Unique Phrases
This article collects some unique nonbiblcal phrases that are used in the Book of Mormon, that seem unique to Mormonism, but actually predate JS Jr.'s publication of the book.
Tabernacles of Clay
Book of Mormon
Mosiah 3:5:
... the Lord Omnipotent ... shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay
Moroni 9:6:
... we have a labor to perform whilst in this tabernacle of clay, that we may conquer the enemy of all righteousness, and rest our souls in the kingdom of God.
The seemingly uniquely-Mormon phrase “tabernacles of clay” (above) is a strange beast. The three-word phrase is not found in the King James Version (KJV) of the English translation of the Bible. The phrase mixes the Old Testament concept of the “tabernacle” (the Jewish predecessor to the temple of Solomon which the children of Israel carried with them in the wilderness to worship the Lord) and especially Paul's reference to the mortal body as “our earthly house of this tabernacle” in 2 Cor. 5:1—with Old and New Testament phraseology about people metaphorically being or dwelling in earthen vessels, jars of clay, potter's vessels, etc. to express metaphorically that the human spirit dwells in a very temporary and flawed and breakable, mortal house of clay, especially in comparison to The Maker, The Potter, e.g. God. (This “tabernacle = temple” concept also reminds us also of the phrase “the body is a temple.”)
2 Cor. 5:1:
For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
Old Testament
Jeremiah 18:4:
And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
Isa. 45:9:
Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it (other translations, say to the potter), What makest thou? or thy work (say to the potter, e.g. God), He hath no hands?
Job 4:19:
How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?
Job 13:12:
Your remembrances are like unto ashes, your bodies to bodies of clay.
New Testament
Romans 9:21 (reference Isa. above):
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
2 Corinthians 4:7–11:
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels (also alternately translated jars of clay), ... Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.
2 Cor. 5:1 (again):
For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
1 Thess. 4:4:
That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel (translated body in NIV, ESV, etc.) in sanctification and honour.
2 Timothy 2:20:
But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
Rev. 2:27
And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers (dashed to pieces like a potter's vessels, NKJV).
18th- & 19th-Century Preachers
The exact phrase, rendered into English in those three words, can be found in various sermons from the late 18th and early 19th centuries, showing that the phrase was in the religious zeitgeist at and around the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon:
The Critical Review: Or, Annals of Literature, Tobias Smollett, 1763, p.427:
Relate their peculiar gifts and graces, while dwelling in tabernacles of clay, they passed their mortal pilgrimage, in sacred love and pious ardour; imitating the bright example of their Saviour.
The Whole Works of the Late Rev. Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, 1798, p. 347:
Sirs, think upon it now; no sooner hath death dislodged you from these tabernacles of clay, and the eyes of your bodies shut, but that very moment you will find your souls sifted (“fifted” using obsolete typeset long s) before the awful tribunal of an infinite God, in order to have your eternal state determined.
The Whole Works of the Rev. William Bates, Vol 2, 1815, p. 297:
It is promised, “that God will dwell in us, and walk in us;” whose gracious presence is heaven upon earth. Strange condescension! that the God of glory should dwell in tabernacles of clay; far greater than if a king should dwell in a cottage with one of his poort subjects.
Joseph Hall, 1837, p.78, referencing 2 Cor. 5:1:
Let it not overgrieve us, to leave these tabernacles of stone, since we must shortly lay down these tabernacles of clay, and enter into tabernacles not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Till then, farewell, my Dear Brethren, farewell in the Lord.
This should suffice to begin a reasonable discussion on the origin of this unique phrase in Joseph Smith's earliest scriptural production, in Mosiah 3:5 and Moroni 9:6, mentioned at the top.
Beggars Before God
Another concept from King Benjamin's address, Beggars Before God (Mosiah 4:16–26), also has precedent in a sermon of Dr. Hugh Latimer, 1824, p.72:
And here we be admonished of our estate and condition, what we be, namely beggars. For we ask bread [when we pray]; of whom? Marry, of God. What are we then? Marry, beggars: the greatest lords and ladies in England [presumably up through King George IV, as also King Benjamin] are but beggars afore God. Seeing then that we all are but beggars, why should we then disdain and despise poor men? Let us therefore consider that we [are] but beggars: let us pull down our stomachs; for if we consider the matter well, we are like as they be afore [sic] God: for St. Paul saith, Quid habes quod non accepisti? “What has thou that thou hast not received of God?” (1 Cor. 4.) Thou are but a beggar whatsoever thou art: and though there be some very rich, and have great abundance, of whom have they it? of God. What saith he, that rich man? He saith, “Our Father, which art in heaven; Give us this day our daily bread:” then he is a beggar afore God, as well as the poorest man.
I found this sermon with a less than a minute of using Google Book search. I'm sure more extensive research has been done on King Benjamin's revival sermon, but it doesn't really matter. With a total of perhaps 15 minutes of poking around, I found plausible sources for supposedly unique phrases and ideas in King Benjamin's sermon. I don't care if we can prove that Joseph had access to this sermon between 1824 and 1829 when he dictated it back to his scribes, we have stacks of other verified books and sermons and arguments from the early 19th century (and earlier) bursting through the seams of the Book of Mormon. Even if there is no discoverable direct link from this sermon to JS Jr. in upstate NY, if we accept the faithful perspective, we are asked to believe that God saw it fit to canonize the work of a Protestant preacher from the 1820s by sending this sermon back in time to King Benjamin, so ancient prophets could engrave it on metal plates multiple times, for centuries, abridge it, carry it thousands(?) of miles, bury it, come back from the dead, all to bring it back to the 19th century from whence it came. Who needs Ockham's razor when you have time travel?
This is not to criticize the content of the sermon in Mosiah 4. These verses are some of the most Christian and charitable verses in all of the scriptures of any religion. It should be required reading for the leaders of all Churches. It should be canonized. However, it should also be credited to the source.
Succor them that perish, that thyself perish not
I read the ending of Mosiah 4 and thought, the phrase “perish not” from John 11:50 seems unique enough for Benjamin to quote, worded “Remember, and perish not,” that I also decided to search for it, and found this mid-17th century gem (1651, written in nearly unreadable blackface), quoting the ancient Roman Seneca, headinged Precepts and Counsels:
- Give no vain and unmeet gifts, as armor to women, books to fools, or nets to a student.
- Give to the needy pearls that thou need not thyself.
- Succor them that perish, yet so that thou thyself perish not thereby [(Mosiah 4:16 uses the word succor twice in the same context, Mosiah 4:30 says “remember and perish not”)].
- If thou bestowest a beneft keep it secret, but if thou receivest any publish it abroad.
- Speak not to him that will not hear, for so thou shalt vex him.
- Give at the first asking, for it is not freely given, that is often craved.
- Boast not thyself of that which is another man's.
- Blame not nature, for she doeth for every man alike.
- If thou wilt praise any man because he is a gentleman, praise his parents also; if thou praise him for his riches, that appertaineth to fortune, if for his strength, remember that sickness will make him weak; if for swiftness of foot, remember that age will take it away; if for his beauty, it will soon vanish. But if thou wilt praise him for manners and learning, then praise thou him as much as appertaineth to man, for that is his own, which neither cometh by heritage, nor altereth with fortune or age, but is always one.
Unholy Temples
The non-biblical phrase is used twice in the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:21, Helaman 4:24), and more often in JS Jr.'s later revelations, and throughout later Mormon discourse. However the phrase does predate the Book of Mormon, showing that it was used out in the broader world of Christian thought:
Henry Lee, The Scripture, Doctrine of the Atonement, 1752, p. 223:
But, otherwise, what would Christ, as an example only, avail us? He had the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in him: but does he dwell in sinners out of Christ? if he does, you must have more gods than one to suit your shceme; and you must say, they dwell in unholy temples of flesh, unless then you own our union with Christ; that he dwelleth in us, and we in him; (for being many we are one body in Christ) are also the temple of God, 1 Cor. 3:16,17,19, 2 Cor. 6:16.
Charles Lucas, in Joseph a Religious Poem, 1810, Book 24, p. 331:
- Unknown of men, God sees and knows and [sic]
- And are there no good Kings? Yes, there are they,
- Who grind to dust the Serpent, spurn the Calves,
- Destory the Groves of sin, throw down the Altars,
- Scatter the Idols, slay the Worshippers,
- And crush the unholy Temples to the ground,
- So that no more the abominations rise.
Sing Redeeming Love
In Alma 5:9, Alma 5:26, Alma 26:13, another non-biblical phrase, refers to a hymn, “Lord's Day Morning” from 1816, 1821, 1826:
- All hail, auspicious Morn, On which the Saviour rose;
- Victorious over sin and death, And all our hellish foes.
- The triumphs of this day, Demand a cheerful song;
- Vast as the sacred name we sing, From all the ransom'd throng.
- Then let my soul arise,
- Nor longer sluggish lie,
- Loud hallelujahs shall ascend, And reach the lofty skies.
- Adieu, ye joys of sense, Be banish'd from my mind ;
- This soul would find no room for you, Her joy is more refin'd.
- My ransom'd soul would sit, And sing redeeming love;
- Till Death should terminate my song, And she ascend above,
- To see her risen Lord, In all his glory shine;
- Mix with the millions round the throne, And join the theme divine.
- Nor Sin, nor Death, nor Hell,
- Nor grief, nor fear, nor pains,
- Shall e'er molest that happy place,
- There Christ triumphant reigns.
Land Bountiful
A Bountiful land amidst a sea of Arabian desert, with fruits, along a religious pilgrimage route
“Bountiful” is used as a place name in the Book of Mormon (and adopted later for the same purpose in Colorado and Utah), the term appears twice in the Old Testament—Proverbs 22:9: “He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor.” Isa. 32:5: “The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.”
The term is also used in Christian hymns from the 1820s: “Thou bountiful giver of mercy and grace,” (1822) and “Thou bountiful giver of glory and grace,” (1826) or “Which they hand hath conducted me through; What blessings bestow'd by a bountiful God.” (1823) etc.
The use of Bountiful as a proper name in English apparently dates to 1707 in the comedy The Beaux' Stratagem by George Farquhar (Lady Bountiful, Sir Charles Bountiful). This use of Lady Bountiful as a rich and generous woman entered the English lexicon.
As I kept searching for the phrase “bountiful land” in English literature throught 1828, I was trying to find Christian contexts (hymns, sermons), so I was ignoring the results that only referenced places in Arabia, before I realized that this is exactly how it is used in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 17): to refer to the place on the Arabian peninsula where they arrived, after a long journey across a harsh desert wilderness, before they crossed the Indian and Pacific oceans(!), in 600 BCE, aboard a ship made by amateurs, to the New World. Specifically, Arabia, by Josiah Conder, 1825, p. 289 states:
The whole of this tract is a real desert, containing no river, and only a few inconsiderable springs, no arable land, and scarcely a garden throughout the territory. Mekka and Djidda are the only towns: the other inhabited spots are little else than miserable villages, composed of barracks and tents established near a well or spring. Medinah and Tayif are represented as situated “on a bountiful land, with plenty of water, and covered with gardens and plantations.”
The asterisk here quotes Conder's own reference (Niebuhr):
Tayif, Niebuhr says, “is situate[d] upon a lofty mountain, in so agreeable a country, that the Arabs compare its environs to those of Damascus and Sanaa. This city supplies Djidda and Mekka with excellent fruits, particularly raisins, and carries on a considerable trade in almonds, which grow in great plenty in its territory.” He was told, also, of “a charming valley,” called Wady Fatima, somewhere between Mekka and Medinah, which Mohammed is said to have bestowed as a dowry on his daughter Fatima. It occurs in the western hadji route [(the hadj is one of the pillars of Islam, a pilgimage to the Holy Mecca)], one day's journey from Mekka.
Note that in this part of the Book of Mormon, the land Bountiful is a sort of desert oasis waypoint that also occurs along the route of a religious pilgrimage.
Any one of these points of connection could be dismissed as a coincidence, but to find four in the space of a single page of a book available in English in 1826 really marks this as a potential bullseye.
Every time I think, OK, this one weird angular phrase might be unique to the Book of Mormon, it keeps turning on its head and revealing that any imposter (not JS Jr.) could have written a so-called ancient narrative and included this detail by simply reading material available in their own time, without the need for revelation or ancient records. Luckily no one else attempted to do such a dishonest thing.
Arouse your faculties
Used in Jacob 3:11 and Alma 32:27, the very non-biblical phrase “arouse the/your faculties” (where neither “arouse” and “faculties” are found in the KJV Bible) was used extensively in the 1810s and 1820s to refer to a methaphorical awakening from a spiritual or mental slumber.
Alma 32:30 text restored
See Why were 35 words at the end of Alma 32:30 in the original manuscript omitted from early editions of the Book of Mormon?, however be reminded that Fair Mormon LDS is literally paid to ignore or dismiss problems, so this is more like the exception that proves the rule, that material changes to the Book of Mormon have no doctrinal implications. This one change may not, but other changes do.
In 1981 ed. of Book of Mormon reads: “30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. 31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.”
The 1830 Book of Mormon has some missing verbiage, and reads: “But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. [(Missing text here.)] And now behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.”
Chiasmus and Antimetabole in History
Chiasmus is found in “Hebrew, Greek, Latin and K'iche' Mayan literature.... Many long and complex chiasmi have been found in Shakespeare and the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible. Chiasmus is also found throughout the Quran and the Book of Mormon.” It seems like a very broadly independtly rediscovered form, if it was used in the New World independently of infuence from the Old World.
Robert Lowth rediscovered it in the Bible, for the English-speaking world, in 1753
According to William L. Davis, 2005, Structural Secrets: Shakespeare's Complex Chiasmus:
In 1753, Robert Lowth, D.D., Bishop of London and the former Professor of Poetry at New College, Oxford, published a series of lectures on biblical Hebrew texts that permanently altered the fundamental approach to modern biblical interpretation.
A search of the term parallelismus membrorum in books published before 1829 yields over 200 uses of the term, mostly in German and in Latin works, showing how widely it was discussed, including some of the earliest (1758, in print), with Robert Lowth's explanations of Ps. 139:20 and Ps. 22:31
(Yet, it appears William Shakespeare (1564–1616) rediscovered or reinvented chiasmus for his own use, independently, and included the structures repeatedly in his plays, long before Robert Lowth's work.)
Robert Lowth very influential in Hebrew Bible studies
Vol. III (1825) of Adam Clarke's commentary of the Bible mentions the work of Robert Lowth. Specifically, the introduction of the Book of Isaiah says “See Lowth.” (p. 782, scanned page numbers, not actual page numbers) In fact, Bishop Lowth / Dr. Lowth is mentioned 40 times in this one of six volumes of Adam Clarke alone (actually more, because he references him so often, in Isaiah commentary alone Clarke simply uses “- L.” — 126 times!)
We know JS Jr. had access to Adam Clarke's commentary of the bible, demonstrated by BYU professor Thomas Wayment and his student Hayley Wilson-Lemmon. But Clarke is not the only way the work of Robert Lowth was carried into the 1820s English reading world.
1820s revival of interest in Robert Lowth's study of chiasmus in the English KJV Bible
In The Album, 1823, a reviewer covers John Jebb's “Review of the Principles of Composition laid down by the late Robert Lowth” in John Jebb's 1820 work Sacred Literature where Dr. Jebb explains the forms of Hebrew parallelism in the Old Testament as well as the New, including Antithetic Parallelism and Introverted Parallelism.
Book of Pslams in Metrical Verse by Richard Mant, 1824 mentions Lowth and parallel clauses.
Similar mentions of and explanation of parallelism (“parallel clauses”) in the New Testament in Sermons on the Mission and Character of Christ by John Farrer, 1804.
Thomas Boys 1824, 1825, 1827 explanations:
Introverted parallelism explained by Thomas Boys in Tactica Sacra 1824, and A Key to the Book of Pslams, 1825.
In 1827, Thomas Boys wrote a letter to the Editor, printed in Critica Biblica, which was printed along with a four-page explanation of inverted parallelism or introverted parallelism, specifically naming chiasmus in great detail, with nuemrous New Testament examples, p. 214-217. At the end of this detailed explanation, 1 Cor. 13:5 is presented as an example of a four-pair chiasmus.
To say that chiasmus could not have been understood and/or imitated, in the 1820s, in the English speaking world, by readers of the Bible, is straight up hogwash tapirwash.
Alma 36 is one chapter-long 16-pair chiasmus/antimetabole
So does this prove that Alma 36 is ancient? If you start with the idea that the Book of Mormon is ancient, you would probably see a long chiasmus as evidence of that, practically expected, right? (However, if the Book of Mormon is ancient, we would also very much not expect to see even one notable anachronism, much less dozens or hundreds of them. So if we are keeping score, and grant this one point to the theory of ancient Book of Mormon origin, but then we count anachronisms as points against, how does the evidence stack up?)
However, if you adhere to a naturalistic assumption, then several plausible explanations are possible:
- JS Jr. independently rediscovered the form (as Shakespeare appears to have done), or noticed it somewhere else in English, such as Shakespeare, Samuel Johnson, Mary Leapor, or Lord Byron, or perhaps English Christian hymns or poetry.
- JS Jr. noticed this strucutre in the Bible, on his own, and copied it, since we know he was not above copying entire chapters of Isaiah (for example) into the Book of Mormon, as well as hundreds of phrases and ideas throughout the entire Book of Mormon—reminding us how intimately he knew the Bible.
- JS Jr. was tipped off to this by reading a Bible Commentary, or hearing a sermon, by someone in the know, between the time Robert Lowth published his lectures on Biblical Hebrew texts in 1758, and 1820–1827 when John Jebb and Thomas Boys ensured that Lowth and various forms of parallelism were on the radar for anyone who cared about the Bible. (See above.) This evidence from Jebb and Boys is not meant to prove that JS Jr. learned about chiasmus from these specific tomes, but only that it is plausible that those ideas could have made it from Lowth in 1758 to New England by 1820 (or earlier!), as so many scholars leaned so heavily on Lowth in their work.
- It is totally plausible that JS Jr. was exposed directly to John Jebb (1820) Thomas Boys (1824, 1825, 1827), who explain these parallelism ideas clearly the way we understand them today.
If chiasmus is evidence of ancient provenance, then Shakespeare's use of chiasmus makes his plays ancient and not written by the Bard himself. Can there be no other explanation? Or 1572's Wilhelmus, the national anthem of the Netherlands, a 7- or 8-pair thematic chiamus, must be more ancient than it is—what would that even mean, that Wilhelmus must have been translated from ancient Hebrew and could not have been composed in Dutch?
Finally, if you want to go to the length that I cannot prove that JS Jr. had access to such and such information by such and such time, I can say you can't prove that JS Jr. translated anything from an ancient record, without producing the ancient record itself. These claims are both stupidly obvious. Maybe instead we can play the plausibility game. Which is more plausible? 1. The idea that the concept of chiasmus made it to New York by the 1820s, especially given the above evidence? or 2. That a physical, ancient record on gold plates containing this lovely 16-pair chiasmus made it to New York by the 1820s? This latter claim means: that New World ancient prophets Mormon / Moroni mined/hoarded, smelted, and hammered out enough gold (and carried the raw gold around during wars and so forth, and physically secured it from theft, etc.) to engrave a 400,000-word record, carved manually, character by character, during a protracted war that saw the end of their civilization, mind you; these same prophets then had to carry this eighth-of-a-ton behemoth to upstate New York to bury it (or their battle at the single Hill Cumorah happened to be in JS Jr.'s back yard); then Moroni died, resurrected 1400 years later, and handed it over (?!) to a young lad, who then never even used the physical plates in his translation work, but used a seer stone / peep stone in a hat (the same one he had used to defraud people looking for buried treasure which he never once found), and then the young lad gave the literal solid-gold book back to the resurrected Moroni. Which is more plausible?
One Eternal Round
This non-Biblical phrase (mentioned in 1 Ne. 10, Alma 7, Alma 27) refers to 1758's (reprinted numerous times, such as 1774, 1788, 1802) A Collection of Hymns for Social Worship ed. George Whitefield p. 80, hymn 101, “Praise to God for Creation and Redemption,” which ends with the line, “Rocks, Hills, and Vales reflect the Voice / In one eternal Round.” This instance does not refer to a course or path but a musical round, like “Row, Row, Row Your Boat,” where everyone is singing together at different times but simultaneously.
However the idea of the wheel of fortune being run by God (instead of by nature, as profane authors might assert) with the same phrase, one eternal round, appears in Evangelical Magazine, 1802.
Also 1805, ed. Thomas Taylor, “one eternal round, encircling in her course the mind profound.” Also, The Gentelman's Magazine, 1827, author W. Hersee, “And a New Year begins its course to run, (That globe which rolls in one eternal round, Just emblem of a Power that knows no bound).” etc.
Unpardonable Sin Against the Holy Ghost
This non-Biblical English phrasing “unpardonable sin” of the New Testament idea of a sin that cannot forgiven (mentioned by Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, Mk. 3:28–29, Mt. 12:31–32, Lk. 12:10, as well as other New Testament passages including Hebrews 6:4–6, Hebrews 10:26–31, and 1 John 5:16, a sin unto death) dates to the 17th century. For example John Bunyan (author of Pilgrim's Progress) wrote about it in 1659 in The Doctrine of the Law and Grace Unfolded, (republished in the 1751 edition, p.237-p.239); see also the introduction to an edition of The Pilgrim's Progress about the Life of John Buyan, which discusses John Bunyan's religious obsessive compulsive disorder (which would now be diagnosed as scupulosity): “The supposition however, that he had committed the unpardonable sin, had such an effect on Bunyan, that it not only distressed his mind, but made his very body tremble for many days together; and produced such a stoppage and heat at his stomach, as greatly disordered him.”
This Google Ngram viewer shows how old the usage of the term is in English, as early as 1611, peaking around the time of 1659 (see Bunyan, above), and then falling off almost to zero by the mid-18th century, with some reprinting of works discussing it, such as Robert Russel's 1692 sermon being reprinted in 1763, or Bunyan's 1659 The Doctrine being reprinted in 1751 and 1811. The esteemed John Wesley (founder of Methodism) weighed in on the subject in Sermon 86, 1778, “A Call To Backsliders,” where he discusses the idea at length and mentions the term “unpardonable” and “unpardonable sin.”
However, by the early 1790s the term skyrocketed in popularity until it hit its all-time peak around 1833. So the early 19th century is when it really took off, including:
- 1812, William Law (no, not that one) discusses the unpardonable sin in the context of the other two members of the Trinity, p.30–32.
- 1815, Nathanael Emmons speculates that the unpardonable sin can be committed in public only, a sin of the tongue.
- 1817, The New Evangelical Magazine reprinted a section of Mr. McLean's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews as “On the Unpardonable Sin,” p.321–p.326: (first mentions David falling “into the sin of adultery and deliberate murder; yet he repented and was forgiven,” cf. Alma 39 mentioning the same trifecta of worst sins, and McLean continues: “from this account of the unpardonable sin we may see, that it is not a simple transient act, or occasional transgression of a particular precept, but a wilful, total avowed apostacy from the faith of the gospel ... a deep rooted and settled enmity of heart against Christ, his holy character, and the way of salvation through him.” I here point out that Christian ministers would never agree that writing critically about the Book of Mormon (which could be argued is a form of service to the Christian world) would put someone at risk of committing the unpardonable sin, but faithful, believing Latter-day Saints very likely would. They would assume such a critic had sinned against the greater light, yet the critic, in his research would surely be gaining more light, not less? How does that work? It's all arbitrary and speculative, that's how all of this theological running-in-circles works.
- 1825: reprints of a 1796 article of Rev. Andrew Fuller, where he expounds 1 John and explains how there could even be a sin outside of the power or the mercy of God, nor yet the efficacy of the Saviour's blood. p.80–87. (Fuller even accusses unnamed ministers of being wolves in sheep's clothing or hypocrites “under a mask of disguise,” and that some may even by guilty of the unpardonable sin, because of their sinning against the greater light, having learned to profess so much about Christ, yet not repenting themselves or changing their own ways, secretly hidely a sinful life.)
- 1827, Bishop William Beveridge, p.337 expounds the doctrine of the Trinity, in the context of an “unpardonable sin” described by Jesus, writing that those “who dare deny the Holy Ghost to be really and truly God, and so blaspheme and speak the worst that they can against him.” Yet another definition.
JS Jr.'s inclusion of the phrase unpardonable sin cannot be said to have been made in a theological vacuum, independently of the discusions of the time (or the previous two centuries really), especially the upswing in popularity of the term exactly as the Book of Mormon was being produced, in the 1820s and early 1830s. The Book of Mormon certainly jumped on that bandwagon.
First Resurrection, Second Resurrection, Third (General) Resurrection; Mystical Resurrection v. Literal Resurrection; The Millenium; Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!
Revelations 20:6–7:
20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison
Speculation and argumentation on this passage raged (and all of the Book of Revelations, really) for probably more than a millenium, and in the English print world, for nearly two cenuries (17th, 18th, early 19th century) before the Book of Mormon was produced. The following will suffice to illustrate this point.
1679, A New England Firebrand Quenched, The Second Part: Or, an Answer to Roger Williams' Appendix by English Dissenter George Fox, founder of the Quakers or Friends, refered to by Roger Williams as Foxians, p. 99–101, bold emphasis added:
R. W. Bringeth M. Bines (fol. 86.) saying [ Notwithstanding thy passing through the First and Second Resurrection (as he saith there remains a Torment for thee at the last Day, and Woe. ] And G. F. Answers: [ “They are blessed, that have Part in the First Resurrection, the Second Death hath no Power over them; but are made free from Wrath that is to come, and are passed from Death to Life: and are translated into the Kingdom of the Son of God; and are in Union with the Son of God and the Father both.” ] R.W. replieth and saith: G. F. arrogates to himself and his Foxians, a passing through the First and Second Resurrection; he triumphs in their Blessedness pronounced to their First Resurrection, viz. of Communion with God, and Freedom from Wrath to come.
Answ. The Reader may see, how R. W. falsely applieth the Priest's Words to G. F, which speaketh of the First and Second Resurrection: but doth G. F. mention the Word of passing through the Second Resurrection? For doth not John say in the Revelations (and is it Arrogancy in him?) Blessed and Holy is he that hath part in the First Resurrection, on such the Second Death hath no Power; for they are Priests of God &c, (Revel, 20)? And doth not the Apostle say (Rom. 5, 9,) We shall be Saved from Wrath through him (to wit, Christ &c)? and, Thanks be to Jesus, which hath delivered us from Wrath to come (1 Thess. 1, 10)? and (Chap. 5, 9) God hath not appointed us to Wrath?. And the Saints had Fellowhip with the Father and the Son (1 John 1)?
And R. W. saith: That G. F. is in his Burrough of Words of diverse Significations &c, Nay Roger, G. F.'s Words are plain; and thou art in thy Burrough, that seest them not. And then thou sayest: G. F. wrests and winds, what is for his wicked Ends. This is false, and thy own Condition; and wherein doth he wrest, when he speaketh plain Scripture?
[Saying my interlocutor is “in his Burrough of Words“ is 17th Century Speak for: I know you are, but what am I? But Fox has a point, he simply quoted Revelations and R.W. thought he was making things up?]
R.W. And thou sayest: You shall never take him in distinguishing and defining, what is the First and Second Resurrection.
Answ. What need he, when John hath plainly defined and distinguished it in his Revelations?
R. W. And thou sayest: The Truth is, as soon as they hearken to this Familiar Spirit, they are so elevated, that they be in Heavenly Glory: the Resurrection is past, and (with K. Agag's Dream) the Bitterness of Death and Wrath is past for ever with them.
Answ. This thou mightst have applied at home, with thy Familiar Spirit, thou speakest of. And dost thou not here again abuse G. F's. Words? doth he say here, That the Resurrection is past? and are they not the Priest's M. B's. Words of Passing Through the First and Second Resurrection? But where doth the Scripture say, They that have part in the First Resurrection, there remaineth a Torment for such at the last day and Wo, as the Priest saith? thou shouldst have made this good by Scripture. And as for the Thorns and Thistles, thou mayest keep them at home, which grow in thy own Nature.
1822 / mid-1600s reprint of The Whole Works of John Lightfoot, edited by Rev. John Rogers Pitman, from a sermon of John Lightfoot (1602–1675) firmly a 17th-century sermon, bold emphasis added, p.195–196:
Shall we dispute, whether the first or second resurrection be the greater work, the greater business?
...
A second parallel of the first and second resurrection, is in regard of the instrumental cause of both. The second resurrection will be effectuated by the all-powerful voice of Christ, calling all out of their graves.
1816 reprint of mid-18th century text, The General History of the Christian Church, Sixth Ed., Charles Walmesley aka Signor Pastorini (1722–1797), bold emphasis added, p. 67–68:
And this admission of their souls into glory without their bodies, is called the first resurrection. But the souls of the others, who were guilty of any of the above-named crimes, lived not the life of the before mentioned happy souls, but were condemned to hell-flames, which is the first death. Nor will they revive or recover life till the thousand years be finished at the general resurrection, when they will indeed be drawn for a moment out of the infernal pit and be reunited to their bodies, but to be replunged together into eternal damnation, which is the second death. In like manner, when at the last day the bodies of the just are made partners with their souls in bliss, that may be termed the second resurrection. — We see here inculcated that known maxim of the Christian religion; that the souls of the just who die in the Lord enter into heavenly glory, though their bodies do not participate of it till after the general resurrection; and the same holds with regard to the punishment of the souls of the wicked.
1816, Thomas Southwood Smith, p. 194:
If it be just to give a literal interpretation to this phrase, it seems to warrant the conclusion that the wicked will die a second time; yet it is not uffirmed that they will never rise again. Of a first resurrection we are certain, and we have no assurance that there will not be a second. There is no passage of scripture hostile to the conclusion. Should it be inferred, that a second resurrection will not take place, because there is no express promise to authorize the expectation, it may with equal justice be concluded, that there will, because it is not positively affirmed that there will not. Of these opposite inferences, the latter is at least as well founded as the former: nay, it is much more so: for the first is incompatible with some passages of scripture; the second is contradicted by none, and is directly supported by several, particularly by those which speak of a first resurrection; for a first resurrection implies a second.
1822, John Fry, The Second Advent of the Glorious Epiphany of Our Lord Jesus Christ, vol. II, ch. 3, “The Revelation”, sec. 32, “The Installation of the risen Saints with Christ, in his Kingdom upon Earth,” and sec. 33. “The Continuance of the History of Christ's Kingdom till after the general Judgement” p.473–481, esp. p.480, bold emphasis added:
We are here, then, reading of the common hope and expectation of all the faithful people of God. They all live and reign with Christ a thousand years. It follows:
“But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”
That a proper and not a figurative resurrection is intended in this place, if the analogy of prophecy had not made it plain, might be demonstrated from this verse. It must be admitted, unless the resurrection be denied altogether, that the living of the rest of the dead here mentioned-supposing them the same as those mentioned in ver. 12, of which no reasonable doubt can be raised-is a true and literal resurrection. Of course, then, the living of the dead before spoken of—those that are counted “blessed and holy as having part in the first resurrection,” in distinction from that, the second resurrection,—must be real and literal also. If the one is figurative, the other must be figurative too; and if the one be literally true, so is the other, by every example of the language of prophecy which is at all applicable to the case. We learn, then, from this passage, that a period of a thousand years intervenes between the first and the general resurrection; and that during the same period the saints reign with Christ upon earth. During the same period, too, we have seen Satan is to be bound. This period is what is known by the term Millennium. Whether this number is to be taken as the other numbers in this vision, a day for a year, so as to denote a period of three hundred and sixty thousand years, or whether it is to be taken strictly, as it is generally understood, we seem to have no means of ascertaining. But whatever be the space of time intended, it evidently marks off a particular period of the reign of Christ and his saints.
1819, Archibald Halliday, An Investigation of the Paraphrase, p.59, bold emphasis added:
As the resurrection, at the last day, is termed the second resurrection, by reason that the conversion of the saints is termed the first resurrection; so the sentence against the damned, and casting them into the lake of first and brimstone, is termed the second death; from man's lapse in Adam being the first death, the reprobate then will be finally destroyed at the last day, or day of judgment. But if it were possible that a deliverance from that final misery could be attained, such a deliverance would be a third resurrection; which to hope for, would be the highest presumption, as there is not a promise in scripture for that opinion, but many are against it. To dream of a third resurrection, or rather, in their language, a restoration therefore, is a vain and presumptuous delusion; for as death is a destruction on the vessels of wrath, not a discipline; so the second death is final and endless destruction.
1825, Archibald Mason, A Scriptural View, referencing John Fry's work on The Second Advent, p.205–214, esp. 209–210, bold emphasis added:
At the 5th verse, it receives the name of the first resurrection, “This is the first resurrection.” This is said of the resurrection of the souls of the martyrs. This name imports that there will be a second resurrection. This second resurrection is mentioned in the beginning of that verse. “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” At the expiration of the thousand years, and at the commencement of the little season, the souls of the rest of the dead shall live. As the souls of the martyrs shall live and reign with Christ on the earth throughout the thousand years; so the souls of the rest of the dead, who were opposed to the beheaded saints, shall live and endeavour to reign on the earth with Satan during the little season. Their leader, their character, their number, their actions, and their end, are distinctly stated in the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 1Oth verses of this chapter. In this vision, two resurrections are foretold; the former at the beginning of the Millennium, and the latter at the commencement of the little season. Neither of them has any connection with the general resurrection of the bodies of the just and the unjust, at the day of judgment, at the end of time; Of this resurrection and judgment we have a description in the five verses at the end of the chapter. “Then Christ shall come in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. Then shall be sit on a great white throne. Then the dead, small and great, shall stand before him. At that time all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and come forth, some to the of life, and some to the resurrection of condemnation. At that time, the sea shall give up the dead that are in it, and death and the grave shall deliver up the dead that are in them; and they shall be judged every man according to his works.” And, at that time, the books shall be opened, and another book shall be opened, which is the book of life, and the dead shall be judged out of those things which were written in the books. The result of this judgment is also declared. For whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire; and all who are written in the Lamb's book of life shall enter into, and enjoy the heavenly city. From this literal resurrection of the bodies of all the dead, the first resurrection of the souls of the beheaded saints, and the second resurrection of the rest of the dead are entirely different. They differ in their season. Betwixt the first and second resurrections a thousand years must be fulfilled, and the little season must expire between the second resurrection, and the general resurrection of all men at the last day. They differ as to their design. The first resurrection will be accomplished, that the world may be filled with saints; the second resurrection will take place, and the world shall be filled with wicked men; but in the [general] resurrection, all mankind shall be judged, time shall come to an end, and all men shall be fixed in their unchangeable state, the wicked suffering everlasting punishment, and the righteous enjoying life eternal. They differ also in the inspired descriptions that are given of them. The objects of the first resurrection, are souls, and the souls of beheaded saints only; they are said to live; this life is called a resurrection; they attain to great holiness, for they are Priests; they are exalted to high dignity, because they are kings; they are with Christ, they live and reign with him, according to his appointment, on the ground of his purchase, and in the enjoyment of his special presence, fellowship and care, and this shall be enjoyed on the earth, only for a thousand years. The objects of the second resurrection, are the rest of the dead; or, in conformity to the other resurrection, the souls of the rest of the dead; they are said to live; they fight against the Church of Christ; and the cause of their life and actions is the deception of the wicked one. But the account of the general resurrection, is essentially different from these.
Note that he mentions three: first resurrection, second resurrection, and the general resurrection. Hence Alma in Alma 40 in discussing the first resurrection and how many resurrections there may be “it mattereth not,” meaning if John wrote “first resurrection,” we know there is more than one, but “it mattereth not” if there be two, or three, or more.
1827 W.C. Davis, A Treatist on the Millenium, p.28, bold emphasis added:
But it is thought that because this is called the first resurrection, it is therefore a literal resurrection of the bodies of the witnesses from the dead; they take it for granted, without a single syllable of proof, that the second resurrection, is a resurrection of the bodies of the wicked. They argue thus; if the second resurrection be a literal one, the first resurrection must of course be literal also. This argument takes it for granted that the second resurrection is a literal resurrection from the dead. But let us dispute this point; then the basis of the argument falls, and the argument is good for nothing. I am truly surprised that such a learned and sensible man as Bishop Newton should argue and attempt to demonstrate his point on such flimsy ground. (See Newton on the prophecies, Vol. 2. p. 346 and 347.)
That a first resurrection argues a second, I grant; but I would beg leave to deny that either of them will be a literal resurrection; because the text does not say so, neither explicitly, nor by fair construction. And I humbly affirm the contrary; and say that they will both be mystical resurrections, to wit, the resurrection of souls and not of bodies. This is what the text means, and further it saith not; and I refer to the arguments already stated above. After the first and second resurrection, we have an accurate account from the eleventh verse of this chapter to the end, of a third resurrection, which is called, the general resurrection of all, both good and bad, and also of the final day of Judgment. And this account contradicts their whole theory. This is a literal resurrection of the bodies both of saints and sinners. “And saw a great white throne, and him who sat on it— And I saw the dead small and great stand before God And the sea gave up the dead, which were in it, and death and hell, [death and the grave] delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were Judged every man according to their works.” This is evidently a plain literal account of the final resurrection from the dead, at the last day.
...
The first resurrection is a spiritual one, metaphorically called a resurrection; it will be effected by the spirit of Christ accompanying the gospel on the hearts of sinners, causing them universally, (or at least generally) to possess the true spirit of piety and religion, like the martyrs of old, who stood and bled and died for the cause of Christ. The second will be a metaphorical resurrection, and it might be called with propriety, a diabolical resurrection, because it will be effected by the influences of Satan loosed from his prison, inclining the hearts of the children of men to evil, stirring them up to persecute the church, with the same disposition as used to reign in the old heathens, Mahometans, and Papists. The third and last resurrection will be a literal one, effected by the almighty power of Christ, who will sound his trumpet and summon all the dead, to come to Judgment, when all, both quick and dead, shall be judged according to their works.
Very un-Christian, consigning all Catholics (Papists) to the diabolical resurrection of the children of men to evil. Let no one think that Christians were ever united except in their hatred of Islam and atheism and their willingness to argue endlessly with their arbitrary interpretations of tricky passages of the Bible.
Bridle All Your Passions
Alma 38. Nice turn of phrase, but not original to the Book of Mormon. Various sermons, tracts, and devotional books interpret James 1 (bridle the tongue) and 3 (bridle the whole body) with the phrase “bridle your passions” or “bridle all your passions” as early as 1803 (“By the girding of our loins Christ requires a temperance so exact, as to bridle all our passions, to mortify our senses, and to restrain them from whatever may be contrary to the law of God. ...”), 1807 (“Lastly, in your personal conduct, you are required to keep your bodies in temperance, soberness, and charity, to bridle your passions, and govern your sensual appetites; to be meek and lowly, humble, patient, and resigned; ... These are the main of the things undertaken and promised in your name at your baptism ...”), 1825 (“Bridle all concupiscence; restrain your passions; tame your rebellious flesh; die to yourselves, that you may live to God. Can you say with St. Paul: ‘With Christ I am nailed to the Cross?’ (Gal. 2.)”).
Pre-Roman, Pre-Carthigian References to Crucifixion or The Cross
The mention of crucifixion or the cross almost anywhere in the Book of Mormon (aside from 3 Nephi) is anachronistic because the documented evidence for crucifixion comes from the 6th and 5th centuries, after Lehi left Jerusalem (and centuries before there was an Ancient Rome, and before that empire copied Carthage and employed the practice to punish criminals). The New World prophets could not have had a verb for crucifixion (“to make a cross”) when the practice had not been invented yet, and the noun of the cross would have meant nothing in the New World until the Christian era, marking this all as evidence of text produced in the Christian era.
For comparison, the only remotely plasubile mention of anything remotely like crucifixion in the entire Old Testament is Deut. 21:22–23 which refers “to hanging the corpse of an executed criminal on a tree, possibly as a form of deterrence.” “The earliest section of the Book of Deuteronomy is widely believed to have been composed in Jerusalem in the 7th century BCE. Beginning with Paul the Apostle (writing in Galatians 3:13), some [Christian era] authors have interpreted the text in Deuteronomy 21:22–23 as an allusion to crucifixion.”
Two mentions in the Book of Mormon that are not (supposedly) pre-Christian, so are plausible:
- 3 Ne. 12:30 (another use of cross, but certainly would not be anachronistic, if Jesus says it like a week after he was crucified:) “For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.”
- 3 Ne. 27:14 (another use of cross, but certainly would not be anachronistic, if Jesus says it like a week or a month after he was crucified:) “And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.”
The rest are pre-Roman and hence pre-Christian, or refer to later developments in the Old World that Lehi would not have known about when he left Jerusalem c. 600 BCE.
- 1 Ne. 11:33 Nephi “saw that he [Jesus] was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.” Actually Jesus was slain for rebellion (the placard said something like King of the Jews, though accounts disagree), not for the sins of the world—this is not mentioned in the synoptic Gospels; that was added later by John, Paul, etc.
- 1 Ne. 19:10 Nephi paraphrases Neum (fantasy Old World prophet) “to be crucified, according to the words of Neum.”
- 1 Ne. 19:13 Nephi quotes Zenos (fantasy Old World Prophet), “And as for those who are at Jerusalem, saith the prophet [Zenos], they shall be scourged by all people, because they crucify the God of Israel, and turn their hearts aside, rejecting signs and wonders, and the power and glory of the God of Israel.”
- Ne. 6:9 Nephi says, “And he also has shown unto me that the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, should manifest himself unto them in the flesh; and after he should manifest himself they should scourge him and crucify him, according to the words of the angel who spake it unto me.”
- 2 Ne. 9:18 “the righteous, the saints ... who have endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame of it.”
- 2 Ne. 10:3–5, first explicitly mentions the canard that Christ is the name of Jesus, which makes no sense: Christ is English that translates a title, from Greek, which translates Messiah or “annointed” from Hebrew—the full name would be more like “Jesus the christ”, e.g. “Jesus the annointed”, not Jesus H. Christ or whatever. Then 2 Ne. 10:3 continues that Jesus ”should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God. For should the mighty miracles be wrought among other nations they would repent, and know that he be their God. But because of priestcrafts and iniquities, they at Jerusalem will stiffen their necks against him, that he be crucified.” This also repeats longstanding anti-Semitic Christian tropes that only the Jews would be wicked enough to crucify their God, not an idea unique to the Book of Mormon. (TODO more historical notes on the history of this, see Spanish Inquisition, fake Protocol for the Elders of Zion, etc., etc. ad nauseum.)
- 2 Ne. 25:13 Nephi says “Behold, they [the Jews] will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead.”
- Jacob 1:8 desires that “all men would believe in Christ, and view his death, and suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world.”
- Mosiah 3:8–9: More Christ as name canard: “And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary. And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.”
- Mosiah 15:7 “Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.”
- Alma 39:9 “I would that ye should repent and forsake your sins, and go no more after the lusts of your eyes, but cross yourself in all these things; for except ye do this ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. Oh, remember, and take it upon you, and cross yourself in these things.” (Like a Roman Catholic, a reference to making the sign of the cross over oneself.)
- Ether 4:1 This one amongts the Jaredites predates the introduction of crufixion anywhere in the world by at least a thousand years. “And the Lord commanded the brother of Jared to go down out of the mount from the presence of the Lord, and write the things which he had seen; and they [the words] were forbidden to come unto the children of men until after that he [Jesus] should be lifted up upon the cross.” In other words the prophecy could not be revealed until after it could be used as proof that it correctly predicted the future, but fortunately the Book of Mormon lets us know about it after the fact, long after the New Testament was written and the whole world has known about Jesus for over a millenium. Also, the juicy bits in the sealed portions of the vision of the Brother of Jared are not included in the Book of Mormon anyway, see Missing Writings / Glorified Omissions Trope.
Book of Mormon names and places from an antiquities dictionary
Specifically Charles Anthon's A Classical Dictionary, sixth edition 1827. Yes that Charles Anthon (cf. early D&C section and 2 Nephi 27: I cannot read it (a sealed book)).
Helorum
A silver bullet, bullseye, right on target. Anthon 1827, p.334, a town of Sicily.
Moron
From Ancient Greek μωρόν. Attested in 18th and 19th century works:
- 1823, a Spanish place name (also listed in 1815 as a town of Seville hit by the Pestilential Fever)
- Also, the character Moron in Moliere's play “The Princess of Elis,” one English translation dates to 1748.
Plan of Redemption
The phrase plan of redemption is used nowhere in the KJV Bible, but used 17 times in the book of Mormon (in 9 chapters), esp. Alma 12, but discussed hundreds of times in sermons and theological treatises in English publications of the 18th and 19th centuries: 1752, 1778, 1781, 1786, 1787, 1796, 1809, 1811, 1823, 1824, 1826, as well as Adam Clarke's commentary (“published in London between 1810 and 1825, available for purchase in America at least by 1824”), which JS Jr. had access to and consulted in his Inspired Translation of the Bible project (aka JST), demonstrated by BYU professor Thomas Wayment and his student Hayley Wilson-Lemmon.
Plan of Salvation
Another nonbiblical phrase, used in the Book of Mormon three times, and used all over late 18th- and early 19th-century Protestantism and especially Methodism: 1797, 1799, 1807, 1809, 1810, 1812, 1815, 1820, 1823, 1824, including treatises (books, pamphlets) with that title.
Burying Weapons of War
This genuinely interesting motif of the converted Lamanites burying their weapons of war, Alma ch. 24 and ch. 25, sort of stands out. This is probably a stretch, but in Adam Clarke's vol. 3 of Thomas Harmer's Observations on Various Passages of Scripture, 1816, Observ.16, pp.53–55, referencing Ezek. 32:26–27 and 1 Macc. 13:20–30, cites the work of 16th century Dutch scholar and theologian Hugo Grotius, who explains the practice of burying their arms, particularly their swords, with warriors; and the apocryphal historian (in 1 Macc.) describes carvings, on pillars, set over the graves of such. Harmer goes on to say that Ezekial explains that not all nations did this, but that burying warriors with their weapons of war was peculiar to Meschech and Tubal (combined as Mingrelia) and the adjoining country, but not other nations (Egypt, Ashur, Elam, Edom, etc.) that were enemies of ancient Isreal. The obvious difference is the actual ancient practice of “burying weapons of war” was for the living to bury the weapons of war with their slain comrades, not (as the Anti-Nephi-Lehies) the living burying their own weapons of war as a form of pacifism and symbolism, a form of self-sacrifice. Hopefully more research can be done on this.
Law of Moses followed by Ancient Nephites in the Book of Mormon
Seventeen references or so where this is explicitly stated: 1 Nephi 4:15, 2 Nephi 5:10, 2 Nephi 25:30, Jacob 4:5, Jacob 7:7, Jarom 1:5, Jarom 1:11, Mosiah 2:3, Mosiah 12:29, Mosiah 13:27, Alma 25:15, Alma 30:3, Alma 31:9, Helaman 13:11, Helaman 15:5, 3 Nephi 1:24, 3 Nephi 15:2, 4 Nephi 1:12
Outward Performances
Regarding performing sacrifices according to the Law of Moses among the Nephites (see previous)—this nonbiblical phrase, outward performances, is used once in the Book of Mormon, in Alma 25:15 to refer to religious rituals, (as opposed to inward work of repentence, or a spiritual relationship with God) is used as far back as 1671 by Anglican bishop and theologian Robert Sanderson in the context of how far “An hypocrite may go ... in the outward performances of holy duties.”
By 1719 this concept had morphed into a criticism both of ancient Jews under the Law of Moses, as well as Catholics and their rituals, A Private Hand, i.e. anonymous author, Some Arguments p. 133, expounds Isa. ch. 1:
We may learn how grossly they mistook the Meaning of these Sacrifices and outward performances (like the Papist at this day,) resting in the Works done, without looking to the spiritual Intent and Meaning of them, as having an Eye to Christ, for whose sake alone they were accpetable to God; and then they did not seem to consider the spiritual Nature of God, who could not, nor would not, be put off with outside Performances where the Heart is wanting...
So the point is that Protestants had discussed the idea of the Law of Moses prefiguring and pointing to Christ for centuries, frequently using this phrases specifically, well before JS Jr. lifted it into the Book of Mormon in the same context.
Remorse of conscience
A nonbiblical phrase used in Alma 29 and Alma 42, also used by various 19th century theologians, such as Jonathan Edwards (1807, 1817), Emanuel Swedenborg (1812), and John Pearson (1821) as well as an 1816 translation into English of Thirty Sermons by Martin Luther, so the idea is pretty old in Protestant Christianity.
Martin Luther, 1537: Melchizedek a High Priest like unto Jesus Christ
In Alma 13:13–19, Alma preaches, emphasis added:
And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest. Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever. And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed. Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord. Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness; But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father. Now, there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards, but none were greater; therefore, of him they have more particularly made mention.
The direct references to Melchizedek in the Bible are fairly slim.
Gen 14:18–19:
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
Psalm 110:4:
The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
In the New Testament, Melchizedek is not mentioned directly, but Hebrews 2:17–3:2 interprets the idea of Christ being a High Priest thus:
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
Martin Luther and later preachers explained to the Protestant Christian world for hundreds of years this idea that Melchizedek was an archetype of Jesus. For example, 1788 (about 250 years after Martin Luther wrote about this interpretation of Pslam 110, see below), translated from Martin Luther (1483–1546) into Dutch, Lutheran Small Catechism translated from German by J. A. Cramer (3rd edition), p.204–205 (Google Translated into English, emphasis added):
Jesus Christ is called a High Priest in Scripture, not only as Aaron, but also as Melchizedek, who were his examples. He was a High Priest, like Aaron, because he taught people about God's will, redeemed them from all its misery by his suffering, as the only true sacrifice for sin, and interceded for them, just as Aaron and his followers in the Holy High Priesthood were required to teach the Jews about God's will, sacrifice for them, and pray for them. He was a High Priest, like Melchizedek, because he is also Lord of all people, and uses his power and dominion to save them, just as Melchizedek, who was King in Salem, blessed faithful Abraham, brought peace to his subjects, and made them happy. Because of all these works, our Savior is also called the Mediator between God and mankind.
From 1537, The 110th Pslam: Saith the Lord. Preached and Expounded through Dr. Martin Luther, p.228–231. (Google Translate, cleaned up and bold emphasis added):
Now this Story has carefully examined the Epistle to the Hebrews and interpreted from it this text (You are a priest after the way of Melchizedek) and shown the difference between the priesthood of the New Testament and the Old Testament and concluded that this priesthood of Christ (which was formed through Melchizedek) must be much higher and better than the Levite. Firstly, because this priest Melchizedek blesses the patriarch Abraham and takes tithes from him. For since he is thus blessed, he is lesser and less than he who blesses, and not the greater to the lesser, but the one who gives tithes to the greater, must therefore be greater and greater than Abraham. But if he [(Melchizedek)] is greater than Abraham, he must also be greater before Aaron. Abraham is indeed the highest man among all those the Jews can praise. As the deity and source or stem and root of the entire people, and indeed greater than Levi and Aaron, who were born of his blood and flesh. Therefore, all who can come from him (including Levi with his priesthood) must be under this Melchizedek who blesses their patriarch and priest and takes the tithes from him. Yes, they themselves are forsaken in Abraham (says the same epistle) when they were still in his loins and not born.
Secondly, the same epistle also noted that this priest, Melchizedek, is remembered so: briefly, and nothing is said about him, where he came from or where he stayed, but neither the beginning nor the end of his lineage is reported. Yet everything about Aaron is written clearly, and his entire lineage from Abraham is clearly distinguished, including how he was called to the priesthood and, indeed, how he died, and [from whom] he inherited the priesthood. This holy prophet also considered this and added the word (Eternal Priest) to it. That, just as one finds this Melchizedek no father and mother, beginning and end, it is not that he had no father and mother, but that nothing is written about it. Therefore, Christ (who was formed through him) is truly a such a priest, who has neither a beginning nor an end, but is from eternity and remains forever.
If the Jews had opened their eyes and read the Scriptures properly, they would have realized that their priesthood, the Levite one, and the Aaronic one, which came after, would not be the true permanent priesthood, but [they] would wait for another priest and priesthood, which would be higher and better than the temporal kingdom and priesthood that all their forefathers had been. For with this (which he calls Christ, a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek) he lifts up all of them and casts them under the feet. The Word (a priest after the order of Melchizedek) which was swept through Abraham, sets it (as said) over Abraham and all his people, also over King David. But the Word, forever, does not raise him as only over Abraham and David, but over all kings and kingdoms, yes, over Israel and earth. For it shows and proves that he must not only be a true man (which the word, priest, brings with it), but must also be a true God, because he is without beginning and end and existed before both Abraham and David. As he which he also named his father above, before he was ordained.
Now this is said of the person of this priest [(Melchizedek)]: that he is a different man than Aaron, Abraham, and the entire Jewish people. But we must also consider the difference in office between Aaron's and Christ's Priesthood. This is also shown by the words (according to the way Melchizedek, that is, also as it is written and read by Melchizedek) For thus it is written there (as said in) Genesis 14, when Abraham came from the slaughter which he had won from the five kings, this Melchizedek brought bread and wine before him, and as he was a priest of God, he swept Abraham with a beautiful, glorious blessing.
To summarize the point here, as Wikipedia explain about Melchizedek in Protestanism: “Traditional Protestant Christian denominations, following Luther [(who died in 1546)], teach that Melchizedek was a historical figure and an archetype of Christ. Tremper Longman III notes that a popular understanding of the relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus is that Melchizedek is an Old Testament Christophany – in other words, that Melchizedek is Jesus, or at the very least, is a close resemblance of Jesus.” Martin Luthers's interpretation for essentially all of Protestantism is not something that developed after Christians read the Book of Mormon, rather it predates the Book of Mormon intrepretation by nearly 300 years. Though grabbing a few quotes in German (1537) and Dutch (1788) does not show exactly how the idea made its way from 16th century European German to early 19th century English (1826), the point is that the idea is old (but newer and more fleshed out than in the New Testament, and well over a thousand years after Moroni buried the plates) and not original to JS Jr., and did not need to be delivered by revelation because it was already widely circulated in print for three hundred years. The novel part is where Joseph Smith claimed others besides Melchizedek and Jesus Christ (including himself and officers of the church) had received this priesthood, a development beginning in D&C 84 and further developed over time.
