Book of Mormon Central: KnoWhy

The Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were martyrs for and of the Book of Mormon in all senses of the word. Today the term "martyr" has come to primarily mean one who willingly suffers or dies for their religious beliefs. But, the word's origin is Greek and literally meant a “witness.” “There is nothing accidental just as there is nothing devised in a martyr’s end,” wrote the Latter-day Saint scholar Hugh Nibley. “He assumes the obligation to be a witness, knowing full well what that dangerous duty entails. The Prophet who was put to death [in 1844] was a true martyr and a true prophet in the strictest and holiest sense of the word.”

Elder Holland emphasized the significance of the Book of Mormon for those who contemplate leaving the Church. “If  anyone  is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages . . . then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit.” He concluded with a powerful apostolic witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon that stands in effect today.

To discuss all of the findings of Skousen’s voluminous work is far beyond the scope of this brief treatment. Nevertheless, broadly speaking, in addition to tracking changes in the Book of Mormon text, Skousen’s work has revealed three major findings related to the Book of Mormon text worth highlighting.

Despite rampant “Egypt-o-mania” in the early nineteenth century, the notion of Jews writing in Egyptian was an unimaginable concept, and Joseph Smith was roundly criticized on this point by early Book of Mormon critics. In this respect, the Book of Mormon has aged better than its detractors.

While the available Arabic poetry studied by Nibley comes from a later time period and has several other features not found in the Book of Mormon, the shared attributes between Lehi's words and the prevailing practices among the Bedouins may point to a common geographic background, if not to a connected literary origin.

The consistency in how up and down are used in the Book of Mormon tells us that the usage was natural to the author (Nephi) and gently hints that he was personally familiar with the topography of Jerusalem and the surrounding region.

What significance can be drawn from Emma’s recollection? From these early sources, it is clear that Joseph’s closest contemporaries, including his own wife, considered this to be evidence that Joseph was not well enough informed on historical and biblical matters to write the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon has been vindicated in two major ways with this evidence. First, it has been vindicated in its use of Sariah as a personal Semitic name shortly before and after the Jewish exile of the 6th century BC. Second, and more importantly, the Book of Mormon has been vindicated in presenting Sariah as a feminine personal name. “That we can now identify . . . the Jewish/Hebrew name Sariah in the Elephantine Papyri,” Chadwick concludes, “represents [a] significant step forward in corroborating the authenticity of [a] heretofore unique Book of Mormon name.” That this evidence was only available long after Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon makes this corroboration all the more convincing.

Now it becomes clear why Lehi would offer sacrifices as he left the land of Jerusalem. From the research provided by Professor Seely, it would appear that Lehi understood the book of Deuteronomy to allow sacrifices, especially thanksgiving sacrifices, at various locations.

Scholars in and outside of the Mormon faith are starting to recognize the fact that the Book of Mormon contains many teachings and symbols in harmony with early Judeo-Christian and other ancient Mediterranean beliefs. These teachings can be found embedded in the text’s narrative and theology. One such religious idea linked the color white to holiness and sacredness.

While this political dimension adds a remarkable layer of complexity to the text of 1 Nephi, there is more to it than that. This opening book in the Book of Mormon masterfully weaves together facts about family dynamics, divine revelation, symbolic dreams and visions, unforgettable narratives, and geographical data. To all of that is added scriptural commentary, spontaneous poetic expressions, different forms of speech, careful and meaningful chiastic literature structures, novel names, exotic cultural practices, and numerous religious teachings.

Some authors have questioned the feasibility of ancient Israelites having an understanding of “the son of God” as being Israel’s Messiah. These authors contend that this teaching is anachronistic or out of its time for pre-Christian Israelites, and is either the result of Joseph Smith’s own prophetic “expansion” on the Book of Mormon or an outright anachronism that dates the text to the 19th century.

Nothing is more important in Christian worship than to recognize Jesus Christ as the Son of God, born of a virgin, who became flesh as the express image of his Father (John 17:3; Hebrews 1:1–3). The Book of Mormon, as another witness and covenant of God, testifies “that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God” as he “manifest[s] himself unto all nations” (Book of Mormon Title Page). The ancient abridger Mormon testified that he had written this book “for the intent that ye may believe” the Bible, and so that modern people may know of the marvelous and miraculous works that have been brought to pass “by the power of God among them” (Mormon 7:9).

As Lehi’s dream reflects the realities of life in Arabia, it would seem Lehi knew Arabia intimately: “Lehi’s dream, perhaps more than any other segment of Nephi’s narrative, takes us into the ancient Near East,” Brown reasons, “for as soon as we focus on certain aspects of Lehi’s dream, we find ourselves staring into the ancient world of Arabia. Lehi’s dream is not at home in Joseph Smith’s world but is at home in a world preserved both by archaeological remains and in the customs and manners of Arabia’s inhabitants.”

Nephi foresaw three factors, which lead even well-intentioned early Christians away from the pure truths and ordinances of the gospel. He taught that: Important teachings would become neglected. The divine process of making covenants, such as baptism by immersion by those in authority, would change so drastically as to produce deleterious consequences. As a result, words and explanations in the foundational texts would lose their meaning or their significance, as their relevance was no longer apparent.

How are we to understand these stark dichotomies in today’s diverse society? Why is Nephi’s statement ultimately important today? While Nephi spoke of “two churches” or two ways of life, one of those ways leads into a maze of many strange roads and mists of darkness. The Savior spoke of a “broad” way, and Nephi’s great and abominable church is comparable to the great and spacious building of his father’s dream. Both the broad way and spacious building suggest room to wander down various paths and hallways while ultimately all ending up in the same place of darkness. Thus, Lehi’s dream mentions the one “strait and narrow path” and in contrast the many “forbidden paths” (1 Nephi 8:20, 23, 28).

People often wonder how they can recognize true prophets of God. Examples such as these in the Bible and Book of Mormon show that at the beginning of important dispensations and in dispensing the word of the Lord, true prophets (including Lehi and Nephi) in ancient Israel were admitted into the heavenly council and saw God or other heavenly beings and received divine assignments or access to heavenly knowledge.

The term “fiery darts” would not have been unknown to Nephi. The imagery of fiery arrows appears in the Old Testament and is thus not unique to Paul’s writings. The use of fiery arrows is also known from the ancient world, providing a historical grounding for Nephi’s teaching. In addition, the Hebrew wording of Psalm 7:13 or other such ancient terminology could have given Nephi’s imagery powerful force in the minds of Laman and Lemuel.

Could Nihm/Nehem be Nephi’s Nahom? The location of Nahom can be correlated with the family’s eastward turn and arrival in Bountiful (1 Nephi 17:1–5). Likewise, the only suitable location for Bountiful is on the southern Omani coast, in Dhofar, which is nearly due east from the Nihm territory in Yemen. Furthermore, coming down the caravan trails, traveling eastward is impossible in Arabia until reaching the Nihm area.

This detail in the Book of Mormon of Nephi or Lehi naming new places they encountered on their journey shows the text is rooted in the world of the ancient Near East. “The literary device of supplying the translation of a foreign word or unknown phrase within a text is called a gloss and is well documented in ancient Near Eastern texts,” explain Hoskisson, Hauglid, and Gee. Beyond that, Nephi’s naming of the sea “many waters” perhaps indicates that he and his family felt overwhelmed or awed in their encounter with what is probably the Arabian Sea. This may have made them feel somewhat out of their element, thus necessitating them to continue relying on the Lord to provide for and guide them.

From what little is known about the ancient past, it appears that ancient people ventured out into the sea for many reasons. Some voyages were for commercial or political purposes. Other expeditions were for military conquest, as when the Greeks led by Agamemnon besieged Troy (c. 1100 BC), or when the Persians attempted to conquer Greece but were defeated in a sea battle in the Bay of Salamis (480 BC). Others, like Lehi’s group, set sail for new lands hoping to found colonies or fleeing from their enemies.

Plates of tumbaga make a lot of sense, for several reasons. Gold is too soft, and thin gold plates would not hold up well. The copper makes tumbaga more rigid and resilient, even in thin sheets. Moreover, the thin gold surface that appears after the gilding process would have made the plates easy to engrave, and would also have protected the surface from rust and corrosion.

As these parallels are seen, it helps illuminate Nephi’s careful and very conscious choice of Isaiah passages. The use of Isaiah 48–49 in 1 Nephi 20–21 does not appear to be random. It is unlikely that these chapters were sloppily inserted as irrelevant filler. They seem to be deliberately selected prophetic passages used by someone who was intimately familiar with their specific relevance to the personal experiences of Lehi’s family.

Interpreting Joseph Smith as the servant in Isaiah 49 (1 Nephi 21), allows us to apply the remainder of the chapter to the restoration of the gospel in the latter-days. Skinner explained, “Having described the special latter-day servant, the one who would be instrumental in bringing about the restoration and eventual redemption of Israel, Isaiah reveals the events associated with the restoration and redemption.”

Far from slavishly and lazily copying the Bible, Book of Mormon authors, such as Nephi, conscientiously knit together strings of biblical phrases and passages in an intricate manner that expanded and re-conceptualized the teachings of biblical prophets. This phenomenon of a text recombining quotations, allusions, and paraphrases of other texts for new literary purposes is called intertextuality. It was anciently the mark of a fine scribe or author and is found explicitly and implicitly throughout the biblical books themselves.

As Smith explains, the significance of this information goes beyond merely being a refutation of an alternative explanation: “This should give some hint of what lies in store for those who systematically apply knowledge of Egyptian language, religion, and culture to an understanding of the Book of Mormon—a book written in Egyptian script, if not in that very language.”

Although the doctrine of sacrificing “a broken heart and a contrite spirit” does not appear explicitly in the New Testament, many would expect this would be a doctrine that could only be introduced in the Christian era and may find fault with the Book of Mormon for putting the notion in the mouth of the 7th Century B.C. prophet Lehi.

As people try to understand better the origins of Lehi’s doctrines relating to the Fall, several interesting things come to light. First, it is worth pointing out that the concepts Lehi teaches in this connection are at home in ancient Israelite and early Jewish beliefs. While Lehi brings these ideas together and expounds on them like no one else before or since, the core ideas were present and available within the Hebrew tradition.

This comparison is interesting for multiple reasons. First, it illustrates that in some ancient Jewish traditions, it was normal and expected that the patriarch of the family would gather together his family and bless, instruct, exhort, and prophesy to them before passing away. In this, Lehi’s behavior was as expected.

Readers can draw deep spiritual strength from Nephi's Psalm as they relate to the five phases typically present in the covenant language of the Psalms. People are encouraged to honestly recognize their sins, shortcomings, and faults, as Nephi confidently confronted his own challenges and anger. Worshippers then find in Nephi a role model for sincere pleading with the Lord for forgiveness. They then see Nephi rededicating himself to his covenants with God, and committing himself to follow the right path. Finally, the faithful then openly express their joy in gratitude for the goodness and redemption of the Lord.

The evidence of ancient Israelites building temples outside of Jerusalem indicates that Nephi was not breaking from established custom in his construction of a temple in the New World. Nephi was undoubtedly well-versed in the scriptures and religious practices of his day and knew the importance of having the blessings of the temple in both his life and the lives of his followers. Following an indisputable precedent, he maintained continuity with his Israelite heritage by building a temple where he and his small band of followers could focus their love, devotion, sacrifices, and obedience to God.

Appreciating the complexity of Jacob’s interweaving of these themes and texts is interesting and useful at several levels. For one thing, these identifiable motifs obviously connect the Book of Mormon to the culture of ancient Israel, which reinforces the book’s antiquity and consistency with the biblical record, helping these two books to become one in our hands today.

Comparing the teachings of Lehi, Jacob, Alma and other Nephite leaders is instructive. We learn that, although Jacob was the first to use the word plan to describe the relationship between the creation, fall, and atonement, he was not the first to understand that relationship.

Contextually, Jacob knew that the people in his immediate listening audience would understand this analogy because it was common imagery in the Israelite and wider ancient Near Eastern culture from whence the family of Lehi had come not long before. Culturally, it is noteworthy that similar imagery is also found in Mesoamerica. The widespread use of this symbolism in the Old and New Worlds emphasizes a point of continuity between the imagery used by biblical prophets such as Isaiah and Hosea and the new setting of Lehi’s people in their land of promise.

The subtle but significant connection between the Ten Commandments and Jacob’s ten woes is important in understanding why Jacob included warnings about the consequences of sin in the midst of his lofty praise of God. At Sinai, God made a covenant with his people (see Exodus 19:5), as Jacob clearly understood. “The blessings of the covenant,” explained Old Testament scholar John L. Collins, “are contingent on the observance of the law.”

Knowing the name of God is a high spiritual honor and privilege. Moses asked and was told the name by which the Lord could be known. King Benjamin gave to his people the Savior's name, the knowledge of which distinguished them above all people. Keeping the name of God holy is one of the Ten Commandments. Knowing God's names and functions allows righteous individuals to call upon him for mercy, guidance, and deliverance.

Why would Nephi think it was important to use up precious space on his plates to include the testimonies of Jacob and Isaiah? Elder Holland reasoned, “One could convincingly argue that the primary purpose for recording, preserving, and then translating [this information on] the small plates of Nephi were to bring forth to the dispensation of the fullness of times the testimony of these three witnesses” in plainness and clarity (cf. 2 Nephi 25:4).

Nephi, through his faithfulness to the Lord, was blessed with a comprehensive vision of how history would play out for the human race, both for the House of Israel and for all the nations. He knew that the Prophet Isaiah had also been given incredible insight into these same future events and used his words as another witness to his prophecies.

Without a doubt, the words of Isaiah are difficult to interpret. They were probably hard for people in Isaiah's day to understand, and they are even harder to grasp today. But the Book of Mormon encourages and enables modern readers to find great value in Isaiah’s important prophecies. The sheer volume of Isaiah chapters in the small plates of Nephi tells us that Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob saw Isaiah (who died only about twenty years before Lehi was born) as the guiding star of Israelite prophets in their day.

The prophet Isaiah saw and knew the Lord. The most important role of any prophet is to testify of Jesus Christ and his atoning mission. Noting that the name “Isaiah” means “the Lord is salvation,” Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has testified: “Isaiah was prepared from birth—and of course we would say from before birth—to testify of the Messiah and bear such witness of the divinity of Christ’s coming.”

From these several examples, both ancient and modern, it becomes clear that in this case, and often, a prophecy may have multiple applications. Many of Isaiah’s prophecies have numerous meanings and have been fulfilled in different ways at different times. Why is this so? One reason may be the expansive foresight of Isaiah. Another reason may be found in the universal applicability of scripture.

Nephi and his people were a part of the initial waves of the scattering of Israel because of apostasy. Jerusalem was destroyed and the people were scattered both before and after the coming of their Redeemer. Thus, the Nephites were acutely aware of the reality of being scattered. Therefore, Nephi provided his people and later readers of the Book of Mormon with three prophetic witnesses of the future of the House of Israel: (1) his own vision, (2) the testimony of his brother Jacob, and (3) the words of the great prophet Isaiah.

By providing a clearer depiction of Satan than the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Mormon helps us recognize him and his tactics. “In addition to exposing the tactics and plans of Satan,” wrote Clyde James Williams, “the Book of Mormon gives clear and direct counsel on how to overcome him.” With these two scriptural records combined, we are better prepared to withstand the Adversary and his minions.

One main stated purpose of the Book of Mormon is “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations” (Book of Mormon Title Page). In order to accomplish this, Book of Mormon authors such as Nephi quoted extensively from other prophetic writings, most notably and consistently Isaiah, and interwove those quotations with his prophetic teachings.

In his selected quotations of Isaiah, Nephi himself may have seen references to the existence of these "others" and to their relationship with his own people. Understanding that these passages in the Book of Mormon may well speak of "others" in the New World is helpful in several ways.

Several prophets have described the events that will transpire in the last days. But in Nephi’s world, the prophet who had spoken most similarly to his vision of that future day was Isaiah. So, Nephi unsurprisingly, through careful selection off material from Isaiah, used him as a second witness, attesting that in the end the Lord will prevail, the righteous will be rewarded, and the wicked will be destroyed.

Nephi knew from his own life that we must worship and serve God with all our heart, soul, and might (Deuteronomy 6:5). Thus, he knew that understanding “the full spirit and meaning of the written word of God” would require all of our faculties, both intellectual and faithful, working together. One of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s revelations admonished the Saints to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118; cf. vv. 78–80).

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

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

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

In 2 Nephi 25:16, Nephi stated that the Jews will be scattered until they begin to “believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind,” and “worship the Father in his name,” and “not look forward any more for another Messiah.” In conjunction with that occurrence, Nephi then quoted from Psalm 24. Since, in the mind of most ancient Israelites, terms such as atonement, worship, and name of God likely referred to elements of the temple, invoking this memorable phrase from Psalm 24 would have made sense to Nephi and his people in this context. Properly worshipping in a holy temple, they will be able to recognize the face of the true Messiah.

The understanding that Isaiah 29 and 2 Nephi 27 are distinct and separate prophecies has several implications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having only recently completed the construction and dedication of a temple in his land of promise, Nephi’s thoughts and expressions draw heavily upon the House of the Lord. In that holy context, those officers were received as ones speaking with power and authority, as “angels” or messengers or ministers, of the Lord. In ancient temples, officiants of temple rituals were received as messengers of the Lord. Image by Joseph Brickey. Today, worthy Latter-day Saints ritually ascend into the presence of God in temples across the world. For Lehi, Nephi, and Isaiah that ritual experience symbolized a literal ascent into the Lord's presence. And that invitation for all who are worthy to come into the Lord’s presence and be exalted as a member of the heavenly assembly—one of the sons of God—has been extended in these last days (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:50–62).

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

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

Why does the Book of Mormon deserve to be called a classic? Notwithstanding the attacks of early and contemporary antagonists, the Book of Mormon continues to be read, studied, and cherished by millions of believers and non-believers around the globe. Well over 150 million copies of the Book of Mormon in 110 languages have been printed since its initial 5,000 copy run in 1830. Terryl Givens observed that even those who consider Joseph Smith the author of the Book of Mormon must recognize that “he authored the most influential, widely published and read book ever written by an American.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The monumental inscriptions of Mesoamerica were not widely known in the United States until after Stephens and Catherwood published their findings in 1841. The excitement in and around Nauvoo over their findings in 1842 indicates that Joseph Smith and early Latter-day Saints were most likely unaware of things like stone inscriptions found in the Americas previously.

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

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

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

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

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

The use of all kinds of parallelisms in a speech such as Benjamin’s can serve many important purposes. For example: It adds dignity to a formal occasion, such as a royal coronation, to have a guiding text that is carefully organized according to traditional literary forms. It adds emphasis to a serious declaration, such as a proclamation of a new monarch, to have important points repeated, calling double attention to each point of explanation and instruction. It adds balance at a covenant making moment, such as Benjamin’s placing his people under covenant to obey their new leader as God’s continuing servant on earth, to have the reciprocal obligations and blessings of that covenant tied together. It adds order to a deeply concentrated presentation, such as Benjamin’s masterful oration, to have words or phrases introduced in one sequence and then to have them repeated in a directly parallel or inverted parallel order, which makes the structure and details of this text impressive,

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

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

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

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

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

Given this background, the exchange between Abinadi and the priests begins to make greater sense. Noah’s priests were not just quizzing Abinadi on his scriptural knowledge; they were looking for a legal cause of action “wherewith to accuse” Abinadi. False prophecy being a capital offense, those found guilty of it were worthy of death (Deuteronomy 18:20). It is in response to this charge that Abinadi quoted Isaiah 53, thereby supplying the fuller context of the passage used by the priests. Abinadi followed by expounding upon both Isaiah 52 and 53 as he testified of the Redeemer (see Mosiah 13–16). His exposition was legally relevant and textually persuasive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In puzzling over the reading or meaning of any difficult text in scripture, it is helpful to know that not all questions cannot be answered. In most historical or ancient textual studies, conclusive data rarely exists. Sometimes it is sobering or even painful to admit that we do not know as much as we would like to know.

Limhi had many reasons to think that Gideon's idea would work. His religious and cultural backgrounds gave him many reasons to see how the Nephites might be able to take advantage of the weak propensities of the Lamanite guards.

With this factual background, one can understand why the book of Mosiah talks so much about priesthood authority. Mormon’s abridgment of the Nephite record in Mosiah depicts a variety of political conflicts and priestly situations. As these events progress, the questions of who has authority and the proper use of priesthood authority come to the foreground. For this reason, Mormon seeks opportunities to emphasize the way in which the Nephite priesthood, being based on the example of Melchizedek, functioned in righteousness.

Much as the Lord had delivered the Israelites from bondage in Egypt, he alone freed Alma and his people from bondage under their taskmasters. Also, like the children of Israel, Alma and his people had to endure great trials before their eventual deliverance by the miraculous intervention of the Lord.

Although impossible to definitively prove, Mulek can be seen as a very strong candidate for being one and the same as the Malchiah/Malkiyahu mentioned in the book of Jeremiah and on the stamp seal discovered in Jerusalem. While other unknown factors remain unresolved, such as Mulek’s age when he fled Jerusalem, these complications do not diminish the overall strength of the evidence presented above. Indeed, upon encountering this evidence the prominent non-Mormon biblical scholar David Noel Freedman reportedly exclaimed, “If Joseph Smith came up with that one, he did pretty good!”

While it is not possible to determine absolutely the origin of the name Mosiah, of whether Mosiah was the given name or title of these two Nephite leaders, it is not at all implausible to see it as deriving from the Hebrew word môšiaʿ. In fact, in the absence of any better alternate propositions, this appears to be the strongest theory.

It is true that the manifestation of storms and lightning “varied greatly between the peoples of the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon.” Instead of "seeing this as a contradiction or inconsistency in divine symbolism, it is rather a reaffirmation that hierophanies are culturally embedded phenomena.”6 This should come as no surprise, as the Lord reveals himself to his children “after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24; cf. 2 Nephi 31:3). It is important to remember that “language is not limited to the words we use,” but that “it also entails signs, symbols, and bodily gestures that are imbued with meaning by the cultures that produced them.” Further, “As with spoken language, symbolic and gestural languages are culturally specific and can be fully understood only by those entrenched within that particular culture.”

It seems that several factors had come together to impress upon Mosiah’s mind the need to abolish the monarchy. Most pressingly, his sons were not available to take the throne (Mosiah 28:10), but other factors included the increasingly cosmopolitan nature of Zarahemla, pressure from Mulekite groups who felt kingship was their right, and the recent experience of some Nephites under King Noah’s regime. Perhaps most poignant, though, was his recent translation of the Jaredite record.

Knowing something about how the Nephite judges were probably elected is useful for several reasons. It helps in comparing and contrasting the Nephite system of government with other political regimes, and it illuminates significant causes and effects in the internal narrative of Nephite history.

The account of Nehor’s life and death is deeply embedded in the context of Nephite law. John W. Welch has explored at length how Nehor’s trial and execution are illuminated by looking at both biblical law in general and Nephite law in particular.

If the Amalekites and the Amlicites are indeed the same group, then two mysteries in the Book of Mormon are resolved: (1) what happened to the Amlicites, and (2) who are the Amalekites. It would seem that, rather than completely disappearing after the death of their leader (Alma 2:31), the Amlicites continued as a distinct sub-group among the Lamanites. Cooperating with Lamanites and Amulonites, they had built a city (Alma 21:2). They also “built synagogues after the order of the Nehors” (Alma 21:4), thereby continuing to perpetuate the same ideology as Amlici, who himself is introduced as being “after the order” of Nehor (Alma 2:1).

As explored in a previous KnoWhy, the issue of racial identity and ethnicity in the Book of Mormon is complex.2 Readers should avoid simplistic approaches that fail to appreciate the nuances of ancient cultural, religious, racial, and ethnic sensibilities. Readers are vulnerable to misread completely the Nephite record if uncritically assumed modern attitudes or outlooks on race and multiculturalism go unchecked. Poor readings do a great disservice to those who want a fuller and more accurate picture of both Nephite and Lamanite culture.

Alma’s use of the phrase “bands of death” in conjunction with “chains of hell” (heveli-mot and heveli-sh'ol), neither of which are found in the KJV Bible, can be understood as further evidence that he, like Abinadi, was likely to have been aware of certain nuances of biblical Hebrew.

It is reasonable that Alma’s powerful address to the church in Zarahemla was given in connection with the observation of a sabbatical year, as called for under Israelite tradition. As such, Alma presented his series of introspective questions as part of a covenant renewal ceremony, possibly involving admission into the temple precinct. Alma’s speech came in the ninth year of the reign of the judges, 42 years after King Benjamin’s covenant renewal address, or in the sixth sabbatical year since then. That would have been the final sabbatical year before the Nephite celebration of the jubilee year, the fiftieth year after King Benjamin’s speech. This is conceivably why Alma was keen to quote and echo Benjamin in his speech, and this may also explain why there were exactly fifty questions – as a means of spiritual preparation for the jubilee.

These events during the early years of the reign of judges are reflective of many larger tensions going on within Zarahelma. Understanding these pressures is crucial because they shape and impact Nephite history for the next 100 years. Alma successfully drew upon his personal and professional awareness of both sides of these political, social, legal, military, and religious pressures, as he wisely led his people and strengthened the church “according to the order of God” (Alma 6:1).

In Alma 7, the Chief Priest Alma delivered words that discharged his three-fold commission to speak openly to the people of Gideon about the way of the Lord, his paths, and the coming of the Son of God. In speaking profoundly and prophetically, Alma alludes to three uses of the word “path” from the Israelite temple tradition found especially in the Psalms and in Isaiah: the Lord’s paths of righteousness that lead to him, the path or sacred way that leads to the temple, and the path that the Lord will use in coming upon the face of the earth.

It is clear that Alma the high priest pronounced a blessing upon Amulek and his household because Amulek had fed and filled him. Alma, having generously received, offers a generous blessing in return. In contrast, it is interesting that, in a later Jewish story, “when Rabbi Zadok ate only a small portion of food, he didn’t say the blessing afterward, probably because Deuteronomy 8:10 calls for a blessing only if one has eaten and is full.” The Book of Mormon specifically says, “Alma ate bread and was filled” before he gave his blessing (Alma 8:22).

Though some commentators have called it the “Lehitic covenant,” the essence of the covenantal promise is the same as that given to Israel as a whole. Variations of the promise “that ye may prosper in all that ye do” are frequently found in God’s covenant with the people of Israel, most notably in Deuteronomy. Proverbs 14:34 states, “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”

The description of Amulek’s household is not mere trivia. Later in the account, Alma and Amulek were forced to witness the horrendous execution of those who believed their preaching. This included women and children, and apparently members of Amulek’s own family (Alma 14:8–15). By describing his family earlier in the account, the narrative deeply humanizes Amulek and his anguish.

At a crass level, Zeezrom may have attempted to bribe Amulek for several debating reasons: to taunt, fluster, or distract his opponent. It is unimaginable that Amulek would accept such a blatant bribe. The law of Moses, in Exodus 23:8, specifically forbids Israelites from accepting bribes (“gifts” in the King James Version), and Psalm 15:5 insists that those who wish to enter holy space (the temple or “holy hill” of the Lord) must reject bribes and other extortionary practices.

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 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.

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.

Altars are mentioned only three times in the Book of Mormon. 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). 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).

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.

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. 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.”

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. 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).

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.

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.

In 2013, John L. Sorenson concluded, “At least for a century or more for the Mesoamerican Late Pre-Classic period (ca. 100 BC–AD 50) the Book of Mormon record portrays its peoples in a political situation that sounds very much like” that of major Mesoamerican centers at the time. Indeed, Martin and Grube affirmed that at least “elements” of the Classic Maya political system, “took root in various parts of Mesoamerica between 100 BC and AD 100.” The Lamanites’ hierarchy of kings, as one scholar concluded, “fit[s] very comfortably into a Mesoamerican context.”

The sophistication and intricacy of Mormon’s record can easily be discerned in these chapters. Briefly said, “These flashbacks are yet another evidence of the complexity of the Book of Mormon. It is quite remarkable how these historical accounts fit so neatly together.” There is no fumbling or confusion on Mormon’s part, who, despite the “twists and turns of [the] narrative . . . handles them smoothly.”

After disrupting the narrative with this “geography word map,” as archaeologist V. Garth Norman has called it, Mormon said, “And now I, after having said this, return again to the account of Ammon and Aaron, Omner and Himni, and their brethren” (Alma 22:35). It is clear from this that Mormon knew he had interrupted the narrative flow. Given the limited space, and careful way Mormon crafted his text, he must have had good reasons for inserting these details, along with the hundreds of other references to geography found throughout the text.

Taking the name Anti-Nephi-Lehi was a public statement made by this group of converts that they had independently stepped away from the well-established political order. This bold step could not be kept secret for long. This coronation name may have served several purposes, one of which could have been to signal their solidarity with their new Nephite friends and allies.

It is possible that the symbolism of the number seven had been maintained over the years in Lamanite traditions, or it could have entered this covenantal ceremony from Ammon’s teachings based on the frequent use of the number seven in the plates of brass. Either way, it would have communicated to the God of Israel the seven-fold completeness of the commitment of these Ammonites to never again stain their swords with blood.

The presence of all of these scriptural quotations, paraphrases and allusions in Ammon’s words raises the question: why would Ammon borrow so much from past traditions as he expressed his own genuine feelings? There are many possible reasons. Here are few to think about.

In keeping with biblical law, the newly-formed Anti-Nephi-Lehies would have required land in order to live the law of Moses or otherwise be subject to rules of inheritance and other property laws. On a more practical level, they required protection from Lamanite and Amlicite aggression, which would have most easily come after being securely stationed in their own land. The Anti-Nephi-Lehies were, essentially, refugees displaced by religious and political strife in need of protection and support. In following the earlier instructions of Benjamin and Alma, the Nephites imparted their substance to the Anti-Nephi-Lehies according to their need (Mosiah 4:17–19; 18:29).

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.

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).

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.

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. Being the defendant, Korihor would have seen any failure by Alma to produce compelling evidence as a vindication of Korihor's entire case.

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. By calling on the Lord’s name ten times, Alma called upon His perfect power to aid them in their mission.

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).

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.” These articles of faith, what one might well call the core of the Nephite Creed, 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).

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.”

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).

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).” 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.

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.

The way that Alma’s sermons tie into the ancient traditions of the Jewish Passover provides evidence of his conscious awareness of and adherence to the righteous “traditions of [his] fathers” (Alma 3:11). Moreover, recognizing the sacred, ceremonial nature of these patriarchal moments of heart-felt testimony, instruction, and exhortation may help explain the remarkable sophistication and elegance of the literary and rhetorical forms used by Alma on this occasion.

Corianton’s sin was a composite crime of sexual immorality and leading others into apostasy through neglecting the ministry, being unfaithful to his priesthood calling, and setting a poor example. The crime of leading others into apostasy through sinful behavior was, in Alma’s view, next to shedding innocent blood and denying the Holy Ghost in seriousness. Given that he himself was once guilty of that particular crime (Mosiah 27; Alma 36), Alma’s pleading with Corianton to repent is all the more powerful (Alma 39:9–13).

Recognizing the historical controversy that surrounded the doctrine of the resurrection can help readers better understand the root cause of Corianton’s confusion. His concern over this doctrine was not likely due to casual curiosity or mere inquisitiveness. It seems, rather, that he was surrounded by philosophical and theological ideologies that directly contradicted a foundational tenet of his father’s religion. Corianton’s immoral behavior can also be meaningfully correlated to his concerns and doubts that threatened his faith in Jesus Christ, the reality of His death, the resurrection, and the final judgment.

Some readers may view the legal statutes of the Old Testament as irrelevant or obsolete, but Alma’s exhortation demonstrates that their fundamental principles are eternally relevant. Clearly, a divine implementation of talionic justice will be the guiding principle of restoration as it relates to final judgment and the resurrection. For example, people will receive forgiveness as they have forgiven (Matthew. 6:12); and people will be judged by the way they have judged others (Matthew. 7:1). Awareness of this principle can deepen appreciation for how, even though the application of truth may vary, “God is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Mormon 9:9).

Corianton had bought into the wrong "plan" (as had Zeezrom in Alma 12), and thus Alma's sermon, in order to turn his son back onto the true path, needed to state the totality of the true plan. Even if someone isn’t aware of this tenfold thread, the subconscious effect of its tenfold repetition allows the spirit to gather momentum to a very satisfying conclusion and convincing admonition. Alma's words had a very salutary effect on Corianton. This emphatic element may be one of the reasons why these words left such an indelible impression on his son and still leave such a powerful impact on readers today.

Moroni’s age likely played a crucial role in the Nephites’ military successes. As a young military captain, he was particularly open to applying and adapting military technology present or emerging within wider society. Similarly, younger leaders today may have an advantage in using innovative technologies to further the Lord’s work. Elder David A. Bednar taught, “The youth can offer much to older individuals who are uncomfortable with or intimidated by technology.”

As explored in a previous KnoWhy, the nature of oaths and oath-making in the Book of Mormon closely follows an ancient Near Eastern pattern. This includes a sometimes life-or-death seriousness when it comes to making and keeping covenants and oaths. A close reading of Alma 44 reveals that Moroni’s interaction with Zerahemnah followed the same pattern.

In the cases of Samuel and King Mosiah, the moral was not necessarily that kingship was or is inherently evil. Rather those histories show that when the people would not take counsel from the Lord, their desire for worldly monarchs readily led to sorrow and destruction. In both narratives, the Lord, through an appointed prophet, counseled the people to either adopt or maintain a specific political system—in these cases, a system of judges.

Ultimately, Moroni’s war banner and quotation of Jacob went together to effectively legitimate the Nephite cause. “Moroni pulled out all the stops with the title of liberty,” Hull clarified. With his title of liberty, Moroni reminded his soldiers that they were fighting for three ultimate values: their God and religion, their liberty and peace, and their women and children.

President Thomas S. Monson, in the July 2016 Ensign, gave a First Presidency Message entitled: “True to the Faith of Our Forefathers.” The suggested applications of this message include exploring the qualities of people that we admire, whether they be ancestors, family, friends, Church leaders, or figures from the Scriptures. The article provides an example of a hero from the Scriptures: “Perhaps you love Captain Moroni’s courage.” Clearly, Captain Moroni is a figure that Mormon considered to be a righteous role model.

Exploring the political backdrop of Nephite military campaigns can help readers better understand their success over the Lamanites.

When viewed in an ancient context, it begins to make sense why the Book of Mormon would focus so closely on war.

As the frequency and complexity of war increased, there became a greater need for the Nephites to fortify themselves against Lamanite attacks. Under these circumstances, Moroni did not settle for simple or basic fortifications. As LDS author and educator, John Bytheway, pointed out, “it wasn’t just heaps and timbers, but heaps, timbers, pickets, and towers that created places of security.” Comparison with the defensive features in contemporary Mesoamerica suggests that Moroni employed all the available methods of his time to protect and fortify his people.

Recognizing that legal statutes in the ancient world were often seen as permanent, divinely inspired, and covenant-related can help readers better contextualize the political factionalism found in Alma 51. This dispute was about far more than a suggested alteration of legal minutiae. Rather, the king-men’s radical proposal to reverse King Mosiah’s inspired system of judges would have encroached upon both political and religious fundamental norms and freedoms.

Halverson felt that this story illustrated the importance of minute details. “The seemingly small details in the text of the Book of Mormon matter.” The exact date of the event is a seemingly minor point, but Mormon goes out of his way to include it. It must have been important. No better day could have been chosen by Teancum for his slaying to have the maximum amount of negative impact on Lamanite morale.

Visualizing an army of adolescents, ranging from early teens, or even preteens, to about 20, adds emphasis to key points in the narrative. It heightens Helaman’s fears “that my little sons should fall into [Lamanite] hands” and his reluctance to send them into battle (Alma 56:39). Hence, they must plead with him, “let us go,” arguing, “God is with us, and he will not suffer that we should fall” (v. 46).

In a straightforward reaction, Ammoron threatened to hold Moroni personally accountable for the death of his brother, Amalickiah. Teancum was one of Moroni’s warriors, and although he apparently acted on his own initiative, Ammoron would have naturally invoked his traditional rights and duties to avenge the death of his brother. He tried to do this by putting Moroni on notice that he was a hunted man.

A careful reading of Moroni’s epistle can help demonstrate that, rather than going back on his word, Moroni was likely justified in withdrawing his offer. Ammoron had utterly refused the most essential part of the bargain—to cease the war—and Moroni was certainly not going to “grant unto him that he shall have any more power than what he hath got” (Alma 55:2).

Many aspects of military theory are universal across time and space. Nonetheless, proper understanding and expertise in the strategy and tactics of war requires years of study, extensive training, and real-life experience. Joseph Smith lacked that kind of background, yet several modern readers with just such qualifications have found that the Book of Mormon accounts of wartime strategy are strikingly realistic.