Moses and the Exodus: Where the Book of Mormon parts ways with the Torah

Among the records on the brass plates were what Nephi describes as "the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents" (1 Ne. 5). Since our Bibles also contain "five books of Moses" -- the Torah or Pentateuch, comprising Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy -- it is natural to assume that the Nephites had these same five books.

I doubt this.

First, as Daymon Smith has pointed out in his Cultural History of the Book of Mormon, the description Nephi gives, while technically true of the Torah we have, would be a very odd way of summarizing it. If you were to read Nephi with no prior knowledge of the Bible, you would assume there were five books about the Creation and Adam and Eve. In fact only one of the Torah's five books, Genesis, touches on these topics, and only very briefly, in its first few chapters. The Torah as we have it is roughly 2% about the Creation and Adam and Eve, 25% about the Patriarchs, and 73% about the life and law of Moses.

(Smith's theory is that the original five books of Moses were lost to the Jews when the brass plates left Jerusalem with Lehi, and that the Torah we have is a collection of pseudepigrapha, cobbled together by later writers from oral traditions, and organized into five books because one of those surviving traditions was that there had been "five books of Moses." I would hesitate to go that far, but Smith deserves credit for pointing out that just because a book has a familiar name doesn't necessarily mean it's the same book we know.)

Second, one of the first things I discovered after starting this blog was that the Nephites knew nothing about Aaron or the Aaronide priesthood. In the Old Testament we have, Aaron is a very major figure, mentioned nearly half as often as Moses himself; but if you read only the Book of Mormon, you wouldn't even know that Aaron existed. To me this is very strong evidence that the "five books of Moses" on the brass plates were different from our Torah, and specifically that they probably didn't include anything like Leviticus or the other "Priestly" material.

Since we can't simply take it for granted that the Nephites had the same Torah that we have, the purpose of this post is to explore possible differences between the story of Moses and the Exodus as known to the Nephites and the version we have in our Bibles.

1. A much shorter sojourn in Egypt?

According to the Torah as we have it, the Israelites left Egypt with Moses exactly 430 years after their ancestor Jacob and his family had taken up residence there (Ex. 12:40-41) -- but we are also told that Jacob's grandson Kohath was among those who entered Egypt (Gen. 46:8-11), and that Moses was Kohath's grandson (Ex. 6:18-20). Kohath lived 133 years; Moses' father, Amram, lived 137; and Moses died at 120 (Deut. 34:7) -- so there's no way to make the numbers work. What does the Book of Mormon say on the question? Did the Israelites live in Egypt for more than four centuries, or only for three generations?

Neither.

And it came to pass that my father, Lehi, also found upon the plates of brass a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph; yea, even that Joseph who was the son of Jacob, who was sold into Egypt, and who was preserved by the hand of the Lord, that he might preserve his father, Jacob, and all his household from perishing with famine. And they were also led out of captivity and out of the land of Egypt, by that same God who had preserved them (1 Ne. 5:15).

To whom do the pronouns I have bolded refer? Who have we just been told God preserved? Joseph, and then, via Joseph, Jacob and his household. Those same people -- the people who were saved from the famine by Joseph -- were led out of the land of Egypt. We are told in Ether 13:7 that either Joseph himself or Jacob died in Egypt, but not all of that generation did. Those who had known Joseph lived to see Moses -- into Egypt and out in a single lifetime.

Doesn't that make more sense anyway? Wouldn't you expect the Israelite culture to have been deeply influenced by that of Egypt if they had really lived there for 430 years? Do you see any signs of that at all in the Bible? There are plenty of pagan fingerprints there, to be sure, but all Canaanite and Mesopotamian, not Egyptian.

In the Torah we have, Joseph enters Egypt as a slave but rises from that station to become second only to Pharaoh in power. When his family joins him in Egypt, they come as honored guests. But then when the Israelites leave Egypt, they are slaves again. Exodus explains this by way of "a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph" (Ex. 1:8) -- because he lived 400-some years after Joseph! -- who decided to re-enslave this formerly high-ranking family. In the condensed timeline suggested by the Book of Mormon, there's no reason to assume the Israelites in Egypt were ever anything other than slaves.

This timeline also fits better with the prophecy of Joseph, quoted by Lehi:

Yea, Joseph truly said: Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins . . . . And he shall be great like unto Moses, whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel. And Moses will I raise up, to deliver thy people out of the land of Egypt. . . . Yea, thus prophesied Joseph: I am sure of this thing [the coming of the seer], even as I am sure of the promise of Moses; for the Lord hath said unto me, I will preserve thy seed forever (2 Ne. 3:7, 9-10, 16).

Back in my deboonking days, I used to cite this as evidence against the Book of Mormon: Joseph Smith carelessly has the Lord tell Joseph about a future seer who "shall be great like unto Moses," and then, remembering too late that Moses lived after Joseph, Smith tries to salvage the prophecy by having the Lord add parenthetically, "oh, and by the way, there's going to be this guy called Moses." (We see something similar in Ether 13, where we are told that Ether prophesied about the New Jerusalem, oh, and by the way about the yet-to-be-built original Jerusalem, too.) Obviously a clumsy mistake on the part of Joseph Smith, not a genuinely ancient prophecy.

This argument evaporates, and the prophecy reads much more naturally, if we assume that Joseph knew Moses. They were contemporaries. The Lord doesn't say "a great prophet whose name will be Moses"; he just says "Moses." They knew who Moses was. He was already a public figure, perhaps a prince in the court of Pharaoh as in the Torah we have, and the Lord was promising to "raise up" this Moses and make of him a deliverer for Joseph and his people.

This would make it impossible for Moses to be a descendant of Levi, but that's only a problem if we think the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood was instituted by Moses, and we don't think that.

2. How the Red Sea was parted

In Exodus, the only action Moses performs to part the Red Sea is to lift up his rod and stretch out his hand over the sea:

And the Lord said unto Moses, . . . But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea. . . . And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided (Ex. 14:15-16, 26).

According to Nephi in the Book of Mormon, Moses parted the Red Sea by speaking to it:

Let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither (1 Ne. 4:2-3).

Now ye know that Moses was commanded of the Lord to do that great work; and ye know that by his word the waters of the Red Sea were divided hither and thither, and they passed through on dry ground (1 Ne. 17:26).

A much later Nephi, the son of Helaman, is perhaps confusing Moses with Elijah or Elisha (2 Kgs. 2:1-2, 5-15) when he speaks of him smiting the Red Sea to part the waters:

Behold, my brethren, have ye not read that God gave power unto one man, even Moses, to smite upon the waters of the Red Sea, and they parted hither and thither, insomuch that the Israelites, who were our fathers, came through upon dry ground, and the waters closed upon the armies of the Egyptians and swallowed them up? (Hel. 8:11).

3. The serpents

In the Torah, the Lord sends "fiery serpents" (seraphim) to bite the Israelites (Num. 21:6). Nephi calls them "fiery flying serpents" (1 Ne. 17:41). This is a phrase from Isaiah (14:29 and 30:6) and perhaps reflects Nephi's obvious interest in that book more than any variant version of the Exodus story he may have had.

When Moses prepares a serpent of brass on which victims of the seraphim may look to be healed, the Book of Mormon adds that many people simply refused to do so and thus perished. The Torah says nothing of this.

He sent fiery flying serpents among them; and after they were bitten he prepared a way that they might be healed; and the labor which they had to perform was to look; and because of the simpleness of the way, or the easiness of it, there were many who perished (1 Ne. 17:41).

The Son of God . . . was spoken of by Moses; yea, and behold a type was raised up in the wilderness, that whosoever would look upon it might live. And many did look and live. But few understood the meaning of those things, and this because of the hardness of their hearts. But there were many who were so hardened that they would not look, therefore they perished. Now the reason they would not look is because they did not believe that it would heal them (Alma 33:18-20).

One other possible difference is that the Book of Mormon says God "gave unto Moses power that he should heal the nations after they had been bitten by the poisonous serpents" (2 Ne. 25:20). "The nations" -- goyim -- typically means non-Israelite peoples, but in the Torah only Israelites are bitten. It's possible that "nations" here refers to the twelve tribes, though.

4. Messianic prophecies

In the Torah, the only hint of a Messianic prophecy from Moses -- and thus the sole foundation of the Samaritan Messianic tradition -- is the promise of a future "prophet" (later called the Taheb) in Deuteronomy 18:

The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; . . .

And the Lord said unto me, . . . I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him (Deut. 18:15, 17-19).

The Book of Mormon refers several times to a slightly different version of this. The main difference is that the specific punishment of being "cut off from among the people" replaces Deuteronomy's vague "I will require it of him":

Moses . . . spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that all those who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people (1 Ne. 22:20).

Behold, I [Jesus] am he of whom Moses spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people (3 Ne. 20:23).

Therefore it shall come to pass that whosoever will not believe in my words, who am Jesus Christ, which the Father shall cause him to bring forth unto the Gentiles, and shall give unto him power that he shall bring them forth unto the Gentiles, (it shall be done even as Moses said) they shall be cut off from among my people who are of the covenant (3 Ne. 21:11).

The above references clearly cite Moses as the source of this saying, including the "cut off from among the people" but, but he never says it in the Torah we have. In fact, Deuteronomy, the only book of the Torah to mention the promised Prophet, is also the only one to have no references to this sort of "cutting off."

Besides this slightly different version of the Taheb prophecy, the Book of Mormon attributes more explicitly Christian prophecies to Moses but gives few details:

For behold, did not Moses prophesy unto them concerning the coming of the Messiah, and that God should redeem his people? (Mosiah 13:33).

[Zenos and Zenock] are not the only ones who have spoken concerning the Son of God. Behold, he was spoken of by Moses; yea, and behold a type was raised up in the wilderness, that whosoever would look upon it might live (Alma 33:18-19).

Moses . . . hath spoken concerning the coming of the Messiah. Yea, did he not bear record that the Son of God should come? And as he lifted up the brazen serpent in the wilderness, even so shall he be lifted up who should come. And as many as should look upon that serpent should live, even so as many as should look upon the Son of God with faith, having a contrite spirit, might live, even unto that life which is eternal (Hel. 8:13-15).

The Helaman reference above (from Nephi the son of Helaman) is the only one to give any detail, but it is not clear how much of it is being attributed to Moses. Moses said the Son of God should come, and Moses lifted up the serpent -- but did he connect the two, and say that the Son would be lifted up like the serpent, or was that connection made by later prophets like Alma and Nephi?

5. The Lord's "burial" of Moses

The Book of Mormon reports speculation that Alma the Younger's mortal life may have ended in the same unusual way as that of Moses:

Behold, this we know, that [Alma] was a righteous man; and the saying went abroad in the church that he was taken up by the Spirit, or buried by the hand of the Lord, even as Moses. But behold, the scriptures saith the Lord took Moses unto himself; and we suppose that he has also received Alma in the spirit, unto himself; therefore, for this cause we know nothing concerning his death and burial" (Alma 45:19).

Deuteronomy also has an account of Moses being "buried by the hand of the Lord" after viewing the Promised Land from the top of Mt. Nebo in Moab:

And the Lord said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.

So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he [the Lord] buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated (Deut. 34:4-7).

These are obviously forms of the same tradition, but they are not the same. Deuteronomy is quite specific that the Lord buried Moses in a specific location on earth ("in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor"), which seems to preclude reading the "burial" as a figurative reference to Moses being "taken up by the Spirit." I guess you could read it as giving the location from which Moses was translated to heaven (just as Elijah was translated on the bank of the Jordan) but it seems pretty forced. "Buried" seems like a pretty odd metaphor for being taken up into heaven, too.

More definitively, the Book of Mormon (I suppose it is Mormon writing in his own voice) clearly states that "the scriptures saith the Lord took Moses unto himself" -- but no scripture that made it into our Bible does say that or anything like it. Therefore, the Nephites had a different account of the end of Moses' life, not simply a different interpretation of Deuteronomy.

You, Lady, are the Tree

Today, serendipity led me a to a poem by Rainer Maria Rilke, first published in Das Buch der Bilder (1902), which echoes a theme from Nephi's vision. Here it is in case you want to slip it into your next sacrament meeting talk.

First, Nephi, as translated by Joseph Smith:

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me, "Look!"

And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit, "I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all."

And he said unto me, "What desirest thou?"

And I said unto him, "To know the interpretation thereof" -- for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.

And it came to pass that he said unto me, "Look!"

And I looked as if to look upon him, and I saw him not; for he had gone from before my presence. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me, "Nephi, what beholdest thou?"

And I said unto him, "A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins."

And he said unto me, "Knowest thou the condescension of God?"

And I said unto him, "I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things."

And he said unto me, "Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh."

And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying, "Look!"

And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

And the angel said unto me: "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?" (1 Ne. 8:11-21)

And now, Rilke, as translated by J. B. Leishman:

Annunciation

(Words of the Angel)

You are not nearer God than we;

he's far from everyone.

And yet your hands most wonderfully

reveal his benison.

From woman's sleeves none ever grew

so ripe, so shimmeringly:

I am the day, I am the dew,

you, Lady, are the Tree.

Pardon, now my long journey's done,

I had forgot to say

what he who sat as in the sun,

grand in his gold array,

told me to tell you, pensive one

(space has bewildered me).

I am the start of what's begun,

you, Lady, are the Tree.

I spread my wings out wide and rose,

the space around grew less;

your little house quite overflows

with my abundant dress.

But still you keep your solitude

and hardly notice me:

I'm but a breeze within the wood,

you, Lady, are the Tree.

The angels tremble in their choir,

grow pale, and separate:

never were longing and desire

so vague and yet so great.

Something perhaps is going to be

that you perceived in dream.

Hail to you! for my soul can see

that you are ripe and teem.

You lofty gate, that any day

may open for our good:

you ear my longing songs assay,

my word -- I know now -- lost its way

in you as in a wood.

And thus your last dream was designed

to be fulfilled by me.

God looked at me: he made me blind . . .

You, Lady, are the Tree.

Who was the "angel" who appeared to Laman and Lemuel?

Shortly after leaving Jerusalem, Lehi sends his sons back to acquire the plates of brass from Laban. First they apparently just try asking him, not even offering any payment until their second attempt! I can’t even hazard a guess as to why they thought he would just give them this precious (and apparently secret) record for free, but I assume there’s some better explanation than "they were stupid."

Laman doesn’t even want to try a second time, since Laban has just threatened to kill him, but Nephi manages to persuade him. After the second attempt to get the plates ends with the brothers fleeing for their lives as Laban keeps his plates and helps himself to their property, Laman is understandably annoyed:

And it came to pass that Laman was angry with me, and also with my father; and also was Lemuel, for he hearkened unto the words of Laman. Wherefore Laman and Lemuel did speak many hard words unto us, their younger brothers, and they did smite us even with a rod. And it came to pass as they smote us with a rod, behold, an angel of the Lord came and stood before them, and he spake unto them, saying:

Why do ye smite your younger brother with a rod? Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen him to be a ruler over you, and this because of your iniquities? Behold ye shall go up to Jerusalem again, and the Lord will deliver Laban into your hands.

And after the angel had spoken unto us, he departed. And after the angel had departed, Laman and Lemuel again began to murmur, saying:

How is it possible that the Lord will deliver Laban into our hands? Behold, he is a mighty man, and he can command fifty, yea, even he can slay fifty; then why not us? (1 Ne. 3:28-31).

The standard Mormon reading of this is basically that Laman and Lemuel were idiots. They immediately resume complaining and saying their mission is impossible, even though an angel has just appeared to them and promised divine assistance. The story is sometimes cited as demonstrating the futility of showing signs to unbelievers, since they will perversely refuse to believe no matter how in-your-face the proof.

Maybe. But as I've said, I tend to prefer explanations other than "they were stupid."

Looking back at the account of the angel's visit, you can see that there is no mention of anything overtly supernatural. We are not told that the angel came down from heaven, that he radiated light, that his voice shook the earth, or anything of that nature. Nor are we told that Laman and Lemuel were terrified or astonished. The whole thing is remarkably matter-of-fact: "An angel of the Lord came and stood before them, and he spake unto them . . . . And after the angel had spoken unto us, he departed." If you replaced angel (of the Lord) with soothsayer or stranger or even just man, no other changes would be necessitated.

Well, sometimes angelic visitations are like that. Pace Rilke, not every angel is terrible; some, we are told, have even “entertained angels unawares" (Heb. 13:2). I propose that Laman and Lemuel’s visitant appeared as an ordinary man, and that the only thing observably “angelic” about him was the content of his message, which suggested supernatural knowledge of them and their mission — but only suggested, for might not an ordinary mortal have overheard enough of their quarrel to be able to say what this angel said?

I think that’s just about the right amount of miraculousness to make the reactions of both Nephi and his brothers understandable. For one who already accepted the reality of angels, it would be natural to assume the visitor was an angel, but this understanding would not force itself on a skeptic.

After the angel departs and Laman and Lemuel resume their murmuring, Nephi tries to inspire them with a story about the Exodus and concludes:

Now behold ye know that this [story about Moses] is true; and ye also know that an angel hath spoken unto you; wherefore can ye doubt? (1 Ne. 4:3).

The language here is telling: “ye also know,” just as you know what happened in Egypt hundreds of years ago. This isn’t the way he would speak if the angelic visitation were just an obvious fact. He’s appealing to their faith. He’s saying, in effect, “Come on, you have to admit that guy was an angel, right?”

How successful was Nephi’s attempt at persuasion?

Now when I had spoken these words, they were yet wroth, and did still continue to murmur (1 Ne. 4:4).

They weren’t convinced. Nephi wasn’t pointing out the obvious; he was arguing for a particular interpretation of what had just happened.

I’ve just been reading in 3 Nephi 28 about the disciples commonly known as the Three Nephites (although the Book of Mormon never actually specifies their ethnicity). They were transformed into such beings “as the angels of God” (3 Ne. 28:30) but not changed to the same degree as those who are resurrected, and they apparently still looked like ordinary people, since one would scarcely try to put an obvious angel in prison.

My first thought was that Laman and Lemuel's "angel" might have been the same sort of person -- what Mormons call a "translated being," who is made quasi-immortal without dying. But who, exactly? The only figures we know of before the time in question who may not have died are Enoch, Moses, and Elijah. Moses is an interesting possibility, because after the "angel" leaves, Nephi immediately begins talking about Moses -- but on balance I think it was probably not Moses for that very reason. Nephi talks about Moses and then about the angel; if he suspected that the angel was Moses, he would surely have said something to that effect. And if he had no such suspicions, then his talking about Moses was just a massive coincidence. To be clear, I do accept the reality of massive coincidences, but all in all Moses just doesn't fit. Why would that particular person have been sent to encourage them on their quest for the brass plates?

There's someone who fits much better -- not a translated being after all.

In my September 23 post "Who were the 13 luminous beings Lehi saw in his Jerusalem vision?" (which you should read now if you haven't yet), I propose that the book Lehi reads in his vision represents Laban's brass plates, the record of the descendants of Joseph, and that the being who gives it to him is Joseph himself. In explaining why I thought this, I referred to Joseph's dreams as recorded in Genesis 37. Here's how his brothers reacted to the first of these:

And his [elder] brethren said to him, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words (Gen. 37:8).

Compare this to what the angel says to Nephi's brothers:

Why do ye smite your younger brother with a rod? Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen him to be a ruler over you, and this because of your iniquities? (1 Ne. 3:29).

This fits perfectly, I think. Lehi and Nephi were righteous descendants of Joseph, but the Josephite record -- the brass book -- was currently in the hands of the wicked Laban. This ancestral spirit, as a post-mortal "angel," first appears to Lehi and allows him to read some of the brass book and then intervenes to help Nephi secure it. And just as Joseph told his elder brothers that he would rule over them, making them so angry that they plotted his death, so he came to deliver a similar message to Nephi's elder brothers.

One other little supporting detail is that the angel promises that "the Lord will deliver Laban into your hands" (1 Ne. 3:29). This is the first time deliver and hands occur together in the Book of Mormon, and the next several occurrences are all in this story of getting the brass plates from Laban. The first two times deliver and hands occur together in the King James Bible are both in, of all places, Genesis 37:

And Reuben heard it [the plot to kill Joseph], and he delivered him out of their hands; and said, Let us not kill him. And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood, but cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, and lay no hand upon him; that he might rid him out of their hands, to deliver him to his father again (Gen. 37:21-22).

Under the subconscious biblical contamination theory, the choice of words suggests a link between Joseph and the events of 1 Nephi 3-4, as if Joseph Smith subconsciously understood who the "angel" was.

The question of Lehi's ethnicity

Note: This is a lightly edited repost of something I wrote in 2014.

What was the ethnic background of Lehi? In one sense, the question is easy to answer. Alma 10:3 explicitly states that “Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, … was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren.”

From this we might assume that Lehi, a descendant of Manasseh who had nevertheless “dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days” (1 Nephi 1:4), was descended from those Manassites who, together with members of the tribes of Ephraim and Simeon, fled from the Northern Kingdom to Jerusalem during the reign of Asa, as described in 2 Chronicles 15.

The strange thing, though, is that Lehi apparently didn’t know he was a descendant of Manasseh. He found this out only after he had left Jerusalem. Having obtained the brass plates from Laban, “Lehi, also found upon the plates of brass a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph, yea, even that Joseph who was the son of Jacob, who was sold into Egypt . . . And thus my father, Lehi, did discover the genealogy of his fathers. And Laban was also a descendant of Joseph, wherefore he and his fathers had kept records” (1 Ne 5:14, 16).

So, leaving aside the actual facts of his ancestry, which were unknown to him, what did Lehi think he was? What ethnicity did he identify with culturally and in practice?

The most obvious guess would be that Lehi thought of himself as a member of the tribe of Judah — as a “Jew,” to use a somewhat anachronistic term. During the 300 or so years separating the time of Lehi from the immigration of his Manassite ancestors into Jerusalem, it seems likely that the Northern immigrants would have become completely assimilated into Judah and lost their distinct tribal identities. Certainly Manasseh was already considered a “lost tribe” by the time of Lehi.

However, there are certain suggestions in the early chapters of the book (prior to the discovery of Lehi’s Manassite ancestry) that Lehi and his family did not self-identify as Jews. Lehi’s son Nephi, referring to his rebellious brothers Laman and Lemuel, says that they “were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father” (1 Nephi 2:13). And in the next chapter, as Lehi explains the plan to obtain the brass plates, he says, “Laban hath a record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass” (1 Nephi 3:3). There is more than one way to interpret such passages, but in my opinion the most natural reading is one which implies a distinction between Lehi’s family on the one hand and “the Jews” on the other.

Another possibility which suggests itself is that Lehi was of Egyptian extraction and that, while he lived in Jerusalem and worshiped the Hebrew God, he did not know that he himself had Hebrew blood. It seems probable that some of the Israelites might have “gone native” while in Egypt and have been left behind by the Exodus — and this would have been especially natural for descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, who were half-Egyptian by blood and could thus have “passed” more readily among the indigenous population.

When Nephi reports the discovery of their genealogy on the brass plates, he never mentions which tribe they belong to, saying simply “it sufficeth me to say that we are descendants of Joseph” (1 Nephi 6:2). Manasseh is only mentioned much later, in passing, by one of Nephi’s distant descendants. But while he displays a rather un-Israelite lack of interest in tribal affiliation, Nephi does make a point of mentioning that his ancestor was “that Joseph who was the son of Jacob, who was sold into Egypt” (1 Nephi 5:14). This emphasis is more consistent with an Egyptian discovering his Hebrew roots than with an Israelite learning that he belonged to a different tribe than he had supposed.

We also know that Lehi spoke and wrote Egyptian as well as Hebrew. Nephi says that his father’s language “consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2). A thousand years after Lehi, his descendants were still using both Egyptian and Hebrew, though in modified form (Mormon 9:32-33). Laban seems also to have had the learning of the Jews via the language of the Egyptians; his brass plates, which included some texts also found in the Old Testament, were written in Egyptian characters (see Mosiah 1:3-4).

Against this Egyptian hypothesis, though, we have the following words of Nephi to his brothers, spoken before they had obtained the brass plates and discovered their Josephite ancestry: “Moses . . . spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through . . . the Lord is able to deliver us, even as our fathers, and to destroy Laban, even as the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 4:2-3). It’s hard to reconcile such language with the hypothesis that Nephi was himself an Egyptian.

To summarize the data to be explained:

• Prior to receiving the brass plates, Lehi apparently knew he was an Israelite but did not know to which tribe he belonged. In the Exodus story, the Hebrews, not the Egyptians, were his “fathers.”
• However, he seems not to have considered himself a “Jew.” (Laban’s servant also speaks of “the Jews” as if he were not one of them.)
• Although he did not know his own ancestry, he knew that his kinsman Laban knew. (Was their family history some kind of secret to which Laban was privy but Lehi was not? Why?)
• Even after learning that he was of the tribe of Manasseh, Lehi seems not to have been interested in this specific tribal identity so much as in his status as a descendant of Joseph.
• Egyptian was apparently the main language of both Lehi and Laban, although they also spoke Hebrew (see Mormon 9:33). The fact that Laban’s copy of the writings of Isaiah and other Hebrew prophets was an Egyptian translation is strong evidence that he was more comfortable with Egyptian than Hebrew.

My own best guess would be that Lehi was an Egyptian, but that there was an unsubstantiated family tradition that they were actually of Hebrew blood. (In this he would be similar to the many modern-day Mormons who believe, without direct genealogical evidence, that they are descendants of Ephraim.) What he read on the brass plates was not so much a revelation as a confirmation of what he had already suspected. Why this confirmation was a secret kept by Laban is anyone’s guess.

Later Nephite understanding of being "cut off from the presence of the Lord"

"Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments, ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord." My last two posts discuss the origin of this Nephite saying and what Nephi himself may have understood it to mean. In this post I want to look at later Nephite (and, in one case, Lamanite) interpretations.

Jacob

Nephi's brother Jacob, the priest, is the first to relate being "cut off from the presence of the Lord" to the fall of Adam:

For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.

Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement -- save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more (2 Ne. 9:6-7).

From various references scattered throughout the Book of Mormon, it appears that the Nephites had an Adam-and-Eve story broadly similar to the one we have in Genesis -- perhaps even identical, if mainstream scholars are correct in identifying the story as very old "J" material, not the Levitical "P" source which the Nephites seem not to have had. In Genesis, it appears that the Lord walked and talked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but after eating the forbidden fruit, they "hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God" (Gen. 3:8). We can infer that such direct contact ceased altogether after they were expelled from the Garden. In a fairly straightforward sense, then, the fall resulted in their being "cut off from the presence of the Lord."

This sense of the expression would not seem to apply to Laman and Lemuel (who were reportedly "cut off from the presence of the Lord" shortly before Jacob's sermon), as they never had access to the kind of direct "presence" Adam and Eve enjoyed in the Garden. Or did they? In 1 Ne. 3:29-31, Laman and Lemuel are visited by "an angel of the Lord" (often understood in the Old Testament to be a manifestation of the Lord himself), and they seem to take it in their stride, as if it were no very unusual occurrence. In 1 Ne. 16:39, "the voice of the Lord" speaks "many words" to Laman and Lemuel, and this seems not to have been an isolated occurrence, either. Nephi later reminds Laman and Lemuel, "ye have heard [the Lord's] voice from time to time" (1 Ne. 17:45). Quite unusually for those characterized as "wicked," Laman and Lemuel appear to have had quite direct access to the Lord's "presence" while Nephi was with them, and this apparently ended later.

Looking back at Jacob's words quoted above, though, is this really the kind of cutting-off he is talking about? Perhaps not. The context is all about physical death and resurrection, as if to die were to be cut off from the presence of the Lord, with resurrection remedying this.

This is the opposite of how we are accustomed to thinking; we tend to assume that it is here in mortality that we are more or less separated from God, to whose presence we return after death. This common understanding is reinforced by Alma the Younger, who teaches that between death and resurrection, "the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life" (Alma 40:11), while after resurrection "the wicked . . . are cast out" (Alma 40:26).

Alma the Younger

While preaching in Ammonihah, Alma the Younger repeats Nephi's claim that the Lamanites have been cut off:

Now I would that ye should remember, that inasmuch as the Lamanites have not kept the commandments of God, they have been cut off from the presence of the Lord. Now we see that the word of the Lord has been verified in this thing, and the Lamanites have been cut off from his presence, from the beginning of their transgressions in the land (Alma 9:14).

Alma points to the cutting-off of the Lamanites as having verified the word of the Lord to Lehi and Nephi. In order to qualify as evidence for anything, the cutting-off must be an observable fact, so it cannot refer (only) to their inner spiritual status (not being in a state of grace or whatever), nor to their fate in the afterlife. Neither can the cutting-off be death itself, since it occurred "from the beginning of their transgressions in the land" but the Lamanites did not die at that time. It could refer to the withdrawal of angelic visitations and such, as suggested above -- or, more observably, to their exclusion from the Nephite temple and priesthood.

In Alma's advice to his son Corianton, he goes into more detail about the "cutting off" that came from the fall of Adam:

But behold, it was appointed unto man to die -- therefore, as they were cut off from the tree of life they should be cut off from the face of the earth -- and man became lost forever, yea, they became fallen man. And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord . . . .

Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness. Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death. . . .

And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord. . . . And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence (Alma 42:6-9, 11, 14).

Alma refers first to being "cut off both temporally and spiritually" and later to "a spiritual death as well as a temporal," suggesting that one of the meanings of cutting-off is death. This seems to be how Mormon uses the expression when he says of one holding heretical views on baptism, "should he be cut off [i.e., die] while in the thought, he must go down to hell" (Moro. 8:14).

Alma's "cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord" is syntactically ambiguous, but in context I think it means "cut off both (a) temporally, by dying; and (b) spiritually, by being separated from the presence of the Lord." Being cut off from the presence of the Lord would them be synonymous with "spiritual death." This spiritual death or cutting-off apparently comes in two phases: Adam and Eve were immediately cut off from God's presence, but also "as soon as they were dead" they would be "cut off from the presence of the Lord." Perhaps this means being even more cut-off than they were in life, or perhaps it means that a provisional cutting-off during mortality would become permanent after death.

As noted above, Alma has just said that upon death "all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life" (Alma 40:11). Here he explains that this universal homecoming is an effect of "the plan of redemption," without which death would bring immediate and permanent cutting-off.

Samuel the Lamanite

Samuel the Lamanite follows Alma closely in equating cutting-off with spiritual death and connecting it to the fall of Adam:

Yea, behold, this death [of Christ] bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death -- that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual. But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord.

Yea, and it bringeth to pass the condition of repentance, that whosoever repenteth the same is not hewn down and cast into the fire; but whosoever repenteth not is hewn down and cast into the fire; and there cometh upon them again a spiritual death, yea, a second death, for they are cut off again as to things pertaining to righteousness (Hel. 14:16-18).

For Samuel, the "first death" and "second death" are both spiritual in nature. The first death means being cut off from the presence of the Lord, and the second means being "cut off again as to things pertaining to righteousness." I'm not sure if the use of again means that this is just another way of expressing separation from the Lord, or if "things pertaining to righteousness" means something else.

Although Samuel characterizes both "deaths" as spiritual, the first death also seems to have something to do with physical mortality. He says that resurrection brings "all mankind . . . back into the presence of the Lord," which is a curious thing to say. It's not clear why being physically resurrected would mean returning to the presence of the Lord, or how "all mankind" being brought into his presence is to be reconciled with the statement that some of them will be "cast into the fire" of hell. (Contrast Samuel with Alma, who explicitly says it is before resurrection that all men are brought home to God.) I think it's better to deal with this more fully when I reach that part of the Book of Mormon. Here I merely want to note it as a later development of the "cutting-off" idea introduced by Nephi or Lehi, one which apparently differs from Nephi's own interpretation.

Mormon

In Helaman 12, Mormon gives a long list of things that God can cause to happen just by speaking. This is one of them:

And behold, if the Lord shall say unto a man -- Because of thine iniquities, thou shalt be accursed forever -- it shall be done.

 

And if the Lord shall say -- Because of thine iniquities thou shalt be cut off from my presence -- he will cause that it shall be so. And wo unto him to whom he shall say this, for it shall be unto him that will do iniquity, and he cannot be saved; therefore, for this cause, that men might be saved, hath repentance been declared (Hel. 12:20-22).

Mormon does not spell out what he means here, but it seems to refer to damnation after death, the "second death" spoken of by Samuel.

Moroni

Moroni's abridgment of the Book of Ether twice mentions cutting-off, though again the exact meaning is not clear:

And the Lord said unto him: I will forgive thee and thy brethren of their sins; but thou shalt not sin any more, for ye shall remember that my Spirit will not always strive with man; wherefore, if ye will sin until ye are fully ripe ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And these are my thoughts upon the land which I shall give you for your inheritance; for it shall be a land choice above all other lands (Ether 2:15).

This is interesting because, just as in the original revelation to Nephi, it pairs the threat of cutting-off with the promise of a land "choice above all other lands." It's not clear if cutting-off here means death (the Jaredites were destroyed), a withdrawal of direct revelation, or something else. (Also, "these are my thoughts"? What does that mean? Not a topic for this post.)

Another reference in Ether is interesting because it makes it very clear that (in this case anyway) cutting-off does not mean death:

And [Morianton] did do justice unto the people, but not unto himself because of his many whoredoms; wherefore he was cut off from the presence of the Lord.

And it came to pass that Morianton built up many cities, and the people became exceedingly rich under his reign . . . . And Morianton did live to an exceedingly great age, and then he begat Kim; and Kim did reign in the stead of his father; and he did reign eight years, and his father died (Ether 10:11-13).

Whatever cutting-off means here, it obviously doesn't mean an untimely demise, nor does it mean being "cursed" in any material sense. I don't think it refers to damnation after death, either, since it is reported as an an observed fact, and reported before he builds cities, becomes rich, lives a long life, and dies. I guess the likeliest reading is that, like the priests in Leviticus, he was "excommunicated" by the religious authorities and excluded from certain holy places or rites.

What did "cut off from the presence of the Lord" mean to Nephi?

"Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments, ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord": My last post catalogues instances and variants of that sentence in the Book of Mormon and speculates as to its origin. In this post and the next one, I want to explore what exactly is being threatened in the last clause. What does it mean to be cut off from the Lord's presence?

The only biblical reference to being cut off from the presence of the Lord is in the Holiness code of Leviticus. For reasons explained in my earlier post "The Nephites knew nothing of an 'Aaronic priesthood,'" I do not believe that Lehi or his descendants had the Book of Leviticus in anything like its present form; their "five books of Moses" (1 Ne. 5:11) and "law of Moses" (1 Ne. 4:15 and passim) were not the same as the Torah we know. Still, Lehi and Nephi came out of the same general cultural milieu that later produced Leviticus, so that book can give us some clues as to what the phrase may have meant to them. Here is the passage in question, reporting the Lord's words to Moses:

Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the Lord. Say unto them,Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the Lord. . . .

The soul which hath touched any [unclean thing] shall be unclean until even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash his flesh with water. And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food (Lev. 22:2-3, 6-7).

If I am right that Leviticus was produced long after Moses's time, then it is actually describing later Temple regulations and projecting them back in time to the Tabernacle of Moses. Here, the idea seems to be that those who enter the Tabernacle/Temple are entering the presence of "the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth between the cherubims" (1 Sam. 4:4). A priest who "goeth unto the holy things" while ritually unclean will be cut off from that presence -- meaning, I think, that he will lose his access to the Temple and his right to function as a priest. Among the "holy things" which a priest would "eat of" was the shewbread -- literally "bread of the presence" -- reinforcing this interpretation that the "presence of the Lord" has to do with the Temple and what pertains to it.

It seems very likely that Nephi also understood the "presence of the Lord" in this way. Consider this passage, where he describes what he sees as a fulfilment of the Inasmuch Promise:

And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from [Laman and Lemuel] and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me. . . . And we did take our tents and whatsoever things were possible for us, and did journey in the wilderness for the space of many days. . . . And it came to pass that we began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land. . . .

And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine. . . .

And behold, the words of the Lord had been fulfilled unto my brethren, which he spake concerning them, that I should be their ruler and their teacher. Wherefore, I had been their ruler and their teacher, according to the commandments of the Lord, until the time they sought to take away my life. Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence (2 Ne. 5:5, 7, 13, 16, 19-20).

Nephi says that Laman and Lemuel have been "cut off from the presence of the Lord" -- but the narrative only tells us that they were cut off from the presence of Nephi. However, Nephi makes a point of mentioning that he built a temple "like unto Solomon's" only after separating from Laman and Lemuel. A few verses later (2 Ne. 5:26), he ordains his younger brothers Jacob and Joseph as priests (because Nephi knew nothing of Aaron or of the rule that only his descendants could be priests). If Laman and Lemuel had not rebelled against Nephi, they too would have had access to this temple. In fact, Nephi might have ordained them to be priests instead of Jacob and Joseph (just as Moses, according to later legend, had ordained his own elder brother). Having rebelled, though, they were, like the priests in Leviticus who profaned the holy things, "cut off" from the House of the Lord, in which his presence dwells.

Later Nephites, beginning with Nephi's own brother Jacob, would expand the meaning of being "cut off from the presence of the Lord," as I will discuss in my next post. I think this is what it meant to Nephi himself, though, and why he considered the threat of cutting-off to have been fulfilled when his people separated themselves from the Lamanites.

Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments, ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.

Note: Updated to include some references I had missed. Thank you, Rozy!

If anything counts as a Nephite cliché, this does. It occurs in the Book of Mormon, in whole or in part, with very minor variations, 15 times, written or spoken by six different people (Nephi, Lehi, Jarom, King Benjamin, Alma the Younger, and Mormon).

Where does this saying originally come from? It isn't biblical, nor is it found in the other writings of Joseph Smith. It appears to be either (a) something that was revealed to Nephi and later recast by Lehi in more epigrammatic form or (b) something that was independently revealed, in slightly different form, to both Lehi and Nephi.

The earliest instance we have is from Nephi. He believes in his father's dreams and visions, and prays for his brothers Laman and Lemuel, who do not. In response the Lord speaks to him. It is not clear if this was a literal voice or something else, but in any case it is presented a Nephi's first recorded revelation. Among the things the Lord says is this:

Blessed art thou, Nephi . . . . And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands. And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren (1 Ne. 2:19-22).

Although this is the earliest instance of the saying, it is also the least typical. It includes "ye shall prosper" followed by a reference to "land," but not in the otherwise invariant form "ye shall prosper in the land." (Nephi later cites this revelation, in 1 Ne. 4:14, but condenses it to "prosper in the land of promise.") Its first and second halves refer to different groups of people: "ye" (a plural pronoun, including Nephi and unspecified others) vs. "thy brethren" (excluding Nephi). The most significant difference is that the second conditional clause is not about failing to keep God's commandments but rather about rebelling against Nephi.

In this form, the saying is too specific -- too anchored to Laman, Lemuel, and Nephi as individuals -- to have become proverbial until it was (I think) recast by Lehi.

Lehi later reports that he has "obtained a promise" -- meaning a direct revelation? -- which parallels Nephi's revelation in a general way but is even longer and less quotable.

Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord -- having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise -- behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them. Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten. Yea, as one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodsheds, and great visitations among them (2 Ne. 1:9-12).

The first half -- "inasmuch as [they] shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land" -- is very close to Nephi's version, but the second half is entirely different. This first part, at least, seems to have been revealed to both Nephi and Lehi, and Jarom later quotes it as such, calling it "the word of the Lord . . . which he spake unto our fathers," plural (Jarom 1:9).

We find the first two instances of the saying in its "classical" form in Lehi's parting message to Laman and Lemuel (2 Ne. 1:20) and to the children of Laman (2 Ne. 4:4). In both cases, he introduces the saying as something that "the Lord God hath said." Lehi could conceivably be quoting some prophetic writings which we do not have, something from the plates of brass perhaps; but this is unlikely, as the reference to prospering "in the land" seems to relate directly to the "land of promise" to which Lehi's family was led. It could also be something that was revealed to Lehi himself, but we have no record of this. What we do have is a record of the Lord revealing something extremely similar to Nephi, who would doubtless have told his father, and so the most reasonable assumption is that Lehi was referring to, and paraphrasing, his son's revelation.

In the next chapter, Nephi refers to own revelation -- not to Lehi's version -- and says it has been fulfilled:

And behold, the words of the Lord had been fulfilled unto my brethren, which he spake concerning them, that I should be their ruler and their teacher. Wherefore, I had been their ruler and their teacher, according to the commandments of the Lord, until the time they sought to take away my life.

Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence (2 Ne. 5:19-20).

The bit about being a ruler and a teacher is clearly from Nephi's revelation. As for the saying in question, he only quotes the second half of it, and not word-for-word, but here, too, it is about disobeying Nephi, not God.

This theory -- that the saying was revealed to Nephi and paraphrased by Lehi, and that later Nephites quoted Lehi's version -- is complicated by the fact that Alma and Mormon quote it as something the Lord said to Lehi:

Behold, do ye not remember the words which he spake unto Lehi, saying that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land? And again it is said that: Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord (Alma 9:13).

And thus we see how merciful and just are all the dealings of the Lord, to the fulfilling of all his words unto the children of men; yea, we can behold that his words are verified, even at this time, which he spake unto Lehi, saying: Blessed art thou and thy children; and they shall be blessed, inasmuch as they shall keep my commandments they shall prosper in the land. But remember, inasmuch as they will not keep my commandments they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord (Alma 50:19-20, Mormon speaking).

No such revelation to Lehi is recorded in the Book of Mormon as we have it. The Lord does say, "Blessed art thou, Lehi," in a dream, but not the other sentences quoted. Mormon may be conflating Lehi's dream with his paraphrase of Nephi's revelation (which also begins "Blessed art thou"), or he may be quoting a revelation to Lehi which didn't make it into the records we have. (Perhaps it was included in the Book of Lehi, the translation of which was lost by Martin Harris.) It wouldn't be the only instance of the Lord revealing something first to Lehi and then, in slightly different form, to Nephi (e.g. the Tree of Life vision).

All in all, though, I still think it most likely that Nephi, not Lehi, was the original source of this revealed saying. It was revealed to Nephi in a specific form, directly referring to himself and his brothers. Lehi then generalized it, citing only "the Lord" and not mentioning Nephi. It was Lehi's more quotable version that became common currency among the Nephites, and thus it came to be referred to mistakenly as something the Lord had said to Lehi. It's not the only possibility, but it's the likeliest one in my judgment.

My next post will explore what being "cut off from the presence of the Lord" might actually mean.

Running into the fountain of all righteousness

Judging by how often they are quoted elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, some of the most famous sayings of Lehi among his descendants were his exhortations to his sons Laman and Lemuel, after whom he had just named a river and a valley:

And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof. And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying:

O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!

And he also spake unto Lemuel:

O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!

Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel . . . . And it came to pass that my father did speak unto them in the valley of Lemuel (1 Ne. 2:8-11, 14).

The language introduced here (and no, it isn’t biblical) later shows up in Mosiah 5:15, Alma 1:25, 3 Ne. 6:14, Ether 12:28, and Moro. 8:26. In Ether, the quotation is put in the mouth of no less a personage than “the Lord,” who explicitly identifies himself as the referent of one of Lehi’s metaphors: “me, the fountain of all righteousness.”

No similar expressions occur in the other scriptures produced by Joseph Smith (e.g. the Doctrine & Covenants), so I think the repeated language represents actual quotation and is not an artifact of translation.

I’d tried to start a post on these sayings a few times but was stymied by my confusion over what Lehi was trying to say. Running into the fountain? A fountain is a source of water, not something rivers run into. And what did he mean by calling the Red Sea a fountain? As Lehi himself had just observed, the Red Sea is something rivers empty into, not their source.

(There are fountains in the Red Sea. In fact — apologists take note! — it was in the Red Sea that the first hydrothermal vents were discovered, just decades after the time of Joseph Smith. But in context, “the fountain of the Red Sea” is clearly an expression like “the city of Albuquerque” or “the sin of pride,” and means that the Red Sea is itself a fountain.)

I didn’t want to publish a post that just said, “Look, here’s a metaphor that doesn’t make sense!” So an abortive draft of this post gathered dust for a week or so.

Today I started thinking about it again, thinking that the “fountain” thing must mean something. Lehi understood how rivers work; Joseph Smith understood how rivers work; it’s not just an ignorant mistake. It occurred to me that, in the water cycle as we understand it today, the seas into which the rivers empty are also the primary source, or “fountain,” of the rain which creates the rivers in the first place.

Was the water cycle understood in Lehi’s time? Well, they likely had some concept of a water cycle. Ecclesiastes was probably written a century or two after Lehi, but it hardly presents it as a revolutionary new hypothesis:

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again (Eccl. 1:7).

Isn’t that pretty close to Lehi’s language? The sea into which the rivers run is also “the place from whence the rivers come,” i.e. their fountainhead. I don’t know how the ancient Hebrews explained the details of that process, or how close it was to our modern understanding, but they clearly grasped the basic logic: The rivers never run out of water, and the sea never fills up; therefore, it’s a cycle.

After that little breakthrough, I felt like I was ready to tackle the post again. I still had a few minutes before I would have access to my computer, though, so I picked up Joshua Cutchin’s Ecology of Souls (not a religious book, but one about the connection between UFOs and death) and read a few pages while I waited. Imagine my surprise — or rather how surprised I would have been if I weren’t already used to my life being one synchronicity after another — when one of the things I read on those few pages was this:

Everything has a soul, all derived from the same source. As this constitutes an animistic perspective, an animist analogy seems best. Like rain we fall to Earth, joining others in the river of life to flow untold miles toward the sea where all becomes one before evaporating to begin anew.

The context of this “animist analogy” — Cutchin’s discussion of the possibility that aliens may sometimes reincarnate as humans and vice versa — is far removed from the world of Lehi, but my reading of the analogy itself was perfectly timed.

So, with that long preamble out of the way, what do I think Lehi was getting at?

One fairly straightforward reading would be that he alludes to God as what Aristotle would later call a “final cause,” but the reader will understand my reluctance to read Greek philosophy into the Book of Mormon.

How far should the analogy be pressed? The deepest meaning of the water cycle is that neither river nor sea has a privileged position as “the source.” Each is the source of the other. This chicken-and-egg relationship between God and man is something we associate with “Mormon” theology, even though we find it mainly in Joseph Smith’s later work and not (we tend to think) in the Book of Mormon itself. The idea in some form is surely older than Joseph Smith, though. The Fourth Gospel tells us that the man Jesus knew “that he was come from God, and went to God” (John 13:3). Athanasius of Alexandria famously wrote that “God became man that man might become God.” Did Lehi have any such concept in mind when he exhorted Laman to flow into the fountain of all righteousness? Perhaps. Anyway, it’s something to keep in the back of my mind as I proceed with the book.