Historians of the Latter-day Saint tradition have often dissected the origins, members, and activities of the Danites—and much has been made about Joseph Smith’s involvement with the group—but what often gets overlooked is how this nascent organization drew from a broader political tradition of rights and belonging within a democratic society. The society was more than just a replication of frontier vigilante justice. Indeed, the creation of the Danites—as well as its constitution—represented the culmination of tense discussions concerning who can and cannot reside within a particular community. It looked both outward toward Missouri neighbors and inward toward Mormon dissenters. The Danite constitution was the Latter-day Saint attempt to stake their political right to not be forcibly removed while also justifying their liberty to define the boundaries of their own community. This article traces the intellectual genealogy for this debate in an attempt to accomplish two objectives: first, to add layers to what happened in Far West, Missouri, in spring and summer 1838, including a better understanding of why the Saints were seen as so threatening to their neighbors and how the members of the faith justified their decision to fight back; and second, to better understand the broader antebellum culture’s struggle to define constitutional rights in an era where majoritarian rule seemed to verge on outright oppression. This article then concludes by highlighting how the actions in Missouri set the stage for another constitution written six years later in Nauvoo, another moment in which the Saints’ seemingly radical actions reflected broader political anxieties. Indeed, America’s democratic tradition is rife with moments of defining conflict, and the Mormon-Missouri War should be understood as exemplifying that uneven trajectory.

Jeffrey R. Chadwick, in three landmark articles published in BYU Studies Quarterly, discusses accurately dating key scriptural events. The first article (2010) presents evidence from historical and scriptural sources suggesting that Jesus Christ was born in December of the year 5 BC, rather than in April of 1 BC as commonly claimed in traditional Latter-day Saint sources. The second article (2015) is a follow-up to the first and lays out a more complex collection of evidence pointing to the day and date of Jesus’s crucifixion and death as a Thursday early in April of AD 30, thirty-three years and three months after his birth. The third article (2018) assembles a vast array of historical and archaeological data suggesting that the date of Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem must have been late in the year 605 BC, some six hundred years prior to Jesus’s birth in December of 5 BC.

In December 2010, BYU Studies published a study by Jeffrey R. Chadwick entitled “Dating the Birth of Jesus Christ.” It presented historical and scriptural evidence showing that Jesus was not born in April of 1 BC, as popular Latter-day Saint thought supposed, but most likely in December of 5 BC. A significant component in “Dating the Birth of Jesus Christ” was the proposition that Jesus died at Passover in the early spring of AD 30. While this dating is widely accepted, a minority of scholars disagree. A great deal of historical and scriptural evidence suggests otherwise, however, and this study demonstrates, with some degree of certainty, that Jesus did in fact die in AD 30, on the eve of Passover, the 14th day of the Jewish month Nisan, which in that year fell on April 6 in the old Julian calendar. This study also presents evidence that the day on which Jesus died was not a Friday, but the fifth day of the Jewish week, the day we call Thursday. This paper introduces a great deal of data to support the author’s conclusions, including modern scholarly assessments, original primary historical references, citations from the New Testament and the Mishnah, astronomical information, and tables that display the timing of events.

Dating the departure of Lehi from Jerusalem is problematic and has resulted in various proposed dates, most falling between 597 and 587 BC, which do not allow for 600 years to elapse between the departure and the birth of Christ in late 5 BC or early 4 BC. In this article, the author introduces a variety of evidence to show that Lehi’s departure can be dated to sometime in late 605 BC. Much of this evidence results from an understanding of the state of affairs in ancient Judah during the reigns of Judean kings Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah. The author introduces supporting evidence from the Book of Mormon account and also shows why other dating models reach untenable conclusions.

One way to read the Book of Mormon is to be attentive to ways in which it comes across as a translated text. Being mindful of this is wise, because all translations—even inspired translations—lose something of the primary language, particularly as meanings shift when words are rendered into the vocabulary or idioms of the target language. While the exact nature of the original language used by Abinadi, Ammon, Aaron, or Mormon is unknown, the English text of the Book of Mormon gives helpful hints. Two passages (1 Ne. 1:2 and Morm. 9:32–33) suggest that Egyptian and Hebrew elements were found in the language used by Book of Mormon speakers and writers, which allows present-day scholars to look for places where the current translation displays these elements. This article suggests a possible connection between three Book of Mormon passages and a Hebrew word with a wide semantic range—a range that appears to be reflected quite purposefully in the English translation of these three passages in the books of Mosiah and Alma. That Hebrew word is netzach.

Discoveries highlights poems that trace Mormon women’s life experiences from creation through childbirth, youth marriage, motherhood, aging, death, and entrance into eternity. The poetry stirs us to remember, to ponder, often to laugh, sometimes to weep, yet always to rejoice.

This compilation of groundbreaking articles about Joseph Smith’s doctrinal teachings is selected from over fifty years of LDS scholarship published by BYU Studies. This volume features articles on the law of adoption, Mormon perceptions of death, the preexistence, the King Follett Discourse, corporeality, and more. Contents “Doctrinal Development of the Church during the Nauvoo Sojourn, 1839–46” T. Edgar Lyon “An Epistle of the Twelve, March 1842” Josh E. Probert “Some Significant Texts of Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version of the Bible” Robert J. Matthews “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830–1900” Gordon Irving “To Overcome the ‘Last Enemy’: Early Mormon Perceptions of Death” M. Guy Bishop “‘Saved or Damned’: Tracing a Persistent Protestantism in Early Mormon Thought” Grant Underwood “The Development of the Doctrine of Preexistence, 1830–1844” Charles R. Harrell “The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse” Van Hale “Examining Six Key Concepts in Joseph Smith’s Understanding of Genesis 1:1” Kevin L. Barney “Are Christians Mormon? Reassessing Joseph Smith’s Theology in His Bicentennial” David Paulsen

The Doctrine and Covenants was meant to be read. It should be read often. Yet it is not easy for most people to get through. So here is a reader’s edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. All of its passages have been organized by topic and formatted to enhance readability.

The frequency with which the subject of resurrection is discussed, the wide range of details, and the high level of agreement among the many testimonies all show that the doctrine of the resurrection is a major teaching of the Book of Mormon. The extent of these teachings is in keeping with the prophecy of Enoch in Moses 7:62, which says that the record will come out of the earth, “to bear testimony of the Only Begotten, his resurrection from the dead, and also the resurrection of all men.” The Book of Mormon shows that the prophets regarded the resurrection of the physical body as a reality that would unconditionally occur to every person regardless of individual worthiness. It is declared to have coverage as broad as death. The major effort of the prophets was to get people prepared spiritually. Redemption from the spiritual death that results from one’s own sins received serious attention. The Book of Mormon declares that redemption from the effects of Adam’s fall (both the physical and spiritual death) is absolute, unconditional, and automatically assured to all mankind by Jesus Christ without man’s effort. Man’s redemption from sins is available because of the atonement of Jesus Christ but requires individual repentance and obedience. Perhaps because of this individual responsibility the Book of Mormon does not teach how to perform a resurrection, but does teach how to repent.

This compilation of groundbreaking Book of Mormon articles is selected from over fifty years of LDS scholarship published by BYU Studies. This volume features articles that look at doctrines in the Book of Mormon, including resurrection, the allegory of the olive tree, and the appearance of Jesus Christ to the brother of Jared. Contents “The Doctrine of the Resurrection as Taught in the Book of Mormon” Robert J. Matthews “Explicating the Mystery of the Rejected Foundation Stone: The Allegory of the Olive Tree” Paul Y. Hoskisson “The Gospel of Jesus Christ as Taught by the Nephite Prophets” Noel B. Reynolds “‘Never Have I Showed Myself unto Man’: A Suggestion for Understanding Ether 3:15a” Kent P. Jackson Personal Essay: “Watermelons, Alma 32, and the Experimental Method” Joseph Thomas Hepworth Review of The Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5 Reviewed by David B. Honey

On September 2, 1829, a new paper was born in Palmyra, New York, called The Reflector and published by O. Dogberry, Jun. The object of the papers was to “correct the morals and improve the mind.” O. Dogberry was the pseudonym for a certain Esquire Cole, an ex-justice of the peace, who had obtained access on Sundays and evenings to the use of the idle E. B. Grandin & Co. press, the same press which was being used to print the Book of Mormon. Apparently rumors and gossip about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon were widespread; and Esquire Cole, who looked upon Joseph as an impostor, printed rather tart comments about him and the Book of Mormon.