To go to the beginning, click here.
“(21) And now, I will speak unto you concerning those twenty-four plates, that yekeep them, that the mysteries and the works of darkness.....and all their wickedness and abominations, may be made manifest unto this people; yea, and that ye preserve these interpreters. (22) For behold, the Lord saw that his people began to work in darkness, yea, work secret murders and abominations; therefore the Lord said, if they did not repent they should be destroyed from off the face of the earth. (23) And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations. (24) And now, my son, these interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled, which he spake, saying: (25) I will bring forth out of the darkness unto light all their secret works and abominations.... (26) “...and thus far the word of God has been fulfilled; yea, their secret abominations have been brought out of darkness and made known unto us.” (Alma 37:21-26; Bold added by me for future reference.)
Br. Clif lumps a couple “problems” here into one. I will try to separate them. (1) Quote: “If I remember correctly, Gazelem is a code name for Joseph Smith and it is used elsewhere in either Mormon records or scriptures.” He states verse 22, an “encoded prophecy about Smith and his ‘Seer stone’”, is interjected haphazardly and out of context because verse 21 and verse 22 were talking about the Urim and Thummim which are two stones. (2) Quote: “What puzzles me is why Joseph would have used his ‘seer stone’ to initially translate the Golden Plates, when he had received the Urim and Thummim, along with the breastplate of righteousness, at the same time he supposedly received the Golden Plates.” [He throws in some comments about treasure hunting, Smith holding the seer stone in his hat while translating the Plates, and the Urim and Thummim looking like a pair of glasses. He also comments, quote: “I pity the Latter-day Saints who cannot find it in themselves to admit to the easily questionable roots of their denomination.”] (Quotes correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
I will examine the two main “problems”, and then make a few additional comments.
(1) “Gazelem” (probably a title more than an individual name) appears once in the Book of Mormon. It appears no where else in the LDS scriptures. It’s possible the “code-name” Gazelem exists in some of the earliest LDS records... It’s no secret there was violent hostility toward the early LDS Church and it’s leaders. They were often the recipients of tar-and-feathering, beating, plundering, mobbing, rape and murder. As a result, “code-names” were sometimes substituted in LDS revelations to hide the identities of various Church leaders, until it was safe to tell who the revelations were speaking of. (It’s not surprising that they would protect themselves by substituting names. The early Christians, bitterly persecuted by Romans, became a secret society. The fish symbol was probably a secret sign to identify believers in times of persecution.) Their real names were added in brackets in later publishings of the Doctrine & Covenants. “Gazelem” was the “code-name” used for the identity of Joseph Smith.
As I read and re-read Alma 37 (especially verses 22-26), I became less and less convinced that verse 23 was an “encoded prophesy” about Joseph Smith and his single seer stone. This is for three reasons: (A) Alma was speaking about his own time, not the future-- Examining Alma 37:21-26 above, verse 21 uses the phrase “this people”, verse 26 uses the phrases “thus far” and “unto us”. Those verses, plus the purpose of the discussion taking place in Alma 37, shows that Alma II was speaking in his own present tense about his own time, not the 1800’s A.D. (B) In Alma 37, Alma II talked about a past event--the destruction of the Jaredites because of their wickedness (secret works and works of darkness). He mentioned the 24 plates that contained a history of the Jaredites (v. 21), the prophecy of a Gazelem who would uncover the dark works (v. 23), and that the prophecy had been fulfilled up that time (v. 26). Those dark works had been made known unto them (v.26)....by King Mosiah II. King Mosiah II was the one who translated those 24 plates, and uncovered the dark works of the Jaredites (Solution 9). Thus, Mosiah II was the Gazelem Alma II was talking about, not Joseph Smith. (C) By doing some cross-referencing and research, it becomes evident that the “interpreters” discussed in Alma 37:21-24 were the Nephite Urim and Thummim. Mosiah 28:13 describes that Urim and Thummim as: “...two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow.” Since there are two stones in the Urim and Thummim, the name itself implies that one stone is the Urim and the other stone is the Thummim. Urim and Thummim are Hebrew terms which mean “Lights and Perfections” (Urim = Lights, Thummim = Perfections). Thus, one stone may be “Lights” and the other stone “Perfections”, working together as a set for translation purposes. ...Returning to Alma 37:23, the stone prepared for Gazelem “shall shine forth in darkness unto light”. So, “shine” and “light” are associated with that stone in Alma 37:23. The very next verse refers back to the Urim & Thummim as a set. As shown in the preceding paragraphs, the U&T are two stones. It is my opinion that the stone mentioned in Alma 37:23 is one of the “interpreters” -- probably the Urim, or “Lights”. --See also Num. 27:21 and 1 Sam. 28:6 in the Bible, where the Urim alone is mentioned even though the U&T were a set (Ex. 28:30; Deut. 33:8).
From (A), (B) and (C), it is clear to me that in Alma 37:23, Alma II was referring to Mosiah II and his use of the Urim (and Thummim) in translating the Jaredite record....NOT to Joseph Smith and his lone “seer stone”.
[If one wants to claim the Book of Mormon a fake because they think a verse is interjected haphazardly, let’s put the Bible under the same scrutiny. Look at Matt. 27:51-54. Notice how verses 52-53 suddenly skip in and out of an event that happened days later. Someone just reading along, who is not familiar with the fact that Yeshua rose on the third day, who doesn’t know Yeshua was the firstfruits of the resurrection, could get a bit confused.]
(2) A thorough discussion of Joseph Smith, and the popular myth that he translated the plates using a seer stone, would be rather lengthy. I wish to be as brief as possible on these pages, so I will summarize and hope I don’t leave out too much....
Joseph Smith did not use a “seer stone” to initially translate the Plates. Joseph had the Urim and Thummim. He began translating the Book of Mormon using them. That is supported by: (a) LDS Church History (History of the Church, Vol. 1, Ch. 3 pgs. 19-21); (b) the Doctrine and Covenants (LDS ver. 10:1); (c) RLDS History (Volume 1 page 18); (d) secular, non-LDS writings of the time: [Rochester (NY) Daily Advertiser and Telegraph, Aug. 1829; Rochester (NY) Gem, Sep. 1829; Palmyra Reflector, Aug. 1830....If a “seer stone” was even rumored as the first means of translation, certainly such secular writers would have hopped on the bandwagon to further criticize.]
The Urim and Thummim were taken away for a time, because of the incident of Martin Harris loosing the 116 pages. There is a myth that the U&T were permanently taken, and that Joseph had to continue the translation using a “seer stone”. However, the U&T were returned and translation continued using the U&T. That is supported by: (a) History of the Church, Vol.1, Ch.3, Pg.23; (b) Times and Seasons 3:801; (c) RLDS History 1:25; (d) A letter by Oliver Cowdery to W. W. Phelps dated Sep. 7, 1834, which can be found in RLDS History 1:33; (e) Oliver Cowdery footnote on Joseph Smith History 1:75; (f) D&C 10:3; (g) secular, non-LDS writings of the time: [Rochester (NY) Daily Advertiser and Telegraph, Aug. 1829; Rochester (NY) Gem, Sep. 1829; Palmyra Reflector, Aug. 1830....If a “seer stone” was even rumored as the first means of translation, certainly such secular writers would have hopped on the bandwagon to further criticize.]; (f) anti-Mormon writing of the time: [The Millennial Harbinger, Feb. 1831-- If there were rumors of translation being done by a “seer stone” in addition to “spectacles”, certainly Campbell would have used it to further his anti-Mormon campaign.] Thus, even bystanders during those earliest years knew about the “spectacles”. The idea of a substitute method was not considered.
The myth that Joseph Smith used a “seer stone” to translate the plates was compounded by: (a) the fact that he had a “seer stone”; (b) Hiram Page’s involvement with a “seer stone” in 1830, at least a year after the Book of Mormon was translated; (c) the 1834 book “Mormonism Unvailed”, written by D.P. Hurlbut (disgruntled by his conviction for unchristian-like conduct with the opposite sex and expulsion for boasting he had fooled God) and E.D. Howe (angry that his wife and some family had become Mormons); (d) David Whitmer’s 1837 involvement with a “seer stone” and literature to start a splinter group; (e) some people began to loosely refer to the Urim and Thummim as the “Seer Stone”, and visa-versa.
There are a few references, by secondary witnesses, to a hat. Because of those references, questions have been raised and myths circulated. The ones who did see and use the translating instruments --Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery-- don’t even mention a hat. Thus, it’s possible the hat had no significance in the actual process of translating. From examining a wide variety of sources, it’s more likely the hat was used to hide the U&T. Joseph had been commanded to not show the Gold Plates nor the U&T to anyone, unless commanded otherwise [Joseph Smith History 1:42; Times and Seasons 3:753; Rochester (NY) Daily Advertiser and Telegraph, Aug. 1829]. Therefore, the Gold Plates were usually covered by a cloth or pillowcase (Saints’ Herald 26:289-290), and the U&T were concealed by the hat. When Emma Smith helped him as a temporary scribe, she was not allowed to see the U&T --thus Joseph kept them in the hat. Oliver Cowdery, the scribe for the vast majority of the translation, was allowed to see the U&T and never mentioned a hat.
Joseph Smith was a “treasure hunter” in his late teens. However, anyone who has investigated the topic should know that “treasure hunting” and “money digging” were sometimes practiced by financially strapped people during the early 1800’s. (Further comments in Solution 41.)
As for the roots of Mormonism being easily questionable... Anti-Christians say the same thing about Christianity, Yeshua, and the New Testament, and back up
their argument with quotes and references. I won’t delve into details--they’re out there for anyone who wants to read such things. It suffices me to say this: Testimony bearing Mormons have exercised their faith, and have been brought to know both the Bible and the Book of Mormon witness of salvation through the Messiah. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon will stand as a testimony of the Messiah, regardless of the critics. Br.
Clif can keep his pity. Mormons don’t need it.
30.) The verse is:
“If he has desired to do evil, and has not repented in his days, behold, evil shall be done unto him, according to the restoration of God.” (Alma 42:28)
The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “And who will do this evil to him? God? His holy angels?” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
Reading Alma 42:28 in context shows the verses discuss the “as you sew, also shall you reap” topic as pertaining to repentance and salvation: “(24) For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved. (25) What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God. (26) And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes, which were prepared from the foundation of the world. And thus cometh about salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction and misery. (27) Therefore, O my son, whosoever will come may come and partake of the waters of life freely; and whosoever will not come the same is not compelled to come; but in the last day it shall be restored unto him according to his deeds. (28) If he has desired to do evil, and has not repented in his days, behold, evil shall be done unto him, according to the restoration of God. (29) And now, my son, I desire that ye should let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance.” (Alma 42:25-29; Bold added by me for easy reference with Rom 2:5-6, below.)
Alma II basically said only the truly repentant are saved. Those who do evil and do not repent will be justly punished for their wicked deeds. Thus, Alma 42:28 in context agrees with Rom. 2:5-9: “(5) But after thy hardness and impenitent (i.e. unrepentant) heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgement of God; (6) Who will render to every man according to his deeds: (7) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life; (8) But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, (9) Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil...” (Bold added by me.) (also Isa. 59:18; Jer. 25:14)
Elohim is the supreme ruler of the universe. If we have desired to do righteously, at the last day righteousness (eternal life in heaven) will be restored to us. If we have desired to do evil, and don’t truly repent, at the last day evil (punishment in hell) will be restored to us. This will be done according to the righteous judgement of Elohim.
“(27) Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church. (28) And they were doing that which they felt was the duty they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.”
The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “Why is there no previous record of this ‘sacred’ teaching, which was given to them by ‘the Lord’?” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
It is not previously mentioned in the Book of Mormon because of abridgment. The Book of Mormon is a highly condensed version of records kept by the Nephites. Mormon, who made the abridgment, wrote: “...a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people...their wars and contentions...and their preaching, and their prophecies... cannot be contained in this work.” (Helaman 3:14; also Word of Mormon 1:5) Therefore there is much left out of the Book of Mormon record. The “rule of third offense” was left in the abridgment because it pertained to the war mentioned in Alma Chapter 42.
“But had they awakened the Lamanites, behold, they were drunken and the Nephites could have slain them. But behold, this was not the desire of Moroni; he did not delight in murder or bloodshed, but he delighted in the saving of his people from destruction; and for this cause he might not bring upon him injustice, he would not fall upon the Lamanites and destroy them in their drunkenness.” (Alma 55:18-19)
* *
There is also 1 Nephi 4:7-30. This is where Nephi goes at night to get the Brass Plates from Laban, finds Laban drunk, is commanded by the Spirit to slay him, shrinks from the task, but then heeds the command and slays Laban. It’s quite lengthy to quote all of it, so I will quote enough parts to give the main idea: “...I [Nephi] went forth, and as I came near unto the house of Laban I beheld a man, and that he had fallen to the earth before me, for he was drunken with wine. And when I came to him I found that it was Laban.... And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life;.... And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands; Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes.... I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause--that I might obtain the records according to his commandments. Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword...” Afterwards, Nephi disguised himself as Laban by putting on Laban’s garments and armor, and got the Brass Plates from Laban’s servant, Zoram.
Br. Clif finds a couple problems: (1) Quote: “If ‘Moroni’ did not slay the ‘Lamanites’ in their drunkenness because he did not delight in murder or bloodshed, can we then say that ‘Nephi’ killed ‘Laban’ because he did delight in murder and bloodshed? I think we can.” End quote. “They” could have just tied him up in their own house to be discovered after they were gone. (2) Where did all the blood go which must have come from the beheading of Laban? (Quotes correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
I will: (1) Compare Nephi and Moroni, and killing in the Old Testament; (2) Examine the blood issue.
(1) First, there is a strong indication that Nephi did not delight in murder nor bloodshed. It’s in 1 Nephi 4:10-18. The Spirit had to command Nephi three times before Nephi would slay Laban. The first time, in verse 10, Nephi shrunk from the task--He did not want to kill. The Spirit commanded a second time, and Nephi had to think about it. The Sprit commanded a third time, with explanation. Nephi thought more... then obeyed the Spirit. Nephi had been commanded. The Spirit expressly said Laban had been delivered into his hands. Although Nephi shrunk from it, he eventually obeyed the command.
Second, Alma 55:18 shows that the Nephites could have, and probably would have, killed the Lamanites if they had awoke. However, Moroni does not mention any command to kill the Lamanites. If he had received a command by the Spirit, that the Lamanites were delivered into their hands, that they were to slay them, I’m sure Moroni would have shrunk...but would have obeyed.
The important factor was the command to slay, or the lack of a command to slay. This factor can be compared to the actions of the Israelites-- In Exodus 20:13, the LORD commands: “Thou shalt not kill.” (The Hebrew word translated as “kill” is “ratsach”, which in this case probably means “murder”.) Yet, just several chapters later, in Exodus 32:26-28, it says: “(26) Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. (27) And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. (28) And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.” (Bold added by me.) First they are commanded “Thou shalt not kill (murder)”....then they are commanded to kill. Why? -- Because the people had sinned, so the slaying was commanded according to the justice of YHWH. I doubt the people delighted in the bloodshed of their kinsmen. But it had been commanded, and they obeyed. [...Bible critics have a great time with these “contradictions”.... Like with Moses, who killed someone (Ex. 2:11-12) then became the leader who relayed the commandment not to kill (murder), and was Israel’s greatest prophet whom YHWH knew face to face (Deut. 34:10)...]
Deut. 3:2-6: “(2) And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: For I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites...(3) So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people; and we smote him until none was left to him remaining....(6) And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.” (Bold added by me.) [For more killing sanctioned by YHWH, or more people delivered into Israel’s hands by YHWH to be slain and utterly destroyed...even women and children... see Num. 25, 31:1-8; Deut. 7:1-2; 25:17-19; Josh. 6:21; 10:8-11,18-20, 28,30,32,35,37,39....There’s plenty more, but if one reads all those they’ll probably have the point by now...]
The Old Testament shows there is a difference between murdering someone..and being commanded to kill because YHWH had delivered them into another’s hands. That was the case with the Canaanites being delivered into the Israelites’ hands. It was also the case with Laban being delivered into Nephi’s hands. (1 Nephi 4:10-13). If Nephi declined, it would have been an act of disobedience.
By the way -- There was no “they” to tie up Laban. Nephi went alone. If Nephi had tied Laban up, it’s possible he might have awoke and seen Nephi --Especially if Nephi would have left Laban tied in his family’s own house (...as recommended by Br. Clif...), it would have been a sure giveaway who did it. As soon as Laban escaped, he and his men would have hotly pursued Nephi, searching far and wide, which could have spelled disaster for the whole family. [And if by some chance the tied-up Laban was not discovered, he would have died a more torturous, agonizing death....]
(2) The beheading of Laban was probably a bloody mess. After the beheading, Nephi put on Laban’s clothes and armor to disguise himself as Laban. Thus disguised, he obtained the Brass Plates from Zoram.
The biggest clues to how Nephi was able to accomplish the task are: (A) 1 Nephi 4:5 states it was night when the event occurred. The ancient Jews didn’t have street lights. Late into the night, the only light around would have been the moon and stars. Depending on the phase of the moon, it could have been just a sliver, not reflecting much light. If it was an overcast night, it would contribute to the darkness. The darkness of night hides colors. The reason we see colors is because of light reflecting off of them. The less light there is, the less reflection, and the more we see hues closer to blacks and shades of grey. (I spent six years in the military, doing a fair amount of training late into the night with little to no artificial light. I also have an art degree, so I’m familiar with how light affects color.) The night makes an excellent cover. It naturally conceals many things. (B) When blood begins to dry, it becomes brownish and can sometimes even appear nearly black, not “red”. If Laban’s clothing had already been a dark color it would have somewhat camouflaged the drying blood....especially in the darkness of night. Also -- Nephi could have wiped the blood off the armor using his own discarded clothes. The fairly cleaned armor, by it’s size, shape, and fit on a body, would have concealed much of the blood on the clothing. (C) As mentioned in (A), the ancient Jews didn’t have street lights. When Nephi went to Laban’s treasury, Zoram would have been tired after a long day. Probably the only light Zoram had was a hand-held oil lamp, which wouldn’t have produced much light. If Zoram was sleepy, he would have noticed even less. It was also possible Nephi kept some distance, staying in the shadows.
(A), (B), and (C) combined would have given Nephi enough “cover & camouflage” to accomplish his task. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.
Alma 60:1 -- Moroni sends an epistle to chief-governor Pahoran in the city of Zarahemla: “And it came to pass that he wrote again to the governor of the land, who was Pahoran....saying: Behold, I direct mine epistle to Pahoran, in the city of Zarahemla...”
* *
Alma 61:1 -- “Behold, now it came to pass that soon after Moroni had sent his epistle unto the chief governor, he received an epistle from Pahoran, the chief governor. And these are the words which he received:”
The problem Br. Clif finds is: Moroni sends a letter to Pahoran and Pahoran sends one back. In that letter from Pahoran to Moroni, Pahoran says he had to flee to the land of Gideon. Quote: “How then did the letter from ‘Moroni’ get to him so quickly, much less at all, understanding that the letter had a destination of ‘Zarahemla’ where the new government of rebels was based? Would not the letter have been intercepted? Was the messenger prepared to make an additional trek to the land of ‘Gideon’ through war-torn country? And then how did ‘Pahoran’s’ reply come so soon, given all of this information?” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
Soon is a relative term, depending upon the circumstances involved. The Book of Mormon does not say just how far Moroni was from Zarahemla, nor does it say how far apart Zarahemla and Gideon were. Thus, Br. Clif’s question “...how did ‘Pahoran’s’ reply come so soon...?” is a bit misleading because the record does not give actual time nor distance.
The message was probably delivered by a courier, or runner, specially chosen for his speed and endurance. Such specialized message runners existed in the militaries of the world from ancient times up through the 1800’s. The job was dangerous. Couriers were sometimes captured, killed, and the message undelivered. Yet, many couriers managed to deliver their messages, even slipping through enemy lines and territory to do so. It was difficult, but NOT impossible.
In 490 B.C., the courier Pheidippides was sent from Athens to Sparta to ask Sparta for help in battle. The distance would have been around 150 miles one way. According to the writings of Herodotus, Pheidippides ran the 150 miles in just 2 days -- impressive but not impossible. The152-mile modern Spartathlon commemorates his historic run.
If one envisions Moroni’s courier going to Zarahemla, then from there going to Gideon, there would be extra time and risk involved. However, it’s possible the courier didn’t go all the way to Zarahemla. Note that the epistle was meant for Pahoran. The final destination for the epistle was to be Pahoran himself, not necessarily the city Zarahemla. If the courier heard that Pahoran was no longer in Zarahemla, it was his duty to change his course for wherever Pahoran was. He may have heard news that Zarahemla was under the control of rebels, and that Pahoran had fled to Gideon, before he even reached Zarahemla. If so, he would have changed course and went to Pahoran in Gideon, not even continuing on to Zarahemla. That would have by-passed Zarahemla, possibly shortening the delivery time...and cut the risk of being intercepted by rebels in Zarahemla, since he didn’t even go there.
Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.
Click here to keep reading......