BOOK OF MORMON THEOLOGIES

A THUMBNAIL SKETCH
by
©Robert F. Smith
September 2012 (version 2)

As suggested for this year’s annual SMPT meeting, I thought it might be helpful to
provide a brief, thumbnail sketch of the theologies of the Book of Mormon. This I do despite
misgivings in some quarters about the possibility of doing theology of any sort in a Mormon
context,1 and despite the dismissive view of my late friend, the Reverend Mr. Wesley P. Walters,
that Book of Mormon “theology has been largely discarded by the Mormon church.”2 In fact,
however, we are confronted by more than one theology within the Book of Mormon – the same
problem which confronts us in the Bible.

I. Biblical Theologies: Perception is Everything

A. Indeed, even beyond the standard division into Old Testament theology and New Testament
theology, there is no agreement among scholars (1) on the true nature of biblical theology, (2) as
to whether it should be analyzed diachronically (sequential) or synchronically (canonical), (3) via
harmonization, (4) via tradition (sola fide), or (5) via the common sense, self-evident reading of
proof texts (dicta probantia and sola scriptura), etc. . Indeed, one must ask whether the 19th
century turn to historicism had a profound effect on the writings of B. H. Roberts and Hugh
Nibley?3

1
Matthew Bowman, “Can Mormonism Have a Systematic Theology?” review of Charles R.
Harrell, “This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology (Kofford, 2011), in Dialogue,
44/4 (Winter 2011), 207ff; Bowman, “Why Is It So Hard to Figure Out What Mormons Believe?”
Patheos, April 4, 2012; Gary Bergera, “What Is Official Doctrine?” Seventh East Press, 1/1 (Oct 6,
1981), 6; Blake Ostler, “The Challenges of (Non-existent?) Mormon Theology,” Patheos, Aug 9, 2010.
2
Walters, “The Book of Mormon Today” (Institute for Religious Research/Fundamental
Evangelist Association, n.d.), online at http://www.biblebelievers.net/cults/mormonism/kjcmorm2.htm ,
arguing falsely there that the Book of Mormon teaches a strict monotheism (one God, who is a spirit, and
is “unchangeable from eternity to all eternity”), which is supposedly rejected in later Mormonism, in
favor of multiple gods, who are embodied, and who are men who achieved apotheosis. Cf. Esther
Hamori, "When Gods Were Men": The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (de
Gruyter, 2008).
3
Johannes Zachhuber, “The Historical Turn,” in Joel Rasmussen, et al., eds., Oxford Handbook
of Nineteenth Century Christian Thought (Oxford Univ Press, forthcoming 2016), 1-20, online at
https://www.academia.edu/17285245/The_Historical_Turn .

1
B. The Hebrew Bible reflects a variety of Israelite religions,4 as do the Judaisms of late antiquity
(of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, as reflected in intertestamental literature, Dead Sea
Scrolls, New Testament, talmud, etc.5). To take the Old Testament alone, questions continue to
be asked about the possibility of even doing biblical theology,6 since

the OT does not present a systematic theology, but rather a rich diversity of writings
addressing various historical, ethical, and social problems from theological perspectives
often quite different from one another. These writings arose over a period of more than
one thousand years, and in many cases subsequent generations altered and amplified the
received material so as to apply it to their changed circumstances. The task of OT
theology is to present the origin, nature, and history of transmission of these writings as
accurately as possible so as to give a clear delineation of the beliefs to which they give
witness and of the communities within which they arose.7

C. The upshot, of course, is that the Bible is subject to the very same types of analysis and
delineation of “problems” or “difficulties” (aporias)8 as are frequently applied to the Book of
Mormon – often with malice aforethought – Terryl Givens pointing out that the question of the
historicity of the Book of Mormon raises the same sort of discomfiting issues for Mormons as
does the question of the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus for normative Christianity.9

D. Moreover, the Book of Mormon entails a whole range of theological issues, e.g., Grant Hardy
frankly addresses “how Nephi fits into the evolving tradition of prophecy at the time of the Exile,
when there was increased emphasis on repentance, hope in the face of disaster, eschatology,

4
Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel (Continuum, 2001); Richard Hess, Israelite
Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey (Baker Academic, 2007).
5
Matthew Grey, “Jewish Sectarianism at the Time of Jesus,” BYU Education Week lectures,
August 14-17, 2012; Gabriele Boccacini, “Multiple Judaisms,” Bible Review, 11/1 (Feb 1995):38-41,46;
Diana Edelman, ed., The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (Eerdmans, 1995); Jonathan
Smith, Drudgery Divine: On The Comparisons of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity
(Univ. of Chicago Press, 1990).
6
John Collins, “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?” in W. Propp, B. Halpern, and D.
Freedman, eds., The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (Eisenbrauns, 1990), 1-18.
7
Paul Hanson, “Theology, Old Testament,” in P. J. Achtemeier, ed., Harper’s Bible Dictionary
(SBL/HarperSanFrancisco, 1985), 1058.
8
Robert Segal, ed., Philosophy, Religious Studies, and Myth (Garland, 1996), in which theories
of myth are applied to the Bible, Classical, and ancient Near Eastern examples.
9
Terryl Givens, “The Book of Mormon and the Future(s) of Mormonism,” presented at the
March 27-29, 2003, conference on “God, Humanity, and Revelation: Perspectives from Mormon
Philosophy and History,” at the Yale Divinity School; Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical
Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne, 2012).

2
apocalypticism, written communication, and an established canon,”10 while his father Lehi, citing
that canon (the Bronze Plates), noted how the writings of the descendants of Joseph would be
united with the writings of those of Judah “unto the confounding of false doctrines . . . and
bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of
my covenants, saith the Lord” (II Nephi 3:12).11 At the same time, Joseph Spencer strongly
differentiates the theologies of Nephi (the higher, covenantal law) and Abinadi (the lower,
soteriological law),12 which are only reconciled in Third Nephi.13

II. The Keystone: First Principles

A. Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon is “the keystone of our religion, and” that “a
man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”14 But what are
those “precepts,”15 and why is the Book of Mormon the “keystone” of Mormonism? And is the
Book of Mormon really significantly different than the Bible? These are the very questions we
come to grips with herein.

B. Observations and opinions about theological material in the Book of Mormon run the gamut,
from representing traditional Christianity16 (and nothing more), or containing the complete LDS

10
Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford Univ. Press,
2010), 74, citing J. Barton, “Prophecy,” in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, V:489-495.
11
Cf. Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 77-78.
12
Joseph Spencer, An Other Testament: On Typology (Salt Press, 2012), xii-xiii, 96, 107, 164-
169, 173-175.
13
Spencer, An Other Testament, 108-109.
14
Quotation in “Introduction” of the 1981 LDS edition of the Book of Mormon = in B. H.
Roberts, ed., History of the Church, IV:461 (Nov 1841); cf. James E. Faust, “The Keystone of Our
Religion.” Ensign, Nov. 1983, p. 9.
15
Bob Smith,”What are the Precepts of the Book of Mormon?” Quora, Sept 20, 2019, onnline at
https://qr.ae/pNxddU .
16
Matt Slick, “A Quick Look at the Book of Mormon,” CARM, online at http://carm.org/
quick-look-at-book-of-mormon .

3
Plan of Salvation,17 through ancient Jewish festivals18 and esoteric Israelite temple
liturgy,19 to the espousal of remnant theology20 and of liberation theology.21 Nothing is off the
table, and, as we shall see, much has been found that was entirely unexpected.

III. Knowledge: Epistemologies and Historicity

A. Of the greatest importance among those precepts or theological principles is epistemology.

John-Charles Duffy ties epistemology and historicity together by arguing that belief in the Book
of Mormon as an ancient document depends on socialization into the LDS Church, i.e.,

how someone assesses the evidence for and against Book of Mormon historicity is
fundamentally a question of how well socialized that person is into the Church. In other
words, belief or disbelief in Book of Mormon historicity has less to do with intellectual
issues per se than with the quality of a person's relationships with Latter-day Saints as
compared to investments in other social groups.22

17
Spencer, An Other Testament, 42-57; Andrew Whitesides laid the Plan out in detail in his
Sacrament Meeting talk at the Harbor First Ward in San Pedro, California, on August 17, 2008, as
complete within the Small Plates of Nephi.
18
John Tvedtnes, “King Benjamin and the Feast of Tabernacles,” in J. Lundquist & S. Ricks,
eds., By Study and Also By Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth
Birthday, 27 March 1990, 2 vols. (Deseret/FARMS, 1990), II:197-237; Gordon Thomasson, “Summary
of FARMS ‘Festivals Found’,” Oct 19, 1984; Thomasson, “Nephite Observance of the Performances and
Ordinances of God: Pre-Exilic Israelite Religous Patterns in the Book of Mormon” (Vestal, NY, 1997) –
the latter two forthcoming in G. Thomasson & R. Smith, Ethnology of the Book of Mormon.
19
John Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple & Sermon on the Mount (FARMS, 1999);
LeGrand Baker & Stephen Ricks, Who Shall Ascend Into the Hill of the Lord: The Psalms in Israel’s
Temple Worship in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon (Eborn Books, 2010); David Bokovoy,
"Temple Imagery in the Book of Mormon," BYU Education Week lectures, Aug 16 - 19, 2011; David
John Butler, Plain and Precious Things: The Temple Religion of the Book of Mormon (eBook, 2012);
Spencer, An Other Testament, 42-57; John Welch, “Seeing 3 Nephi as the Holy of Holies of the Book of
Mormon,” in A. Skinner & G. Strathearn, eds., Third Nephi: An Incomparable Scripture (BYU Maxwell
Institute/Deseret Book, 2012), 1-33.
20
Joseph Spencer, “Finally: An Outline of a Book of Mormon Remnant Theology,” online at
http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/05/07/finally-an-outline-of-a-book-of-mormon-remnant-theology/.
21
Dennis Potter, “Liberation Theology in the Book of Mormon,” in J. McLachlan & L. Ericson,
eds., Discourses in Mormon Theology: Philosophical &Theological Possibilities (Kofford, 2007),
175-192, online at http://research.uvu.edu/potter/bomliberation.pdf ; cf. Robert Mesle, Process
Theology: A Basic Introduction (Chalice Press, 1993), 65-68, 75-80.
22
John-Charles Duffy, “Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates: Historical and Social
Perspectives,” paper delivered Aug 6, 2008, at the Sunstone Symposium, and published in two parts in

4
Not only does this conveniently relativize all discussion a priori by both proponents and
detractors on the historicity question, but likely includes Duffy himself in his regressive socio-
psychological dynamic. Which is to say that it ducks the primary question and leaves us with
little else than a vicious cycle (a circular epistemology for everyone).

B. On the other hand, whether faced with existential “metaphysical horror,”23 or dealing with the
inherent weaknesses of traditional Christian biblical epistemology as a cognitive foundation (sola
scriptura), Fernando Canale offers what he calls a “new model” of revelatory inspiration for
formulating theological knowledge24 – which is not “new” at all, and is a well-known feature of a
Book of Mormon epistemology (Moroni 10:3-5). As evangelical scholar William Lane Craig
himself observes of his own personal saving experience, his teenage “spiritual rebirth,”

I still think this experiential approach to the resurrection is a perfectly valid way to
knowing that Christ has risen. It’s the way that most Christians today know that Jesus is
risen and alive.25

Would that other evangelicals were as honest and frank.

C. However, the Book of Mormon also offers a very this-worldly and experiential mode of
finding truth (Alma 32), which is compatible with the much vaunted experimental method of
science,26 while likewise being a commonsensical matter of practical application.27 It turns out,
however, that the horticultural metaphor is not the only vehicle employed in Alma 32. As Jenny

Sunstone, # 151 (Oct 2008), 36-62, and #152 (Dec 2008), 46-61.
23
Leszek Kolakowski, Metaphysical Horror, trans. & ed. A. Kolakowska (Penguin Books/Univ.
of Chicago Press, 2001). Radical uncertainty, despite the best efforts of philosophy.
24
Fernando Canale, Back to Revelation-Inspiration: Searching for the Cognitive Foundation of
Christian Theology in a Postmodern World (Univ. Press of America, 2001).
25
“Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?” A Debate between William Lane
Craig and Bart Ehrman at College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, March 28, 2006, online
at http://www.bartdehrman.com/pdf/resurrection_debate.pdf .
26
Adam Miller, ed., An Experiment on the Word: Reading Alma 32 (Salt Press, 2011).
27
John L. McKenzie described the biblical "knowledge of God" as "a vital union with the
traditional morality which qualified the whole human life; one knows this morality by having it, by living
it" (McKenzie, "Knowledge of God in Hosea," Journal of Biblical Literature, 74/1 [March 1955]: 27).
My thanks to Walker Wright for providing this citation.

5
Webb28 and David Bokovoy 29 point out, that chapter is shot through with deliberate echoes and
allusions to the Creation and Garden of Eden story – which, according to Anglican Bishop Tom
Wright, is “a temple story.”30

D. Grant Hardy suggests “that Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni are presenting theological ideas in
the guise of history,” according to “their individual, prophetic agendas,” e.g., Nephi gives more
weight “to visions of the distant future” than to history, while Moroni gives more weight to “the
witness of the Spirit”31; “Mormon organizes his material to provide a rational, evidentiary basis
for faith,” but “then . . . Moroni comes to reject that model of belief.”32 Finally, Hardy also
demonstrates the very different foci and epistemological preferences of Nephi and Mormon:33

NEPHI MORMON
focus on own life (never)
contextless sermons (never)
focus on House of Israel (very little)
focus on last days (very little)
creative interpretation of Scripture (never)
visionary (never)

E. In any case, asserts Hardy, the Book of Mormon does supply a twofold method for
determining whether a revelation is authentic: (1) multiple attestation/multiple witnesses, and (2)
the “argument from fulfilled prophecy,”34 which is a well-known Deuteronomic standard (13:1-5,
18:22).

28
Webb, “It is Well that Ye are Cast Out: Alma 32 and Eden,” in Adam Miller, ed., An
Experiment on the Word: Reading Alma 32 (Salem, OR: Salt Press, 2011), 43-56.
29
Bokovoy, “In Principio Creavit Deus: The Theological Use of Creation Imagery in the Book
of Mormon,” paper delivered Sept 20, 2012, at that annual meeting of the Society for Mormon
Philosophy and Theology (SMPT) at USU in Logan, Utah.
30
Wright interview by Pete Enns, BioLogos, 2010, online at https://youtu.be/fxQpFosrTUk .
31
Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 92.
32
Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 28.
33
Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 84.
34
Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 81-82.

6
F. As formulated by Joe Spencer, the epistemological discussion of temporal versus spiritual
knowledge in Alma 36 is of another sort entirely, suggesting as it does the Thomistic question &
answer approach typical of the systematic theology in the Summa Theologiae,35 but which also
looks very much like typical Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Mormon catechism.36 For
example:

Q 1 Can you know the following propositions? If you keep God’s commandments, you
will prosper. Only God can overcome the captivity of the fathers. If you trust in God, He
will support you in all your trials. You will know this of yourself. Alma 36:1-3 227-30.
Q 2 Is such knowledge impossible by temporal (historical) means? Alma 36:4-5 236:26
237:43

A Yes, such knowledge is impossible by temporal means, because historical knowledge is

ordinarily closed and irretrievable. But via sincere repentance, spiritual rebirth, and the
ministration of the Holy Ghost or an angel, you may know the spiritual (typological)
truth, i.e., by grace the finality of history can be “ruptured.” Alma 36:6-25 (the central
section, by the way, of a magnificent chiasm).37

The Q&A approach is most appropriate in this case since it occurs in the context of standard
questions for a Passover celebration (questions at the seder meal).38

G. Another classic approach found in the Book of Mormon is the proof of the existence of God
based on the grandeur and wonderfully designed natural world in which we live (Alma 30:44),
suggesting that, as with Goldilocks, everything was “just right” and fine-tuned for human
habitation.39 Indeed, a physicist might argue that, with 200 billion galaxies and 200 billion stars
in each galaxy, the odds are that something will be “just right” somewhere in the universe. In

35
See, for example, Question 12 in the Summa, online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/
aquinas/summa/index.htm
36
Davis Bitton, “Mormon Cathechisms,” in D. Parry, D. Peterson, and S. Ricks, eds., Revelation,
Reason, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen (FARMS, 2002), 407-432; see the 1835 LDS
Lectures on Faith, authored primarily by Sidney Rigdon, as noted in Larry Dahl & Charles Tate, eds.,
The Lectures on Faith in Historical Perspective (BYU Religious Studies Center, 1990); Wayne Larsen,
Alvin Rencher, and Tim Layton, "Who Wrote the Book of Mormon? An Analysis of Wordprints," BYU
Studies, 24/9 (Spring 1980), 20, Appendix E: “Lectures on Faith.”
37
See the charts and dialectical discussion in Joseph Spencer, An Other Testament: On Typology
(Salt Press, 2012), 10-25. Cf. the conversion experience of Saul-Paul.
38
Gordon Thomasson & John Welch, “The Sons of the Passover,” FARMS Update, Aug 1984,
reprinted in Welch, ed., Reeploring the Book of Mormon (FARMS/Deseret, 1992), 196-198.
39
Richard Deem, “Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe,” Evidence for God blog, online
at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html .

7
fact “Goldilocks planets” are now being found with great regularity, and it is estimated that there
may be tens of billions of such worlds in our Milky Way Galaxy alone.40

H. The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses as to the blatant physicality of the Plates,41 along with
offhand observations of others who had physical contact with the Plates, is also of prime
epistemological importance,42 leading Terryl L. Givens to observe that

I can see no reason to compel a non-literal reading of the Testimony of the Eight, other
than sheer reluctance to accept supernaturalism. And that is a reluctance I cannot argue
with. That is why the only alternative to a literal reading that I do not think is easily
dismissible is Hume’s more general argument against miracles: the reliability of
witnesses is more easily impugned than the reliability of natural laws.43

To that extent at least, the Book of Mormon thus provides us with a scientific-technical
espistemological approach dependent upon multiple witnesses from our own era.44 However, it
simultaneously suggests the relevance of arguments based on probability.

IV. Implausibility & Bayesian Probability

When the missionaries came I was 39 years old. They came in and told me the most
preposterous story I have ever heard in my life: about this white boy, a dead angel and
some gold plates. And I thought, “I wonder what they're on?”
Betty Stevenson, Oakland, California45

40
X. Delfosse1, et al., “The HARPS Search for Southern Extra-Solar planets. XXXV. Super-
Earths around the M-Dwarf Neighbors Gl 433 and Gl 667C*,” Astronomy & Astrophysics, Feb 14, 2012,
online at http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1214/eso1214b.pdf ; cf. Bonfils,
et al., “The HARPS Search for Southern Extra-Solar Planets.* XXXI. The M-Dwarf Sample,” Astronomy
& Astrophysics, Nov 24, 2011, online at
http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1214/eso1214a.pdf .
41
Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World
Religion (Oxford Univ. Press, 2002), 4, 12, 40.
42
Robert F. Smith, “Translation of Languages (hermçniea glôssôn I Cor 12:10)” (Independence,
MO: June 1980), online at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/
46307834-Translation-of-Languages .
43
Givens in Times and Seasons, Jan 31, 2005, reply to Question 6, online at
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/01/12-questions-for-terryl-givens/ .
44
Cf. Robert F. Smith, “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, Oct 1984, reprinted in J. Welch,
ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (FARMS/Deseret, 1992), 275-278.
45
http://www.pbs.org/mormons/themes/whyiam.html . Stevenson later became a faithful
Mormon, and has served as the Relief Society President of her ward.

8
A. Since the origin of the Book of Mormon is by its very nature “preposterous,”46 all the more
reason for an affirmation of its authenticity to be taken seriously, to wit: Strangely enough, by
the canons of historical inquiry, it is the Book of Mormon which is in a more favorable position
to be evaluated and proven true or false, i.e., that it has no apparently natural continuity with the
past as a transmitted document (no plates, no ancient text, etc.) means that it is highly improbable
that it could accurately describe archaic civilizations of the New World or that it could contain
other complex, systematic data which have only been discovered in modern times – and are seen
to be accurate. Indeed, it is so absurd and improbable that the Book of Mormon could be true that
strong evidence that it is authentic from archeology, linguistics, literary topoi, and the like, all the
more strongly confirm its historical authenticity!! The Bible, on the other hand, has been
transmitted by natural, historical means down to our own day so that any historically improbable
claims contained within it will have to be defended by faith alone – since the civilizations of the
ancient Near East certainly existed and have been closely studied. There is nothing improbable in
the transmission of the biblical text, unless we interpose unnecessary claims of miraculous
preservation of an inerrant text (a theological preference in some quarters). As Blake Ostler has
pointed out:

Assertions such as “God exists,” or “God caused this earthquake,” or “the Holy
Spirit inspires me” are not subject to empirical falsification. However, such assertions as
“a civilization descended from Israelites existed in ancient America,” or “this book is a
translation of an ancient record,” or “a person named Jesus lived in Galilee” are
empirical and are subject to empirical investigation. [Stephen] Robinson has made a
logical category mistake to the same extent as one who assumes that all questions are
scrutable by empirical methodologies; he assumes that no assertions related to faith are
empirical. The assertion that the Book of Mormon is an historical work by Israelite
descendants can be investigated by the methodologies of biblical scholarship used in the
article. Robinson argues that such methodologies “by definition” preclude God. Though
empirical methodologies cannot show either that God was or was not involved in the
production of the Book of Mormon, they can investigate whether the evidence is
consistent with the claim that the book is a translation of an ancient work.47

B. Although Stephen Robinson’s assertions about the limitations of normative biblical

scholarship are correct, he errs in applying that limitation to the Book of Mormon – for the
reasons just stated. Indeed, although it is easy to see that, in the case of Bayesian Probability
theory, the normally subjective application of the theory to the Bible suffers from a fatal
confirmation bias,48 no such limitation applies to serious application of such scholarship to the

46
So Philip Barlow, “Questions at the Veil,” paper delivered Sept 20, 2012, at the annual
meeting of the SMPT at USU, Logan, Utah.
47
Blake Ostler, “Criticisms of the Expansion Theory of the Book of Mormon from the Scriptural
Fundamentalist’s Perspective,” 10 – reply to criticisms by Stephen Robinson (BYU).
48
Cf. Stephen Unwin, The Probability of God: A Simple Calculation that Proves the Ultimate
Truth (Crown Forum, 2003) versus Herman Philipse, God in the Age of Science? A Critique of Religious

9
Book of Mormon. That is, one does not have to “prove” the Book of Mormon true, but (due to
its very improbable origin) merely to provide a cumulative “body of data” which raises the level
of likelihood to “probable.”49 The preponderance of evidence willy-nilly then carries the day.

V. Open Canon & Continuing Revelation

The events in our lives happen in a sequence in time, but in their significance to
ourselves they find their own order, the continuous thread of revelation.
Eudora Welty50

A. The very existence of the Book of Mormon is an assault on the concept of a closed canon,
and John Welch and David Whittaker have discussed the implications of that central feature of
Mormonism.51 Moreover, the dialogic revelation which preceded and accompanied the
coming forth of the Book of Mormon52 is of a piece with instances of revelation within that book
– a book which even contains revelations about itself (I Nephi 2:20, 13:30, II Nephi 1:5, 10:19,
26:15-16, Jacob 5:43, Ether 1:38-42, 2:7,10-15, 9:20, 10:28, 13:2) – still another reason to
consider it post-modern.

B. Moreover, modern Protestant theologians such as Paul Hanson frankly maintain that

As God was present to heal and restore creation and the human family in biblical times,
God is believed to be present now, and as an extension of the people of God in biblical
times communities of faith today are called to participate in God’s universal plan of
justice, compassion, and peace. 53

Joseph Smith would smile to hear that.

Reason (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012), part I.

49
James Joyce, “Bayes' Theorem,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Sep 30, 2003, online at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/ ; David Howie, Interpreting Probability: Controversies
and Developments in the Early Twentieth Century, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and
Decision Theory (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).
50
Welty, One Writer’s Beginnings (Harvard Univ. Press, 1984).
51
J. Welch & D. Whittaker, “Mormonism”s Open Canon: Some Historical Perspectives on Its
Religious Limits and Potentials,” paper presented Nov 24, 1986, at the annual AAR/SBL meeting in
Atlanta, in response to W. Davies, “Reflections on the Mormon Canon,” Harvard Theological Review,
79 (Jan-Jul 1986):44-66.
52
Terryl Givens, "The Book of Mormon and Dialogic Revelation," Journal of Book of Mormon
Studies, 10/2 (2001):16-27, 69-70.
53
Hanson, “Theology, Old Testament,” in Achtemeier, ed., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1061.

10
C. Of course, the notion of an open canon and continuing revelation is compatible with, or
suggestive of an “open system” of theology in the very unsystematic sense suggested by Alfred
North Whitehead, William James, Charles Hartshorne, and others, i.e., process theology54 –
which has also been somewhat popular with some LDS55 and RLDS (Community of Christ)
theologians.56

VI. Grace, Covenant & Works

A. In law they sometimes speak about a deal consisting of an offer, an acceptance, and a
consideration. However, just because you make a free offer doesn't mean that I accept it. So, is
faith required to accept the free gift of grace? And is faith a "work"? Is it a “consideration”?

How should we parse Nephi’s statement in II Nephi 25:23?

. . . be reconciled unto God;
for we know that it is by grace we are saved,
after all we can do.

Or of Jacob in II Nephi 10:24?57

. . . reconcile yourselves to the will of God,
and not to the will of the devil and the flesh;
and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God,
that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.

54
Jacob Baker, "The Shadow of the Cathedral: On a Systematic Exposition of Mormon
Theology," Element, 4/1 (Spring 2008):2; Hanson, “Theology, Old Testament,” in Achtemeier, ed.,
Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1060; cf. Helmer, Suchocki, Quiring, and Goetz, eds., Schleiermacher and
Whitehead: Open Systems in Dialogue (De Gruyter, 2004).
55
Floyd Ross, “Process Philosophy and Mormon Thought,” Sunstone, 7/1 (Jan-Feb 1982):17-25,
online at https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/031-16-25.pdf ; Blake
Ostler, “Intelligence and Creativity: Ultimates in Mormonism and Process Theology,” panel presentation
August 12, 2004 at Sunstone Salt Lake Symposium; Philip Clayton, “God Beyond Orthodoxy: Process
Theology for the 21st Century,” paper presented May 21, 2009, at the SMPT Conference at the
Claremont Colleges; Dan Wotherspoon, “Process Theology and Mormonism– Connections and
Challenges,” paper presented March 30, 2006, at UVSC Conference on “Mormonism and the Christian
Tradition”; Wotherspoon, “Podcast 142-143: Process Theology and Mormonism,” Mormon Matters, Dec
10, 2012, online at http://mormonmatters.org/2012/12/10/142-143-process-theology-and-mormonism/ .
56
Mesle, Process Theology; Garland E. Tickemyer, "Joseph Smith and Process Theology,"
Dialogue, 17 (Aut 1984):75-85.
57
Book of Mormon Central, “Why Does Nephi State that We Are Saved by Grace ‘After All We
Can Do’? (2 Nephi 25:23),” KnoWhy #371, Oct 10, 2017, online at
https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-does-nephi-state-that-we-are-saved-by-grace-
%E2%80%9Cafter-all-we-can-do , insightfully points out that Nephi is quoting Jacob (a quote reversed
in accord with Seidel’s Law).

11
Or the King of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis in Alma 24:11
. . . it has been all that we could do . . .
to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed,
and to get God to take them away from our hearts,
for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God
that he would take away our stain . . . .

Or of Paul in Ephesians 6:13 (ISV)?

For this reason, take up the whole armor of God so that you may be able to take a stand
whenever evil comes. And when you have done everything you could, you will be able
to stand firm. [ê᠞ðáíôá êáôåñãáóÜìåíïé] cf. Ephesians 2:8-9

And finally, Luke 17:10,

. . . when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are
unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

B. Should we follow Stephen Robinson here in his suggestion that “after” is a

preposition of separation, suggesting that we are saved by grace “apart” from all we can
do, while at the same time requiring that we be faithful to the covenant.58 Or do we
understand it according to Brant Gardner's suggestion that the "after all we can do" refers
to centuries of observance of the Law of Moses, i,.e., "after" being sequential in time,
with the Law of Moses being the type which looks forward to the antitype which fulfills
the Law.59 As Brad Wilcox has put it:

Christ is not waiting at the finish line once we have done “all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23).
He is with us every step of the way.60

C. As Amy-Jill Levine points out, part of this quandary stems from disregard of Judaism
and the nature of Jewish law.

. . . the election of Israel is based on grace, not merit or works. Jews do not
follow Torah in order to “earn” divine love or salvation; the Mishnah (m. Sanh.

58
Robinson, Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News (Deseret Book,
1992), 91-92 (91, “regardless of all we can do”); cf. Robert Millet, After All We Can Do . . . Grace Works
(Deseret Book, 2001); both cited by Spencer, An Other Testament, 94-95; Daniel O. McClellan, “2 Nephi
25:23 in Literary and Rhetorical Context,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 29 (2020):1-19, online at
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jbookmormstud2.29.2020.0001 .
59
Spencer, An Other Testament, 94-95, citing Brant Gardner, Second Witness, I:343-344.
60
Wilcox, “His Grace is Sufficient,” BYU Devotional Address, July 12, 2011, published in BYU
Today, devotional address at BYU (Winter 2012), online at http://magazine.byu.edu/article/his-grace-is-
sufficient/, citing Bruce Hafen, The Broken Heart (SLC: Deseret Book, 1989), 155.

12
 10.1) states that “all Israel has a share in the world to come”–it is part of the
covenant.61

D. Just so, New Testament Greek charis “grace” indicates not merely gratitude, nor
merely the “gratia plena” of the Ave Maria, but actually indicates a reciprocal gift-giving
relationship between patron and devotée.62 Indeed, biblical Hebrew h. çn “grace,” and
h. ânâ “to be gracious, show favor,” must be understood first in the context of the formal
covenant relationship between Israel and the Lord God (Exodus 34:5-28, Numbers
14:18).63 The offer and acceptance of that covenant (as in Mosiah 5:1-15) brought with it
the obligation of faithful adherence to that covenant, such that Jesus himself repeatedly
insisted that men will be judged according to their works:

Matthew 16:27 "he shall reward every man according to his works." John 5:29 "And
shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that
have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (Matthew 5:16, 7:16, 13:23, 25:40,
Luke 6:35, John 3:21, 8:39, 14:15; I Nephi 15:32-33, II Nephi 9:44, Mosiah 3:24, 16:10,
Alma 7:27, 9:28, III Nephi 12:16, 26:4, 27:11-15, Mormon 3:18,20, 6:21, Moroni 7:5)

Grace and works: Can’t have one without the other. "Draw nigh unto God, and he will draw
nigh unto you" (James 4:8). For “grace without works is as dead as a body without a soul”
(James 2:20,26; cf. Proverbs 24:12), with the proviso that "They who have not the Law are a law
unto themselves" (Romans 2:14).

VII. Protological / Premortal Existence

A. Not only was the Atonement (Hebrew kippûr “reconciliation” for breach of covenant = Greek
katallagç) prepared from the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6-7, Alma 13:5), but the high
priesthood by which it is administered was also prepared from the foundation of the world, i.e.,
extant “from eternity to eternity,” “without beginning of days or end of years” (Alma 13:3-7) –
which suggests a meristic combination of static and dynamic eternity, describing the cosmic and
timeless nature of priesthood power qua power to act on behalf of God. This timelessness is
likewise suggested by Joseph Fitzmyer, saying of the Melchizedek text from Qumran cave 11:

61
Levine, “Common Errors Made about Judaism,” in Levine & Brettler, eds., The Jewish
Annotated New Testament (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011), 502.
62
Brent. J. Schmidt, Relational Grace: The Reciprocal and Binding Covenant of Charis (×Üñéò)
(Provo: BYU Studies, 2015); Brent Schmidt and John Welch, “Op-ed: The Mormon Restoration and the
Meaning of Grace,” Deseret News, Dec 20, 2017, online at https://www.deseretnews.com/article/
865694194/Op-ed-The-Mormon-restoration-and-the-meaning-of-grace.html .

63
John S. Kselman, “Grace: Old Testament,” in D. Freedman, ed., ABD, II:1084-1086.

13
 If we had not recovered this text about Melchizedek . . , would we ever have understood
correctly what was meant by Heb 7:3 and its affirmation about him? If Melchizedek
were indeed thought of by pre-Christian Jews as a heavenly redemption figure who
performed a priestly function (expiation) for the men of his lot, then one can see how the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could depict Christ, . . as a “priest according to the
order of Melchizedek.”64

Taken together with the Divine Council65 (on which more below at XIV), and the insistence of
Alma 13:3 that those priests prepared, called, and ordained from the foundation of the world in
accordance with their already having demonstrated “their exceeding faith and good works” (in
the pre-mortal existence?), do these texts prove the doctrine of pre-mortal existence of man in the
Book of Mormon?66 No, but they are very suggestive, and Robert Hammerton-Kelly has
affirmed that interpretation in both Judaism and in the New Testament.67 In any case, by 1832
pre-mortal existence was certainly being taught by Joseph Smith in his Ahman revelation (D&C
78:20) – that and apotheosis being reflected in W. W. Phelps’ tongue-singing “Hymn of
Enoch.”68

VIII. Free Agency: Theodicy and Opposition in All Things

A. Lehi’s Law of Opposition (II Nephi 2:11-29),69 is not only by far and away the best method of

64
Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Eerdmans, 2000), 39.
65
David Bokovoy, “‘If You Could Hie to Kolob’; The Council of the Gods in Modern Revelation
and the Ancient World,” 4-part BYU Education Week lectures, August 14-17, 2012; Bokovoy, “‘Thou
Knowest That I Believe’: Invoking The Spirit of the Lord as Council Witness in 1 Nephi 11,” Interpreter,
1/1 (2012): 1-23.
66
Charles Harrell, "Foreordination, Foreknowledge, and Free Will: The Doctrine of Pre-
existence in Alma 13," paper presented Sept 21, 2012, at the annual SMPT meeting in Logan, Utah. Cf.
Blake Ostler, "The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Development of Mormon Thought," Dialogue, 15/1
(1982), 59-78; Mosiah 7:27, III Ne 1:13, 26:5, Ether 3:16.
67
Hammerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, Wisdom and the Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-
existence in the New Testament, SNTSMS 21 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973).
68
Terryl Givens, “The Prophecy of Enoch as Restoration Blueprint,” address delivered in the
Logan, Utah, Tabernacle, September 20, 2012. The Tongue-singing Hymn was discovered two years ago
in BYU Special Collections.
69
Cf. E. Horton, “Koheleth’s Concept of Opposites,” Numen, 19 (1972):1-21; A. Gileadi, Isaiah
Decoded (Hebraeus, 2002), presents a “bifid” structure of the entire book of Isaiah, with seven parallel
themes arranged chiastically in each half of the book, through a series of opposites (ruin & rebirth,
rebellion & compliance, etc.); cf. also Amos 5:14-15 in Andersen & Freedman, Amos, 506 (good & evil
2evil & good), cited by Bartelt in A. Beck, ed., Fortunate the Eyes That See, 167-168, “triple chiasm” of
evil,good 2good,evil; darkness,light 2light,darkness; bitter,sweet 2sweet,bitter; I Nephi 8:10-35, 11:8-25,

14
teaching,70 but it is a fundamental law of the physical universe. It is also normative within
philosophy to demand that meaningful statements make a difference.71

B. Despite over a millennium of effort, normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology (including

evangelical theology) has not been able to successfully address the problem of evil.72 Indeed, the
biblical concept of God is quite different from that believed by either physicists on the one hand,
or by adherents of the traditional Judeo-Christian religion on the other.73 The Book of Mormon,
on the other hand, breaches the theological wall of theodicy via free agency and opposition in all
things. Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology offers no more hope than the irrational, absurd views
of existentialism,74 which (along with the Holocaust) is one of the primary reasons for the demise
of mainstream religious belief in the Western world and the concomitant “death of God.”75

IX. Apotheosis: Godhood

A. Ernst Benz has said of the Mormon doctrine of apotheosis:

Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is
certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the
primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin,
who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God
and man as the quintessential heresy.76

15:22-36, II Nephi 2:15, 4:4, Alma 5:34,62, 12:23-26, 32:40, 42:2-6.

70
Jonah Lehrer, Imagine: How Creativity Works (NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012); cf.
Janice Allred, “Opposition in All Things: The Book of Mormon View,” paper given Sept 21, 2012, at the
annual meeting of the SMPT, Logan, Utah.
71
A. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic (1936); 2nd ed. (Gollantz, 1946/ reprint Dover, 1952).
72
Ben Witherington, III, The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing Exegetical
Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism (Baylor Univ. Press, 2005); Richard
Swinburne, Providence and the Problem of Evil (Oxford Univ. Press, 1998).
73
Gerald Schroeder, God According to God (HarperOne, 2010).
74
William Barrett, Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy (Doubleday-Anchor,
1962); Jean-Paul Sartre, “No Exit” [Huis Clos] (1944).
75
Richard Rubenstein, "God After the Death of God," in Rubenstein, After Auschwitz: History,
Theology, and Contemporary Judaism, 2nd ed (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1992), 293–306; Phillip
Jenkins, God's Continent: Christianity, Islam and Europe's Religious Crisis (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005);
Gabriel Vahanian, The Death of God: The Culture of Our Post-Christian Era (George Braziller, 1961).
76
“Der Mensch als Imago Dei,” in Eranos Jahrbuch 40 (1971), and also published in Urbild und
Abbild: Der Mensch und die mythische Welt: gesammelte Eranos-Beitrage (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 326,

15
The notion of deification as the ultimate objective of the early Christian believer is entirely
orthodox,77 and was also a fundamental belief of the ancient Egyptians.78 Both Bible and Book
of Mormon appear to contain this doctrine (III Nephi 28:10), and it was common to the Ante-
Nicene Fathers,79 and to pre-Christian Judaism.80 Both likewise focus on what Dietrich Wildung
suggests are “contemporary events as the setting of God’s ongoing salvation drama.”81

X. Spiritus Sanctus

A. Nephi beholds the Holy Spirit (“the Spirit of the Lord”) “in the form of a man” who could
speak “as a man” (1 Nephi 11:11).82 That same Holy Spirit is personified as Wisdom in Proverbs
8, Wisdom of Solomon 7 - 8, and Ecclesiasticus 24 (Ben Sira).83

B. Although she is led astray by the feminine gender of the Hebrew & Greek words for
“Wisdom” (so in Mosiah 8:20b), Amy-Jill Levine correctly points out that

the texts make sense in their own historical context. Early Jewish sources speak of
Wisdom (Greek: Sophia; Hebrew: Chochmah) or the Shekinah as manifestations of God
on earth. Even more striking, these manifestations are feminine. For example, Proverbs

Man mag zu dieser Lehre von der progressiven Vergottung stehen wie man will, eines ist
sicher, Joseph Smith steht mit dieser seiner Anthropologie der altkirchlichen
Anschauung vom Menschen näher als die Vorkämpfer der augustinischen
Erbsündenlehre, die den Gedanken an einen so wesenhaften Zusammenhang zwischen
Gott und Mensch als die eigentliche Haeresie betrachtet haben.

English version in Benz, “Imagio Dei: Man in the Image of God,” in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on
Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219.
77
Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov, eds., Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology,
Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Pickwick Publ./Wipf & Stock, 2006).
78
Dietrich Wildung, Egyptian Saints: Deification in Pharaonic Egypt (NYU Press, 1977).
79
Daniel Graham, “Free Will in the Early Church,” paper delivered Sept 21, 2012, at the annual
meeting of SMPT at USU, Logan, Utah.
80
John J. Collins, “A Throne in the Heavens: Apotheosis in Pre-Christian Judaism,” in J. J.
Collins & M. Fishbane, eds., Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys (N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1995),
43-58.
81
Paul Hanson in Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1062.
82
Cf. Kenneth Surin, Theology and the Problem of Evil (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004).
83
P. Skehan in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41:371n.

16
 8:22–31 depicts Wisdom as created at the beginning of God’s work and as “beside him,
like a master worker”; Wisdom’s hymn in Sirach 24:1–34 reads like a paean to a
goddess; Wisdom of Solomon 7:22–10:21 follows suit, as does Philo of Alexandria’s On
the Creation. The Targums, early Aramaic translations of the Jewish Scriptures, sound
very much like John 1:1 in referring to the Word (the Aramaic term is Memre) as a
divine agent of creation.84

XI. Nature of God

A. Based on the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible, Yohanan Muffs insists that
“[t]he biblical God is anthropomorphic. Whoever strips God of his personal quality distorts the
true meaning of Scripture.”85 However, he adds, “only the most holy people are spared death in
the presence of God.”86 Just so, the Book of Mormon speaks of God with the same sort of flesh
and blood anthropomorphisms (Ether 2:4-5,14, 3:4-19).

XII. Gottheit: A Social Network

...the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as such is not found in the Bible.87
Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

A. The word “trinity” does not occur in the Bible or Book of Mormon, and the concept is a later
dogmatic christian theological retrojection upon texts which describe a paradoxically close
relationship among God, his Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the NT exhibits no more
than “triadic coordination” rather than a divine unity of three-in-one,88 which some take to be
tritheism. Jan Assmann and the late Klaus Baer (among others) have, moreover,
maintained that the Christian Trinity and the notion of hypostasis were taken from

84
Levine, “What Jews (and Christians too) Should Know About the New Testament,” Biblical
Archaeology Review, 38/2 (Mar-Apr 2012): 59-61, 64; see also A.-J. Levine & M. Brettler, eds., The
Jewish Annotatted New Testament (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), 157n, 546-549.
85
Muffs, Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):23; cf. Ronald Hendel, “Aniconism and
Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in K. van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book (Leuven:
Peeters, 1997), 205-228; Benjamin Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel
(Cambridge University Press, 2009); Esther J. Hamori, "When Gods Were Men": The Embodied God in
Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (de Gruyter, 2008), reviewed in RBL, Feb 2012, online at
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=8190 .
86
R. Hendel, “Aniconism,” in van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book, 222.
87
Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, “Did the Apostles Believe in the Trinity?” Israel Study Center, Oct 9,
2017, online at https://israelstudycenter.com/did-the-apostles-believe-in-the-trinity/ .
88
J. Bassler, “God (NT),” in D. Freedman, ed., ABD, II:1055.

17
ancient Egyptian religion.89

B. We have already seen how both God and the Holy Spirit are described anthropomorphically
in the Book of Mormon. In that context, it is not possible to formulate a doctrine of hypostatic
union among the members of the Gottheit, but rather no more than a full unity of purpose and
love among perfect beings, with God the Father at their head – one God (II Nephi 31:21, Jacob
4:5, Alma 11:44, III Nephi 11:32, 35-36, Mormon 7:7, Ether 12:41, Moroni 10:34). Formal
language of cross-identfication (Mosiah 13:28, 15:1-5) is, therefore, only to be taken as
metaphorical, so that “the will of the Son” is “swallowed up in the will of the Father” (Mosiah
15:7). In fact, David Paulsen and Ari Bruening argue for a social trinity in III Nephi.90

XIII. Prophetic Call Motif

A. As part of his early work on the FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, Grant Hardy
noted that I Nephi 1 contains the pillar of fire, heavenly book, mystery of God, and prophecy (in
an angelic vision), which are likewise to be found in Revelation 10:1-11.91 However useful such
parallels may be, as noted by John W. Welch in a BYU Book of Mormon Symposium paper, the
motifs in both I Nephi 1 and Revelation 10 are among the normal items to be expected as part of
a prophetic call in the Classical Israelite period,92 and later.93

89
Klaus Baer (then of the Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago) said that Amon-Re-Ptah subsume
all gods and that all gods are three, and three are one. According to him, the Christian Trinity was
developed at Alexandria (Harry Wolfson agreed on the place, but maintained that the Christians got the
idea more immediately from Philo Judaeus [Philo: Foundation of Religious Philosophy in Judaism ,
Christianity, and Islam]). Moreover, Ptah the Creator God/ Chaos (Memphis), is both male & female.
All the gods arose from him, are joined to him, and are him. “The divine” is a monophysite substance
and could be seen as one god, as in Coptic Christianity. My personal notes of Baer lecture at BYU
(Provo, Utah), Aug 20, 1974. However, J. Assmann argues for the expression of the Egyptian trinity or
“triunity” at least as early as the Middle Kingdom, Search for God, 177-180,238-239.
90
Paulsen & Bruening, “The Social Model of the Trinity in 3 Nephi,” in Skinner & Strathearn,
eds., Third Nephi, 191-233.
91
See FARMS’ Book of Mormon Critical Text, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (1986-87), which contains by far
the most comprehensive listing of biblical parallels available in any published source.
92
Welch, "The Calling of a Prophet," paper presented Oct 10, 1986, at the BYU Second Annual
Book of Mormon Symposium , and published in BYU Religious Studies Center Monograph Series: M.
Nyman & C. Tate, eds., First Nephi: The Doctrinal Foundation (1988), 35-54. Cf. Samuel Meier, The
Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World, HSSM 45 (Harvard, 1988).
93
Cf. Blake Ostler, "The Throne-Theophany and Prophetic Commission in 1 Nephi," FARMS
Preliminary Report OST-82, published in BYU Studies, 26/4 (Winter 1986), 67-95. See in particular Geo
Widengren, Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book (King and Saviour III) (1950), for a look at
these motifs throughout the ancient Near East; similarly, non-Mormon scholar Willis Barnstone, ed., The

18
B. Portions of the visions recounted in I Nephi 8 - 14 and in Alma 36 can likewise be compared
with the book of Revelation, though undoubtedly for the same reasons as just mentioned (the
chiastic manner in which the visions are laid out is another pattern of rhetorical importance).
This motif is an integral part of the Council in Heaven.

XIV. Council in Heaven

A. Isaiah chapter 6 throughout, and 14:12-14 (2II Ne 16, 24:12-14) each utilize the familiar
image of the Council of Yahweh.94 For the Council in Heaven is not merely one event, but a
continuing phenomenon of divine governance, which we find exhibited in Lehi’s First Vision (I
Nephi 1:8-14 2Alma 36:22),95 and alluded to elsewhere in the Book of Mormon (I Nephi 11,
Mosiah 2:28, Helaman 10:6-7, III Nephi 17:24, 19:14-15, Mormon 7:7, Ether 3),96 and in the
Bible (Deuteronomy 33:2, I Kings 2:19, Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6, Isaiah 40:1-8, Jeremiah 23:18, Amos
3:7, Zechariah 3:1-7, 6:1-8, Ecclesiasticus 1:8, Luke 2:13-14, Revelation 4:1-11, 5:1-14, 10:1-
11).

B. Moreover, much of this entails the prophetic call motif – a call which necessarily comes from
the Council.

XV. Messianism & Apocalyptic

A. Joseph Spencer says that “the Nephites embrace not only an explicitly messianic but also a

Other Bible (1984), 537, was quite taken with the strong parallels he adduced in comparison of the
Apocalypse of Paul and the story of Joseph’s obtaining the Book of Mormon (cited by Kevin Barney in
FARMS Review of Books, 13/1 [2001], 16, in review of John Tvedtnes’ The Book of Mormon and Other
Hidden Books [2000], 39,99-100, and Appendix I – in turn dependent upon an expanded analysis by
Steven Booras).
94
Frank Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” JNES, 12/4 (Oct 1953), 275-276;
Brevard Childs, Isaiah (Westminster John Knox, 2001), 295-296; both cited by Spencer, An Other
Testament, 73.
95
John Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (FARMS/Deseret, 1992), 24-25 = Welch,
“Lehi's Council Vision and the Mysteries of God,” FARMS Newsletter, Fall 1986, citing Theodore
Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (Scholars Press, 1980); Welch,
"The Calling of a Prophet," in M. Nyman and C. Tate, eds., First Nephi: The Doctrinal Foundation,
35-54.
96
David Bokovoy, “Nephi’s Use of Old Testament Temple Imagery,” BYU Education Week
lecture, Aug 16, 2011; Bokovoy, “Divine Council Imagery in the Book of Mormon,” BYU Education
Week lecture, August 17, 2012.

19
fully apocalyptic theology.”97 Which takes us to the apocalyptic fulfillment of the covenant,
following the “hiatus” during the unspecified and indeterminate times of the Gentiles and of the
Great and Abominable Church:

XVI. Remnant Theology & Covenant

A. That very fulfillment “reintroduces and centralizes the concept of the remnant,” taken
particularly from Isaiah through the process of “likening.” Indeed, “the Book of Mormon itself
will be the mobilizer of the construction of the eschatological remnant.”98

B. While it is true that the covenant theology of Joseph Smith may profitably be compared and
contrasted with Puritan covenant theology (in both the role of covenant is central),99 the treaty-
covenant pattern well-known from the ancient Near East is a far more significant and remarkable
parallel with the Book of Mormon,100 particularly in Mosiah 1 - 6.

XVII. Qumran, Jesus, and the “Churches of Anticipation”101

A. Even if Robert Eisenman has been far too extreme in his conclusions,102 the facts themselves
led reviewer Robert A. Price to say that Eisenman

97
Joseph Spencer, “Finally: An Outline of a Book of Mormon Remnant Theology,” online at
http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/05/07/finally-an-outline-of-a-book-of-mormon-remnant-theology/ .
98
Spencer, “Finally: An Outline.”
99
Thomas Alexander, “‘That He Will Yet Reveal’: An Approach to the Theology of Joseph
Smith,” paper presented December 5, 1981, at the Colloquium on Joseph Smith & Mormonism,
sponsored by the Dept. of Religious Studies at Indiana University (Bloomington).
100
Stephen Ricks, “Kingship, Coronation, and Covenant in Mosiah 1 - 6,” in J. Welch and S.
Ricks, eds., King Benjamin’s Speech: “That Ye May Learn Wisdom” (FARMS, 1998), 233-275; Ricks,
“The Treaty/Covenant Pattern in King Benjamin's Address (Mosiah 1- 6)," BYU Studies, 24/2 (Spring
1984), 151-162; George Mendenhall, “The Suzerainty Treaty Structure: Thirty Years Later,” in E.
Firmage, Sr., B. Weiss III, and J. Welch, eds., Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic
Perspectives, papers presented March 5-8, 1985, at the Univ. of Utah and Brigham Young Univ.
(Eisenbrauns, 1990), 85-100; Mendenhall and Gary Herion. “Covenant,” in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor
Bible Dictionary (Doubleday, 1992), I:1179-1202.
101
F. Cross termed the Qumran community a “church of anticipation,” as noted by Hugh Nibley,
An Approach to the Book of Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1957), chapter 15; 3rd
ed. (FARMS/ Deseret, 1988), CWHN VI:183-193.
102
Robert Eisenman, The New Testament Code: The Cup of the Lord, the Damascus Covenant,
and the Blood of Christ (Watkins, 2006).

20
 does make his case that there is an inescapable commonality of terminology and
conceptuality, sometimes used ironically or satirically, between a mass of texts which
need to be placed together on a mental map if one is to grasp the shape of the religious
world in which they all float as continents. And the first achievement of The New
Testament Code hard won through this methodology, is the realization that the Dead Sea
Scrolls stem from the mid to late first century CE (equivocal Carbon dating results no
longer even being relevant), and that they represent the sectarian baptizing Schwärmerei
known variously as the Essenes, Zealots, Nasoreans, Masbotheans, Sabaeans and Jewish
Christians headed by James the Just. Endless references to the armies of the Kittim and
‘the kings of the Peoples’ make the date clear even before we get to the catalogue of
terminological and conceptual links between the Scrolls, the New Testament, and the
Pseudo- Clementines. I should say that in all these comparisons Eisenman has
established a system of correspondences fully as convincing, and for the same reasons, as
the Preterist interpretation of the Book of Revelation by R.H. Charles and others. I just
do not see any room for serious doubt any more. Teichner was right; Eisenman is right:
the Scrolls are the legacy of the Jerusalem Christians led by the Heirs of Jesus: James the
Just, Simeon bar Cleophas, and Judas Thomas.103

XVIII. Egypticity

A. Not only is the Egypticity of ancient preexilic Israel104 obvious in the Book of Mormon
(language of Bronze Plates and plates of Mormon, primary source of weights & measures,
literary topoi, etc.),105 but the religion and implicit and explicit theologies of ancient Egypt
likewise have much in common with Mormon religion and theology.106

XIX. Nephi & Midrash

103
Review at Robert Eisenman website, http://www.roberteisenman.com/ntc_review.htm .
104
Bernd Schipper, Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo
bis zum Fall Jerusalems (Freiburg/Göttingen, 1999); Gregory Mumford, "International Relations
Between Egypt, Sinai, and Syria-Palestine in the LB Age to Early Persian Period (Dynasties 18-26; cf.
1950-525 B.C.): A Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Distribution and Proportions of Egyptian(izing)
Artefacts and Pottery in Sinai and Selected Sites in Syria-Palestine," 4 vols., doctoral dissertation
(University of Toronto, 1998); Donald Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton,
1992); Yoshiyuki Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic (Scholars
Press, 1999); cf. Mia Rikala, “Sacred Marriage in the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt: Circumstantial
Evidence for a Ritual Interpretation,” in M. Nissinen & R. Uro, eds., Sacred Marriages: The
Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (Eisenbrauns, 2008), 115–144.
105
See Robert F. Smith, Egyptianisms in the Book of Mormon and Other Studies (Provo: Deep
Forest Green Books, 2020).
106
See my forthcoming “Our Egyptian Heritage,” 2012 draft; cf. Jan Assmann, The Search for
God in Ancient Egypt (Cornell Univ. Press, 2001).

21
A. Grant Hardy explains how and why Nephi quoted whole chapters of Isaiah,

but in slightly modified form, sometimes with glosses or interpolations directly related to
Nephi’s characteristic concerns. Indeed, Nephi deliberately rereads the Bible with his
own situation in mind, and he finds himself in Isaiah’s ancient prophecies. He
introduces extrabiblical writings of Joseph [who-was-sold-into-Egypt], and he follows
that material (more than twenty chapters later) with specific allusions and prophetic
reworkings of those prophecies. He believes that his own writings are scriptural, and
eventually he comes to realize that his work will someday stand alongside the Bible
when it reaches its ultimate audience of Gentiles and descendants of Israel in the last
days. All the while, Nephi is using these scriptural interpretations to assuage deep
personal frustrations and resolve theological difficulties that he only hints at in his
narrative.107

XX. Polygyny

A. Despite strong, even abusive denunciations of polygyny in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 1:15,
2:24,27, Mosiah 11:2, Ether 10:5), and the clear instruction to Father Lehi (Jacob 3:5 “the
commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father–that they should have save it be one
wife”), it is also clear from Jacob 2:30 that the Lord can command polygyny where and when He
pleases:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people;
otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

XXI. Blatant Christianity Already?

Nowhere does Christianity betray its indebtedness to Judaism more than in its
supersessionism. Jon D. Levenson108

A. Among scholars, there has always been some disquiet with the Christianization of the Old
Testament by normative Christianity. Not only Jesus himself, but his immediate followers
regularly interpreted everything done by him as the direct fulfillment of OT prophecy, and later
Christian theology was formulated in that specific light. However, not only is early Christian
literature shot through with direct quotations and allusions to the OT, but those same early
Jewish Christians – even as they eventually separated from normative Judaism – carried on with
their Jewish liturgy (including temple symbolism in their cathedrals), and saw their Church as the

107
Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 84; cf. Robert Cloward, “Isaiah 29 and the Book
of Mormon,” in D. Parry & J. Welch, eds., Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (FARMS, 1998), 302-305;
Grant Hardy, “2 Nephi 26 and 27 as Midrash,” FARMS Update #173, in Insights, 24/5 (2004):2-3.
108
Levenson, Death and Resurrection, x.

22
true Israel. Even without supersession (it is not present in the Book of Mormon),109 is this fair to
Judaism? Robert Morgan says that

there is nothing unreasonable about a Christian biblical theology which selects OT

material and interprets it in the light of the event to which Christians believe it ultimately
bears witness.110

B. Indeed, Werner Lemke goes even further:

Because of Christianity’s origin in a specifically Jewish milieu, an understanding of the

OT is essential for a proper understanding of the NT and of the gospel. The history of
the early Church is incomprehensible apart from Jewish antecedents, and the literature of
the NT presupposes knowledge of the language and thought-world of the OT.111

C. Given that we now know that such early Christian symbolism and interpretation (as well as
organization) was likewise characteristic of earlier Jewish sectarian groups, it is now widely
accepted that one cannot understand Jesus Christ or Christianity without a thorough grounding in
Judaism.

D. Some have suggested that the Book of Mormon not only exhibits the same tendencies, but
that it goes much too far, presenting blatant, in-your-face Christianity in what should be the OT
section of the book.112

E. As Rabbi Joseph P. Schultz has observed in a university seminar on Judaism and the Book of
Mormon:

For us, the Old is still very new and we believe that many Christians would agree that in
many respects the New is very old.113

109
Steven Epperson, “Some Problems with Supersessionism in Mormon Thought: A Review
Essay,” BYU Studies, 34/4 (1994-95), 125-136; Epperson, Mormons and Jews: Early Mormon
Theologies of Israel (SLC: Signature, 1992); Seymour Cain, “Judaism and Mormonism: Paradigm and
Supersession,” Dialogue, 25/3 (1992), 57-65.
110
Morgan, “Theology (NT),” in D. Freedman, ed., ABD, VI:482, citing F. Mussner, Tractate on
the Jews (1984).
111
Lemke, “Theology (OT),” in D. Freedman, ed., ABD, VI:471.
112
Melodie Charles, “The Mormon Christianizing of the Old Testament,” Sunstone, 5/6 (Nov-
Dec 1980), 35-39, with response from Lowell Bennion on p. 40 = reprinted in D. Vogel, ed., The Word of
God: Essays on Mormon Scripture (Signature Books, 1990), 131-142, but with the Bennion response
removed. Reviewed by Kevin Christensen in FARMS Review, 16/2 (2004): 59-90, online at
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/ ?vol=16&num=2&id=547 .
113
Schultz, Come Let Us Reason Together (Provo: Deep Forest Green Books, 2021), 2.

23
F. Others, following Margaret Barker,114 have taken an entirely different tack, suggesting that the
Deuteronomistic revision of the Hebrew Canon removed what would later become authentic
Christian elements and which was already present on the Brass Plates of Laban.115 This is clearly
a result of the use of different terminologies, and not from differences of substance. I have dealt
with this matter in detail elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------
10,163 WORDS
---------------------

114
Margaret Barker, “What Did King Josiah Reform?” in J. Welch, D. Seely, and A. Seely, eds.,
Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem (FARMS, 2004), 523-542; Barker, The Older Testament: The Survival of
Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity (SPCK, 1987),
reviewed by G. Nicklesburg in JBL, 109 (1990), 335-337.
115
Kevin Christensen, “The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament,” FARMS
Review, 16/2 (2004), 59-90, online at http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/
?vol=16&num=2&id=547 ; M. Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” paper delivered
in 2005, at Library of Congress in Washington, DC., published in J. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph
Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress (Provo: BYU Press, 2006), 69-82, saying re
Book of Mormon, “This revelation to Joseph Smith is the ancient wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost
certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.”

24