Alma’s Temple Text on the Priesthood—Part 1
- Stephen Fluckiger
- Oct 26, 2025
- 20 min read
Updated: Nov 2, 2025
It has been gratifying to watch as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have rallied behind their new leader, President Dallin H. Oaks. Equally noteworthy to me has been the way in which President Oaks, both in his General Conference message after President Russel M. Nelson’s passing and in his first public statements, has subtly but firmly affirmed the LDS Church’s view of the nature of God, which is unique among all Christian denominations—indeed among the three dominant Abrahamic faiths—Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
In general, the Abrahamic faiths have a monotheistic view of God, a single, indivisible being who is beyond gender, “a solitary sovereign, a Being without face, feet, or family.” In this view, God is “abstract,” “transcendent,” “prior to,” “separate” or “other” than all created things.[1]
President Oaks, however, declared: “Our relationship to God and the purpose of our mortal life are explained in terms of the family. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the plan of our Heavenly Father for the benefit of His spirit children. We can truly say that the gospel plan was first taught to us in the council of an eternal family . . . and its intended destiny is to exalt the children of God in eternal families.”[2]
Then, in his first interview with the press, President Oaks added an important detail about our Church’s unique belief that God is neither abstract nor by nature “other” than humankind. In response to the question, What advice do you have for families today? he responded:
What I tried to teach in my talk in General Conferenced just concluded. I tried to persuade that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints outlines the destiny of the children of God and that destiny culminates in an eternal family—a Father in Heaven and also a Mother in Heaven, although we haven’t been given very much information about Her for reasons that God understands and we don’t. But the point is the whole purpose of mortal life is to prepare us for a heavenly destiny in a family organization. And we are blessed when we take those [truths] as a given as we said in the family proclamation.[3]
In other words, Joseph Smith would come to understand during the course of his ministry that Alma2’s and Lehi’s experiences—being in vision in the presence of God “sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels”( Alma 36:22; 1 Nephi 1:8) (and similar experiences Bible prophets had when they saw God surrounded by the “hosts of heaven”)—were representative of that eternal family council our Heavenly Parents presided over and that we, Their spirit children, attended eons ago.
Priesthood truths revealed during Joseph and Oliver’s translation efforts April 9-24, 1829. While Joseph and Oliver most likely would not then fully appreciate this divine truth, the principles governing divine communication they were learning from the April 1829 revelations that would become Sections 6-9 of the Doctrine and Covenants, as well as the flood of revealed truth about the priesthood and priesthood ordinances found in the Books of Mosiah and Alma, would provide a solid foundation upon which these truths would rest.
After completing the translation of King Benjamin’s sermon in Mosiah 2-6 on Friday, April 17, 1829, according to Brother John Welch’s estimated “day-by-day translation” table,[4] by the end of that month they would have progressed almost to the end of the book of Alma. Of particular note to the doctrinal foundations for the restoration of temple work that were being laid in Joseph’s mind during the translation process are Alma 11-13, which Welch identifies as another “temple text.”[5]
When and under what circumstances was Alma the Younger (Alma2) born? To appreciate Alma2’s prophetic call and ministry, it is helpful to understand the historical context surrounding Alma2’s birth and early adulthood. To construct a timeline, I rely principally on a chronology prepared by Arthur R. Bassett, a former associate professor of humanities at BYU (which appears in quotations below with the dates in bold he described as being “most accurate”), [6] and to which I append observations gathered from various other sources:
225 B.C. One commentator estimates that Benjamin would have been about eight when his father, Mosiah1 fled from the land of Nephi with the righteous Nephites and came to Zarahemla, where Mosiah1 was made king.[7]
“200 B.C. The Zeniff colony leaves the land of Zarahemla [over which Mosiah1 reigned] and moves back to the land of Nephi” (Mosiah 9).
“173 B.C. Alma1 is born after [Zeniff’s] colony has lived 27 years in Nephi.
160 B.C. Benjamin begins his rule over Zarahemla. In the land of Nephi, “Noah becomes the king. Alma1 is 13 years old.”
154 B.C. Benjamin’s son, “Mosiah2, is born in the land of Zarahemla. Alma1 is 19.
“150 B.C. Abinadi appears in the land of Nephi. Alma1 is twenty-three, ‘a young man’ (Mosiah 17:2).”[8]
Alama1, the record notes, was one of King Noah’s wicked priests (Mosiah 17:1-2). Did he and the other priests King Noah consecrated or ordained hold the priesthood? Welch suggests that he did, citing Abinadi’s response to such priests’ argument that “salvation cometh by the law of Moses.” To this argument, Abinadi responded that “salvation doth not come by the law alone,” but through Christ’s “atonement.” It was necessary for the Jews to observe the law of Moses, he added, “yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people . . . Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him” (Mosiah 13:28-30).
“The phrase ‘from day to day,’” Welch notes, “strongly suggests” that King Noah’s people, as did the Nephites generally, observed the “daily reminders and performances of the law of Moses. Nowhere does Abinadi hint that such daily performances were inappropriate, so long as they were correctly understood as symbols of Christ, of his support and mercy from day to day (cf. 2 Nephi 28:32; Mosiah 2:21; 4:24), of mankind’s need to remember him from day to day (Alma 58:40), and of offering daily prayer (Psalms 86:3; 88:9; Mosiah 4:11; 21:10; Alma 31:10; 34:38).”
“Abinadi accused Noah and his priests of many things,” Welch adds. “If the priests of Noah had not been attending to the appropriate daily requirements of the law, it is reasonable to assume that Abinadi would have raised that point against them, because he specifically acknowledged the need to observe the law daily, and the priests told Abinadi that they taught and lived that law (see Mosiah 12:28).”[9]
It stands to reason that if Abinidi implicitly acknowledged that Noah’s priests administered the daily sacrifices and other “ordinances” required by the law of Moses, then he also implicitly agreed that they had authority to do so. Since the Nephites did not have the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood, the only authority by which they could have administered such ordinances would have been the Melchizedek Priesthood.[10]
Continuing Bassett’s timeline:
“148 B.C. Martyrdom of Abinadi. Alma1 is 25, and Mosiah2 is six.
"147 B.C. Alma1 moves to the Waters of Mormon (he is 26, and Mosiah2 is seven) and then to Helam, where he and his colony are later taken into captivity by the priests of Noah and the Lamanites, under the direction of Amulon, one of Noah’s original priests.”
At some unknown point during the 27-year period between Alma1’s establishment of the church at the Waters of Mormon and the church’s arrival in Zarahemla, Alma2 is probably born.
124 B.C. King Benjamin delivers his Great Assembly sermon at the temple of Zarahemla and “Mosiah2 becomes the king . . .. He is 30, and Alma1 is 49.
“121 B.C. Benjamin dies; Ammon sets out on his mission to Nephi. Limhi[11] returns to Zarahemla some unspecified time later. Mosiah2 is 33, and Alma1 is 52.
“120 B.C. Alma1 [escapes with the members of the church he established at the waters of Mormon] to Zarahemla. Mosiah2 is 34, and Alma1 is 53.” Mosiah2 then authorizes Alma1 to “establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church” (Mosiah 25:19).
“120–100 B.C. Rebellion in the land of Zarahemla, culminating in the conversion of Alma2 and the sons of Mosiah.”
At this point in his history in Mosiah 26-27, Mormon notes that Alma2 was part of the “rising generation” who “knew not the Lord, neither the works which he had done for their fathers” (Mosiah 26:1-4). “Numbered among the unbelievers,” Mormon describes Alma2 as “a very wicked and an idolatrous man” (Mosiah 27:8). If Alma2 in fact had no memory of the church’s persecution under King Noah and Amulon or their miraculous deliverance from bondage in the land of Helam, Alma2 would have had to have been very young or not yet born during these years. If he were only five when he arrived in Zarahemla and a young adult at the time of his rebellion described in Mosiah 27, around 100 B.C., he would have been in his mid-to-late twenties at the time the angel appeared to him.
What happened during Alma2 ’s conversion experience? Mormon’s recounting of Alma2’s conversion experience in Mosiah 26 is well known among members of the Church. While “going about” “secretly” with the sons of Mosiah2 “to destroy the church,” “the angel of the Lord appeared unto them; and he descended as it were in a cloud; and he spake as it were with a voice of thunder, which caused the earth to shake upon which they stood” (Mosiah 27:1).
Astonished beyond measure, the young men collapsed and completely missed the angel’s first words. Specifically commanding Alma2 , who appears to have been their leader, to “arise and stand forth,” the angel pointedly asked: “why persecutest thou the church of God? For the Lord hath said: This is my church, and I will establish it; and nothing shall overthrow it, save it is the transgression of my people” ( Mosiah 27:11).
The angel then teaches these foreordained missionaries the power of parental prayers, affirming that “the Lord hath heard the prayers of his people, and also the prayers of his servant, Alma, who is thy father; for he has prayed with much faith concerning thee that thou mightest be brought to the knowledge of the truth; therefore, for this purpose have I come to convince thee of the power and authority of God, that the prayers of his servants might be answered according to their faith” (Mosiah 27:14).
The angel instructs Alma2 and his companions to “remember the captivity” and divine deliverance “of thy fathers in the land of Helam, and in the land of Nephi,” meaning to believe the lessons of faith in God that these stories of their ancestors, surely oft repeated in their homes, imparted. In the case of the sons of Mosiah2, they no doubt would have understood that the angel’s reference to the deliverance of “thy fathers” included the stories about their great-grandfather Mosiah1 having been “warned of the Lord” to “flee out of the land of Nephi” (Omni 1:12).
The angel then delivers this simple and direct message: “Alma, go thy way, and seek to destroy the church no more, that [the prayers of the faithful members of the church and its prophet, Alma1,] may be answered, and this even if thou wilt of thyself be cast off” (Mosiah 27:16; see Alma 36:9). The sons of Mosiah then deliver their dumb and debilitated friend to his father, the prophet Alma1.
The members of the church and “the priests” begin a two-day and two-night fast,[12] offering mighty prayers for Alma2’s recovery to the Lord. He answers them and “the limbs of Alma received their strength, and he stood up and began to speak unto them, bidding them to be of good comfort” (Mosiah 27:21-23).
Alma2’s vision of the Divine Council and prophetic call. What Mormon then describes is what I would call a personal “conversion” experience, similar to what the people of King Benjamin experienced—a “mighty change of heart” (Mosiah 5:2):
Said [Alma1], I . . . have been redeemed of the Lord; behold I am born of the Spirit. And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters; And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God (Mosiah 27:24-26).
But in Alma2’s later recounting of his experience to his son, Helaman, Alma2 adds an important detail suggesting that his experience was not just about his conversion but also included a call to prophetic service:
Yea, methought I saw, even as our father Lehi saw, God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels, in the attitude of singing and praising their God; yea, and my soul did long to be there (Alma 36:22).
In his summary of Alma2’s counsel to Helaman, Mormon (or, if Mormon is quoting a record left by Alma2, then Alma2 himself) appears to be intentionally quoting verbatim from Nephi’s account of Lehi’s theophany or vision of God. Nephi recorded that his father, Lehi, “saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God” (1 Nephi 1:8).[13]
Lehi’s and Alma2’s experiences, in turn, echo accounts of the visionary calls of many Old Testament prophets, including—
Micaiah, who “saw the Lord sitting on his throne, with all the host of heaven standing beside him to the right and to the left of him” (1 Kings 22:19-23);
Isaiah, who saw “the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up” surrounded by “seraphim” or angels (Isaiah 6:1-2);
Jeremiah, whom the Lord fore-“ordained [to be] a prophet” and “put forth his hand, and touched [his] mouth” and “put [the Lord’s] words in thy mouth” and who God described as a true prophet (contrasted to the false prophets Israel instead heeded) “who hath stood in the counsel [and council] of the Lord, and has perceived and heard his word” (Jeremiah 1:5, 9; 23:18); and
Ezekial, who sees the “visions of God,” “living creatures” with great power and glory who attended God, God’s glorious “throne” with the “appearance of a sapphire stone” and a Man in “appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord” (Ezekial 1).
Indeed, Joseph Smith’s first vision has been described in terms similar to both Lehi’s and Alma2’s accounts. In his 1835 account, Joseph recorded seeing both God the Father, Jesus Christ on his right hand, and “many angels.”[14]
Scholars refer to such visionary experiences, through which these prophets received their prophetic calls, as visions of “the divine council.” Such heavenly visions are referred to in the Hebrew Bible by the “noun סוד (sôd), which carries both the sense of ‘council’ as well as ‘counsel’”[15]—
Council, meaning an assembly or council over which God presides and counsels with other gods and/or His angels or spirit children. Such councils are variously described in the Hebrew Bible as “the Assembly of God ( עדת-אל ; ‘ădat ’ēl);” “the Congregation of the Holy Ones (קהל קדשים ; qĕhal qĕdôshîm);” “the Council of the Holy Ones ( סוד קדשים ; sôd qĕdôshîm)”; “the Council of Yahweh ( סוד יהוה ; sôd yhwh);” and “the Council of God ( סוד אלוה ; sôd ’ĕlôh).”[16] The quintessential divine council with which all LDS temple-goers are familiar is the “Grand Council” in Heaven[17] or, as the Savior referred to it, “the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was” (D&C 121:32).
Counsel, meaning the knowledge or revelation God imparts to His prophets, whether such counsel is communicated by heavenly vision, as in the foregoing examples, or by inspiration in Priesthood councils. Or simply revelation that comes in the middle of the night, as President Russell M. Nelson often received.[18] The “counsel” or sôd received in such Divine Councils, scholars have explained, “is comparable to the Greek μυστήριον (mystērion), which is used in later biblical writings to denote secret counsel or otherwise unknowable answers to secrets that God reveals to his prophet.” [19]
By late 1835 the Prophet would give scriptural form to these two aspects of the Grand Council in Heaven as he translates the Book of Abraham. There we read: “then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (Abraham 4:1). The co-creators (and co-planners) of the earth with Jehovah are referred to throughout this spiritual creation account as “they (the Gods)” (verses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 (“we”) and 31).
Then, in Abraham 5, we see clearly the function of this Divine Council was to “counsel” together as they plan their creative work that is so central to the Plan of Salvation:
And the Gods said among themselves: On the seventh time we will end our work, which we have counseled [or planned together in council]; and we will rest on the seventh time from all our work which we have counseled. And the Gods concluded upon the seventh time, because that on the seventh time they would rest from all their works which they (the Gods) counseled among themselves to form; and sanctified it. And thus were their decisions at the time that they counseled among themselves to form the heavens and the earth (Abraham 5:2-3).
Thus, when Alma2 reports that he “saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded by numberless concourses of angels,” and then shares what he learned in that setting, it is reasonable to conclude that he was receiving both a divine call to serve (in this case to be the prophet who would lead the Nephite Church of Jesus Christ for about 19 years) and vital “counsel,” the “mysteries of the kingdom” that the Melchizedek Priesthood has the “privilege” to “receive” and “hold” (D&C 84:19; 107:18-19).[20]
[1] Val Larsen traces the origins of the idea of God as a “solitary sovereign” to “the pivotal moment in theological history,” in Lehi’s day, when “the Deuteronomists, aggressive theological reformers . . . who were allied with King Josiah,” replaced the views about the nature of God held by the authors of "the earliest books of the Bible—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers”—with a dramatically different view of God. The “religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” Larsen writes, centered in “El,” “the high god,” “an anthropomorphic being who lived in heaven in a royal court much like the royal courts of Middle
Eastern kings on earth at that time. Like the Middle Eastern kings, El was thought to govern his dominions through the ministrations of those one would typically expect to see at court: Elah, the wife of El the king, the bene Elohim, the sons and daughters of El, noble and great heavenly servants, e.g., the malākim or angels, and various representatives of the divine army, the host of heaven, El being the Lord of Hosts. These and other participants in the court were part of the סוֹד , Sod, the governing council, who shared to one degree or another the divinity of El and the governance of El’s kingdom.”
The Deuteronomist reformers, on the other hand, “subsumed all the functions and stories associated with El in Yahweh. Thus their Yahweh had no companions.” Possibly rooted in a philosophical interpretation of Yahweh’s statement to Moses, “that his name is אהיה אשר אהיה , ‘ehyeh ‘asher ‘ehyeh, ‘I Am that I Am,’” “as saying that Yahweh is pure BEING, BEING as such, the only thing that exists in and of and by itself,” which “makes him abstract, transcendent, prior to and separate from all created things.”
With this Deuteronomist foundation, “the idea that God is the Solitary Sovereign, a transcendent being
“without body, parts, or passions,” “not then in space, but above space and time and name and conception,” “combined with the Greeks’ similar monism and disparagement of materiality, created pressure for early Christians to develop an understanding of God compatible with those theological
and philosophical ideals. The paradoxical, nonbiblical concept of the Trinity, a Triune Three-One God, met these requirements and provided a foundation for further reasoning. The Greater Apostasy thus provided the foundation for the Great Apostasy.”
“The most important error the Restoration corrects” and the primary “reason the Restoration became necessary,” Larsen argues, was to correct this “Deuteronomist conception of God as the Solitary Sovereign, ” which is shared by “the major religions with Old Testament roots: Judaism, Islam, and Western Christianity,” and restore “the faith of Abraham,” which was “pluralistic in its conception of God”—just as President Oaks declared. “First Visions and Last Sermons: Affirming Divine Sociality, Rejecting the Greater Apostasy,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 36 (2020), 37-84, https://cdn.interpreterfoundation.org/jnlpdf/larsen-v36-2020-pp37-84-PDF.pdf?src=art.
[2] Dallin H. Oaks, “The Family-Centered Gospel of Jesus Christ,” October 2025 General Conference, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/10/58oaks?lang=eng.
[3] “New First Presidency Discusses Key Issues and Shares Hopes for the World,” Newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca6K0eokYk0&t=5s.
[6] "The Book of Mormon Made Harder: Scripture Study Questions, Lesson 20: Mosiah 25–28; Alma 36,” BYU Scholars Archive, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=22&article=1015&context=mi&type=additional.
[7] Shem Atwater, “Book of Mormon Timeline,” Time.Graphics, https://time.graphics/line/202278. See also “Book of Mormon Times at a Glance, Chart 1: Ether and 1 Nephi through Mosiah,” Ensign, January 2004.
[8] Matthew L. Bowen argues that Mormon utilized several word plays on the name “Alma” to highlight the divine nature of his calling and “his importance as a prophetic figure and founder of the later Nephite church:” First, he argued, “the best explanation for the name Alma is that it derives from the Semitic term ǵlm (Hebrew ʿelem), “young man,” “youth,” “lad”, who literally “became ‘[God’s] young man’ or ‘servant.’” Second, Abinadi’s quotation of Isaiah 53:1 in Mosiah 17:2 and Mosiah 14:1 “suggests that [Mormon] identified Alma as the one ‘to whom’ or ‘upon whom’ (ʿal-mî) the Lord was ‘reveal[ing]’ his arm as Abinadi’s prophetic successor.” Alma began his “prophetic ministry ‘hidden’ and ‘concealed’ while writing the words of Abinadi and teaching them ‘privately,’” suggesting a third “wordplay that exploits the homonymy between Alma and the Hebrew root *ʿlm, forms of which mean ‘to hide,’ ‘conceal,’ ‘be hidden,’ ‘be concealed.’” Such evidences of inter-textual, “three-dimensional wordplay” in the Book of Mormon demonstrate not only the brilliance of its editor, Mormon, and the authenticity of its claims as an ancient record, but “help us better understand the messages intended by the book’s ancient authors/editors.” “Alma — Young Man, Hidden Prophet,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, vol. 19, 2026, 343-53.
[10] Daniel C. Peterson, acknowledging President Joseph Fielding Smith’s statement that the Nephites “had among them the higher or Melchizedek priesthood,” raised the questions, “(1) Were the priests of Noah legitimate holders of legitimate priesthood, and (2) Where did Alma get his authority?” His answer:
We have to assume Alma and his one-time colleagues were ordained validly by Noah (Mosiah 11:5), who was also ordained validly by his father, Zeniff. The fact that Noah was not righteous after he was ordained and that Alma himself was part of Noah’s [wicked] priestly group during his early ministry has nothing to do with Alma’s priesthood authority. Until superior priesthood authority withdraws permission to exercise priestly functions, a legitimately ordained holder of the priesthood continues to hold valid priesthood—however unrighteous he may be, however dead to spiritual promptings, and however unlikely it may be that he will ever actually exercise his priesthood.
Alma, in fact, claimed to have authority from God (Mosiah 18:13), a claim which Mormon implicitly acknowledges as valid (Mosiah 18:18).
Peterson explains that the “priests” and “high priests” in the Book of Mormon before Christ appeared and ordained his disciples to both the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood (3 Nephi 11:21-22; 12:1; 18:37), were “real priests, in the same sense as those of Levitical lineage in the Hebrew Bible,” albeit of the Melchizedek, not Levitical or Aaronic order of priesthood. He adds that in 21 of 22 times that “priests and teachers are mentioned in close proximity,” “‘teachers’ are mentioned after ‘priests,’ suggesting that they might represent a subordinate priesthood office among the Nephites as they do in the Church today.”
Peterson further explains, as have other Book of Mormon scholars, that “Kingship among the Nephites was a priesthood calling. A survey of the evidence from the book of Mosiah and elsewhere in the Book of Mormon should serve to make this suggestion plausible, if not to prove it. Indeed, at least several of the Nephite kings—Nephi (a quasi-king; 2 Nephi 6:2), Mosiah I (Omni 1:12–22), Benjamin, and Mosiah II—were also major prophets. King Benjamin appointed priests at Zarahemla (Mosiah 6:3). In the secondary Nephite kingdom which endured briefly in the land of Nephi, Zeniff exercised his right as ruler and ordained priests. These priests were then dismissed by his son and successor, Noah. In their place, Noah ordained his own priests, who were presumably more supportive of his lifestyle and more pliable in his hands (Mosiah 11:5).”
However legitimate from a “line of authority” perspective King Noah’s priestly ordinations may have been, because “Noah broke his covenant with God, the ultimate source of his authority,” God called (and presumably ordained or directed the ordination of) Abinadi to speak for Him in declaring “the king’s impending death by fire [thus finally ending his authority], ‘For he shall know that I am the Lord’ (Mosiah 12:3).” Daniel C. Peterson, “Priesthood in Mosiah” in The Book of Mormon: Mosiah, Salvation Only Through Christ eds. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1991), 187–210.
[11] Apparently, King Noah never consecrated his son, Limhi, to the priesthood. When his people wanted to be baptized and organize a church as Alma’s people had done, “they did not at that time” because “there was none in the land that had authority from God” (see Mosiah 21:33–34). Later, when Ammon, arrived from Zarahemla, he “evidently had priesthood authority, [which tells us something about how distributed the priesthood might have been], but felt himself unworthy to exercise it and declined to perform the ordinance of baptism for them (Mosiah 21:33–35).” Peterson, “Priesthood in Mosiah.”
[12] In his recounting of the event in Alma 36, Alma2 says he could neither open his mouth nor had the use of his limbs for “three days and three nights” (verse 10).
[13] This is yet another example of why understanding the order of translation matters, as it relates to the intertextual consistency of the Book of Mormon. Joseph translated Alma’s recollection to his son Helaman in Alma 36:22 about “God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels” around April 24, 1829. Joseph could not have then known that Alma was quoting verbatim a statement by Lehi, recorded by Nephi in Nephi 1:8, that the Prophet would not translate until about June 5, 1829. See Welch, “Timing the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” 46, 48.
[14] See Joseph Smith’s 1835 account of the First Vision. As to the similarities between Lehi’s and Joseph Smith’s first visions, Val Larsen’s observations are revealing in terms of what Joseph Smith may have been learning about the nature of God and the role of temples in His Plan of Salvation (even if subconsciously) as he translated the Book of Mormon:
A kinship between Lehi and Joseph Smith has been too little noticed and appreciated. . . . [T]hese prophets seem to have roughly the same ecclesiastical duty: establish a new priesthood line authorized to administer the gospel, build temples, and perform temple ordinances. They seem to confront roughly the same theological problem posed by elites who teach roughly the same incorrect ideas about who God is. They receive their prophetic calling and are given their mission in the same way: through similar First Visions. . . . The parallel First Visions of Lehi and Joseph begin with a pillar of fire followed by a theophany in which the prophet sees the Father and the Son. First noting the presence of the Father, both Lehi and Joseph are instructed mostly or entirely by the Son, Joseph receiving verbal instructions from the Son and Lehi reading a book the Son gives him. The joint appearance of the Father and Son as corporeal beings, accompanied by a retinue of angels, contains an implicit message — the most important message each prophet receives: God is a social being who lives in community with other divine beings.
“First Visions and Last Sermons: Affirming Divine Sociality, Rejecting the Greater Apostasy,” 37-84.
[15] Stephen O. Smoot ,”The Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, vol. 27, 2017, 161, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-divine-council-in-the-hebrew-bible-and-the-book-of-mormon/.
[17] Topics and Questions, “Council in Heaven,” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/council-in-heaven?lang=eng.
[18] Sarah Jane Weaver, “Sister Wendy Nelson Shares Her Personal Witness of President Nelson's Prophetic Calling and Ministry,” https://ca.churchofjesuschrist.org/sister-wendy-nelson-shares-her-personal-witness-of-president-nelsons-prophetic-calling-and-ministry#:~:text=Sister%20Wendy%20Nelson%20Shares%20Her%20Personal%20Witness%20of%20President%20Nelson's&text=Sarah%20Jane%20Weaver%2C%20Church%20News%20editor%2C%20March%2015%2C%202019.%20Sister%20Wendy%20Nelson.
[19] Miller, “King Benjamin’s Sermon as a Type of Temple Endowment,” 7. Viewing prophetic utterances and directives in the light of the Bible’s examples and teachings about prophetic Divine Council experiences gives added significance to Smoot’s commentary on “a passage beloved by Latter-day Saints: ‘Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret [ סוד ; sôd] unto his servants the prophets’ (Amos 3:7 kjv). More than merely a ‘secret’ as implied by the kjv’s rendering, the sôd in this passage is not just confidential instruction delivered by God [to His prophet] but also the manifestation of God’s heavenly court.” Smoot, “The Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Mormon,” 165. To my mind, the way in which Heavenly Father works collaboratively with His spirit children in His “heavenly court” recalls the many examples from the scriptures in which God has involved His children in his “work and glory” (Moses 1:39) from the very beginning, from involving Michael (or Adam) and possibly many of His other premortal spirit children in the creation (see Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual: Religion 430 and 431, “Chapter 7: The Creation,” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/title-page?lang=eng) to sending John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, Moses, Elias and Elijah—and so many others throughout the dispensations—to restore sacred priesthood keys and authority and deliver countless other divine messages of counsel, comfort and direction.
truths known only by revelation,” meaning that, in the first instance, God revealed the truth to His prophet, who recorded it in scripture and, secondly and most importantly, that He will reveal or declare the truth of any such mystery or revelation to us individually by the power of the Holy Ghost (Moroni 10:5).”).
Comments