A common critique of religion is that there is simply no evidence to support religious claims. This stance, widely used to discredit religious arguments, questions the rationality of faith. However, within the context of the LDS tradition, the prophet Lehi’s discourse in 2nd Nephi 2 counters this skepticism by employing natural theology. Lehi’s approach relies on causality, observing motion and cause-and-effect relationships in the universe to substantiate a basis for religious belief. This contrasts revealed truth with truths derived from empirical observation. Lehi’s discourse introduces the cosmological argument of contingency, asserting that a necessary being exists beyond the chain of contingent causes. He argues that everything contingent depends on something else infinitely, ultimately leading to a necessary cause — God — to explain existence.

We Latter-day Saints are temple-centered people. So were the Nephites. But what do we know about their temple worship, how it worked and what it was for? How was it even possible for the Nephites to observe the Mosaic rituals without the Levitical priesthood, the Aaronite high priest, and the Ark of the Covenant? And given that our temple worship today isn’t about animal sacrifice, what, if anything, does their temple worship have to do with ours? Critics, and even friendlier outside observers like Harold Bloom, have sometimes come away from reading the Book of Mormon—in Bloom’s case not reading it very much—but they’ve sometimes come away thinking that there isn’t much “Mormon-ism” in the book. Let’s see whether our exploration of temple themes in the Nephite narratives contradicts this or bears it out.

As a relatively new major scripture, the Book of Mormon is often neglected in a discussion about the principles of just war. LDS scholars haven’t helped by rarely engaging with seminal just war thinkers. Their engagement usually becomes a perfunctory review that serves as a platform for dismissing just war theories and theorists as insufficient in favor of their preferred theories and handful of proof texts, or because of a chauvinistic attitude that disregards non restoration texts. This is tragic because of the Lord’s command to seek ye out of the best books [and] words of wisdom (D&C 88:118). And because the Book of Mormon doesn’t simply show congruency with just war beliefs but offers important commentary and insights about those theories. In contrast to just war theorists who had to discern their insights through expertly reasoned, but still extra Biblical theorizing, insights from the Book of Mormon come within holy text and thus should assume stronger importance. Studying the Book of Mormon’s interactions with just war theory shows how the Book of Mormon conclusively resolves a seeming contradiction regarding how a soldier with a peaceful heart can wield the sword and be a peacemaker (or renounce war). This, in turn, forms a much stronger foundational outlook regarding war and peace.

There are a total of 42 verses in the Book of Ether which apply to this discussion. Because of the limited information provided there must needs be some speculation. The Jaredites collected seeds, swarms of bees, fowl, and live fish: this article discusses why they might do that. It is determined that these did not travel to the Americas. The fowl that made the ocean journey were likely descendants of the red jungle fowl (chickens). The Jaredites were early travelers on the Silk Road. The brother of Jared cut a hole in the bottom of an ocean-going boat. The hole is necessary to ensure a safe and healthy ocean passage. An MIT experiment demonstrates the viability of the proposed ventilation system for the boats. The psychological effect on the crews is taken into consideration and the conclusion is that the journey was made in two legs.

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is an undisputed event from history, which makes the cross of Calvary a real artifact from antiquity. What pattern of evidence unites both secular and believing scholars who assert the reality of a wooden cross without any physical, archaeological evidence? Researchers depend upon early source manuscripts to unlock the historical truths for what befell Jesus of Nazareth. The same approach yields compelling results for another undiscovered relic besides the cross: the golden plates procured by Joseph Smith, Jr. Cross-examining source evidence for the golden plates under the same historical method—a minimal facts approach to infer the best explanation of the facts—determines that Joseph Smith, Jr. did, in fact, obtain an ancient record and have it in his possession. A real cross does not guarantee a resurrection and a historian might not conclude the golden plates were translated by the gift and power of God, but this investigative approach points sincere seekers to a core truth. The golden plates are a genuine artifact—as real as the cross of Calvary—even if never seen by another human in the 20th or 21st centuries. The plates shine forth under the pressures of a strict historical method. This illuminates a new pathway for further investigation into the historicity of the restoration utilizing established resurrection research techniques.

Among the more puzzling passages in the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 19:1. It is a modification of Isaiah 9:1 as contained in the King James Bible. The modifications made specifically in 2 Nephi 19:1 have long been puzzling for textual critics and other students of the Book of Mormon and a point of attack among critics of Joseph Smith. Several solutions have been proposed for the questions that have arisen, but each is found wanting given various considerations regarding the historical context of both Isaiah and Nephi’s writing and the correlative correct translation of Isaiah 9:1. Any solution to “the Red Sea problem” in 2 Nephi 19:1 must account for all data presented in Isaiah 9:1 and 2 Nephi 19:1. This paper proposes a new solution that accounts for all the data.

Among the more puzzling passages in the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 19:1. It is a modification of Isaiah 9:1 as contained in the King James Bible. The modifications made specifically in 2 Nephi 19:1 have long been puzzling for textual critics and other students of the Book of Mormon and a point of attack among critics of Joseph Smith. Several solutions have been proposed for the questions that have arisen, but each is found wanting given various considerations regarding the historical context of both Isaiah and Nephi’s writing and the correlative correct translation of Isaiah 9:1. Any solution to “the Red Sea problem” in 2 Nephi 19:1 must account for all data presented in Isaiah 9:1 and 2 Nephi 19:1. This paper proposes a new solution that accounts for all the data.

The eyewitness testimony makes it virtually indisputable that Joseph Smith had a real set of metal plates, a fact that even skeptical scholars have accepted. Likewise, the practice of writing on metal plates in antiquity is well-known, as thousands of ancient metal documents have been discovered. But some still raise questions about whether the Book of Mormon plates are consistent with known ancient examples, and hypothesize that Joseph made a fake set of plates to fool his followers. To address this issue, I compare the descriptions of the plates given by the witnesses (both official and unofficial) who saw and/or handled the plates for themselves with authentic metal plates and other artifacts from the ancient and medieval worlds. Features such as their appearance, how they were bound and sealed, the size of both individual plates and the bound set, and the characters said to be on the plates can be directly compared with real-world examples of pre-modern inscriptions, metal plates, and other metallic artifacts. While there is no single artifact that directly compares with the Book of Mormon plates, every detail has precedent and is within the scope of practices and capabilities of pre-modern peoples. In contrast, it would have been difficult for someone unskilled in metallurgy (such as Joseph Smith) to create a fake set of plates consistent with the specifications provided by the witnesses. As such, it seems likely that the witnesses were describing a real, tangible, ancient artifact that they saw and handled. This comparative study of the metal plates with known ancient artifacts also helps us deepen our appreciation for the expensive and labor-intensive process that real ancient people endured to create the plates and then painstakingly engrave their record for our benefit today.

Reprinted as “Editing Hugh Nibley: The Man and His Legacy“ in Hugh Nibley Observed.
A reflection on the author’s time as an editor working on Hugh Nibley’s books.

Questions relating to archaeology and the Book of Mormon can sometimes pose challenges to readers. On the one hand critics sometimes frame the evidence as one that is almost entirely hostile to the belief that the Book may be an authentic historical record. On the other hand, Latter-day Saints may sometimes entertain unrealistic expectations about what archaeological information can or cannot say about the text. In this presentation I will discuss several challenges that archaeologists face in addressing questions about the archaeology of animal and human remains, ancient weapons, metals, chariots, and lost scripts. An understanding of these challenges can help us to correct mistaken assumptions, adjust our expectations, and provide clearer perspectives as we seek for better information as well as answers.

While most modern Christian theologians have concluded that grace is an unconditional pass guaranteeing salvation or a mystical abstraction, few know that the principle of grace (hen: Hebrew or charis: Greek=a gift) was relational in antiquity. Unfortunately, the active, relational, covenantal nuances of grace (hen and charis) were lost during the apostasy but were remarkably restored in the Book of Mormon. Grace (hen/charis)was an obliging, reciprocal and relational gift in its original, Mediterranean context. Ancient, archaic Greek and Hebrew writers in 600 BC conventionally expected to form a relationship with others by gift-giving and thereby expected to create a binding relationship of future gift-giving in return. Archaic gift-giving forged alliances and covenants and inspired later rounds of gift-giving in the Near East that gradually empowered both the giver and the recipient. However, in late-antiquity and during the Reformation, Christian intellectuals transformed this covenant-inspiring gift of grace into an emotional, one-directional freebie that allegedly provided immediate salvation. In contrast, the Book of Mormon clarifies that God’s grace encourages action, invites, obliges, enables and empowers disciples to restore broken covenant relationships and thereby become like Heavenly Father because of His Son’s obliging, atoning gift.

Joseph Smith maintained throughout his life that he translated the Book of Mormon from ancient golden plates by “the gift and power of God.” Exactly what kind of a translation the Book of Mormon is, however, and the precise method of its production has long been debated in both academic and polemical literature. One of the questions still debated is what terminology best describes a text like the Book of Mormon. Is the book best understood as a “translation,” or should it perhaps instead be called a “revelation” given the peculiar method of its production? This paper will discuss how early Latter-day Saints understood revelation and translation to be synonymous or nearly synonymous categories that fell under the broader umbrella of seership. It will situate the language used by early Saints to describe the Book of Mormon in its historical context in order to address the question posed in this abstract. It will also thereby correct those who erroneously claim that it is only a recent phenomenon among Latter-day Saints to sometimes refer to the Book of Mormon as a “revelation” rather than a “translation.”

Determined to read the Book of Mormon in purely naturalistic nineteenth century terms, rather than as an ancient text, recent criticisms of that volume of scripture are offended by some descriptions of Lamanites in the text. This is particularly true when the Nephites describe the Lamanites in pejorative terms, such as blood-thirsty, idolatrous, ferocious, idle, lazy, and filthy. The question is whether these terms can be considered “racist,” and whether supposed “racist” attitudes of the Nephites are evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.