Jump to content
JAHS

DNA vs Book of Mormon (INCREDIBLE New Evidence)

Recommended Posts

JAHS    1,767

Does anyone know who this guy is? He talks about DNA evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, claiming it matches up with ancient native Americans living in North America.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Duncan    3,554

the one, the only Rod Meldrum

Share this post


Link to post
The Nehor    13,851

Homer Simpson: Marge, weren't you listening? This is a MIRACLE BREAKTHROUGH! Not one of those cheapo sucker deals!

Share this post


Link to post
JAHS    1,767
17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

the one, the only Rod Meldrum

That explains it. The good old heartland theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Robert F. Smith    10,905
6 hours ago, JAHS said:

Does anyone know who this guy is? He talks about DNA evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, claiming it matches up with ancient native Americans living in North America.

....................................................................

Rod is a friend of mine and a member of my HP group, but he has oversimplified this DNA matter, aside from falsely stating (1) that the Maya are the center of interest of those who consider the Book of Mormon to be a Mesoamerican codex, and (2) that they focus on the Maya because they think that Joseph Smith did so as well.

The focus of most LDS anthropologists is on Mesoamerica because the internal content of the BofM requires that.  Moreover, they focus upon Chiapas as the center of Nephite culture -- which is not a Mayan area.  He is an extraordinarily nice guy, but his premises are wrong and so are his conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Gervin    124
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The focus of most LDS anthropologists is on Mesoamerica because the internal content of the BofM requires that.

Who, by name, are these "LDS anthropologists"?

Share this post


Link to post
Tacenda    3,406

He makes a good point... the Lord leads those missionaries to NY, Ohio and Missouri, not Mesoamerica.  Now what do the scholars say?  Right in the D&C.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Robert F. Smith    10,905
12 hours ago, Gervin said:

Who, by name, are these "LDS anthropologists"?

A couple of them post on this board regularly, and you have likely had exchanges with one: Brant Gardner.  Read his book and you will find him citing a lot of other anthropologists who share the view that the New World Book of Mormon events took place in Mesoamerica.  Indeed, you probably already know the names of several such scholars.

Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Kofford, 2015).

Share this post


Link to post
Gervin    124
42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A couple of them post on this board regularly, and you have likely had exchanges with one: Brant Gardner.  Read his book and you will find him citing a lot of other anthropologists who share the view that the New World Book of Mormon events took place in Mesoamerica.  Indeed, you probably already know the names of several such scholars.

Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Kofford, 2015).

I thought that when you said "most LDS anthropologists" that the list would include "most" of these folks https://anthropology.byu.edu/Pages/Faculty/peoplenew.aspx

Does it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Robert F. Smith    10,905
6 minutes ago, Gervin said:

I thought that when you said "most LDS anthropologists" that the list would include "most" of these folks https://anthropology.byu.edu/Pages/Faculty/peoplenew.aspx

Does it not?

Most LDS anthropologists do not work in the Anthropology Dept at BYU, and I have not taken a poll of the faculty listed at that site.  However, I have heard of an LDS anthropologist, John A. Price (York University, Downsview, Canada), who suggested that the Book of Mormon was created out of whole cloth by Joseph Smith, utilizing the Iroquois as the Lamanites, and the Moundbuilders (= Susquehannocks) as the Nephites whom they destroyed --   Price in Indian Historian, 7/3 (Summer 1974):35-40.  Then there is the opinion of LDS anthropologist, Thomas W. Murphy (Edmonds Community College, Lynnwood, WA), that "The events [of the Book of Mormon] never took place anywhere!" --   “Archaeology, the Bible and the Book of Mormon,” Living Hope Ministries video (Summer 2005); http://www.lhvm.org .   Of course these are minority opinions.

Notice how real conversation or discussion of such matters can proceed.  It requires that one be both serious and sincere.

Share this post


Link to post
Gervin    124
52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most LDS anthropologists do not work in the Anthropology Dept at BYU, and I have not taken a poll of the faculty listed at that site.  However, I have heard of an LDS anthropologist, John A. Price (York University, Downsview, Canada), who suggested that the Book of Mormon was created out of whole cloth by Joseph Smith, utilizing the Iroquois as the Lamanites, and the Moundbuilders (= Susquehannocks) as the Nephites whom they destroyed --   Price in Indian Historian, 7/3 (Summer 1974):35-40.  Then there is the opinion of LDS anthropologist, Thomas W. Murphy (Edmonds Community College, Lynnwood, WA), that "The events [of the Book of Mormon] never took place anywhere!" --   “Archaeology, the Bible and the Book of Mormon,” Living Hope Ministries video (Summer 2005); http://www.lhvm.org .   Of course these are minority opinions.

Notice how real conversation or discussion of such matters can proceed.  It requires that one be both serious and sincere.

I dont think you're serious.  If you are, CFR that "The focus of most LDS anthropologists is on Mesoamerica because the internal content of the BofM requires that."  By "most" I assume you mean a sizable majority. Prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
PeterPear    66
23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Rod is a friend of mine and a member of my HP group, but he has oversimplified this DNA matter, aside from falsely stating (1) that the Maya are the center of interest of those who consider the Book of Mormon to be a Mesoamerican codex, and (2) that they focus on the Maya because they think that Joseph Smith did so as well.

The focus of most LDS anthropologists is on Mesoamerica because the internal content of the BofM requires that.  Moreover, they focus upon Chiapas as the center of Nephite culture -- which is not a Mayan area.  He is an extraordinarily nice guy, but his premises are wrong and so are his conclusions.

LOL! Of course it focused on the Maya. Go to the Maxwell Institute website and enter "maya" into the search field.

There are hundreds of articles at the MI comparing the Book of Mormon to the Maya. From the Maya Calendar to the Popo Vul Hulu or whatever it's called. Lol.

 

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Robert F. Smith    10,905
2 hours ago, Gervin said:

I dont think you're serious.  If you are, CFR that "The focus of most LDS anthropologists is on Mesoamerica because the internal content of the BofM requires that."  By "most" I assume you mean a sizable majority. Prove it.

Still stuck on "proof" I see.  Do you really believe that it is possible to prove anything?  Are you sincere enough to want to find an answer to that question?  Are you serious enough to get real and have an actual conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
Robert F. Smith    10,905
47 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

LOL! Of course it focused on the Maya. Go to the Maxwell Institute website and enter "maya" into the search field.

There are hundreds of articles at the MI comparing the Book of Mormon to the Maya. From the Maya Calendar to the Popo Vul Hulu or whatever it's called. Lol................................................

Nice.  You enter "Maya," but it never occurs to you to actually read the articles which come up in your search.  Had you done so, you would find that the articles do not assert that the Maya are Book of Mormon peoples, but that they naturally participate with several other Mesoamerican civilizations in the general high culture inherited from the earlier Mother Culture, the Olmecs.  All of these cultures have some things in common, and we can learn something via comparison and study of them.  Had you bothered to study anthropology and to read widely you would know this.

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post
stemelbow    4,143
On ‎1‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 7:51 AM, Tacenda said:

He makes a good point... the Lord leads those missionaries to NY, Ohio and Missouri, not Mesoamerica.  Now what do the scholars say?  Right in the D&C.  

 

 

Does calling them the Lamanites require that God thinks of them as descendants of Laman and Lemuel?  Beats me.  I guess for years I've been told that calling them Lamanites is a mistake, if we want to be technically correct because well, what do we know?  Perhaps Joseph didn't actually know either.  Perhaps had called them Lamanites and God just never corrected Him, because, well, what does it matter to Him?  It's hard to take too seriously the notion that scripture, any scripture, is anything but a mortal person's rendition of what he/she feels strongly God supports. 

I think that's kinda what people might respond with. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/20/2016 at 9:14 PM, Gervin said:

I dont think you're serious.  If you are, CFR that "The focus of most LDS anthropologists is on Mesoamerica because the internal content of the BofM requires that."  By "most" I assume you mean a sizable majority. Prove it.

You are rude. Do you have evidence to the contrary, or are you just being a jerk?

Poster removed.

Share this post


Link to post
thesometimesaint    4,762
14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Does calling them the Lamanites require that God thinks of them as descendants of Laman and Lemuel?  Beats me.  I guess for years I've been told that calling them Lamanites is a mistake, if we want to be technically correct because well, what do we know?  Perhaps Joseph didn't actually know either.  Perhaps had called them Lamanites and God just never corrected Him, because, well, what does it matter to Him?  It's hard to take too seriously the notion that scripture, any scripture, is anything but a mortal person's rendition of what he/she feels strongly God supports. 

I think that's kinda what people might respond with. 

SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

Share this post


Link to post
PeterPear    66
On January 20, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Nice.  You enter "Maya," but it never occurs to you to actually read the articles which come up in your search.  Had you done so, you would find that the articles do not assert that the Maya are Book of Mormon peoples, but that they naturally participate with several other Mesoamerican civilizations in the general high culture inherited from the earlier Mother Culture, the Olmecs.  All of these cultures have some things in common, and we can learn something via comparison and study of them.  Had you bothered to study anthropology and to read widely you would know this.

Oh so sorry.

The hundreds of articles about the Maya is not equating the Maya to Book of Mormon people. But the Maya are "naturally participants with several other Mesoamerica Civilizations in the general high culture inherited from the earlier Mother Culture the Olmecs."

This of course means we CAN equate the Maya to Book of Mormon people without actually discovering any evidence of Book of Mormon people in Mesoamerica.

But if it weren't for the Maya which John Lloyd Stephens wrote about in his travel book a copy of which was gifted to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith would never have known that Mesoamerica was the location for the geography of the Book of Mormon (per the Mesoamerica theory). So remember Dear Reader. If it weren't for Maya ruins, a Prophet of God would never have known where the geography of the Book of Mormon was located. Which ruins did not belong to Book of Mormon people because said ruins are Maya and the Maya are not Book of Mormon peoples. LOL!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
salgare    151

Disproving Meldrum does not prove the Mesoamerican.  I guess it's good that someone still holds on?

Share this post


Link to post
Robert F. Smith    10,905
30 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

Oh so sorry.

The hundreds of articles about the Maya is not equating the Maya to Book of Mormon people. But the Maya are "naturally participants with several other Mesoamerica Civilizations in the general high culture inherited from the earlier Mother Culture the Olmecs."

This of course means we CAN equate the Maya to Book of Mormon people without actually discovering any evidence of Book of Mormon people in Mesoamerica.

So, in your estimation the Russian people and culture are indistinguishable from that of the Germans, or English, etc., and your geographical correlations for the Russian capital would be as applicable to the German or English capitals.  All you are able to see is sameness, regardless of real differences.  For you, one should simply equate any civilization with any other, without regard to what anthropologists say.  Thus, for you the Hebrews and Egyptians are all the same, the Greeks and Romans the very same peoples, etc.  And you are not even embarrassed to make such suggestions.

But if it weren't for the Maya which John Lloyd Stephens wrote about in his travel book a copy of which was gifted to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith would never have known that Mesoamerica was the location for the geography of the Book of Mormon (per the Mesoamerica theory). So remember Dear Reader. If it weren't for Maya ruins, a Prophet of God would never have known where the geography of the Book of Mormon was located. Which ruins did not belong to Book of Mormon people because said ruins are Maya and the Maya are not Book of Mormon peoples. LOL!

Joseph is entitled to express his opinion on geography as well as any other person.  There is no evidence that he was speaking as a prophet on that or other occasions when he spoke of very different geographic correlations.  Your mockery simply shows your distaste for serious scholarship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
PeterPear    66
17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Joseph is entitled to express his opinion on geography as well as any other person.  There is no evidence that he was speaking as a prophet on that or other occasions when he spoke of very different geographic correlations.  Your mockery simply shows your distaste for serious scholarship.

I'm not mocking serious scholarship. I don't consider the Mesoamerica LGT to be serious scholarship. It's silly.

You mock the Prophet Joseph Smith. You deny revelation per your statement.

 

You mock him by supporting this claim of the Mesoamerica Theory (which is supposed to be SERIOUS scholarship):

- Four years before he was murdered, Joseph Smith read a book by John Lloyd Stephens then changed his mind claiming the geography of the Book of Mormon was never in North America but it occurred in Mesoamerica - because he read a book about Maya ruins - Maya which were later determined in the 60s,70s, 80s, 90s by F.A.R.M.S. - not to be Nephites.

Apparently, the Mesoamerica Theory believes the Prophet Joseph Smith was impressed by books about great and spacious buildings left in ruin. Wow. What an impressionable guy for him to change his mind: that is what you're suppossed to believe about Joseph Smith if you embrace a Mesoamerica geography.

If you don't, then you're attacked as one mocking SERIOUS scholarship. LOL!

11th Commandment: Thou shall not mock serious scholarship which mocks the Prophet.

Share this post


Link to post
Johnnie Cake    1,013

Ugo Pergo posted this on his FB wall:

Ugo A. Perego
Yesterday at 7:11am · 
There is a video circulating widely on the internet about NEW INCREDIBLE DNA EVIDENCE in favor of the Book of Mormon. I want everyone to know that I do not support the views presented in this video (here is the link on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mADM3RYKl5Y&feature=youtu.be).
I personally believe the Book of Mormon to be sacred scripture, but not based on genetic evidence.
It is my opinion that the presenter in this video (Rod Meldrum) is oversimplifying and stretching complex scientific data to fit its own view and purposes. This is dangerous because some people might actually believe in what he is saying and take for granted his conclusions. I have listened to Rod Meldrum in the past and spoke with him on several occasions. I have also tried to explain to him the mistakes with his approach, but to no avail. Here are in a short few points the main problems with the information presented in this video:
1. Lineage (haplogroup) X in the America is an unusual marker, but there is absolutely no evidence to link it to Book of Mormon people.
2. As far as science has been able to determine to date, lineage X has been in the Americas probably long before Book of Mormon times (based on both carbon dating and the molecular clock).
3. It is not true that the first four lineages in the Americas prior to the discovery of haplogroup X are identical to lineages found in Asia. They are related with each other, but the ones in the Americas have their own unique characteristics.
4. Likewise, lineage X in Northern North America has its own unique characteristics and it is not found anywhere else in the world. The one in the Americas is know has lineage X2a.
5. There are other lineage X's in the world (Europe, North Africa, Middle East and Asia) but none of them is the same as their American counterpart X2a.
6. It is not true that lineage X was identified in the Americas in 2003. Data on a fifth lineage in the America has been widely published since 1991.
7. All the DNA that has been talked about in this video is referred to a genetic molecule known as mitochondrial DNA that is transmitted exclusively along the unbroken maternal line. This means that this approach cannot be easily used to determine the genetic ancestry of male lineages such as those described in this video and in the Book of Mormon. In other words, this is not the DNA we would expect to find today from Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Lehi, Nephi, etc.
8. The LDS Church does not support DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. Here is something more official found on the LDS.org website:https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies…
There is much more to it but this should be sufficient for now. It is too early to know for sure what the actual relationship of lineage X in the Americas with the Old World is and we need to be careful to jump at any conclusions at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Robert F. Smith    10,905
4 hours ago, PeterPear said:

I'm not mocking serious scholarship. I don't consider the Mesoamerica LGT to be serious scholarship. It's silly.

You mock the Prophet Joseph Smith. You deny revelation per your statement.

You mock him by supporting this claim of the Mesoamerica Theory (which is supposed to be SERIOUS scholarship):

- Four years before he was murdered, Joseph Smith read a book by John Lloyd Stephens then changed his mind claiming the geography of the Book of Mormon was never in North America but it occurred in Mesoamerica - because he read a book about Maya ruins - Maya which were later determined in the 60s,70s, 80s, 90s by F.A.R.M.S. - not to be Nephites.

Apparently, the Mesoamerica Theory believes the Prophet Joseph Smith was impressed by books about great and spacious buildings left in ruin. Wow. What an impressionable guy for him to change his mind: that is what you're suppossed to believe about Joseph Smith if you embrace a Mesoamerica geography.

If you don't, then you're attacked as one mocking SERIOUS scholarship. LOL!

11th Commandment: Thou shall not mock serious scholarship which mocks the Prophet.

Mockery and sarcasm are not the same as serious scholarship -- nor indeed scholarship of any kind.  You might even try understanding what you are mocking before you begin the mockery.  You need to study Nehor:  There is learned sarcasm and buffoonery which we can all enjoy.  Yours is just uninformed and mean-spirited.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By hagoth7
      To expand recent LGT/HGT discussions, reconsideration of South America as their initial landing point.
      Regarding South America and Lehites, what are your thoughts on South America?
      1. Conquistador reports (ca. 1550) of fair-skinned natives in Peru
      2. Ancient Peruvian DNA linking to Europe
      3. Early 1830 and 1832 statements attributed to Joseph that Lehi landed somewhere south of the Isthmus of Darien (Panama) , and more specfically in South America, and specifically in Chile
    • By Darren10
      On a previous thread the idea of finding NHM inscriptions in the Arabian Peninsula is thought to be "not impressive" to one poster here. That thread lead into the idea of "wordplay" found within the Book of Mormon and in the context of it being used to relate the "place which was called Nahom" and NHM. NHM is an ancient Hebrew root word and one thing it does mean is "mourning". NHM discovered in the Arabian Peninsula is "the largest cemetery in the area" and therefore mourning, as one may imagine, would have been common in that place. Therefore, when Nephi, on educated in ancient Hebrew saw his sister-in-laws mourning at Nahom he included that detail within the Book of Mormon narrative and its existence is a very plausible spot to identify as an onomastic wordplay. By that I mean using proper names to relate to connected meanings of events.
      Before continuing, a big shout out to calm and Rev. Testament on this board for guiding me through the process of removing format on this forum so that when I cite portions of published works it remains compatible to the software this forum uses. I had previously attempted to cite Mathew (Matt as I know him on facebook) Bowen on the other thread only to have my posts deleted as soon as I clicked on "submit reply".
      I choose Bowen here for a few reasons. First, he is highly qualified to look for and present wordplays from ancient Hebrew and Egyptian literature. His academic resume at Mormon Interpreter reads, "Matthew L. Bowen was raised in Orem, Utah and graduated from Brigham Young University. He holds a PhD in Biblical Studies from the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC and is currently an Assistant Professor in Religious Education at Brigham Young University-Hawaii." on facebook this includes Egyptology at the Catholic University. Facebook also shows he is learned in Latin, Spanish, and Hebrew.
      Second, I choose Bowen because I am very interested in linguistics. I am hardly an expert but I enjoy reading into it and I have thoroughly enjoyed Bowens essays which identifies wordplays in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. 
      Third, from my interaction with him on facebook he seems to be a very decent and pleasant person to associate with. He's a scholar and excellent family man (married with children).
      I will preset three essays from Bowen which identify wordplay situations in the Book of Mormon which reiterate specific doctrine with proper names used. They represent solid research and follow sound scholastic standards.
      in his essay, “O Ye Fair Ones” — Revisited,  Bowen demonstrate how Nephi and Mormon use the meaning of Nephi to describe his people the Nephites.
      Nephi's identity as being "good" and 'fair" extended to his people the Nephites. Before their divine destruction Mormon, as Bowen outlines, laments:
       "O ye fair ones", and "O ye fair sons and daughters..." are definite references from Mormon to the Nephi people. Nephi, being likely derived from the Egyptian nfr, according to Bowen, "indisputably" means good, fair, beautiful, kindness, goodness, etc, to find those characteristics used to describe the Nephites is of no coincidence. Nephi, learned "in the language of the Egyptians", would make that word connection to describe his people who were "favored of the Lord". apparently this was carried throughout their common history as Mormon even used that wordplay to lament their spiritual downfall.
      Father Is a Man: The Remarkable Mention of the Name Abish in Alma 19:16 and Its Narrative Context is another essay Bowen wrote which demonstrates an onomastic wordplay by the Book of Mormon presenting ot its readers with the rare moment of mentioning a female by name. As Bowen writes:
      Bowen points to the use of the Hebrew ab as "father":
      With Abish we read the following:
      During the conversion of King Lamoni we read, "12 And it came to pass that he arose, according to the words of Ammon; and as he arose, he stretched forth his hand unto the woman, and said: Blessed be the name of God, and blessed art thou.13 For as sure as thou livest, behold, I have seen my Redeemer; and he shall come forth, and be born of a woman, and he shall redeem all mankind who believe on his name. Now, when he had said these words, his heart was swollen within him, and he sunk again with joy; and the queen also sunk down, being overpowered by the Spirit." (Alma 19).
      "God" to the Nephites at the time Abish came onto the scene was known as the Father of Heaven and earth. (Alma 18:5; I Nephi 11:21 original manuscript reads, "& the angel said unto me behold the lam of god yea even the eternal father knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw"). This is God to be "born of a woman" according to King Lamoni. Abish meaning "father is a man" fits perfectly into the content of the conversion of King Lamoni and his house. Therefore, Abish is specifically mentioned in Alma 19 despite a female servant almost never being mentioned in any ancient scripture.
      The third and final essay I'll present here is called Place of Crushing: The Literary Function of Heshlon in Ether 13:25-31.
      Bowen later points out that it was at the place called Heshlon which the Jaredites destroyed ("crushed, subdued, broke into pieces") each other through civil war that their society never did fully recuperate.
      Robert F. Smith in the previous NHM thread simply explained that scholars look into wordplay when events "occur in proximity to a possible occasion for wordplay". All three essays and the several others Bowen wrote at Mormon Interpreter, the Hebrew and/or Egyptian meaning of a proper name is approximately close to an event related to that etymological meaning. These are wordplays. Very easy to identify and very easily supported as wordplays within the Book of Mormon text.
       
    • By Daniel2
      Today's Press Release:
      All kidding aside, if you haven't seen it yet, get out there and go see Moana.... It's phenomenal!  
      And despite my lame attempt at humor, I smiled at how I caught myself thinking how many of the images of the film reminded me of elements of The Book of Mormon, The Testaments movie, etc.  Especially the headdresses, clothes, ships, and other artifacts depicted when showing Moana's sea-faring ancestors.  Funny how our culture influences how we can see the world!
    • By Gray
      http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/book-of-mormon-library-of-congress-christofferson
      I perked up at this:
      Nice to see an apostle quoting Bokovoy!  Also nice to see the Book of Mormon getting some recognition. 
    • By Benjamin Seeker
      In the Book of Mormon discussion ensuing in another thread, I brought up the topic of intertextuality between the Ammon account and a couple of narratives in the New Testament, setting up Ammon as a type of Christ. Here is a partial but detailed overview. I apologize that some of the footnotes are incomplete placeholders. If anyone needs a source, just let me know.
      Intertextuality and the Doctrine of Divinization in the Ammon Narrative
      “Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write. And that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.” (2 Nephi 3:12)[1]
      Book of Mormon intertextuality with the Bible is a fairly well documented phenomenon and has been observed in various modes, including lengthy quotations and short phrasal allusion. It has also been observed that Book of Mormon intertextuality often has a clear theological purpose. For example, in Nicholas Frederick’s discussion of intertextuality between the Book of Mormon and the Prologue of John, of the many phrasal allusions he examined, he observed that the most common function was to reference specific theological content from John in elucidation of the doctrine shared between the two passages.[3] It has also been argued that narrative parallels, another type of intertextuality present in the Book of Mormon, serve to bolster doctrinal and theological expositions. For example, 1st Nephi’s contains narrative parallels, often supported by phrasal allusions, to the Exodus,[4] the story of Joseph from Genesis,[5] and the story of David and Goliath.[6] These intertextualities support the theological points of the text, such as depicting the Americas as a covenant promised land and demonstrating Nephi’s divinely-appointed leadership despite being the younger brother. Similar to the above examples, the Ammon narrative found in Alma 17-20 contains both phrasal allusions, largely to New Testament passages, and narrative parallels, the most striking of which are parallels to the raising of Lazarus in John 11. Intertextuality interlaced throughout the account helps to strengthen a doctrinal exposition on divinization, or a disciple’s ability to become similar to and one with Christ, which can be seen as one of the primary themes of the narrative when one considers both the surface text and the intertextuality.
      Methodology
      In the following analysis, I will use Frederick’s proposed methodology from his recent article, Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon: A Proposed Methodology.[7] Each phrasal allusion will be examined for the following criteria:
      ·        Shared Terminology – The more exact consecutive words the two passages share, the stronger the likelihood that one alludes to the other. When two passages share ideas, but not exact wording, I refer to them as similar or parallel concepts. Obviously, this latter relationship carries less weight. In my analysis I will underline shared terminology and bold parallel concepts.
      ·        Dissimilarity –The rarer the phrase in the Book of Mormon or Biblical text, the more likely it is a legitimate example of intertextuality.
      ·        Proximity – When one allusion occurs in close proximity to one or more other allusions, it increases the chance that the intertextuality is intended.
      ·        Sequence – When multiple phrasal allusions are present in a single segment of text and these allusions all reference the same general segment of text in the bible, shared sequence between the parallel elements increases the likelihood that the examples are legitimate.
      ·        Context – Shared context between the two passages also increases the likelihood that an example is valid.  Frederick makes the point that context is the most flexible of the criteria and therefore the weakest. However, when examining allusions as part of a large-scale intertextuality, their context takes on increased importance as they need to reinforce the large scale intertextuality or be viewed as less meaningful.
       
      Narrative parallels will be analyzed using a set of criteria similar to Frederick’s methodology. The proximity and sequence of related parallel events are logical starting places for analysis. Shared terminology will also be considered, whether it be shared single terms or more significant phrasal allusions supporting the narrative parallel.
      Frederick also proposed that the term interaction be used to refer to examples of Book of Mormon intertextuality with New Testament passages. He indicates that this is a neutral term which does not make assumptions about which text is dependent upon the other. I agree that it is unclear by what process biblical language was carefully interwoven in the Book of Mormon text. However, I have chosen to use the word allusion to describe the intertextuality proposed in this paper for several reasons. First, the phrasal allusions in the Ammon account sometimes organize disparate biblical passages in impressive thematic fashion, which suggests dependence of the Book of Mormon on the New Testament. Second, like Book of Mormon quotations of the Old and New Testament passages, the phrasal allusions in the Ammon account appear highly reliant on the King James translation. Finally, examples of intertextuality examined below sometimes appear to purposefully reference doctrine or events found in the referenced biblical passage but not readily apparent in the shared terminology. All of this points to, at least in the English text of the Ammon account, Book of Mormon dependence on and reference to the New Testament.
      Book of Mormon Divinization
      Divinization in the Book of Mormon is most succinctly defined in Moroni 7:48, which states that “true followers” of Christ can “become the sons of God” and “be like him.” The phrase “become the sons of God” is likely an allusion to John 1:12,[8][9] which reads “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”  In the Book of Mormon, this power comes by the reception of the Holy Ghost. Perhaps, the strongest illustration of this doctrine is found in chapter 19 of Third Nephi, in which Christ’s chosen disciples receive the Holy Ghost. While praying to receive Following that event, Christ prays to the Father, thanks him that the disciples have received the Holy Ghost, and implies that this has resulted in him being “in them” as the Father is in him and that they are “one” (3 Nephi 19:23). This spiritual unity and likeness is then demonstrated. The text states, “And his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them. And behold, they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus. And behold, the whiteness thereof did exceed all whiteness; yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof” (3 Nephi 19:25). In other words, the disciples, through the reception of the Holy Ghost and the presence of Jesus Christ, reached a kind of apotheosis.
      In other places in the Book of Mormon, the reception of the Holy Ghost is presented with somewhat less blatant divinization, but the reception of divine power, knowledge, or likeness is still present. For example, chapters 31 and 32 of Second Nephi state that after a “baptism of fire” and reception of the Holy Ghost, one gains the ability to speak with the “tongue of angels,” by which the initiate can know “all things” he or she should do (2 Nephi 31:13; 32:2-3). Angels are most often a manifestation of the divine in the Book of Mormon, suggesting that this ability is an evidence of divinization. Angels also play a role in the divinization of Nephi and Lehi. In miraculous delivery from prison, Nephi and Lehi are surrounded by fire and ministered to by angels (Helaman 5:24, 36, 38-39), similar to events preceding the divinization of the disciples in Third Nephi (3 Nephi 19:13-14). As they speak with the angels, Nephi and Lehi’s faces “shine exceedingly, even as the faces of angels” (Helaman 5:36). The fire preceding the angels’ presences is most likely representative of the Holy Ghost, and fire’s association with the Holy Ghost is made explicit in verse 45.[10] The verse also states that the Lamanites are filled with the Holy Ghost and can speak “marvelous words.” Other examples of divinization in result of the Holy Ghost include Nephi’s shocking of Laman and Lemuel while being full of the “Spirit” and “power of God” (1 Nephi 17:47-48, 52-54), Abinadi’s shining face in result of the Spirit (Mosiah 13:5), the various gifts of the Spirit which come by the “Spirit of Christ” (Moroni 10:9-17), and the ability to learn all things through the Holy Ghost (2 Nephi 32:5, Moroni 10:5).[11]
      Ammon and Christ
      The Ammon account contains an exposition of divinization, which is also best explained through the reception of the Holy Ghost. At the beginning of the account, Ammon and his fellow missionaries receive instruction from “the Lord,” who is arguably Christ in Book of Mormon theology.[12] Part of that instruction states, “Yet ye shall be patient in long-suffering and afflictions, that ye may shew forth good examples unto them in me.” (Alma 17:11). The final prepositional phrase, “in me,” suggests that Ammon will be somehow unified with Christ or God in his service to the Lamanites. Later, Ammon fleshes out this idea when he states, “And a portion of that Spirit dwelleth in me, which giveth me knowledge and also power according to my faith and desires which is in God” (Alma 18:35). This passage invokes the prepositional phrases “in me” and “in God” in demonstration of Ammon’s unity with God, and the text makes it clear that it is the Spirit dwelling in him that gives him divine power.[13] Similarly, Ammon describes power “in” him as he prepares to defend Lamoni’s flocks (Alma 17:29). Ammon’s divinization is further evidenced by the effectiveness of his power, which is so great that Lamoni comes to believe that Ammon is the Great Spirit, the Lamanite’s all-knowing God-like being.
      While Ammon’s power is evidence of divinization, a primary aspect of divinization, as described in Moroni 7:48 and demonstrated in Third Nephi 19, is similarity to and union with Christ. Significantly, Ammon’s divinization is evidenced by a likeness to Christ that is realized through phrasal allusions. These allusions have Ammon speaking Christ’s words or fulfilling roles Christ ascribes to himself. An impressive example of Ammon speaking Christ’s words comes as Ammon assures the queen that Lamoni will awake.
      Alma 19:8-9
      8 And he saith unto the queen: He is not dead, but he sleepeth in God; and on the morrow he shall rise again. Therefore bury him not. 9 And Ammon saith unto her: Believest thou this? And she said unto him: I have had no witness save thy word and the word of our servants. Nevertheless I believe that it shall be according as thou hast said.
      John 11:8, 23, 26-27
      11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
       
      23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again…  
       
      26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
      Clearly, Alma 19:8-9 shares a fair amount of exact terminology with John 11. I will clarify that I have included the phrase “she saith/said unto him” only because of its direct proximity to “believest thou this?” In terms of the phrase’s dissimilarity to other phrases in the Bible or Book of Mormon, “believest thou this?” occurs only once in the New Testament and twice in the Book of Mormon.[14] The strength of this this particular allusion not only rests on the nearly unique combination of three words, but also on their inclusion of the same punctuation and independence as a phrase. The other use of the question is in Alma 22:10 with Aaron as speaker. However, the entire string, “Believest thou this? And she said unto him” is entirely unique to Ammon 19:9, and John 11:26 provides a near perfect match. “I believe that” only occurs twice in New Testament and three times in the Book of Mormon. One of the other occurrences is Alma 18:29 and is part of the Ammon narrative, and the other is notably from Alma 22:11 in response to Aaron’s use of the question “believest thou this.” “Shall rise again” is still somewhat uncommon with five occurrences in the New Testament and three in the Book of Mormon. Finally, “sleepeth” occurs seven times throughout the old and new testament. However, it only occurs once in the Book of Mormon. All of the phrases and the single word sleepeth prove to be at least fairly unique creating a strong case for biblical allusion. The correct sequence and proximity of these four phrases significantly increase the likelihood of allusion. Finally, the extreme similarity of context lends further support. Ammon and Jesus are both giving assurances to female character that their beloved male family member will rise from either death or near-death. “Believest thou this” is especially impressive as it comes at the same moment in the conversations as the male speakers end their assurances.
      Notably, Ammon’s words makes an additional allusion to Christ’s words in the verse directly following the above exchange.
                     Alma 19:9-10
      9 And Ammon saith unto her: Believest thou this? And she said unto him: I have had no witness save thy word and the word of our servants. Nevertheless I believe that it shall be according as thou hast said. 10 And Ammon said unto her: Blessed art thou because of thy exceeding faith. I say unto thee, woman, there has not been such great faith among all the people of the Nephites.
      Luke 7:2,7,9
      2 And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die…
      7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed…
      9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
      The shared terminology combined with clear parallel concepts, all in correct sequence, gives this example some serious teeth. Further, the phrase “so/such great faith” only occur twice in the Bible, the other occurrence being the parallel account in Matthew 8. It also only occurs twice in the Book of Mormon, the other being Christ’s words in 3 Nephi 19:35, which uses a similar formula. The single term, “word,” with its correct sequence, strengthens the above allusion. I chose Luke 7 over Matthew 8 because Luke’s context better matches that of Alma 18. In Luke 7:2 we are told that the sick servant is “ready to die,” making his healing all the more comparable to Lamoni’s promised awakening from near-death.
      One more example comes earlier in the narrative. After Ammon is assigned to shepherd and the flocks have been scattered, Ammon rallies the servants of King Lamoni to help protect the flock. He addresses them with what are readily seen as Christ’s words.
      Alma 17:28, 31
      28 Now the servants … began to weep exceedingly, saying: Behold, our flocks are scattered already…
      31 And it came to pass that he flattered them by his words, saying: My brethren, be of good cheer, and let us go in search of the flocks; and we will gather them together and bring them back unto the place of water. And thus we will restore the flocks unto the king and he will not slay us.
      John 16:32-33
      32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. 33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
      I have included “scattered” from Alma 17:28 here because it perhaps clarifies the exact allusion. The primary shared terminology here is “be of good cheer,” a four word phrase that occurs seven times in the New Testament and twice in the Book of Mormon. Notably, this occurrence makes Ammon the only other Book of Mormon speaker to use the phrase besides Christ. In the New Testament, five of the occurrences are attributed to Christ, and two are attributed to Paul, both of which happen within a four verse span in Acts 27:22-25. It is the proximity of the the term scatter and the matching sequence of the two elements that makes this passage a likely allusion to John 16:32-33 specifically. The shared context of a spiritual shepherd comforting his metaphorical flock is also worth noting.
      Other allusions can be found that place Ammon is roles prescribed to Christ. For example, After Ammon has miraculously defended the flock and servants, King Lamoni, who now believes Ammon is the Great Spirit, is hesitant to ask Ammon about it. One of Lamoni’s servants requests that Ammon stay on Lamoni’s behalf, and the servant’s words potentially allude to multiple New Testament passages. All of these potential target passages are found in John, and all of them address Christ.
      Alma 18:13
      And one of the king’s servants said unto him: Rabbanah, which is being interpreted powerful or great king—considering their kings to be powerful—and thus he said unto him: Rabbanah, the king desireth thee to stay.
       
      John 1:36-38 
      36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
       
      John 20:16
      16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
      In both cases the shared terminology here is a long but inexact phrase. Alma 18:13 and John 1:39 clearly share the most terminology, making them a strong candidate for biblical allusion. The close match between Rabboni and Rabbanah and their dissimilarity to other words, excepting Rabbi, that occur in the Book of Mormon and New Testament suggest that the passage is also potentially alluding to John 20:16. [15] The similar concepts of Master/King that follows is simply a continuation of the original allusion, so there is no real case for proximity or shared sequence of multiple examples. Depending how the phrase is parsed, it lends different levels of dissimilarity. Using the tightest parameters, which is the entire phrase “said/saith unto him, Rabbi/Rabboni/Rabbanah, which is,” there are only the two above occurrences in the New Testament and the single occurrence in the Book of Mormon. Using the loosest set of parameters, looking for only the words Rabbi, Rabboni, or Rabbanah, there are seven passages in the New Testament that use one of these terms and only the single Book of Mormon passage in Alma 18. Of the seven New Testament passages, it is notable that all but one refer to Christ. The exception, John 6:25, refers to John the Baptist. Returning to the two strongest candidates given above, the context is clearly related in both instances. In John 20, Mary, after mistaking Christ for the gardener, realizes he is the risen Lord and calls him Rabboni. On the other hand, Lamoni mistakes Ammon for God, and his servant calls Ammon Rabbanah. In John 1:38, disciples of John the Baptist are addressing Jesus as Rabbi just following John’s declaration that Jesus is the Messiah. This passage, like John 20:16, is about recognition of Jesus identity, and both John 1:38 and 20:16 have an inversional contextual relationship with the misidentification of Ammon as the Great Spirit or God in Alma 18.
      It is possible that John 1:49 is also implicated by the above allusion. It reads, “Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.” In terms of shared terminology, of the seven New Testatament passages that use either the term Rabbi or Rabboni, this is the third strongest candidate for allusion and the only of the group to share the term “King,” which occurs in close proximity to and in correct sequence with the initial phrase. Several other allusions to passages in John 1 that occur in this part of the Ammon account will be explored later in the paper, and their proximity adds some merit to this potential allusion. The context of this example, like the two previously analysed, also addresses Christ’s identity.
      Another allusion that puts Ammon in a Christ-like role comes during Ammon and company’s preparation to split up and enter Lamanite lands. Ammon ministers to his fellow missionaries, and the text alludes to Christ’s words in Matthew.
       
      Alma 17:18, 25
      18 Now Ammon being the chief among them, or rather he did administer unto them, he departed from them, after having blessed them according to their several stations, having imparted the word of God unto them, or administered unto them before his departure. And thus they took their several journeys throughout the land.
      25 But Ammon saith unto him: Nay, but I will be thy servant. Therefore Ammon became a servant to king Lamoni.
       
      Matthew 20:26-28
      26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
      Shared terminology here consists of an inexact single term, “minister/administer,” and an inexact three word string, “chief among them/you.” Impressively, the word string “chief among” occurs only once in the Old Testament, twice in the New Testament, and once in the Book of Mormon. However, only the passage in Matthew 20 shares the combination of the elements “administer” and “chief among” The appropriate proximity of the two elements and their correct sequence help establish the allusion. In terms of sequence, the first occurrence of “minister” in Matthew 20:26 is only bolded because here is a noun and not a verb as the later occurrence which matches the use in Alma 17:19. I also included the term “servant” as it is included in Alma 17 some verses later as a major plot point. The context here is rather different as Ammon is demonstrating actions and a role that Christ’s words recommend. However, a clear connection between Ammon and Christ is created through Christ indication he is the exemplary minister or servant.
      A final example can be found during Ammon’s defensive actions, where the text alludes to Mary’s words following angel Gabriel’s annunciation.
      Alma 7:37
      …And he caused them to flee by the strength of his arm.
       
      Luke 1:51
      He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imaginations of their hearts.
      The shared terminology is three words with the variable connector of/with. The shared terminology is not terribly impressive, but its dissimilarity creates a strong case. This three word combination is only used once in the Book of Mormon, once in the New Testament, and once in the Old Testament. The Old Testament example, Isaiah 53:12, does use the “of” like Alma 7. However, the example in Luke also shares the idea of causing a group to scatter or flee. The context does not appear to be shared. The allusion strengthens the connection between Christ and Ammon as the passage in Luke describes actions attributed to Christ. Mary is reacting to the announcement of Christ’s impending birth, and she specifies that she is speaking of her “God’ and “Savior” (Luke 1:47). The passage equates God and Christ, and so Christ can be seen as the person acting in verse 51. 
      Lamoni’s Awakening and Lazarus’ Raising
      The above phrasal allusions place Ammon in Christ’s shoes, speaking his words or fulfilling roles prescribed to him. Narrative parallels also illustrate Ammon’s divinized Christ-like status. The strongest of these is a large scale intertextuality between Lamoni’s awakening and Lazarus’ rising from the dead. Following is a table outlining the narrative parallels between these two accounts.
       
       
      Alma 18:42-43
      Lamoni falls to the ground as if dead.
       
       
      Alma 19:2-10
      Ammon assures the queen that Lamoni will rise. The queen responds positively.
       
       
      Alma 19:11-16
      Ammon's promise is fulfilled and Lamoni, who was mistaken for dead, rises from his sleep, but the experience is extended as he falls to the earth again along with others.
       
       
      Alma 19:16-18
      Abish, the queen's servant, causes a multitude to assemble.

      Alma 19:19-24
      Ammon's life is threatened and he is miraculously saved.
      Alma 19:25-33
      Everyone rises.
      John 11
      Lazarus is sick and dies.
       
       
      John 11:20-27
      Christ assures Martha that Lazarus will rise. Martha responds positively.
       
       
      John 11:38-45
      Christ raises Lazarus from the dead.

       
       
       
      John 11:28-35 (out of order)
      Mary, Martha's sister, comes and a group of Jews follow her.
       
      John 11:47-54
      The chief priests plot to kill Jesus. He evades them.
       

        Looking at the two accounts in summary, there are striking similarities between each set of parallel events, and all events in this segment of the Ammon narrative have parallel events in John 11 with the exception of the final group awakening in Alma 19, for which there is no parallel equivalent. That being said, the group rising can be seen as a climactic repetition of Lamoni’s return from visionary sleep, so it still functions as a logical expansion of the intertextuality. In terms of proximity, the events in Alma take place over 35 verses and the events in John take place over 54 verses. In other words, both sets of events occur within relatively short and comparable lengths of text. Sequence also lines up well with the exception that the parallel between Abish and Mary is out of sequence with the other events in John 11.
      A closer examination of this set of narrative parallels also proves fruitful. There are more specific narrative allusions along with parallel concepts and shared terminology that support the intertextuality. For example, the queen’s conversation with Ammon lends several important details paralleled in John 11. In Alma 19:4, four she tells Ammon that she was told he is “a prophet of a holy God and that thou hast power to do many mighty works in his name,” inferring that he has power to help her husband. This is in parallel to John 11:21-22, where Martha infers Christ can raise Lazarus from the dead. She says to Jesus, “if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.”
      The following verse in Alma 19 offers further details.
       
      Alma 19:5
      5 Therefore if this is the case, I would that ye should go in and see my husband, for he has been laid upon his bed for the space of two days and two nights. And some say that he is not dead; but others say that he is dead and that he stinketh and that he ought to be placed in the sepulchre. But as for myself, to me he doth not stink.
      John 11:38-39
      38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. 39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.
      The shared terminology, “he stinketh,” is unique, only occurring once in the Book of Mormon and once in the New Testament. The proposed sepulcher for Lamoni is paralleled by Lazarus’ cave tomb and stone cover,[16] and the phrase, “two days and two nights,” breaks what is otherwise a three day scheme into two units of two creating a possible allusion to the “four days” in John.  While the sequence of presentation does not match,[17] the proximity of the two or three elements in both texts is notable.
      Alma 19:6 goes on to state that a “dark veil of unbelief” was “being cast away from [Lamoni’s] mind.” These concepts find parallels in John 11:44 in the “napkin,” which covers Lazarus’ “face” and Jesus commands to be “loose[d].” Alma 19:6’s subsequent description of “light” filling Lamoni’s mind and dispelling a “cloud of darkness” is paralleled by Jesus statement on spiritual light and darkness in John 11:9-10. He says, “If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.”
      The clear allusions in Alma 19:8-9 to John 11 have been discussed above, and they strongly support the overall narrative parallel. To quickly review, Ammon describes Lamoni as sleeping, matching Christ’s description of Lazarus in 11:8. Ammon promises that Lamoni “shall rise again” echoing Christ’s promise that Lazarus “shall rise again” in 11:23. Most signficantly, there is quite a bit of shared terminology surrounding and including Ammon and Christ’s questions, “Believe thou this?” and the phrase, “I believe that,” from queen and Martha’s responses (11:26-27).
      Later after Lamoni has risen the first time and the whole group, there are parallel concepts in the description of Abish gathering the people. Alma 19:17 describes Abish, saying she “ran forth from house to house.” Similarly, in John 11:29 Mary arises “quickly” and verse 31 comes “hastily” to the grave. As described in the overview both of their actions result in a group of people gathering at the scene of the action.
      In all of these actions a consistent set of character relationships can be established. Ammon’s fills the role of Christ, except in his own falling and rising, an exception that will be addressed later on. Lamoni clearly parallels Lazarus. The queen serves as Martha, and Abish serves as Mary. Gender is consistent in each of the pairs. Relationships between the characters also function in parallel. Lamoni is husband to the queen as Lazarus is brother to Martha. Both of these are familial relationships. Abish is the servant of the queen, a potentially close relationship in parallel to the sisterhood of Mary and Martha. Abish is already converted already and the queen follows consistent with Mary’s early concern for spiritual things in contrast to Martha in Luke 10:39-42. Lastly, a parallel can be seen in Lamoni’s and Lazarus’ names. Both names are three syllables, start with the letters La, and are of comparable length. By itself, this similarity would not be notable, but in conjunction with the many other parallels, this similarity is worth mentioning.
      The evidence laid out above points convincingly towards an intertextuality between the raisings of Lamoni and Lazarus. The account of Lamoni’s awakening contains five distinct narrative allusions to events in John 11, all of which take place within convincing proximity in both texts and mostly in matching sequence. If Ammon’s question, “believe thou this,” and the queen’s response are broken into two separate allusions, which is justified as their target passages are separated, then there are four significant phrasal allusions, three of which happen in matching sequence with their target passages. There are also two notable shared single terms, one of which is completely unique in the Book of Mormon and Bible to Alma 19 and John 11, and eight parallel concepts. Significantly, all of the phrasal allusions, both shared single terms, and seven of the eight parallel concepts happen within a five verse span (Alma 19:4-9), creating a focused, strong, and obvious set. Beyond these, there are also four consistent character relationships that further establish the narrative intertextuality. Finally, this intricate set of allusions is accompanied by five other significant phrasal allusions in the surrounding text, which were outlined in the previous section, all establishing Ammon as a parallel to Christ. One of the more significant of these phrasal is found in the Alma 19:10, the verse directly following the previously mentioned five verse span rich with allusions to the Lazarus’ account, and the immediate proximity of these allusions strengthens the overall argument. The intentionality of all of this is rather undisguised, and it clearly depicts Ammon as a “true follower” or divinized disciple, who speaks Christ’s words and wields his power.
      Ammon as the Good Shepherd
      Another set of narrative parallels can be seen in Ammon’s role as a shepherd. The events surrounding the scattering of Lamoni’s flocks and Ammo’s defense of them can be seen as narrative allusions to Christ’s teaching about the true shepherd in John 10:1-18. The Lamanites who scatter the flock parallel both the stranger, the wolf, and the thief, and the servants who do not defend the flock parallel the hirelings who flee from the wolf (Alma 17:27, John 10:5, 10, 12-13). Ammon’s defense of the flocks, in which he risks his life, parallels the good shepherd or Christ, who lays down his life for the sheep (Alma 17:33-38, John 10:11, 15).
      The description of the attacking Lamanites contain a group of allusions that support the narrative intertextuality.
      Alma 17:35
      35 Therefore they did not fear Ammon, for they supposed that one of their men could slay him
      according to their pleasure, for they knew not that the Lord had promised Mosiah that he would deliver his sons out of their hands, neither did they know any thing concerning the Lord; therefore they delighted in the destruction of their brethren, and for this cause they stood to scatter the flocks of the king.
       
      John 10:10, 12
      10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
       
      12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
       
      The shared terminology here consists of an inexact three word string, an inexact shared term, and a single parallel concept. Despite the weakness of the shared terminology, the proximity of the elements and their matching sequence help to make the group more convincing. The dissimilarity of the phrase “scattereth the sheep” and the variation “scatter the flocks” also strengthens the group. Searching all combinations of ‘scatter/scattereth the flock/sheep’ lends four exact matches in the Book of Mormon and only one example in the Old Testament and one in the New Testament.[19] Of the two possibilities, John 10 is the more relevant passage due to the additional parallel concept of slay/kill and the additional narrative parallel between Alma 17 and John 10 of Ammon/Christ defending the flock, which there is no case for in the Old Testament example.
      Another aspect of the narrative creates further connections between the two texts. Though at first Lamoni’s servants appear to be the hirelings who do not defend the flock, they are quickly adopted as Ammon’s metaphorical flock. He both leads them and protects them in direct parallel to Christ’s description of the good shepherd.[20] A set of allusions help to support this narrative parallel.
       
      Alma 17:29, 32
      29 …that I may win the hearts of these my fellow servants, that I may lead them to believe in my words.
      32 And it came to pass that they went in search of the flocks; and they did follow Ammon…
      John 10:3
      3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
      The shared terminology here is a pair of inexact two word phrases, and a similar concept. The shared terminology is fairly common. However, when the words “lead” and “follow” are combined there is only one New Testament passage that uses lead and follow together in direct correlation. The Book of Mormon uses the combination in two passages. The other is in the description of the Lamanites following the Nephites towards the land of Zarahemla (Alma 58:19, 24), and clearly, the context is very different. The proximity of the three elements help to establish this allusion to John 10:3, and the context is a closely related in the portrayal of the servants as Ammon’s flock.
      A Book of Mormon allusion outside of the Ammon narrative is worth mentioning here because of its strong similarity to previous examples. Alma 5:41 reads, “Therefore if a man bringeth forth good works, he hearkeneth unto the voice of the good shepherd and he doth follow him.” The concepts of good shepherd, listening to a voice, and the phrase “follow him” all point to a likely biblical allusion to the passages in John 10. The context of Alma 5 is fairly different, but the doctrine being developed here is highly relevant to the portrayal of Ammon as a type of Christ.
       
      It could also be noted that the phrase “I am come that they might have life” from John 10:10 is paralleled by Ammon’s general actions. While protecting the flocks of the king he is also protecting the lives of his metaphorical sheep, the king’s servants (Alma 18:16). Ammon’s actions not only save them from the Lamanite attackers but also from Lamoni’s punishment. Lastly, Ammon risks his own life somewhat similar to Christ’s declaration in John 10:15, “As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.” Ammon and John the Baptist
      As if to clarify the doctrine of divinization, The Book of Mormon text makes it clear that despite Ammon’s powers, he is not God. After Lamoni has mistakenly identified Ammon as the Great Spirit, Ammon sets the record straight. In this section of narrative, the text also seeks to clarify Ammon’s role as subservient to Christ, and it does this through allusions which create a connection between Ammon and John the Baptist, one of which occurs directly within Lamoni and Ammon’s discussion about Ammon’s identity.
       
      Alma 18:18-19
      18 Now when the king had heard these words, he marveled again; for he beheld that Ammon could discern his thoughts. But notwithstanding this, king Lamoni did open his mouth and said unto him: Who art thou? Art thou that Great Spirit which knows all things? 19 Ammon answered and said unto him: I am not.
       
      John 1:19-20
      19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. [21]
      The shared terminology is two three word phrases. The phrase “I am not” is fairly common, but the phrase “who art thou,” while used many times throughout the Bible, is only used three times in the Book of Mormon. In combination, the two phrases only appear together once in the Book of Mormon and once in the Bible as cited above. Both proximity and sequence support the allusion. The context is also very clearly related. The Jews are questioning whether John the Baptist is the messiah in parallel to Lamoni’s question whether or not Ammon is the Great Spirit.
      A second allusion during the Ammon and Lamoni’s conversation also supports the connection between Ammon and John the Baptist.
       
      Alma 18:33-34
      33 And king Lamoni saith: I believe all these things which thou hast spoken. Art thou sent from God? 34 Ammon saith unto him: I am a man…
       
      John 1:6
      6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
       
      This example’s shared terminology is short, particularly with the text’s separation of the word man. However, the phrase “sent from God” is somewhat unique as it is only used two times in the New Testament and three times in the Book of Mormon. Of these uses, only the two passages cited here use the word “man” in conjunction with the phrase “sent from God.” Besides having appropriate proximity within these two verses, this passage’s proximity to other allusions to John 1 make it increasingly likely.[22] While the sequence does not support the allusion, the matching context does, which consists of men being questioned whether they are the text’s functional equivalent to God.
      The two examples discussed above help define Ammon’s role. Like John the Baptism, Ammon is an important and God-sent messenger. With Ammon’s commission comes divine power, and a unity with Christ that is demonstrated in Ammon’s words and actions. However, like John the Baptist, he is not the Christ; he is still just a man.  A different rhetorical emphasis of this point seems to also be present in Ammon’s statement “I am a man.” This phrase, which he also says in Alma 18:17, appears to be a wordplay on his name. Combined, the two words, “a man,” closely resemble the name Ammon. It is also notable that the name Ammon can be substituted. The text then appropriately reads, “I am [Ammon].” Leading up to Ammon and Lamoni’s conversation, Ammon is referred to as a “man” four times (Alma 18:3, 8, 10), and in another instance, Lamoni states his assumption that Ammon is “more than a man” (Alma 18:2). Further uses of the term man give more definition to the relationship between God and man. Alma 8:34 states that “man was created in the image of God,” directly following and qualifying Ammon’s statement that he is a man. This idea is inverted into the condescension of God in Alma 19:13, which states that the Redeemer will “be born of a woman,”[23] adding another link in the relationship between man and God. In this manner the text builds part of the definition of divinization, both the boundary line between man and God and the connections between them, into Ammon’s name.
      An allusion found in Lamoni’s comments after rising from his vision add another layer of meaning to the relationship between God and man.
       
      Alma 19:13
      …For as sure as thou livest, behold, I have seen my Redeemer, and he shall come forth and be born of a woman, and he shall redeem all mankind who believe on his name.
       
      John 1:12
      12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.
      The phrase “believe on his name,” an exact four word match, occurs a number of times in the Book of Mormon, but it only occurs once in the New Testament making the allusion clear.[24] This phrase appears again in Alma 19:36 with a similar sentiment, and the repetition helps rhetorically emphasize its importance and the author’s purposeful use of the allusion. Its proximity to other allusions to the Gospel of John just a few verses prior is also notable. In terms of context, the theology is the common thread. As explained above, John 1:12 teaches that all those who believe in Christ can become “sons of God.” This elevated status is a type of divinization, and the repeated allusion helps clarify and emphasize the idea that man can fulfill the potential of his own creation, becoming more like God.
      This nuanced relationship between God and man plays an integral role in one of Joseph Smith’s unpublished revelation dating to 1832. The revelation gives names for God, the Son of God, man, and angels in the “pure language.” They are Awman, Son Awman, Sons Awman, and Awmans Anglo-men. Each name is given further definition. Awman is “the being which made all things in all its parts.” Son Awman is “the greatest of all the parts of Awman which is the God-head, the firstborn.” Sons Awman are “the human family, the children of men the greatest parts of Awman, Save the Son Awman.” Finally, Awmans Anglo-men are “Awman’s ministering Servants sanctified who are sent forth from heaven sent forth from heaven to minister for or to Sons Awman, the greatest parts Awman save Sons-Awman Son-Awman.” Similar to the Ammon narrative, all of these parts are connected, so much so that they each bear the name Awman. Bruce R. Mckonkie related the name Awman to Moses 6:57, a verse dictated in 1830. The pertinent segment reads, “in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man.” This connection is likely relevant as there is a similar though partial list structure, similarities in the names,[25] and reference to the language of Adam. The pure language and the Adamic language are one and the same in the early church.[26] If Moses 6:57 is directly related to the revelation on pure language, the name Ahman’s association with the title Man of Holiness would be closely related to the wordplay in Ammon’s declaration that he is “a man” and that “man was created in the image of God.” The clear similarity between the names Ammon and Ahman is also significant. More particularly, Ahman contains the word man while Ammon contains the syllable “mon,” which the text imbues with the meaning man. Lastly, relevant to the doctrinal exposition in the Book of Mormon, mankind or sons Ahman are defined as both distinct from and part of God, somewhat similar to the definition fleshed out in the Ammon narrative.
       
      Significantly, similar word play incorporating the word man can be seen in Abish’s name. Matthew Bowen’s article, “Father is a Man: The Remarkable Mention of the Name Abish in Alma 19:16 and its Narrative Context,” convincingly lays out Abish’s role as a counterpart to Ammon...
      (I haven't finished writing this section so I'll sum this up.)
      Basically, the hebrew meaning of Abish means "Father is a man", which according to Bowen, and he argued convincingly, the text uses to create wordplay with the fact that she had been converted on account of a vision of her father and to be the spiritual counterpart to Ammon, who clarifies twice "I am a man," in the conversion of the Lamanites. I would take it a step further and point to the wordplay I've already acknowledged in Ammon's name (Ammon = A man). Finally, I would also argue that her name's hebrew meaning points to the doctrine being rhetorically unfolded in the Ammon account, which is that God is the "Man of Holiness" or that the "Father is a man" and that man is his creation in a father/son relationship with potential for divine growth.
       
      [1] Joseph Smith and Royal Skousen. The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), Kindle Edition. All Book of Mormon quotations will be taken from Skousen’s edition of the Book of Mormon.
       
      [3] Nicholas Frederick, “Line Within Line: An Intertextual Analysis of Mormon Scripture and the Prologue of the Gospel of John,” (PhD diss., The Claremont Graduate University, 2013), 138.
      [4] Mark J. Johnson, “Notes and Communications: The Exodus of Lehi Revisited,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3/2 (1994): 123–26, accessed April 3, 2016, https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/viewFile/19728/ 18295; Terrence L. Szink. “Nephi and the Exodus,” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, ed. John L. Sorenson et al. (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1991), accessed April 3, 2016, http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub= 1111&index=6; George S. Tate, “The Typology of the Exodus Pattern in the Book of Mormon,” in Literature of Belief: Sacred Scripture and Religious Experience, ed. Neal E. Lambert (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1981), accessed April 3, 2016, https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/literature-belief-sacred-scripture-and-religious-experience/13-typology-exodus-pattern-book; Ryan Thomas, “Nahom and Lehi’s Journey through Arabia: A Historical Perspective, Part 1,” Faith Promoting Rumor, September 14, 2015, accessed April 3, 2016, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/ faithpromotingrumor/2015/09/nahom-and-lehis-journey-through-arabia-a-historical-perspective/.
      [5]
      [6] Ben Mcguire
      [7] Nicholas J. Frederick, “Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon: A Proposed Methodology,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24 (2015), accessed April 3, 2016, http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3592&index=1.
      [8] Frederick, “Line Within Line: An Intertextual Analysis of Mormon Scripture and the Prologue of the Gospel of John,” 128-137.
      [9] The other Book of Mormon use of the phrase, “Become the sons of God,” is in 3 Nephi 9:17, and the connection between this passage and John 1:12 is so strong that Frederick labels it as a quotation. See Ibid., 117-118.
      [10] Explicit association between fire and the Holy Ghost is also made in 3 Nephi 19:13 and 2 Nephi 31:13.
      [11] Knowing all things an attribute of God recognized in the Book of Mormon. See Words of Mormon 1:7, Alma 18:18, and Moroni 7:22.
      [12] ??
      [13] In an earlier verse Ammon plans to show his power, or the power that is “in” him, in defending the kings flocks and servants (Alma 17:29).
      [14] If the Old Testament is not mentioned specifically there are no occurrences of that phrase.
      [15] Rabonni is emphatic form of the word Rabbi, and Jesus as resurrected Lord in John 20:16 certainly merits the emphasis.
      [16] A common definition for sepulcher is a stone burial chamber.
      [17] The sequence is actually inverted.
      [19] The example in the Old Testament comes from Jer. 23:1-4, and it is possible that Jesus is expanding this passage in John 10. Verse 1 reads, “Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord.” The metaphor is people to sheep is the same, and the warning against false shepherds is similar. The shared terminology of destroy and scatter is important. It is notable that these two terms are shared between both Jeremiah and John and John and Alma.
      [20] Ammon’s defense of Lamoni’s servants is made explicit in Alma 18:16.
      [21] John the Baptist’s response uses the phrase “I am,” which shares the source Greek phrase, “ego eimi,” with John 8:58. These passages also share the initial question “Who are thou” (John 8:25). Christ’s use of “I am” has long been identified as a possible allusion to the name of God given to Moses in Exodus. I think it is possible, when considering the shared elements between John chapters 1 and 8, that the Baptist’s use of “I am” could be an inversional intratextuality with Christ’s use, emphasizing the point that John is the forerunner and Christ is “I am”.
      [22] Examples of proximate allusions to John 1 include Alma 18:13/John 1:36-38 and Alma 18:18-19/John 1:19-20, both discussed above. Another proximate possibility is Alma 18:34/John1:1-4.
      [23] Bowen
      [24] Frederick, “Line Within Line: An Intertextual Analysis of Mormon Scripture and the Prologue of the Gospel of John,” 90-92.
      [25] Ahman contains the word man, and similarly, Son Ahman is a close match to Son of Man. 
       
       
×