Book of Mormon Central

KnoWhy #43

Lucifer from Milton's Paradise Lost by Gustave Dore (1866)

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”

2 Nephi 24:12; Isaiah 14:12

The Know

The Book of Mormon includes a stark portrayal of Satan, or the devil as he is more commonly called in the text.1 Satan’s main desire, according to Book of Mormon prophets, is to make “all men . . . miserable like unto himself” (2 Nephi 2:27). This he does by leading men and women into sin, lulling them into a carnal security, blinding them towards the things of God, and stirring up strife and contention in the hearts of the children of men.2

Some have wondered how the Book of Mormon has such a vivid depiction of Satan while the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible appears to lack a concrete conception of him.3 While it is true that Satan (or “the satan”) appears in such passages as Numbers 22, Job 1–2, Zechariah 3, and 1 Chronicles 21, biblical scholars have argued over whether this figure is necessarily an evil entity opposed to God, and, if so, whether his identity and function evolved over time in ancient Israelite religion.4

The non-Mormon biblical scholar G. J. Riley explained, “In the Hebrew Bible, one finds the concept of the ‘adversary’ (Heb. śāṭān) in two senses: that of any (usually human) opponent, and that of Satan, the Devil, the opponent of the righteous.”5 That śāṭān in Hebrew can refer to both mortal and divine adversaries (who may or may not always necessarily be evil) has led to conflicting interpretations of the Old Testament passages in which he appears.

Despite this ambiguity, there exist underlying conceptions from ancient Near Eastern mythology that may help us understand the role of Satan in the Bible. Riley explained, “The Biblical idea that God and the righteous angels confronted the opposition of a great spiritual enemy, the Devil backed by the army of the demons, had a long history and development in the ancient world. Very old stories of conflict among the gods are found in each of the cultures which influenced the Biblical tradition, and these stories . . . contributed to the concept of the Devil.”6 Riley mentioned specifically Mesopotamian and Canaanite myths that feature a head deity fighting back the forces of chaos, death, and evil as underlying elements in the biblical depiction of Yahweh fighting against “terrifying but legitimate spirits of calamity, disease, and death.”7

Indeed, it appears that ancient Israelites did possess an understanding of demons or other evil deities that opposed God (NRSV Leviticus 16:8; 17:7; Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 106:37–38; Isaiah 13:21; 34:14).8They likewise understood God as combatting sea monsters and waters that personified chaos and destruction (NRSV Psalm 74:12-17; 89:9-12; 93:3-4; Job 26:12-13; Isaiah 27:1; 51:9-10).9 In later biblical writings the chaos monster, "the great dragon" or "old serpent," would come to be explicitly identified as Satan (Revelation 12:1-11).

Turning to the Book of Mormon, it is important to note that Lehi “supposed” the existence of Satan based on reading something he encountered in the plates of brass. “And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God” (2 Nephi 2:17, emphasis added). It appears that Lehi was referencing this passage in Isaiah: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations!” (2 Nephi 24:12; Isaiah 14:12).

The name rendered as “Lucifer” (Latin for “light-bearer”) in the Hebrew text is Helel ben Shachar (hēylēl ben šāḥar) and literally means “shining one, son of dawn.” This links him with “a Canaanite myth of the gods Helel and Shahar . . . who fall from heaven as a result of rebellion” (cf. Genesis 6:1–4),10 as well as a deity from the ancient Near East identified as “a star in the constellation . . . associated with Ištar and through which passes Venus” (cf. Job 38:6–7).11

The LDS biblical scholar David Bokovoy explained, “[Lehi] would need to have a biblical text that described a fallen angel. Such a view appears in Isaiah 14. This biblical passage is a lament, mocking the death of the Assyrian king from the time of Isaiah.” According to Bokovoy, “Even though this text refers directly to an Assyrian monarch who tried to make himself a divine being like the most High God, the taunt is based upon an ancient Canaanite motif of a literal divinity who tried to ascend to the throne of El, the highest god in the divine assembly.”12

Another LDS scholar, John A. Tvedtnes, wrote, “Lucifer’s attempt to sit on the holy mountain reflects his desire to become part of the heavenly council.”13 In the words of one biblical scholar, he tried to “sit enthroned on the mountain where the assembly of gods met . . . in effect as the king of the gods.”14 For his presumption, Lucifer, the mythological personification of perhaps the Assyrian king Sargon II (circa 722–705 BC),15 was cast down to the underworld, where he was to be stripped of his power and prestige, mocked by those he once oppressed, and ultimately defeated by Yahweh (Isaiah 14:15–23; 2 Nephi 24:15–23).

Knowing, as he did, the essential story of the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (2 Nephi 2:15–27), Lehi knew of “the captivity and power of the devil” (v. 27), who was “the father of all lies” (v. 18). He also knew that the devil and wickedness were in “opposition” to God and his righteousness (vv. 11–13). But where the devil had come from was not explicitly stated in Genesis.16 Perhaps puzzling over this very gap in the records known to him, and with the contextual background to Isaiah 14:12 in mind, it is easy to see how Lehi could have “supposed” the existence of the devil, an angel or divine being who opposed God and so fell to the lowest world (hell). Lehi’s cogent explanation was then picked up by his sons Nephi and Jacob and perpetuated and developed further by subsequent Book of Mormon prophets and authors.

The Why

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.”17With these two scriptural records combined, we are better prepared to withstand the Adversary and his minions.

On a theological or even literary level, the Book of Mormon appears to draw from Isaiah 14 in its own conception of Satan, which in turn drew some of its imagery or inspiration from a wider ancient Near Eastern mythological environment. Lehi thus seems to have made the same theological innovation that Jews returning from the Babylonian Exile not long after him would go on to make.

Or perhaps this conception of the Evil One was already beginning to circulate among the prophets in Jerusalem in Lehi’s day, thereby allowing it to emerge strongly and without any resistance in later biblical writings. Of course, the “historical approach to the concept of Satan as an evolutionary theological development in Judaism raises the question of whether the Book of Mormon’s references to the Devil should be seen as anachronistic,” but as Bokovoy has acknowledged, “a careful reading of the Book of Mormon, however, shows that in this instance, the Book of Mormon seems to reflect the way biblical scholars who read the Hebrew Bible critically understand this issue.”18

The Know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Why

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Images

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

Podcast:

PDF:

What is it to Speak with the Tongue of Angels.pdf

Tags:

Ancient Israelite Religion

KnoWhy #65

“These plates are called the plates of Jacob, and they were made by the hand of Nephi.”

Jacob 3:14

The Know

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Why

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Know

The Book of Mormon has much to say about priesthood authority, especially in the book of Mosiah.1 The words “priest” or “priesthood” appear only four times in the books that come before Mosiah, a total of only 3.2 percent of the total mentions in a section of the book that makes up 27 percent of the whole.2 In Mosiah, the text repeatedly asserts that Alma the Elder, and his son Alma after him, acts in his church duties with “authority from God.”3 Why this emphasis on priesthood authority? Where did this authority come from?

These questions become especially poignant when we remember that there were no Levites among the children of Lehi. The Levites were the tribe of Israel who, by lineal descent, were official bearers of the priesthood. They had the right, by birth, to officiate in the lesser, or Aaronic, priesthood, which is why it is often called the Levitical Priesthood.

This priesthood was passed from father to son within the tribe of Levi, down to the time of Christ, and beyond. However, this was not the only way for a man to be given authority by God. Prophets such as Abraham and Elijah, and the priest Melchizedek, spoke and acted in the name of God, although they were not Levites.

The Book of Mormon begins essentially with two families, that of Lehi and Ishmael. Both were descendants of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:14; 2 Nephi 3:4; Ether 13:7), with Lehi being a descendant of Manasseh (Alma 10:3) and Ishmael said to be of Ephraim.4 Thus, none of the descendants of Lehi could have had access to the Levitical Priesthood that officiated in the temple and performed sacrifices in Jerusalem at the time of Lehi. However, the Book of Mormon narrative depicts, early on, the Nephites building temples (2 Nephi 5:16) and living the Law of Moses, with all its rituals and ordinances (2 Nephi 5:10; 25:24–25, 30).5

Although the Book of Mormon says nothing about Lehi or Nephi being ordained to the priesthood, the Nephites apparnetly did have a priesthood order with authority that they believed was given to them by God. Nephi consecrated his younger brothers as priests (2 Nephi 5:26), and Jacob clearly considered his consecration as priest to be “after [God’s] holy order” (2 Nephi 6:2). The Book of Mosiah presents a similar situation when Alma the Elder as high priest, specified “that none received authority to preach or to teach except it were by him from God” (Mosiah 23:16–17).

Alma the Younger later taught that this priesthood order was the high priesthood “after the order of [God’s] Son,” an order the great priest-king Melchizedek exemplified (Alma 13:1–19). The Melchizedek Priesthood did not need to be passed in succession from father to son, as did the Levitical Priesthood, although it often was (see, e.g., Mosiah 2:11; 6:3). The Levitical Priesthood was passed on from generation to generation within the tribe of Levi. The Melchizedek Priesthood, however, was given only to “just men” (Mosiah 23:17), “on account of their exceeding faith and good works” (Alma 13:3). Lehi, a just man and prophet of God, apparently brought this priesthood authority with him from Jerusalem and passed it on to Nephi, who subsequently ordained his brothers, Jacob and Joseph.6

The Why

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.

As he looked back over the history of his people, Mormon knew of the importance of being ordained by those in authority, as he knew how the Savior had ordained priesthood leaders in 3 Nephi 11:21, and gave them power in 3 Nephi 18:37 and Moroni 2:1-3:4.

The fact that the Nephites possessed the Melchizedek priesthood proved to be a blessing to them. The Israelites sometimes suffered under wicked and corrupt priests of the Levitical order because these had a lineal right to their office.7In Nephite history, however, the priesthood authority of one wicked lineage or leader woud end and pass to a more righteous and faithful one. For example, priesthood authority passed through the lineage of Jacob, which ended when Jacob's lineage had become "wicked" (Omni 1:2). It was then transfered to Benjamin, because he was “a just man before the Lord” (Omni 1:25).

In the middle of the book of Mosiah, although the righteous leader Zeniff had apparently been given authority to consecrate priests, his son Noah abused that privilege, dismissing his father’s priests and appointing corrupt ones in their stead (Mosiah 11:5). The narrative depicts, on the one hand, the swift downfall of the Zeniffite line of authority, with Limhi considering himself without authority to baptize, and on the other hand, the god-protected rise of a righteous lineage in the person of Alma and his descendants. Although Alma had been part of Noah’s council of wicked priests, he repented and God validated the priesthood to which he had legitimately been ordained (Mosiah 18:13, 17–18). The book of Mosiah also makes a point of mentioning that Alma's authority to organize and regulate the covenant communities in Zarahemla was recognized by King Mosiah (Mosiah 26:12) and confirmed by the voice of the Lord (Mosiah 26:14).

The record found throughout the Book of Mosiah, especially the story of King Noah and his priests, add a powerful witness to the lament expressed in Doctrine and Covenants 121:39:

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

When wicked men rule, the people mourn. As the book of Mosiah notes, when long lines of wicked Jaredite kings kept indefinite political or ecclesiastical authority, the people will inevitably suffer. At the end of the book of Mosiah, King Mosiah justified ending his kingship in Zarahemla saying, “because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!” (Mosiah 29:16–18; cf. 29:30–31). Mosiah having been both a king and a priest, these words apply to all who are given authority and exercise it unrighteously.

The book of Mosiah highlights the necessity of righteous living for the exercise of priesthood power and authority. Both King Benjamin and his son, Mosiah, were chosen and able to act with the authority of God because they were righteous leaders who obeyed God’s commandments. Alma the Elder and also his son, Alma, were only able to do God’s work as high priests after they had repented and recommitted themselves to His service. These are powerful examples to us today, and the establishment of the foundational doctrine that men must be given priesthood power to act in God's name is one of the overriding themes of the book of Mosiah, which in turn sets the stage for all that will follow in the book of Alma and all the rest of the Book of Mormon.

The Know

When Alma addressed the people of Ammonihah, he reminded them of “the tradition of [their] fathers,” which included the promise: “Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land … Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord” (Alma 9:8, 13). This promise permeates the Book of Mormon and serves as a driving thesis in Mormon’s record.

The first and most detailed expression of this promise is found in 1 Nephi 2:20–24, where the Lord gave this promise to Nephi. In blessing his posterity, Lehi confirmed that this promise had also been given to him. “For the Lord God hath said: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence” (2 Nephi 4:4; 1:20).

Most expressions of the promise throughout the Book of Mormon best match Lehi’s simple declaration, rather than Nephi’s fuller description of the promise.1 This suggests Lehi is the source from which later Nephites drew and Nephite tradition traced the promise back to him. Indeed, Alma called upon the people of Ammonihah to “remember the words which [the Lord] spake unto Lehi” (Alma 9:13, emphasis added).2

While prosperity is commonly associated with riches in today’s world, as it is at times in both the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 27:7; Alma 1:30–31) and Bible (Psalms 73:12), this is not what is meant by “prosper in the land.” The promise is structured as an antithetical parallelism wherein two parallel phrases express opposite meanings.3 Thus, comparing the two conditions side-by-side provides an important clue to what Lehi meant by the word “prosper”:

Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments,
ye shall prosper in the land;

but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments,
ye shall be cut off from my presence.

The parallel expressions “prosper in the land” and “cut off from [the Lord’s] presence” are clearly set up as opposites to each other. This indicates that prospering in the land is equivalent to having the Lord’s presence. That the Nephite record keepers understood this equivalence is shown by the way Amaron substitutes “ye shall be cut off from my presence” with “ye shall not prosper in the land” (Omni 1:6).

The Why

Though some commentators have called it the “Lehitic covenant,”4 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.5 Proverbs 14:34 states, “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”

The blessings of “prosperity” are meant to belong to all who keep their covenantal commitments. Sixty years ago, Professor Eldin Ricks noted, “The idea was not new to Nephi. Hebrew prophets had taught this truth to their listeners for many generations. … It is particularly prominent in the writings of the seventh and eighth-century prophets.”6 Thus, the promise of prosperity to the faithful is extended to the Lord’s children in all ages.

The specific Book of Mormon formulation of this promise clarifies that prospering is being blessed with the Lord’s strengthening and supporting presence, not simply in order to get rich or be successful. Though wealth and success can be byproducts of the Lord’s prospering presence, they are not meant to be equated with it. At its core, the English word “prosper” comes from the Latin pro spere, literally meaning “according to one’s hope” or “agreeable to one’s wishes,” meaning “fortunate” more than “wealthy.”7

Indeed, behind the English word “prosper” in the King James Bible usually stands one of two Hebrew words, either tsalach or sakal, meaning such things as to push forward, overtake, succeed, or advance, or to be skillful, wise, circumspect, or prosperous. Thus, assuming that either of these Hebrew words stood behind Alma’s concept of his word for “prosper,” for several reasons readers should see a wider range of meanings behind that word here than the acquisition of wealth.

One may be fortunate in many ways. Wealth and success are not the only ways the Lord prospers his people, nor are they exclusively the product of the Lord’s blessing. It is misguided, therefore, to think that any and all who are rich or successful are being blessed by the Lord’s hand while the poor and disenfranchised are cut off from his presence.

Within the meaning of the scriptures, perhaps most clearly so in the Book of Mormon, the Lord’s chosen people are known by their faithfulness and diligence to the commandments of the Lord and to the covenants they make to serve those around them.8

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

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

After censuring Corianton for his immoral and detrimental conduct (Alma 39:1–3), Alma perceived that his son’s “mind [was] worried concerning the resurrection of the dead” (Alma 40:1). Corianton’s concern is somewhat startling, though, considering that his father, Alma, was a prophet and the high priest over the land (Alma 5:3). Why would the son of a prophet struggle to understand one of the most fundamental doctrines of the gospel?

One likely possibility is that Corianton was exposed to religious philosophies that either dismissed or corrupted the true doctrine of the resurrection. Early in the Book of Mormon, Lehi and his son Jacob taught the reality of the resurrection explicitly (2 Nephi 2:8; 9:6).1 It seems, though, that sometime between the death of Jacob and the reign of King Mosiah a portion of the people rejected this teaching.2

For instance, the way Abinadi emphasized the resurrection when he confronted King Noah and his priests suggests that this doctrine was not being correctly or sufficiently taught among the people in the city of Nephi.3 Likewise, when Alma the Elder strove to perpetuate Abinadi’s teachings, many of the rising generation “did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead” (Alma 26:2).4

As a rebellious youth, Alma the Younger himself likely rejected the reality of the resurrection and was “numbered among the unbelievers” before his miraculous conversion (Mosiah 27:8). These types of textual clues indicate that some outside teaching or philosophy may have been competing against the true doctrine of the resurrection.

What is more certain is the way that Nehor negatively influenced attitudes toward this doctrine. Unlike Korihor, who completely denied the existence of God (Alma 30:2), Nehor introduced the concept that the “Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life” (Alma 1:4). Nehor’s divergent theology obviously had influenced the young Corianton’s views of resurrection and judgment, and yet it conflicted with the eternal laws of justice and judgment embedded in the true doctrine of the resurrection (see Alma 42:22).5

Despite his trial and execution,6 Nehor’s enticing doctrines became popular among the people—so much so that his philosophy was formally designated as “the order of Nehor” (Alma 14:16; 24:29). Unfortunately, Nehor’s heresy was promulgated by the Amlicites,7 who, by the time of Corianton’s ministry, had gained prominent influence.8

The Why

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.9

These topics had been of great concern to many people, not only to Corianton but also to Alma. Charting the development of the doctrine of resurrection in the Book of Mormon can also help us appreciate the new contributions of Alma’s teachings to his son. As noted earlier, Alma himself had once been an unbeliever. In order to satisfy his own questions or concerns about this issue, he had “inquired diligently of the Lord” (Alma 40:9). In response, the Lord sent an angel to enlighten him. From this experience, Alma was able to add the following insights to what was already written about the resurrection in the Book of Mormon:

No one is resurrected until after the coming of Christ (Alma 40:2).
There is a specific time appointed when every person will be resurrected, but only God knows that time (Alma 40:4, 9).
There will likely be multiple times of resurrection since there will be righteous people who live and die after Christ dies and is resurrected (Alma 40:5, 8).
Alma believed that the righteous till the time of Christ would be resurrected with Him (Alma 40:20).10

It is uncertain what Corianton’s specific beliefs were prior to his father’s exhortation, but, thematically speaking, Alma’s treasured instructions to Corianton helped him understand the systematic nature and crucial functions of the resurrection. Alma had clearly taught on several occasions that an essential part of the gospel was believing that through the resurrection all men shall eventually stand before God in their bodies to be judged according to their works while in the flesh (Alma 33:22; 40:22–26). Recognizing that Corianton and others were questioning and were worried about this very thing, Alma then patiently guided Corianton through the logical argument which explained the meaning of the word “restoration” (41:2–15) and defended the balance of justice and mercy inherent in this system (Alma 42).11

Similar to Corianton’s environment, modern society faces a host of misguided philosophies and false teachings which can threaten faith in true doctrines. Alma’s brilliant exposition powerfully demonstrates that true knowledge of sacred things cannot be inherited and is only obtained through diligent seeking and sincere prayer. In all of this, modern readers can learn much from Alma’s example of helping a loved one find meaningful answers to difficult and productive questions.

The Know

Helaman 5 gives an account of how Nephi, the son of Helaman, gave up the chief judgment-seat to go with his brother, Lehi, to preach the word of God to the “stiffnecked” Nephite people (Helaman 5:1–4). The text implies that Nephi chose to do this because he remembered some words of counsel from his father, Helaman, who had implored his sons to remember several important ideas and principles—the word “remember/remembered” is used fifteen times in this chapter.

One of these important principles that they were to remember was “that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation” (Helaman 5:12). This phrasing is common in the scriptures and is highly reminiscent of the language of the first generation of Lehites, after whom Helaman’s sons were named.1 The first Nephi, the son of the patriarch Lehi, had often referred to the Lord as the “rock.”2

This idea of Christ being a stone or rock that serves as a refuge or place of safety is also common in the Old Testament. Books such as the Psalms, Isaiah, and Deuteronomy, that the Lehites would likely have had access to on the plates of brass, use similar language. Note the following verses, for example:

But the Lord is my defense; and my God is the rock of my refuge. (Psalm 94:22)
Be thou my strong habitation, whereunto I may continually resort: thou hast given commandment to save me; for thou art my rock and my fortress. (Psalm 71:3)
For in the time of trouble he shall hide me in his pavilion: in the secret of his tabernacle shall he hide me; he shall set me up upon a rock. (Psalm 27:5)
And a man [i.e. the messianic king and those who rule with Him] shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. (Isaiah 32:2)
For thou hast been a strength to the poor, a strength to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat, when the blast of the terrible ones is as a storm against the wall. (Isaiah 25:4)

It is interesting to note that similar imagery is used as a warning to the wicked. They will need to hide themselves in the rocks in order to escape the wrath of the Lord when he comes to visit them in judgment. The Lord will bring a storm of lightning, hail, arrows, whirlwinds, and so on, to punish the wicked. A few representative verses include:

Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty. … For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low: … And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth. (Isaiah 2:10, 12, 19)
And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. (Revelation 6:15–16)
Thou shalt be visited of the Lord of hosts with thunder, and with earthquake, and great noise, with storm and tempest, and the flame of devouring fire. (Isaiah 29:6)

In these passages, it is the Lord who comes, in His wrath, with fire, hail, tempest and fury and the wicked must hide in the rocks. In Zechariah 9:14, the Lord is said to come specifically with “arrows” and with “whirlwinds.”3 This language is very similar to what Helaman says of Satan: “when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts [arrows] in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you” (Helaman 5:12, emphasis added). There are examples in the Bible where it is not the Lord Himself who comes in this manner. Isaiah 28:2 reads:

Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand.4

The verse does not specify to whom the Lord is referring, but the context indicates that the “mighty and strong one” is a reference to the Assyrian army, or perhaps to a specific Assyrian king whom the Lord is allowing to punish the rebellious northern kingdom of Israel (cf. Isaiah 10:5–6). The interesting thing to note, for our purposes, is that Isaiah 14 creates a parallel between a prideful king of Assyria and Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”).5

Satan often impersonates or imitates God in His different capacities. One striking example is in the Book of Moses 1:12–22, where Satan “came tempting” Moses, asking him to worship him, after Moses had just seen God in His great glory. When Moses refused, recognizing the difference in glory between God and Satan, the Evil One ranted and cried out: “I am the Only Begotten, worship me” (Moses 1:19). Moses continued resisting and called upon God, and then “Satan began to tremble, and the earth shook” before he “departed hence” (Moses 1:21–22).

The Why

In the imagery of the Hebrew Bible, the rocks are a place of refuge and safety from storms, hail, and arrows in the whirlwind, and the Lord is ultimately the rock and refuge of Israel. Scriptures such as Isaiah 25:4 describe Jehovah as a place of refuge from the storm, when times of trouble arise. Others, such as Isaiah 28, depict the Lord as the cornerstone of the temple, a sure foundation upon which to build. The imagery common to these passages, that the Lord is the Rock, inspires faith in the idea that despite all that the Adversary has to throw at believers, they can seek refuge and safety in Christ. They can be sure that if they build their lives upon Him, His Atonement, and His Gospel, they will be building on a safe and secure foundation.

In Helaman 5:12, Helaman described a situation in which Satan, instead of the Lord, is coming in wrath with storm, hail, and arrows in the whirlwind, in order to attack not the wicked, but the righteous. Satan has co-opted this function of Deity and attacks the righteous with all of his infernal power. Under these circumstances, Helaman desired that his sons, Nephi and Lehi, remember the important scriptural principle, one repeated many times in the words of prophets both from the Old World and the New, that Christ is the Rock a place of refuge, safety and stability. It is likely that Helaman would have expected that the imagery he used would have brought up many related scriptural passages to their minds, such as those discussed above.

Helaman’s words share this common background together with Jesus’ concluding parable of the wise man who built his house upon the rock. In 3 Nephi, Jesus declared that those who adhere to His doctrine and do the things that He commanded will be building upon His rock, “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them” (3 Nephi 11:39; cf. 14:24; 18:12–13).

As Nephi and Lehi went out to preach the gospel among a hardhearted people, they knew that Satan would do his best to tempt, discourage, and destroy them. They chose to rehearse these powerful words of their father in order to remind themselves in whom they could trust and upon what foundation they could build their spiritual house so that it would never be moved out of its place.

Elder Neil L. Andersen of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles recently admonished:

Don’t let the whirlwinds drag you down. … Build more firmly your foundation upon the rock of your Redeemer. … Embrace more deeply His love, His mercy and grace, and the powerful gifts of His Atonement. As you do, I promise you that you will see the whirlwinds for what they are—tests, temptations, distractions, or challenges to help you grow. And as you live righteously year after year, I assure you that your experiences will confirm to you again and again that Jesus is the Christ. The spiritual rock under your feet will be solid and secure.6

The Know

In trying to convince the people of Zarahemla to rectify the wickedness of their laws, Nephi appealed to the testimonies of those who long before had “testified of the coming of Christ” (Helaman 8:22). By doing so, he reminded the people of the laws of God. Corrupt judges were attempting to have Nephi put on trial (Helaman 8:1), but Nephi turned the tables on them by symbolically bringing them to trial instead.1

Because they had rejected the Law of Moses for their own unjust laws, the first witness he brought against them was Moses himself. After all, who could judge better than Moses if his laws were being negated? Nephi reminded them of the miracles Moses performed by the power of God (Helaman 8:11) and then pointed them toward the most important part of the Law of Moses: Christ. “Yea, did he not bear record that the Son of God should come? And as he lifted up the brazen serpent in the wilderness, even so shall he be lifted up who should come” (v. 14).2

Nephi then called his second witness, the Psalms, which he quotes in Helaman 8:15 (emphasis added): “And as many as should look upon that serpent should live, even so as many as should look upon the Son of God with faith, having a contrite spirit, might live, even unto that life which is eternal.” Here Nephi combined his comments on Moses with an allusion to Psalm 34:18–19 (emphasis added), talking about how Christ saved the people in the wilderness, and can still save them now: “The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.”3

His next witness was Abraham, the father of the covenant between Jehovah and his people: “Yea, and behold, Abraham saw of his coming, and was filled with gladness and did rejoice.” (Helaman 8:17) This statement may have a common background with the version of Genesis 15:2 found in the Joseph Smith Translation and evidently on the plates of brass: “And it came to pass, that Abram looked forth and saw the days of the Son of Man, and was glad, and his soul found rest.”4 Nephi then listed Zenos, Zenock, Ezias, Isaiah, and Jeremiah in quick succession. This list gave him the symbolically significant number of seven named witnesses from the plates of brass to support his witness of Christ.5

Nephi then moved from the Old World to the New World, using the very people in the audience as witnesses against themselves: “Now we know that Jerusalem was destroyed according to the words of Jeremiah. O then why not the Son of God come, according to his prophecy? And now will you dispute that Jerusalem was destroyed? Will ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not slain, all except it were Mulek? Yea, and do ye not behold that the seed of Zedekiah are with us, and they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem?” (Helaman 8:20–22).6

Because some people in the audience were descendants of Mulek, who left Jerusalem while it was being destroyed, they provided living witnesses to the truthfulness of Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Omni 1:15).7 And if Jeremiah’s prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem was correct, Nephi argued, surely his prophecy about the coming of Christ was also correct.

Nephi continued drawing from New World prophets, citing Lehi, Nephi, and those who followed them as additional witnesses. Finally, he called the heavens and the earth to witness what he had said. “In this ye have sinned, for ye have rejected all these things, notwithstanding so many evidences which ye have received; yea, even ye have received all things, both things in heaven, and all things which are in the earth, as a witness that they are true” (Helaman 8:24, emphasis added). This juridical move likely reflects the ancient Israelite practice manifest in Isaiah 1:2, “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.”8 Nephi’s indictment and calling of witnesses forms a superb example of what has been identified by many biblical scholars as a “prophet lawsuit.”9

The Why

Helaman 8 begins with the people nearly bringing Nephi to trial before local judges. But throughout this chapter, Nephi successfully called higher witnesses to testify against them before God instead. He formally put the people on divine trial, and pronounced them worthy of “everlasting destruction” but suspended the judgment if they would repent (Helaman 8:26).

Nephi knew that “at the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death” (Deuteronomy 17:6).10 But Nephi emphatically called many more than the required number of witnesses, urging the people to reject their flawed legal system and return to the laws authorized by God. That law was grounded in the scriptures to which he referenced so frequently.11

There are times in the Book of Mormon when prophets needed to stand up and criticize negative trends they saw around them. Sometimes, as in Nephi’s case, they stood alone. Many people might find themselves in a similar position in today’s world. But Nephi reminded readers of the Book of Mormon that they are never really alone in pushing back against corruption within society. Modern readers can, like Nephi, appeal to the scriptures and personal revelation in resisting any negative trends around them.

The Know

In Helaman 10, after revealing the murderer of the chief judge, Nephi the son of Helaman began to walk back to his house, pondering upon the wickedness of the people. As he was thinking about all that had just transpired, God reassured Nephi that his diligence did not go unnoticed (v. 3–5). Suddenly, God stated that His words to Nephi were being given “in the presence of [God’s] angels” (v. 6), and then it appears that God’s declaration to Nephi was being given in a temple (“if ye shall say unto this temple,” v. 8). These somewhat unexpected and often overlooked details suggest that Nephi was being shown a vision of the divine council inside a holy temple.

In ancient Israel, some prophets received visions in which they saw God’s “divine council,” a group composed of God and His “royal court” in heaven.1 Accounts of these experiences have similar elements: the prophet has a pressing need for help, often related to knowing how to help a wicked group of people.2 The prophet is in a temple or mountain setting.3 He sees the divine council, or a messenger from the council.4 The Lord reassures him and gives him knowledge.5 He is then empowered and called to speak and act on God’s behalf.6

Over the years, several LDS biblical scholars have noted continuities between these Israelite throne manifestations and the revelatory experiences of Book of Mormon prophets.7 Recently, David Bokovoy, one such LDS biblical scholar, explained that elements like these “provide a type of template for depicting an official encounter between witness and worshipper in preparation for the introduction to advanced revelatory truths.”8

Isaiah 6 is a good example of what this template looks like, as Stephen Ricks has carefully explained.9 Isaiah said that he, “saw ... the Lord sitting upon a throne … [in] the temple” (v. 1). God was surrounded by seraphs, which are heavenly beings (v. 2). This follows the pattern of seeing the divine council in a temple or mountain setting.10 Isaiah was concerned with knowing how to help the people be less wicked, saying that he lived “in the midst of a people of unclean lips” (v. 5). The Lord symbolically cleansed him and reassured him by telling him that his “iniquity [was] taken away” (v. 7). The Lord gave him information that some people would not be able to understand (v. 10). God also told him to “go, and tell this people” (v. 9).

Father Lehi had an experience very similar to this, as did his son Nephi.11 In Nephi’s case, the divine council experience in 1 Nephi 11 contains a detail that helps explain Helaman 10. It began as Nephi was “pondering” Lehi’s account of his dream in his “heart” (1 Nephi 11:1). Nephi was then spiritually transported to a high mountain where he had his divine council experience.12 The only other time something happened in the Book of Mormon as a character was “pondering” in his “heart,” was the experience of this later Nephi, in Helaman 10:3.13 According to the ancient Israelite writing style that Book of Mormon authors likely employed, this detail was a signal to the reader to read Helaman 10 in conjunction with and comparison to 1 Nephi 11.14

This comparison indicates that the experience of Nephi, the son of Helaman, in Helaman chapter 10 is yet another example of the sacred divine council experience. Nephi needed help, and was “pondering” how he could help eliminate “the wickedness of the people” (v. 3). He then found himself at a “temple” (v. 8) on a “mountain” (v. 9). Angels were present (v. 6). The Lord reassured him by telling him that he was “blessed” because he had been keeping God’s commandments (v. 4). God gave him religious truths and empowered him with the ability to “seal” and “loose” on “earth” and in “heaven” (v. 7). Finally, Nephi was called to speak and act on God’s behalf, being told to “go and declare” God’s words to the people (v. 11).

The Why

Seeing Nephi the son of Helaman as being admitted into the presence of the divine council explains the presence of angels, temples, mountains, and sealing in Helaman 10. As the leading Nephite prophet and high priest Nephi would have been familiar with the Israelite temple traditions, having officiated over the main temple in Zarahemla, the temple King Benjamin, Mosiah, Alma, and Helaman used.

Moreover, Nephi was “much cast down because of the wickedness of the people of the Nephites” (Helaman 10:3). Considering that he had narrowly escaped being put to death and that the Gadianton robbers had killed the chief judge, his great concern and need for divine guidance and reassurance was certainly a reasonable response.

Yet it was during this difficult time of personal obedience and sacrifice that Nephi not only heard God’s voice (Helaman 10:3) but had an expansive prophetic experience with the Lord and His heavenly host. Nephi’s profound story reminds readers that sometimes the most spiritual experiences only come after the most painful experiences.

Joseph B. Wirthlin stated, referring to Christ’s crucifixion,

Each of us will have our own Fridays—those days when the universe itself seems shattered and the shards of our world lie littered about us in pieces. We all will experience those broken times when it seems we can never be put together again. We will all have our Fridays. But I testify to you in the name of the One who conquered death—Sunday will come. In the darkness of our sorrow, Sunday will come. No matter our desperation, no matter our grief, Sunday will come. In this life or the next, Sunday will come.

During what may have been one of Nephi’s darkest moments, God blessed Nephi, who swore an oath to Nephi in His own name that He would always be with him and answer his prayers.15 This is a powerful reminder of God’s personal care and covenantal reassurance in the darkest of times. This principle is as true for readers of the Book of Mormon today as it was for Nephi the son of Helaman shortly before the birth of Christ.

The Know

In his abridgment of the book of Helaman, Mormon declared that “the scriptures began to be fulfilled” when angels started to appear to the people in the ninetieth year of the reign of the judges (Helaman 16:14). In making this statement, one of the scriptures that Mormon may have been referring to is Alma 13:26, in which Alma declared that the coming of Christ “shall be made known unto just and holy men, by the mouth of angels,” just as it had been made known unto their fathers.

Mention of the appearance of angels bringing information concerning the coming of the Savior into the world recurs frequently in the Book of Mormon. In 1 Nephi 11–14, an angel interpreted for Nephi the vision of his father, Lehi, and showed him the coming of Christ into the world and the fulfillment of Christ’s mission among mortals.1

Nephi wrote that an angel had told him (or his father) that “the God of Israel” would come six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem (1 Nephi 19:8). An angel told Nephi’s brother, Jacob, that the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, would come in the flesh to the Jews at Jerusalem and that they would scourge and crucify Him (2 Nephi 6:9). 2 Nephi 10:3 records a revelation to Jacob in which an angel told him that the One whose coming he was shown would be called “Christ.”2 Similarly, Nephi related that, according to “the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (2 Nephi 25:19).

King Benjamin, in his great speech to his people, told of how an angel had come to him and declared the “glad tidings of great joy,” of how “the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men” (Mosiah 3:5), and that He would perform great miracles, including the atoning sacrifice and the Resurrection (vv. 3–11).

When the coming of the expected Savior was finally near, the Book of Mormon record indicates that the scriptures began to be fulfilled, and angels began (again) to appear to “wise men” (Helaman 16:14).3 One of these chosen men was the prophet and high priest Nephi, son of Nephi, grandson of Helaman, of whom the record states that “so great was his faith on the Lord Jesus Christ that angels did minister unto him daily” (3 Nephi 7:18).

The Why

Why did Mormon interrupt his narrative to specify that angels began to appear to wise men? The fact that angels had come to Nephite prophets in the past and were prophesied to come in the future must have been generally known in Nephite societies. For example, when Aaron preached about Christ to the Amlicites (a group of Nephite apostates) in Alma 21, even they immediately supposed that he had received an angelic visit.4 Alma 21:5 states that “there arose an Amlicite and began to contend with him, saying: What is that thou hast testified? Hast thou seen an angel?”5

On an earlier occasion, Alma had reminded his opponents in Ammonihah of another reason why angels are sent. The Lord sends angels to mortals because of their “faith and repentance and their holy works” (Alma 12:30; cf. Alma 11:31).

Mormon likely had episodes such as one in Helaman 16 in mind at the time when he summarized the several reasons why God sent angels to declare the coming of Christ:

For behold, God … sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ … Wherefore, by the ministering of angels, and by every word which proceeded forth out of the mouth of God, men began to exercise faith in Christ; … and thus it was until the coming of Christ (Moroni 7:22, 25).

Mormon knew that our merciful Father in Heaven desired that His children have the ability to recognize the signs of the coming of Christ, whether it was in the time of father Lehi, the prophet Samuel, in Mormon’s own time, or in the days leading up to Christ’s Second Coming. Our unchanging God would always send angels to visit worthy individuals who would have the faith, strength, and wisdom (hence “wise men”) to declare the “glad tidings” and fortify the faith of those who have not had the same eye-witness manifestation.

The Know

In the thirty and fourth year, Mormon carefully documented “a great and terrible tempest … terrible thunder … exceedingly sharp lightnings” and “thick darkness,” even a “vapor of darkness” which could be felt, and prevented the lighting of fire (3 Nephi 8:6–7, 20–22). This had been predicted in detail by prophets such as Nephi son of Lehi, Zenos, and Samuel the Lamanite.1

In the 1960s, Hugh Nibley compared these Book of Mormon accounts to descriptions of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.2 Since that time, several other scholars, including many professional geologists, have examined these accounts and widely agreed that the three-day darkness and other destructive forces described in the Book of Mormon accounts involve a volcanic eruption.3

The main reason for this is the three-day period of darkness.4 Geologists who have studied the 3 Nephi 8 account generally agree that nothing except volcanic ash and dust clouds could account for the three days of darkness, as it is described.5 Not only the darkness, but the excessive lightning, thundering, tempest, and many other features can all be explained by volcanic activity.6

In the most recent and thorough analysis by a professional geologist, Jerry Grover, Jr. concluded, “In order to account for the destruction described in 3rd Nephi, it is clear that a volcano and a regional earthquake are indicated.”7 Earthquakes are known to trigger volcanic eruptions, especially when a volcano is located on or near a fault-line.8

After analyzing all the destructive elements mentioned in the Book of Mormon accounts, Grover determined that the best-fit scenario is a strike-slip fault zone, near a coast, with an active volcano nearby.9 There is at least one fault system in the Americas which meets these criteria: the Veracruz fault system in Mexico.10 Grover noted, “The Veracruz fault segment … is a strike-slip fault, … located on and adjacent to the coastal plains … [and] has a major volcano sitting directly on the fault system, the volcano San Martín.”11

In some Book of Mormon geography models, Veracruz, Mexico is part of the land northward, which experienced greater damage during the cataclysmic events (3 Nephi 8:12).12 Interestingly, while it is impossible to prove the exact timing of a volcanic eruption, current evidence indicates that the San Martín volcano likely experienced an eruption event in the first century AD.13 Further evidence suggests that during or around the first century AD, Mesoamerica experienced widespread volcanic activity.14

Additional evidence comes from ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica. While the estimated dates are still not exact, using ice cores “tends to be fairly good” with margins of error of only a few years.15 After examining documented dates for volcanic events in four different ice core samples, geologist Benjamin R. Jordan concluded, “There is evidence for large eruptions [somewhere in the world], within the margin of error, for the period of AD 30 to 40.”16

Ice cores, therefore, offer evidence that there was a major volcanic event close to the timing of Christ’s death.17 Yet ice cores have the drawback of not being able to pinpoint the location of the volcanic events they document from all around the world.18 A correlation to Mesoamerica, however, is possible, given the evidence already mentioned for extensive volcanic activity around this time.19

The Why

In graphic detail, the Book of Mormon documents a divinely caused natural disaster occurring at the time of Christ’s death that many geologists agree appears to have involved a volcanic eruption, most likely occurring simultaneously with an earthquake along a strike-slip fault line. Thus far, current geologic evidence supports the following conclusions:

At least one region in the Americas (Veracruz, Mexico) possessed the necessary geologic characteristics.
At least one volcano in that region (San Martín) appears to have erupted in the first century AD.
There was further volcanic activity in Mesoamerica in and around the first century AD.
Ice core samples indicate that a major volcanic event took place somewhere in the world around AD 30–40—around or close to the time of Christ’s death.

While none of this can be linked directly to the events described in 3 Nephi, it goes to show that, as with the sign at Christ’s birth,20 there is nothing scientifically implausible in the account given in 3 Nephi 8–10. In fact, the fulfillment of this prophesied volcanic disaster is strikingly realistic, especially its three days of smoky vapor and thick darkness.

Also, as was the sign of great light at the time of Christ’s birth, the profound darkness at his death and time in the tomb is strongly symbolic. Just as the “excessive light surrounding Christ’s birth acts as a kind of morning,” the “darkness surrounding Christ’s death acts as a kind of evening.”21 Alvin Benson aptly stated, “It appears that the earth was symbolically manifesting its gloom over the death of its creator.”22

But even the darkest of nights come to end. The darkness dissipated as the Savior conquered death, and within the year righteous Nephites and Lamanites witnessed the risen, glorified Lord in all his majesty (3 Nephi 11).

President Ezra Taft Benson taught, “The record of the Nephite history just prior to the Savior’s visit reveals many parallels to our own day as we anticipate the Savior’s second coming.”23 This statement warns readers of further societal decay and impending darkness and destruction. But it also enables them to glimpse the grandeur and glory that is to follow for the humble and penitent who come unto Christ.

The Know

In 3 Nephi 9, Christ spoke to the people, who were mourning in the darkness after the great destruction.1 Christ proclaimed that he would no longer accept animal sacrifices and burnt offerings (3 Nephi 9:17, 19). Instead, the Lord declared that he would receive a sacrifice of “a broken heart and a contrite spirit.”

Although this teaching never appears explicitly in the New Testament, Jesus was emphasizing adherence to the essential part of the law of sacrifice, one which had existed from ancient times and with which the righteous Nephites and Lamanites should have been familiar.

The requirement to sacrifice “a broken heart and a contrite spirit” is repeatedly stated in the Book of Mormon, not only by Jesus and Moroni after Christ’s coming,2 but also by the early Nephite patriarchs long before Christ’s birth.3 A broad range of Book of Mormon authors seem to have had an understanding of this important principle. Moreover, the teaching can be found in the Old Testament, especially in the Psalms, and thus may have been included on the plates of brass that Lehi’s family obtained in Jerusalem.4

Most notably, Psalm 51:17 states that “the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart.” Psalm 34:18 declares that “the Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” Isaiah 61:1, quoted by Jesus in Luke 4:18, declares the Lord’s mission to “bind up the brokenhearted.”

The principles presented in Psalm 51 seem to have been significant for a number of Nephite authors. Psalm 51:1 (“Have mercy upon me, O God … according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies”) is echoed in 1 Nephi 8:8. Various other elements of Psalm 51 find parallels in the account of Lehi’s dream.5

3 Nephi 9 also contains several elements in common with Psalm 51. The following chart illustrates some examples.

Element	3 Nephi 9	Psalm 51
Expression of God’s mercy	“mine arm of mercy is extended towards you” (v. 14)	“Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness” (v. 1)
Sinners’ bloodguiltiness (shedding of innocent blood)	“that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them” (vv. 5, 7–11)	“Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God” (v. 14)
Sinners punished/destroyed	“many great destructions have I caused to come upon this … people, because of their wickedness and abominations” (v. 12; see vv. 3–12)	“Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice” (v. 8, apparently God has broken the sinner's bones; see v. 4 also)
Salvation of righteous/repentant	“O all ye that are spared because ye were more righteous than they, will ye not now return unto me, and repent of your sins, and be converted, that I may heal you?” (v. 13, 21–22)	“Deliver me … O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness” (v. 14; cf. Psalm 34:16–22)
Lord hides His face from sin or hides sins from before His face	“to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face” (v. 5, 7, 8, 11)	“Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities” (v. 9)
Bestowal of Spirit accompanies sacrifice of broken heart, contrite spirit	“And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost” (v. 20)	“Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me” (vv. 10–12)

The parallels between 3 Nephi 9 and Psalm 51 (also Psalm 34) may suggest that Nephite prophets/authors such as Nephi and Mormon, and assuredly the Savior himself, knew well and advanced the principles taught in Psalm 51 as crucial elements of the process of repentance from sin and reconciliation with God. The appearance of these principles in the Book of Mormon demonstrates that those who composed its writings understood that having “a broken heart and a contrite spirit” was an essential part of the law of sacrifice long before Christ gave commands in this regard in 3 Nephi 9.

The Why

If these Nephites were already aware of the idea of sacrificing a broken heart and a contrite spirit, based on ancient scriptures such as Psalm 51 and the teachings of their prophets, why did Jesus emphasize this principle when speaking from the heavens in 3 Nephi 9?

BYU Professor Dana Pike asked a similar question: “With an understanding that the gospel of Christ was on the earth from the beginning, and that the offering of a broken heart constituted a premeridian dimension of the law of sacrifice, how does one accurately read 3 Nephi 9:19–20?”6

What many readers may not have noticed in 3 Nephi 9 is that Jesus did not announce this principle as some new requirement, or something that the people had never heard before. He declared that he would no longer accept animal sacrifices and burnt offerings, but then continued on speaking of the appropriate manner of sacrifice as if it was something with which the people were already familiar. Pike interpreted it this way:

The Lord seems to really be saying: Beginning today you will no longer offer animal or any other sacrifice at an altar, because the saving act they symbolized has been accomplished by me. Therefore, I will no longer accept them as legitimate expressions of your faith and symbols of salvation (9:19). You will continue to live the law of sacrifice and will demonstrate this as you voluntarily offer to me your broken heart. Only with such an offering (as was also true before my redeeming mission) can you be sanctified (9:20).

Pike concluded, “Thus, the first sentence in 3 Nephi 9:20 is understood to mean ‘and ye shall [continue to] offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit,’ not ‘and ye shall [begin to] offer for a [new] sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit.’”

Pike explained that the expectation of a broken heart and contrite spirit wasn’t new but rather renewed as the Savior prepared the people for his ministry among them. “Thus, with the elimination of the strong, visual, external evidence of commitment to God provided by an animal offering, the Lord gave extra and renewed emphasis in 3 Nephi 9:20 to the offering of a broken heart as another gospel dispensation was beginning.”7

Similarly, former BYU Professor M. Catherine Thomas explained that “under the law of Moses, the broken heart was to accompany the animal sacrifice (cf. Ps 51:17–19); the Lord did away with the animal sacrifice after the law of Moses was fulfilled (3 Nephi 9:17–20), but the broken heart and contrite spirit remained as a requirement from the Lord’s people.”8

The essential nature of making the sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit was re-emphasized in this last dispensation. D&C 20:37 declares, “by way of commandment,” that those desiring to be baptized must “come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits.” Humbling oneself, having a broken heart and contrite spirit, is a necessary part of repentance and this will be rewarded, as promised in 3 Nephi 9:20, by the purging powers of the Holy Ghost.

Professor Pike explained the significance of having a "broken" heart and a "contrite" spirit. The Hebrew verb (from the root šbr) translated as "broken" in Psalm 51:17 means "to break, smash, shatter." The word (Hebrew root dkh) translated as "contrite" means "to crush." Drawing on these meanings, Pike concluded: "Therefore, a broken or contrite heart or spirit is one that is crushed, smashed, broken to pieces. … The symbolism of our smashing or breaking or crushing our hard, willful heart into pieces and offering the result to God is significant, because a smashed heart no longer exists in a recognizable or retrievable form. … It is at this point that the Lord can replace our now broken, offered heart with a new one" (see Ezekiel 36:26).9

The Know

It doesn’t take long while reading the Book of Mormon before encountering followers of Christ who gave heartfelt thanks unto God. For example, when reaching a valley which contained flowing water1 after escaping Jerusalem, and hiking through the desert for a time, Lehi’s family must have felt immensely grateful. To show their gratitude, they “built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord [their] God” (1 Nephi 2:7).2 This touching account is just the first of many faithful demonstrations of gratitude to God, which becomes a major theme throughout the Book of Mormon.

Book of Mormon peoples showed gratitude in a variety of contexts, but most frequently after experiencing some sort of divine rescue. Lehi’s family showed thanks because they had escaped the dangers of Jerusalem and had been led to a safe and habitable location, one with both food and fresh running water.3

Similarly, when the people gathered to hear King Benjamin’s speech, they offered sacrifice and burnt offerings “that they might give thanks to the Lord their God” (Mosiah 2:4).4 Through these offerings they showed gratitude for the Lord who, among other things, had “brought them out of the land of Jerusalem,” and “delivered them out of the hands of their enemies,” (v. 4). King Benjamin then reaffirmed the importance of this doctrine in his famous sermon, explaining that if he, as a mortal king, merited any thanks from his people, then “O how you ought to thank your heavenly King!” (v. 19).

At the waters of Mormon, Alma the Elder taught the people that “every day they should give thanks to the Lord their God” (Mosiah 18:23). Some time later, after being freed from the oppressive bondage caused by Amulon and the Lamanites, Alma’s people recognized that “none could deliver them except it were the Lord their God” (Mosiah 24:21). And because of this humble recognition, “they gave thanks to God, yea, all their men and all their women and all their children that could speak lifted their voices in the praises of their God” (v. 22).

When the great destructions recorded in 3 Nephi eventually ceased, the people’s “mourning was turned into joy, and their lamentations into the praise and thanksgiving unto the Lord Jesus Christ” (3 Nephi 10:10).5 After Jesus arrived at the temple in Bountiful, He affirmed the importance of giving thanks by showing gratitude to His Father in prayer: “Father, I thank thee that thou hast given the Holy Ghost” (3 Nephi 19:20) and “hast purified those whom I have chosen, because of their faith” (v. 28).6

These various examples help demonstrate the profound importance that the Book of Mormon places on gratitude. Its stories repeatedly emphasize the Lord’s power which blesses the world and His children in many ways—in delivering them from suffering and bondage, in lending them breath from day to day, and in providing them with a Redeemer who will restore them and give them eternal life. Then it depicts their heartfelt praise, worship, and thanksgiving in response to these wondrous blessings.

The Why

Mormon’s faithful record emphasizes the Lord’s hand in the stories of his people as well as their worthy responses of sacrifice, humble worship, and prayers of thanks. Carefully studying these stories can inspire readers to similarly recognize the Lord’s influence in their own lives and find cause for their own expressions of heartfelt gratitude. They too will come to recognize the blessings of God’s deliverance from trials, trouble, and tribulation.

President Henry B. Eyring, for example, taught, “The times we will pass through will have in them hard trials, as they did for the people of Alma under the cruel Amulon, who put burdens on their backs too heavy for them to bear.”7 Like the people of Alma, readers in the latter days can have faith that the Lord will similarly deliver them from their own burdens and trials, and even help them to be “cheerful as well as strong” while enduring them.8 As similar blessings flow into their own lives, they can follow the example of Alma’s people who collectively “lifted their voices in the praises of their God” (Mosiah 24:22).

In the Book of Mormon narratives preceding Christ’s visitation, those who escaped from their enemies or experienced miraculous deliverances often offered animal sacrifices as a sign of their gratitude. When Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses, however, such sacrifices were no longer acceptable as an appropriate form of gratitude and worship. Christ taught that now “ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit” (3 Nephi 9:20).9

Such a sacrifice is especially meaningful in the context of Sabbath Day observance (see Doctrine and Covenants 59:8–9). President Eyring described the Sabbath as a day of “gratitude and love.”10 He further explained, “As we partake of the bread and water, we remember that He suffered for us. And when we feel gratitude for what He has done for us, we will feel His love for us and our love for Him.”11

Finally, the Book of Mormon itself is a priceless treasure that should evoke a response of sincere gratitude. Elder Russell M. Nelson taught that “we have had the Book of Mormon for nearly 200 years. … Because of these and other precious scriptures, we know that God is our Eternal Father and that His Son, Jesus Christ, is our Savior and Redeemer. For these spiritual gifts, thanks be to God!”12

The Know

In Moroni 6, as part of Moroni’s instructions regarding how church “meetings were conducted” (Moroni 6:9), Moroni mentioned singing. Evidently, the Nephite church, as Moroni knew it, made singing a part of their worship services, as guided by the Holy Ghost. Although the text does not indicate when this practice was officially instituted, there is a long history of the use of music and hymns in Judeo-Christian worship. Nephite worship practices fit nicely into this tradition.

The singing of hymns extends back to the sacred ceremonies of the ancient Israelite Temple of Jerusalem and beyond.1 Biblical scholar Margaret Barker has stated, “The Psalms were the hymn book of the temple, and in them we glimpse something of the ancient liturgy.”2 The Bible indicates that one of the functions of the priestly tribe of Israel, the Levites, was to sing in the tabernacle and, later, the temple in Jerusalem.3

This practice continued through the development of Judaism and was adopted by the earliest Christians as well. The Jewish group(s) who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls were clearly interested in composing and singing hymns. Among the scrolls, more texts from the book of Psalms were found than from any other biblical book. Furthermore, many other scrolls containing psalms/hymns not known from the Bible have been found.4

The New Testament depicts the Savior and his Apostles singing a hymn at the end of the Passover meal in which Christ instituted the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:30). Paul and James recommended the singing of hymns in their letters to church members (Ephesians 5:19; James 5:13). The Apostle John witnessed the singing of hymns in heaven, before the throne of God (Revelation 5:8–9; 14:2–3).

Likewise, the Book of Mormon contains many references to the singing of hymns. Lehi and Nephi, the book’s first authors, apparently brought the tradition of singing sacred songs with them when they left Jerusalem. Lehi “saw the heavens open,” with God on his throne, “surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God” (1 Nephi 1:8). The plates of brass, from which Nephi read, contained references to singing in the context of worshiping God (e.g., 1 Nephi 21:13; 2 Nephi 22:1–6).

King Benjamin spoke of his desire to “join the choirs above in singing the praises of a just God” (Mosiah 2:28). Alma spoke to the members of the Church in Zarahemla about singing “the song of redeeming love” (Alma 5:9, 26; cf. 26:8, 13). In 3 Nephi 4, after their victory over Zemnarihah, the Nephites “did break forth, all as one, in singing,” what was evidently a song that they all knew (3 Nephi 4:28–33). When Christ visited the Book of Mormon lands, many of the scriptural passages that He shared mentioned singing praises to God.5

The Why

The singing of sacred hymns in Moroni’s day is by no means an unexpected occurrence. It was clearly part of the religious tradition of ancient Israel that continued not only into Book of Mormon practice, but also into that of later Jewish and Christian groups. Language from the Psalms can be found throughout the Book of Mormon and New Testament, which shows how memorable and important the words of these hymns were in the lives of ancient Israelites and early Christians. What is interesting to ask is why it was an important part of worship services. Beyond the fact that it was tradition and encouraged by the Scriptures, three significant reasons may be:

1) Composing and singing hymns was believed to be inspired by the Spirit and also to bring the Spirit. A Psalms scroll from Qumran declares that David was given the Spirit and that “he uttered all these [hymns] through prophecy which was given him from before the Most High” (11QPs^a 27:4–11).

This idea that David’s psalms/hymns were inspired by the Spirit (by prophecy) appears to have continued into Christian belief.6 Furthermore, Dr. Barker has suggested that the singing of hymns was a way to invoke the Spirit, or presence, of the Lord.7 These notions fit well with Moroni’s comment that the church sang hymns “as the power of the Holy Ghost led them” (Moroni 6:9).

2) Singing hymns was apparently done in imitation of the angels in heaven. LDS scholar John Tvedtnes argued that when King Benjamin mentioned wanting to “join the choirs above” (Mosiah 2:28), it is likely that he was speaking at the Nephite celebration of the Israelite Feast of Tabernacles, “when a choir of Levites sang in imitation of the choir of angels.”8

Lehi had seen the heavenly choir of angels (1 Nephi 1:8), as had Alma (Alma 36:22). The Bible mentions this angelic singing (Job 38:7; Luke 2:13–14), and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that human worshippers were to learn the songs of the angels and sing praises along with them.9 This notion survived into later Jewish and Christian texts.10

3) Singing hymns was an expression of gratitude to the Lord for his gift of redemption. The Book of Mormon contains several accounts in which the singing of hymns follows an event in which the Lord has saved an individual or group, or after the discussion of a redemptive act. For example, as mentioned above, when Alma rehearsed with the church members of Zarahemla the redemption of their fathers from physical and spiritual bondage, he emphasized that their fathers “did sing redeeming love” (Alma 5:9). Similarly, when the Nephites were victorious in battle (3 Nephi 4), they praised the Lord for having preserved them and, “did break forth … in singing” (3 Nephi 4:31).

Along with prayer, the singing of hymns has been a legitimate and central part of the worship of our Father in Heaven for millennia. The Lord told Joseph Smith in this dispensation that He is pleased by the singing of “sacred hymns.” His “soul delighteth in the song of the heart” and He considers “the song of the righteous [to be] a prayer unto me.” The Lord promised that the singing of such hymns by members of the Church “shall be answered with a blessing upon their heads” (Doctrine and Covenants 25:11–12).

The Know

Shortly after leaving Jerusalem with his family, Nephi and his brothers returned to get a rare copy of the scriptures from a man named Laban (1 Nephi 3:2–4). The brothers tried twice to get the plates, to which Laban responded by trying to have them killed (v. 24–26). Finally, Nephi returned at night and found Laban passed out drunk (1 Nephi 4:7). After initially resisting the unexpected prompting (v. 10), Nephi killed Laban (v. 18), and managed to get the plates (v. 24).

This story can be as jarring to modern readers as it was disturbing to Nephi at the time (1 Nephi 4:10). Yet John W. Welch, a long-time student of biblical law, has argued that the complexities of “Nephi’s slaying of Laban can be evaluated profitably through the perspectives of the prevailing legal principles of Nephi’s day.”1

Even though such a killing would not be justifiable in most legal systems today, the text presents “several factors that substantially reduce Nephi’s guilt or culpability under the law of Moses as it was probably understood in Nephi’s day, around 600 BC.”2 Welch explained that the critical legal factors in this case are:

(1) State of mind—did the killer “lie in wait,” or “come presumptuously” with murderous intent?
(2) The role of divine will—did “God deliver him into his hand” (Exodus 21:12–14)?3

Unlike the modern definition, the ancient idea of premeditation required a murder to have been preplanned or implemented through treachery.4 From this Welch argued, “Several strong clues indicate that Nephi had the ancient definition in mind when he wrote the story of Laban.”5 Regarding his state of mind, Nephi specifically noted that he proceeded “not knowing beforehand the things which I should do” (1 Nephi 4:6).

As Welch has explained, this point demonstrates that Nephi had not necessarily even planned to find Laban, let alone to kill him. Nephi did not know where Laban would be, or that he would be drunk. “The occasion presented itself spontaneously. Nephi was completely surprised to find Laban. His deed was not preplanned and, therefore, not culpable.”6

And regarding the role of divine will, as Welch has written, “the ultimate reason for his action was God’s deliverance of Laban into Nephi’s hands. As the Spirit stated, it was the Lord who caused Laban’s death.”7 The specific words used in the text are important here. When Nephi stumbled upon Laban, the Spirit told Nephi to kill him. When Nephi resisted, the Spirit told Nephi again to “slay him, for the Lord hathdelivered him into thy hands” (1 Nephi 4:12, emphasis added). This justification may refer to Exodus 21:13, which states that a slayer may flee to a city of refuge “if [he] lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand” (emphasis added). The striking parallel between these texts indicates that the Spirit may have been legally excusing Nephi for slaying Laban.8

One possible reason for this is because Laban committed three serious offenses against Nephi and his brothers. (1) He had falsely accused them of a capital crime (being “robbers,” 1 Nephi 3:13; Deuteronomy 19:16–19). (2) He had stolen their property, thus proving to be a robber himself (1 Nephi 3:25–26; 4:11). (3) He had not listened to the commandments of the Lord (1 Nephi 4:11; Deuteronomy 13:15).9

Thus, Nephi killed a man whom God had delivered into his hands, indicating that he was worthy of death from a divine perspective. Some killings in the Old Testament happened under similar circumstances. For example, the priest Phinehas killed Zimri and Cozbi for violating the law (Numbers 25:8). Amnon had violated his half-sister Tamar (2 Samuel 13:14-17), and his half-brother Absalom killed him because of it (v. 29).

Importantly, the Spirit provided yet another rationale for the act: “It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief” (1 Nephi 4:13). Welch has stated that this rationale “concerning the relative rights of the individual or the group also has a long tradition in biblical and Jewish legal history.”10 One example of this practice is the giving up of Samson to the Philistines (Judges 15:9–13). Extra-biblical tradition even suggests that the council of elders may have handed over Jehoiakim—a king of Judah at the time of Lehi—to Nebuchadnezzar in order to save the kingdom.11

The Why

It is important to look at ancient texts in their own context, not in a modern one. While the slaying of Laban is disturbing or uncomfortable for modern readers, “in its ancient legal context ... [it] makes sense, both legally and religiously, as an unpremeditated, undesired, divinely excusable, and justifiable killing—something very different from what people today normally think of as criminal homicide.”12 From this, Nephi was changed, seeing that God would provide a way for him to keep God’s commandments, no matter how impossible that appeared. Nephi also learned the importance of following the Spirit and staying within the rules that the Lord had revealed.

However, as convinced as Nephi was that his action was approved by God, Welch also noted that Nephi acted at considerable risk to himself: “I do not know if Nephi would have been able to persuade a court in Jerusalem to let him off or not, but I think he certainly saw himself as not having violated the law.”13

Indeed, the killing of Laban was not without penalties or consequences. In a case like Nephi’s, where the killing wasn’t preplanned, the killer still had to flee to one of the specifically-designated cities of refuge or leave the Holy Land (Numbers 35:6). Nephi did just that. In effect, his punishment for killing Laban was voluntary exile, an exile from which Nephi would never return.

It may also be important for readers to let the event impact them like it impacted Nephi.14 As Elder Holland noted, the narrative is

squarely in the beginning of the book—page 8—where even the most casual reader will see it and must deal with it. It is not intended that either Nephi or we be spared the struggle of this account. I believe that story was placed in the very opening verses of a 531-page book and then told in painfully specific detail in order to focus every reader of that record on the absolutely fundamental gospel issue of obedience and submission to the communicated will of the Lord. If Nephi cannot yield to this terribly painful command, if he cannot bring himself to obey, then it is entirely probable that he can never succeed or survive in the tasks that lie just ahead.15

Ultimately, one should avoid forcing God “into a box of our own making. Violence is intrinsic in this life, and, much as we might despise it, we should be wary of attempting to impose any kind of absolutes (from our point of view) on God.”16 This traumatic experience was difficult for Nephi, and this account, written several years later, likely captures years of wrestling with and reflection on his actions from legal, ethical, and political angles.17 Just as when Moses’s killing a man in Egypt (Exodus 2:11-15) marked the beginning of a new life of flight and separation from Egypt for himself and his people, Nephi’s traumatic experience opened the way toward a new land and life for him, his family, and all of his people as well.

The Know

After journeying in the wilderness for the “space of many years,” Lehi and his family eventually came to a coastal region which they “called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey” (1 Nephi 17:4–5). This location not only served as a refuge from the harsh desert landscape, but also as a place where they could build and then launch a ship toward their “promised land” in the New World (1 Nephi 18:23).

Many people have rightly wondered if such a coastal paradise ever existed in the Arabian Peninsula.1 As early as 1950, Hugh Nibley proposed that Bountiful could plausibly be located in the Qara Mountains of southern Oman, in what is known as the Dhofar region.2 He based his suggestion on an early explorer’s account of “seaward slopes velvety with waving jungle, their roofs fragrant with rolling yellow meadows.”3

It wasn’t until 1976, however, that this region’s first LDS explorers—Lynn and Hope Hilton—sought to verify a specific site for Bountiful in their groundbreaking, though brief, trek into Oman.4 Since then, a number of LDS explorers and researchers have surveyed Dhofar’s coastal inlets. In 1994, Warren and Michaela Aston published a set of 12 logical and scriptural criteria (see chart)5 needed to identify Bountiful’s location in the real world, based on a careful reading of Nephi’s statements.6 After exploring and evaluating all the coastal inlets in the region, the Astons concluded that Wadi Sayq (“River Valley”) and its opening near the ocean at Khor Kharfot was the best candidate for Bountiful.7

Twelve Requirements for the Land Bountiful
Fresh water available year-round
Contain “much fruit” and honey (1 Nephi 17:5, 6; 18:6)
Both general area (17:5, 8) and specific location where the Lehites camped were fertile (17:6)
Permit reasonable access from the interior desert to the coast
A mountain prominent enough to justify Nephi’s reference to “the mount” (17:7; 18:3) and close enough that he could go there to “pray oft” (18:3)
Cliffs from which Nephi’s brothers could have thrown him into the depths of the sea (17:48)
Shoreline (17:5) suitable for the construction and launching of a ship (18:8)
Ore and flint for Nephi’s tools (17:9–11, 16)
Enough large timber to build a seaworthy ship with (18:1, 2, 6)
Suitable winds and ocean currents to take the ship out into the ocean (18:8, 9)
No population residing in the area, based on details such as Nephi having to rely on his brother’s help, having to locate ore, and having to make his own tools.
“Nearly eastward of Nahom” (1 Nephi 17:1)

Some have suggested that other inlets in the Dhofar region are a better match for Nephi’s Bountiful.8 Most prominently, George Potter and Richard Wellington have argued that Khor Rori is a better fit based on what they call the crucial “maritime requirements.”9 While these proposals have their own strengths, Khor Kharfot remains the best candidate in the eyes of many Book of Mormon scholars.10

Consistent with Nephi’s description, Khor Kharfot is “the most fertile coastal location on the Arabian Peninsula with abundant freshwater, large trees, fruit, and vegetation.”11 Its natural resources satisfy Nephi’s description of “much fruit and wild honey” (1 Nephi 17:5), as well as the need for substantial timber to build a ship.12 Kharfot also features a prominent mountain (1 Nephi 18:3),13 with steep cliffs from which Nephi’s brothers could have menacingly threatened to throw him into the “depths of the sea” (1 Nephi 17:48).14 Geological surveys have discovered that smeltable ore (1 Nephi 17:9–10) lay practically exposed at the surface of the earth in Kharfot and nearby locations.15

All told, Khor Kharfot fittingly complies with the numerous textual details contained in Nephi’s account, and it, along with the rest of the Dhofar region, just happens to be a long journey “nearly eastward” (1 Nephi 17:1) from the now archeologically-attested location of the “place which was called Nahom” (1 Nephi 16:34).16

The Why

Regardless of which specific inlet was Lehi’s campgrounds, Aston stressed, “Researchers generally agree that Nephi’s Bountiful must lie somewhere on the fertile southern coast of Oman.”17 Aston even felt “that several locations (all within a few miles of each other) being proposed as Bountiful actually strengthens the Book of Mormon’s claims” because, “None of these places was known in Joseph Smith’s 1829 environment.”18

After years of research and exploration of possible Book of Mormon sites, Aston has concluded that when important scriptural locations are “anchored in the real world, we can re-read the scriptural account with heightened appreciation for the story being told and its applications to our own life journey.”19 This is certainly true for Bountiful and its certain identification within Dhofar, most likely at Khor Kharfot.

Nephi described this area as being “prepared of the Lord that we might not perish” (1 Nephi 17:5). The full significance of this statement is meaningfully driven home by the first-hand accounts of explorers who have stumbled upon the region from the scorching desert inland. Bertram Thomas, for example, was greatly delighted when he “suddenly came upon it all from out of the arid wastes of the southern borderlands.”20 Concerning Wadi Sayq in particular, Aston has explained that the “vegetation inside the wadi changes from pure desert to scrubland as the coast is approached, climaxing in a remarkable concentration of lush vegetation and trees in the final two miles.”21

The variety of fruits, the wild honey, the fresh water, the large trees for shipbuilding, the accessible ore for tools, the prominent mountain for prayer and worship, the ancient bay for launching the ship—all these divinely prepared blessings become more readily apparent and appreciable to those who have contrasted Dhofar’s “thin green band of trees, flowers, and grass” with the surrounding desert.22

Pondering upon such a scene can evoke not only a deep gratitude for the Lord’s providence, but also a recognition that He is aware of His children and is prepared to meet their needs. Lehi’s family had obediently left their land of inheritance. Nephi and his brothers had risked their lives to obtain the plates of brass. Ishmael and perhaps other loved ones died during their trek. In their years of travel, they all faced near starvation, desolate desert landscape, and certainly a number of untold trials. Yet as a resting point before their final destination, the Lord prepared a veritable coastal paradise which adequately blessed them with everything they needed to complete their journey to the promised land.23

A similar refuge has been prepared for all those who faithfully press forward through the trials and hardships of mortality. Alma described it as “a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow” (Alma 40:12). This heavenly harbor will provide an ideal resting place for the souls of the righteous while they prepare for the final destination of their own journey—eternal life in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

Bountiful is more than just a place. It is an apt symbol of the Lord’s divine providence, His tender mercies, and His preparations unto the children of men. Wherever it exists in the real world, Bountiful typifies the existence of heavenly realms where the Lord Himself has gone before the righteous to “prepare a place” for them (John 14:2).24

Principle

The LDS Doctrinal Mastery resource offers a clear framework to help all people learn and apply divine principles for acquiring spiritual knowledge. The principles behind this process are themselves revealed principles. They include “acting in faith, examining concepts and questions with an eternal perspective, and seeking further understanding through divinely appointed sources.”1

No better companion can be found for understanding the process of acquiring spiritual knowledge than the Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Numerous prophetic promises, wise statements, and inspiring stories on almost every page of this revealed book mark the path and model the way that leads to spiritual growth through the Lord Jesus Christ. The first principle that stands out in this sacred record is that of “acting in faith.”

The process of sincerely asking for and willingly receiving spiritual knowledge plays out in numerous Book of Mormon narratives and is the subject of several doctrinal discourses. These narratives often contrast those who righteously sought and successfully obtained spiritual guidance with individuals who relied primarily on their own wisdom and understanding. Other stories show how individuals were transformed from hardened skeptics into righteous seekers of truth.2

Nephi, for instance, discovered when he was still “exceedingly young” that the Lord would personally communicate with him (1 Nephi 2:6). In contrast to Laman and Lemuel’s murmurings, Nephi “did cry unto the Lord” because he had “great desires to know of the mysteries of God” (v. 16). In response to his asking in faith, Nephi said that the Lord “did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father” (v. 16). Importantly, Nephi’s early inclination to turn to the Lord for confirmation of sacred truths helped him to “not rebel against [his father] like unto [his] brothers” (v. 16).

A similar contrast can be seen between Alma and Amulek and their opponent Zeezrom, who was a lawyer trained “in all the arts and cunning of the people” (Alma 10:15).3 Zeezrom tried to “question Amulek” in order to “make him cross his words, or contradict the words which he should speak” (v. 16). Yet even with all the learning and training of his people, Zeezrom was confounded by prophets of God, who miraculously “knew the thoughts and intents of his heart” (Alma 12:7).

Recognizing the futility of his human wisdom and learning, Zeezrom eventually began to soften his heart and, like Nephi, “inquire … diligently, that he might know more concerning the kingdom of God” (Alma 12:8). Seeing this miraculous transformation, Alma explained if a man will not harden his heart, he will be “given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full” (v. 10).

This principle is well illustrated in the example of Lamoni’s father, who, like Zeezrom, started out contending against a prophetic messenger. He even tried to slay Ammon because of his prejudice against the Nephites (see Alma 20:10–20). But after discovering “the great love [Ammon] had for his son Lamoni” (v. 26), he was “desirous to learn” the spiritual truths that Ammon had taught his son (v. 27).

In this humble condition and with a believing heart (see Alma 22:11), Lamoni’s father asked Aaron what he could do to “have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken” (v. 15). So intent was his pleading for truth that he said he would “give up all that I possess, yea, I will forsake my kingdom, that I may receive this great joy” (v. 15).4 Because of his great desire, his willingness to sacrifice, and his sincere humility, Lamoni’s father was able to pray in faith and, like Lamoni himself, receive a miraculous confirmation of spiritual truths.5

These and other Book of Mormon stories aptly demonstrate the foundational principles for receiving revelation.6 Not only does the Lord require that inquirers ask, seek, and knock (3 Nephi 14:7), but they must sincerely ask in faith, willingly seek in humility, and genuinely knock with real intent.7 Only in this condition—with a softened heart—can revelation flow into the minds and hearts of those who seek it.

Application

These precious accounts in the Book of Mormon reveal how the process of acquiring spiritual knowledge works. They demonstrate how crucial it is to not become hardened or skeptical toward revelation. Those who never soften their hearts in the first place won’t obtain the foundational testimony needed to guide them to eternal life.8 And those who, after receiving a testimony, begin to treat the process of acquiring spiritual truths flippantly or without faith may soon discover that “the gospel isn’t working so well” for them.9

The reality of this truth is symbolized in many places in the Book of Mormon, as in the story of the Liahona. This miraculous device was given to Lehi and his family to help them journey through the wilderness and cross the ocean toward the promised land. Like the Holy Ghost, the Liahona’s main purpose was to simply “point the way they should go” (Alma 37:40). It didn’t tell them everything about what was ahead or how their journey would proceed, but instead prompted them to act on faith with only a limited amount of information.

Yet, as Alma reported, because that miracle took place “by small means,” members of Lehi’s family sometimes became “slothful, and forgot to exercise their faith and diligence” (Alma 37:41). When this happened, the Liahona’s “marvelous works ceased,” the party “did not progress in their journey,” and they “were afflicted with hunger and thirst, because of their transgressions” (vv. 41–42).10 These hardships demonstrate the negative effects of forgetting or disregarding the revelatory power of the Holy Ghost.

The good news of the gospel is that as often as followers of Christ continue to keep their covenants and act on faith, they will receive consistent spiritual direction. From time to time, this direction will take the form of more direct and clear revelation, such as the words written on the pointers of the Liahona (1 Nephi 16:29). Most frequently, however, this guidance will come through subtle promptings and impressions, more analogous to the Liahona’s pointers which directed Lehi’s party “day by day” as long as they were faithful (Alma 37:40).11

Whether guided by miraculous revelation or by subtle inspiration, Elder Richard G. Scott testified that by following the “currents of divine influence … you will always know what to do.”12 As individuals faithfully and obediently seek for spiritual guidance and direction, the Holy Ghost, and the Book of Mormon itself, can act as a personal Liahona to guide them step by step, line upon line, in keeping their own lives along the path that leads to eternal life and happiness.13

Context and Content

Click Image to Enlarge

Click to Download High-Res Image

Lehi’s family had just traveled about 250 miles through what some travelers called a “brutal wilderness” with long stretches of nothing but barren desert, where “hardly a blade of grass breaks up the monotony.”1 The journey would have taken about 2 weeks.2 And now, they were being asked to go back to retrieve the plates of brass from a short-tempered Jerusalem official with command of a military garrison (1 Nephi 3:4, 31).3 If Laman and Lemuel were right about anything, it is that they were asked to do a “hard thing” (1 Nephi 3:5).

Yet, as Lehi emphasized to Nephi, this hard thing was “commanded” of the Lord—repeating that point three times to be sure he understood (1 Nephi 3:2, 4, 5). Nephi had just returned from conversing with the Lord, where he was promised: “inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper” (1 Nephi 2:20). Eager to hold up his end of this obligation, Nephi responded to his father with equal emphasis on commandments, likewise repeating the term three times in his one-verse reply (1 Nephi 3:7).4

This sets up the rest of the story about getting the plates, where the Lord’s commandments are central: command or commandment is repeated 18 times total in 1 Nephi 3 and 4.5 Affirming this, Nephi’s response that he will “go and do” is part of a chiasm—a literary pattern where key words, phrases, or ideas are repeated in reverse order.6 The center of a chiasm is usually the most important part, and Nephi’s chiasm has the Lord’s commandments at the very center.

Chiasmus in 1 Nephi 3:7–9

A	And it came to pass that I, Nephi,
	B	said unto my father:
		C	I will go and do the things
			D	which the Lord hath commanded
			D	for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men
		C	save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.
	B	And it came to pass that when my father had heard these words he was exceedingly glad, for he knew that I had been blessed of the Lord.
A	And I, Nephi, and my brethren took our journey in the wilderness7

Two types of commandments are at play in this story. First, the story teaches about specific commandments given in a particular time and context—like getting the plates from Laban. Second, it teaches about general commandments that apply to everyone, like “the commandments of the Lord” found on the plates of brass (1 Nephi 4:15).

Obtaining the plates of brass was done in obedience to a specific commandment and was necessary so that Nephi’s seed could keep the general commandments given to all the house of Israel (1 Nephi 4:14–17).8

Doctrines and Principles

Nephi’s story highlights how the Lord prepares the way for obeying both types of commandments: (1) The Lord prepared a way for Nephi to obtain the plates of brass by delivering Laban into his hands (1 Nephi 4:10–12); (2) Obtaining the plates, which had the Law of Moses on them, prepared the way for Lehi’s family and their descendants to keep the commandments (1 Nephi 4:14–17).9

Lehi's Family Leaving Jerusalem by Scott Snow

Click to Download High-Res Image

Nephi is a model for keeping the commandments even when doing so is challenging and difficult. Although he had to travel 500 miles round trip in a scorching desert and face off with a powerful leader, Nephi was determined to obey. This is true of Nephi throughout his life.10 President Thomas S. Monson taught, “Though others faltered in their faith and their obedience, never once did Nephi fail to do that which the Lord asked of him. Untold generations have been blessed as a result.”11

Nephi’s story teaches that while the Lord may prepare the way, the way prepared is not always easy. It was not until Nephi and his brothers had made multiple failed attempts, and Nephi had suffered from violence at his brothers hands, that the Lord finally intervened (1 Nephi 3). Nephi had proven himself determined and willing to be “led by the Spirit” (1 Nephi 4:6), and thus a way was prepared.12

President Henry B. Eyring, of the First Presidency, taught that this kind of commitment comes from trusting in the Lord:

The young Nephi in the Book of Mormon stirs in us a desire to develop trust in the Lord to obey His commandments, however hard they appear to us. Nephi faced danger and possible death when he said these words of trust that we can and must feel steadily in our hearts … . That trust comes from knowing God.13

Nephi knew that the Lord would prepare a way for him because he trusted in Him, and he wrote the story about obtaining the plates to illustrate this truth. He placed the Lord’s commandments at the center of his response to his father, symbolizing their central importance to the whole story.

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

Additional Images

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

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

Principle

Application

Further Reading

Context and Content

Chiasmus in 1 Nephi 3:7–9

Doctrines and Principles

Further Reading