• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

FAIR

  • Find Answers
  • Blog
  • Media & Apps
  • Conference
  • Bookstore
  • Archive
  • About
  • Get Involved
  • Search

Book of Mormon

Revised or Unaltered? Joseph Smith’s Foundational Stories

Jump to Transcript

Start Here

Question
Did Joseph Smith revise the First Vision story over time?

Short Answer
Critics sometimes claim that Joseph Smith changed his account of the First Vision and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon over time. This presentation argues that the historical evidence instead shows a consistent core narrative from the earliest accounts onward, while later retellings often expanded details or emphasized different aspects for different audiences.
Key Takeaways
  • Early eyewitness reports from Joseph Smith’s family and associates consistently describe an angelic visitation connected to golden plates and divine revelation.
  • Hostile newspaper accounts and critical sources often preserved authentic elements of Joseph Smith’s story even while attempting to reinterpret or ridicule it.
  • The presentation compares the 1832 and 1838 histories and argues that differences between them reflect incomplete narratives and differing purposes rather than fabrication.
  • Accusations involving money digging, folk magic, and Luman Walter are examined in historical context using eyewitness documents.
  • The speaker argues that many claims of “revisionism” are based on selective readings, incomplete documents, hostile reinterpretations, or natural variations in retelling.
  • The talk explores the multiple First Vision accounts and argues that they preserve a stable underlying narrative.
  • Revival activity near Palmyra and throughout western New York is examined as historical context for Joseph Smith’s religious questions.
  • Oliver Cowdery’s early church history writings are presented as evidence that early Church leaders were already familiar with the First Vision narrative.
  • The presentation also analyzes the literary and biblical structure of Joseph Smith’s 1832 First Vision account, including parallels to Acts 26 and Psalm 31.

Summary

Summary

This presentation analyzes accusations that Joseph Smith altered the stories of the Restoration over time, particularly the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the First Vision. Using early eyewitness accounts, critical sources, newspaper reports, and manuscript comparisons, the speaker argues that Joseph Smith’s central storyline remained remarkably consistent from its earliest tellings. He contends that many alleged “revisions” actually stem from misunderstandings of incomplete documents, selective readings, or hostile reinterpretations created by critics.

A major focus of the talk is Joseph Smith’s 1832 history, including its relationship to later First Vision accounts and Book of Mormon narratives. The speaker proposes that the 1832 account was deliberately constructed using biblical frameworks and literary parallels, particularly from Acts 26 and Psalm 31. He also examines revival activity in the Palmyra region, Oliver Cowdery’s early historical writings, accusations involving money digging and Luman Walter, and the broader question of how historical memory becomes reshaped over time.

TL;DR

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Read)

This talk argues that Joseph Smith’s accounts of the Book of Mormon and the First Vision did not evolve into entirely new stories over time. Instead, the speaker shows that early eyewitnesses, critics, and historical documents consistently preserve the same core narrative elements. The presentation also explores how later critics contributed to confusion through rumor, speculation, and selective interpretation of historical records.

Introduction

Critics of Joseph Smith have long claimed that the stories of the Restoration offered by him were revised over a period of time until they became what is known today as the accepted history of the Church. In my lecture this morning, I would like to examine some aspects of this claim of revisionism from a documentary perspective. 1

I will start by talking about the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and then move into a discussion of the First Vision.

I have a very definite reason for addressing these topics in reverse historical order. This will become apparent as my lecture progresses. Please be aware that in my remarks today I will be utilizing several abbreviations such as:

  • JS1832, which refers to Joseph Smith’s 1832 history, and
  • JS1838, which refers to the manuscript that was published in 1842 and became the official history of the Church.

I will be presenting and summarizing a considerable amount of new research on both the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and that of the First Vision. But it’s not nearly all that I have available at this time. It is my hope that you will find something in this material that will be useful in defending the prophet’s foundational stories from the critics of the Church.

The Earliest Book of Mormon Accounts

If a person wants to determine whether or not a story has changed over time, it is logical to first examine that story in its earliest known form. In the case of the Book of Mormon account, we are fortunate to have records from several eyewitnesses who heard Joseph Smith relate this story for the first time.

These witnesses are his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, his sister Katherine Smith, and his brother William Smith.

These three eyewitnesses agree that Joseph’s story was first told to them during the fall harvest season shortly before Alvin Smith died, thereby giving us a date of 1823. They are also in agreement that the story told to them was that an angel had appeared to Joseph and told him about a golden engraved record hidden in a nearby hill.

Joseph talked to his whole family about this revelation for a considerable length of time. He stated that he was required to wait for a period of four years before he was allowed to retrieve the record.

He also warned his family members that they must not tell others in the community about this ancient artifact.

None of these three eyewitnesses ever mentions that they heard any different story of origin related by Joseph Smith, and none of them ever mentions hearing, even in the community, any earlier version of this story.

Independent Witnesses to the Story

Lorenzo Saunders

It is interesting to note that one of the Smiths’ neighbors named Lorenzo Saunders stated that before Alvin Smith died in November of 1823, Joseph Smith Jr. told the Saunders family that he had seen an angel and was notified about the plates.

Joseph Smith evidently broke his own rule of non-disclosure in this instance, but in the process provided an independent set of witnesses to the elements of his story in 1823.

Harrison Chamberlain

A possible secondhand verification of this circumstance comes from Harrison Chamberlain. He claimed to have heard from people living in the vicinity of Palmyra that in the late fall of 1823, Joseph Smith told his most intimate associates about his vision of an angel and the engraved golden plates buried in a hill which contained revelation from God.

The Knight Family

We know that Joseph’s story about the Book of Mormon remained the same through the year 1826 because during that period he worked in southern New York State for the Knight family.

While he was in their employ, he said that a person had appeared to him in a vision and told him where there was an ancient gold book buried.

Martin Harris and the Golden Plates

Martin Harris is our next eyewitness for the content of Joseph Smith’s story. He said that the first time he heard about the gold Bible was around the 1st of October in the year 1827.

Harris recalled that the day following this, he went into Palmyra and spoke to some of the residents of the village about this matter. They repeated the account of it as given to them by Joseph Smith Sr., and it matched with what Joseph Jr. had said earlier.

Lucy Mack Smith arrived a little bit later at the house of Martin Harris and told him about Joseph bringing the plates to the Smith residence and many other things.

She further informed Martin that Joseph wished to see him. Martin sent his wife and daughter home with Lucy Mack Smith at this time. When they returned, they told Martin that they had both been allowed to lift a very heavy object that was said to be the golden plates.

When Martin Harris went himself to the Smith home in Manchester, New York, Joseph Jr. was away. Martin reports,

“This gave me an opportunity of talking with his wife and family about the plates.”

Harris Interviews the Smith Family

Martin indicates that he desired to get at the truth of the matter.

“I talked with them separately,” he said, “to see if their stories agreed, and I found they did agree.”

“When Joseph came home, I did not wish him to know that I had been speaking with them. So, I took him by the arm and led him away from the rest, and requested him to tell me the story, which he did as follows. He said an angel had appeared to him and told him it was God’s work.”

Joseph talked about the spectacles and said that they had the ability to display a lifelike visual image. 2 He also said the angel told him that the plates must be translated, printed, and sent before the world.

Martin relates,

“While at Mr. Smith’s, I hefted the plates and knew from the heft that they were lead or gold, and I knew that Joseph had not credit enough to buy so much lead.”

We may conclude from all of this documentary evidence that between the initial disclosure of the origin of the Book of Mormon in the fall of 1823 and Joseph bringing the plates into the Smith residence in the fall of 1827, his story did not change.

He consistently told individuals that an angel of God had informed him about a set of golden plates.

Public Speculation and Competing Narratives

Then the historical scene changes dramatically.

It is known from documentary sources that in the year 1827, Joseph Smith started making his story known among the general populace. I have collected several statements by critics — actually, there’s eleven — who say that they heard the story during this year from either Joseph Smith or one of his close associates.

There were, of course, some people who were skeptical about the young man’s claims of new revelation from the Almighty. This is the time period where the public started to speculate heavily about what they thought was really behind Joseph Smith’s story and how they imagined the book idea really originated.

Rumors and Alternative Explanations

By the summer of 1829, when the Book of Mormon was being prepared for the press, the line between history and mythology had been blurring for some time. An issue of the June 1829 Wayne Sentinel newspaper in Palmyra made note of the fact that there had already been much speculation about the Golden Bible floating around the region. 3

Steven S. Harding provides us with a unique and insightful snapshot of what was going on during this precise time period. He visited the Grandin print shop where the book was being published, and there he met Father Smith, the prophet, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris in the morning.

Then in the afternoon, he had a lengthy conversation with his cousin Pomeroy Tucker and Mr. Grandin where he heard some new things about the book that was being produced.

Martin Harris About the Book of Mormon

The things that he heard from these two different groups of men is very instructive. Martin Harris informed Harding that:

  • the plates of the book were found in a hill,
  • an angel of the Lord was involved, and
  • the devil was working to thwart the project.

Tucker About the Book of Mormon

Pomeroy Tucker, on the other hand, told him something quite different. He wanted Harding to believe that Joseph Smith had a connection:

  • with the black art,
  • animal sacrifice, and
  • money digging. 4

Though in later years, Tucker admitted that these stories only qualified as rumors.

When Mr. Grandin was interviewed about the Book of Mormon just two years later than his meeting with Harding, he also seemed to be of the opinion that the golden plates were connected with money-digging lore.

John H. Gilbert, whose picture you see here on the screen, was also a workman in the Grandin print shop during the production of the Book of Mormon. He likewise held to the belief that Joseph Smith was a money digger who was involved in magic practices.

From this documentary evidence, it can be concluded that two different stories of origin were being promulgated in the Grandin building at the same time that the Book of Mormon was being issued from it.

Authentic Accounts Versus Public Speculation

The workmen of the Grandin print shop typeset and proofread the preface page of the Book of Mormon. And so they knew without any ambiguity what the authentic story of its origin was.

They were also aware from this document that there were “many false reports” circulating about the book.

Yet they chose to champion the rumors that were swirling around the region. Their repetition of idle reports, therefore, represents a deliberate revision of Joseph Smith’s own story.

On this next slide, I have highlighted the date, August 1829, so that you can see how the information that I just presented correlates with what I will talk about next.

It is at the very same time that Steven Harding was hearing an alternative storyline in Palmyra that some Latter-day Saints tried to set the record straight.

The report of story elements printed in the 11th of August 1829 issue of the Palmyra Freeman is not perfect, but it is very close to being correct in its elements. After filtering out a little of the biased opinion and incorrect notations, it says this:

“Joseph Smith of Manchester, New York, said he was visited three times by a messenger of the Almighty. Joseph was informed that a golden Bible 5 was deposited in a hill in Manchester. It was an ancient record of divine nature and origin. Joseph went to the place of deposit, dug into the earth a little ways, and found the golden Bible along with a huge pair of spectacles.

“Joseph was instructed not to let any person see the objects on penalty of death. The plates of gold measured 8 inches long and 6 inches wide and were 1/8 of an inch thick. The plates were engraved with hieroglyphics and the spectacles enabled Joseph to interpret the characters on the plates.”

The rest of the information that is on this slide shows a very interesting pattern. The first item tells us that rumors were flying through the countryside. Next, the Saints offer the authentic elements of the story to the public.

Then we find a blatant act of historical revisionism.

Abner Cole and the “Book of Pukei”

Abner Cole wanted to mock the Book of Mormon in his newspaper, The Reflector. He was most probably motivated to do this because he had violated copyright law (by the way, he was an ex-justice of the peace) by printing portions of the Book of Mormon in his paper, and the prophet forced him to stop his illegal activity.

Cole’s mockery text was called the Book of Pukei.

In this production, the editor took authentic elements of the story of the Book of Mormon’s origin and mixed them together with elements of speculation that had been floating around the community.

This is important to understand. He is using authentic elements in that Book of Pukei and he’s mixing them together with the rumors, and something’s going to happen.

Cole utilized the dialogue of one of the characters in his mockery text to call Joseph Smith an ignoramus, a criminal, and a servant of Satan.

It is in this text that Joseph Smith is connected with a man from the Great Sodus Bay called Walters the Magician, which is probably Luman Walter.

Cole claims in the Book of Pukei that the Book of Mormon really came into existence in the following manner.

Walters the Magician Narrative

  • Walters the magician was involved in witchcraft and money digging. Walters was summoned to Manchester, New York, by a group of wicked, idle, and slothful individuals, one of which was Joseph Smith.
  • Walters took the slothful individuals of Manchester out into the woods on nighttime money-digging excursions. They drew a magic circle, sacrificed a rooster, and dug into the ground on many occasions, but never actually found anything.
  • The slothful group of Manchesterites then decided that Walters was a fraud. Walters himself admitted that he was an impostor. And decided to skip town before the strong arm of the law caught up with him.

Remember that Cole is an ex-justice of the peace, and so he is talking through this document. “The strong arm of the law is going to catch up with you impostors.”

  • At this point, the mantle of Walters the Magician falls upon Joseph Smith and the rest of the Manchester rabble rallied around him.
  • And then we have the spirit of the money diggers — who is identified implicitly with Satan in the text — who appears to Joseph and reveals the golden Bible 5 idea to him.

This is what we’re hearing from Abner Cole in the Book of Pukei. If we look again at the chronological data on this slide, we can see a very informative pattern.

From Speculation to “Certainty”

A few months after Abner Cole published his book, he lamented that the published attempts to explain the origin of the Book of Mormon were thus far unsatisfactory and uncertain.

This means two very important things.

  1. Number one, Abner Cole was announcing that he rejected the authentic elements of the Book of Mormon story that had been made known in the Palmyra Freeman during the same time when the book was being published.
  2. Number two, Abner Cole was not claiming that the information put forward in his Book of Pukei was the final word in historical authenticity.

But that acknowledgement did not last long.

In the next item on the slide, we see that shortly thereafter, Cole reprinted the speculatory information on Walters the Magician, but this time he left out all of the authentic elements of the story that had been included in his previous work.

He proclaimed this time around that there was little doubt in the minds of some Palmyra residents that this version of events was the real deal.

Shortly thereafter, there was yet another transformation of the magic theory. In March of 1831, it was being proclaimed in the press that there was no doubt about Cole’s purported connection between Joseph Smith and Walters the Magician.

So, we can see that between June 1829 and March 1831, the progression among outsiders was from uncertain speculation to absolute certainty.

Eyewitnesses Contradict the Walters Narrative

There was only one thing wrong with the Walters the Magician scenario being advocated by Abner Cole. It was the exact opposite of historical reality as reported by eyewitnesses.

Eyewitness – Emer Harris

Emer Harris, the brother of Martin Harris, said that he had personal knowledge of the fact that some people in Palmyra had hired an astrologer to find the plates of the Book of Mormon.

Eyewitnesses from the Smith Family

Lucy Mack Smith recalled that a group of 10 or 12 men sent for a conjurer 6 to come and divine by magic art the place where the record was deposited.

This conjurer did in fact arrive in Palmyra and assembled with the group which had sent for him.

We know this because Father Smith, the prophet’s father, saw them himself meeting together to the east of his farm, and he overheard their plans to try and obtain the golden Bible for themselves.

The prophet’s sister Katherine remembered that when her father heard about the conjurer, an effort was made to go and warn Joseph Smith about this man and the plan that was being used against him.

Eyewitness – Joseph Knight Sr.

Joseph Knight Sr. verifies that “a great rodsman went to the Smith home in Manchester and attempted to locate the hiding place of the golden plates through the use of divining rods.” 7

Eyewitness – Brigham Young

And Brigham Young reported that this fortune teller was named Walters.

President Young related that this man angrily pointed out Joseph Smith among a crowd of people. And with considerable profanity identified Joseph as the one person who could obtain the treasure that was hidden in the hill.

But he acknowledged that he himself was not able to obtain it.

Walters the Magician was not the friend of Joseph Smith. He was his adversary.

The eyewitnesses never connect these two individuals in any type of complicity.

Critical Sources That Preserve the Original Story

Now that I have shown you that some of Joseph Smith’s critics were perfectly willing to intentionally alter his storyline, I would like to demonstrate that some of these critics have, in fact, preserved clear evidence that the prophet did not alter his storyline over time.

I have taken a careful look at the accounts of Mormonism’s detractors who claim that they heard Joseph Smith and his close associates tell the Book of Mormon story between 1827 and 1830.

Once a person understands the full Book of Mormon account that was being repeated by the early Saints, then it is not difficult to pick up the pieces of that pattern as they are scattered throughout the narratives of the critics.

Let me read to you just the pattern that is present in one single source for the year 1827. The source is Willard Chase.

The Willard Chase Account

These are the elements he says he heard from Joseph Smith Sr. and Joseph Smith Jr. in 1827.

Learning About the Plates

  • Joseph Smith Sr. said that some years prior to 1827, a spirit was sent and appeared to his son in a vision and informed him about the existence of a record on golden plates which were deposited inside of a stone box.
  • Joseph Jr. was identified as the person who must obtain the plates, and he was to do so on September 22nd.

Seeing the Plates

  • Joseph went to the place and raised up the stone box lid. There was a large pair of spectacles in with the plates.
  • Joseph removed the golden book. He was worried that someone might discover where he had gotten it. So, he laid down the plates in order to replace the top stone of the box.
  • The book vanished and reappeared inside the box.
  • Joseph attempted to get the book again, but he was struck several times.
  • A man, who was “the spirit of the prophet who wrote the book”, appeared and told Joseph that he had not been obedient.
  • Joseph was told to come to the same spot one year later and bring his older brother. By the end of the year, however, Joseph’s older brother died. Joseph went one year later and was directed by the spirit to return after another year. Joseph went to Harmony, Pennsylvania, and he eloped with Emma Hale.

September 1827

  • In the forepart of September 1827, Joseph Jr. told Willard Chase himself that he expected that he would soon take possession of the gold book, and he asked Chase to make him a chest with a lock on it, stating that he had been commanded to keep the book concealed from the eyes of all others but himself.
  • A few weeks later, Joseph told Chase that early in the morning of the 22nd of September 1827, he took the one-horse wagon of a house guest and together with his wife went to the hill that contained the book.
  • Joseph left his wife in the wagon, retrieved the book, hid it inside of a tree, and went home. He then traveled to Macedon, New York, to work.
  • After 10 days, a rumor arose that someone had gotten the book, and so Joseph’s wife went after him.
  • Joseph went to the place where he had hidden the plates, wrapped them in his frock, and headed toward his family’s home.
  • Joseph was attacked in the woods by two men. He knocked them down, arrived safely at his home, and secured his treasure.
  • Martin Harris gave Joseph Smith $50 to help him in the work of translating the book.

That’s Just One Source

This is just the information from one single 1827 critical source. I have 11 of them just for the year 1827.

And if you read the autobiography of Lucy Mack Smith, you will see that there are many matches with the information that she provides.

I wish I had adequate time to show you those, but we have got a lot more to deal with.

So, let’s move on.

Did the Book of Mormon Story Evolve?

Did the Book of Mormon story evolve? This chart here will help to demonstrate that Joseph Smith’s storyline did not evolve.

This chart here shows you that during this particular year of 1827, we have all of these reminiscences — eleven in all. What I did was I compared those particular reminiscences with JS-1832, and there’s 18 parallels.

And then I did the same exact thing with JS-1838, but there are 26 parallels at that point. So, that tells us that there is something going on as far as revision goes.

If you have a storyline, and it’s being revised over time, you would expect to see less parallels over that period of time – because it would be changing.

But we have just the opposite with this particular circumstance.

And so this is one indication that the storyline is not evolving because we have written information available to us and more matches to the verbal information is found.

Understanding the Limits of JS-1832

The final point that I would like to make in relation to the Book of Mormon storyline is that it is necessary for any person to obtain an accurate understanding of a document before they can draw legitimate conclusions from it.

The prophet’s 1832 history provides us with a prime example of the importance of this principle. This document is the earliest known cohesive account of the coming forth of the Nephite scripture produced by Joseph Smith.

Some critics may think that since it is the earliest document, then any story elements that are not found within it, but which turn up in later narrations, must represent an expansion or an evolution of the storyline.

But in this case, they would be dead wrong.

Using the Critics’ Claims Against Them

What I decided to do in this particular case was take the 1832 history and break it down into its elements. There’s approximately 90 of those elements.

The critics say that what Joseph Smith did was, he evolved his story over time. So what I wanted to do was see, first of all, how complete is that document.

I went and looked at all of the non-LDS sources that I could find to determine how many elements of the story were not in the 1832 document, but which were floating around the community.

I’ve got that paper up here, and it would take a very, very long time to read. It’s 24 pages long, but it ends up that the 1832 document is 50% incomplete.

That’s a lot of information.

And when you go through this particular paper that I’ve done, what I’ve done in addition is I’ve said, “Okay, what about those elements that are not included by Joseph Smith in the 1832 document? Are they included by him and other members of the Church in subsequent histories?”

And the answer is yes.

And so I’ve done an analysis to show that every single one of them that are not in 1832 are in histories by Latter-day Saints at later times.

JS-1832 is Not a Complete Narration

That tells us that those are integral parts of the story. But more than anything else, it tells us that the document itself, JS-1832, cannot be looked upon as being a complete narration of the story.

And so you have to consider that when you’re talking about the evolution of the storyline.

Of course, anti-Mormons want to say, “Well, we’re going to look at 1832, and anything that’s subsequent to it that we don’t see in 1832 must be a revision.”

And so, I want to point out to them that that is not the case.

In fact, we’ll be dealing with that with the First Vision. 8

Recommended Research on Moroni and Revision Claims

But before we do, I would like to point out that there’s two articles that I think are quite excellent that deal with the idea of Joseph Smith’s supposed revision with the Book of Mormon story.

And that is one by Larry Morris — that’s in the FARMS Review — and one by Mark Ashurst-McGee that’s in Mormon Historical Studies.

And what they do is deal with the Moroni story. I think that they are well worth looking into for anybody who’s interested.

Introducing the First Vision Discussion

So, let’s move on now to some information about the First Vision.

What you see on the screen, this is JS-1832. That is Joseph Smith’s first time (that we know of) that he has told the First Vision story in a formal manner.

And it is the only one where he has written it himself.

So what you’re seeing here on screen is Joseph Smith’s handwriting. And if you look at the very bottom there, it ends with the words of Christ talking to him during the First Vision.

JS-1832, as stated before, is only about 50% complete when it comes to the information that has to do with the Book of Mormon. Well, that has some implication for the First Vision material itself.

I have done a preliminary analysis.

In fact, I can just show you one slide here. There’s a preliminary analysis. I just scanned over some documents to find that there are indeed pieces of the First Vision story that are not included in JS-1832 that were known among the non-LDS community beforehand and which show up in JS-1838.

And so they are integral parts of the story.

But it tells us — just these three little items — they tell us that the information on the First Vision in JS-1832 is not complete. But we’re going to get into much more of that.

Let’s go here to this next slide.

Why Joseph Smith Wrote the First Vision Himself

I want you to see this pattern. The red text represents Joseph Smith’s own handwriting.

First of all, at the top we have the scribe Frederick G. Williams. He barely wrote down a paragraph worth of material before he was replaced by the prophet.

This is a very curious fact, especially because right after Joseph Smith finished with the First Vision material, Brother Williams took over again.

This pattern seems to be an indication that the prophet wanted to write down the First Vision story himself.

And so the next question becomes why?

A possible answer to this question presents itself when one considers what happened to Joseph Smith when he tried to share the First Vision story for the first time on an informal verbal basis.

We read in the 1838 history of the Church that when the prophet first started telling others about his theophany, he ran into an immediate snag, and it was a particularly perplexing one.

His story was not only treated with great contempt, but Joseph was told that the experience was all of the devil.

Biblical Frameworks in JS-1832

I believe that Joseph Smith was trying in his initial written account of the First Vision to find a way to counteract these very negative reactions.

And here’s my evidence.

This slide shows that the JS-1832 First Vision recital is built over a continuous framework of biblical passages — roughly 47 in all. They span the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

It appears that Joseph Smith was attempting to bolster the chances of his story being accepted by the world by couching it in language that would resonate in a positive manner with the masses.

Joseph Drew Specific Parallels to Help Listeners Understand

But look more closely at this slide. In the area where the actual theophany takes place, which is between the brackets, you will notice that Joseph Smith has incorporated three very relevant Bible stories into the telling of his tale.

Three stories that have to do with the appearance of heavenly beings.

  1. The first is the story of the angels who visited the shepherds amidst a heavenly light and announced the coming of the Christ.
  2. The second has to do with the appearance of the Savior to the apostle Paul when the light shone around him.
  3. And the third is about the apostle Stephen seeing both the Father and the Son.

Comparing Joseph Smith to Paul

But before we move on to the next slide, I will remind you what the prophet said about the rejection he experienced when he first announced his vision.

He said, “I felt like the apostle Paul because they wouldn’t believe my vision either.”

And so when Joseph Smith incorporates Acts 26 into his framework, the parallels are so exacting that when Paul speaks in his text in Acts 26, Joseph speaks in his text.

When Jesus addresses Paul in the Bible passage, Jesus addresses Joseph in JS-1832, and then it switches back again.

It is a very, very exacting set of parallels.

Psalm 31 and the Personal Nature of the Account

But this is what really caught my attention.

This is Psalm 31. On the left-hand side is the text of JS-1832.

It appears that Joseph Smith utilized a large-scale framework of Psalm 31. The parallels in here are very exacting.

I’ve also been able to see in this that there are some elements of Psalm 31 that he incorporated into JS-1838.

Psalm 31 as a Vehicle for Joseph to Tell His Story

Psalm 31 is a deeply personal psalm. If you read it, you can see that there is a lot of heartfelt dialogue going on.

That is something that people have noticed about JS-1832. Joseph Smith’s 1832 account of the First Vision is very personal.

But this next slide shows us that there’s much, much, much more to this particular document.

This is a document that’s created by Joseph Smith when he is 26 years old.

If you look at the top of the page, you will see a set of props and a set of themes. The dividing line that goes through that slide shows you the place where he stops and prays.

All of the parallels underneath are an exact match.

Joseph Smith has constructed this document very, very, very carefully. This is not a retelling of a story. This is a very complex document.

I don’t think I have seen it all yet. These are things I have seen in the last two weeks. I have seen a few more things since. I am coming to the conclusion that this document needs to be studied a lot more. A lot more.

The reason why it didn’t become published is very interesting to me. In fact, the whole nature of the document — I have a theory which I will work on. But this document is so extremely interesting because it’s so complex. Joseph Smith is trying to do something very deliberate, and I think that it calls for much further study.

Opposites and Contrasts in the Narrative

Here is another set of parallels. These are opposites.

In this particular set, we learn what happens to Joseph Smith before and after. I’ll just read off what it says.

  • The world’s in darkness, and then Joseph is surrounded by light.
  • Joseph’s mind was exceedingly distressed, but afterwards he’s filled with love.
  • Some people said there was no God, and Joseph saw Him.
  • When Joseph saw the Lord Himself, mankind was not coming to the Lord, but the Lord was with Joseph afterward.
  • Joseph felt grief before, but he felt joy after.
  • Joseph had belief before, but afterward he could find none who would believe.

As you can tell by now, this is an intricate text, and again, I would say that it calls for further study.

The Presence of God the Father in JS-1832

This brings us to the most frequent anti-Mormon criticism about JS-1832. That God the Father is obviously not mentioned as making an appearance to Joseph Smith in this First Vision account.

I would like to suggest, however, that all this time we as Latter-day Saints have not recognized that God the Father’s appearance is in fact referred to right in this document.

But all this time, we’ve been looking in the wrong place.

In the introductory remarks of JS-1832, Joseph Smith outlined precisely how he was about to proceed in the narration of his history.

The Testimony From on High

He mentioned that in the very first incident associated with his marvelous experience in the Restoration, he received “the testimony from on high”.

Because of the formatting of the introductory paragraph and the structure of the text which follows it, it can be concluded with a marked degree of certainty that this testimony was connected with the First Vision.

The question to ask then is what was “the testimony from on high”? Joseph Smith answers this question in another one of his recitals, which is November of 1835. There he states that one of the two personages who appeared to him testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

In JS-1838 (which is the First Vision narrative now published in the Pearl of Great Price) 9 we learn that one of the personages testified to Joseph Smith using the following words: “This is my beloved Son.”

We may comfortably conclude from this documentary evidence that the testimony from on high of JS-1832 is equivalent to the phrase spoken by God the Father in JS-1838.

Therefore, we may safely say that when Joseph Smith wrote the 1832 account of the First Vision, the appearance of God the Father was definitely in his mind because he obliquely refers to it.

It seems that he did not make an explicit mention of this part of the story simply because of what I have shown you before.

He had chosen to use the Apostle Paul’s experience as the main framework for that portion of his narrative – and Paul only saw Jesus Christ.

Responding to Revisionism Claims

I would now like to offer some brief insights on a few other anti-Mormon arguments that are commonly used against the First Vision, specifically those that are connected with accusations of revisionism. 1

The first anti-Mormon claim that I would like to draw your attention to is what I call a “real whopper”.

Revisionism Claim: Joseph Joined a Church After 1820

It says that Joseph Smith joined not just one church after God supposedly commanded him not to in 1820. (Thus demonstrating that his meeting with the Lord never really happened.) But he joined three different churches before he formally organized the LDS faith in 1830.

The basic problem with this particular argument is that there have been no authentic documents ever produced confirming that Joseph Smith actually became an acknowledged member of either the Baptist, the Methodist, or the Presbyterian denominations.

Every one of the claims of joining other faiths is made extremely late in the historical record.

But I have gathered together a few very early documents that say just the opposite. I’ll just read through a few of them briefly.

Here it is.

  • In November 1830, four LDS men from New York teach that at the time the angel appeared to Joseph Smith (September 1823). He made no pretensions to religion of any kind.
  • 1831 — this is February — the editor of the Palmyra newspaper claims that he had been credibly informed and is quite certain that the prophet never made any serious pretensions to religion until the Book of Mormon.
  • 1832, March. A couple of young Mormon men teach the citizens in the courthouse:

“Joseph Smith, who was then an inhabitant of the state of New York, town of Manchester, having repented of his sins, but not attached himself to any party of Christians owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse to prayer.”

(By the way, that particular document has First Vision elements in it before JS-1832 is created. And I don’t have time to deal with that, but I want to make you aware of it.)

Revisionism Through Memory and Retelling

That happens to be a really good example of somebody who has gone ahead and revised. They have taken elements of the First Vision story and elements of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon story.

In that particular article, they melded them together, and they admitted how it happened too.

They said that they were talking from memory and they weren’t quite sure.

And so when you’re dealing with the accusations of revisionism, you want to be very careful about understanding the documents that people are using to claim revisionism. 1

The ‘Angel’ Argument

Here is another one of the little irksome arguments that the prophet is having used against his First Vision story.

The argument goes that Joseph Smith initially said that his First Vision visitants were angels, and they use this particular document as the evidence.

Here you’ve got the diary, 14th of November 1835. It says,

“The time I received the first visitation of angels, which was when I was about 14 years old.”

And people say, “Well look, he’s saying that his visitation was of angels when he was 14 years old,” and they try to use that against Joseph Smith.

But only five days previous in his same diary — if people would just read the book — they would see that Joseph Smith is giving us a really interesting insight into his First Vision experience.

He says,

“When I was about 14 years old, I had a visitation of two personages and I saw many angels.”

So when Joseph Smith says on the 14th of November, “My first visitation of angels was when I was 14 years old,” he’s not kidding.

He saw many angels the first time in the Sacred Grove. Moroni is not the first angel that Joseph Smith sees.

Early References to the First Vision

The next argument that I would like to deal with briefly has to do with the idea that Joseph Smith was making up the First Vision story throughout the 1830s, and that’s why nobody hears about it in public either among members of the Church or among the general populace.

This particular slide argues pretty persuasively otherwise.

In fact, if you look at the far left-hand side of the slide, you’ll see that in approximately 1829, or somewhere before December of 1829, we have a possible statement by somebody whose name is Green.

And what he says is that Joseph Smith was preaching in Victor, New York, that he had been met by God. And in fact, the title that this person uses is “the Almighty.”

What he does is he is met by God and his experience is like what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus.

So there we have a connection with — this is a vision of theophany — but most important, look there at the bottom. It says that he was converted to true doctrine.

So this is an idea that’s floating around in 1829.

Now, I’ve got another instance that I am leaning heavily towards that has to do with 1829 and Joseph Smith talking about the First Vision, but I haven’t quite developed that enough to my satisfaction.

So, I’ll leave that out for now.

Edward Stevenson & Joseph Curtis

But you can see that all the way through that particular time period — this is all just 1830s — people who are anti-Mormons like to pick on Edward Stevenson.

They say, “Oh well, Edward Stevenson’s memory — oh, his reminiscence is so far gone in the very last part of the 19th century. So he’s probably just misremembering.”

I saw that in a book just published recently by somebody who has been to this conference.

But you have a second witness, and that is Joseph Curtis. He was there too.

But other than that, we have all these other people who are hearing the First Vision story being related. And these are people who are not members of the Church as well as members of the Church.

And I’ll be giving a little appeal for this information at the end of my talk. Let’s go to the next slide.

Oliver Cowdery and the “Missing” First Vision

This other claim is quite fascinating. It also has to do with a little bit of what we talked about before.

In the 1830s — we’re talking about 1834, 35, and 36 — Oliver Cowdery prints the history of the Church for the first time. That particular document has got a gaping hole in it. He does not talk about the First Vision. At least that’s what some anti-Mormons want you to believe.

But if you look at the document very carefully, you can see what Oliver Cowdery does.

He starts talking about the First Vision narrative. He starts talking about the revivals, and then something happens. This is what I want to point out with this slide.

The Redirection Theory

I’ll just summarize what’s on the slide.

Richard L. Anderson also noted this Theory

In fact, I have to mention this because Dr. Anderson told me not to. I had done an independent analysis myself, and I had come to the conclusion that Oliver Cowdery was using JS-1832 to create his history of the Church in 1834.

And I was so excited about this. I had written it up in detail. I went to Dr. Richard Anderson’s office and said, “Look at this. This is so interesting.”

“Oh yeah. I knew that back in 1969.”

And he actually did publish a few sentences on the idea that if you would look at the two, you would find a connection. But he didn’t write it up in detail.

And so I’m going to publish it in detail because I think it’s so important.

Oliver Cowdery had Source Documents

The point is that Oliver Cowdery did know the First Vision story because he says, “I was not only having the prophet as an assistant in creating my history, but I also had authentic documents at my disposal.”

In fact, he says, “They’re in my possession.”

And so the “authentic documents” that he is talking about is most probably JS-1832. When you see the parallels, they’re unmistakable.

So Oliver Cowdery knows about the First Vision. He does not include it in OCJS-1834. And I think that this is the reason why. I’ll call it the redirection theory.

What happens is he starts into the First Vision narrative. It’s very clear parallels to what Joseph Smith says later. And then he receives a letter from William W. Phelps.

William W. Phelps says, “I want to hear about the Book of Mormon story.” And he specifically mentions the year 1823.

And then lo and behold, in the next piece of the church history that’s printed, Oliver Cowdery says, “I got your letter. I don’t want to talk about the revival anymore. I’m going to change the date to 1823.”

And then he tells the Book of Mormon story. I think that that is something that should also be looked into.

Joseph Smith and the Revivals

The next thing that I would like to talk about is Joseph Smith and the revivals. This is a big thing with anti-Mormons.

I would like to point out — and several people have done this before — but I would like to go into a little bit more detail about the spatial terms in JS-1838.

Joseph Smith says the revival activity, as far as I interpret the document, is happening in three different zones.

And that is: the place where we lived, so the general vicinity of Palmyra; that region of country; and the whole district of country.

I interpret that as three different places, and I’ll show you why I think that way.

Revival Activity in Joseph Smith’s Region

Here on this next slide, we have a whole lot of confirmed revival activity going around Joseph Smith’s area in 1819 and 1820.

An awful lot of it.

In fact, if you look down there on the bottom right-hand corner of this slide, you’ll see that it says that there are several hundred people being converted in that particular region.

This is the Finger Lakes region. And I would say that you could safely compare that to Joseph’s “region of country.”

It’s nearby. This is not a lot of space.

I think that the farthest I decided to go on this was approximately 60 miles out. In fact, Rochester is approximately 24 miles. Out there at Marcellus, it’s getting around the 60-mile range.

I didn’t include Ithaca because it ran out on the bottom of the slide.

And I’m not done yet. I’ve got a whole bunch of other revivals that I have collected that I haven’t put on there because I have not yet looked at the documents myself and confirmed them in my own mind.

But safely, as preliminary information, this is revival activity going around the Smith cabin around this general time period.

Newspaper Reports and the Third Zone

There are some other things about revivals that I want to point out, and I think that this is something that’s connected with Joseph Smith’s narrative in JS-1838.

We know that Joseph Smith is reading the newspaper. He’s picking it up. In fact, I’m pretty sure he’s reading it, but he’s picking it up every single week. At least we’ve got a non-LDS eyewitness saying so.

This particular newspaper has a whole bunch of information in it during the year 1820 about revivals.

Look at where it starts. It starts in June on the left-hand side. So, we’re starting around the summertime.

But going to the end of the year, Joseph Smith’s newspaper is telling him about five straight months worth of revival information.

All three denominations mentioned by Joseph Smith in JS-1838 are being represented, and great multitudes are being converted.

This is occurring in the third zone.

So that slide that I showed you before had to do with zone number two. Zone number three has got a whole lot more conversion activity going on.

And so I would think that it would be a wise thing to consider that when Joseph Smith is talking in JS-1838 about all this revival and conversion activity, that some of it’s possibly coming from his newspaper.

It doesn’t necessarily say that he is an eyewitness to all of the activity that he is describing. And so that’s something that we should look into.

Lucy Mack Smith and Revival Activity

The last one that I’d like to talk about today has to do with another argument that is used a lot by anti-Mormons that has to do with revival activity.

Again, they try to use Lucy Mack Smith’s autobiography against him by saying,

“Look, Lucy Mack Smith says in her own autobiography that after Alvin Smith dies, there is a revival of religion in the area.”

I want you to see the comparisons on this chart very carefully. On the left-hand side, you’ll see that this is the crossed-out portion of the autobiography. But look at the match. What does that tell you about this revival activity? On the left-hand side, it says that there is a direct connection between the revival of religion in that neighborhood and Alvin Smith’s death.

And there’s a whole big block of text that is marked out in that document.

So, she says that:

We had all this grief in our hearts. We went to this revival so that we could have relief for our overcharged grief or our overcharged feelings. We could not be comforted.

We went there to this revival to be comforted.

The point I want to make is that there is a definite connection in this text. I think it should be explored. I think that we should consider what it is exactly that Lucy Mack Smith is saying because this other information should cause us to say, “Wait a minute.”

Lucy Mack Smith and Church Affiliation

And that is this. What anti-Mormons want you to think is that Lucy Mack Smith said that she joined a church during this so-called revival period. And I say, where does it say that? And when did it occur?

We know from historical documents — this is verified — there is a Palmyra revival going on in 1823 and 1824. But I want to point out to you when it occurs. In fact, if you want to get into this really good, go get what George Lane said about this revival activity in Palmyra. When does he say it really got going?

It’s not in the spring of 1824. It’s December. So Lucy Mack Smith is possibly talking about something that is separate by a large amount of time.

Next question you should ask yourself is here we’ve got Lucy Mack Smith talking about this group that gets together. Well, what is this group that’s getting together in her autobiography? What was the point of the group? It was that they wanted to bring all denominations together.

Well, who was in charge of this group? One guy. And he’s not identified, and his affiliation with a religion is not identified.

And here is the other thing that you have to consider, and that is that in Lucy Mack Smith’s autobiography, she says herself that she was a baptized person, but she did not formally join herself to any denomination until when? She says right in her autobiography it was when her son Alvin attained his 22nd year. And guess when that was? 11th of February 1820.

So here we have some clues to look at.

Questions About the Timing of Revival Activity

In fact, I’m working on some of this material right now.

If we take that literally — February of 1820 — and we’re talking about revivals. There’s a paper that’s floating around the community right now that has to do with revivals. They’re trying to push the date towards summer of 1820.

But you’ve got Lucy Mack Smith with an indication that she possibly joined the church of her choice in February of 1820. Another question arises from that. And that is, “well, when in the world is the revival activity occurring that Joseph Smith is talking about in JS-1838?”

A clue seems to come from William Smith. He talks about the fact that in that particular time period the revival activity was taking place in schoolhouses and private dwellings. And my first question was why? Why isn’t it out in the woods at the Methodist campground?

The possibility is that we are talking about cold weather revivals. In fact, in this paper that’s floating around right now, it is acknowledged that revivals are going on during the wintertime, during the cold months. In fact, I have two instances that I know of where there are verified revivals going on in Palmyra in wintertime.

So, it’s a definite possibility. I am starting to wonder when exactly is the revival activity that Joseph Smith is talking about in JS-1838, even though he went into the woods in the spring of 1820.

Dating the First Vision

And I’ve got to tell you this before I stop.  Because this is my goal marker boundaries:

  • I’m trying to stick with revival activity at the beginning of 1820 because of reasons from the text.

But my outside boundary is different than another paper that’s floating around. Because I’m talking about what Orson Pratt said.

  • Orson Pratt had access to Joseph Smith.
  • Orson Pratt was the first person to publish the First Vision story.
  • Orson Pratt said that the First Vision took place when Joseph Smith was 14 years and 4 months old. About that time.

That gives us a date of approximately 23rd of April 1820. So, we don’t know.

I do know that the revival activity described by Joseph Smith takes a period of time. We don’t know how much time he spent considering things. But we do know that before that midpoint. Mid-spring is 5th of May 1820.  Orson Pratt points us towards around 23rd of April.

So those are the goalposts. I hope that particular piece of information could be explored also further.

There’s a lot that we still don’t know about the First Vision. In fact, I have 65 computer files on my computer right now of material. I have just been looking at it in my spare time. And seeing that there’s a lot more to this story that could and should be explored.

Final Appeal and Invitation to Study

But before I stop, I would like to make an appeal and an announcement.

An Appeal

If there is anybody who ever sees anywhere:

  • in family histories,
  • in journals,
  • in diaries

that:

  1. talk about Joseph Smith reciting the First Vision
  2. especially if it’s during his lifetime

I would like to hear from you. Please contact me at my publisher. 10 I want to fill in the gaps.

An Announcement

I have created a 70-page timeline. It has to do with First Vision recitals from the beginning all the way up through canonization. 11 But it’s that particular early time period that I’m interested in.

There’s a man sitting right in front of me. He pointed out a tiny little piece of information that is brand new to me. He showed me that Joseph Smith is reciting the First Vision story. In Nauvoo during times that we don’t expect. And so I’m very interested in gathering more material. If you ever hear or see those things, let me know.

The final thing I’d like to say is that:

  • If you want to learn more about the First Vision, I would encourage you to read.
  • If you want to learn more about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I would encourage you to read.

On this website here, josephsmithstudies.com, I have provided bibliographies. (No commentary, because I’m sure you couldn’t care less what I think.) I have pointed out and connected a whole lot of material. They are

  • linked articles
  • that will take you straight to material that you can read. 12

An Invitation to Study

I would encourage you to continue to study the Restoration in detail. And I thank you for your time today.

Search topics

Joseph Smith First Vision; multiple First Vision accounts; JS-1832; JS-1838; Book of Mormon origins; Martin Harris; Lucy Mack Smith; Oliver Cowdery; Moroni appearances; Palmyra revival; revival activity in 1820; religious excitement in western New York; restoration narratives; eyewitness accounts.

Anti-Mormon revisionism claims; historical revisionism; documentary evidence; Orson Pratt First Vision; William Smith revival accounts; Acts 26 parallels; Psalm 31 in JS-1832; theophany; seer stones; interpreters; golden plates; translation of the Book of Mormon; Grandin print shop; Willard Chase; early Restoration history; historical memory; Palmyra newspapers; folk magic in early America.

CES Letter; Mormon Church history; Mormon Church criticism; Mormon apologetics; Mormonism and folk magic; Mormon money digging; LDS First Vision; Book of Mormon criticism; Mormon origins; Mormon historical controversy; Mormon restoration claims; Mormon scripture origins.

LDS Church history evidence; Joseph Smith criticism; anti-Mormon claims; Mormon truth claims; Mormon historical documents; Mormon eyewitnesses; LDS apologetics; Mormon religious experience.

Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi

Start Here

Question
Did Nephi intentionally model parts of First Nephi on Old Testament narratives?

Short Answer
In this 2001 FAIR Conference presentation, Ben McGuire argues that Nephi deliberately drew upon Old Testament literary patterns when writing his record. He suggests that the account of obtaining the brass plates (1 Nephi 3–4) contains intentional parallels to both the story of David and Goliath and the Exodus narrative, inviting readers to recognize these scriptural connections.
Key Takeaways
  • McGuire argues that Nephi consciously used Old Testament literary patterns rather than accidentally echoing biblical stories.
  • The account of Nephi and Laban contains a sequence of parallels to David and Goliath, including:
    • A powerful adversary feared by others.
    • A faithful hero willing to act.
    • Divine deliverance into the hero’s hands.
    • The enemy being slain with his own sword.
  • Nephi’s narrative also reflects Exodus themes, portraying Lehi’s family as a covenant people journeying toward a promised land.
  • These parallels suggest that Nephi expected readers familiar with scripture to recognize and interpret these connections.
  • McGuire proposes that Nephi’s use of biblical patterns reinforces both his prophetic authority and his legitimacy as a ruler.
  • While literary parallels do not by themselves prove historicity, McGuire argues they demonstrate sophisticated scriptural awareness and intentional composition within the Book of Mormon text.

Summary

Summary

Ben McGuire explores how Nephi’s account of obtaining the brass plates may have been deliberately modeled after the biblical story of David and Goliath. By comparing narrative structure, language, and recurring themes, he identifies numerous parallels between the two stories, including the introduction of a powerful adversary, expressions of fear by others, divine deliverance, and the hero’s use of the enemy’s own sword.

The presentation also broadens the discussion to include Exodus imagery throughout First Nephi. McGuire argues that Nephi understood his family’s journey as part of a larger scriptural pattern and intentionally incorporated Old Testament motifs into his writings. These literary connections, he suggests, help explain Nephi’s emphasis on prophetic legitimacy, covenant identity, and kingship, while offering readers a deeper appreciation for the Book of Mormon’s engagement with biblical traditions.

TL;DR

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Read)

Ben McGuire argues that Nephi intentionally patterned portions of First Nephi after Old Testament narratives, particularly David and Goliath and the Exodus. By comparing the account of obtaining the brass plates with biblical stories, McGuire identifies literary parallels that suggest Nephi expected readers to recognize and interpret these scriptural connections. The presentation explores how these patterns reinforce Nephi’s prophetic authority, kingship claims, and theological message.

Note About the Slides in this Presentation

Note on Visuals:

The original slides from Ben McGuire’s presentation were not available. The visuals included here were created with every effort to accurately reflect the speaker’s intent. However, any errors or oversimplifications are our own.

Download Ben McGuire's Paper

Download PDF

Introduction

Well, it’s a pleasure to be here. I’m actually a little bit nervous. There’s something different about talking in front of lots of people than there is about carefully crafting a response on the internet.

I actually started my foray into apologetics five or six years ago on the AOL discussion boards. 1

I don’t know how many of you participate in that. And I have done some stuff on the FAIR message boards. But not too much in the last year or so. I’ve been involved in a lot of other things which have taken a great deal of my time.

I kind of like to think of myself, not so much as going out finding lots of answers, but I do like to point out what I call “stupidity”. And sometimes people take offense. I’m not always wanting to jump into a discussion and pick a side. But when somebody comes up and says something that clearly is definitely wrong, I like to jump in.

Where This Topic Started

What I want to talk about today is some stuff that I’ve been working on for probably about two years now. And it came about in a funny kind of way. My dad and I were discussing some questions that he had about the death of Laban; in 1 Nephi, when Nephi kills him. Part of that was also because my mother is a big fan of Rene Girard. I don’t know how many of you have heard of him. He’s a philosopher who talks a lot about violence and social structures.

But my dad was asking me (about) when Nephi’s got Laban’s armor on. Nobody ever questions the fact that there probably should be a lot of blood because, you know, he’s just had his head chopped off. And then Nephi takes his armor off and puts it on.

So I got to thinking about it and I came up with just some unique ideas. And this has changed a lot. In my 50 minutes today I’m not going to have time to even get close to finishing all my notes in detail.

So for those of you who find this interesting, you know, I’ll put in a plug right now. You want to sign a sheet back there to receive your conference proceedings because the full paper will be in there.

Literary Forms in the Book of Mormon

Let me dig in. This is going to be something new for some of you. And if you do have questions, I don’t really have a problem with you getting up, even in the middle of my presentation, and asking them. A lot of times I’m going to make some leaps perhaps. So if you can’t follow it and you have some questions, just let me know.

This paper is about some of the literary forms of the Book of Mormon and about the Book of Mormon as literature. So I’m going to be talking about it in two perspectives. I don’t want you to take this to say that I don’t believe there isn’t a lot of historical detail and fact in the Book of Mormon. What I’m going to tell you is that these facts are being presented in a very specific way.

A number of years ago—well over the last, say, 20 years—we’ve got a number of new people writing about the literary aspects of the Book of Mormon. One of the big things that’s been a fun topic to read is this idea that we’re seeing all these very detailed parallels between the Exodus pattern in the Book of Mormon and the Exodus of ancient Israel out of Egypt.

As a base—and I’m not going to get too much into the works—I’m using as a foundation for this some of the writings of

  • S. Kent Brown,
  • George Tate,
  • Terry Szink, and
  • Noel Reynolds,

for those of you who read some of those. If you haven’t, look up some of their essays and stuff on the authorship of the Book of Mormon. They’re very fascinating.

The Exodus Pattern and Nephi

To begin with, Brown published an article entitled The Exodus Pattern of the Book of Mormon. In it he makes the following comment. He says:

“There is no fair statement indicating that the members of Lehi’s immediate family understood that their departure from Jerusalem was a reenactment of Israel’s flight for freedom. It is necessary, therefore, to sift through the evidence piece by piece.”

And a little bit later he continues and says:

“It was not Nephi or Jacob, members of Lehi’s immediate family, who made this connection explicitly, it was others who came 500 years later.”

I’m not sure whether he still stands by this viewpoint.

And I’m certain that he’s correct that the Exodus itself, that Lehi takes from Jerusalem, is not a conscious reenactment. However, I believe that his other assumption is incorrect.

My Goals for this Presentation

This first part of this paper is going to demonstrate that:

  1. Not only was Nephi aware of the parallels that existed between his exodus and that of Moses and the Israelites, but that
  2. He intentionally patterns his writings on the Old Testament text.

And this isn’t to say that he makes an explicit reference, because he doesn’t. But rather, that he expects us as his audience to draw these connections. Part of this is due to the fact of the revelation that he’s received about the nature of the Book of Mormon coming forth in the last days. And there can be no doubt that for us to see this connection was in his mind when he wrote it.

Tate similarly makes the determination that Nephi comes to realization on the Exodus pattern. He wrote this in his article, The Typology of the Exodus Pattern in the Book of Mormon:

“But at this point he cannot have known how apt the allusion really is. This is Nephi before he has the text in hand as a means of glossing his experience, before he realizes in what detail his own family will replicate the Exodus. As his awareness grows, he alludes with increasing frequency to the Exodus.”

And to that I respond that by focusing exclusively on these Exodus narratives in the Book of Mormon, Tate leaves behind a number of other indicators which demonstrate conclusively that there is not a growing awareness.

Extra-Exodus Parallels

In fact, Nephi begins his record by pulling heavily from the Old Testament as if he is assuming his work and the Old Testament will be read side by side. Because of this there are a number of earlier parallels in the Nephi material which Tate does not identify, particularly because they do not deal with the Exodus at all.

And once we see them for what they are in these passages, we see that Nephi was consistently relying on the brass plates.

The Brass Plates and Literary Dependence

I also want to make a quick mention of Szink’s work. He wrote To the Land of Promise, and it was really one of the first studies on the literary issues of the Book of Mormon that delved into language as an issue. Particularly, he talks about the use of the term murmuring and how the many times it is used in First and Second Nephi go back to the way that the Israelites murmured for Moses while traveling from Egypt to their promised land.

I’ve had to make a couple of the same assumptions that Szink makes when he does this. And clearly my paper here is not extensive enough—large enough in scope—to defend these assumptions. And I’ll mention this again in just a minute. But regardless, Szink adds to this growing evidence of text reliance.

One of the things, though, that he deals with is he speaks a lot of this verse in First Nephi 6:3–4. And he does it when he writes this. He says:

“The result does not represent a day-to-day or even a year-to-year account, but rather a highlight of main events with special emphasis on the things of God and a desire to persuade men to come to the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob and be saved.”

Kingship and the Message of the Book of Mormon

One of the things that I’m going to point out is that for Nephi, there is no distinction between this concept that Jesus is the Christ and this concept that Nephi is a king and than Lehi is a prophet. All these things are represented as the same truth.

And so following Noel Reynolds in his Political Nephi, Nehi’s text has a number of very political elements and secular elements that don’t reflect the ministry at all, but instead deal with these issues of kingship and the right rule. He ties these together in such a way that the gospel then becomes the same message.

In fact, Noel Reynolds wrote this. He said:

“The two messages of the book are tied in such a way that whoever accepts the teachings of Christ accepts that Nephi was a legitimate ruler, and vice versa. Nephi carefully constructed what he wrote to convince his own later generations the Lord had selected him over his older brothers to be Lehi’s successor. Thus one interesting way to read the account is as a political tract produced to show that his rule was authoritative. What we tend to read as a story of flight from Jerusalem is really a carefully designed account showing to the successors why the religious faith of Christ and their political tradition—the kingship of Nephi—are both truly legitimate.”

And I think that some of the ideas I’m going to share may validate Brother Reynolds’ approach.

An Assumption About the King James Bible

Now before I jump into the text here in the Book of Mormon, I wanted to explore that one assumption that I mentioned is beyond the scope of this paper to defend.

Although I think that as this growing body of literature develops over the literary nature of the Book of Mormon, it’s going to have to be dealt with, and it will be invaluable to us when it does.

And that is just this: we all recognize that the language of the King James Version of the Bible is used extensively throughout the Book of Mormon.

The assumption that I make is that when the Book of Mormon uses similar phrases to the King James language of the Bible, that these passages are based on a language which is similar or identical in their original texts.

Now I admit that this assumption is pivotal to my work, but more than that it’s also very difficult if not impossible to prove conclusively simply because we don’t have the original text of the Book of Mormon to deal with.

The Four Elements of Scripture

I’m going to put some of the scripture references here. If you can’t read them, I’m sorry. I’m going to give you the references so that way you can look them up. The first one’s in 1 Nephi 5:11 through 1 Nephi 6:6.

And actually, we’re just going to read 5:11 to 5:14.

This deals with Nephi’s concept of history in terms of scriptural writings, and he tells us this. And you’re going to see as we continue that he’s very consistent in this viewpoint.

They get the brass plates back and Lehi goes through and reads them. And Lehi comes back and he tells his family what he found in them, and he covers four distinct areas.

The first, he says—and we’re going to start reading here in verse 11:

“And he beheld that it contained the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents; and also a record of the Jews from the beginning even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah; and also the prophecies of the holy prophets from the beginning even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah.

And it came to pass that my father Lehi also found upon the plates of brass a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph; yea, that Joseph who was the son of Jacob, who was sold into Egypt and who was preserved by the hand of the Lord, that he might preserve his father Jacob and all his household from perishing with famine.”

The Four Elements Explained

So now we’re going to notice that there are really four main elements that he discusses here.

  1. The first one is a creation account.
  2. The second one is a record of the people, which is a history—and more particularly a history of kings and the reign of people.
  3. The third part is a record of the prophecies, or as Nephi calls them in his own work, ‘the ministries’.
  4. And then fourth, we have a genealogy.

Nephi’s Own Record

Now it’s validated, this viewpoint, where Nephi discusses his own writings, which he clearly understands are going to be read as scripture.

All four of these parts are not included in the small plates of Nephi. And Nephi states specifically that he’s going to choose to include some of these components and not others.

Now let’s go ahead and move on. This is 1 Nephi 6:1.

And Nephi says this:

“And now I, Nephi, do not give the genealogy of my fathers in this part of my record; neither at any time shall I give it after upon these plates which I am writing, for it is given in the record which has been kept by my father; wherefore, I do not write it in this work.”

The Small Plates and the Large Plates

The Purpose of the Small Plates

The next one here is in 1 Nephi 9:2–4 and 10:1, and on this I’ll skip to the relevant verses there.

2 And now, as I have spoken concerning these plates, behold they are not the plates upon which I make a full account of the history of my people; for the plates upon which I make a full account of my people I have given the name of Nephi; wherefore, they are called the plates of Nephi, after mine own name; and these plates also are called the plates of Nephi.

3 Nevertheless, I have received a commandment of the Lord that I should make these plates, for the special purpose that there should be an account engraven of the ministry of my people.

4 Upon the other plates should be engraven an account of the reign of the kings, and the wars and contentions of my people; wherefore these plates are for the more part of the ministry; and the other plates are for the more part of the reign of the kings and the wars and contentions of my people.

1 And now I, Nephi, proceed to give an account upon these plates of my proceedings, and my reign and ministry; wherefore, to proceed with mine account, I must speak somewhat of the things of my father, and also of my brethren.

And then again in 1 Nephi 19:1–5:

1 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded me, wherefore I did make plates of ore that I might engraven upon them the record of my people. And upon the plates which I made I did engraven the record of my father, and also our journeyings in the wilderness, and the prophecies of my father; and also many of mine own prophecies have I engraven upon them.

2 And I knew not at the time when I made them that I should be commanded of the Lord to make these plates; wherefore, the record of my father, and the genealogy of his fathers, and the more part of all our proceedings in the wilderness are engraven upon those first plates of which I have spoken; wherefore, the things which transpired before I made these plates are, of a truth, more particularly made mention upon the first plates.

3 And after I had made these plates by way of commandment, I, Nephi, received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, the more plain and precious parts of them, should be written upon these plates; and that the things which were written should be kept for the instruction of my people, who should possess the land, and also for other wise purposes, which purposes are known unto the Lord.

The Purpose of the Large Plates

And then:

4 Wherefore, I, Nephi, did make a record upon the other plates, which gives an account, or which gives a greater account of the wars and contentions and destructions of my people.

Then finally in 2 Nephi 5:33 he goes over that again:

33 And if my people desire to know the more particular part of the history of my people they must search mine other plates.

Now if you take a look at this, with the exception of the first item in my list of four things—which is the creation account—the other three items are discussed a number of times relative to whether to include or exclude them in this record.

The Four Categories Revisited

The creation is a little different. It is referred to a number of times, and we are told that this narrative was included in the brass plates, that it was also recorded in the writings of the Jaredites and the twenty-four gold plates found by the people of King Limhi.

Nephi does not include it specifically, nor does any other writer in the Book of Mormon, but it is mentioned numerous times.

The second item, the history, Nephi tells us is recorded for the most part on his larger plates, but some parts are included in the small plates—specifically items that deal with the reign of Nephi, when he says that he wants to include things about his reign.

And I’m going to be getting into this quite a bit more in a few minutes because it has special relevance to the major passage that I’m presenting.

The third item listed is the ministry and revelations of the prophets, and this takes special consideration as the primary purpose of the small plates. This was by direct commandment and revelation.

And then finally, the fourth item: genealogy. He tells us consistently that he’s not going to include it because it’s already contained in the other scriptural records that are available to him.

Nephi’s Writings Alongside the Old Testament

I believe that clearly this is, in the case of the large plates, the objective: to make them “like unto the engravings which are on the plates of brass”. He’s kind of following the same pattern.

And here what I think you find is that on the small plates particularly, the historical pieces of information that he provides us to some extent deal with his reign and his ministry. And this is very significant.

I think it’s also true that Nephi, after his vision that he has very early in his life, sees his writings as being read alongside the writings which make up the Old Testament.

Nephi receives specific revelations to that effect, in 1 Nephi 13:41, where Nephi is told:

41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.

And then a little later he says of John the Revelator:

21 Behold, he shall see and write the remainder of these things; yea, and also many things which have been.

Then, he also refers to the Old Testament that we have as being similar to the arrangement of the brass plates. As you recall, he also says “except that there are not so many”.

I think this idea—that the Book of Mormon writings that Nephi is preparing would stand alongside scripture—certainly affected their contents.

Nephi and the Old Testament

Now the historical narratives within the books of First and Second Nephi, I believe, contain elements which deal with these two themes that he discusses: his reign and his ministry, as I pointed out.

My objective is to show that the narratives presented by Nephi are often rooted in the stories of the Old Testament as found in the brass plates.

  1. We can identify specific parallels of the biblical texts.
  2. We have to use our traditional Bible to an extent because we don’t have a copy of the brass plates.
  3. We can then see that Nephi borrowed extensively, which would only be natural – but only from texts within his possession.

Introducing “Nephi and Goliath”

By now you’re probably wondering why I titled this paper Nephi and Goliath.

And my objective here is to show that Nephi, in writing this literary unit—that is, the story of his encounter with Laban and killing Laban—was actually patterned in very detailed fashion on the story of David killing Goliath in the Old Testament.

I’m going to start by using the story in the Book of Mormon as a primary source material, along with the King James Version. And I want to show that:

  • the form of the story,
  • the language,
  • the events that occur, and
  • the fact that these parallels occur in chronological order—

I’m going to build a case that there’s a great deal of literary reliance between the two texts.

Introducing the Parallel: Nephi and Goliath

And then when I get done, I want to point out some interesting details in relation to the text that Nephi used. Assuming that he’s using the brass plates, how it’s different from the traditional text that we have, and how this reflects back on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Now, my paper here—I’ve actually got the entire stories printed out. So you’ll have to come and look at it. We’re not going to have time to read through it all, but I’m going to provide a summary of two stories.

Nephi Arranging the Narrative How He Wants Us to See It

Nephi and his brothers, of course, are sent back to Jerusalem to get these brass plates. The first couple of attempts fail. That’s very interesting. You know, sometimes we look at this and we get this perception the way that Nephi wants us to see it.

For all we know, the first time back they might have gone and taken Laban out to the bar and sat down, given him a few earrings and then asked, you know, for brass plates: “Hey, can you help us out here?”

So really we are going to get very much a first-person perspective—or a third-person perspective—depending on which part of the story we’re dealing with.

But after the first couple of attempts fail, including trying to trade all their wealth for the brass plates, we get to the point where Laman and Lemuel are basically beating their brothers into submission.

And then the angel shows up and tells them that God’s going to take care of it all. Then after the angel disappears, Laman and Lemuel begin their normal murmuring cycle. And Nephi says, “Well, let’s go do it.”

So Nephi heads back on his own, and he finds, of course, Laban laying there on the ground, passed out. (Nephi) chops off his head, takes his armor, and goes and retrieves the brass plates using Laban’s identity.

The Story of David and Goliath

We’re all probably also familiar with the story of David and Goliath, which is a pretty lengthy thing. We have this Goliath of Gath that gets up every morning and they’re in the middle of this war. He comes out to the field of battle and says, “If you send somebody out to fight me one-on-one, let’s decide this battle and we’ll be all set. Whoever wins, they’ll win the war.”

Of course everybody’s terrified of Goliath, who is a giant of a man, clearly very well trained in military arts.

“All of Israel” they say, “is afraid.” David shows up and says, “I’ll go and face down the Philistine.” He ends up going out there and killing him.

Now what we’re going to do is I’m going to be putting up here on the overhead projection a series of scriptural passages I’m going to talk about, and these are going to be my sequence of parallels. So we’ll quickly flip to the next one.

Parallel #1: The Mighty Man

The first parallel I want to talk about is the very beginning. I want to say that Nephi’s use of this Old Testament storyline begins in 1 Samuel 17.

In verses 4–11 (1 Samuel 17) talks really about the military might of Goliath. And I’m going to read it. I’m going to be skipping verses 8, 9 and 10.

“And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. And he had a helmet of brass upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass. And he had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a target of brass between his shoulders.

And the staff of his spear was like a weaver’s beam; and his spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and one bearing a shield went before him.”

“When Saul and all Israel heard the words of the Philistine, they were dismayed, and greatly afraid.”

Then I’m putting that against 1 Nephi 3:31, the last verse of chapter 3:

“And after the angel had departed, Laman began to murmur, saying: How is it possible that the Lord will deliver Laban into our hands? Behold, he is a mighty man, and he can command fifty; yea, even he can slay fifty; then why not us?”

For lack of a better term, I’m going to use Nephi’s term here throughout the rest of this storyline. I call this the introduction of the mighty man.

In the Old Testament story, it’s Goliath. In 1 Nephi, it’s Laban.

Of course, we have the second set of cast members. In the Old Testament, we have Saul and all Israel. In the Book of Mormon, we have Laman and Lemuel.

And I think there’s a distinct parallel Nephi will continue to reinforce later on. We have this concept of faithless Israel, and we see it on both sides.

We have, on one hand, the Israelites who are ready to run at the drop of a hat. And here’s Laman and Lemuel, who don’t really want to be there in the first place, who are convinced that they’re all going to end up dead if they continue to pursue this course of action.

It’s also worthy of note that both of these mighty men are described in terms of military might and prowess:

  • Laban in terms of how many men he commands in the field;
  • Goliath in terms of his equipment. And it’s been pointed out often that this detailed description of his armor and weaponry really just serves to show that he was an experienced warrior.

Parallel #2: The Hero Appears

Let’s go ahead and continue now and we’re going to move to 1 Samuel 17:32 and 1 Nephi 4:1.

And David said to Saul:

“Let no man’s heart fail because of him; thy servant will go and fight with this Philistine.”

And then Nephi says:

“And it came to pass that I spake unto my brethren, saying: Let us go up again unto Jerusalem, and let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord; for behold he is mightier than all the earth, then why not mightier than Laban and his fifty, yea, or even than his tens of thousands?”

Now, this is the introduction of the hero.

David, of course, is the hero in the Old Testament text, while Nephi fills that role in his own account. And in his first appearance, the hero goes to faithless Israel and encourages them in their task, saying that there’s nothing to fear. The hero is willing to challenge the mighty man.

Parallel #3: Miracles as the Basis of Faith

Now let’s go ahead. Both heroes then cite, as the basis for their faith in their course of action, two miracles.

David cites two instances from his own life. Nephi cites one from the history of Israel and one from his own life.

Both of these miracles are significant from the hero’s point of view.

In both cases, the hero concludes by remarking that just as God performed these two miracles, God will then deliver them from the hands of the mighty man.

Miracles Revealed in the Narrative

So we read now from the Old Testament.

34 And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father’s sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock:

35 And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him.

36 Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God.

37 David said moreover, The Lord that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said unto David, Go, and the Lord be with thee.

And this is what Nephi says to his brothers. He says:

2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.

3 Now behold ye know that this is true; and ye also know that an angel hath spoken unto you; wherefore can ye doubt? Let us go up; the Lord is able to deliver us, even as our fathers, and to destroy Laban, even as the Egyptians.

Now, David’s two miracles were being saved from two animals bent on killing him. Likewise he claims God would treat Goliath as merely one of these animals.

The two miracles for Nephi are:

  1. first, the destruction of the Egyptians when Moses parts the Red Sea; and
  2. second, the visitation of an angel. An angel, among other things, mentions that they will overcome Laban.

We’ll come back to the angel in a little bit, as he plays a larger role in explaining why Nephi includes this particular episode.

Exodus Imagery

The part you see is also significant as it serves to show God destroying the enemies of Israel while they’re leaving for their promised land. It’s coming back to the same Exodus topic that Nephi continues to use over and over again, particularly the further we go into the text.

And the other thing that we see is that the brothers have just mentioned Laban and his tens of thousands.

This is being subtly compared to by Nephi as the armies of the Egyptians. So now Laban becomes representative not necessarily only of the Philistines, but also this concept of the Egyptians and their armies chasing after Israel in the wilderness.

The idea that Laban is an obstacle that stands between Israel and their promised land—between Nephi and Lehi and their promised land—is quite clear. And just as in the Exodus, Nephi is claiming that God will fight the battles.

Parallel #4: God Delivers the Mighty Man

Now next we have remarks where the hero comes according to the will of God and that God delivers into the hero’s hands the mighty man.

So let’s move ahead. (I think this is the previous one. So let’s jump one more.)

Now I’m going to read through the First Samuel account, then we’ll jump into the First Nephi one. This is 1 Samuel 17:45–47.

45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.

46 This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.

47 And all this assembly shall know that the Lord saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hands.

And then in 1 Nephi—this is from chapter 4, verses 6–12 and 17:

6 And I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do.

7 Nevertheless I went forth, and as I came near unto the house of Laban I beheld a man, and he had fallen to the earth before me, for he was drunken with wine.

8 And when I came to him I found that it was Laban.

9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

Now, I find this especially significant.

Delivering the ‘Mighty’ Into the Hands of the Hero

This type of language is not uncommon in the Old Testament. It’s used rather regularly, actually. However, this is the only place in the Book of Mormon where this concept occurs.

Whenever we use this idea of deliverance in the Book of Mormon, it’s always that you’re being delivered from evil, or delivered from the grave, or from the hands of your enemy.

Here, in both stories, we have God delivering the mighty man into the hands of the hero.

It is possible, of course, that the phrasing in First Nephi is based somewhat in Exodus 21:13, especially given the context.

Exodus 21:13 deals with accidental death—the laws regarding revenge in dealing with accidental death, as you recall. It actually says:

“And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hands; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.”

There is some appropriateness to this context here.

However, I believe that just as Szink pointed out phraseology and other parts of the Book of Mormon show this literary dependence on the Old Testament, that here it has a stronger argument and textual basis, especially given this list of parallel similarities.

Parallel #5: The Mighty Man Defies God

Lastly, in that last section—which we won’t have up, and I probably can’t go back to, but that’s okay—

You’ll notice that in both cases we have this concept that the mighty man has defied the will of God.

We have, in the one case, Goliath, who is standing in defiance of the armies of the God of Israel. And in First Nephi’s account, there in verse 11, it says that Laban “would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord.”

So we also have this recognition that the mighty man is not a man of righteousness. There’s some deserving – this is divine retribution for his activities in his life.

Okay, we’re going to continue on to the last step here.

Parallel #6: The Hero Kills the Mighty Man with His Own Sword

First Samuel 17:51:

“Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith.”

And in 1 Nephi 4:18:

“Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.”

These parallels in those two verses have been widely recognized. And a really neat additional comment is that the hero kills the mighty man with his own sword. He decapitates him in both cases.

Why Does Nephi Include This Story?

Now, the next direction I want to take this is this question of why Nephi includes this in the Book of Mormon. It seems kind of an odd scene.

This deals largely with Nephi’s authority as ruler and king of the Nephite peoples. And as was pointed out earlier—and any other groups that they’re with—clearly there’s something to be said for putting yourself in the role of King David as the preeminent king of all Israel, going through the same steps.

First, he’s chosen by a heavenly messenger in much the same way. You know, who cares about your brothers? You’re the chosen guy.

And then he’s following through in some of these similar actions.

The Question of Kingship

And I especially wanted to point out that, as recorded in 2 Nephi 5 (2 Nephi 5:1-5, 34), this whole issue of who has the right to rule is critical to Nephi at this point in time.

In verse 34 there he says:

“And it sufficeth me to say that forty years had passed away, and we had already had wars and contentions with our brethren.”

Over this right of rulership.

The third point I want to make here is that, following the second aspect of this inclusion, we realize that the story, rather than dealing with the ministry, deals with this reign and kingship.

I wanted to add this point: the stories of David and Solomon and other early Israelite leaders were well known to the Lehite peoples as part of the brass plates.

And I think this is significant. They often use examples. I mean, there’s that famous thing in Jacob where they’re dealing with the whole polygamy issue, where they justify it based on the activities of Solomon and David.

They are aware of the lives of these men, and so we can assume they have some familiarity.

Early and Late Sources in David and Goliath

Now let’s jump to something really fascinating here.

If we take a look at some of the higher criticism of the story of David and Goliath in the Old Testament, I believe it’s fair to say there is a scholarly consensus that there are, in fact, two different source materials: an early source and a later source.

The composite early source consists of:

  • 1 Samuel 16:14–23
  • 1 Samuel 17:1–11
  • 1 Samuel 17:32–40
  • 1 Samuel 17:42–48a
  • 1 Samuel 17:49
  • 1 Samuel 17:51–54

With the later source containing all the rest of the material.

This identification actually was not very difficult for scholars because the Septuagint actually omits most of that material, representing the former tradition.

If we go back to my list of sources that I use for the parallels, what you’re going to notice is that Nephi quotes chapter 17:4–11, which is the first part there.

He then jumps immediately to a parallel in 17:32, and then 17:34–37, and so on and so forth. And what you’ll notice is that every one of the references that he parallels is from that early source material. In fact, he doesn’t seem to recognize that any of the later source material exists, which is highly fascinating.

Structural Similarities Between the Texts

I put this here because I wanted to put something into perspective. And that is this. On the left side is the David and Goliath story of the Old Testament once the later source material is removed.

And you’ll notice that the stuff in the Book of Mormon is very similar in structure, both in length and item following item. He actually seems to be following this story in a very detailed fashion, as if he’s got one open in front of him while he’s writing the other.

And following that, going back to what I told you about Brother Brown, when he said that he sees this increasing frequency of parallels in the Exodus material, I believe it’s because Nephi is borrowing from other sources.

It gets into the Exodus as they really get into their journey. Before that, he doesn’t. I have a lot more material here that deals with some of the earlier stuff, and so I’m going to cover just one or two points. And then for the rest of it you’ll have to go out and buy the proceedings of this conference.

The Caiaphas Parallel

Going back to this, it does a couple of interesting things though.

One of the things I want to point out is this: there’s a long-standing anachronism claim in the Book of Mormon where we have this quote, apparently by Nephi when he’s getting ready to kill Laban:

“It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.”

We’re all familiar with that.

And then that same passage is more or less quoted verbatim by Caiaphas regarding Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

If Nephi is borrowing here from an Old Testament tradition of David and Goliath, it stands to reason that there is the possibility that, in fact, Caiaphas is also borrowing from a tradition of David and Goliath in an environment in which a quote like this stands to make absolute sense.

How many people expected David to go out there and kill Goliath?

There was only one, as I recall, and that was David himself.

And so, in a sense, Israel is sending out one man to perish that the nation would not.

It’s an interesting tie-in.

Additional Implications of Textual Reliance

Second—and this is something else that’s interesting here, and I’m just going to make an aside. Here we have another evidence that the brass plates were slightly different.

Moses speaks, of course, to the Red Sea, he parts it. In the Old Testament, he doesn’t speak at all; he just waves his arms and the water goes through.

The point is that if we can assume textual reliance here, we can probably assume it elsewhere.

Lehi and the Call of Moses

So, we go back to the beginning of Lehi’s calling. I call this literary section “the call of Moses and the trip to Sinai” at the very beginning of First Nephi chapters 1 and 2.

It’s kind of funny. There’s this footnote in First Nephi dealing with a pillar of fire that comes before Lehi on a rock. Do you remember that? This pillar shows up on a rock. We have this little footnote at the bottom. It was added some years ago in our scriptures. It points us back to the pillar of fire that led the Israelites out of Egypt.

Well, the truth is that, according to my understanding, Lehi is in fact going through the same process that Moses went through when he became a prophet.

Remember, this goes back to recognizing Nephi and Lehi as legitimate prophets. He’s following the steps of Moses. And so this pillar of fire is actually the burning bush.

Numbers 12 and Prophetic Legitimacy

Now what’s interesting about this is that Nephi seems to be basing this part of the text on a passage in Numbers 12:6.

At one moment we have Moses, whose wife has passed, and he goes out and marries a new wife. It’s this Ethiopian woman, and his family—his brother and sister—immediately get all upset and offended at what he’s done.

And they come out and they say, “Well, clearly he’s not a prophet anymore. We’re all prophets, too. We can lead the people.”

And the Lord calls all three of them out from the tribes of Israel and chooses out Miriam and Aaron and says to them this. This is Numbers 12:6:

“Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.”

The Relevance of Lehi’s Vision

Of course, in First Nephi we have this passage, right?

Lehi goes home after seeing a pillar of fire on a rock. It says:

“And it came to pass that as he prayed unto the Lord, there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him; and he saw and heard much; and because of the things which he saw and heard he did quake and tremble exceedingly.”

He goes home and throws himself on his bed. And it says:

“And thus being overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.”

Then I’m going to jump forward to 1 Nephi 2:1:

“For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream, and said unto him: Blessed art thou, Lehi, because of the things which thou hast done; and because thou hast been faithful and declared unto this people the things which I commanded thee, behold, they seek to take away thy life.”

Nephi here is following some very distinct Old Testament patterns to prove the legitimacy of his father’s prophetic calling.

The Three-Day Journey into the Wilderness

The last thing I want to mention just briefly is this—and this is kind of funny because this has come up a couple of times in this conference—and that is this three-day trip that they take into the wilderness.

It’s interesting. Eugene England—the quote that I had here—says this:

The route and times were quite specific, even somewhat mysteriously so: (and he quotes:) “He came down by the borders which are nearer the Red Sea and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers.” and then “when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water …”.

This literal interpretation of three days has long been accepted and understood in LDS circles as being a helpful tidbit in determining the geography of Lehi’s trek to the coast of the sea, where they then sail to the New World.

Instead of viewing this as a literal approach, what I like to look at is this three-day trip in Exodus 3:18 where, after Moses has been called as a prophet, his first command is to go back to Egypt, to the Israelites, and then to tell Pharaoh:

“The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God.”

Now, this is mentioned over and over again in the next several chapters in the Old Testament.

Egypt to Marah

This three-day journey actually occurred. It was a trip between Egypt and Marah, which is interesting—the fact that they have this body of water there, by which the place is named because the water was bitter. So they called the place bitterness.

And there were a number of other issues there.

Among them was the fact that when Pharaoh says, “Why do you have to go so far?” Moses responds, “Well, if we stay here and offer burnt offerings—which are an abomination to you Egyptians—you’ll kill us all because we’re inside your cultic holiness area.”

The same could be true of Lehi and Nephi.

For them to go out and offer burnt offerings and renew this new covenant they’re making with the Lord in downtown Jerusalem would certainly cause some significant difficulties for them.

Other Types Nephi Draws On

I’m going to close since I’ve pretty much expended my time.

The truth is I haven’t had enough time to take these ideas to a logical conclusion. And I think we can find dozens of additional details and parallels. It could be that these things all fall into that nebulous category of “typing” the Book of Mormon.

I think, however, that when Nephi tells us that he likens all scriptures unto himself, he actually is doing that. Not only with the scriptures he’s reading, but the scriptures he’s writing.

And we can find these parallels. We have several very distinct Noah parallels as he builds his boat.

There’s even more with the story of Joseph going into Egypt. We have the binding in the wilderness, the slaying of beasts. We have this whole concept of Nephi as an interpreter of dreams, which is very interesting.

He starts with his father’s dream. It’s just bits and pieces. “Whoops, we’re all done with this. Now, let’s talk about this.” And the first thing that happens: his brothers come up and say to him, “What’s the meaning of this?” And he explains it to them.

Concluding Reflections

I think perhaps that it may be difficult to reconstruct various textual reliance between the brass plates and the Book of Mormon. Because we don’t really have the brass plates to compare.

But the Book of Mormon can give us additional insight into the scriptures they carried with them. We can see that not only do they have more in some areas and less in others. But it can also give us a better understanding of the Bible. And where it’s at in terms of how it’s been preserved in that picture.

I’d like to close just by stating that this apologetics work that I’ve been involved in through FAIR has been a great source of joy and personal satisfaction. In dealing with the gospel in new ways and learning new ideas and ways of looking at things.

And I think that this is the type of stuff that we as Saints need to be doing. Building our own personal testimonies of the gospel and answering these questions for ourselves.

And I’ll close in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Question and Answer Session

We do have time for maybe one or two questions. If you want to ask me, then we’ll take our break.

Question: What About Blood on Laban’s Armor?

Question

Earlier you alluded to the fact that, yeah, there’d be blood all over Laban’s armor and so forth. But you never did explain that.

Answer

My personal ideas about that are quite a bit off the beaten track.

Based on the fact that he’s writing the story to prove a point. That means that he probably got some of the details out of chronological order as they actually occurred historically.

And that maybe it’s much more likely that

  1. Nephi finds Laban laying there, passed out drunk in the middle of the road,
  2. takes off his armor,
  3. gets ready to go back to the brass plates
  4. and that’s when the Spirit says, “No, wait a minute—you better go back and finish the job here.”

So I believe that that’s not really an issue. It only becomes an issue because these parts of the stories are right next to each other when in fact it’s not necessarily a chronological series.

That’s my own personal feeling. I’ll stop there.

Question: If Nephi Is Alluding to David and Goliath, Why Does He Do It This Way?

Question

If Nephi is alluding to the story of David and Goliath, why [indistinguishable]?

Answer

Well, it’s a good question.

I think that for starters, Nephi says that they’ve got the brass plates. The only time he ever really directly uses them is when he quotes all this Isaiah material.

And that’s another oddity. You would think that he and his descendants would have the brass plates right there. He wouldn’t need to put it all down.

I think there’s two reasons why he doesn’t directly allude to it.

Nephi’s Audience is Not 100% Israelites

One of them goes back to one of the other papers that was presented at this conference. Nephi’s audience is not 100% Israelites at the time that he’s writing.

  • There’s been some cultural merging.
  • There’s a larger group of people that they’re dealing with.
  • There’s no way that just Nephi and his family could split into two groups. Large enough to have had a number of wars and contentions over this rulership issue.

So I think rather than:

  • going back and
  • having to retell the story to everybody and
  • then saying, “And just like David and Goliath.”

He’s putting his story out in a way that shows that there’s some stuff going on here.

Some of the group is going to immediately recognize these parallels, and some isn’t. It just depends on who you’re talking to.

The Brass Plates as a Type for the Spoils of Egypt

Another interesting thing that I didn’t bring up, that I think might also go along with this. Is this whole concept of the brass plates being worth more than all of their wealth.

Going back to the Exodus. It’s quite possible that Nephi saw his taking the brass plates as the spoiling of Egypt.

When they leave Egypt they take all this wealth with them. Though he’s leaving Jerusalem, he’s taking something that’s worth far more than anything he had. But he doesn’t see it as stealing. He’s taking the stuff that the Lord wants him to take.

Thank you.

FAQ / Common Questions

What is the main argument of this presentation?

Ben McGuire argues that Nephi intentionally incorporated Old Testament literary patterns into his record, especially parallels to David and Goliath and the Exodus.

Why does McGuire compare Nephi and Laban to David and Goliath?

He identifies a sequence of narrative similarities, including a powerful enemy, a faithful hero, divine deliverance, and the use of the enemy’s own sword.

Does the presentation claim Nephi copied the Bible?

No. McGuire argues that Nephi consciously drew upon scriptural traditions preserved on the brass plates and expected readers to recognize those connections.

How does the Exodus relate to First Nephi?

McGuire suggests that Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem and journey into the wilderness mirrors Israel’s Exodus from Egypt and that Nephi intentionally emphasizes these parallels.

Why is the brass plates narrative important?

According to McGuire, it serves multiple purposes: preserving sacred records, establishing Nephi’s legitimacy as a leader, and connecting his story to familiar scriptural patterns.

Search topics

Nephi and Goliath; Ben McGuire FAIR Conference 2001; First Nephi literary analysis; David and Goliath parallels; Nephi and Laban comparison; brass plates narrative; Old Testament in the Book of Mormon; Exodus typology in First Nephi; Lehi exodus from Jerusalem; literary patterns in scripture; Book of Mormon narrative structure; Nephi as king and prophet; brass plates traditions; biblical typology; scriptural allusions in the Book of Mormon; Nephi's authorship; prophetic legitimacy in First Nephi; kingship in the Book of Mormon; Davidic themes in Nephite writings; Lehi prophetic call; Book of Mormon literary studies; covenant themes in First Nephi; Moses and Nephi parallels; scriptural interpretation; Book of Mormon and Old Testament connections

CES Letter; Book of Mormon criticism; Book of Mormon historicity; Mormon apologetics; LDS apologetics; Mormon scripture origins; Book of Mormon evidence; Mormon truth claims; Mormon Church criticism; Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon; Book of Mormon authorship; Book of Mormon literary complexity; criticism of Nephi and Laban; Mormon historical claims; LDS faith questions; evidence for the Book of Mormon; Mormon intellectual tradition; Book of Mormon scholarship; anti-Mormon claims; Restoration truth claims

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3

Primary Sidebar

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

Subscribe to Blog

Enter your email address:

Subscribe to Podcast

Podcast icon
Subscribe to podcast in iTunes
Subscribe to podcast elsewhere
Listen with FAIR app
Android app on Google Play Download on the App Store

Pages

  • Blog Guidelines

FAIR Latest

  • Eternal Marriage Is an Eternal Journey 
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Samuel 11–12; 1 Kings 3; 6–9; 11 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Samuel 11–12; 1 Kings 3; 6–9; 11 – Jennifer Roach Lees
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Samuel 11–12; 1 Kings 3; 6–9; 11 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson
  • No One Walks Alone 

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

  • Jack Quain on Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Samuel 11–12; 1 Kings 3; 6–9; 11 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson
  • Trevor Holyoak on Tithing—Putting God First 
  • Marisol on Tithing—Putting God First 
  • Kaylyn Dastrup on Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 1 Samuel 8–10; 13; 15–16 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson
  • Guerry Green on Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Exodus 7–13 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson

Archives

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • iTunes
  • YouTube
Android app on Google Play Download on the App Store

Footer

FairMormon Logo

FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Donate to FAIR

We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.

Donate Now

Site Footer