Scripture Study

Cover image via Gospel Media Library. 

The Iron Rod and the Liahona are two of the most famous objects in the Book of Mormon. Each is both extremely interesting and highly memorable. Because of this, it is only natural to draw on the Iron Rod and the Liahona to illustrate general principles of the gospel.

One strategy that has had appeal to me (and I think has become pretty common) is to treat these objects as identifying a dichotomy. For example, we might say that the Iron Rod represents the written word of God, whereas the Liahona represents the influence of the Holy Ghost. Or we might want to say that the Iron Rod represents the letter of the law, while the Liahona represents the spirit of the law. We might even want to say that the Iron Rod represents the Aaronic Priesthood, whereas the Liahona represents the Melchizedek priesthood, or that the Iron Rod refers to a lower level of living the gospel, while the Liahona represents graduated gospel living.

However, after carefully re-reading all the scriptures specifically about the Iron Rod and about the Liahona, I’ve come to understand that my use of the Iron Rod and Liahona as mutually exclusive was based on a superficial understanding—a caricature—of the Iron Rod and Liahona^[i]. Indeed, it seems to me now, that, even if a given dichotomy is valid^[ii] (for example, between the written word and the Holy Ghost), it is problematic to use the Iron Rod and the Liahona to represent it. This is because, in fact, the Iron Rod and the Liahona are not themselves mutually exclusive. When I use them to represent dichotomies, therefore, I am overlooking—and thus obscuring—the role these objects actually play in the scriptures. In reality, for instance, the Iron Rod is not only a metaphor for written scripture (to the exclusion of the Holy Ghost), and the Liahona is not only a metaphor for the Holy Ghost (to the exclusion of written scripture). Let’s look at each of them to see why this is the case.

The Iron Rod and the Liahona: A Closer Look

In Lehi’s dream, we learn that the Iron Rod “came along” by the “strait and narrow path” toward the tree (1 Ne 8:20) and many made their way to the tree by “clinging to the rod of iron” or “continually holding fast” to it (1 Ne 8:24, 30). The meaning of the Iron Rod is understood by Nephi after communing with an angel: “the word of God” (1 Ne 11:25). Nephi later tells his inquiring brothers that it was “the word of God; and whoso would hearken unto the word of God, and would hold fast unto it, they would never perish; neither could the temptations and the fiery darts of the adversary overpower them unto blindness, to lead them away to destruction” (1 Ne 15:24).

Now, considering the scripturally-revealed meaning of the Iron Rod, if we examine the account of Lehi’s family in First Nephi, we see various sources of the “word of God” to them—that to which they needed to “hearken” and “hold fast” in order to resist temptation and avoid perishing. These include: the brass plates (1 Nephi 5:21), the voice of the Lord (1 Nephi 16:25-26, 1 Nephi 17:7-10, 12-15, 1 Nephi 18:5), angels (1 Ne 3:29-31), the writings on the Liahona (1 Nephi 16:27, 29-30), the pointers in the Liahona (1 Nephi 16:10, 1 Nephi 18:12, 21), words of Prophets (1 Nephi 17:23-32, 1 Nephi 20-21), prayer (1 Nephi 18:3), the Spirit (1 Nephi 2:16-17, 1 Nephi 4:6), visions (1 Ne 1:8-15, 1 Nephi 11-14), and dreams (1 Nephi 2:1-2, 1 Nephi 8).

On the other hand, the Liahona is described as “a round ball of curious workmanship” of “fine brass”, within which were “two spindles” one of which “pointed the way whither we should go in the wilderness” (1 Ne 16:10). It is also described as a “director” or “compass” that was “prepared of the Lord” (1 Ne 18:12, 21, Alma 37:38). The Liahona led Lehi’s family to the “more fertile parts of the wilderness” (1 Ne 16:16) and the “pointers” worked “according to the faith and diligence and heed which we did give unto them” (1 Ne 16:28).  The Liahona also set forth “things which were written” (1 Ne 16:27). The writing was “plain to be read”, and did provide “understanding concerning the ways of the Lord” and was “changed from time to time” (1 Ne 16:29).

The Liahona Is a Subset of the Iron Rod

When we consider these objects in such detail, it seems clear that the Iron Rod and the Liahona are not mutually exclusive and therefore are not dichotomous. Indeed, what seems apparent is that the role of the Liahona is actually a subset of the “word of God” that the Iron Rod represents: it is part of the word of God and thus part of the meaning of the Iron Rod—it simply displays one of the ways the word of God comes. Asking which is better, or higher, is thus a false question.

The underlying problem in all of this—what seems to create the confusion in the first place—is that the Iron Rod and the Liahona do not even belong to the same category of objects. After all, the Iron Rod was a part of Lehi’s dream and only has representative, symbolic meaning. It was not an actual object.^[iii] But the Liahona was different; it was an actual physical “ball” or “compass” that Lehi found on the ground one morning (1 Nephi 16:10) and that his family actually hefted, carried, and used. The Iron Rod, as a symbol, represented the word of God, and the Liahona, again, was merely one example of how the word of God came to them. It was simply a subset of the symbolic meaning of the Iron Rod. To ask which is better, or higher, therefore, is like asking whether it is better to prune and nourish the olive tree (Jacob 5:11-12, 64) or to testify of the atonement of Jesus Christ (Jacob 7:12). That is a false question, because the tangible activity of testifying of the atonement of Christ is simply part of the symbolic imagery of nourishing the olive tree.^[iv] To try to create a dichotomy between the image and the tangible activity, therefore, would be to fundamentally misunderstand both. And that is exactly what happens when we try to create a dichotomy between the Iron Rod and the Liahona. ^[v]

Difficulties that Arise from Treating the Iron Rod and Liahona as Mutually Exclusive

Once we understand that the Iron Rod actually subsumes the Liahona, we can see even more clearly why it is a mistake to treat them as mutually exclusive.

If I assert, for example, that the Iron Rod represents the written word of God (and not the Holy Ghost), then I am excluding the Holy Ghost from the “word of God” and from that to which we must hearken and hold fast in order to resist temptation and avoid perishing. In other words, this means that the “word of God” on the path to the “love of God” consists only of following the written word of prophets and that listening to the Holy Ghost is unnecessary—which, of course, is untrue.^[vi] Correspondingly, if I assert that the Liahona represents the Holy Ghost only (not the written word of God), then I am at least ignoring the written words on the Liahona.^[vii]

To consider the example of the Priesthood dichotomy, it is worth remembering that the Aaronic Priesthood is the “lesser priesthood” (DC 84:26) and is an “appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood” (DC 107:14). It holds the key of the “ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel” (DC 84:30) and has “power in administering outward ordinances” (DC 107:14). On the other hand, the Melchizedek Priesthood is “after the Order of the Son of God” (DC 107:3) and “holds the “right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church” (DC 107:8). Therefore, if I assert that the Iron Rod represents the Aaronic Priesthood and the Liahona represents the Melchizedek Priesthood, then I am treating the Iron Rod as preparatory to, and an appendage to, the Liahona. However, as shown above, this is inconsistent with the scriptural description of the Iron Rod and Liahona, which reveals that the Liahona is actually a subset of the Iron Rod.

Significantly, this subsuming or overlapping understanding of the Iron Rod and Liahona is consistent with how prophets have described them. Indeed, in the Book of Mormon itself, Alma analogizes the Liahona pointing a “straight course to the promised land” to the “word of Christ” pointing a “straight course to eternal bliss” (Alma 37:44). President Kimball once taught that “we all have our own Liahona, which we call the conscience” and it will tell us “everytime [we] start[] to go on the wrong path”.^[viii] President Packer, in his address “Lehi’s Dream and You” indicated that for him the “Book of Mormon has been my iron rod” and also states that if “you hold to the rod, you can feel your way forward with the gift of the Holy Ghost”.^[ix] And Elder Andersen taught that the “word of God contains three very strong elements that intertwine and sustain one another to form an immovable rod”. The three elements are, first, “the scriptures, or the words of the ancient prophets”, second, “the personal revelation and inspiration that comes to us through the Holy Ghost,” and third, “the words of the living prophets.”^[x]

Conclusion

In conclusion, as wonderful as the Iron Rod and Liahona are as individual teaching symbols, they are not mutually exclusive and thus do not in fact form a dichotomy. Fundamentally, this is because the Iron Rod is a symbol and the Liahona is an actual object—which leads to the problem that the Iron Rod’s scripturally symbolic meaning actually includes the Liahona. Thus, when I have a valid gospel dichotomy and desire to employ some symbolic representation for it, I am personally avoiding employing the Iron Rod and Liahona; rather, I find myself looking elsewhere for symbols that do not suffer from these problems.

Nathan Boyce graduated from BYU and Stanford Law School, and practices law in St. Louis, Missouri. He served a mission in Ukraine and currently serves as an early-morning seminary teacher. He and his wife have seven children.

Notes: 

[i] One might argue that there is no actual harm in using caricatures of the Iron Rod (firm and unyielding) and the Liahona (flexible) as representative of dichotomies. I have come to believe differently, however. The scriptures are so full of inspirational stories, sermons, historical events, and symbols—all features that we can explore and strive to live by—that there is really no need to wrest or ignore certain scriptures simply to create for myself convenient symbols. Instead, I can employ symbols as actually informed by the scriptures.

[ii] We are all aware of myriad false dichotomies. For purposes of my analysis, I will not take the time to explore the validity of the dichotomies mentioned here or any others. Rather, I am only focusing on the Iron Rod and Liahona as symbols used to represent dichotomies (or, in other words, whether the Iron Rod and Liahona are themselves dichotomous).

[iii] We can imagine a category mistake that is more benign, like if we contrast the “mists of darkness” from Lehi’s dream with, say, Moroni’s Title of Liberty; or Jacob’s (Zenos’) olive tree with the Rameumptom. At least in those cases, the two objects seemingly have little to do with each other. That they represent different categories of objects still makes this confusing, but it may be less likely to have the fatal flaw of overlapping.

[iv] Other examples of such false dichotomies could include: Are you the offering-service-to-king-Lamoni kind of missionary (Alma 17:25) or beckoning-for-family-to-partake-of-fruit kind of missionary (1 Nephi 8:15)? Do you say personal prayer (Matthew 6:6) or do you trim your lamps with oil (Matthew 25:3-4)? Are you an eat-a-little-book (Revelation 10:8-10) kind of teacher or a write-letters-with-paper-and-ink” (2 John 1:12) kind of teacher?

[v] One could argue that the pointers are distinct from the Iron Rod “word of God” because the pointers only provided physical direction, not spiritual guidance. In other words, one could argue that the Liahona is only partly subsumed by the Iron Rod. But even partial overlap precludes mutual exclusivity. Moreover, the Liahona’s physical guidance was distinctly spiritual in character: it showed the path for: reaching a new land; establishing a new civilization, based on the gospel; and creating a record of it all that would become the major instrument for gathering Israel in the last days.

[vi] See, for example, 1 Corinthians 12:3 (“no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost”); 3 Nephi 28:11 (“the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and [Son]”); John 17:3 (“this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”); Moroni 10:4 (the truth of Book of Mormon is manifest by the Holy Ghost); Moroni 10:5 (“by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things”); John 14:26 (Holy Ghost or “Comforter” shall “teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you”); and 2 Nephi 32:5,8 (the Holy Ghost “will show unto you all things what ye should do” and teaches to pray).

[vii] For this particular dichotomy, it seems that a much better pair of representative objects from Lehi’s experience would be the Brass Plates and the Liahona. The Liahona’s combination of written words and pointers still make this somewhat complicated, but at least the Brass Plates and Liahona belong to the same category—tangible objects.

[viii] “Our Own Liahona,” Ensign, October 1976.

[ix] Ensign, January 2015

[x] BYU Speeches, March 4, 2007.