New KnoWhys

“God conversed with men, and made known unto them the plan of redemption, which had been prepared from the foundation of the world”

Alma 12:30

Photograph of the Provo City Center Temple via ldschurchtemples.com

The Know

Upon seeing that “the words of Amulek had silenced Zeezrom,”1 Alma took advantage of the situation to “unfold the scriptures beyond that which Amulek had done” (Alma 12:1). One of the topics Alma expounded on was “the mysteries of God” (vv. 9–11). These sacred teachings included topics concerning Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the Fall, temporal and spiritual death, the probationary state of humankind, the Resurrection, and Final Judgment.

Essentially, Alma taught the Ammonihahites “the plan of redemption, which had been prepared from the foundation of the world” (Alma 12:30). This he did to answer a question posed by “one Antionah, who was a chief ruler” of the Nehorites in Ammonihah (v. 20). He and Alma’s accusers had set up an alternative, paid priesthood, which directly challenged the doctrines and ordinances of the Nephite priesthood in the land of Zarahemla. These Nehorite priests were schooled and organized, and they believed in the Creation and redemption of all men (Alma 1:4). They knew about the scriptures, but they propounded alternative doctrines from them.

“What does the scripture mean,” Antionah asked Alma, “which saith that God placed cherubim and a flaming sword on the east of the garden of Eden, lest our first parents should enter and partake of the fruit of the tree of life, and live forever?” (Alma 12:21). Said another way, Antionah was asking a question related to how men and women could overcome the effects of the Fall and return to the presence of God.

That Alma called these teachings the mysteries of God immediately links his profound discourse to matters belonging to the temple.2 As explained by Thomas R. Valletta, “The presentation of God’s eternal plan by Alma and Amulek while preaching in Ammonihah includes elements that compare to known temple themes.”

These elements include:

The premortal existence (Alma 13:3–5).
Adam and Eve’s “partaking of the forbidden fruit” (12:21–23).
“Cherubim and a flaming sword” guarding the way to the tree of life (12:21).
The resulting death and mortal probation as a time given when men should “prepare to meet God” (12:24).
Angels being sent to converse with and teach Adam and Eve (12:29).
Angels teaching men to “call on his [God’s] name” and to make “known unto them the plan of redemption” (12:30).
Men being given commandments and warned of the penalty for doing evil (12:32).
Sacred ordinances given to make one’s garments “pure and spotless before God” (13:12).
Being ordained after a “manner” that involved being “called with a holy calling,” and being “ordained with a holy ordinance” (13:8).
Being sanctified, and entering into God’s rest through humility, repentance, and obedience (13:13, 28-29).
The great King Melchizedek as an example of one who preached repentance unto his people, “and behold, they did repent” (13:14–18).
All this “being a type of his order,” given to help people look forward to and rely on “the Son of God . . . for a remission of their sins” (13:16).3

Alma promised that those who followed the path of humility and repentance in their probationary state would “have claim on mercy through [God’s] Only Begotten Son, unto a remission of his sins,” and would enter into the rest of God (Alma 12:34). Adam and Eve served as Alma’s archetypes for this process, and he couched his teachings in terms of their own fall and redemption. As such, Valletta concluded, “There seems to be a strong link between the pattern of these teachings and the Nephite temple ceremony,” which was likewise oriented towards admitting the faithful into God’s presence.4

The Why

Alma knew that his opponents were serious challengers, and he gave them the strongest answers he could. As the High Priest of the temple in Zarahemla, he spoke powerfully of eternal truths. He drew on scriptures and sacred ordinances that the Nehorite priests would have known about to some extent. He invited them to repent by testifying to them that “there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God.” Alma taught that the people in Ammonihah could find rest, but only “on account of their exceeding faith and repentance” (Alma 13:10).

Although easy to miss with just a quick or superficial reading, the temple themes presented above do in fact “suggest that Alma, and probably some of his contemporaries, were familiar with the ordinances, covenants, and teachings associated with temple rites of the Melchizedek Priesthood.”5

By using the temple as a framework behind his spontaneous answer to Antionah’s question, Alma’s reply was clear and forceful; much more than a mere hodgepodge of biblical imagery. Gerald E. Smith has argued that the “Eden ascension narrative,” as he calls it, found in Alma 8–14 is a coherently structured elaboration of ancient Israelite temple theology. He also proposed that Joseph Smith’s restoration of the temple ordinances drew on this same biblical tradition and presented it in a way remarkably similar to what’s found in the Book of Mormon.

Rather than persisting with the prevailing notion that the fall of Adam was the origin of evil and death, the Book of Mormon reframed Adam as a divine son of God, showing the faithful the ascension path to return to the presence of God through symbols, rituals, and narratives that appeared similar to the earliest . . . traditions enshrined anciently in the Israelite temple. In this the Book of Mormon completely bypassed traditional nineteenth-century theologies, pointing Joseph Smith toward a different path to doctrinal development that ultimately was enshrined in the theology of the Mormon temple.6

The fullness of the rites alluded to by Alma are experienced in the temple itself, because of their highly sacred nature. Likewise, the sacred drama of the Creation, the Fall, and humankind’s journey back into the presence of God is more fully unfolded in the temple. Nevertheless, themes and symbols associated with temple ordinances appear in the scriptures, both ancient and modern. Just as Alma’s discourse at Ammonihah points the faithful today towards the house of the Lord and encourages them to make and keep the covenants necessary to receive the blessings of eternal life and exaltation, his words gave his opponents in that apostate city an unmistakable opportunity to understand and to repent. While he did not convert many, “one of the most expert among them,” namely Zeezrom (Alma 10:31), was soon healed, converted, called and ordained to preach the word (Alma 15:5; 31:6).

The Know

Alma 13 concludes the words of Alma to the apostate Nephites of the city of Ammonihah. Alma’s discourse mainly focused on repentance, a subject which he had been commanded by the Lord, through the voice of an angel, to preach to the people of that city (Alma 8:16). However, in chapter 13 Alma began to speak about the priesthood and about Melchizedek. Alma’s words are among the most spiritually moving in all of scripture concerning this important high priest who brought forth bread and wine and blessed the patriarch Abraham, from whom he received tithes (Genesis 14:18–20).1 Alma brilliantly used Melchizedek as his primary model of righteous priestly influence. Although this information about Melchizedek may seem out of place to modern readers, it masterfully drives Alma’s message home to his audience.

As Alma and Amulek preached their message of repentance, they used language and symbols that they knew the people of Ammonihah would recognize. Although these people had come to reject the traditional Nephite belief in a Messiah and also the notion of repentance for sins (see, e.g., Alma 1:4; 15:15), they would still have likely known the material concerning Melchizedek from the records on the plates of brass Nephi brought from Jerusalem. Also they would have likely recognized the forms and symbols of Nephite temple rituals. It appears that the primal history and related temple rites served as a strong source for the material that Alma and Amulek presented, as explained in a previous KnoWhy.2

As Alma turned to the second half of his exposition, he spoke specifically about what was likely a main feature of the Nephite temple ritual, namely the high priesthood of the order of the Son of God, of which Melchizedek was a most notable example. The presentation of the royal “Son of God” as the priest “after the order of Melchizedek” was known in the ancient rituals of the Israelite temple in Jerusalem, and Jesus Himself would refer often to Psalm 110 which contains the attestation, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalms 110:4).3 Alma’s point-by-point argument in Alma 12–13 is evidence that this high regard for Melchizedek was perpetuated in the Nephite tradition as well. Alma’s use of Melchizedek assumed his audience was somewhat familiar with this material already.4

Most of all, Alma emphasized how Melchizedek used his position as high priest to help his people to humble themselves and to repent of their wickedness (Alma 13:13, 17–18). Perhaps bringing about the greatest priesthood miracle of all, Melchizedek preached repentance to his people, “and behold, they did repent” (v. 18). He pointed his people toward the Son of God through priesthood ordinances (v. 16) and brought peace to the land (v. 18). He was a shining example of a high priest after the order of the Son of God (v. 9), one of the greatest that ever lived, and for this reason he was particularly mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures (v. 19). The deepest wish of Alma’s heart was that somehow he could do likewise and cry repentance in such a way that his people “should repent and come unto our God, that there might not be more sorrow upon all the face of the earth” (Alma 29:2).

Alma seized the opportunity to use the example of Melchizedek’s people in hopes that the Ammonihahites would do likewise:

And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest. Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek. (Alma 13:14)

The Why

Although the people of Ammonihah may have already been familiar with and recognized Alma’s story of Melchizedek, Alma wanted his people to learn important new lessons from it. The book of Alma presents Alma, as high priest over the church, trying to bring the diverse Nephite communities into a unity of faith after a series of political and religious crises, including the rise of a false religion, which Nehor started.5 Alma went from city to city

that he might preach the word of God unto them, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty, and that he might pull down, by the word of God, all the pride and craftiness and all the contentions which were among his people, seeing no way that he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in pure testimony against them (Alma 4:19).

Considerable amounts of pride had arisen in the church, and also apostasy due to the priestcrafts that Nehor had helped spread. Alma successfully shared his priestly message with the people in Zarahemla, Gideon, and Melek with promising results. In the context of his preaching in Melek, before heading to the city of Ammonihah, Alma 8:4 brought up the issue of authority, stating that Alma taught “according to the holy order of God, by which he had been called.” This declaration leads into the record of his efforts among the people of Ammonihah, upon whom “Satan had gotten great hold” (Alma 8:9).

The people of Ammonihah, however, had embraced the religion of Nehor (see Alma 16:11), and thus they had utterly rejected Alma’s authority as high priest when he tried to preach in their city (Alma 8:11–12). The Nehorite priests preached “for the sake of riches and honor” and despised the church of God (Alma 1:3, 16). They saw Alma as a threat, because the members—and leaders—of the church of God “were not proud in their own eyes, and because they did impart the word of God, one with another, without money and without price” (Alma 1:20).

Alma was cast out of Ammonihah, but the Lord commanded him to return, this time with Amulek as a second witness, and to prophesy unto them that the Lord would destroy them because of their iniquities. Alma and Amulek were given power and authority from God to call the Ammonihahites to repentance (Alma 8:29–32).

In this context, Alma’s account of the story of Melchizedek served to legitimatize his claims of authority from God by appealing to this ancient order of the holy priesthood. Similar to Alma, Melchizedek had been both a great political as well as religious leader. Melchizedek’s story was one that people of Ammonihah probably knew and possibly still respected as canonical. If they respected the legacy of Melchizedek, they should have appreciated what he had done for his people. Alma made sure to emphasize the point that Melchizedek’s people, too, had “waxed strong in iniquity and abomination … had all gone astray” and “were full of all manner of wickedness” before Melchizedek had led them to repent (Alma 13:17). Those of the profession of Nehor did not believe in the repentance of their sins (Alma 15:15), but they evidently did not have so low an opinion of scripture yet that they could ignore Melchizedek, so Alma drew a deliberate contrast between what their leaders were leading them to do (not repent and harden their hearts) with what a truly righteous leader such as Melchizedek would be doing. He argued that they should repent contrary to the Nehorite antipathy towards doing so.

Finally, Alma made extensive efforts to emphasize that the power by which this was accomplished was not Melchizedek’s priesthood, but that it was God’s “holy order, which was after the order of his Son.” If they truly wanted to approach God and obtain His salvation, the people of Ammonihah would ultimately need to accept the Messiah, the Son of God, and the priesthood ordinances that came through His holy order.

Today, we likewise need the saving ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood to gain salvation. By attending the temple and fulfilling our covenants to God, we can participate in ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood "after the order of his Son" to bring us closer to God.

The Know

While Alma and Amulek were imprisoned in Ammonihah, “the earth shook mightily,” causing “the walls of the prison [to] rent in twain, so that they fell to the earth” (Alma 14:27). Miraculously, Alma and Amulek walked away unharmed, but their detractors “were slain by the fall” of the walls. Meanwhile, Mormon reported that the people of Ammonihah “heard a great noise” and therefore “came running together by multitudes to know the cause of it” (v. 29).

It is likely that some sort of divinely-timed earthquake caused both the walls of the prison to fall and the great noise the people heard. “Apparently,” explained Brant A. Gardner, “the miraculous means of deliverance was a particularly violent earthquake: it ‘shook mightily.’” That such an event can happen is illustrated in an interesting parallel Gardner pointed out: “On February 4, 1976, an earthquake in Chiquimula, Guatemala, so demolished a prison that ‘the criminals that were in the jail escaped almost as if by miracle.’”1

Earthquakes are caused by fault lines, and different kinds of fault lines cause different kinds of earthquakes. Earthquakes also have different intensity levels, measured in what is called the Mercalli scale. This scale is divided into 12 levels, with higher levels indicating more intense earthquakes.2 According to Jerry Grover, a professional geologist, the collapse of the prison walls would require at least a level 8 earthquake on the Mercalli scale.3

The “great noise” mentioned in Alma 14:29 may have been the rumblings of the earthquake, or perhaps the sound of the walls collapsing.4 If earthquakes were a common occurrence in Book of Mormon lands,5 however, these would hardly merit the response of the people, “running together by multitudes to know the cause of” the sound. Grover, therefore, suggested it was a peculiar feature unique to a specific kind of earthquake.

Grover proposed, “A phenomenon that has been historically identified as an ‘earthquake boom’ is indicated here.” Earthquake booms occur in what are called “supershear earthquakes.” These “are events in which the rupturing fault breaks faster than certain seismic waves can travel,” thereby “break[ing] the seismic sound barrier creating a sonic boom.” Grover noted, “These earthquakes have been observed almost exclusively in strike-slip faults because of higher rupture speeds that occur with strike-slip faulting.”6

The Why

One important fruit that emerges from geological analysis of this narrative is that the events described are geologically possible. Nothing in the story is implausible based on historical and geological information about earthquakes. This includes the miraculous emergence of Alma and Amulek from the ruins of the prison. As discussed above, it even potentially identifies the type of earthquake involved with a high degree of specificity.

If Jerry Grover is correct, then Ammonihah must be located near a strike-slip fault line, in an area where level-8 (or higher) earthquakes happen. Such a detail adds another requirement Book of Mormon geographers can use to narrow down the list of potential locations for Ammonihah. Given the lack of consensus on Book of Mormon geography, additional factors which help clarify the picture are more than welcome.7

Considering the natural scientific factors involved also illuminates how God works. Miracles are not always extraordinary and unexplainable events. Instead, God often uses well-timed natural phenomena to accomplish His purposes. For example, some biblical scholars argue that the plagues of Exodus followed a natural chain of events.8

Learning and understanding the science behind miracles need not make them any less miraculous. Latter-day Saints and other modern Christians often see miracles in otherwise ordinary events which occur at just the right time. The miracle is often in the timing, the extremity or severity of the event, or the way the outcome accomplishes the Lord’s purposes. When individuals feel the touch of God in their lives, that is when a miracle has occurred.

Even if Alma and Amulek’s earthquake was a naturally-occurring phenomenon, important details remain remarkable and miraculous. All of Alma and Amulek’s captors are killed in the prison’s collapse, while Alma and Amulek themselves miraculously emerge unscathed. Furthermore, the supershear earthquake’s sonic boom created a particular noise that drew the people “together by multitudes” to behold the awe-inspiring power of God in preserving Alma and Amulek. Not only did this earthquake create a means for Alma and Amulek’s escape, but it created an opportunity for them to demonstrate their role as true messengers from God.

The Know

Following their miraculous escape from wrongful imprisonment in Ammonihah,1 Alma and Amulek went to the land of Sidom, where they found some of their converts had also fled (Alma 15:1). The land of Sidom proved to be more welcoming to the missionaries and their gospel message. Alma “established a church in the land of Sidom,” no doubt after the same order as that in Zarahemla.2 Many who “were desirous to be baptized … did flock in from all the region round about Sidom, and were baptized.” (vv. 13–14).

As a result of this success, the people humbled themselves, and “worship[ed] God before the altar, watching and praying continually, that they might be delivered from Satan, and from death, and from destruction” (Alma 15:17). Altars had many important functions in the worship of ancient Israelites and Nephites alike. Lehi built an altar in the wilderness to offer sacrifice (1 Nephi 2:6–7; cf. 5:9; 7:22),3 the primary function of altars in the Old Testament.

Altars were also a place of deliverance in Israelite religion. According to Old Testament scholar David Bokovoy, “The earlier laws of Exodus identify altars as places of refuge where someone who had unintentionally committed manslaughter could seek asylum.”4 The specific law Bokovoy had in mind was Exodus 21:12–14:

He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

This legal text was known to Nephi, and it was quoted to him by the Spirit when he was prompted to slay Laban (see 1 Nephi 4:11–12, 17).5 Interestingly, while Nephi did not flee to one of the six designated Levitical cities of refuge, he did flee generally from the land of Israel and specifically to his father’s camp, where an altar dedicated to the Lord had been made (1 Nephi 2:6–7; 5:9; 7:22).

Bokovoy noted that the altar in the tabernacle was used as a place of refuge or deliverance in 1 Kings 1:50–51 and 2:28, to which Solomon’s enemies Adonijah and Joab flee and “grab ‘hold on the horns of the altar’ in hopes of temporary asylum.”6 He thus argued that it was “a long-held Israelite custom” to see “the altar as a location of deliverance from death.”7

Similarly, after Alma established the church at Sidom, when the people there “began to humble themselves before God, and began to assemble themselves together at their sanctuaries,” they approached the altar to worship God, and they did so “watching and praying continually, that they might be delivered from Satan, and from death, and from destruction” (Alma 15:17, emphasis added). Noticing this confluence of elements, Bokovoy remarked, “the Book of Mormon identifies the altar as a place where people could seek deliverance, albeit in a spiritual sense.”8

The Why

Altars are mentioned only three times in the Book of Mormon.9 The first is Lehi’s “altar of stones” (1 Nephi 2:7). Nephi fled to his father’s camp for refuge after killing Laban, where this altar was used for “sacrifice and burnt offerings” upon his return (1 Nephi 5:9).10 The second is in the land of Sidom, where the people sought deliverance “from Satan, and from death, and from destruction” (Alma 15:17). The final mention of an altar is in reference to the converts of the sons of Mosiah coming “before the altar of God, to call on his name and confess their sins before him” (Alma 17:4).

In two of these three references, the altar appears to be connected with refuge and deliverance as in Exodus 21:12–14. In 1 Nephi, Lehi’s camp with its altar of stones becomes the place of safety for Nephi after he killed Laban, whom the Lord delivered into his hands. In Alma 15:17, the altar is portrayed as a place of spiritual deliverance from the forces of evil. As Bokovoy comments, this is “a subtlety that provides further evidence that the Book of Mormon clearly reflects the traditions of antiquity.”11

Understanding altars as places of both sacrifice and deliverance in the Book of Mormon leads to greater understanding of God’s love and protection of His children through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Whenever an injustice is about to be perpetrated, when a person has taken flight from an accuser who is wrongly pursuing and threatening them, God has designated for them a place of safety and deliverance. That place is an altar, a place of sacrifice, a “type and shadow” of the coming sacrifice of the Lamb of God unto “the power of his deliverance” (Mosiah 3:15; Alma 7:13).

Such an altar is in a holy place, administered by prophetic or priestly authority and supported by a righteous community that stands prepared to receive those who seek refuge and deliverance (see Alma 27:20–24). While God asks all who come before the altar to make personal sacrifices, once there He promises that those who seek His face and plead for His help will surely find refuge from the storms of life, deliverance from sin, relief from worldly concerns, victory over spiritual death, and a shield from the forces of destruction.

The Know

Ancient Israelite law had a specific statute for the case of apostate cities. The detailed law, as found in Deuteronomy 13:12–18, required that inquiry be made to determine if the city had truly gone apostate, and if so, required that it be utterly destroyed “with the edge of the sword” (v. 15), all people and livestock killed, the city burned and left “an heap for ever; it shall not be built again” (v. 16). According to Richard H. Hiers, “The Bible does not report that any Israelite cities, or their people or cattle actually were destroyed pursuant to this law.”1 While the Bible may not, the Book of Mormon likely does.

In the book of Alma, the destruction of Ammonihah comes seemingly out of the blue—“in the eleventh year of the reign of the judges … on the fifth day of the second month,” amidst “much peace in the land of Zarahemla,” with “no wars nor contentions for a certain number of years” (Alma 16:1). Then, out of nowhere, “the armies of the Lamanites had come in upon the wilderness side, into the borders of the land, even into the city of Ammonihah, and began to slay the people and destroy the city” (v. 2).

The destruction wrought upon Ammonihah was thorough and complete. The people of the city “were destroyed; yea, every living soul of the Ammonihahites was destroyed, and also their great city” (Alma 16:9). In a single day, the city “was left desolate; and the carcasses were mangled by dogs and wild beasts of the wilderness” and “their dead bodies were heaped up upon the face of the earth, and they were covered with a shallow covering” (vv. 10–11). In the wake of the destruction, “the people did not go in to possess the land of Ammonihah for many years” and it was termed “Desolation of Nehors” (v. 11).

It is not until later that the reader learns about why the Lamanites attacked the city out of vengeance against the Nephites (Alma 25:1–2). Instead, Mormon prefaced this account with the record of Alma’s missionary journey to Ammonihah (Alma 8:6–13), Alma and Amulek’s preaching to the people (Alma 9–13), and a detailed accounting of the people’s abhorrent crimes (Alma 14). Perhaps this was deliberate on Mormon’s part to focus the reader’s attention on what he saw as the ultimate cause of their destruction and desolation: fulfillment of the law of apostate cities.2

The law required that the situation be investigated; that “thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently” as to whether the city truly was apostate (Deuteronomy 13:14). As high priest, the responsibility naturally fell upon Alma to investigate, and while there the Lord provided Amulek as the necessary second witness (Deuteronomy 17:6) to condemn the city.3

Alma declared them “a lost and a fallen people” (Alma 9:30, 32), and “thereby effectively identified them as an apostate people under Deuteronomy 13, making them subject to the mandate of annihilation.”4 He specifically echoed Deuteronomy 13:15 when he prophesied that the Lord “will utterly destroy you from off the face of the earth” (Alma 9:12; cf. v. 24, emphasis added). Amulek also declared that the Lord would visit them “with utter destruction … by famine, and by pestilence, and the sword” (Alma 10:22, emphasis added).

Carrying out the annihilation required someone with the political authority to wield the military force,5 but as John W. Welch has pointed out, Alma had recently given up the judgment-seat.6 The Lamanites thus fulfilled their prophesied role, to “be a scourge unto” the Nephites (1 Nephi 2:24; cf. Alma 9:19), accomplishing complete destruction and desolation of the city and its people. The account of Ammonihah thus documents the proper and complete adherence to the legal procedures outlined in Deuteronomy 13:12–18:7

Deuteronomy 13:12–18	Alma 9–16
Certain men gone out from among you	Nehorites had gone out from Zarahemla (Alma 1:15; 15:15)
Withdrawn the inhabitants of their city	They had withdrawn their city from Nephite leadership (Alma 9:6, 14)
Serve other gods	Turned from their God (Alma 11:24)
Children of Belial	Satan had great hold (Alma 8:9; 9:28; 11:21)
Inquire and search diligently	Alma visits personally (Alma 8:8)
Smite all diligently with the sword	Everyone killed (Alma 16:9; 25:2)
Destroy utterly	Everything utterly destroyed (Alma 16:9–10)
Leave the city a heap forever	Bodies heaped up (Alma 16:11)
Abomination	Desolation of Nehors (Alma 16:11)

The Why

Recognizing the way this tragic story conforms to the law of apostate cities is evidence that both Alma and Mormon were familiar with the legal standards this section in the law of Moses required. Ammonihah was destroyed in fulfillment of the Israelite law governing the lands of promise. In observing the law of Moses strictly (Alma 30:3), Alma appears to have consciously acted according to each of its requirements, and then Mormon arranged his abridgement to emphasize the complete fulfillment of this law. This case both ties the text to the ancient world and indicates technical legal sophistication on the part of its authors.

Understanding this background also illuminates the strong arm of the Lord’s justice. The people’s wickedness and the law of apostate cities provide the theological justification for the utter annihilation of Ammonihah. The narrative structure reinforces this theological reason for the event by placing it right after Alma and Amulek’s missionary efforts in Alma 9–10, withholding the Lamanites’ reasons for the attack until later (see Alma 25:1–2).

Yet the Lord’s mercy is also present in the narrative. Alma had all he needed to condemn the city as apostate after his first visit (Alma 8:8–13). Nevertheless, the Lord insisted that Alma return (Alma 8:14–17), that a second witness be called (Alma 10:10, 12), and that a full warning of the impending destruction be given to the people (Alma 9:12, 24–25; 13:21–30). The Lord could see the looming attack coming from the land of Nephi (Alma 25:2), but people in Ammonihah could not. The Lord had long spared the people due to the prayers of the few righteous among them (Alma 10:22–23). All of this is an indication of the Lord’s mercy and patience with this wicked and apostate city.

Alma and Amulek’s preaching even resulted in some being converted (Alma 14:1), no doubt bringing great joy to the Lord to see their efforts bear some fruit (see Doctrine and Covenants 18:10–16). As they were converted, Zeezrom and other men were cast out (Alma 14:7), and ended up in Sidom (Alma 15:1). Though several others—women and children—tragically suffered a martyr’s death (Alma 14:8–11),8 these few converts were ultimately spared the fate of Ammonihah, another indication of the Lord’s mercy.

The captives taken by the Lamanites from the wilderness outside Ammonihah were also all recovered by military leaders who sought and heeded Alma’s revelatory guidance (Alma 16:3–8), yet another indication of the Lord’s mercy. It seems that Stephen D. Ricks was correct when he observed, “The implication of the story seems clear: while those who persecute the righteous (as the Ammonihahites had) will suffer, those who seek the counsel of prophets will be blessed and protected.”9

The Know

Along with temples and sanctuaries, the Book of Mormon mentions synagogues as being a part of the religious architecture of Nephite culture, mainly during the era of the reign of judges.

When Alma and Amulek returned from Ammonihah to the land of Zarahemla, they “went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews” (Alma 16:13). At that same time, in the lands to the south, synagogues were built especially by the Amlicites “after the order of the Nehors” (Alma 21:4, 16).1 To the north, the apostate Zoramites built their infamous Rameumpton “in the center of their synagogue” in the land of Antionum (Alma 31:13; 32:1–3, 12). As Nephites moved farther north after the wars of the mid-first century, they continued to build synagogues, along with temples and sanctuaries (Helaman 3:9, 14).2

The word synagogue is Greek in origin, and basically means “assembly” or “gathering.” The word appears over a two hundred times in the Greek Old Testament, often translated into English as “congregation.” While this word usually refers to the assembly itself, and not a building, it can on occasion have spatial connotations, as when it is used synonymously with “camp.”

Its Biblical Hebrew equivalents include “congregation” (edah), and “assembly” (qahal).3 The synagogue of modern Judaism (the cultural and religious center where Jews gather together to read the Torah and engage in social activities) is the result of centuries of evolution. While its origins are “shrouded in mystery” according to one leading scholar, the synagogue has its roots in the biblical period.4

“Owing to the paucity of sources, opinions have varied widely as to when, where, and why the synagogue developed.”5 The structure and function of the modern synagogue appear to have evolved primarily during and after the time of Jesus. That being said, some scholars recognize earlier precedent for the basic idea, at least, of the synagogue (a place of assembly) ranging as far back as the time before the Babylonian captivity (586 BC).6

Drawing on the body of non-Mormon academic work on this topic, one Latter-day Saint scholar, William J. Adams Jr., observed how “later synagogues closely mirror the architecture of the gate chambers” during this earlier time in Israelite history. “These chambers may well have been the original synagogues.” Indeed, some “biblical passages . . . indicate that the city gate and its vicinity were the hub of a community’s life,” including the marketplace, the general court, the royal court, and places of worship.7

As such, it’s possible that “before the [Babylonian] captivity, a town’s or city’s social activities centered around the city gate, and it seems reasonable that these social activities included Sabbath worship in a chamber of the gate that resembled later synagogues and functioned similarly.”8A. Keith Thompson more recently explained, “Synagogues were public buildings that developed when city-gate architecture changed and as the cities and villages of Israel became affluent enough to afford the construction of monumental buildings.”9

Synagogues in the Book of Mormon were vital to the worship culture of Book of Mormon peoples. However, they do not appear to have had much of a social function beyond this. As Adams explained, Book of Mormon synagogues focused primarily on providing places of public worship, teaching, and prayer.

A number of later passages [in the Book of Mormon] describe visitors preaching and teaching in synagogues. Public discussions of scripture topics in the synagogues were evidently a part of that teaching and preaching. Prayer apparently is also a part of the worship, for in Alma 31:12–14 Alma’s astonished reaction was to the form of the Zoramite prayers, not to the fact that they offered prayers in their synagogues.10

The Why

Some have wondered how Book of Mormon peoples could have known about synagogues if they did not fully arise until a time after Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem.11 What is important to keep in mind is that, at its most basic meaning, “synagogue” in both ancient Hebrew and Greek simply meant a place of gathering. Conceivably, any building, structure, or designated location that functioned as a place of Nephite worship could qualify as a synagogue. Furthermore, in Joseph Smith’s day “synagogue” meant, “A congregation or assembly of Jews, met for the purpose of worship or the performance of religious rites.”12

Accordingly, one need not assume that the places or institutions designated as synagogues in the Book of Mormon were identical to what later evolved into the modern Jewish institution. Like Nephi’s temple built “after the manner of Solomon,” the synagogues in the Book of Mormon were built “after the manner of the Jews.”13 This can easily be understood as merely meaning that Nephite synagogues functioned as places of Sabbath worship and assembly, and not necessarily that they were built or functioned identically as Old World synagogues.14

By understanding the nature of synagogues in the Book of Mormon, readers can better appreciate the dedication on the part of Alma and his faithful brethren. They were eager to impart the word of God to as many people as possible, taking advantage of any opportunity to preach. This included bravely preaching in the religious structures of their opponents; going, as it were, into enemy territory to declare a competing doctrine.

Victor L. Ludlow has suggested that “the custom of open dialogue was a part of synagogue practice in the Book of Mormon,” based on the fact that Alma was allowed to preach in non-Nephite assemblies.15 This would explain why Alma and Amulek targeted public synagogues as well as private settings in their missionary efforts: they wanted to utilize any forum in which they could point their audience towards the one who would himself preach the gospel of the kingdom in synagogues (Matthew 4:23; Luke 4:16–30).

The Know

Hugh Nibley observed, “The whole affair at the waters of Sebus must strike anyone as very strange.”1 Few details are stranger, perhaps, than envisioning Ammon’s fellow servants bringing a pile of severed arms to present to the king. Ammon had consciously “slew none with the sword save it were their leader” (Alma 17:38),2 but he “smote off their arms with his sword,” seemingly with a single blow (v. 37).3 The servants then diligently took the arms “unto the king … for a testimony of the things which they had done” (v. 39).

One recent reader has proposed that “arms” should be interpreted as weapons,4 in part because “the image of a servant dragging a blood-soaked bag across the floor of the king’s palace in order to show him the gory amputated limbs of his enemies seems somewhat fanciful.”5 Yet, a pair of LDS scholars long ago noted, “The practice of cutting off the arms or other body parts of enemies, specifically as a testimony of the conquest of victims, is attested in the ancient Near East.”6 The severed body parts (typically heads or hands) would then be “sent on as evidence and trophies of the success” of a warrior in battle.

Ancient depictions7 show soldiers “heaping them up in triumph,” in order to tally the dead or to entitle mercenaries to be paid. This was, according biblical scholars Cyrus Gordon and Gary Rendsburg, “a routine procedure all through the ancient Near East,” and “symbolized victory in battle.”8 Judges 7:25 and 8:6 indicate that the early Israelites engaged in such practices, which are well attested in Egyptian, Canaanite, and Mesopotamian sources.9

Switching over to the New World,10 in the Popul Vuh, the ancient traditions of the Quiché Maya,11 the mythic hero twins fight the bird-demon Seven Macaw. During the conflict, one of the twins attempted to grab Seven Macaw, “but instead Seven Macaw tore off the arm” of the twin, went home and “hung the arm” over the fire, “until [the twins] come to take it back.”12 This story is depicted on Izapa Stela 25, complete with hero twin’s severed arm, which dates to ca. 300–50 BC.13 Although mythological, the tale likely reflects actual Maya attitudes and practices in war and conflict.

Although much later than the time of Ammon, there is also some indication of similar practices among the Aztecs.14 In the account of the Mexican conquest left by conquistador Bernal Díaz, “Aztec warriors held aloft the severed arms of the victims as they taunted and threatened the Spanish and their native allies who were within earshot.”15 Díaz specifically stated that the Aztecs “threw them roasted legs of Indians and the arms of our soldiers” and jeered, “Eat of the flesh of … your brothers.”16

Like the ancient Near East, these Aztec and Maya sources portray the severed arms of an enemy as “a trophy of their valor.”17 The limbs are used to boast in one’s prowess as a warrior, taunt one’s enemies, and prove one’s bravery and achievements.

The Why

In light of these ancient Near Eastern and Mesoamerican practices, the servants bringing the severed arms to King Lamoni as “a testimony” of the events they witnessed seems far less fanciful than at first glance. Instead, it would appear that “the astounded servants of King Lamoni, who took the arms that Ammon had been cut off into the king” were acting conventionally, according to custom.18 As one would expect, the pile of “war trophies” greatly impressed King Lamoni. He was “astonished exceedingly” to the point that he suspected Ammon was “more than a man” (Alma 18:2). The servants were convinced “he cannot be slain by the enemies of the king” (v. 3).

The unusual part of the story is that Ammon himself did not bring the arms to the king to prove how great a warrior he was. As Robert L. Millet and Joseph Fielding McConkie pointed out, “Ammon, whose power was heaven-sent, sought no honor for himself.”19 This fact is made all the more apparent by understanding the honor and glory he could have sought with the arms of his enemies as proof of his great strength. As John Lundquist and John Welch have further reasoned, “the fact that the evidence was presented to the king, which could have entitled him to payment, heightens all the more the fact that Ammon sought no recognition or reward.”20

With this background in mind, Ammon’s own words to his brother Aaron take on greater significance: “I do not boast in my own strength, … but I will boast in the strength of my God” (Alma 26:11–12). Ammon had ample opportunity to boast in his own strength after the episode at the Waters of Sebus. Instead, Ammon went about doing as he had been told, feeding the king’s horses, which further impressed King Lamoni (Alma 18:9–11).

The Lord’s blessings were poured out upon Ammon because he acknowledged God’s hand in all things. His humility, combined with the powerful impact of those arms as undeniable proof of his greatness in their cultural expectations, no doubt contributed to why Ammon was able to “convert a king and, through him, a people.”21

The Know

In the minds of most people today, the word chariot conjures up images of warriors riding two-wheeled, horse drawn war-chariots into battle. In the Book of Mormon, however, chariots are never actually mentioned in a battle context.1 Sifting out references to Old World quotations,2 there are only three occasions wherein chariots appear in the Book of Mormon:

Alma 18:9–12: Ammon “made ready the horses and the chariots” (v. 12), in accordance with King Lamoni’s command that his servants “should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi” so that he could attend “a great feast” hosted by his father and overking.3
Alma 20:4–7: Lamoni again had his servants “make ready his horses and his chariots” (v. 6), this time so that he could visit a political ally4 and “flatter” him into releasing Ammon’s brothers (v. 4).
3 Nephi 3:22: Chariots are included as part of a list of livestock and provisions taken by the Nephites when they left Zarahemla and withdrew for seven years into a more secure site as a defensive tactic against the Gadianton Robbers.

These few references all occur within a small window of time from ca. 90 BC–AD 16, suggesting that, overall, chariots were not widely or frequently used among Book of Mormon peoples.5 Only two of these are in a definable context: both times when Lamoni asks for his chariots to be prepared, “the occasion is a formal state visit.”6 While “horses” are mentioned with chariots, chariots are never explicitly pulled by horses or any other animal.

Due to the limited use and reference, it is hard to be certain about the nature of chariots in the Book of Mormon. Wheeled vehicles, as chariots are typically assumed to be, are thus far unattested for any part of pre-Columbian America. Nonetheless, in the late 19th century, pioneering archaeologist Désiré Charnay reported finding what he called “chariots” in central Mexico.7 To be sure, what Charnay found were wheeled figurines or “toys,” nothing that could actually be ridden on. About 100 such figurines are known,8 largely dated between AD 600–1250.9

Careful study of these figurines “demonstrate that at least some Mesoamericans grasped not only the concept of the wheel but also the concept of actual wheeled vehicles.”10 According to a pair of non-LDS Mesoamericanists, these figurines demonstrate that “the principle of using wheels to facilitate horizontal movement was familiar to at least some peoples of Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.”11 In the ancient Near East, similar figurines are known to have “imitated full-scale wagons,”12 suggesting, perhaps, that the same is true in Mesoamerica.13

Alternatively, Charnay’s unconventional use of the word “chariot” invites other possibilities. The rare Hebrew word afiryon, meaning litter, palanquin, or sedan chair,14 is translated as “chariot” in the KJV (Song of Solomon 3:9). This was a non-wheeled vehicle wherein a rider was carried by servants. Just such litters or palanquins were known among pre-Columbian Mesoamericans. “Maya kings were borne in litters, often made of simple rushes and carried by just two bearers.”15 John L. Sorenson noted, “This form of transport was reserved for nobility and others of the upper social levels.”16

These litters were used for royal processions and nobles or dignitaries making a political visit. For instance, in 1542, after the Spanish conquest of the Maya region, “A throng of warriors escorting a young Maya lord seated in a palanquin” approached some Spanish sentries, “made signs that he had come in peace” and that he had brought food in what was apparently a diplomatic visit.17

A Classic Maya vase depicting the sacrifice of war prisoners shows a “visiting dignitary” who was “brought to the event in a litter.”18 The earliest known depiction of a Mesoamerican litter is Izapa Stela 21, dated to ca. 300–50 BC.19

With a litter, servants or bearers would “conduct [the king] forth” (Alma 18:9) in a royal procession. While no horse or draft animal was used to pull or carry the litter, an animal was commonly depicted traveling near the litter as part of the procession. For instance, LDS Mesoamericanist Mark Wright has pointed out that several Classic Maya vases depict a dog underneath the litter traveling as part of the entourage.20

Brant A. Gardner thus proposed, “The plausible underlying conveyance in the story of Ammon was a royal litter, accompanied in peacetime by the spiritual animal associated with the king.”21 In other words, Ammon would have prepared “horses” to travel with the king, while the servants “conduct him forth to the land of Nephi” (Alma 18:9) in his litter.

The Why

Depiction of an Aztec litter procession. Image via myhistro.com

There are not always definitive answers to questions some may have about the Book of Mormon. These unsolved puzzles invite both faith and further learning if they are approached with patience, careful reading, and an open mind. Just as with the occurrence of the word “horse” in the text, there are opportunities to learn, explore, wonder, and grow in faith.22

The current state of archaeological knowledge is limited,23 and caution must be taken when evaluating negative evidence. LDS Mesoamerican archaeologist John E. Clark once explained: “Positive and negative evidence do not count the same,” because, “Given current means of verification, positive items are here to stay, but negative items may prove to be positive ones in hiding.”24 Several things mentioned in the Book of Mormon once considered missing have since proven to be in the right place at the right time all along.25“It is in this light,” concluded Clark, “that we should consider many arguments against the Book of Mormon.”26

Archaeology currently shows that some peoples in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica did understand the conceptual principles behind wheeled vehicles, although there is no evidence that these were actually put into practice. Still, over a 600-year period (ca. AD 600–1250), it is likely that at least some attempt, however limited and short lived, would have been made to put the wheel into practical use.

Perhaps the brief time-period (the first centuries BC and AD) wherein chariots are mentioned in the Book of Mormon represents just such a limited, short-lived attempt, albeit at a much earlier time than current evidence for the wheeled figurines. Then the Nephites and Lamanites abandoned the technology because it lacked any practical advantages.27 A brief attempt at using the wheel that is quickly abandoned would be very difficult to find in the archaeological record.

Exploring the possibilities for chariots also reinforces the importance of reading scripture with an open mind. It takes humility and maturity to step away from long-held assumptions and read the scriptural text from a fresh perspective. Nonetheless, doing so while exploring questions in a historical context can provide clarity and understanding to Book of Mormon passages. As Charnay and the KJV translation of afiryon demonstrate, “chariot” can have broader meaning than what might typically come to mind. That usage can include non-wheeled vehicles like the litters used all throughout Mesoamerica clear back into Book of Mormon times.

Although this paints a very different image than what most readers have come to expect, conventional use of litters in Mesoamerica is consistent with the uses of chariots in the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, if Ammon was expecting to be one of the bearers of King Lamoni’s litter, thus having to “conduct him forth to the land of Nephi” on his shoulders (Alma 18:9), such a visual adds another layer of humility to this great missionary. He was literally willing to bear and carry those he had been called to serve.

The Know

The book of Alma describes the profound faith of Abish, “one of the Lamanitish women” working as a servant in the king's house, who had been converted to the gospel “on account of a remarkable vision of her father” (Alma 19:16). Abish played a pivotal role in the account of King Lamoni’s conversion, as it was she who “ran forth from house to house, making it known unto the people” of Lamoni’s miraculous experience (v. 17).

As a result of Ammon’s teaching, Lamoni had realized his sins, begged for God’s mercy, and had fallen to the earth “as if he were dead” (Alma 18:42). The queen, convinced that Lamoni was not dead, called for Ammon to raise him back up. After the third day, Ammon having raised Lamoni, the king stood up and blessed the queen, saying “Blessed art thou, for as sure as thou livest, behold I have seen my Redeemer; and he shall come forth, and be born of a woman” (vv. 12–13).

At this, the king sunk down again in joy, the queen also collapsed “overpowered by the spirit,” and Ammon was also so overpowered by joy that he also sunk to the earth (Alma 19:13–14). Seeing this, all the servants of the king cried unto God and likewise fell in fear of the great power of Ammon. Except for one woman: Abish.

The people began to offer their speculations about what had happened. Some saw this as a great evil; others saw it as a fitting punishment for the sternness of Lamoni. A relative of one of the men Ammon killed moved forward to kill Ammon, who had also fallen unconscious, only to fall dead himself. In terror, the people argued with each other, not knowing what to make of this situation.

At this point, Abish was reduced to tears, and she stepped forward and took the queen by the hand (Alma 19:29). She immediately arose, stood up, and cried “O blessed Jesus, who has saved me from an awful hell! O blessed God, have mercy on this people!” She then took the king’s hand, and he arose and, seeing the contention, rebuked his people and began teaching the words that Ammon had taught him (vv. 29–31).

Those who would not believe left, and soon Ammon arose, as did the servants, all declaring that they had seen angels and that their hearts had been changed, thus commencing the work of the Lord among the Lamanites (Alma 19:33–36). None of this would have happened without Abish taking the initiative in gathering the crowd.

Abish was remarkable for many reasons. First, she is one of the few named women in the Book of Mormon. In each story, the named women of the Book of Mormon played an integral role.1

Second, that Mormon retained this story, specifically mentioning Abish by name, likely signifies that the prophet-historian wanted readers to pay attention to several special or unique things about her.

The name Abish most likely derives from the Hebrew elements ab (“father”) and ish (“man”), and straightforwardly means “father (is a) man.”2 But more than just that, there appears to be a deliberate pun on her name in this passage that highlights an important doctrinal teaching. Right after Mormon wrote the name Abish (“father is a man”), he immediately follows with the detail that she had “been converted unto the Lord for many years, on account of a remarkable vision of her father” (Alma 19:16, emphasis added). This could be understood as saying that Abish was converted by a vision that her earthly father had previously had, or that she had seen a vision of her earthly father perhaps after his death. Alternatively, and possibly most likely, it may signal that she herself had a vision of her Heavenly Father, or of Jesus Christ, the “Eternal Father” of heaven and earth, as He is called by Abinadi (Mosiah 15:1–4).3

The Why

The story of Abish was recorded for many reasons. Ammon’s converts must have enjoyed retelling this foundational story for years to come; how a servant girl had faithfully and spontaneously served her king and queen.

Only Abish understood what was truly happening, when others were puzzled and conflicted. Because this woman was not deterred by her fears, many people heard the queen’s testimony firsthand, as she bore witness that the Redeemer of the world would be born of a woman. Abish was specifically mentioned as having played a crucial role as a spiritual midwife at the turning point of this commencement of this first Nephite missionary success among the Lamanites.

It also seems apparent that Mormon strategically introduced Abish in his recounting of Lamoni’s conversion in order to reinforce an important Book of Mormon doctrine. In staying true to biblical custom,4 the Nephite record keepers created a pun on Abish’s name. Matthew Bowen understands Abish’s vision and name as conveying “the doctrinal truth that was revealed many years earlier in the remarkable ‘vision’ of their father Lehi and Nephi: that Jesus Christ, the Divine Warrior and ‘Eternal Father’ (1 Nephi 11:21, Original Text), condescended to become ‘man’ — i.e., to ‘come forth, and be born of a woman’ and as Suffering Servant ‘redeem all mankind who believe on his name’ (Alma 19:13).”5 Bowen continued:

The mention of the name Abish and the wordplay on her name in Alma 19:16 reinforces . . . the importance of the doctrinal truth that the Jesus Christ, the Eternal Father of heaven and earth would not simply remain a spirit forever (contra Zoramite belief, Alma 31:15), but would become “man,” so that we might become “divine” not only like our Savior (the Eternal Father of heaven and earth), but also like our Heavenly Father who once was “man,” as was revealed to and by the prophet Joseph Smith. All of this should make us grateful for righteous fathers and mothers who pass on correct traditions to us, and more anxious to discard ancestral traditions that could inhibit or stop our eternal progress (see especially D&C 93:19, 39).6

Alternatively, if “the vision of her father” is understood as meaning Abish had a vision of her Heavenly Father, then her name (“father is a man”) could be viewed as reinforcing the truth revealed in Restoration scripture that God the Father is an exalted man of flesh and bone (cf. Doctrine and Covenants 130:22–23; Moses 6:57).

As the Prophet Joseph Smith taught in 1844, “God, who sits in yonder heavens, is a man like yourselves. . . . [If] you were to see him today . . . you would see him like a man in form, like yourselves.”7

This play on words adds doctrinal depth to the Book of Mormon and also strengthens the Nephite record’s ties with the world of ancient Israel. It also pays grateful respect and tribute to Abish, the servant woman, whose spiritual father would come to earth as a man.

The Know

To shield the land of Zarahemla from Lamanite invasion, the Nephites settled the people of Ammon (also called the Anti-Nephi-Lehies 1.) “in the land of Jershon” with a Nephite army for protection (Alma 28:1).2 Peace did not last long. Soon after the people of Ammon were settled “the armies of the Lamanites” commenced “a tremendous battle” (vv. 1–2).

The carnage, according to Mormon, was so awful that “never had [such] been known among all the people in the land from the time Lehi left Jerusalem; yea, and tens of thousands of the Lamanites were slain and scattered abroad” (Alma 28:2). Although victorious, the people of Nephi did not escape unscathed. “Yea, and also there was a tremendous slaughter among the people of Nephi,” Mormon wrote (v. 3).

Following this great battle, and after the Nephites had “returned again to their land,” there was “a great mourning and lamentation heard throughout all the land, among all the people of Nephi” (Alma 28:4). This time of mourning, what Mormon called “a sorrowful day,” was accompanied by “much fasting and prayer” (v. 6). Declaring a public period of fasting as a part of mourning a national loss seems to have been a regular part of Nephite funeral practices (see Helaman 9:10).3

Readers might understandably expect Mormon to elaborate on this period of fasting and mourning. Suddenly, however, he switches the mood and indicated that despite this great sorrow, there was great rejoicing and exultation on the part of the people of Nephi. This, Mormon said, was because those who followed the gospel knew their fallen kindred had been “raised to dwell at the right hand of God, in a state of never-ending happiness” (Alma 28:12).

The Why

Mormon’s mentioning that prayer and fasting accompanied this time of mourning offers an important glimpse into Nephite religious culture. Specifically, it once again ties Nephite religious practice back to ancient Israel.

As Latter-day Saint scholars have observed, “Fasting was commonly associated with times of grief or sorrow among the ancients.”4 On close inspection, this subtle point is abundantly clear in scattered instances in the Hebrew Bible that span centuries of Israel’s history.

Although not generally thought of in this way today, fasting was an Israelite religious and cultural response to incidents of sorrow, humiliation, solemnity, and burial.5 After recovering the body of King Saul from the Philistines, for example, the Israelites, including David, fasted and mourned over his death (1 Samuel 31:8–13; 2 Samuel 1:11–12).

The Nephites were specifically fasting and praying at a time of great national tragedy, which would be wholly appropriate from an ancient Israelite perspective.6 After all, the people of Nephi were “mourning for their kindred who had been slain” in the battle with the Lamanites (Alma 28:5). With heartfelt anguish, Mormon eulogized that this “mourning and lamentation” had been “heard throughout all the land,” and “among all the people of Nephi” (v. 4).

Those who mourn and seek the spirit of the Lord can find themselves particularly blessed with hope, reassurance, and spiritual knowledge in their moment of anguish. Such fasting in scriptural times could be performed privately or as a community as a way to show “dependence on God and submission to his will.”7 Fasting played a prominent role during a crucial moment in the story of Esther and Mordecai when the people all mourned and fasted for deliverance because of King Ahasuerus’s decree to put all the Jews in his kingdom to death (Esther 4:1–3, 15–17). Psalms also feature fasting as a source of divine comfort and solace: “When they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom” (Psalm 35:13).

Donald W. Parry and Brant A. Gardner have also appreciated the subtle literary feature employed in this text. “Mormon uses the literary device of a contrasting parallel,” observed Gardner. “He contrasts mourners who fear for their loved one’s soul with those who also mourn for their dead but who have hope in Yahweh’s promises.”

Furthermore, “The contrast is between those who embrace the gospel of the Atoning Messiah with its promise of resurrection and those who follow the order of the Nehors and who therefore ‘have reason to fear’ (Alma 28:11).”8 More specifically, Parry classifies the parallelism in this verse as a good example of “detailing,” or a literary device that “features an introductory phrase or sentence, followed by one or more subsequent lines that ‘detail’ what was said in line one.”9 This is made clear in this schematic:

(A)And thus we see the great reason of sorrow,
(B) and also of rejoicing—
(A) sorrow because of death and destruction among men,
(B) and joy because of the light of Christ unto life. (Alma 28:14)

Speaking specifically of those who pass on, the Prophet Joseph Smith testified, “I am authorized to say, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that you have no occasion to fear. . . . Don’t mourn, don’t weep. I know it by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that is within me; and you may wait for your friends to come forth to meet you in the morn of the celestial world.”10 The same hope of redemption from physical and spiritual death through the atoning Son of God that inspired the ancient Nephites in Alma 28 continues to inspire men and women across the world today.

The Know

One of the most enduring lines in all of the Book of Mormon is Alma’s declaration, “O that I were an angel.” Alma expands on this wish, “that I might go forth and speak with the trump of God” (Alma 29:1). Alma’s use of trumpet imagery is interesting in light of the timing in which he wrote this thoughtful and moving piece of prophetic poetry—the 16^th year of the reign of the judges.1 This was the 49^th year since King Benjamin’s powerful oration at the coronation of his son Mosiah,2 an event some scholars believe was a jubilee celebration.3

Christopher Wright explained, “The year of jubilee came at the end of the cycle of 7 Sabbatical Years.”4 Terrence L. Szink and John W. Welch documented, “The jubilee text of Leviticus 25 compares closely with two sections of Benjamin’s speech.”5 If this was a jubilee year, then Alma stepped down from the judgment-seat and began his missionary activities in the 42^nd year, or the sixth sabbatical year,6 and Alma 29, marking the closure of one period in Alma’s ministry and beginning of a new, marks the next jubilee year.7

In the 49^th year,8 on the Day of Atonement, the “trumpet of the jubilee” would have again been sounded, “throughout all [the] land” (Leviticus 25:9), heralding in the next jubilee year. The Hebrew word yobel (carried into English as jubilee) literally means trumpet.9

In the land of Israel, the trumpets would probably have been rams horns,10 but other kinds of horns could have been used,11 and some scholars have argued that loud shouting could also suffice.12 Alma’s expressed desire to “speak with the trump of God” and “with a voice of thunder” (Alma 29:1–2) thus seems “especially appropriate in this second identifiable jubilee season in Nephite history.”13

Among its many ideal attributes and desired results, the jubilee was particularly characterized by sabbatical rest and joy. It was to be, above all, a time of great joy and jubilation, and indeed, joy saturates the text of Alma 29, where it appears exactly seven times,14 the archetypal sabbatical number.15

The joy of a great jubilee year would have filled Alma, as the high priest, and his people with enormous happiness. Other themes of the jubilee also found in Alma 29 include the counting of blessings, remembering the past, repenting, rejoicing in freedom and deliverance, letting the world rest, and peace.16

Right after the conclusion of Alma’s meditation in Alma 29, the record indicates that in the 16^th year there began to be “continual peace throughout all the land” (Alma 30:2), and then in the next year there was “continual peace” (v. 5) throughout most of the 17^th year of the reign of judges (being the 50^th year from King Benjamin’s speech). What a jubilee season it must have been, with the Ammonites now settled in the land of Jershon, and the sons of Mosiah safely and unexpectedly home after their 14 years of missionary work in the land of Nephi.

The Why

The approach of the jubilee year marked an appropriate occasion for Alma’s pensive reflections in Alma 29. At the very point when the Nephites had recently, or would soon, sound the “trumpet of the jubilee” (Leviticus 25:8), Alma longed to “speak with the trump of God” (Alma 29:1).

As a missionary, Alma wished to shout aloud the glories, goodness, justice and mercy of God. He longed to be able to shake the earth, as the angel’s voice had done when he stopped Alma and the four sons of Mosiah as they had gone about arguing against the church of God. Now Alma rejoiced in the deliverance of God and in the establishment of his covenant people. He wanted to invite all to repent and to join in the jubilee throng of the Lord.

Although Alma’s desires were righteous ones, he nonetheless feared, “I am a man, and do sin in my wish.” As the high priest, Alma, it seems, would have been especially sensitive to the possibility that he sinned in his wishful thinking, because he knew of the particular importance that he, as high priest, not be tainted with even the slightest sin going into a Day of Atonement, especially at the commencement of the jubilee.

Coveting—or desiring or wishing for things that are not properly ours—denies two fundamental principles underscored by the jubilee: first the recognition that all the earth and everything in it belongs to God, and second that God gives and takes as he knows how things ought to be. Alma appears to have recognized these underlying principles when he remarked, “I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire” (Alma 29:4).17

Textually, it is remarkable, to say the least, that the Book of Mormon manifests literary motifs associated with the jubilee in two places exactly 49 years apart. The rapid dictation of the Book of Mormon18 would hardly have allowed time for Joseph to count off the years and to mark these jubilees with such subtle sophistication, let alone to set the gorgeous language in Alma 29 so richly in this contextual background.

All of this gives evidence of Alma’s considerable awareness, experiential familiarity, and spiritual sensitivity. Outside of a Jewish-thinking community, few readers are particularly familiar with jubilee celebrations and the themes associated with them. For many profoundly motivated reasons, Alma’s soul-stirring words confer priestly blessings and express joyous love in ways that are fully appropriate to the jubilee occasion. Although most readers today won’t be participating in a jubilee celebration, all can find daily reasons to rejoice in God’s creation and recognize his hand in all things.

The Know

Alma 29 famously begins, “Oh that I were an angel, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak with the trump of God, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry repentance unto every people!” (v. 1). To this solemn wish Alma added, “Yea, I would declare unto every soul, as with the voice of thunder, repentance and the plan of redemption, that they should repent and come unto our God” (v. 2).

At this point in his yearning, Alma confesses that he sins in his wish (Alma 29:3). To understand why, Alma 29 needs to be read from many perspectives: personally, politically, officially, poetically, and spiritually. This brief chapter is one of the most beautiful of all spiritual expressions in the Book of Mormon, standing rightfully among the best of religious literatures anywhere.

Personally, in Alma 29:1, Alma was most likely thinking of the angel of his own conversion, the one who appeared to him and called him to repentance, whose “voice was as thunder, which shook the earth” (Mosiah 27:18; see also Alma 36:7; 38:7).1 If only he could be like that angel, Alma was imagining, everyone would repent, embrace the plan of redemption, and come to the true God, and then there would be “no more sorrow upon all the face of the earth” (Alma 29:2). Painfully, Alma was indeed fully aware of many unspeakable sorrows that had recently fallen upon his people and had previously led to the deaths of many faithful Ammonites (Alma 28:3–12).

Politically, moreover, having recently learned of the great success of his friends, the sons of Mosiah, Alma may well have wondered politically whether he had succeeded or failed in his own endeavors during those 14 years when his friends had been away. During that time, Alma had seen political controversies,2 civil war,3 apostasy,4 children burned, and Ammonihah destroyed.5 In contrast to the heroic achievements of his friends, Alma had stepped down as chief judge to devote his time to reclaiming the people by “bearing down in pure testimony” (Alma 4:19), yet he could count as his main successes the conversions of a relative few, such as Amulek and Zeezrom.

Officially, as the High Priest in the city of Zarahemla, Alma certainly would have sincerely wished that he could have done more.6 Yet, in all of his high priestly glory, Alma recognizes that “this is my glory, that perhaps I may be an instrument in the hands of God to bring some soul to repentance” (Alma 29:9).7 Here, Alma realizes that he can be joyous, if only he might simply bring “some soul” to repentance. And so, all the more, Alma’s soul was “filled with joy” when he saw “many of [his] brethren truly penitent” (v. 10; cf. D&C 18:11–16).8

The Why

With Alma’s situation in mind, one can see several reasons why Alma may have sinned in his wish.

His wish usurped an angelic role that was not his. He extravagantly wished to speak even more thunderously than the angel of the Lord, by wanting to “cry repentance unto every people” and “unto every soul,” to remove all sorrow from “upon all the face of the earth” (Alma 29:1–2), effectively appropriating to himself the role and power of God.

He erred in thinking that somehow this could actually remove sorrow from all the earth. Not only would that be impossible, but it would deny the decree of God that good and evil should be placed before all men that they might choose according to their desires and thereby experience joy or remorse, as Alma himself acknowledges (Alma 29:5).

His wish reflected discontent with the things that the Lord had allotted unto him (Alma 29:3–4). His wish would have tried to re-plow the ground of God’s firm decrees,9 to counsel the Lord, and in effect to deny that “the Lord doth counsel in his wisdom, according to that which is just and true” (v. 8). On reflection, Alma recognized that his holy spiritual calling was simply to bring “some soul” to repentance.

In his wish, Alma recognized that he sinned in his heart or mind because of such desires. Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught, “desire denotes a real longing or craving. Hence righteous desires are much more than passive preferences or fleeting feelings.”10 This truth is evident here in Alma’s honest reflection. To his credit, Alma recognized that it is God’s role to grant to men “according to their desires” and “according to their wills” and that “good and evil hath come before all men” whether for “life or death, joy or remorse of conscience” (Alma 29:4–5). Alma understood the doctrine that some desires “need to be diminished and then finally dissolved.”11

Thus reaffirming to himself what he truly knew, Alma asked, “Why should I desire that I was an angel, that I could speak unto all the ends of the earth?” (Alma 29:7). To this question he immediately answered that he should not so desire, for it is in God’s wisdom that all nations shall receive, in their own tongue, as the Lord sees fit (v. 8), and because the Lord has commanded him not to “glory in [him]self,” but to “glory in that which the Lord hath commanded” (v. 9).

For years Alma had taught that “our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; . . . and our thoughts will also condemn us” (Alma 12:14). Indeed, the law established by Alma within the church in the land of Zarahemla expressly prohibited “envyings” (Alma 1:32; 4:9; 16:18). Coveting, or envying, is a serious matter. It is connected in the Book of Mormon with strife, contention, malice, pride, swelling, and deceiving.

In order to officiate effectively as the High Priest, Alma would have needed to guard himself against any sins, including secret sins. Thoughts, wishes, and desires are potent. The culminating prohibition in the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not covet” (Exodus 20:17). The circumstances here, being around the beginning of a jubilee year, only added to the seriousness of anything that even approached coveting or any other transgression.12

Especially the High Priest needed to be completely pure and free from sin in order to officiate in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, the beginning of each Jubilee, on the tenth day of the seventh month (Leviticus 25:8). Finding himself discontented with the things which the Lord had allotted him would have stricken Alma to the heart. He would have recognized this as a serious sin, more so than readers today might otherwise have thought.

Indeed, his wish, if fulfilled, would have led him to disregard many things that one must spiritually remember in righteousness. It would have set Alma up ahead of his four brethren, whose great success deserved to be celebrated with the greatest of jubilation. His wish could have led Alma to glory in himself, and not to glory in what the Lord had commanded him, and could have distracted him from his responsibility to rejoice unselfishly in the successes of all other people. His wish would have diverted him away from offering his priestly prayer at the end of Alma 29, that his brethren and their converts might all “sit down in the kingdom of God” and “go no more out,” “to praise God forever.”

In Alma’s mind, missing the mark in any of these respects, let alone in all of them, would have constituted nothing less than a sin of thunderous, soul-shaking proportions. Fortunately, Alma ultimately was spiritually sensitive enough to diminish and dissolve these impulses. Alma’s glorious text ends with him thinking not of himself, but of the great success of the four sons of Mosiah who had been up to the land of Nephi, who had labored exceedingly, and had brought forth much fruit (Alma 29:17). “A sure sign of a disciple of Christ is that he or she has learned how to rejoice in the progress of others.”13

Alma concludes his poetical soliloquy, not by asking for blessings upon himself, but by offering an intercessory prayer on behalf of others. Purely he asks:

May God grant unto these, my brethren,
        that they may sit down in the kingdom of God;
Yea, and also all those who are the fruit of their labor
        that they may go no more out, but that they may praise him forever.
May God grant that it may be done according to my words,
        even as I have spoken. Amen” (Alma 29:17).

The Know

At the end of the seventeenth year of the reign of the judges (approximately 75 BC), there arose an anti-Christ named Korihor, who “began to preach unto the people against the prophecies which had been spoken by the prophets, concerning the coming of Christ” (Alma 30:6). Mosiah’s reforms determined that “there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds” (v. 7). However, the situation with Korihor was unique. Much like the case involving Nehor (Alma 1),1 the problems involving Korihor’s case raised important questions in Nephite jurisprudence.

Did equality mean that a person could not only believe whatever he wanted but also say whatever he wanted? If a person did not believe that Jehovah was God, could he be punished for profaning the name of Jehovah or speaking insolently against him? In other words, did freedom of belief (or disbelief) entail freedom of expression specifically articulating or reflecting that belief? This important question had been neither contemplated nor addressed in the law originally established by King Mosiah a generation earlier.2

Because of the seriousness of these issues, Korihor was eventually brought to stand trial before Alma and the Nephite chief judge (Alma 30:29). In the course of their verbal sparring, Korihor, who denied the existence of God,3 demanded of Alma, “If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words” (v. 43).

Alma’s response to this challenge was decisive: “Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? . . . This will I give unto thee for a sign, that thou shalt be struck dumb, according to my words; and I say, that in the name of God, ye shall be struck dumb, that ye shall no more have utterance” (Alma 30:44, 49). Immediately after this, “Korihor was struck dumb, that he could not have utterance, according to the words of Alma” (v. 50).

This unmistakable display of divine power compelled Korihor into confessing his errors and humbling himself to some extent before God (Alma 30:51–54). His confession, however, was incomplete, and his promise of good future behavior was evasive. Despite begging for the curse to be lifted, Korihor was dismissed and “cast out,” or shunned in Zarahemla. Thus reduced to begging, he soon went to Antionum and there, among the Zoramites, he was somehow trampled to death (vv. 56, 58–59).

The Why

Korihor was shown a sign because he challenged Alma to prove the existence of God: “If you wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power” (Alma 30:43). Being willing to undergo an ordeal was often seen in ancient trials, when the parties had reached a point of stalemate.4 Being the defendant, Korihor would have seen any failure by Alma to produce compelling evidence as a vindication of Korihor's entire case.

That Korihor was cursed with speechlessness is shocking enough. That the curse remained upon him even after he acknowledged his error might be even more difficult for modern readers to countenance. But, the chief judge had asked Korihor to answer four questions following the cursing (Alma 30:51), and Korihor responded half-heartedly to only parts of them. Korihor then turned to Alma and asked him to pray to God to remove the curse (v. 54).

Perhaps anticipating objections to this outcome among those who had admired Korihor, Alma explained that “if this curse should be taken from thee thou wouldst again lead away the hearts of this people; therefore, it shall be unto thee even as the Lord will” (Alma 30:55). With justifiable precautionary reasons, Alma declined to petition God to change this outcome, and the curse remained on Korihor.

Korihor’s specific affliction also makes sense when read in the light of ancient religious and legal practices. As explained by John W. Welch, “The speechlessness of Korihor . . . was precisely the kind of sign or restraint that people in the ancient world expected a god to manifest in a judicial setting, especially in the face of false accusations.”5 This is confirmed by the recovery of numerous ancient spells that deliberately aimed to invoke the divine curse of speechlessness on revilers and blasphemers (which Korihor clearly was).

While the use of such a curse may seem somewhat unusual or sensational to modern readers, the pronouncing of curses or spells was common in the ancient Mediterranean world, and their most frequent use was in fact in the legal sphere. In recent decades more than one hundred Greek and Latin “binding spells”—curses inscribed on small lead sheets that were folded up and pierced through with a nail—have been recovered from tombs, temples, and especially wells near the law courts, where they were placed in hopes that a deity from the underworld would receive them.6

Korihor’s punishment, it appears, was in line with ancient legal procedure for cases such as this. Welch therefore sees this outcome as “a good example of divinely executed talionic justice: his curse befits his crime.” Indeed, Korihor’s punishment was fully suitable: “Because he had spoken evil, he was punished by being made unable to speak.”7

With all this contextual information in mind, readers can appreciate Mormon’s concluding thoughts on the pitiful outcome of Korihor’s case. With his penchant for moralizing on important incidents in Nephite history, Mormon effectively summarized, “And thus we see the end of him who perverteth the ways of the Lord; and thus we see that the devil will not support his children at the last day, but doth speedily drag them down to hell” (Alma 30:60).

The Know

Despite repeated efforts by Alma, the social tensions among the Nephites continued to mount. Sometime before Korihor began to preach among the Nephites, “a people … had separated themselves from the Nephites and called themselves Zoramites” (Alma 30:59).

When Korihor was cast out, he sought refuge among the Zoramites, but they trampled him to death, instead (Alma 30:59).1 It seems that this fate, however, alerted Alma to the way “the Zoramites were perverting the ways of the Lord” (Alma 31:1). The dissension of the Zoramites especially alarmed Alma and other Nephite leaders, because they feared “the Zoramites would enter into a correspondence with the Lamanites” (v. 4).

Hugh Nibley explained, “It was felt that the hostility of the Zoramites and their proximity to the Lamanites posed a definite threat to Nephite security, and that was why Alma … gave top priority to the Zoramite mission.”2 Alma was firm in his conviction that “the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just,” it even had a “more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else” (Alma 31:5).3 So Alma put together an all-star team of missionaries and “went … among the Zoramites, to preach unto them the word” (Alma 31:7).4

Given the threat-level, Alma knew they would need the strength of the Lord to aid them in their mission. So all nine missionaries gathered together, and Alma, no doubt acting in his role as high priest, invoked the Lord’s name ten times (Alma 31:26, 30–35).5

According to Rachel Elior, professor of Jewish philosophy, the Jewish oral traditions in the Mishneh describe “the Day of Atonement service in detail, counting ten occasions on which the Ineffable Name was pronounced” by the high priest.6 Significantly, “The Ineffable Name was enunciated during the confession in the formula ‘O the Name,’ and when High Priest prayed for atonement, the Name was said in the formula of an oath or invocation: ‘O by the Name …, atone, I pray you …’.”7

This is reminiscent of Alma’s formulaic repetition of “O Lord,” followed variously by declarations of the people’s sins and wickedness and petitions for strength in Christ, through whom atonement comes. For instance, Alma prayed, “O Lord God, how long wilt thou suffer that such wickedness and infidelity shall be among this people? O Lord, wilt thou give me strength, that I may bear with mine infirmities. For I am infirm, and such wickedness among this people doth pain my soul” (Alma 31:30, emphasis added).

Alma shifted in terminology from O Lord to O God while describing the Zoramite worship practices, attesting to the intentionality of Alma’s tenfold repetition of O Lord in his high priestly prayer. John W. Welch reasoned that Alma consciously shifted terminology to avoid profaning the sacred name while describing apostate practices.8 Moreover, “that shift is marked by the second occurrence of O Lord, which is the only instance of the expanded O Lord God in this text, indicating that the Lord Jehovah is indeed the true God.”9

When he was finished, Alma “clapped his hands upon all them who were with him … [and] they were filled with the Holy Spirit” (Alma 31:36). BYU religion professor Alonzo Gaskill explained, “The laying on of hands is the standard symbol in antiquity for the transference of power, authority, or blessings,” and hence, “Alma’s act here … [was] an act that equipped his eight brethren for their work.”10

The Why

Alma and his companions were in a desperate situation: they needed to restore cohesion to the Nephite polity through gospel conversion, or risk war. Under these circumstances, his repetition of the Lord’s name ten times likely reflects his urgency to bring down the power of God upon him and his companions. For ancient Israelites, the number ten symbolized perfection or completion.11 By calling on the Lord’s name ten times, Alma called upon His perfect power to aid them in their mission.

Alma’s prayer also sought to calm and comfort his fellow missionaries at that desperate time. “O Lord, wilt thou comfort my soul, and … also my fellow laborers who are with me … yea, even all these wilt thou comfort, O Lord. Yea, wilt thou comfort their souls in Christ” (Alma 31:32). By invoking the name of the Lord ten times, Alma probably hoped to remind them of the Day of Atonement, and the recently passed jubilee year and the associated joy and peace that followed.12

On the Day of Atonement, Alma and his companions, along with the rest of the Nephites, would have renewed covenants and remembered the Atonement of Christ. Not only would this calmingly reassure them of God’s promises, it would make them eager to bring those same blessings and covenants to the Zoramites (see Alma 31:34). With everyone being one with God, all can then be united or reunited, with each other. Most importantly, the atoning reconciliation with God would remind all of them that the souls of the Zoramites were precious to God, and thus should be equally precious to them (v. 35).

Just as Alma did in their time of need, readers today can call upon the name of the Lord when seeking strength, power, comfort, and blessings.

The Know

When Alma taught the gospel to the Zoramites in the land of Antionum, he included a masterful discourse on the nature and nurture of faith, as recorded in Alma 32. This chapter is well-known to Latter-day Saints, who have cherished it for its presentation of eternal gospel truths.1 This text is replete with profound teachings, such as Alma’s insistence that “faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true” (v. 21).

To illustrate how Alma 32 is “a learned text” and a “highly sophisticated sermon,” the Latter-day Saint biblical scholar David Bokovoy has recently explored how this passage utilizes biblical elements in the development of its ideas. Specifically, “Alma’s sermon on faith and the word contains a variety of advanced literary allusions to the Genesis creation accounts.”2 This would put Alma in good company as Nephi and other Book of Mormon prophets likewise quoted or alluded to prophets such as Zenos and Isaiah throughout their writings and discourses.3

For instance, Bokovoy points out: “Alma’s statement that a testimony is ‘light’ and that ‘whatsoever is light, is good’ clearly reflects God’s initial act of creation in Genesis 1:3–4: ‘And God said let there be light, and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good.’”4

The use of “good” throughout Alma 32:28–39 to describe the seed reflects the language of Genesis 1, which speaks of God pronouncing the various stages of creation “good” (tov in Hebrew) upon their completion (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31).

Additionally, Alma prominently used the imagery of the tree of life bringing forth the fruit of eternal life: “But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life” (Alma 32:41). This imagery finds close alignment with Genesis 2:9: “And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

What is remarkable is the wording in Alma 32, which uses the verb “spring” to describe the action of the tree of life after faith has taken root. As Bokovoy explained, the Hebrew verb used in Genesis 2:5; 3:18 “translated in the KJV [as] ‘to bring forth’ literally means ‘to spring up.’ This Genesis passage seems to be echoed in Alma’s invitation to his audience to nourish the seed so that it may become a tree ‘springing up unto everlasting life’ (Alma 32:41).5

The multiple instances where Alma 32 draws from the creation imagery found in Genesis 1–3“conceptually associates Alma’s discourse on faith with the original purpose of human creation. In essence, Alma is saying we were created to cultivate faith.”6

Jenny Webb likewise sees Alma 32 as “succinctly encapsulate[ing] the plan of salvation.” She explained how “the process of becoming humble, seeking repentance, finding mercy, and enduring to the end was a pattern established by Adam and Eve” in the early chapters of Genesis. These are precisely the main doctrinal points of Alma 32, which culminates–––as Adam and Eve soon learned (Moses 5:1–12)—with the fundamental truth that “redemption can only come through faith in Christ.”7

The Why

Book of Mormon prophets understood how crucial it was always to return people to the foundational doctrines of the plan of salvation. While preaching in the apostate city of Ammonihah, Alma emphasized the plan of salvation–––including the Creation, Fall, Atonement, and Resurrection–––in a temple context that hearkened back to the narrative of Adam and Eve (Alma 12).8

Similarly, Ammon taught King Lamoni “the plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world” (Alma 18:39). Aaron likewise “did expound unto [Lamoni’s father] the scriptures from the creation of Adam, laying the fall of man before him, and their carnal state and also the plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world, through Christ, for all whosoever would believe on his name” (Alma 22:13).

What Alma apparently realized was that in order to call the apostate Zoramites to repentance he would have to return to the very beginning–––to the Creation. The Zoramites had separated themselves from the Nephites, leaving behind the temple in the land of Zarahemla in the process (Alma 31:2–3).

To win them back Alma drew from the Creation imagery of Genesis 1–3. This makes sense, as Genesis 1–3 is a text associated often with the temple, which explains why it could have easily been of service to Alma in his desire to revitalize their consciousness of the temple and its blessings.9

Individually, “readers . . . can appreciate this learned text at an even deeper level by identifying the ways in which Alma’s discourse invokes biblical creation to encourage audiences to develop the type of faith that brings everlasting life.”10 Although Alma’s words in Alma 32–33 were originally addressed to the Zoramites of his time, Alma 32 is still highly relevant for readers today. “Alma uses both forms of creation in the Bible’s opening chapters . . . to encourage his audience to exercise faith in the present through reflections upon the primordial past. Using this process, Alma instructs his audience to develop the type of faith that leads to everlasting life, thus fulfilling the measure of their creation.”11

The Know

Alma’s discourse on faith as recorded in Alma 32 is continued in Alma 33 and culminates with a declaration of faith. This seven-part statement of belief in Christ focuses on the atoning mission of Jesus as God’s divine son and builds on the foundation laid by Alma about the nature of faith and testimony in Alma 32.

Alma prefaced this concise declaration of his basic articles of faith by recalling the story of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness (Alma 33:19–20). As recorded in Numbers 21, the children of Israel began to complain against Moses, resulting in God sending “fiery” or poisonous serpents to humble them. To cure those who had been bitten by these serpents, Moses erected a bronze serpent on a pole so that “that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live” (Numbers 21:4–9).

In retelling this account Alma emphasized that the bronze serpent was a type of Christ (Alma 33:19) and likened its miraculous healing powers to the importance of having faith in the salvific powers of Christ. “O my brethren, if ye could be healed by merely casting about your eyes that ye might be healed, would ye not behold quickly, or would ye rather harden your hearts in unbelief, and be slothful, that ye would not cast about your eyes, that ye might perish?” (Alma 33:21).

With this scriptural and rhetorical backdrop in place, Alma concluded his words to the multitude of poor Zoramites, who had come out of Antionium to hear his message (Alma 32:4). Speaking clearly and powerfully, Alma invited them to "plant this word" (Alma 33:23, emphasis added) as the seed of faith in their hearts, namely:

Believe in the Son of God, that he will come to redeem his people, and that he shall suffer and die to atone for their sins; and that he shall rise again from the dead, which shall bring to pass the resurrection, that all men shall stand before him, to be judged at the last and judgment day, according to their works (v. 22).

The articles of faith according to Alma include: (1) belief in the Son of God; (2) belief that he will redeem his people; (3) belief that he shall suffer and die; (4) belief that he will perform the Atonement; (5) belief that he will rise from the dead; (6) belief that he will bring to pass the resurrection of the dead; (7) belief in the final judgment (see accompanying chart)1. These articles of faith are consistent with several other prophets who similarly clustered and emphasized many of these particular gospel teachings in their own sermons and writings throughout the Book of Mormon, with Alma's statement on this occasion being the most complete and concise.2

The Why

As summarized by John W. Welch and J. Gregory Welch, “One may well imagine that Alma and his followers could have personally recited this declaration in explaining their faith, in much the same way as members of the church today use the Articles of Faith in stating the fundamental elements of their faith.”3 These articles of faith, what one might well call the core of the Nephite Creed,4 constitute, according to Alma, specifically the “word” spoken of in Alma 32 that followers of Christ should plant in their hearts. “And now, my brethren, I desire that ye shall plant this word in your hearts, and as it beginneth to swell even so nourish it by your faith” (v. 23).

This key point makes it clear why Alma 32–33 should be read together as one complete whole. Originally, these two chapters were not divided. The chapter division between these chapters might mislead some readers into thinking these two chapters are unrelated.

However, when read together, Alma’s logic and testimony here becomes clear. If one is to develop faith by planting a seed, as explored in Alma 32, then one must understand what one is to believe in the first place, as clarified by the Nephite articles of faith in Alma 33. Alma can therefore be read as explaining first how to believe (Alma 32) and then what to believe (Alma 33).

Each step in this sequence of true and growing faith is essential. Of ultimate importance for faithful believers is to realize that, because of the universal effect of Christ's personal suffering, death, and resurrection, every individual will stand re-embodied before the Lord, “to be judged at the last and judgment day, according to their works” (Alma 33:22). It is important to plant and nourish the right seed in order to grow the desired plant.

Thus it is significant that both Alma 32 and Alma 33 end with the imagery of the tree of life (Alma 32:42; 33:23). This, for believers, is the supreme symbol of Christ’s incarnation, love, eternal mission, and resurrection.

It is also the overarching symbol that unites Alma’s discourse on faith. As this word begins to swell and grow, Alma promises, “behold, it will become a tree, springing up in you unto everlasting life” (Alma 33:23). The seed of this tree that faithful men and women are to plant in their hearts is belief in the atoning Messiah and his mission, as captured and encapsulated by Alma in his articles of faith.

The Know

The Zoramites denied the need for the Atonement (Alma 31:16–17). Hence, when preaching in their city, Amulek stressed the importance of “a great and last sacrifice,” a sacrifice which, he said, “must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice” (Alma 34:10). Amulek went to great lengths to explain what this sacrifice—the Atonement—was not: “not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice” (v. 10).1 This clarification likely reflects specifically ways in which the Zoramites had “pervert[ed] the ways of the Lord in very many instances” (v. 11).

Both the Israelites and Nephites lived among cultures that performed vicarious sacrifices for the sins of individuals and communities. Jewish Studies lecturer, Dr. Elaine Goodfriend, explained, “Vicarious punishment—when the penalty for a wrong is suffered by someone other than the perpetrator—is found in” some Mesopotamian laws.2 Ze’ev Falk noted, “in Babylonian and perhaps also in Hittite law, the principle of talion was applied not only to the criminal himself but also to his dependents.”3

In contrast to some practices of their neighbors, Israelite law did not allow for vicarious punishment, but insisted “every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16; cf. Ezekiel 18:20).4 Similarly, Amulek asked the Zoramites, “Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother?” The answer was straightforward: “there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another” (Alma 34:11).

In their divergent state of apostasy, the Zoramites may thus have adopted some kind of religious system which practiced vicarious blood sacrifices. Ancient Mesoamerica provides a potential cultural backdrop. There, “Maya kings voluntarily shed their blood as an offering on behalf of their people.”5 This came in the form of bloodletting, a practice where the king “used thorns, stingray spines, and obsidian blades to draw blood from” sensitive parts of the body.6 While this is a different conceptual background than that of the Babylonian laws in the Old World, it was still a system wherein a man would “sacrifice his own blood” vicariously for his people.7

There were also other forms of sacrifice practiced in Mesoamerica. Brant A. Garnder explained, “Mesoamerican culture also offered parallel examples of animal sacrifices as part of their worship and even human sacrifice.”8 Mark Alan Wright reasoned, “The peoples of the Book of Mormon would have been familiar with the types of sacrifices being offered by their surrounding Mesoamerican neighbors, which often comprised burnt offerings of animals, such as deer or birds.”9

Amulek explained, “For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice” (Alma 34:10). Wright noted, “It is significant that the three things that Amulek is expressly telling the apostate Zoramites not to sacrifice are the three most common things that were offered by Mesoamerican worshipers: human, beast, and fowl.”10

Micah, an Israelite prophet, also apparently mentioned these three forms of sacrifice. He asked if he should “come before the Lord” with “burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?” Whether “the Lord [would] be pleased with thousands of rams” or if he should “give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” He answered, “the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God” (Micah 6:6–8).

Recognizing that birds were often given as “burnt offerings,” Amulek seems to be reversing the order of Micah’s rhetorical questions, after which he launches into an exposition of justice and mercy (Alma 34:15–16). Amulek, therefore, seems to be employing a technique called Seidel’s Law to invoke Micah’s words and remind his Zoramite audience of the true purpose of animal sacrifice under the Mosaic law.11

The Why

As pious Israelites, the Nephites would have practiced various forms of animal sacrifice as part of the law of Moses. They did so, however, with an awareness that such sacrifices were only a type and a shadow, “every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice … [of] the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal” (Alma 34:14). In the Nephite view, “The law of Moses was as one grand prophecy of Christ inasmuch as it testified of the salvation to be obtained in and through his atoning blood.”12

In their apostasy, the Zoramites rejected the infinite and eternal atonement of Jesus Christ. Influenced by the surrounding culture, it seems they instead treated animal sacrifice as a full substitute for the Atonement, perhaps going so far as to have adopted other local sacrificial customs, such as bloodletting and human sacrifice.

Amulek, therefore, made it a point to explain that “there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood” on behalf of others (Alma 34:11), as would be the case with even a king while bloodletting. Nor could any kind of blood sacrifice—beast, fowl, or human—cleanse the Zoramites, nor anyone else, of their sins (vv. 11–14). Not only does logic work against the Zoramite view, but so did the symbolism of the law of Moses which prohibited the taking of one mortal life in punishment for the wrongdoing of another.

For any sacrifice to have eternal force and effect, that sacrifice must be more than mortal and temporary. Elder Tad R. Callister explained:

The word infinite, as used in this context, may refer to an atonement that is infinite in its scope and coverage, … to an atonement that simultaneously applies retroactively and prospectively, oblivious to constraints and measurements of time … to an atonement that applies to all God’s creations, past, present, and future, and thus is infinite in its application, duration, and effect.13

“Nothing short of the shedding of the blood of both an infinite and perfect Being could”14 accomplish this kind of ever-enduring and all-reaching sacrifice. “Accordingly,” explained Callister, “the Atonement is ‘infinite’ because its source is ‘infinite’.”15

Just as certain particular cultural factors apparently had enticed the Zoramites to pervert the ways of the Lord, so also may social trends today entice some to twist, distort, wrest, or otherwise skew true gospel principles to fit fashionable ideologies. Avoiding these temptations requires both individuals and communities to do as Alma taught, and Amulek reiterated: “plant the word in your hearts, that ye may try the experiment of its goodness” (Alma 34:4). Only by letting the eternal word of Christ take root can the everlasting Gospel then become the guiding light which enables all to see past the temporary fashions of the day.

The Know

At the end of Alma 30, the Book of Mormon reports that a group of Nephite dissenters, known as the Zoramites,1 were responsible for Korihor’s death (Alma 30:59).2 After receiving news that “the Zoramites were perverting the ways of the Lord,”3 Alma gathered an elite group of missionaries to “preach unto them the word of God” (Alma 31:1, 7). Yet despite efforts to reclaim these apostates, the Zoramites “cast out of the land” any who believed in the words of Alma and Amulek (Alma 35:6). The Zoramite problem immediately escalated into a series of all-out wars in the land of Zarahemla.

When the people of Ammon took in these exiled believers, the Zoramites stirred up the Lamanites to anger, and together they made “preparations for war against the people of Ammon, and also against the Nephites” (Alma 35:11). While Alma and the Nephites "greatly feared that the Zoramites would enter into a correspondence with the Lamanites, and that it would be the means for a great loss on the part of the Nephites" (Alma 31:4), the Zoramites clearly felt threatened by the missionary effort of Alma and his companions, "for it did destroy their craft" (Alma 35:3). As Brant Gardner has aptly explained:

Religion provided the formal underpinnings and outward presentation of the political structure. In the Zoramite case, the whole purpose and end of the religio-political structure was to maintain a social hierarchy. Egalitarian gospel principles, if adopted, would have destroyed the Zoramite social and political structure (not to mention their religion).4

Ultimately, the Zoramite defection was a major catalyst for seven years of armed conflicts between the Nephites and the Lamanites often referred to as the war chapters in the book of Alma.5 Those wars were led by Amalickiah and his brother Ammoron and their chief captains, all of whom were Zoramites (Alma 48:5; Alma 54:23).

Geographic clues within the Book of Mormon can help readers understand why this turn of events was so disastrous. The “Zoramites had gathered themselves together in a land which they called Antionum, which was east of the land of Zarahemla, which lay nearly bordering upon the seashore” (Alma 31:3). With a Lamanite presence already in the south and west (Alma 22:28), this development led to the Nephites being precariously situated between two major Lamanite forces.6

Such a state of affairs is not without scriptural precedent. During Lehi’s time, Israelite leaders failed to heed the words of the prophets, and in consequence were geographically and politically caught between two major world powers—the Egyptians to the south and the Babylonians to the north. Acting out of fear, and in direct defiance of Jeremiah’s prophetic counsel, King Zedekiah chose to ally Israel with Egypt.7 This poor decision eventually led to a Babylonian invasion, which ended with Zedekiah being exiled into Babylon after the execution of his family.8

The Why

Like the kingdom of Judah in Lehi’s time, the Nephites were vulnerable to enemy incursions on two separate fronts. Understanding the high stakes that were involved in this situation—meaning both the worth of souls among the Zoramites as well as the need to maintain them as military allies—can help readers better empathize with Alma’s great sorrow after the Zoramites rejected his message:

Now Alma, being grieved for the iniquity of his people, yea for the wars, and the bloodsheds, and the contentions which were among them; and having been to declare the word, or sent to declare the word, among all the people in every city; and seeing that the hearts of the people began to wax hard, and that they began to be offended because of the strictness of the word, his heart was exceedingly sorrowful (Alma 35:15).

This episode also demonstrates the relationship between a society’s political well-being and the degree of heed it gives to the words of the prophets. As the military conflicts unfold in the Book of Mormon, it becomes increasingly clear that the greatest threat to the Nephite civilization was internal wickedness and dissension, rather than external enemies. In an editorial comment, Mormon later emphasized that it was Captain Moroni’s “first care to put an end to such contentions and dissensions among the people; for behold, this had been hitherto a cause of all their destruction” (Alma 51:16).

Such a pointed statement should serve as a strong word of caution to modern societies fraught with their own competing social interests and political intrigues. Social justice can only be achieved when all people respect one another's rights of religious liberty and mutual dignity, and Zion can only be achieved when faithful people unitedly heed the words of God’s true messengers. Although missionary efforts are not always successful, modern readers are, like Alma, still obligated to “try the virtue of the word of God” because “it [has] more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else” (Alma 31:5).

The Know

No other event had a greater impact on Alma’s life than the transformative three days he spent racked with torment after being rebuked by an angel.1 The themes of that experience permeate his sermons,2 and at least three different accounts of it survive in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 27; Alma 36, 38). Detailed comparison of these accounts strongly suggests that all three are, in significant part, first person accounts from Alma himself.3 Of these accounts, Alma 36 stands out as the most complete and well-composed.

John W. Welch noted, “The abrupt antithetical parallelisms” of Alma’s original words in Mosiah 27:29–30, “have been rearranged into one masterfully crafted chiastic composition in Alma 36.”4 This repurposing of the spontaneous phrases spoken by the young Alma as he retold the story of his conversion to his son Helaman a number of years later offers strong evidence that the structure of Alma 36 was deliberate and purposeful.

Welch, who discovered chiasmus in the Book of Mormon as a missionary in Germany in 1967,5 first published the chiastic structure of Alma 36 in 1969 (see chart).6 Since that time, the structure of Alma 36 has received continued attention and analysis, detailing not only the overall chiasm, but also laying out several substructures.7

Of interpretive importance, careful observers have found that the climax of a strong chiastic structure is usually found at its midpoint. As Nils Lund set forth, “The centre is always the turning point. . . . At the centre there is often a change in the trend of thought, and an antithetic idea is introduced, [which is a] shift at the centre. . . . Thus, the climax is at the centre, not at the end, where we should expect it.”8 This feature of a deliberately composed chiasm, clearly present in Alma 36, helps readers to discern the the key point of the whole passage.

Though some have questioned the absolute chiasticity of the account,9 both criteria-based evaluations and statistical analyses further indicate that the chiastic structure in Alma 36 is unlikely to be an accident.10 Welch concluded, “After evaluating hundreds of proposed chiasms in a wide variety of lengthy texts, I have found that only a few texts unmistakably rate as planned, successful chiasms. Alma 36 is one of the best.”11

The Why

Producing a well written, elegant chiasm is challenging and difficult. According Welch, “If an author uses chiasmus mechanically, it can produce rigid, stilted writing (a poor result from an author misusing or poorly implementing any artistic device).”12 This is not the case with Alma 36, which smoothly transitions from one point to the next until reaching its climatic center point and then effortlessly unwinding down the same path.13

Alma … does not simply stick a list of ideas together in one order and then awkwardly and slavishly retrace his steps through that list in the opposite order. His work has the markings of a skillful, painstaking writer, one completely comfortable with using this difficult mode of expression well.14

Grant Hardy noted, Alma’s “account moves from public to personal to private and then back again.”15 Throughout the whole account, Hardy noticed the remarkable detail that “God is present in every phase.” Hardy thus thought “the order and purposeful design of Alma 36 suggests a world in which God … is in control, where the lives of individuals fit into some overarching … plan.”16

Central to that plan is Jesus Christ and his atoning power. While Alma on some occasions placed emphasis on the angelic encounter,17 it was not the appearance of the angel that caused Alma’s change of heart. Indeed, the chiastic structure in Alma 36 eloquently and effectively guides the reader most centrally and emphatically toward Alma’s direct, personal encounter with Jesus Christ. Welch noted:

The structure of the chapter powerfully communicates Alma’s personal experience, for the central turning point of his conversion came precisely when he called upon the name of Jesus Christ and asked for mercy. Nothing was more important than this in Alma’s conversion—neither the appearance of the angel, nor the prayers of his father and the priests. Just as this was the turning point of Alma’s life, he makes it the center of this magnificent composition.18

The point of this remarkable literary structure underscores the dramatic turnaround in Alma’s life, answering most assuredly the question, why was Alma converted? That conversion occurred when he remembered his father speaking of “the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world,” which caused him to call out, “O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about the by everlasting chains of death” (Alma 36:17–18).

From that turning point, the chiastic pattern takes on what Noel B. Reynolds termed a “reverse polarity between the parallel units of text.”19 While once “harrowed up by the memory of [his] many sins” (Alma 36:17), he was “harrowed up by the memory of [his] sins no more” (v. 19). Where once there was “the pains of a damned soul” (v. 16), there now a “soul … filled with joy as exceeding as was [the] pain!” (v. 20).

The reversal here proceeds out from the central point until Alma’s effort “to destroy the church of God” (Alma 36:6) is juxtaposed with his new, unceasing effort to “bring souls unto repentance” (v. 24). From this reversal, Welch reasoned, “The message is clear: Christ’s atonement and man’s responding sacrifice of a broken heart and willing mind are central to receiving forgiveness from God.”20

It is hard to imagine any literary form being used more effectively than this extended chiasm to articulate the transformative effect of the Atonement in the lives of individuals all around the world. Many have felt as Alma felt. As a result, Alma 36 naturally and powerfully resonates with readers everywhere.21 After reading Alma 36 with Welch, prominent biblical scholar David Noel Freedman remarked, “Mormons are very lucky. Their book is very beautiful.”22 After extensive study of Alma 36, Welch concluded:

This text ranks as one of the best uses of chiasmus one can imagine. It merits high acclaim and recognition. Despite its complexity, the meaning of the chapter is both simple and profound. Alma’s words are both inspired and inspiring, religious and literary, historical and timeless, clear yet complex—a text that deserves to be pondered for years to come.23

The Know

Alma’s words to his son Helaman, as recorded in Alma 37, contain the somewhat perplexing reference to Gazelem,1 apparently an unspecified servant who should perform a special work for God. Alma prophesied, “And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations” (Alma 37:23).

As this is the only reference to Gazelem in the Book of Mormon, readers are somewhat at a loss as to who or what this passage is talking about. Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet have asked, “Is Gazelem the seer stone or the servant? It is difficult to tell from the passage and depends very much on the placement of a comma in the sentence. Perhaps it could refer to both. . . . Though this name or title of Gazelem may be used in regard to any seer who utilizes seer stones, it seems in this instance to be a direct reference to Joseph Smith the Prophet.”2

While Gazelem is perhaps the name of the individual using the stone prepared by God, the issue is far from settled. Royal Skousen has traced Mormon interpretations of this passage to the lifetime of Joseph Smith himself, where both the Prophet Joseph Smith and the stone were variously identified as Gazelem.3

Joseph Smith would easily fit the identity of Gazelem. As several historians and scholars have discussed, Joseph used both the Nephite Interpreters (later called the “Urim and Thummim”) that were discovered with the plates and his individual seer stone in the translation of the Book of Mormon.4 Even some General Authorities have written on this topic,5 and future work that is sure to illuminate this subject is forthcoming.6

Unfortunately, the historical sources on Joseph’s use of these instruments during the translation are sometimes contradictory or ambiguous. For example, even eyewitness participants in the translation of the Book of Mormon sometimes confused the terminology in their descriptions of the event. “These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term ‘Urim and Thummim’ to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters.”7

Despite these ambiguities, it is clear that Joseph utilized sacred instruments—in this case seer stones that he found or the interpreters, which Moroni gave him—that had been prepared by the Lord for the purpose of translating the Book of Mormon. Questions remain as to how Joseph used these instruments, such as when precisely he used which devices during the translation process. That the Prophet did in fact utilize divinely-prepared instruments as mediums for inspiration in the translation of the Book of Mormon and some early revelations (e.g. Doctrine and Covenants 3, 6, 7, 11, 14, 17), however, is beyond dispute.

The Why

Many people today have come to outright dismiss the existence of miracles or supernatural forces. Claims that cannot be explained scientifically or rationally are often treated as mere superstition, especially in the secular West. It’s therefore understandable why many have a hard time accepting that the Lord would prepare seemingly “magical” or wondrous stones for Joseph Smith to use in translating the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith’s use of such stones needs to be situated in its historical and theological context. The practice of using stones or glass as media to receive divine revelation is a documented practice in many modern and ancient cultures, including among the ancient Israelites and the ancient (as well as modern) Maya.8 In Joseph Smith’s own day so-called “folk magic” was practiced in rural parts of the United States. This included the use of stones, rods, and other instruments to communicate with spirits, find hidden treasures protected by supernatural guardians, look for lost objects, or even discover sources of water.9 The Smith family participated in this culture, and Joseph himself had a reputation as a village seer even before he retrieved and translated the plates.10

It is crucial to keep in mind, however, that there still exists much debate among anthropologists and historians how to properly define “magic” (as opposed to the more conventional “religion”) as practiced by both ancient and modern people. The men and women who participated in these supernatural practices typically did not find them to be in conflict with their own Christian faith. After all, prophets in both the Old and New Testament, including Moses and Elijah, Peter and Paul, and of course Jesus Himself, possessed powers or instruments that were used to perform great wonders.11 Well-known is the biblical practice of casting lots, which had a clear supernatural dimension (cf. 1 Nephi 3:11).12

Claims of "a magic world view" having heavily influenced Joseph Smith should therefore be approached very cautiously.13 Legitimate questions still remain as to just how involved Joseph actually was in this type of folk culture and how much it actually impacted him.14 Nevertheless, Mormon theology allows for the Lord to communicate to His children through culturally embedded methods (2 Nephi 31:3; D&C 1:14).15 Furthermore, the Book of Mormon itself speaks specifically about the Lord preparing “means” (physical instruments) through which He would channel His power, including sacred stones that would aid seers in translating ancient records by the gift and power of God (Mosiah 8).16

We may ultimately never fully understand the nature or process of the Book of Mormon’s translation, including why the Lord prepared sacred stones for Joseph the Seer to utilize. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Joseph consistently and repeatedly testified, and many witnesses close to the process confirmed, that he translated the plates by the gift and power of God, not through any kind of trickery or hocus-pocus conjuring. A sound understanding of the history behind the translation of the Book of Mormon can answer some questions or otherwise be faith-promoting in some regards.17 A spiritual testimony of Joseph Smith’s calling as a seer, including a burning testimony of the divine nature of the Book of Mormon, however, comes only from God, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

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