diligence; teaching the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was. And after this manner did they teach them. (Jarom 1:11; emphasis added)

Jarom’s people, much like the priests of Noah Abinadi addressed, had already grown apart from the verbal conventions of their ancestors. Thus he felt a need to clarify this usage so that their meanings would not be misunderstood.

From an eternal, prophetic perspective, all things are present before God, whether they are past, present, or future. The infinite Atonement in the meridian to time reaches back to redeem all who have fallen because of Adam's transgression (Mosiah 3:11), and it works forward to save all those who “ever were since the fall of Adam, or who are, or whoever shall be, even unto the end of the world” (Mosiah 4:7).

For all these reasons, Book of Mormon writers spoke of future events as though they had already happened. The prophets of Old had an unshakable faith in the coming Messiah, and spoke of it in certain terms. We, likewise, can look back to the Atonement, and forward to the future, with equal faith and certainty in God's promises to His children. Even though Jesus Christ's atonement is now thousands of years in the past, believing in the atoning power of Jesus Christ still requires unshakable faith to get us through life's challenges. As we look forward to our own unknown futures, we can hold fast to our faith in the Savior and know that God will take care of us in our time of need.

The Know

The tragic yet faith-inspiring story of Abinadi ended when the valiant prophet “suffered death by fire” (Mosiah 17:20). Although for most modern readers this has evoked images of the prophet burning at the stake, the actual description of the process never mentions Abinadi being tied to a stake. Instead, it curiously describes Abinadi as being “scourged … with faggots,” meaning bundles of burning sticks,1 until “the flames began to scorch him” (Mosiah 17:13–14). He not only suffered death by fire, but he suffered “the pains of death by fire” (Mosiah 17:15, 18, emphasis added).

The mention of being “scourged,” meaning beaten, flogged, or whipped, is curious in this context. In a paper published in 1991, Robert J. Matthews explained, “This passage seems to say that Abinadi’s tormentors took burning torches and poked him with these, burning his skin until he died.”2 The oddity of this practice has led Royal Skousen to suggest that it may be a transcription error, and the text should be amended to read “scorched his skin with faggots” instead.3

Though it may seem strange, there may be precedent for the practice. In 2001, an LDS Mesoamerican scholar pointed out, “There is … a direct parallel between Abinadi’s scourging and a form of punishment common in the much later Aztec culture of Mexico. Codex Mendoza, a richly illustrated ethnographic record of Aztec daily life that was produced in Mexico City around 1541, contains a painting that depicts two men beating a youth with firebrands.”4

The same scholar admitted, “The parallel Mesoamerican practice dates about a thousand years after Abinadi’s case and comes from a different culture.”5 More recent work by Mark Wright and Kerry Hull, however, documents the practice among the ancient Maya in pre-Columbian times. Wright and Hull also show that the practice was widespread among Native American cultures in both Mesoamerica and throughout North America.6

The Why

Regardless of the details on how Abinadi died by fire, his courage and conviction are traits to be admired. Fully aware that he went to his death, he nonetheless preached, prophesied, and testified boldly to Noah and his people of their wickedness and of the coming Redeemer. Abinadi deserves his place among the great Christian martyrs.7

Recognizing the implications of having his skin “scourged … with faggots,” makes a difference in how Abinadi’s death is understood, and the level of pain and torment he endured. Matthews visualized the scene:

In my mind I see Abinadi bound, possibly supported by something, and his fiendish executioners (probably the priests) gathered about him with burning torches (faggots) in their hands, jabbing him and rubbing him with these until they caused him to die. They actively, eagerly, and physically caused his death …. I can imagine them dancing and cavorting about Abinadi, and hear them shouting, exulting, and gloating over what they were doing.8

Mesoamerican ethnographers have pointed out that the process could often be deliberately dragged out, going on for days and sometimes weeks, to maximize the extent of the agony.9 Having publically stated that King Noah’s life would be “valued as a garment in a hot furnace” and that his people would be smitten with “sore afflictions” and would be driven with “burdens lashed upon their backs” (Mosiah12:3–5, emphasis added), it is not hard to believe that Abinadi would have anticipated full well the prolonged tortures that awaited him, adding immeasurably to the courage behind his bold act of martyrdom.10

All this information provides a vivid contextual background for Abinadi’s final words of prophecy. As his tormenters scourged him with firebrands (echoing his own words of prophecy against Noah and his people), Abinadi's final prophecy against the priests turned the tables again on them, declaring that their descendants will cause many people to “suffer the pains that I do suffer, even pains of death by fire” (Mosiah 17:15, emphasis added), and that they too will be "afflicted" (Mosiah 17:16, emphasis added) and “smitten on every hand” (Mosiah 17:17, emphasis added). He then cursed the priests to be taken by enemies and to "suffer, as I suffer, the pains of death by fire” (Mosiah 17:18, emphasis added). Finally he warned, “Thus God executeth vengeance upon those that destroy his people” (Mosiah 17:19). Abinadi’s allusions to the dreadful acts of his own executioners could hardly have been missed, as he got the last word in these volleys.

The Know

As discussed previously in KnoWhy 59, 2 Nephi 31:7 explains that the reason why a sinless Jesus would need baptism, is not for the remission of sins but to publicly witness His making of a covenant to be obedient to the Father.1 In that KnoWhy, we cited emeritus BYU Professor Noel B. Reynolds as asserting that for Nephi and subsequent Book of Mormon figures, baptism principally serves as an outward sign witnessing our repentant commitment to follow Jesus Christ. In contrast to baptism being a symbol of spiritual cleansing, Reynold’s notes, “the Book of Mormon consistently points to a different symbolism: the making of a covenant.” We are then cleansed by the purifying fire of the Holy Ghost (3 Nephi 12:2).2

From ancient times, covenants have been understood as mutual or bilateral promises. If baptism, in the Book of Mormon, is understood as a sign that one has made a covenant with God to do certain things, what are those things? What is God, for His part, promising to do? The narrative of Alma (the elder) baptizing believers at the waters of Mormon in Mosiah 18 is one of the most informative accounts of what was expected of newly baptized saints.

"And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?" (Mosiah 18:8–10, emphasis added).

This passage concisely indicates that baptized believers make a covenant to do the following:

Come into the fold of God
Be called his people
Bear one another’s burdens
Mourn with those who mourn
Comfort those who need comfort
Stand as a witness of God at all times and places
Serve God and
Keep his commandments

At the same time, God promises to:

Redeem them
Number them with those of the first resurrection
Give eternal life
Pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon them.

The Why

Members of the Church are often admonished to remember the sacred covenants they have made with the Lord. If we do not remember our covenants, we cannot keep them and will not receive the promised blessings.

When those who have been baptized take the Sacrament each week, they are reminded of their promise to take upon themselves the name of Christ, always remember Him, and keep His commandments (see also Mosiah 5:7–8; 3 Nephi 18:7–11; Moroni 4–5).

The renewal of our covenants that takes place when we partake of the Sacrament also gives us the opportunity to remember what the atoning sacrifice of Christ has done for us. The account of Alma baptizing believers in Mosiah 18 also draws us into the underlying theme of the atonement and asks us to imitate Christ’s infinite charity. As BYU professors of religious education, D. Kelly Ogden and Andrew C. Skinner, have noted:

Embedded in Alma’s description of our responsibilities regarding the baptismal covenant is the essence of the Atonement—to suffer vicariously the pains of others and provide them comfort. We do what the Savior does for us: help others and try to relieve their distress (Alma 7:10–14). This is also the essence of charity (Moroni 7:45–47).3

The Know

After Abinadi’s martyrdom1 and Alma the Elder’s flight into the wilderness, the Lamanites were seen again in the borders of the land of Nephi (Mosiah 19:6). While king Noah fled with many of his men (19:11), some stayed with their women and entered into a treaty with the Lamanites, agreeing to pay “half of all they possessed” (19:15) in order to remain on their lands. Meanwhile, king Noah was put to a fiery death by some of his men who now wanted to return to their wives back in the land of Nephi (19:20). Noah’s priests, however, fled (19:21), and soon they abducted 24 Lamanite maidens “and carried them into the wilderness” (Mosiah 20:5). The abduction of these “daughters of the Lamanites” (20:1) was evidently so outrageous that their sudden disappearance “led to an immediate rupture in the treaty” that had just been established between the Lamanites and their recently conquered Nephite subjects (Mosiah 19:25–29).

The rupture was so severe that it “brought a military reprisal against the Nephites,” with the Lamanites launching an assault on Limhi’s people in the capital city of Nephi (Mosiah 20:6–11),2 whom the Lamanites assumed were connected with the taking of their daughters. Commenting on this passage, S. Kent Brown noted, “In the end, the [Lamanite] king’s decision to destroy the Nephite colony must have rested on a combination of considerations, one of which was his feeling of anger.”3

Readers can understand this anger on the part of the Lamanites. Not only were their daughters the victims of a sexual crime, but conquered subjects appeared to be rising in defiance. Moreover, in the ancient world, including in ancient Israel, oaths and treaty-covenants were of such importance that breaking one’s oath could literally become a matter of life and death. Since breaking a treaty sworn in God’s name was seen as nothing less than blasphemy, such oaths or covenants were often accompanied with threats of divine and temporal curses (including death) for breaking such (cf. Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 30:15–20; Ruth 1:16–17; 1 Samuel 20:13; Jeremiah 34:18–20; Zechariah 5:1–4; Daniel 9:11).4

In fact, the idiom for making a covenant in biblical Hebrew is literally to “cut a covenant” (kārat berît), and typically “animals were sacrificed, or cut, during ancient Near Eastern covenant-making ceremonies, in order to graphically demonstrate the penalty for not living up to the stipulations that were sworn to by the participating parties” (cf. Genesis 15:7–21).5

This would explain why the Lamanites reacted so strongly to what they thought had been a broken oath. Indeed, “they sent their armies forth; yea, even the king himself went before his people; and they went up to the land of Nephi to destroy the people of Limhi” (Mosiah 20:7). As explained by S. Kent Brown,

In general, when a treaty has evidently been broken, the question is, “How flagrant must a violation be before the sovereign could legitimately muster his military forces and attack the recalcitrant vassal?” The Lamanite king must have seen a series of misdeeds in the abduction of the young women. First, it was an act of stealing—a clear breach of law; the people there were not in a state of war or national tension. Second, any marriages that might result would consequently be illegal or, at the very least, extremely odious. Third, the kidnapping was evidence, as he perceived the matter, of the breaking of solemn pledges made only two years earlier. It would appear that he had no choice except to bring down the weight of the Lamanite army on the Nephite colonists.”6

That the priests of Noah committed a deliberate and premeditated crime is evident from Mosiah 20:4, which records that they “laid and watched them” before the abduction. “The Hebrew idiom translated ‘lying in wait’ usually connotes premeditation and planning, implying that the priests may well have known of this place and the custom for young women to be there.”7 The textual clues in the Book of Mormon thus point to something more heinous than a mere crime of lust committed in the heat of the moment, which explains the severity of the Lamanite response.

The Why

This story was perhaps included in the Book of Mormon for a number of reasons. It sets up the later accounts of the priests of Noah and their descendants (Alma 25:4, 12; 43:13). By understanding where those descendants came from (the captured Lamanite maidens) the rest of Mormon’s account of the Nephite-Lamanite wars makes more sense.

It also gives readers a glimpse into the role of women in the Book of Mormon. Women aren't mentioned much in the Book of Mormon, but when they are mentioned, they are depicted as more than just narrative props. They play active, important roles in the narrative.8 This is seen, for instance, in how the abducted Lamanite daughters later pled for the lives of their captors (who are called “their husbands”), revealing the complex dynamics of the characters’ relationships (Mosiah 23:31–35).

Finally, it shows how firmly anchored the Book of Mormon is in biblical culture. Even the Lamanites appear to have retained this honorable part of their cultural heritage. The harsh reaction of the Lamanites to a perceived broken oath makes perfect sense in light of these cultural practices of biblical oath-making.

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading