ePub feed of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship ePub feed of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship

Abstract: Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s speech (Alma 24:7–16) reveals multiple allusions to significant texts in Nephi’s small plates record. Thus, when he declares “I thank my God, my beloved people, that our great God has in goodness sent these our brethren, the Nephites, unto us to preach unto us,” he appears to allude to an inclusio that bookends the two books of Nephi’s small plates record which emphasizes the “goodness” of God as a theme. Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s description of his ancestors as “wicked fathers” appears to deliberately contrast Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael with Nephi’s “goodly parents” in 1 Nephi 1:1. The name Nephi constitutes a key element in Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s own name, a name honorifically bestowed on him as a throne-name by his father. In view of the probable etymological origin of Nephi as Egyptian nfr (“good,” “goodly,” “fair”) and its evident, persistent association with “good” among the Nephites, Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s naming and the introduction to his speech deserve closer examination. This article explores the possible significance of this naming in conjunction with the Lamanites’ reception of divine “goodness” in the contexts of Nephite/Lamanite history and the Lamanite conversion narratives.





When Ammon, Aaron, and those who served with them1 taught the Lamanites the gospel of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation, they used writings copied from the brass plates and from Nephi’s [Page 98]small plates (see Alma 18:36; 22:12–13). Mormon makes it clear that by this means Ammon, Aaron, and others redressed a longstanding, traditional Lamanite grievance against the Nephites—namely, the loss of the brass plates (see Mosiah 10:16–17; see also 2 Nephi 5:12; 10:16; Alma 20:13)—by restoring their access to the scriptures2 and thus to a knowledge of divine covenants, especially the Abrahamic covenant.

Moreover, when Ammon, Aaron, and their fellow laborers used the writings from Nephi’s small plates to teach the doctrine of Christ3 to Lamoni, Lamoni’s wife, Lamoni’s father, Lamoni’s brother (who took the name Anti-Nephi-Lehi after his conversion and likely at this coronation), and others, the Lord fulfilled his covenant with Enos for the first time (see Enos 1:11–18). That covenant included the promise that he would “bring” the Nephites records, including the small plates, “forth” to the Lamanites, in his “own due time” (Enos 1:16). While Nephi’s writings on the small plates constituted something of a political document on his right to rule,4 they had an intended broader teaching function: “they teach all men that they should do good” (2 Nephi 33:10). The Lord instructed Nephi to make the small plates with the explicit command, “thou shalt engraven many things upon them which are good in my sight, for the profit of thy people” (2 Nephi 5:30) and Nephi avers, “for their good have I written them” (2 Nephi 25:8).

Abstract: Repetition is a feature of all ancient Hebraic narrative. Modern readers may misunderstand this quality of biblical and Book of Mormon narrative. Biblical and Book of Mormon writers believed that history repeated, with what happened to the ancestors happening again to their posterity. Fawn Brodie and her acolytes misapprehend Book of Mormon narrative when—instead of at least provisionally granting that God might exist, can intervene in history, and tenaciously reenacts events from the past while the recorders of such repeated stories firmly believed in the historical reality of the narratives they recounted—they attribute such repeated stories to Joseph Smith’s imputed plagiaristic tendencies. The story of the kidnapping of the Lamanite daughters by the priests of Noah (Mosiah 20) is a recurrence of the story of the mass kidnapping of the daughters of Shiloh (Judges 21), but to attribute such similarity to plagiarism by Joseph Smith is a grand and flagrant misreading of Hebraic narrative, its persistent allusive qualities, and its repetitive historiography. Such narratives were widespread in Levantine and classical antiquity, and neither ancient historians nor modern scholars take the relationship among such analogous stories to be one of plagiarism when their antiquity is undisputed. At least one additional construal of the Book of Mormon story’s meaning needs to be explored and considered against the backdrop of Hebraic narrative.





Readers of texts are not mere passive receptacles but are active interpreters. They bring their experience, knowledge, attitudes, assumptions about the world and humans, capabilities, and all the [Page 58]previous texts they have read with them. Technical writing (say, the instructions in a manual), a romance novel, an academic source for a research paper, an article about a celebrity, a recipe, a news aggregator site, a complex work of literature such as War and Peace, a Shakespeare play, a review of a neighborhood restaurant, historical and biographical writing, a letter to the editor of a periodical: all require active involvement by the reader. But not all such reader contributions to the resulting reading are equal or equivalent. Texts require interpretation. They require appropriate assumptions, gap filling of ambiguities, judgments about genre, and experience with similar texts. Some recovery of the world created by the writer is necessary. The more recovery, the more complete the reading. Writers of texts build into their writings clues about the apt strategies to be used by the reader to decode the transaction between reader and author. Misreading those signs leads inevitably to a breakdown in that contract. Sophisticated texts call for a higher level of interpretation and greater reading skill. When a failure to communicate the storyline occurs with a complex text, the shortcoming is more likely a readerly rather than a writerly malfunction. “In works of greater complexity, the filling-in of gaps becomes much more difficult and therefore more conscious and anything but automatic.”1 One fundamental feature of Hebraic narrative such as we encounter in the Bible or the Book of Mormon requires that the reader understand the role of repetition.

Biblical narrative certainly abounds in patterns of similarity, all based on the principle of analogy. Analogy is an essentially spatial pattern, composed of at least two elements (two characters, events, strands of action, etc.) between which there is at least one point of similarity and one of dissimilarity: the similarity affords the basis for the spatial linkage and confrontation of the analogical elements, whereas the dissimilarity makes for their mutual illumination, qualification,

Abstract: There is no more important message than that of the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It’s life-transforming and world-transforming. It is also the most joyous news imaginable. What Jesus did on our behalf leaves us forever in his debt and should put him at the center of our lives.



/* Greek */@font-face {font-family: Noto Sans; local: Noto Sans; src: url("fonts/Noto Sans/NotoSans-Light.ttf"); font-weight: 300; font-style: normal;}



Easter Sunday,” President Russell M. Nelson declared at the commencement of his closing remarks for the April 2023 General Conference, “is the most important religious observance for followers of Jesus Christ. The main reason we celebrate Christmas is because of Easter.”1

And, truly, were it not for the events on and immediately preceding Easter—or what, with Claudia Bushman, I would personally prefer to call Resurrection Sunday2—we would have little if any reason to celebrate the birth of an obscure male Jewish peasant baby in first-century Palestine.

A traditional Easter greeting is popular throughout much of Eastern Christianity. It is often expressed in Greek, but often, too, in the local language. In Greek, it goes like this:

Χριστὸς ἀνέστη!“Khristōs anestē!”3 “Christ is risen!”

[Page 46]To which the expected response is

Ἀληθῶς ἀνέστη!“Alēthōs anestē!”4 “Truly, he is risen!”

Every Easter morning, I receive emails containing this greeting from friends who know Greek.

Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday commemorate the passion (suffering), the death, and the Resurrection of Jesus. They constitute what is sometimes called, in mainstream Christianity, the Holy Triduum (“three days”).

Whenever we partake of the sacrament, the events of these days should be central to our reflections. They should certainly be at the center of our thoughts on Easter Sunday.

“The fundamental principles of our religion,” Joseph Smith said, “are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”5

Christ’s act on our behalf leaves us forever in his debt and should put him at the center of our lives. And eventually, even for the rebellious, it will—every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Lord (Philippians 2:10–11). In scriptural language, he has redeemed us with his blood, which is to say that he has literally purchased us; he has bought our freedom from slavery to sin and the devil. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we belong to him. Speaking of the eventual impact of his impending crucifixion, the Savior prophesied:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (John 12:32)

So far as I am aware, though, Latter-day Saints are unique in understanding that the Atonement didn’t occ...

Abstract: To more permanently unify the Mulekites and the Nephites as a reunited kingdom of Israel, King Benjamin gathered his people at the temple, and in his role as a king and priest after the order of Melchizedek, imparted teachings that bear resemblance to the Latter-day Saint temple endowment ceremony first introduced in Nauvoo. Several of these similarities are explored in depth. Since the book of Mosiah is one of the earliest extant texts of Joseph Smith’s prophetic ministry, this finding adds to a growing body of literature that suggests that temple themes are apparent in the unfolding Restoration earlier than has been commonly recognized. King Benjamin’s sermon also provides a model for how the latter-day covenant people of the Lord can establish a modern “kingdom of priests” in preparation for the second coming of Jesus Christ.





On May 3, 1842, Joseph Smith, with the help of Lucius Scovil and others, prepared the upper room of his Red Brick Store in Nauvoo, Illinois, to represent “the interior of a temple as much as the circumstances would permit.”1 The next day, Joseph Smith invited a small number of faithful men to meet with him at the store.



On the wall was a newly painted mural. Small trees and plants stood nearby, suggesting a garden setting. Another part of the room was sectioned off with a rug hung up like a curtain. . . .





For the rest of the afternoon, the prophet introduced an ordinance to the men. . . .





The new ordinance . . . drew upon scriptural accounts of [Page 2]the Creation and the Garden of Eden . . . to guide the men step-by-step through the plan of salvation. . . .





They received knowledge that would enable them to return to the presence of God. Along the way, the men made covenants to live righteous, chaste lives and dedicate themselves to serving the Lord.





Joseph called the ordinance the endowment and trusted the men not to reveal the special knowledge they learned that day. . . . As soon as the temple was finished, both men and women would be able to receive the ordinance.2



Notably, certain elements of the endowment ceremony3 bore close resemblances to symbols and language found in Masonic rituals, a connection that was observed by participants at the time. For example, one of the first men to receive the endowment, Master Mason Heber C. Kimball,



wrote of this experience to fellow Apostle Parley P. Pratt, who was on a mission in England. “We have received some precious things through the Prophet on the priesthood,” Kimball wrote of the endowment, noting that “there is a similarity of priesthood in masonry.” He told Pratt that Joseph believed Masonry was “taken from priesthood but has become degenerated.”a id="footnote4anc" href="#footnote4sym" title="4. “Masonry,” Church History Topics, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

Abstract: Bodily weakness, along with the varied circumstances into which we were born, provide the essential initial and ongoing conditions that shape the challenges and opportunities of our mortal probation. In life, we are not expected merely to preserve our innocence in defiance of worldly tendencies, nor are we compelled to cede to cynicism in the face of disheartening earthly experience. Rather, we are meant to follow the Savior in uniting the state of innocence with that of experience, thus joyfully fulfilling the unique mission that has been generously given to each of us.





[Editor’s Note: This essay was adapted and expanded from Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Appreciation for Terryl Givens’s ‘When Souls Had Wings’: The Fearful Symmetry of Premortal and Postmortal Life,” From the Desk of Kurt Manwaring (blog), 4 January 2024, https://www.fromthedesk.org/terryl-givens-when-souls-had-wings-book-review/.]

A friend once told me a story about an elderly woman in his ward who had passed away. The woman, who had planned the details of her funeral service in advance, had selected organ music for the program and listed my friend’s wife as the one who should play it. She struggled as she practiced, not only because the piece was difficult, but also because the deceased woman had a reputation of being very critical of other people. As she played, she reflected in discouragement that if that woman had been there to hear her mistakes, she would have received an earful of mean comments. Then, suddenly, she heard the voice of the woman in her mind. It said, “I’m not like that now.”

Of course, I relate this story not as a commentary on the life of a singular person but rather as a reminder of our shared condition. I find personal encouragement in these words from beyond the veil. They [Page viii]impress on me the truth that, after death, not only will our physical and mental infirmities be removed but also many of the chronic personality dispositions that challenge our best efforts to overcome them. That the deceased woman was so quickly freed from fastidiousness at death, with no prolonged period of repentance required to effect the change, reminds us that human weakness should not be summarily ascribed to sin. Wendy Ulrich clarifies the distinction between “weakness,” “sin,” and “strength” as follows:

Weakness is inherent in the mortal body — which is fashioned from the elements of earth, shaped by circumstances and experience, and subject to temptation, sickness, injury, fatigue, and death. Out of this general state of human weakness we experience specific weaknesses such as variations in mental or physical well-being, vulnerability to desires and appetites, predispositions to various physical and emotional states, or differing levels of talents or abilities. All these varying attributes come with the territory of having a mortal body. [And, I would add, these attributes are not only shaped by our circumstances but also include our circumstances, which extend or limit our freedom and opportunities to act in the world in accordance with our desires.]

Sin is a state of rebellion against God. It almost always involves believing Satan over God about what is real, what is useful, or what will make us happy. It often entails self-centeredness, self-deception, and selfishness. …

Strength in its highest sense is what makes us more like God. While we often think of strength as having to do with our abilities and talents, the strength that interests God has to do with our character — our moral choices, our spiritual gifts, and our righteous desires. … Some of our specific strengths apparently came with us from the premortal experience; others are ours by blessing from the Lord as part of our mortal stewardship; still others we develop here out of weak...

Abstract: The word “truth” has for practical purposes lost one of its original English-language meanings, and this has significant implications for understanding scriptures. The obvious, well-understood meaning is that which is real or factual. However, the earliest meaning in English is that which is true in an entirely different way, in the sense of fidelity, loyalty, and faithfulness. The King James translators frequently used “truth” in this latter sense. The sense of “truth” as “faithfulness” remained well known in the nineteenth century. Some passages in the Book of Mormon and other Restoration scriptures reveal deeper insights when read with this understanding. Pondering both meanings of “truth” in the scriptures can serve as a source of inspiration and learning.





A conversation such as the following is probably familiar: “Do I turn left at the next intersection?” “Right! No, I mean, correct! Left!” We joke about occasional confusion between the two major meanings of the word right but seldom get seriously confounded. The two quite different meanings, which are remotely derived from the same origin, are easily distinguishable now by context.

In a famous statement by Pontius Pilate, just as he agreed to the death of the Savior of the world, he asked “What is truth?” This paper will provide at least partial help in answering that question.

The changeable nature of word meaning creates challenges for discipleship and a serious study of the scriptures. Shifts in meaning may generate novel nuance or striking differences. Once-common words can become quaint or obscure, which can be a stumbling block in reading King James period literature.

[Page 446]The meaning of truth at first glance seems obvious: that which is true and factual, corresponding to reality. Truth (true-th) is the quality or condition of being true. However, truth can and in the past frequently did refer to the meaning of true as faithful or loyal. Although in less common usage now, we readily understand true/faithful in such phrases as “true to one’s beliefs” or “true to his or her favorite team.” We are familiar with this use in the hymn “True to the Faith.”1 Elder David A. Bednar intentionally used both meanings of true in an address in the October 2012 General Conference with a short chiasm: “We should know the gospel is true and be true to the gospel.”2 Truth is the noun (nominative) form of the adjective true and can derive from either underlying meaning. Some passages in the scriptures of the Restoration yield richer significance when read with both meanings in mind.

What is Truth?

Before examining scriptural use of the word truth, let us look at its origin. It is revealing to look at the use of truth in popular literature at the time of the translation of the KJV and at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon.

Origins and Early Use in English

Truth as faithfulness is in fact the older attested meaning, documented in Old English. The broad meaning is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as the “quality or character of being true to a person, principle, cause, etc.; steadfast allegiance; faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, constancy,” with four subdefinitions.3 This is followed by an observation: “now somewhat rare.”

For simplicity, this usage will be listed here as truth/fidelity. The word derives from Germanic and Proto-Germanic words meaning “firm, solid,