When Amulek Speaks Again

[Limnor]

Since I did the work on this, I decided to give it its own thread.

When I read David Whitmer’s Address alongside Alma’s narrative, I hear the voice of the Amulek figure looking back over a long, painful lesson. In Alma 10–11, Amulek admits he “was called many times” and refused to listen until an angel finally stopped him in his tracks and sent him to feed Alma. From that point on, Amulek’s job is to stand next to Alma and say awkward things out loud: to tell Zeezrom, “O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me?” when power and money dress themselves up in religious language.

In an allegorical framework, Alma represents Oliver and Amulek represents Whitmer—the two-man team whose partnership supports the emerging story. Zeezrom and other dissenters, of course, represent Joseph and Rigdon, specifically over this theological tension.

When expanded, it looks like the Book of Mormon deliberately sets up that struggle between two models: the priestcraft of Nehor and others and the seeds of Joseph/Rigdon’s hierarchical priesthood (among other things) in 3 Nephi, and Oliver/Whitmer’s anti-priestcraft, anti–clergy model in Alma. Those aren’t just theological tensions—they mirror the real-life split between those men.

A reconstruction of Oliver Cowdery’s letters to David Whitmer reflect the Alma–Amulek relationship in the Book of Mormon: a receptive outsider (Cowdery/Alma) joins a dissenting movement after rejecting a corrupt system, and his work depends on a local householder-witness (Whitmer/Amulek) whose home and loyalty legitimize the new record. Cowdery cites Whitmer as the protector of the translation, just as Alma depends on Amulek for support.

Whitmer plays a similar role in his old age. He still insists that the Book of Mormon came from God, but he uses Joseph’s own stone-revelation—“Some revelations are of God; some … of man; some … of the devil”—to argue that the later priesthood system and polygamy belong in the man/devil column, not the God column. Christ, for Whitmer, is the last great high priest “after the order of Melchisedec,” and the Book of Mormon and New Testament are the fixed covenant; everything that contradicts that covenant is, in Alma’s terms, the work of the adversary rather than the Spirit.

So Whitmer’s Address to All Believers in Christ reads like Amulek’s testimony after the fact: a witness who once trusted the wrong authority structures, then turned back to the earlier Christ-centered message and started warning others that not every “revelation” or “priesthood office” that comes in the name of God actually passes the Alma–Amulek test.

Whitmer never says outright “this book is about our lives,” but everything he does say points toward that conclusion without him ever naming it.

[huckelberry]

Limnor, perhaps Whitmer never says the book is about our lives because he doesn't consciously realize it. I find myself thinking familiarity of stories (for reasons you are exploring) makes the book as a whole more believable and compelling. Whitmer felt attached perhaps without realizing why.

I imagine that the world around Joseph, particularly closer personal relationships, would be rich food for the creation of the collection of stories in the Book of Mormon. The fact the book reflects current real people, their ideas and conflicts gives the book volume, complexity and a sense of real persons. It has characters readers relate to. Folks can ask how did Joseph with no BA or advanced degree create such a book. Limnors answer is that he observes the people around him.

Limnor, I find myself sometimes uncertain about your intention using the word allegory. I realize there is some spread in meaning or use of the term. It can refer to applying new created meanings to a text such as scripture (someone mentioned reading proper age for baptism out of the number of people saved with Noah, an allegorical reading). I do not think you are thinking of that sort of allegory. I usually hear the word where an author uses figures he expects the audience to recognize as stand ins for ideas or groups in order to communicate ideas, perhaps political messages. I do not think you mean that. Messages in the Book of Mormon are literal, with few exceptions.

Limnor, you indicate that at least some instances in the Book of Mormon you think Joseph expected some people to recognize themselves in the book in order to influence them or exert authority over them. That falls into a meaning of allegory I recognize. In typing this I realize that the intended controlling message could work on individuals even if they do not recognize the meaningful similarities as intentional. Individuals may feel like characters in the Book without realizing that in a sense they really are. This sort of connection has an allegorical quality though it is a bit off the edge of what the word first means in my mind.

[Limnor]

What I mean by allegory is this: the Book of Mormon captures the private sins, faults, and compromises of each person within Joseph’s circle and encodes them into the book. Once their individual sins are encoded as scripture, the story becomes a shared confessional.

To expose the book’s non-ancient origins would mean exposing themselves. The story does not merely depict their lives—it holds their secrets. And that entanglement is what kept them from ever fully revealing the book’s true source.