© 2025 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
Let me again use the comments to provide an update. After this article was published, Kyle Jepson published in Dialogue an excellent article entitled “‘A Remarkable Vision of Her Father’: The Many Uses of Of in the Book of Alma.” The article was published in Volume 57 (1), the Spring 2024 issue of Dialogue. It analyzes the grammatical use of the word “of” in the Lamoni story and, based on considerable usage evidence, concludes that it was Abish, not her father, who had the vision alluded to. Brother Jepson also, independently, came to the same conclusion we did–that the vision Abish had was of her Father, not her father. We provide more arguments for the Father reading than Brother Jepson provided, but his arguments are aligned with ours. Our convergence along different paths of argument at the same conclusion is evidence for the validity of that conclusion.
After an article is published, one loses the ability to revise it if one has an insight that seems relevant and valuable. Fortunately, the comments section is available.
In the text, we wrote:
“Each divine figure, the Son and the Mother, is first represented by a spiritually powerful servant who initiates the salvation of others. That service having been performed, each is then represented by a royal figure, a person who manifests the Mother and Son’s high status and sovereign power. This sequence — servant then sovereign — marks the path all must follow as they strive to be more like their Savior and Heavenly Parents.”
For the Son, that sequence is Ammon/Lamoni. For the Mother, that sequence is Abish/Queen. Here is the key point we did not include in the paper.
Though in worldly terms, Lamoni the King and his wife the Queen are more powerful and important, in this Book of Mormon narrative, the servant is the more powerful being. The greater power of the servant is explicitly stated in the case of Ammon. Lamoni says, “I would guard thee with my armies; but I know thou art more powerful than all they.” The greater power of Abish is reflected in the facts that only she remains conscious when all others have fallen and in the fact that she raises the Queen from apparent death instead of the Queen raising her.
When he washed the feet of his disciples, Christ taught the truth that greatness is most aptly measured by service, not by status in a hierarchy. He who most serves is greatest of all, not he who most clearly rules. In this story, the royal status of Lamoni and his wife are important signifiers. But the more salient signifiers of the essence of divinity are Ammon and Abish, those who serve and save.
As we noted in the text, God makes a similar point when he undermines the Lamanite ideology that might made right by sending emaciated Aaron, an apparently weak man wounded in his hands and feet by the marks of his bonds, to preach the gospel of Christ to Lamoni’s father rather than powerful Amon who had bested the king in terms of earthly power.
Hi Newell. It is the same in Portuguese. However, I don’t believe I am wrong when I say that modern translations of the Book of Mormon are not “inspired.” These translations are the work of translation committees trying to render the text into another language based on their understanding of the underlying English text, which at times may not be completely accurate. The Portuguese translation of the Book of Mormon today is very different than the version that I used when I served a mission in Brazil in 1976. And I suspect that the translation that will be available in 20 years will differ from today’s translation. This does not mean that inspiration is not involved in these translations. Rather, it means that as we gain new insights and understanding of the Book of Mormon text in English foreign language translations will inevitably be modified.
The current (2015) Portuguese version of 1 Nephi 1:1 states that Nephi was highly “favorecido” (favored) by the Lord, agreeing with the English text. 1 Nephi 3:6 in the current translation also follows the English text. But, this verse in the the 1995 revision had “abençoado” (blessed) rather than “favorecido” (favored). In 2012 I sent an email to the translation department highlighting this disparity. I have no idea if my email prompted the shift, but I am glad that the church has revised the 1995 edition to agree with the English text. I suspect that in 2035 there will be another edition in Portuguese with even more revisions, because there are still issues in the 2015 Portuguese translation. All of this is just to show that foreign language translations of the Book of Mormon cannot be used an an authoritative interpretive guideline. In the case of Mosiah 10 I believe that the Portuguese and French translation committees merely attempted to smooth the text by changing everything to the 2nd person singular without even considering the possibility that the shift to 2nd person plural could have been intentional.
Hi Loren. I have noticed the same inconsistent usage in the Book of Mormon, but credited it more to a formal/informal usage pattern of the second person pronouns than to singular/plural. This struck me as I read the Book of Mormon in French, my mission language. The translators made the Book of Mormon more consistent in the formal/informal usage in French. I just checked the French translation, and they keep the informal pronoun “tu” rather than the formal “vous” throughout the passage you cite. So at least in French, thanks to modern translators, the power rests with Nephi2 alone, not with Nephi2 and the angels.
Thanks Loren. Great additional insight that is consistent with and supportive of our argument about the Sod and the mission of the Gods to incorporate us into it. Your insight is further evidence, if it is needed, that the Book of Mormon rewards close reading.
Val and Newell, Thanks for the article. Great imagery: “As Simeon had prophesied, that which pierces him ‘shall pierce through thy own soul also’ (Luke 2:35). In both surrogate (Mary) and symbol (Tree), the Mother of the Son of God after the manner of the spirit is also present with her Son while he suffers for the sins of all her other children. And the symbols suggest that, like Mary, the divine Mother is pierced as her Son is pierced. When the nails pierce his body, they also pierce the cross, the Tree, symbol of the body of the divine Mother. She deeply feels his pain.”
Also, something that might strengthen your hypothesis that Nephi2 was part of the heavenly sod. In Helaman 10, which you cite, God speaks just to Nephi. Each time he addresses him with the 2nd person, singular pronoun, thou/thee. These pronouns and verb conjugation are used 16 times consecutively while addressing Nephi. Then comes the pivot point: “I declare it unto thee in the presence of mine angels, that ye shall have power over this people.” (Helaman 10:6) Once God mentions “the presence of mine angels” the pronouns shift from singular to plural (ye/you), eleven consecutive times, without returning to the singular, except once: “And if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou cast down and become smooth, it shall be done.” (verse 9) While I am aware that the usage of thou/thee and you/ye are not consistent in the Book of Mormon, these usages are. This could help indicate that Nephi, in cooperation with the angels, exercised this sealing power as part of the heavenly council.