Scripture Study

The Know

While compiling the histories of the Nephites into a single record, Mormon stated that he would “make a record of these things which have been done . . . from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem, even down until the present time” (3 Nephi 5:14–15). In other words, Mormon was writing a history of the Nephites—a sacred history that would describe especially the Nephites’ dealings with God and would preserve and convey important doctrinal truths that their prophetic leaders had repeatedly taught.

Mormon’s role as a historian has recently been highlighted by several scholars. Specifically, they have noted that Mormon’s record is carefully composed according to standards of ancient rather than modern history writing. Brant Gardner, for example, has pointed out that Mormon “wrote with the historical sensibilities of the ancient world, which necessarily saw all events as they fit into and supported their religious understanding.”1 Like other ancient histories, the Book of Mormon fits into the genre of a sacral history that not only focuses on historical events but uses these events to share some message about God in the process.2 Or, as Grant Hardy described, “Mormon is more attuned to narrative theology, that is, in showing how theological points are manifest or illustrated in particular events.”3

In a recent study, Gregory Steven Dundas has further observed how “Mormon as a writer and thinker was a man thoroughly at home in the ancient sacral world. He exhibits nothing of the objective, mechanistic view of the world that has typified the modern worldview since Newton.”4 Indeed, many themes prominent in the Book of Mormon, such as sacral kingship and the adverse effects of human wickedness on the world, are topics typical of ancient histories.5

For example, one especially common aspect of ancient texts is how the monarch is viewed in some sort of sacred light. Indeed, “ancient kingship was nearly always some form of sacral kingship. The king simultaneously represented both humankind before the gods and the gods to humankind.”6 While Israelite views of kingship often differed from those of their neighbors, which typically viewed the king as one of the gods, Israelites still held that the king was invested with divine power, called God’s son, and had certain responsibilities before God, such as seeking His will before battle.7 These same principles are also found in the Book of Mormon and in many cases are responded to in ways catered to an ancient audience. This is especially true for King Benjamin.8 Dundas therefore states that this serves as “the clearest evidence for the book’s sacral worldview.”9

Another aspect common to sacral histories in antiquity is the idea that nature itself is affected by human sin. Rather than the mechanical view of nature seen in modern thought, the ancient world believed that “the natural world suffers when humans sin or misbehave and prospers when they do that which is just and right.”10 This view can be seen in the Bible—for instance, Isaiah 24:4–6 states that the earth is polluted and affected by a curse because the people have broken the everlasting covenant. In other ancient Near Eastern cultures, “the prosperity of the nation was directly linked to the king’s properly carrying out his duties,” and the king’s failure to establish order was believed to affect the moon’s rising, the flow of rivers, and other natural occurrences.11

This belief, as Dundas shows, is “particularly prominent in the Book of Mormon and [is] one of the strongest demonstrations of the book’s archaic worldview.”12 This can be seen in the destructions that followed the death of Jesus Christ, in which multiple cities were destroyed and the land was massively upheaved. These destructions are, moreover, stated to be the result of the wickedness of the people—even of those who survived (see 3 Nephi 8:24–25; 9:12–14). Moroni also wrote that the Jaredites’ “wickedness and idolatry . . . was bringing a curse upon the land” (Ether 7:23). In other words, “the utter destruction of the land was a direct result of the wickedness of its former inhabitants.”13

A third common feature of sacral histories from the ancient world is known as dual causation, occurring when “the historian provides a secular narrative . . . but then adds an explanation of how deity was really behind what happened.”14 Therefore, the events that transpired happened because deity worked through human agents to accomplish some feat. This is especially common in descriptions of war. In these descriptions, ancient authors explain how they conquered a city or land and then state that this was possible because the gods went before them to grant them victory.15

Mormon likewise includes dual causation throughout his record; for example, when describing the destruction of Ammonihah, Mormon includes Alma’s prophecy that the Lord “will utterly destroy you from off the face of the earth; yea, he will visit you in his anger, and in his fierce anger he will not turn away” (Alma 9:12). The Lord’s medium for destroying Ammonihah, however, was through the Lamanites, as Mormon recorded.16

In addition to employing methodologies typical of ancient historians, Mormon was a prophet who intended to teach sacred lessons throughout his record, occasionally even making explicit remarks as to what lesson readers should be aware of. As Brant Gardner summarized this principle, “Mormon intended to teach that our own actions lead to either the promise or the curse, and he included multiple exemplars of both consequences and underscored them with his own conclusion—in case we missed what he saw as obvious.”17

This can be seen especially in some of Mormon’s interjected commentary throughout his record, often made explicit with statements such as “and thus we see” to teach a doctrinal or historical truth that Mormon wanted to highlight. These include why the Lord chastens His people, that the devil will not support his followers, that the Lord will protect His people, and the effects sin has on a people as a whole.18 Even when Mormon interjects with a historical clarification, such as when the people of Ammon buried their weapons of war (Alma 24:19), he is sure to explain the doctrinal significance of this historical detail.

The Why

As Dundas has summarized, “Mormon’s message is explicitly religious and explicitly moral” and “needs to be viewed in the context of his ancient sacral worldview.”19 By doing so, readers of the Book of Mormon can better understand why Mormon shared the many messages he did—both those lessons he made explicit and those he left for the reader to intuit.

Ultimately and above all, the Book of Mormon conveys a central message underlying all its content from its first page to its last. Hugh Nibley observed:

The Book of Mormon is the history of a polarized world in which two irreconcilable ideologies confronted each other [the gospel versus unrighteousness], and is addressed explicitly to our own age, faced by the same predicament and the same impending threat of destruction. It is a call to faith and repentance couched in the language of history and prophecy, but above all it is a witness of God’s concern for all his children, and to the intimate proximity of Jesus Christ to all who will receive him.20

Mormon, a skilled prophet and historian, utilized many tools of the ancient historian’s craft to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Brant Gardner has written, “Mormon’s masterpiece is unique in its conception and construction. History was transformed into a sacred tapestry of instruction in the gospel of Jesus Christ.”21

In delivering this message, Mormon used Nephite history to teach future audiences how they could prepare for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. This could be especially done because prophets such as Mormon foresaw the future and “relied upon a cyclical concept of history that looked to the past to understand the future.” Therefore, just as Jesus had come to the Nephites, Jesus would come again to His people in the future.22 Gardner emphasized, “As assuredly as history proved that the Messiah came, Mormon expected his explication of the patterned history to prove that the Messiah assuredly will come again. This is Mormon’s optimistic message. This is how he expected to convince us that Jesus, the Messiah who came, is the Eternal God, the Messiah who will come.”23

Modern-day readers of the Book of Mormon can, therefore, confidently utilize this ancient record to prepare for the coming of the Savior, learning how to avoid the dangers of Satan’s snares. Such has also been the repeated emphasis of President Russell M. Nelson, who recently taught:

Now is the time for you and for me to prepare for the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ. Now is the time for us to make our discipleship our highest priority. … In a coming day, Jesus Christ will return to the earth as the millennial Messiah. So today I call upon you to rededicate your lives to Jesus Christ. I call upon you to help gather scattered Israel and to prepare the world for the Second Coming of the Lord. I call upon you to talk of Christ, testify of Christ, have faith in Christ, and rejoice in Christ!24

As modern readers seriously study the Book of Mormon, they can better take this invitation to heart and be prepared for the Second Coming as they repent of their sins and seek to follow Jesus. Mormon likewise taught and emphasized why humility and repentance are so important in our journey back to God’s presence. As Dundas concluded, “That, in a nutshell, is the historical message of the Book of Mormon. Whether we choose to give heed to it is another question.”25

1. Brant A. Gardner, “Mormon’s Editorial Method and Meta-Message,” FARMS Review 21, no. 1 (2009): 98.

2. It should be noted that while Nephi states that he is deliberately omitting certain historical details to focus on prophecies and revelations in 1 Nephi 9:2, that is a designation given specifically to the small plates, and even those prophecies are couched in a historical narrative of Nephi’s family coming to the promised land. Mormon’s record combined multiple sources—historical and prophetic—and created a continuous narrative. This editorial and authorial motive has led Grant Hardy to note that “perhaps the most striking difference between Nephi and Mormon is how much the latter sees himself as a historian, with a responsibility to tell the story of his civilization comprehensively and accurately.” Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford University Press, 2010), 91. For an additional discussion on variations between Nephi’s keeping of the small plates and Mormon’s historiography, see Eric C. Olson, “The ‘Perfect Pattern’: The Book of Mormon as a Model for the Writing of Sacred History,” BYU Studies 31 no. 2 (1991): 7–18.

3. Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 91. For more on Mormon’s role as a historian, see also pp. 102–106.

4. See Gregory Steven Dundas, Mormon’s Record: The Historical Message of the Book of Mormon (Brigham Young University, Religious Studies Center; Deseret Book, 2024), 289. It is also worth noting that while Mormon describes his work as an abridgement, it appears to be an abridgement of events rather than of texts. Dundas also observed: “It is reasonable to conclude that Mormon’s idea of an abridgement is simply a shortened account that omits many details but is not merely a redacted version of a longer text.” As such, “his work should be viewed as a valid and original work of historiography.” Dundas, Mormon’s Record, 270, 272. The Book of Mormon itself remains the primary work of Mormon, who utilized and cited other texts at length but ultimately could choose which events in Nephite history merited inclusion given the purpose of the work he was creating.

5. For a complete discussion of how Mormon utilizes sacral themes in his record, see Dundas, Mormon’s Record, 289–324. For a discussion of how Mormon utilizes other themes that would be expected of an ancient historian utilizing multiple sources, see Brant A. Gardner, Engraven upon Plates, Printed upon Paper: Textual and Narrative Structures of the Book of Mormon (Greg Kofford Books, 2023), 71–163.

6. Dundas, Mormon’s Record, 85–86.

7. See Dundas, Mormon’s Record, 87, 98.

8. For leaders seeking God’s will before battle, see Alma 43:23–24. For a discussion on Nephite views of kingship and how they responded to this ancient worldview in unique ways, see Scripture Central, “Why Does King Benjamin Deny Being More than a Man? (Mosiah 2:10),” KnoWhy 729 (April 30, 2024); Scripture Central, “Why Did King Benjamin Say That His People Would Be Sons and Daughters at God’s Right Hand? (Mosiah 5:7),” KnoWhy 307 (May 1, 2017); Scripture Central, “How Did King Benjamin’s Speech Lead to Nephite Democracy? (Mosiah 29:32),” KnoWhy 301 (April 17, 2017); Scripture Central, “Why Did Benjamin Give Multiple Names for Jesus at the Coronation of His Son Mosiah? (Mosiah 3:8),” KnoWhy 536 (October 17, 2019).

9. Dundas, Mormon’s Record, 92. For a more detailed discussion of this point, see Gregory Steven Dundas, “Kingship, Democracy, and the Message of the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies Quarterly 56, no. 2 (2017): 7–58.

10. Dundas, Mormon’s Record, 76.

11. Dundas, Mormon’s Record, 76.

12. Dundas, Mormon’s Record, 77.

13. Dundas, Mormon’s Record, 78–79. For other scriptures reflecting this worldview, see Ether 14:1; Mormon 1:17–18; Helaman 13:18, 23, 26; Mosiah 8:8, 12; 21:26.

14. Dundas, Mormon’s Record, 143.

15. For examples of this in ancient Near Eastern inscriptions, see Dundas, Mormon’s Record, 160–161.

16. See Alma 9:18; 16:3; 25:2.

17. Brant A. Gardner, Labor Diligently to Write: The Ancient Making of a Modern Scripture (Interpreter Foundation, 2020), 67. See also Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 113–116.

18. See, respectively, Helaman 12:3; Alma 30:60; 50:19; 28:13; and Helaman 6:35. Moroni likewise taught the same principle using the same interjection in Ether 14:25.

19. Dundas, Mormon’s Record, 399.

20. Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS]; Deseret Book, 1989), 262. Val Larsen, “In His Footsteps: Ammon₁ and Ammon₂,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 3 (2013): 86, similarly observed: “Mormon’s history, like other ancient histories, is not primarily empirical. His account is shaped by a clear rhetorical purpose: to bear testimony of Christ and illustrate the consequences of accepting or rejecting him.”

21. Gardner, Labor Diligently to Write, 12. On page 82, Gardner also stated: “Like many Old Testament writers, Mormon saw history as the loom upon which the image of God’s intent would appear as the warp and weft of time filled in the picture.”

22. Gardner, Engraven upon Plates, 195. For another discussion on how cyclical history is employed by Mormon throughout his record, see Scripture Central, “How Does the Book of Mormon Fulfill the Purposes Declared on the Title Page? (Title Page of the Book of Mormon),” KnoWhy 706 (December 30, 2023).

23. Gardner, “Mormon’s Editorial Method and Meta-Message,” 105.

24. Russell M. Nelson, “The Lord Jesus Christ Will Come Again,” October 2024 general conference.

25. Dundas, Mormon’s Record, 409.