Piercing The Veil

[volgadon]

I checked FAIR from time to time to see if Don Bradley's paper was posted,and finally, those slackers have gotten their act together.

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-piercing-the-veil-temple-worship-in-the-lost-116-pages

This is one of those papers where you simultaneously think, "This is mindboggling!" and "Nu, what is the big deal?" What I mean is that Don's observations fit the world of the BoM effortlessly, yet none have articulated it quite as well, nor with as much perception. It is amazing to consider how matter of fact it feels, but this is new ground. Can't wait for the book. The Lapham quote was an eye-opener. Don't know how accurate this transcript is.

http://signaturebooks.com/2010/12/excerpt-early-mormon-documents-vol-1/

This was the best part of Don's paper. "But here in the temple, the story of Aminadi, the tabernacle, with the story of Joseph, Sr. apparently about Mosiah 1, we have other temple themes. These aren’t about sacrifice, but about the revelation of higher knowledge and learning how to come into the presence of God, accessing knowledge from Him and becoming like Him."

[Sine Saw Square]

Was there for that presentation. Don Bradley knocked the ball out of the park. My brain was thoroughly wrinkled. Can't wait for his book to come out.

[mapman]

This makes me even more excited for Don's book. The statement that Joseph Smith Sr. reportedly made to Lapham I was already aware of, but rereading it showed that I had missed some details. That the Nephites were to cover their faces with skins when using the interpreters is obviously interesting when you compare it with the seer stone and hat that Joseph Smith used.

Reading it also inspired me to do a little research of myself. I found a citation of a document (which I haven't seen referenced anywhere else) authored by a member of the Harris family that has some stories about the lost 116 pages. I don't know whether Don is already aware of this or not and whether it has any useful information, but I thought I'd throw it out there just in case.

Edited August 7, 2012 by mapman

[CASteinman]

This is one of those papers where you simultaneously think, "This is mindboggling!" and "Nu, what is the big deal?" What I mean is that Don's observations fit the world of the BoM effortlessly, yet none have articulated it quite as well, nor with as much perception.

I hope to read this soon. But your comment is really interesting.... because there is a certain way that ingenious work is elegant like that.

[volgadon]

I hope to read this soon. But your comment is really interesting.... because there is a certain way that ingenious work is elegant like that.

I was thinking more along the lines of how the late Saul Lieberman once explained the way you know if you've found the peshat (plain, or intended meaning) of a text.

"After you have explained something no one else has explained, it must sound so reasonable that a person who hears it will say, 'So what? What is the novelty? It is obviously so!' Then you know you have it."

Edited August 7, 2012 by volgadon

[volgadon]

That the Nephites were to cover their faces with skins when using the interpreters is obviously interesting when you compare it with the seer stone and hat that Joseph Smith used.

It is interesting, but I think it might involve a different conception than the hat. The hat was to create darkness in which the light would shine more brightly. In the Nephite case, the skins shielded them from direct contact with God's terrible glory.

[volgadon]

As an aside, in Late Antiquity, there is an interesting concept of animal skins, the temple, and transmission of God's power and authority, that is, His name.

[CASteinman]

It is interesting, but I think it might involve a different conception than the hat. The hat was to create darkness in which the light would shine more brightly. In the Nephite case, the skins shielded them from direct contact with God's terrible glory.

The text as quoted in the article does not suggest that it was to shield them from direct contact with God's Glory. It comes across as though he was told to shield his face and then, once he did, he was able to see supernatural things.

Edited August 7, 2012 by CASteinman

[volgadon]

The text as quoted in the article does not suggest that it was to shield them from direct contact with God's Glory. It comes across as though he was told to shield his face and then, once he did, he was able to see supernatural things.

You are right, I retract. Upon closer reading, it serves to create a sacred, safe space, shielding the user from the others, so Mapman is right too.

[CASteinman]

it serves to create a sacred, safe space, shielding the user from the others

But doesn't this give you just a little bit of a positive feeling at the notion of Joseph peering into a hat? Doesn't it seem like -- if similar cases were true in Israel -- that it is a type of explanation that is acceptable to others?

Edited August 7, 2012 by CASteinman

[CV75]

I checked FAIR from time to time to see if Don Bradley's paper was posted,and finally, those slackers have gotten their act together.

http://www.fairlds.o...-lost-116-pages

Thank you for this very interesting description about how the Nephites entwined the High Priesthood authority with kingship. I have a question about it.

From the beginning, Nephi (the first king) did not want to have kings (2 Nephi 5:18), but he acquiesced, perhaps assuming he could establish the king’s tradition as one of a ruler and teacher under the auspices of the holy priesthood (2 Nephi 5:19)..

Nephi anointed the next king and so established the reigns of the kings (Jacob 1:9), as referred in in 1 Nephi 9:4. It seems that whoever became king had also to be ordained “after the manner of God’s holy order (the high priesthood)” and consecrated by the king as High Priest, who was also ordained after this order (2 Nephi 6:2). Mosiah seems to have had similar discomfort and so established judges instead (Mosiah 29:30, 38).

During the reign of the judges, how were the Nephite High Priests commissioned—by the chief judge, and did he keep the interpreters?

[Maidservant]

As an aside, in Late Antiquity, there is an interesting concept of animal skins, the temple, and transmission of God's power and authority, that is, His name.

animal skins = our bodies (being born) = temple = transmission of God's power and authority

[David T]

Thank you for this very interesting description about how the Nephites entwined the High Priesthood authority with kingship. I have a question about it.

From the beginning, Nephi (the first king) did not want to have kings (2 Nephi 5:18), but he acquiesced, perhaps assuming he could establish the king’s tradition as one of a ruler and teacher under the auspices of the holy priesthood (2 Nephi 5:19)..

Nephi anointed the next king and so established the reigns of the kings (Jacob 1:9), as referred in in 1 Nephi 9:4. It seems that whoever became king had also to be ordained “after the manner of God’s holy order (the high priesthood)” and consecrated by the king as High Priest, who was also ordained after this order (2 Nephi 6:2). Mosiah seems to have had similar discomfort and so established judges instead (Mosiah 29:30, 38).

During the reign of the judges, how were the Nephite High Priests commissioned—by the chief judge, and did he keep the interpreters?

This is what's fascinating - this does explain why the first time we seen a ecclesiastical High Priest separate from Government is after the dissolution of the Monarchy.

According to the Exodus narrative (which the Nephites appear to be very fond of intentionally emulating), The monarchical/Melchizedekian priesthood line was embodied in Moses, the Priest King. It was he that divided the Priesthood/Kingship in two, with the Aaronids becoming the Priestly leaders, and Joshua being the Political leader.

Personally, I think there is good evidence to show this story was a bit of an apologetic to explain the tension between the dueling clans of Kingly Melchizedekian Priests, and the Aaronid clan's claims for priesthood.

Either way, this truly does present the concept of Aaronids as being delegated 'auxilliaries' and extensions of the High Priesthood, and not as an intrinsic, essential part. If there is a legitimate Priestly King, and he chooses (as did Moses) to divide (delegate?) the Priestly and Government roles, he would choose what sub-set of individuals (or rather, what family?) would continue in that role.

Mosiah pulls a Moses. De-incorporates the Monarchy, and establishes a High Priest, and a period of'judges' (although the BoM 'judges' are substantially different in meaning, purpose, and significance than the Penteteuchal 'judges'.)

That's what we see - we first see the designated office of 'High Priest' once there has become a 'separation of Church and State' per se.

It is a very very strong continuation of the intentional mirroring of the Exodus narrative.

Edited August 7, 2012 by David T

[CV75]

Mosiah pulls a Moses. De-incorporates the Monarchy, and establishes a High Priest, and a period of'judges' (although the BoM 'judges' are substantially different in meaning, purpose, and significance than the Penteteuchal 'judges'.)

That's what we see - we first see the designated office of 'High Priest' once there has become a 'separation of Church and State' per se.

Thank you! So the High Priests subsequently commissioned their succesors in the Nephite church, and after Christ established His church among them, succession probably followed suit.

It would be interesting to tease out where Amos, Ammaron and then Mormon (for example) fit into the High Priest leadership structure--were they officiating High Priests responsible for keeping and archiving the records (like Alma, then his son Helaman, then his son Nephi and then the grandson and great-grandson also named Nephi), or was the archiving responsibility delgated to them by another, officiating High Priest? Especially in the case of Mormon, it isn't clear whether whether was a close relative of Ammaron.

It seems that the Nephites still had no kings but just a military leadership by Mormon's time.

[David T]

I'm wondering if part of Bradley's implications would be that Mormon hadn't known about (or had access to) the small plates until late in the game, because they (which specifically tell the sacred tale of obtaining the Sword and the Liahona, the Exodus, the establishment of the Nephite Monarchy, as well as the presentation of the founding Nephite Covenant from Lehi) had been stowed away with the other sacred Ark/Priestly relics.

What's interesting are suggestions by Gardner and Spencer that the Nephite kings were somewhat wicked and 'off the track' from Nephi II until Mosiah I, with Jacob and his kin as Prophets of Chastisement (the suggestion is that Jacob is to Nephi II as Abinadi is to Noah, and that Mormon intentionally made this connection). Those kings would not have seen or kept abreast of the upkeeping of the Temple, and thus, Jacob and his kin maintained the Temple articfacts, and also updated and maintained the priestly Record independently.

Mosiah I's reform and Exodus (which included brandishing the Sword of Laban, and obtaining the Interpreters) would have been a pretty big deal, and re-establishing the King as the Sacred Record-holder - which would explain why the Jacobites ended from adding to the small plate tradition (apart from just 'oops, the plates are full') - although it would also make sense to stop adding to the record if the plates themselves were a sacred artifact - forged by Nephi The First. Why add non-original-Nephi leaves to the Sacred Founding Book? It would explain why those plates were to be limited to containing the 'more sacred things' as well. It would be the authorized and sacred 'sequel' to the Brass Plates.

Edited August 7, 2012 by David T

[wenglund]

There is much about Don's presentation that I liked as a believing member looking for further enlightenment.

However, I valued the apologetic aspect as well--i.e. things that were once thought by Don to support a 19th century origin of the Book of Mormon, when looked at from another or added perspective, now support its antiquity. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

What's interesting are suggestions by Gardner and Spencer that the Nephite kings were somewhat wicked and 'off the track' from Nephi II until Mosiah I, with Jacob and his kin as Prophets of Chastisement

With this suggestion I’m trying to reconcile the king as the “apex of the Nephite priesthood authority” and the “Prophets of Chastisement” in the event of the king’s apostasy. It would seem that the king as High Priest became non-functional during the reign of Nephi-II and this may have continued for generations (there is no mention of a temple between Jacob Ch. 2 and Mosiah Ch. 2). I suppose Mosiah-I could have assumed the role of king–High Priest after leaving the land of Nephi, in line with the tradition, and that would be “kosher” as long as he honored a priesthood office he already held.

Noah refurbished the old Lehi-Nephi temple and consecrated priests (as did his father Zeniff), but this must have been by tradition only, and not in righteousness before the Lord. Yet his priest Alma seems to have had something of authority so that that the priesthood, however transmitted, seems to still have been a potential power for good.

[David T]

Noah refurbished the old Lehi-Nephi temple and consecrated priests (as did his father Zeniff), but this must have been by tradition only, and not in righteousness before the Lord. Yet his priest Alma seems to have had something of authority so that that the priesthood, however transmitted, seems to still have been a potential power for good.

I am not of the opinion that Alma's King Noachide Priesthood amounted to, well, anything (or anything more than a Priest of Baal would have - Zeniff was made a king over the refugee party by that party, not by any decree from the Nephite Monarchy. Noah's kingship came from Zeniff). Alma never refers to it as a claim to divine authority, and in fact, we do have an account of his recieving divine authority - it is requested of the Spirit to attend and ratify his actions. This is followed by an outpouring of the spirit, and then a claim to authority.

IE, he performs righteous acts as part of an 'interim in-the-wilderness' Church organization in spite of his rejected counterfeit priesthood, and his organization and calling is divinely approved, prior to being incorporated -and authorized, and adopted- by the full Nephite Monarchy/Hierarchy. Grafted back in you might say.

This is definitely a case where our current modern usage, terminologies, and policies of priesthood/ecclesiastical authority do not need to align exactly with an ancient practice and framework.

Edited August 7, 2012 by David T

[CV75]

IE, he performs righteous acts as part of an 'interim in-the-wilderness' Church organization in spite of his rejected counterfeit priesthood, and his organization and calling is divinely approved, prior to being incorporated -and authorized, and adopted- by the full Nephite Monarchy/Hierarchy. Grafted back in you might say.

Kind of what a Reformer might have welcomed (had he lived long enough)!

[Ahab]

As an aside, in Late Antiquity, there is an interesting concept of animal skins, the temple, and transmission of God's power and authority, that is, His name.

I like the way you said that. Made me think of how some old Jews were wary of using the name of God in vain, except how they understood his name to mean his designation or title.

'It is obviously so!'

[Ahab]

The text as quoted in the article does not suggest that it was to shield them from direct contact with God's Glory. It comes across as though he was told to shield his face and then, once he did, he was able to see supernatural things.

God's glory is his intelligence. Perhaps they should have just accepted it instead of putting up some kind of shield.

[Ahab]

animal skins = our bodies (being born) = temple = transmission of God's power and authority

Very good, only I'd say skins = mortal flesh > temple > transmission of God's power and authority (and notice how that's after men have already been ordained to the high priesthood, which women don't need to be ordained to). :<)

[USU78]

Piercing the Veil: Temple Worship in the Lost 116 Pages

by Don Bradley

FAIR Conferences >> 2012 FAIR Conference

Since you’ve all read the title of my presentation today, “Piercing the Veil: Temple Worship in the Lost 116 Pages,” I should begin by answering a few questions.

First, no, my research did not require any trips to the Point of the Mountain to visit Mark Hoffman. While he was also at one point working on a book related to the lost 116 pages, his book differed from mine in that it was supposed to actually be the lost 116 pages. I’m sure it’s a lot easier to say what’s in the lost pages when you write them yourself, but my scholarly approach will get the job done, hopefully, with more credible results and fewer fatalities.

Second, also no—the lost pages did not predict anything about whether a large and mighty man in the last days by name of Mittromni would be victorious.

And, third, yes, there really are things we can know about what was in the lost pages. There are several kinds of evidence for their content. I’ll touch on those very lightly now, and if you’d like more information, I can go into a little more detail in the Q&A.

Using the various types of evidence for the Book of Lehi’s contents, and piecing together the various fragments like puzzle pieces, a larger picture of the book’s contents begins to emerge. I’m currently piecing some of this together as my Master’s thesis at Utah State. And, in fact, I have enough material that I’m also producing a book that covers both the history in and history of the lost pages. That’ll be published by Greg Kofford Books as soon as I’ve written, oh, another 116 pages or so. Give or take.

That book will really be focused on the lost pages, and develop that topic far more than we can here today. So, what we’re going to focus us on isn’t the lost pages as a topic in itself. Rather, we’re going to explore temple worship among the Nephites, using some of what we can know about the lost pages to help us.

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.

I. Nephite temple worship: Who? How? Why?

Who?

Who was the high priest in charge of Nephite temple worship? And on whom was his authority modeled?

How?

How was the divine presence embodied in the Nephite temple in the absence of the Ark of the Covenant?

How did the Nephite high priest perform the Day of Atonement ritual without the Ark of the Covenant?

Why?

Beyond the need to fulfill the temporary Law of Moses, why did the Nephites have temples?

Or, in other words, what in the Nephite world is a temple for?

To answer our questions of “who” and “how,” we’ll look to the internal evidence of our available Book of Mormon text. And then to answer our “why” question we’ll delve into the narratives of Aminadi and King Mosiah the First, which appeared in the Book of Lehi.

II. The Nephite High Priest

The Mosaic Law mandated that certain rituals be performed by the high priest, whom it was understood would be of the household of Aaron. But the Nephites didn’t have any Aaronic priests among them, nor any Levites. So, the only way they could fulfill the requirements of the Law would have been to use a substitute. And to make the substitution legitimate they needed someone whose authority would trump the usual requirements. Merely turning 50 or being too old for the elders quorum basketball team would not have been enough.

To determine the identity of the Nephite high priest, it’ll help us to answer two more detailed questions.

First, who stood at the apex of the Nephite priesthood hierarchy?

And, second, who possessed the means to inquire of God in the way the biblical high priest did?

Who then served as the Nephites’ high priest? The available text of the Book of Mormon answers this question by indicating who chose and ordained the priests to be such. During the period of the Nephite monarchy, it is overwhelmingly the kings who consecrate priests. Nephi, Benjamin, Mosiah the Second, Zeniff, and Noah are each described as doing so.

The one non-king who consecrates priests during our record of this period is Alma the Elder. Yet the text makes clear that Alma’s authority is derived from the king. Alma was made a priest by King Noah. And even as leader of the church in the land of Zarahemla Alma was “high priest” in the sense of being a higher priest than those he presided over and not in the sense of being the highest priest among the Nephites. His authority derived from the still greater authority of Mosiah, as explained to us in Mosiah 26:8: “Now king Mosiah had given Alma the authority over the church.” Whereas Alma’s authority was derivative, Mosiah’s was intrinsic. He was the high priest.

Analyzing the Nephite priesthood structure reveals the king to stand in its highest position, and thus to be the High Priest. The king’s position as high priest is also revealed by his role in the king’s position in the Nephite priesthood structure reveals him

In addition to the king’s position at the top of the Nephite priesthood structure, we find evidence of his status as high priest in his using the same or a similar instrument to the one used by the biblical high priest to inquire of God’s will for His people. For the ancient Israelites this instrument was the stones of Urim and Thummim, kept in the pocket of a breastplate. The equivalent Nephite instrument, which also attaches to a breastplate, is called in the Book of Mormon “the interpreters” and in revelation to Joseph Smith “the Urim and Thummim.” Importantly, this Nephite equivalent to the Jerusalem high priest’s most important relic was the possession of the Nephite kings. Mosiah the Second used it to interpret the twenty-four Jaredite plates, as his grandfather Mosiah the First evidently had to interpret the Jaredite stone record. This would place the interpreters in the hands of the Nephite kings even while the prophetic record “the small plates” was still being through Jacob’s line, suggesting that the Nephite high priestly relics and role belonged, not to the prophets, but to the kings.

III. The Nephite Ark

We go from the “who” now to the “how” of Nephite temple worship. Nephi wrote that he had built a temple like that of Solomon. This statement has drawn guffaws from critics, who note the enormous scale and grandeur of Solomon’s temple. But it isn’t the scale and grandeur of Solomon’s temple that made it a model for Nephi’s. Nephi wanted his temple to be like Solomon’s, not in size, but in functionality. To perform the rituals prescribed by the Law of Moses his people would need a temple parallel to Solomon’s in rooms and relics.

The modeling of Nephite worship on early Israelite worship in Jerusalem has been explored by Kevin Christensen. Christensen describes key features of Jerusalem worship from the days of Lehi’s youth, before the heavy-handed Josian reform, and then observes that Nephite religion contained all of these, “with the understandable exception of the specific temple artifacts kept in the holy of holies, the ark of the covenant…and the cherubim.”

But while the Nephites’ omission of the Ark of the Covenant from their temple is, as he says, understandable, it is also glaring. The Jerusalem temple was, in one sense, a house for the Ark of the Covenant. The temple was structured in layers of sacredness, or degrees of glory, if you will, around the Ark, with the chamber that contained the Ark being the holiest place of all, the Holy of Holies. The Ark, bearing as it did the stone tablets God touched with His finger on Sinai during the Exodus, provided Israel an embodiment of His presence. The Ark also served as an altar, upon which the Aaronite high priest was required to sprinkle sacrificial blood during the all-important Day of Atonement.

How could the Nephites keep the Law of Moses without access to the Ark of the Covenant? And with what, if not the miraculous relics of the Exodus, including their literal touchstones with Deity, would sufficiently sanctify their Holy of Holies to make it an appropriate dwelling place for God? As in the case of replacing the Aaronite high priest, they would have to introduce their own fitting substitute. Whether the Nephite temple was like Solomon’s on its exterior was irrelevant. Whether it was like Solomon’s here, at its heart, the Holy of Holies, was vital. Something, presumably something remarkable, would have to sit in the Ark’s place.

But what did the Nephites have that could stand in for the sacred relics of the Exodus kept in Solomon’s temple? They had their own sacred relics, including those of their exodus to the new promised land, relics handed down through the line of kings and then that of prophets and ultimately recovered by Joseph Smith on the Hill Cumorah. In the stone box—which Martin Harris reportedly called an “ark”—Joseph found a set of Nephite sacred treasures that paralleled the relics associated with the Ark and its custodian, the High Priest.

The relevant relics associated with the Ark and the High Priest were as follows: in the Ark were the stone tablets God had touched during the Exodus, and according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, also Aaron’s rod that budded and a pot of manna. And we’ve already discussed the High Priest’s Urim and Thummim and breastplate, which attached to a garment referred to as the ephod.

Cumorah’s “ark” contained the plates, the breastplate and interpreters, the Liahona, and the sword of Laban. The most obvious identification, which we’ve already made is that of breastplate with breastplate, and interpreters with Urim and Thummim. Only slightly less obvious is the parallel of scriptural stone tablets with scriptural golden plates—or, golden tablets.

Setting aside the sword for the moment, or sheathing it, this leaves the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod from the Ark of the Covenant and the Liahona from the Nephite reliquary. Are these really parallel? They are indeed. In general terms they’re parallel as memorials of God’s mercy to the children of Israel in their Exodus and God’s mercy to Lehi’s family in their exodus. But the parallels get much more specific. The pot of manna memorialized God miraculously providing the Israelites with sustenance on their journey: Exodus 16:13-15: “In the morning the dew lay round about the host. And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing…. And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna, for they wist not what it was.” Aaron’s rod had been an instrument for divining God’s will. To settle dispute over who had right to serve in the priestly role in the Tabernacle, each of the twelve tribes placed a rod before the Ark. Aaron’s rod then budded, demonstrating that it was his family that had been chosen for these duties.

What sacred object was associated with these functions in the exodus of Lehi’s family to their New World promised land? How did they divine God’s will, and receive sustenance from Him? It was the Liahona through which they learned God’s will and by which they were led to the provisions that sustained them on their journey. The giving of the Liahona, as described by Nephi, was surprisingly similar to the giving of the manna: “As my father arose in the morning, and went forth to the tent door, to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship” (1 Nephi 16:10). Regardless of whether, as it seems, the bestowal of the Liahona was intended to evoke that of the manna, the preservation of a pot of manna and the preservation of the Liahona memorialized the same divine blessings of sustenance upon Moses’ people and upon Lehi’s.

Now, taking up the sword of Laban, so to speak, surely that has nothing to do with the Ark relics or the high priestly implements…. Right?

In an article a few years in ago in The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Ben McGuire, building on the work of Noel Reynolds, examined the political implications of Nephi’s story of killing Laban. Nephi highlights the superior obedience that was to mark him as ruler over his brothers. He also in at least three places adopts language from the story of David killing Goliath, the incident that brought David to prominence and set him on the road to the throne and the founding of a dynasty. When, in Nephi’s narrative, we seen him vanquish the enemy who had terrified his older brothers, beheading him with his own sword, we are watching him follow precisely the footprints and sword strokes of King David.

Laban was Nephi’s Goliath. And Laban’s sword became a relic he passed on to his priest-king successors, in company with the other sacred artifacts.

What became of Goliath’s sword after David ensured that Goliath would no longer need it? You’ll probably remember the story of David fleeing into the temple while pursued by Saul, and being helped by one of the temple priests.

And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it [is here] wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod: if thou wilt take that, take [it]: for [there is] no other save that here. And David said, [There is] none like that; give it me. 1 Samuel 21:9

The cache of Nephite sacred treasures was more than sufficient, and at least equal in spiritual power to those in the Ark of the Covenant. Including as it did the interpreters, which had been touched by God and served as a medium of communication with Him, it made an ideal point of contact between God and man to rest at the center of the Nephite Holy of Holies.

IV. Aminadi

Alma 11

The fact that Amulek puts Aminadi a few generations earlier suggests that the incident occurred at the temple in the land of Nephi, prior to King Mosiah I’s exodus to Zarahemla, which would place it in the time period covered by the lost pages.

Amulek assumed his audience would recognize the name Aminadi and wonder if he spoke of “that same Aminadi” who had interpreted the writing on the temple wall. That the people of Ammonihah could be assumed to know the story of Aminadi is telling. These, after all, are people known to us not for zealously reading the scriptures, but for zealously burning them. If they could be assumed to know this incident from Nephite sacred history, then it was a prominent one indeed and likely included by Mormon in his abridgment of early Nephite history in the lost pages.

Mormon himself felt no need to add an explanation of who Aminadi was for his audience, the latter-day reader. But Mormon could assume his audience, the latter-day reader, would know the story only if he had told it in a portion of his abridgment not currently available to us—in other words, the lost pages.

What can we know of this significant event of Nephite history, and likely of the lost pages? I’ll argue in my book that we can know a surprising amount. For now, let’s take a basic look at what Amulek says about the “writing on the wall” incident and what it tells us about the Nephite temple.

In Amulek’s brief description of the event Aminadi appears as a wisdom figure parallel to the biblical seers Joseph and Daniel. The lives of Joseph and Daniel share some common storyline. In each, a king seeks the meaning of a supernatural manifestation, his wise men cannot interpret it, but the correct interpretation is revealed to a captive Hebrew prophet. In the case of Daniel, the parallel to Aminadi is particularly strong.

I'd like to comment/speculate on this point. So very interesting, especially given the probable time frame. We don't know what happened to compel Mosiah I to become a Moses in a new Exodus from a place [possibly a place of bondage?] to a place of freedom where they [by military action?/superior claims to kingship?] supplant local authority, but don't drive out the local inhabitants, but there is an argument to be made here that, like Daniel, a slave/hostage of a conquering power, Aminadi interprets writing on the temple wall, presumably in Nephi.

For whose benefit was the interpretation? Was it similar to Daniel, where it was to give a false and usurping [Lamanite] King of the [now previously] Promised Land? Did it fortell his downfall? Did yet another power intervene to cause the freedom of an enslaved [Nephite] people? Or were did it signal a restoration of power to a decadent [Nephite] kingly line, empowering its scion to lead the new exodus in power, rather than skulking away as did the later two groups of Zeniffite refugees from Lamanite oppression?

I had these thoughts during this portion of the presentation last week.

My head's still spinning.

[Avatar4321]

It's threads with nuggets like this that make me keep coming back here. Love learning new things.

[Ahab]

My head's still spinning.

He does present the information clearly, doesn't he, and all of it just makes a lot of sense.

Who would have thought someone should and could be appointed as a high priest of the Aaronic order without being a literal descendant of Aaron? I mean, sure, we know that now that the priesthood has been restored, but how could anyone else have known that before the restoration... you know, if anyone even thought to question all of that?

And using other relics like those in the arc of the covenant? Who would have thought of using relics in that way, for that purpose?

It's amazing what we don't think of until we think of it, isn't it.