Is El a Lamanite god in the Book of Mormon?

No El, no El, no El, no El

-- Christmas carol

(That epigraph is just a throwaway pun, of course, though it is perhaps worth noting that this very old carol includes a non-biblical detail concerning the new star which seems to be right out of the Book of Mormon: "And to the earth it gave great light / And so it continued both day and night.")

Hugh Nibley makes much of the lack of Baal names in the Book of Mormon, asking how the uneducated Joseph Smith could have known that such names happened to be very unpopular around the time Lehi left Jerusalem. I find this completely unimpressive, since no uneducated Christian would expect Israelite names to include the name of this "false god." Besides, the Book of Mormon does include one Baal name: Isabel (Alma 39:3), which is apparently either a form of Jezebel (Hebrew ʾIzeḇel, meaning "Where is Baal?") or is parallel to Isaiah (Yəšaʿyāhū, "Yahweh is salvation"), with Baal replacing Yahweh. This name occurs over 500 years after Lehi left Jerusalem, presumably part of an unbroken tradition of Baal names.

What I do find striking is the relative lack of El names. Of the 300-some proper names that are unique to the Book of Mormon, not a single one of them incorporates the element El. The Bible, in contrast, contains over 300 El-derived names. The El names that do occur in the Book of Mormon fall into three categories:

(1) Names used by Isaiah (Immanuel) and Malachi (Elijah), appearing in the Book of Mormon only where whole chapters from those books are quoted verbatim, by Nephi (2 Ne. 17:14, 18:8) and Jesus  (3 Ne. 25:5) respectively.

(2) References to the biblical figures Israel -- which, significantly, means "fights against El" -- and (probably) Samuel. Jesus' reference to "all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after" (3 Ne. 20:24) presumably refers to the biblical Samuel, since Samuel the Lamanite was a very recent prophet.

(3) Lamanite-affiliated names: Lemuel, Ishmael, and Samuel. These are the only El names that belong to Book of Mormon rather than biblical figures, although the names themselves are biblical.

The original founders of the Lamanite group were Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, Ishmael himself having died before the schism. The land of Ishmael was Lamanite territory, "being called after the sons of Ishmael, who also became Lamanites" (Alma 17:19). As for Samuel, he is scarcely ever mentioned without a reminder that he is a Lamanite. I strongly suspect that the Lamanites adopted El as their primary name for God, after which the Nephites stopped using it.

But isn't el just a common noun referring to any god or tutelary spirit? Yes, and so is baal a common noun meaning "lord." That doesn't stop such names from becoming associated with a particular religion, leading those who oppose that religion to avoid them. Even in English, God generally implies the specific god worshiped by Christians and some Jews.

We know that the Nephites and Lamanites used different names for God, because the Lamanite king of Ishmael (500-some years after the departure from Jerusalem) doesn't understand the name of the Nephite deity:

And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.

And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?

And he said, Yea.

And Ammon said: This is God (Alma 18:24-28).

The Lamanite name for God is translated as "Great Spirit" -- thus possibly the biblical El Elyon, "the highest el."

What was the primary Nephite name for God? Not Baal, obviously, per Nibley (Isabel is a "harlot," probably the leader of a false religion like the Jezebel of Rev. 2:20-22, whose work as a self-proclaimed "prophetess" is called "fornication" and "adultery"). The next obvious candidate would be Yahweh. Certainly that name was used, as as the last verse in the book refers to "the great Jehovah" (Moro. 10:34). As an element in names, it occurs in the Nephite names Jeremiah, Joshua, and Zedekiah, all of which are biblical. It is likely that these Nephites were named after Hebrew figures rather than with specific reference to Yahweh (just as we use names like Martin and Dennis without intentional reference to Mars and Dionysus). The only non-biblical Nephite names that seem to incorporate Yahweh are Amalickiah and Mosiah. It has also been suggested that the distinctive -ihah ending in Ammonihah, Cumenihah, Mathonihah, Moronihah, Nephihah, and Onihah (though cf. the Jaredite name Orihah) may be a form of Yahweh.

Nibley has proposed that, given the Egyptian connection, Amon or Ammon (king of the gods in Egypt, also rendered Amen) may have been used as a divine name by the Nephites. The main objection to this is that Ammon itself appears as a personal name in the Book of Mormon. While names incorporating the names of gods are common, it seems highly unlikely that anyone would be named simply God. Whether or not it is a divine name, it does seem to occur in a lot of Nephite names, including (allowing for some variation in the second vowel) Aminadab, Aminadi, Ammonihah, Amnigaddah, Amnihu, Amnor, and Helaman. Since only one of these has a double m, it is possible that Amon (or Amin or Aman) was a divine name and that Ammon meant something else. If we allow Omn as a variant, we might add Gadiomnah, Omner, Omni, and Teomner to the list (though cf. Antiomno, a Lamanite). It's an interesting possibility, especially given Joseph Smith's own use of Ahman or Aumen as a name of God.

Who had the vision that converted Abish?

Sheri Doty, Abish Teaching the Lamanites

The Book of Mormon briefly mentions that Abish, a Lamanitish woman, had "been converted unto the Lord for many years, on account of a remarkable vision of her father" (Alma 19:16).

In my past readings, I had always assumed that this meant a vision that her father had had. This time around, though, I realized that it could also mean a vision in which she had seen her father -- either her own human father (presumably after his death) or her Father, God. In fact, at least in the English of our own day, this latter reading is the more natural one. If I wanted to refer to a vision which my father had had, I would say "a vision of my father's," with the possessive -'s.

Of course, we can't assume that the language of the Book of Mormon -- a combination of King James English and Joseph Smith's frontier dialect, perhaps (according to a currently popular theory) with an unexplained admixture of even earlier English -- always corresponds to current usage, so I tried to look for similar structures elsewhere in scripture.

The structure "determiner + noun + of + nominal possessive" is certainly attested in scripture, at least with pronouns: "these sayings of mine" (Matt. 7:24, 26; 3 Ne. 14:24, 26; 15:1), "a friend of mine" (Luke 11:6), "every prayer of mine" (Philip. 1:4), "those sons of mine" (Alma 56:17), "these last commandments of mine" (D&C 17:8), "these words of mine" (D&C 95:3), "any neglect of mine" (JS-H 1:59), "a neighbour of thine" (1 Sam. 15:28), "this liberty of yours" (1 Cor. 8:9), "five damsels of hers" (1 Sam. 25:42), "every beast of theirs" (Gen. 34:23), "every oblation of theirs, and every meat offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every trespass offering of theirs" (Num. 18:9).

Searching for similar instances with nouns rather than pronouns is much more difficult, since there are so many possibilities.

The fact that of can also mean "from" in King James English (e.g. "learn of me" means learn from me, not about me) also complicates matters, since of course this sense of of would not use the possessive. So "they speak a vision of [from] their own heart" (Jer. 23:16) and "then shall they seek a vision of [from] the prophet" (Ezek. 7:26) are not counterexamples. "Every word of God" (Prov. 30:5, Luke 4:4, 1 Ne. 17:35) could also be understood in this "from" sense -- Luke is paraphrasing "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord" (Deut. 8:3) -- and thus do not provide decisive evidence. Any reference to a "vision of God" (or "of the Almighty," as in Balaam's formula) should be assumed to mean "from God" also, unless it is made clear that God himself was seen.

The distinction we are interested in does not exist for the; "the vision of Isaiah" could mean either a vision seen by Isaiah (like "a vision of Isaiah's") or a vision in which Isaiah was seen (like "a vision of Isaiah"). So I searched the scriptures for various other determiners (a, every, any, this, that, these, those) + "visions(s) of," excluding instances where of could mean "from" and other irrelevant instances such as "a vision of the night" (Job 20:8, 33:15).

This search yielded only a single instance: "a vision of angels" (Luke 24:23), in which the angels are the ones seen and so of course the possessive would not be used. So zero relevant evidence either way.

Of course other nouns than "vision" could be relevant, and my search also missed any instances where an adjective is interposed between the determiner and the noun (as in "a remarkable vision of her father"), but it's hard to narrow down all those possibilities into something searchable. I think my only option at this point is to keep my eyes open for such expressions the next time I read through the entire canon.

Meanwhile, the nature of the vision that converted Abish remains ambiguous.

Intertextuality in 2 Zenos (Jacob 5)

Vincent Van Gogh, Olive Trees (1889)

The 2 Zenos text (as quoted in Jacob 5) has significant parallels to three different biblical texts: Isaiah 5, Luke 13, and Romans 11. In this post I will lay out the parallels and attempt to discern the direction of the influence.

⁂

A. Isaiah 5 and 2 Zenos

Both of these texts are quoted in the Book of Mormon (in 2 Nephi 15 and Jacob 5, respectively), so we know that the Nephites had both of them. Here are the main parallels between the two.

1. Both are about a vineyard, and both explicitly say that it is an allegory about "the house of Israel." For Isaiah, Israel is the vineyard itself; for Zenos, it is an olive tree in the vineyard. These are the only two places in scripture where the house of Israel is associated with a vineyard. The "plant" to which Isaiah's parallel metaphor likens the men of Judah means in Hebrew "that which is planted"; it could refer to an individual plant such as the olive tree of Zenos, or it could mean "plantation" and refer to the vineyard as a whole.

For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant (Isa. 5:7).

I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard (Jacob 5:3).

2. Both texts say that the vineyard "brought forth" unwanted "wild" fruit. In Isaiah, there is no explanation for this; the well-cultivated vineyard spontaneously produces "wild grapes" (literally "stinking or worthless things" in Hebrew). In Zenos, the lord of the vineyard has grafted tame branches onto wild olive trees, which is why these trees bring forth a combination of tame and wild fruit. The only other reference to wild fruit in scripture is the story of the "wild gourds" served to the prophets in 2 Kgs. 4:39.

 

"he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes" (Isa. 5:2)

"wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?" (Isa. 5:4)

 

"the other part of the tree hath brought forth wild fruit" (Jacob 5:25)

"a part thereof brought forth wild fruit" (Jacob 5:45)

3. In both stories, the owner of the vineyard asks rhetorically, in almost the same language, what more he could possibly have done for the vineyard.

"What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?" (Isa. 5:4) 

 

"What could I have done more for my vineyard?" (Jacob 5:41)

"But what could I have done more in my vineyard?" (Jacob 5:47)

"What could I have done more for my vineyard?" (Jacob 5:49)

4. Both texts juxtapose pruning and digging, a combination that is not found elsewhere in scripture. In Zenos, the lord of the vineyard and his servant repeatedly prune and dig about the olive trees in an attempt to save them. In Isaiah, the owner of the vineyard refuses to do so.

"it shall not be pruned, nor digged" (Isa. 5:6)

 

"I will prune it, and dig about it" (Jacob 5:4)

"he pruned it, and digged about it" (Jacob 5:5)

"And the Lord of the vineyard caused that it should be digged about, and pruned" (Jacob 5:11)

"Let us prune it, and dig about it" (Jacob 5:27)

"I have digged about it, and I have pruned it" (Jacob 5:47)

"Wherefore, dig about them, and prune them" (Jacob 5:64)

"I nourished my vineyard, and pruned it, and dug about it" (Jacob 5:76)

⁂

B. Luke 13 and 2 Zenos

1. Both are about a fruit tree (not a grapevine) in a vineyard. There are no other references in scripture to anything other than grapes being grown in a vineyard.

"A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard" (Luke  13:6)

 

"like unto a tame olive tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard" (Jacob 5:3)

2. Both refer to the unfruitful trees as "cumbering the ground." The verb cumber is not to be found elsewhere in scripture, except in Luke 10:40 ("Martha was cumbered about much serving"), where it is a different word more literally translated as "distracted."

"cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?" (Luke 13:7) 

 

"that they may not cumber the ground of my vineyard" (Jacob 5:9)

"all sorts of fruit did cumber the tree" (Jacob 5:30)

"I also cut down that which cumbered this spot of ground" (Jacob 5:44)

"Let us go to and hew down the trees . . . that they shall not cumber the ground of my vineyard" (Jacob 5:49)

"and the bad be hewn down . . . that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard" (Jacob 5:66)

3. Both have the owner of the vineyard "dig about" and "dung" the unfruitful trees. "Dig about" is to be found nowhere else, except in Job 11:18. Dung as a verb is found nowhere else.

"I shall dig about it, and dung it" (Luke 13:8)

 

"I will prune it, and dig about it" (Jacob 5:4)

"he pruned it, and digged about it" (Jacob 5:5)

"And the Lord of the vineyard caused that it should be digged about" (Jacob 5:11)

"Let us prune it, and dig about it" (Jacob 5:27)

"I have digged about it, and I have pruned it, and I have dunged it" (Jacob 5:47)

"dig about the trees" (Jacob 5:63)

"Wherefore, dig about them, and prune them, and dung them" (Jacob 5:64)

"I nourished my vineyard, and pruned it, and dug about it, and dunged it" (Jacob 5:76)

⁂

C. Romans 11 and 2 Zenos

1. Both passages juxtapose firstfruit (or first fruit) with root and branches. Neither of these latter words is juxtaposed with firstfruit anywhere else in scripture

For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches (Romans 11:16)

I have preserved the roots and the branches of the first fruit (Jacob 5:60)

2. Both speak of branches being broken off and the branches of a wild olive tree being grafted in.

"And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them" (Romans 11:17)

"they came to the tree whose natural branches had been broken off, and the wild branches had been grafted in" (Jacob 5:30)

3. Both refer to "sparing" the tree or its branches.

For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee (Romans 11:21).

But, behold, the servant said unto the Lord of the vineyard: Spare it a little longer. And the Lord said: Yea, I will spare it a little longer, for it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard (Jacob 5:50-51).

4. Both refer to "the natural branches" of the olive tree being grafted "in again."

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? (Rom. 11:23-24)

And the branches of the natural tree will I graft in again into the natural tree; And the branches of the natural tree will I graft into the natural branches of the tree; and thus will I bring them together again, that they shall bring forth the natural fruit, and they shall be one (Jacob 5:67-68).

⁂

D. Other related texts

In 1 Nephi 10, Lehi gives a brief version of the olive tree allegory. There is no reference to wild branches or wild fruit, only to the natural branches being broken off and scattered and then later grafted back in. Most of what is in this summary can be found in Romans 11, with the exception of the "house of Israel" reference (as in Isaiah 5 and 2 Zenos) and the mention of the broken branches being scattered in many places (as in 2 Zenos).

Yea, even my father spake much concerning the Gentiles, and also concerning the house of Israel, that they should be compared like unto an olive tree, whose branches should be broken off and should be scattered upon all the face of the earth.

Wherefore, he said it must needs be that we should be led with one accord into the land of promise, unto the fulfilling of the word of the Lord, that we should be scattered upon all the face of the earth.

And after the house of Israel should be scattered they should be gathered together again; or, in fine, after the Gentiles had received the fulness of the Gospel, the natural branches of the olive tree, or the remnants of the house of Israel, should be grafted in, or come to the knowledge of the true Messiah, their Lord and their Redeemer (1 Ne. 10:12-14).

In 1 Nephi 15, Nephi comments on these words of Lehi, explaining them to Laman and Lemuel. This explanation also says nothing about the wild branches or wild fruit. The main thing it that distinguishes it from 1 Ne. 10 is that it mixes vine and olive symbolism, as only 2 Zenos does, speaking of "the true vine" as apparently interchangeable with "the true olive tree."

And they said: Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the olive tree, and also concerning the Gentiles.

Behold, I say unto you, that the house of Israel was compared unto an olive tree, by the Spirit of the Lord which was in our father; and behold are we not broken off from the house of Israel, and are we not a branch of the house of Israel?

And now, the thing which our father meaneth concerning the grafting in of the natural branches through the fulness of the Gentiles, is, that in the latter days, when our seed shall have dwindled in unbelief, . . . they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer and the very points of his doctrine, that they may know how to come unto him and be saved.

And then at that day will they not rejoice and give praise unto their everlasting God, their rock and their salvation? Yea, at that day, will they not receive the strength and nourishment from the true vine? Yea, will they not come unto the true fold of God?

Behold, I say unto you, Yea; they shall be remembered again among the house of Israel; they shall be grafted in, being a natural branch of the olive tree, into the true olive tree (1 Ne. 15:7, 12-16).

This mention of "the true vine" (there are no "true" trees or vines in 2 Zenos) brings in John 15 as yet another possibly related text. This refers to "withered" branches (mentioned four timed in 2 Zenos) and unfruitful branches being "cast . . . into the fire" and "burned" (mentioned 11 times in 2 Zenos). Branches that bear no fruit "he taketh away," which seems different from casting them into the fire and may refer to the brances being grafted into other trees scattered around the vineyard, as in 2 Zenos.

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. . . .

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned (John 15:1-2, 4-6).

In Alma 16, Mormon again references this "true vine" and specifically mentions grafting.

That they might not be hardened against the word, that they might not be unbelieving, and go on to destruction, but that they might receive the word with joy, and as a branch be grafted into the true vine, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord their God (Alma 16:17).

In Alma 13, Alma perhaps references 2 Zenos with his reference to "all parts of our vineyard."

[W]e are thus highly favored, for we have these glad tidings declared unto us in all parts of our vineyard (Alma 13:23).

⁂

E. How are all these texts related?

Our preferred solution -- the simplest one under the assumption that the Book of Mormon is basically legit -- would be that 2 Zenos is the oldest text, that all the others are influenced by it, and that this is sufficient to account for parallels between the Book of Mormon and certain New Testament texts.

I think this works for our main texts. Consider the central image in each:

• 2 Zenos: an olive tree in a vineyard
• Isaiah 5: a vineyard
• Luke 13: a fig tree in a vineyard
• Romans 11: an olive tree

If 2 Zenos is the original, each of the others takes one aspect (vineyard, tree in vineyard, olive tree) of its more complex image. If the biblical texts came first and Joseph Smith created the 2 Zenos text, he took three different allegories about three different crops and combined them into a single integrated story -- which is not impossible to do, of course, but is more difficult and unlikely than the reverse. Were it not for the Luke 13 text, I would have said that Zenos's incongruous olive tree in a vineyard was evidence of a story cobbled together from two different sources, one about an olive tree and the other about a vineyard -- but the parable in Luke about a fig tree in a vineyard shows that perhaps vineyards with crops other than grapes are not so incongruous after all.

The main sticking point is the "true vine" language used in John 11, 1 Nephi 15 (which also has "true olive tree"), and Alma 16. Mormon may have had access to the New Testament, which potentially explains Alma 16, but 1 Nephi 15 -- the words of Nephi, unedited by Mormon -- cannot be explained in that way. I also don't think it works to assume that the "true vine" comes from 2 Zenos. Unlike the 1 Zenos fragments in 1 Nephi 19 -- which are obviously just that, fragments of a larger text -- Jacob 5 seems to be a complete Zenos text quoted in its entirety. At present, I have no good explanation for the "Johannine" language in 1 Nephi 15 other than the sort of "contamination" discussed in "Lehi, Nephi, and the pillar of fire that "dwelt upon a rock": A case study of hard-to-define biblical parallels."

The Twelve Tribes against the Twelve Apostles

The first part of Nephi's high mountain vision deals with the conception, birth, baptism, ministry, end execution of Jesus Christ -- the resurrection is, strangely, omitted -- and presents no real problems. It is consistent with the stories we have in the New Testament. After Christ's execution on the cross, though, things get a little confusing:

And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

And after he was slain I saw the multitudes of the earth, that they were gathered together to fight against the apostles of the Lamb; for thus were the twelve called by the angel of the Lord. And the multitude of the earth was gathered together; and I beheld that they were in a large and spacious building, like unto the building which my father saw.

 

And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: "Behold the world and the wisdom thereof; yea, behold the house of Israel hath gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great.

 

And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: "Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (1 Ne. 11:33-36).

This can be seen as a reference to the fact that the early church was persecuted. What is strange is the angel's insistence that "the house of Israel hath gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb." In the history we know, it was primarily the Romans that persecuted the early Christians, and though the Jews also participated, it certainly wasn't the gathered House of Israel, a term which always refers to all Twelve Tribes being reunited, as in the LDS Article of Faith, "We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes" (A of F 10). The Ten Tribes disappeared in the eighth century BC and remain "lost" to this day. James, one of the apostles against whom these gathered tribes are supposed to be fighting, addresses his epistle "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James 1:1).

Furthermore, elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, Jesus himself seems to say that the tribes will not be gathered until they accept him as their Redeemer:

And I command you that ye shall write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, and also of the other tribes whom they know not of, that these sayings which ye shall write shall be kept and shall be manifested unto the Gentiles, that through the fulness of the Gentiles, the remnant of their seed, who shall be scattered forth upon the face of the earth because of their unbelief, may be brought in, or may be brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer.

And then will I gather them in from the four quarters of the earth; and then will I fulfil the covenant which the Father hath made unto all the people of the house of Israel (3 Ne. 16:4-5).

If the House of Israel is not gathered until after they accept Christ, why would they have "gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles"?

One possible interpretation is that the gathering in Nephi's vision is figurative. The tribes weren't literally gathered together any more than they were literally in a single "large and spacious building." Rather, the apostles went out into the world, meeting hostility wherever they went -- tradition has it that Matthew was killed in Ethiopia, Bartholomew in Armenia, Andrew in Greece, Thomas in India, and so on -- and in this way the Twelve Tribes, while still physically "scattered abroad," were figuratively "gathered" or united in their fighting against the apostles.

Another possibility is that "after he was slain" means thousands of years after he was slain (or just that Nephi saw this after he saw Jesus slain, which may or may not correspond to historical chronology). The fight may be still in the future, after the promised "literal gathering of Israel" -- which would mean the "twelve apostles" must be someone other than the biblical figures to whom that term usually refers, but this is hardly a problem for Mormons, who already accept that many different groups of twelve men can be and have been called by that title.

It is even possible that Nephi's use of the term has no reference to Jesus' disciples during his mortality at all. Notice how the Twelve are first introduced in the vision:

And I looked and beheld the Redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken; and I also beheld the prophet who should prepare the way before him. And the Lamb of God went forth and was baptized of him; and after he was baptized, I beheld the heavens open, and the Holy Ghost come down out of heaven and abide upon him in the form of a dove. And I beheld that he went forth ministering unto the people, in power and great glory; and the multitudes were gathered together to hear him; and I beheld that they cast him out from among them.

And I also beheld twelve others following him. And it came to pass that they were carried away in the Spirit from before my face, and I saw them not.

And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the heavens open again, and I saw angels descending upon the children of men; and they did minister unto them.

And he spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men. And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out (1 Ne. 11:27-31).

First Nephi sees scenes from the life of Jesus. Then he sees "twelve others following him" -- which may mean coming after him in time -- and these are then "carried away in the Spirit" so that he no longer sees them. Rather than this referring to anything that happened to the apostles themselves, I think this may just mean that this part of the vision ended, and he went on to the next scene. The next scene is "angels descending upon the children of men" -- When did this happen? It could have been any time -- and then the scene changes back to the life of Jesus. The Twelve are explicitly removed from the scene before this, and there is no mention of their appearing in the subsequent scenes of Jesus' life. This is consistent with the possibility that they are not contemporaries of the mortal Jesus.

If the Twelve Apostles in the vision are not the familiar New Testament characters, who might they be?

It's interesting that immediately after seeing the Twelve "carried away in the Spirit," Nephi sees angels descending and ministering. The number of angels is not specified, but could it be the same Twelve, now translated or resurrected beings? This brings me back to my 2023 post "Who were the 13 luminous beings Lehi saw in his Jerusalem vision?" This, you will recall, is what Lehi saw in that vision:

And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.

And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth (1 Ne. 1:9-10).

In that post, I pointed out the identical language used in the two visions -- "twelve others following him" -- but thought the Twelve seen be Lehi couldn't be the apostles seen by Nephi because they descended from Heaven and didn't seem to be ordinary mortals. Now, though, I see that Nephi's vision does suggest that the Twelve Apostles may have been carried off to Heaven and then descended again as "angels."

What is meant by these angels "descending upon the children of men"? This unusual language is only found in other place in scripture:

And he [Jesus] saith unto him [Nathanael], Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man (John 1:51).

Here the angels both ascend and descend -- just as in Nephi's vision, if the Twelve are in fact the same beings as the angels. In my 2019 post "Notes on John 1," I had this to say about that verse of the Gospel:

"The angels of God ascending and descending" certainly sounds like a reference to Jacob's dream -- "And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it" (Genesis 28:12) -- with the Son of man playing the role of the ladder.

The use of "descending upon" makes sense in John 1 because Jesus is metaphorically Jacob's Ladder. What does it mean in Nephi's vision, where the angels descend not upon a singular Son of Man but "upon the children of men"?

The only other "descending upon" in scripture refers not to angels but to the Spirit at the baptism of Jesus:

And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him (Mark 1:10).

One likely interpretation of this is that the Spirit of God entered Jesus at this point, making him fully divine. Could Nephi mean something similar, with angelic spirits entering the bodies of mortals?

In my post on Lehi's Jerusalem vision, I proposed that the twelve star-like beings he saw descending out of heaven might be the patriarchs of the Twelve Tribes. Could it be these same patriarchs, as glorified "angels," that "descend upon" or enter the Twelve Apostles? Later in Nephi's vision he is told:

Thou rememberest the twelve apostles of the Lamb? Behold they are they who shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel (1 Ne. 12:9).

This would certainly make sense if the Twelve Apostles are in some sense the Twelve Patriarchs.

In my post on Lehi's Jerusalem vision, I noted that each of the Twelve Tribes is associated with a holy book and even used language suggesting that each book almost embodied one of the patriarchs:

If Joseph -- in the form of the book kept by his tribe, the plates of brass -- will go forth unto all nations, what of the other 11 starry beings who also go forth? Well, according to Nephi's later prophecies, each of the other tribes will also produce a holy book, and these, too, will go forth to the world.

And this brings me to the symbol of the Cherubim, or the Four Living Creatures -- who symbolize both the Twelve Tribes of Israel (see "The Throne and the World" for details) and, by a later tradition, the authors of the four canonical Gospels. And this reminds me of my own 2024 vision, recorded in "Étude brute?", in which I was shown a book and told

This book is the Cherubim. Not the Book of the Cherubim, but the Cherubim themselves.

Well, this post has certainly raised more questions than it has answered. I'm just thinking aloud and welcome comments.