By Scott S. Mitchell
INTRODUCTION
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereinafter referred to as “Church” or “the Church”) teaches Book of Mormon readers that the all-important “choice seer,” referenced in 2 Nephi 3 of the Book of Mormon, refers to Joseph Smith. This interpretation is voiced from the pulpit in Church-wide conferences, in Church-published instructional manuals, and in the Church-authored prefatory caption to the chapter. That caption reads: “Joseph in Egypt saw the Nephites in vision–He prophesied of Joseph Smith, the latter-day seer; of Moses, who would deliver Israel; and of the coming of the Book of Mormon.” As will be shown in this essay, all of that caption is accurate except the identification of Joseph Smith as the referent of the “choice seer” prophecy.
A few words of clarification are in order. First, this essay will not explore the question of whether Joseph Smith, who lived from late 1805 through June of 1844, met the scriptural definition of a seer. That question is surprisingly complicated, but for the purpose of this essay, it will be assumed that he qualified as a seer for at least a relatively short period of his life while he possessed the interpreters/Urim and Thummim.
Second, the arguments and conclusions reached in this essay rely heavily on, and accept as true, the conclusions reached in a previous essay on this website, Who Translated the Book of Mormon Text into English for Joseph Smith to Read? That prior essay proposed, among other things, some conclusions which haven’t previously been taught by the Church, but are described below, concerning the third Nephi in the Book of Mormon. Church members already do recognize this third Nephi (hereafter distinguished from other men with that same name by the designation ‘Nephi3‘) was a great, exceptionally righteous prophet who with great power and marvelous miracles, including raising his own brother from the dead, defied the wicked rulers of his day to the point where they dared not oppose or harm him. He’s also known as the man primarily responsible for persuading the Nephites to repent of their own evil, have faith in Christ and prepare for Christ’s prophesied visit to them, which visit Jesus later performed as a resurrected being. They remember that it was to this same Nephi that the Lord announced, on the eve of his birth into mortality in the Old World, his own arrival as the promised Messiah. Church members also know this Nephi was privileged to author the scriptural record of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites which Mormon later abridged, and was the first man in the Americas individually spoken to by Jesus, as well as the first chosen to be one of Jesus’ twelve apostle-equivalent disciples in the New World.
What Church members might not realize, however, is that the Book of Mormon leaves no doubt that, in addition to qualifying as one of the greatest prophets in history, Nephi3, named after his also-famous father Nephi2, was definitely a seer as well, and a very choice one at that.1 He possessed the sacred interpreters, and he used them to translate an enormously significant and sacred record.
Originally, the Nephite King Mosiah1 had come into possession of the Urim-and-Thummim-type instrument containing two stones called interpreters, though no explanation is provided regarding how that occurred. (I hypothesize that the prophet Ether didn’t die and was indeed translated, as he speculated in Ether 15:34 that he might be, and that he himself delivered the large stone, the brother of Jared’s sealed vision, and the interpreters to Mosiah1 to begin facilitating the discovery of Jaredite history the Nephites would gradually perform. This subject is addressed in a separate essay elsewhere on this website.) With this “interpreters” instrument, possession and use of which defined seership, Mosiah could translate writing from the Jaredites’ lost ancient language into the Nephite tongue. A later Nephite king, Mosiah2, would use it to translate the 24 gold Jaredite plates which would later be found, and in time, a great Nephite prophet would use it to reveal the brother of Jared’s vision of world history to righteous Nephites. Accordingly, for the rest of Nephite history, this instrument was passed down along with the brass plates, and the Nephites’ own records and other sacred artifacts, to King Benjamin, then King Mosiah2, then to the prophet Alma2, and thereafter to successor prophets/seers after him (see Mosiah 28:10-20; Alma 37:21-25). No man could look in the interpreters “except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish,” and “whosoever [wa]s commanded to look in them, the same [wa]s called seer.” (See Mosiah 8:13.) Eventually, as recorded in 3 Nephi 1:2-3, Nephi3, being the successor prophet to his father, Nephi2, received from his father these same sacred records, artifacts and the Urim-and-Thummin-type “interpreters” instrument.
But what evidence do we have that Nephi3 acted as seer during his time possessing the plates and interpreters? In Ether 3:21-24, 4:1-2, we read that the Lord commanded the brother of Jared to seal up the account of his vision of future world history, and seal up with it the interpreters instrument that would enable said account to be translated. This translation would occur millennia later, when, in the Lord’s own words from Ether 3:21, “I shall glorify my name in the flesh” (i.e., complete the atonement by being crucified and conquering death by resurrecting). When Jesus later did minister to the Nephites as a resurrected being, he “commanded that [Jared’s grand vision] should be made manifest” (Ether 4:2). That this was later accomplished by Nephi3 is obvious. 3 Nephi 1:2-3 makes clear that Nephi3 was the possessor of the plates and the seer instrument that went with them, and it was he who recorded on said plates Jesus’s ministry. Too, 3 Nephi 23:6-13 demonstrates Jesus personally charged this same Nephi3 with the reading and writing of the sacred Nephite record. Thus, it would have been no one else but Nephi3 whom Jesus commanded, as set forth in Ether 4:2, to use the interpreters to translate and reveal the brother of Jared’s account.
The aforementioned previous essay on this website regarding Nephi3 also demonstrated that he eventually became one of the three Nephite disciples who would not experience death until Christ’s latter-day return to earth, and participated with the other two in their most important of all assignments. That most prominent of all assignments, described in 3 Nephi 28:32 as “a great and marvelous work,” would be to translate the Book of Mormon from reformed Egyptian into English so that Joseph Smith, who was described by Isaiah and Nephi1 as “him that is not learned”2 could read it and dictate the English text to a scribe. This monumental task involved the third Nephi and the other two chosen disciples not only translating, but “uploading,” so to speak, the translated text into the interpreters/Urim and Thummim. Doing so would allow the Urim and Thummim to produce an illuminated text in English that could be read by Joseph Smith, much like a cell phone is read in a dark or dimly-lit room today.
Thus Nephi3‘s seership consisted not only in translating the brother of Jared’s magnificent vision of all, but also, the writing of the reformed Egyptian text of the Book of Mormon into English and transmitting it through the Urim and Thummim for Joseph Smith to read. In this sense, because the Lord had translated him so he could live thousands of years longer, he could become both an ancient seer and one for the latter days.
However, for three main reasons, orthodox Church scholars and general authorities who interpret this very consequential Book of Mormon chapter, 2 Nephi 3, consider it obvious that Joseph Smith is the man it describes. First of all, Joseph Smith himself interpreted it that way, and Church leaders tend to accept Smith’s interpretations and not to focus on how unlearned he was. Second, he’s the only latter-day individual they know of who used a seer’s instrument to dictate a scriptural text written to the Lamanite posterity of Joseph in the Western Hemisphere, as required by ancient Joseph’s prophecy contained within that same chapter. Third, they consider the wording of verse 15 crucially important, interpreting it to identify Joseph Smith by name. That verse, quoting the Old Testament Joseph regarding a choice seer descendant of his who would produce a body of tremendously valuable latter-day scripture, reads as follows:
“15 And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be like unto me; for the thing, which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation.” (Emphasis added.)
In the latter part of this essay I’ll break down the phraseology employed in this verse to demonstrate that the phrase “called after” and the word “name” have differing usages and meanings in scripture depending on context. I’ll demonstrate that LDS church leaders responsible for interpreting this verse have ignored crucial contextual comparisons in their desire to agree with Joseph Smith’s own interpretation that he himself was the person to whom it referred. But before addressing the appropriate interpretation of those terms, I’ll set forth the arguments demonstrating that Joseph Smith clearly cannot, and does not, meet the numerous “choice seer” criteria in 2 Nephi Chapter 3. Therefore, this essay’s conclusion identifying Nephi3 as whom this prophecy actually refers to will be borne out before I show through phrasal analysis of verse 15 that it didn’t indicate the choice seer would be named Joseph.
ARGUMENTS REGARDING CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING THE CHOICE SEER
I. Because Joseph Smith is Considered a Gentile by Jesus and Other Prophets in the Book of Mormon, He Doesn’t Meet the Choice Seer Criterion of Being Descended from Joseph
The writers and speakers in the Book of Mormon always prophesied that the book would come forth in the latter days from the Gentiles, and would be taken to another group who weren’t Gentiles. These non-Gentiles were the remnant of the house of Israel in the Americas, the Lamanites (“the seed of my brethren,” or “the remnant of our seed,” as Nephi1 often described them) who were specifically descended from Joseph of the Old Testament. See, e.g., Title Page of the Book of Mormon; 1 Nephi 13:34-40; 1 Nephi 15:13-14; 1 Nephi 22:7-9; 2 Nephi 26:15; 2 Nephi 30:3-4; 3 Nephi 16:4-9; 3 Nephi 21:2-7; 3 Nephi 26:8; Mormon 3:17; Mormon 5:9-10, 12, 15, 19-20; Mormon 7:8; Ether 12:22. Thus, in the view of those ancient writers whose words comprise the Book of Mormon, the Gentiles and House of Israel were two discrete groups, and were repeatedly spoken of in contradistinction to one another.
Therefore, to prophesy that the Book of Mormon would come forth from the Gentiles to the remnant of the House of Israel necessarily excluded Joseph Smith as being considered a descendant of the house of Israel; he was instead the main Gentile with whom the Book of Mormon’s production was associated. He therefore is disqualified as well from being the choice seer. Because 2 Nephi 3 specifically requires in verses 7, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 24 the “choice seer” be an Israelite from the loins of Joseph, Joseph Smith the Gentile cannot be the person referred to in these passages. It would not make logical sense to believe either ancient Joseph, or his descendant Lehi, who quoted him in 2 Nephi 3, intended the reader to identify a latter-day Gentile as the fulfillment of the choice seer prophecy concerning a descendant of Israel and Joseph. Those two men’s descendants were definitely not the Gentiles who produced the Book of Mormon; they were instead the Lamanites to whom the Book of Mormon was to be taken.
On the other hand, it’s indisputable that the third Nephi was not only descended from the House of Israel, but from ancient Joseph specifically. In 3 Nephi 15:11-13, Jesus highlighted this fact about the Nephites whom he visited after his resurrection, declaring that they were “a remnant of the house of Joseph.”
Notwithstanding the Book of Mormon’s clarity in identifying those who brought forth the book as being Gentiles, Church members are taught to believe that Joseph Smith was descended from Ephraim, the younger son of Joseph, and therefore was indeed a descendant of Joseph. Overwhelming evidence suggests this teaching originated with Joseph Smith’s own belief that (a) he was the choice seer 2 Nephi 3 referred to, and (b) since ancient Joseph’s son Ephraim received a more gracious blessing than his brother Manasseh, the choice seer would reasonably come from the more favored of the two sons. But Joseph Smith, prophetically described as being unlearned, was wrong on both points.
Some orthodox Church members may argue the link between Joseph and the tribe of Ephraim originated in a “father’s blessing” (which Church members now classify as a “patriarchal blessing,”) given to Joseph Smith by his father, Joseph Smith, Sr., on December 9, 1834. A quick reading of this blessing, if the transcript we have today is accurate (which is questionable at best, as discussed below), reveals a host of false assertions and prophecies by Joseph Smith, Sr. that never came true (also discussed below). In addition to directly telling his son he was the choice seer spoken of in the Book of Mormon, Father Smith referred to Joseph of old, not himself, as being his (Joseph Smith’s, Jr.) father, declared his own son to be ancient Joseph’s son, and said “thou shalt stand on mount Zion when the tribes of Jacob come shouting from the north, and with thy brethren, the sons of Ephraim, crown them in the name of Jesus Christ …” This blessing can be read today via this link: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/blessing-from-joseph-smith-sr-9-december-1834 . While this father’s blessing does seem to be the earliest mention of Joseph Smith, Jr. and his father being descended from ancient Joseph through Ephraim, there are several excellent reasons to reject this asserted genealogical descent from the tribe of Ephraim as simply erroneous:
First, as stated above, Jesus and the prophets of the Book of Mormon repeatedly stated that the Book of Mormon would come from the Gentiles unto the House of Israel, with a sharp distinction between the two lineages. If the Book of Mormon was destined to be produced by a man descended from the loins of Ephraim the son of Joseph, who was the son of Israel, Jesus and the prophets who wrote the Book of Mormon would have said the book would come from the descendants of Joseph to other descendants of Joseph, instead of saying the book would come through the Gentiles to the seed of Joseph.
Second, if Church members were to deem some other book of scripture more authoritative than the Book of Mormon, they would still find no support in the Church’s other scriptures–the Bible, Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price–for the precise idea that Joseph Smith was a descendant of Joseph of old, though Smith did claim to be a seer. The teaching is scripturally unfounded, even in the Church’s greatly expanded canon attributable to Joseph Smith.
Third, father’s blessings, or their more formal modern counterparts–patriarchal blessings–are not considered scripture, unless the man pronouncing them is unambiguously shown in scripture to be a prophet speaking under the influence of the Holy Ghost, as Jacob did in the Old Testament in prophesying about his son’s posterity. In fact, as explained in Mormonism’s Current Practice of Giving Patriarchal Blessings , an essay found elsewhere on this website, the Church’s tradition of setting apart men labeled “patriarchs” to give such predictive blessings to non-offspring, though highly valued by many church members, is not a practice divinely inspired or sanctioned by God. Nor does it possess any doctrinal basis or precedent in the Bible or Book of Mormon (though Joseph Smith falsely claimed in an 1839 discourse that the New Testament calling of “evangelist” referred to a patriarch3), and the promises and predictions pronounced therein are not reliable predictors of future events.
No better example of the unreliability of Church patriarchal blessings can be found than by reading the blessing ostensibly given to Joseph Smith, Jr. by his father. None of the many spectacular promises in the blessing came true. Joseph was told he would destroy all his enemies, cause his persecutors and armies to flee from him, move mountains, turn rivers out of their course, cause the lame to walk, the deaf to hear and the blind to see, enjoy his inheritance in the goodly land of Zion, survive the destructions of the last days, live to welcome and crown the returning lost tribes, and behold Jesus descending from the clouds of glory at his second coming. Poignantly, his father also promised that “no weapon formed against him [would] prosper.” As we now know, none of these things occurred, and in 1844 his enemies shot him to death when he was only 38 years old.
A fourth factor discrediting Joseph Smith’s patriarchal blessing as a reliable source of doctrine is the fact that Joseph Smith, Sr. based it on his son’s interpretation of 2 Nephi 3 of the Book of Mormon, which the elder Smith then adopted. This interpretation had already been published by his son more than four years earlier. At the time Joseph Smith, Jr. received his father’s blessing in December of 1834, he’d previously been touting himself as having been called by the Lord to be “a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ” to the Church since April of 1830. See Doctrine and Covenants 21:1. Obviously, the inference is inescapable that Joseph Smith, Sr. was heavily influenced by his son’s (a) self-image; (b) authority over him as head of the nascent church, and (c) the fact that his son had chosen him three days earlier to give such father’s blessings.
The fifth flaw in the blessing Joseph Smith received is one alluded to above–that we have no reliable way of knowing what was actually said. No contemporaneously recorded notes kept by anyone are known to exist, so the only record of the blessing we have today was written by Oliver Cowdery more than nine months later. It’s important to remember that Cowdery didn’t know shorthand to allow him to transcibe the blessing contemporaneously. Yet the September 1835 transcript he produced purported to be an actual transcript of the long blessing, albeit in perfect handwriting. In fact, the language of the blessing is more in the style of Cowdery, who was famous in church circles for excessively flowery language, than one would expect of the far-less-educated Father Smith. It’s difficult to ignore the possibility of subsequent embellishment by Cowdery under these circumstances, even if patriarchal blessings had been a scripturally-based practice to begin with.
II. Because Joseph Smith Did Not Write Any Part of the Book of Mormon, He Doesn’t Fit the 2 Nephi 3 Description of the Choice Seer
No Church or non-Church account of the translation process of the Book of Mormon claims that Joseph Smith’s role in producing the text involved him actually writing anything. Every single eyewitness narrative agrees that the role he played was to read the words emitted from the Urim and Thummim (or “interpreters,” as Book of Mormon writers referred to them) and dictate those words to his scribes who wrote the transcription. Today, thanks to the brilliant scholarly work performed by Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack as part of the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, we know that Joseph Smith, in reading the words from the divinely supplied instrument, didn’t have any authorial or editorial input into the text. In fact, the text was already in English when he read it. For more on this subject, see, e.g., Carmack’s landmark article on this subject, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” at this link: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smith-read-the-words/
However, 2 Nephi 3 verses 18 and 19 specifically require that the choice seer who would descend from Joseph of old would write the words which had been written by the Nephite prophets and chroniclers to the seed of Joseph in the latter days:
18 “And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.
19 “And the words which he shall write shall be the words which are expedient in my wisdom should go forth unto the fruit of thy loins. And it shall be as if the fruit of thy loins had cried unto them from the dust; for I know their faith.” (Emphasis added.)
Again, the choice seer criterion of writing the book to the latter-day seed of Joseph is not met by Joseph Smith. This writing versus reading point is enlarged upon with even more probative and contradictory verses under Argument V below.
III, IV. Joseph Smith had No Spokesman, and Those Scribes who Transcribed his Dictation Were Also Considered Gentiles, Not Descendants of Joseph
As set forth above in verse 18, a spokesman4 would be provided to the choice seer to declare the Book of Mormon’s message and importance to the world, and like the seer himself, would be a descendant of ancient Joseph. Joseph Smith, however, had no spokesman, and again, those who participated with him in bringing forth the Book of Mormon were considered by Jesus and other Book of Mormon prophets to be Gentiles. These two prerequisites become the third and fourth criteria that Joseph Smith didn’t meet.
V. The Four Clear Descriptions of Joseph Smith in the Bible and Book of Mormon Contain No Praise for Him by Isaiah, Nephi, or Moroni, and then Only Muted Praise by Jesus, and are Completely Incongruous with 2 Nephi 3’s Description
The four places where ancient scriptural descriptions of Joseph Smith are found are in Isaiah 29:12, 2 Nephi 27:9-24, 3 Nephi 21:10-11 and Ether 5:1-4. In the first one, Isaiah refers to him simply as “him that is not learned,” to whom a book is presented, whereupon, this unlearned man confesses he has no learning that would enable him to read the book. Despite the unlearned man’s disability, Isaiah writes, the Lord proceeds nonetheless to bring forth the book through miraculous means. But Isaiah’s description of Smith doesn’t merely omit any indication he was, or would become, a choice seer. It also doesn’t contain any hint indicating he should be viewed as a historically renowned religious leader, reformer, prophet, or man possessing any other uncommon gifts or unique or distinguishing features. Isaiah only suggests this man’s lack of learning is relevant to, and plays some part in, the coming forth of a book referred to as “a marvelous work and a wonder” two verses later in Isaiah 29:14.
Moreover, 2 Nephi 27 contains a full eleven specific, and very telling, identifying descriptions of Joseph Smith, all of which are incongruous with Nephi’s tremendously praiseful descriptions of the choice seer 24 chapters earlier. These are found in verses 9, 12 (twice), 15, 19 (twice), 20, 22 (thrice) and 24. Here are Nephi’s words used to exclusively describe Joseph Smith (though he’s not named) in Chapter 27:
Verse 9-“a man”
Verse 12-“the man of whom I have spoken” and “him to whom the book shall be delivered”
Verse 15-“him to whom he [the Lord through his messenger] shall deliver the book”
Verse 19-“him that is not learned” (as in Isaiah 29:12) and “the man that is not learned”
Verse 20-[he to whom the Lord shall say] “thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee”
Verse 22-[the man to whom the Lord shall say when the man has] “read the words which I have commanded thee,” and “obtained the witnesses which I have promised unto thee,” and [he shall be instructed to] “seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may preserve the words which thou hast not read”
Verse 24-“him that shall read the book that shall be delivered him.”
None of these phrases contain anything but neutral descriptions for the man they describe, let alone the multiple terms of high praise used to describe the choice seer of 2 Nephi 3. Nothing suggests he’s a towering figure in religious history. He’s not referred to as the already-prophesied choice seer. He’s not compared in any way to Moses. He’s not described as being great in the eyes of the Lord. Nothing is said suggesting he’ll confound all who seek to destroy him. No mention is made of him having a spokesman. He’s not described as being of the loins of Joseph or as having any connection to ancient Joseph. Nothing is said of him being “mighty . . . with exceeding faith to work mighty wonders . . .” (see 2 Nephi 3:24). Nor is any identification of his own name provided, or of having been named after his father, though a future prophet named Moses is named.
This last point, that the name of the choice seer is not foretold anywhere in the Book of Mormon, deserves further attention. The Book of Mormon exhibits no reluctance to revealing the specific names of important individuals who have not yet come to earth. Ancient Joseph is quoted foretelling the emergence of Moses, whom he reveals by name. Mary the mother of Jesus is named, as is Jesus her son. John the Revelator’s name is specifically divulged. So, if 2 Nephi 3 is supposed to be interpreted as revealing the choice seer’s name to be Joseph, why does it not come right out and say that, like the Book of Mormon does elsewhere when writing about other important future figures that it intends to name?
In the Book of Mormon, an aura of secrecy seems to surround the choice seer, just as it does the three Nephite disciples Jesus chose, who were translated. The Book of Mormon gives hints about their identities and works, but they are somewhat subtle, almost as if, rather than say the seer’s name in 2 Nephi 3, or the three Nephites’ names in 3 Nephi 28, the Lord prefers a discovery method of “he who hath eyes to read, let him read,” so to speak. In other words, he seems to desire we search the scriptures for these clues, on these and a variety of other subjects. For example, the precise day and hour of the Lord’s second coming are kept from us. So are the identities of the two witnesses/prophets who are prophesied in the biblical Book of Revelation to exercise great power, then be killed and resurrected three and a half days later in the eyes of all the people (see Rev. Chapter 11). This subject of searching for somewhat hidden scriptural knowledge is discussed more in depth in the last three paragraphs of this essay, and in Footnote 1.
Significantly, 2 Nephi 27 also makes clear that Joseph Smith was not destined to write the Book of Mormon, unlike what the choice seer described in 2 Nephi Chapter 3:12, 18, 19 was prophesied to do. In fact, as noted above by the boldface italics in Chapter 27’s verses 20, 22 and 24, Joseph Smith is only to read, not write, the words in an already-written book. Indeed, reading, and not writing, is precisely what Joseph Smith eventually did, according to all the witnesses who observed the Book of Mormon’s production process.
In fact, the words that are used to identify Joseph Smith in Chapter 27 are longer phrases than would be necessary if one were referring to an already-identified choice seer. If both Chapters 3 and 27 described the same man, the first mention of him in the latter chapter might be, for example, “the choice seer of whom I have spoken,” and in all subsequent mentions, perhaps an abbreviated “that seer,” “the seer” or “this son of Joseph.” Instead, precisely because he was introducing a previously-unmentioned figure, Nephi couldn’t use any of his prior “choice seer” terminology, thereby necessitating lengthy distinguishing phrases, such as”the man to whom the book shall be delivered,” or “him that shall read the book that shall be delivered him.”
It is simply impossible, then, that 2 Nephi 27, written by the same Nephi who wrote 2 Nephi 3, is talking about the same man in both chapters.
Ether 5:1-4 adds little to the descriptions of Joseph Smith in 2 Nephi 27, except for an instruction that Smith not touch the brother of Jared’s sealed account of his vision, because, as Moroni warns, “that thing is forbidden you, except by an by it shall be wisdom in God.”
Similarly, Jesus’s own words describing Smith in 3 Nephi 21:10-11 are devoid of any suggestion that he was to be associated with greatness, as the plain wording of 2 Nephi 3:8 requires. Jesus explained that when the Book of Mormon would come forth, though there would be people who wouldn’t believe it was what it purported to be, he nevertheless wouldn’t allow these people to hurt the servant with whom the book was associated, though the servant would be “marred because of them.” This unique and memorable wording, wherein Smith is referred to as Jesus’s servant, but becomes marred and needs to be healed to continue a task, undoubtedly refers to the time when Joseph Smith, desirous to convince Book of Mormon critics that the book was authentic, was held responsible for the first 116 pages of the transcribed text becoming permanently lost. He had allowed it to be leant out to Martin Harris, who wanted to show it to his wife and acquaintances. It was at Harris’s house that the manuscript was stolen or destroyed by some person still unknown to history. Joseph Smith’s negligence in this matter resulted in a devastating loss and earned him a severe rebuke from the Lord. The plates and the Urim and Thummim-type instrument were taken away from him by the messenger/angel, and he was subjected to a probationary period. He later wrote in 1832 about this deprivation, “I also was chastened for my transgression . . . and I was not able to obtain them for a season and it came to pass after much humility and affliction of Soul I obtained them again.”5
In fact, as Smith himself reported the following stern words from the Lord to him, they suggested the opposite of one whom the Lord would describe as being “great in mine eyes,” (see 2 Nephi 3:8), or would be known through the annals of religious history as a mighty and choice seer:
Behold, you have been intrusted [sic] with these things, but how strict were your commandments; and remember, also, the promises which were made to you, if you did not transgress them; and behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men . . . 6(Emphasis added.)
VI. Joseph Smith Did Not Receive the Lord’s Protection as Prophesied by Joseph of Old
Joseph of old prophesied that those who would seek to destroy the choice seer “would be confounded” (see 2 Nephi 3:14). By contrast, as mentioned above, Joseph Smith was often seen either fleeing his critics or enemies, or being caught by them and thrown in jail. He was then murdered at the young age of 38. To suggest that a man murdered by his enemies so early in life was the man described in Verse 14 would render its words meaningless. Verse 14 has to be referring to someone else. The Book of Mormon’s third Nephi, on the other hand, was so powerful that the enemies that sought his life could not lay their hands on him, and when they murdered his brother Timothy, he raised him from the dead. (See 3 Nephi 7:15-20.)
VII. Joseph Smith Cannot Logically be Considered to Have Been Comparable to Moses
The Lord states in 2 Nephi 3:9 that the choice seer shall be “great like unto Moses,” and subsequently summarizes Moses’s accomplishments. He would deliver the House of Israel out of Egypt. He would be given “power in a rod,” and the Lord would write unto him “judgment” and his law with the finger of his own hand (see verses 9-10, 17). This comparison of the choice seer to Moses is extremely high praise, given the fact that the only other person compared to Moses in scripture is Jesus Christ himself (see Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19; Acts 3:22-23; 1 Nephi 22:20-21; 3 Nephi 20:23). Though Joseph Smith appears to have believed himself worthy of being compared in greatness to Moses, and John Taylor, a subsequent LDS Church president who survived Smith, believed him even greater than Moses (see caption of Doctrine and Covenants 135 and following text), such a conclusion seems unjustified even according to the LDS Church’s own hagiographic history of him. Smith delivered no one from bondage or danger; he led no one to the promised land; he was not given the power to do miracles, nor power in a rod; and, as I have written in other essays on this website, he never spoke to the Lord face to face, though late in life he claimed otherwise. He had no spokesman to speak for him (though Oliver Cowdery wrote down his dictation). And, as already noted above, the ancient prophecies spoken by Isaiah and Jesus himself did not come close to describing him in such laudatory and gracious terms as “great like unto Moses.”
VIII. Joseph Smith Cannot Reasonably Be Considered to be “Like” Joseph of Old as Described in 2 Nephi 3:15
Verse 15 of the chapter in question requires the choice seer to have been like ancient Joseph himself, in that “the work which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand” would bring salvation to Joseph’s latter-day seed in a spiritual sense just like Joseph of old had physically saved the House of Israel from seven years of drought and famine. As mentioned above, Joseph Smith’s role in bringing forth The Book of Mormon was solely to read the English words that emitted from the Urim and Thummim and dictate them to Oliver Cowdery. Not only did he not in any sense write it, but he also made no authorial or editorial contribution to it.
In fact, it appears the chief reason the Lord chose Joseph Smith to play the role he did in producing The Book of Mormon was because he was an unlearned man (albeit one with enough faith to believe God could use him to read the writing divinely provided to him). Bringing forth such a work from someone with so little learning, by allowing that man to read from the divinely-supplied instrument, attested all the more to what a miracle the book was. It was, indeed, “a marvelous work and a wonder,” as Isaiah had prophesied in Isaiah 29:14.IX. Joseph Smith’s Father Would Not Have Been Mentioned in Joseph’s Ancient Prophecy
As noted above in the Introduction, in 2 Nephi 3:15, ancient Joseph, son of Jacob, is quoted as saying that the name of the choice seer he foresaw rising up from his posterity “shall be after the name of his father.” It appears that in ancient scripture, when a man is mentioned in connection with his father, his father is either a king, a distinguished religious leader in his own right, or necessarily included in the narrative either because of the part he plays in an important story, or to establish the genealogical line from which his offspring was descended. I have found no exceptions to this rule. If one of these reasons to refer to a man’s father aren’t present, the father goes unmentioned. I don’t argue that this practice appears to have been pursuant to some ancient rule of scripture writing or record keeping, but it does seem to have been a mere pragmatic approach to keeping holy writ as free as possible from unnecessary detail.
In like manner, a son sharing the same name as his father was so common anciently, as it is now, that it wasn’t itself a reason to include a reference to the father. Listing the father by name in a genealogical line, on the other hand, would clear up any misconceptions about whom was being referred to.
For example, the fathers of the prophets Elijah and Malachi, and several of Jesus’s apostles, including Paul, are not mentioned in the Bible. Nor in the Book of Mormon do we ever learn who the fathers of men like Abinadi, Alma the elder, or Samuel the Lamanite were, because their fathers are not part of any listed genealogies, and weren’t integral parts of the narratives concerning their sons.
Similarly, the fact that Joseph Smith, Jr. had been named after his father, Joseph Smith Sr., didn’t constitute a reason to be mentioned by ancient Joseph in connection with the choice seer who would come from his loins. Joseph Smith Sr. was obviously a Gentile like his son, so not only was he not considered part of ancient Joseph’s seed, but the Smith family genealogy was never a matter of scriptural import or record in the Bible and Book of Mormon. Those books only contained recorded lineages from within the descendants of Abraham, or which linked Abraham to Adam. Gentile lineages weren’t given. Additionally, Joseph Smith, Sr., though he appears to have been a righteous man like countless others have been down through the ages, played no major role in religious history as a leader, prophet or teacher so as to merit mention in an ancient prophecy from almost 4,000 years earlier.
On the other hand, the Book of Mormon’s Nephi2, whose son, Nephi3, I identify as the choice seer ancient Joseph referred to, had every reason to be mentioned in Joseph’s prophecy. The third Nephi’s father was a magnificent figure in his own right, one of the most consequential and renowned prophets in Book of Mormon history. His “unwearyingness” (to adopt the term the Lord himself used in characterizing him) in attempting to restore righteousness to the Nephites was so tireless and unwavering that it caused the Lord to entrust him with the sealing authority –that whatever he prophesied would come true, and whatever he commanded to happen, would happen, because his desires were unfailingly righteous, and what he sealed on earth would therefore be sealed in heaven. (Helaman 10:3-10)
For ancient Joseph to be able to look into the future and see this father and son duo, both named Nephi and arising from his own posterity, and the tremendous, religious-history-altering effect they would have in accomplishing the Lord’s purposes, would understandably inspire him to mention them in connection with each other. These two Nephis would play as large a role in fulfilling the Lord’s ancient promises to the seed of Joseph as ancient Joseph and his own father Jacob had originally played in eliciting those promises from the Lord.X. Joseph Smith Wasn’t Righteous Enough to Merit Ancient Joseph’s Description of the Choice Seer
Though I feel it’s absolutely essential to make this next point, it certainly gives me no pleasure to do so. Joseph Smith’s life before and after the production of the Book of Mormon did not exhibit that same steady righteousness that characterized the lives of those men and women who are described more graciously in the Bible and Book of Mormon records. I’ve already noted that Isaiah’s, Nephi’s, Moroni’s and Jesus’s mentions of him provided no evidence at all of any preeminence among the greats of scriptural history.7 I’ve also noted that Book of Commandments Chapter 2, and Doctrine and Covenants 3:5-6, which Smith himself purported to be the word of the Lord to him after he’d allowed the first 116 pages of translation to be lost, referred to “how oft” he had already “transgressed the commandments and laws of God,” and “gone on in the persuasions of men.” These transgressions had already occurred before he was even half done with the Book of Mormon. Then, in a later revelation, given to him in 1829 while he still possessed the Urim and Thummim, the Lord made clear that the only heavenly gift he was to ever receive was to use the Urim and Thummim to bring forth the Book of Mormon, but thereafter he was to “pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.”8 In 1835, Smith altered the wording of this 1828 commandment to read that he could still receive other gifts after the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished. Said alteration was later canonized by the LDS Church and is found in today’s Doctrine and Covenants Section 5, verse 4. However, the version of it in the 1833 Book of Commandments represented what Joseph Smith claimed to be the Lord’s original, unaltered, and unalterable, words.
To alter the words of the Lord to him, especially when those words commanded him to not pretend to gifts God hadn’t given, and wasn’t going to give him, was sinful in and of itself, and profoundly so. Sadly, though, it typified and portended Smith’s later departures from God’s will. After the Book of Mormon was published in 1830 and the Urim and Thummim had been permanently returned to the heavenly messenger who’d acted as the Lord’s liaison with him, Smith spent the next 14 years of his life pretending to many heavenly gifts and visitations which he’d never actually received or experienced. He invented much false doctrine based on his own misunderstandings of ancient scripture. He devised a priesthood authority structure which worked to keep himself at the head of his newly-founded church, and pretended said structure and order had been revealed to him from God, though it was not found in the New Testament, nor, after Christ’s visit to the Nephites, in the Book of Mormon. He modified Christ’s own teachings so that individuals’ fates after death depended more on what rituals were performed on their behalf than whether they’d lived righteously. He claimed he’d been visited by the Father and the Son together, as well as by many great prophets and three ancient apostles, and that all these visitations had produced in him understandings that no one else possessed. He purported to “translate” the already-translated King James Version of the Bible so it read to his own liking. He became sexually immoral, unable to resist his attractions to women to whom he wasn’t married, and fabricated a false doctrinal justification, also supposedly revealed from on high, which endorsed his extramarital sexual gratifications and his authority and right to marry as many women as he pleased. To put it simply, Joseph Smith, Jr. wasn’t “choice” enough in his personal conduct to have inspired ancient Joseph to refer to him in that way. Ancient Joseph’s description had been reserved for a far more demonstrably righteous man–the third Nephi in the Book of Mormon.
I emphasize here that my purpose is not to suggest I know how God will judge Joseph Smith. Fortunately for me, that task remains the sole province of the Lord, with which I need not concern myself. But in evaluating Smith’s apparent degree of righteousness or unrighteousness, I have relied on the Lord’s own words spoken to him at a time when he still possessed the Urim and Thummim and could receive real revelations through it. Also, I’ve applied the Lord’s own criteria for righteousness and repentance as contained in the Book of Mormon and Bible. I’ve also spent much time researching many historical records and multiple witness accounts regarding Smith’s claims of revelations and visitations he received, to determine carefully whether his accounts were reliable. The sources I studied came almost exclusively from the LDS Church’s own archives and publications; they didn’t come from so-called “anti-Mormon” resources. If any time in the future my evaluation of Joseph Smith is proven unfair or inaccurate, I’ll nevertheless be able to aver that my conclusions were reached after due diligence and in good faith, using the mind and heart God gave me to the best of my ability.ARGUMENT REGARDING INTERPRETATION OF JOSEPH’S PHRASE “CALLED AFTER ME” QUOTED IN 2 NEPHI 3:15
The Phrase “Called After Me” in the Context of 2 Nephi 3:15 Signifies “Affiliated With My Tribe,” “Attributed to My Lineage,” or “Considered My Descendant”
A review of ancient scriptural passages in the Bible and Book of Mormon reveals that the meaning of the term “called after” depends entirely on the context in which it is used. Often, it straightforwardly means “named after,” i.e., bearing the same name as some other person or place. See, e.g., Mosiah 24:3; Alma 2:30, 6:7, 17:19, 63: 11; 3 Nephi 5:12; Ether 2:1; Genesis 4:17; 26:18; probably 2 Samuel 12:28, and Ezra 2:61.
However, in other places the phrase means something like “called or assigned to belong to the same named group of people who had received the same calling.” For these examples, see Alma 13:11 and Ether 12:10 (certain men down through the ages before Christ were called after the holy order of being high priests as Melchizedek had been), and Hebrews 7:11 (men were called after the order of Aaron’s priesthood).
But the scriptures revealing the context in which ancient Joseph used the phraseology contained in 2 Nephi 3 come from Joseph’s own father, Jacob. In stating that Joseph’s sons Ephraim and Manasseh would each count as if they were one of Jacob’s own twelve sons, instead of as grandsons in determining their inheritance, and that they’d inherit as distinct and separate tribes instead of as one tribe under Joseph, Jacob said in Genesis 48:5-6:
5″And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine.
6″And thy issue, which thou begettest after them, shall be thine, and shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance.” (Emphasis added.)
Obviously, Jacob wasn’t saying Joseph’s later children after Ephraim and Manasseh would also be named Ephraim or Manasseh. Rather, Jacob/Israel was explaining that Ephraim and Manasseh would be treated as two separate tribes for inheritance purposes, instead of inheriting one tribal share under the tribal name of their father Joseph, and subsequently born children would inherit under the double inheritance of those first two named sons as opposed to one share of inheritance under Joseph. And indeed, that’s what happened. When the land of Israel was eventually divided up and each of Israel’s sons was given a tribal region to live in, Jacob’s grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh were each given their own region as if they were Jacob’s sons, instead of receiving a single portion under the name of their father Joseph.
Accordingly, when Joseph was quoted as prophesying of a choice seer whose famous name would be “called after” him, he meant the seer’s tribal affiliation would be recognized as his own seed. He wasn’t saying the choice seer would be named Joseph. Lehi (who was descended from Manasseh, not Ephraim) did the same thing when he referred to ancient Joseph in 2 Ne. 3:22 by stating “in this manner did my father of old testify.” Neither man was saying the choice seer would be named Joseph. But both were rejoicing that such a consequential man in the Lord’s plans for the House of Israel would come from their posterity.Of course, in quoting Joseph of old, Lehi was reading Joseph’s words as written upon the brass plates of Laban, which the Nephites had brought with them from Jerusalem. Those plates were written in Hebrew. So the Hebrew word Lehi was reading for “called” was qārā’, (pronounced caw RAW), and as in English, it’s associated with a plethora of meanings. Some of the most common are to be proclaimed, announced, appointed or praised. 2 Nephi 3:15 uses this word together with a word whose best English equivalent is “after,” which is the relationship marker word ‘al in Hebrew with its own host of meanings. In the Bible, the ‘al meanings which are the most applicable to the context of 2 Nephi 3:15 are “of,” “concerning” (i.e., “having to do with” or “associated with”), “according to” or “because of,” and they’re used in these senses approximately 350 times.9
Further study of Jacob’s words in Genesis 48 bolsters the conclusion above regarding how to interpret verse 15. When Joseph said the choice seer’s “name shall be called after me,” he was using the word name in the same sense that his father Jacob did in Genesis 48:16. On that occasion when he laid his crossed hands on Ephraim and Manasseh, he implored God to “bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and let them grow into a multitude into the midst of the earth.” Again, it’s obvious that Jacob didn’t mean that his grandsons Ephraim and Manessah should have their names changed to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, but that the two boys’ lives and posterity would perpetuate, and bring honor to, the names of the three righteous men from whose lineage they came.
This interpretation of how the word “name” is being used in the first part of Joseph’s verse 15 prophecy is once again corroborated by recognizing the use of the same word in the Old Testament. There, the Hebrew word šēm can not only signify the proper name of a person, place or thing, but frequently, as in Gen. 48:16, refers instead to the respect, fame and renown associated with that name.10
That same sense is the one Jesus used, as found in Moroni 4:3 of the Book of Mormon, in prescribing the sacramental prayer over the bread. Therein, the priest prays the congregation will be willing to “take upon them the name of thy Son…”ARGUMENT REGARDING PROPER INTERPRETATION OF “AND IT SHALL BE AFTER THE NAME OF HIS FATHER” IN 2 NEPHI 3:15
In the second half of the Joseph’s verse 15 statement “And his name shall be called after me, and it shall be after the name of his father,” it’s evident that Joseph is referring to the formal, proper name of the father at the very least, but likely the reputation connected to his father’s name as well. The choice seer would both bear the same proper name as his father, and simultaneously be associated with his father’s spiritually revered reputation as a great man of God. These connections and shared spiritual strengths between father and son that the second and third Nephis would possess would be similar to ancient Joseph’s own relationship with his father Israel, and it would almost seem wrong to mention one of them without mentioning his relationship to the other.
The evidence that Joseph intended the reader of his prophecy to infer that both father and son would share the same name stems from three factors. First, in all ten scriptural verses in the Bible and Book of Mormon where the phrase “after the name of” is used (six in the Old Testament, one in the New Testament and three in the Book of Mormon), without exception it refers to the actual proper name that follows that phrase. So, the ancient phraseology used to say that someone or something went by the name of X was to say that person or thing was “called after the name of” X (although in verse 2 Nephi 3:15, there are six words inserted between the word “called” and the phrase “after the name of”).
Second, the latter half of the statement contrasts itself with the first part by saying that, whereas the choice seer would be merely called after Joseph in the sense of being linked by ancestry to him, he would more specifically be called after the name of his own father, who in this case was Nephi2.
Third, the two halves of the sentence are joined by the conjunction “and,” suggesting an additional and distinctly-worded identifying feature is being added to the previous one.
Therefore, piecing together all these interpretational clues, I propose this modern interpretation of verse 15’s opening phrase about the choice seer: “And his famous and revered name shall be recognized as my posterity, and he shall be named after his highly esteemed father.”
CONCLUSIONSIt’s difficult to downplay the significance of the conclusions reached hereinabove. If Joseph Smith was indeed not the choice seer contemplated by 2 Nephi 3, but believed and taught that he was, the effect of his mistake on LDS Church history and doctrine is akin to the effect of a 8.5 Richter Scale earthquake on the centuries-old buildings sitting atop the epicenter. The consequences of Joseph Smith wildly overestimating his own chosenness, inspiration, understanding of scripture and place in history would then become plainly discernible. Considerably less deference would then be given to his eccentric and counterintuitive pronouncements. Previously-unheard-of teachings originating from him should accordingly be thoroughly and objectively scrutinized, comparing them to the plain wording of the Bible and Book of Mormon. His temple ordinances theology should also be compared against the utter absence of same in Jesus’s teachings in the Bible and Book of Mormon. His designation of Independence, Missouri as the place of the New Jerusalem should be compared against the objective reality that not one prophecy in the “revelations” he claimed to receive concerning that place ever came true, and are manifestly far less possible now than they were in the 1800s. His teachings about, and practice of, polygamy, based on his purportedly revealed-in-secret-but-never-publicly-announced-or-acknowledged revelation now found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, should be compared afresh against the flatly contradictory language of Jacob 2:22-3:10. His claims of receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James, and John should be compared against the New Testament’s complete silence about those apostles, or any apostles, having been made Melchizedek high priests themselves, as well as the Book of Mormon’s silence on that topic with respect to Jesus and his 12 New World disciples. And on, and on, and on. There are mountains of tenets to reconsider.
In fact, it appears that the previously-unperceived watershed event in Joseph Smith’s life may have occurred the moment he read the words in 2 Nephi 3 from the Urim and Thummim and fancied himself the fulfillment of the choice seer prophecy. It may well have been on that occasion when he began to feel superior and more impressive than his peers, and to assume no one else in his future should, or would, thwart his newly catalyzed ambition to elevate himself to the heights to which he aspired. He wouldn’t likely have felt motivated to conduct a meticulous phrasal analysis of the wording of verse 15, or ponder whether he fit the many criteria contained in the rest of the chapter. Being unlearned, his conclusion was probably relatively easy for him to reach. After all, at first glance, who else did he know who was privileged to read from a divinely prepared instrument, and dictate new groundbreaking scriptures? Wasn’t that by itself sufficient proof of his chosenness? If the scripture appeared to suggest Joseph Smith would become an all-time great religious figure, uniquely described as a choice seer and compared to Moses and ancient Joseph, why look a gift horse in the mouth, so to speak?
We might ask these same questions of ourselves. If we already feel more chosen or privileged than others, how motivated are any of us to reject praise that might objectively be too generous to accurately describe us? It’s not easy for us to avoid thinking, “gee, maybe I’m an even bigger deal than I realized; I should give myself more credit.”
It’s not certain, at least to me, that Joseph Smith was aware Isaiah and Nephi were referring to him with their prosaic and unadorned description “him that is not learned” and “the man that is not learned” in Isa. 29:12 and 2 Nephi 27:19. But even if he did, he might have reasoned that just because he began as an unlearned man, didn’t mean he stayed that way after all that dictating from the instrument the heavenly messenger had leant to him. Didn’t his auspicious and exclusive task signify he was now formerly unlearned, but presently a full-fledged choice seer?
Whatever the case, it appears Joseph Smith so yearned to be the fulfillment of ancient Joseph’s prophecy of the choice seer, that his desire overrode any concern he might have felt about what harm could result to himself and others if he turned out to be wrong. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that when Joseph Smith produced what the Church now refers to as Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible, he added the choice seer prophecy to Genesis Chapter 50. Therein, in his new verse 33, he reworded the Book of Mormon’s 2 Ne. 3:15 to unabashedly say that the choice seer would be named Joseph.
One final thought: I can’t help marvelling how well-concealed the Lord leaves truths like the one I propose is so well concealed in 2 Nephi 3, and the many other ones discussed elsewhere on this website. This choice seer identity is enormously important. So much so, that if you misinterpret who’s being described, as I contend Joseph Smith did, the entire history and doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints, which is the only major denomination that accepts the Book of Mormon, is thrown off course, and remains so almost 200 years later. Almost no members of the Church believe it’s possible the Lord would even allow this to happen. Members are affirmatively taught that the Lord “will never allow the [Church President who is accepted as] prophet to lead the Church astray.” They believe we’re given our moral agency, and must face the consequences of our choices, but they don’t think we’re given THAT much agency! And yet, my past study of LDS teachings over the last 32 years has led me to conclude the opposite is true. The Lord will allow LDS leaders to believe and teach things that aren’t true, even if the misconceptions interject much false doctrine into Church orthodoxy.
But why does the Lord operate this way? Why does he allow Christians everywhere to doctrinally veer so easily and often off course? And why are some of our scriptures so unclear and difficult to interpret?
There are undoubtedly answers to that question that I don’t yet see. But what I do perceive is that the Lord wants us to study the scriptures much more assiduously ourselves, and never assume that whatever truths are hidden in them will be discovered and revealed to lay church members by their leaders at church headquarters, or by well-known pastors, preachers or scholars. He hopes we’ll never conclude that discovering scriptural truth is a mere matter of smooth and quick reading, or taking religion classes or attending Sunday School, or studying leaders’ talks, or reading instructional materials provided by our particular religious denomination. Nor does he want us to assume that if those who teach us are living righteous lives and are well-intentioned, they will necessarily and unerringly teach truth. He wants us all, men and women, to become well-versed scriptorians and far-sighted prophets, but he must first teach us the effort that is required to become such, and the problems we face when we don’t think deeply enough about what we’re reading. But if we’re insufficiently worried about the damage false beliefs can do, what will motivate us to scrutinize holy writ with the care it deserves?FOOTNOTES
1. Since the Book of Mormon contains plentiful information about the Urim-and-Thummim-type instrument called the “interpreters” and its usages, readers may infer that on numerous occasions, those who possessed the interpreters were likely employing them often to detect enemy troop positions in wars, reveal a chief judge has been murdered on the judgment seat, or tranlate lost languages, for example. But Mormon never describes any occasion when they were used after the Mosiah 28:10-20 account where King Mosiah2 used them to translate the 24 gold Jaredite plates containing their history. This lack of reporting about the interpreters’ usage is surprising when one considers that Mormon himself possessed them before entrusting them to his son Moroni, but doesn’t actually say that he possessed them, much less that he used them for anything. By contrast, Moroni says much about their history and his own use of them in Ether 3-5.
As is explained a few paragraphs later in this essay, the fact that Nephi3 used the interpreters to reveal the brother of Jared’s sealed vision to the righteous Nephites during Christ’s ministry can be reliably inferred by piecing together other parts of the Book of Mormon, but Mormon omitted any mention of it even when he abridged the third Nephi’s own record. One can’t tell whether the secrecy is accidental or intentional, nor whether it stems from Mormon’s negligence or Nephi3‘s own desire not to reveal certain things. The latter hypothesis–that it was Nephi’s secrecy–is strengthened by remembering that in Third Nephi, many secrets are kept. The identities of the three Nephite disciples aren’t revealed, nor are readers told what things were said in Jesus’s prayer, or what exactly happened when he blessed the Nephite children. Readers don’t learn where exactly the lost tribes were that Jesus said he had to visit after his first day with the Nephites. In what city in the land of Bountiful did this all happen? one wonders. Did Mormon know? Did he himself know who the choice seer was, and if so, was he instructed not to reveal it, just like he was forbidden to reveal the three disciples’ identities? We don’t know.
2. See Isaiah 29:12 and 2 Nephi 27:19
3. Smith, Jr., Joseph, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1938), 151; see also Doctrine and Covenants 107:39; Ephesians 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:5 and Acts 21:8.
4. The correct interpretation of whom Joseph was referring to as the choice seer’s unnamed spokesman deserves further careful research. My own conclusion on this issue isn’t fully crystalized. Preliminarily, however, I propose what I consider the most plausible candidate. It is the man Mormon himself, for whom the book is named. On the title page and throughout his narrative, Mormon proclaims the Book of Mormon’s importance and purpose. Coincidentally, Mormon, too, like the choice seer, was named after his own father, but unlike Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery, was a direct descendant of Joseph of old as scripturally required in 2 Nephi 3.
5. For more on the Lord’s rebuke of him, the trauma of learning the transcript was lost, and of the period during which the Lord healed him through his own sorrow and repentance, see Book of Commandments Chapters 2 and 3; The Joseph Smith Papers, History, circa Summer 1832, pgs 5,6; The Joseph Smith Papers, History, 1838-1856, Vol. A-1 [23 December 1805-30 August 1834], pgs 11-12; and The Joseph Smith Papers, Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844-1845, pgs. 85-88.
6. See Book of Commandments Chapter 2, or D&C Section 3:5-6
7. This essay presupposes that the great majority of the Doctrine and Covenants, as well as the Church history contained within the faith’s fourth canonical work, the Pearl of Great Price, is not actual divinely inspired scripture, though Joseph Smith touted it as such. I’ve written many essays on this subject which provide massive evidence underlying this conclusion, and those essays can be read elsewhere on this website. For this reason, I deem the conclusion inescapable that highly praiseful descriptions of Joseph Smith in these two other LDS books originated with Joseph Smith, but didn’t come from the Lord.
8. Book of Commandments (published in 1833 and available online free of charge) Chapter 4, verse 2; emphasis added.
9. Strong, James, 21st century ed. fully rev. and corrected by John R. Kohlenberger III and James A. Swanson, The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 178, 1466, 1547, 1563.
10. Strong, et al., The Strongest Strong’s, ibid., 802, 1575.
LAMP 