“I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon”

[Shulem]

13 Now here is wisdom, and the mind of the Lord — let the house be built, not after the manner of the world, for I give not unto you that ye shall live after the manner of the world;
14 Therefore, let it be built after the manner which I shall show unto three of you, whom ye shall appoint and ordain unto this power.
15 And the size thereof shall be fifty and five feet in width, and let it be sixty-five feet in length, in the inner court thereof.

So, just as Nephi’s temple was constructed “after the manner” of Solomon's temple, so also was Smith's Kirtland temple constructed after the manner of the Lord's prescribed size of 55x65 ft.

1. We have no difficulty showing that Smith claimed Nephi’s temple was built of stone, the same as Solomon's temple.

2. We have no difficulty showing that Smith claimed Nephi’s temple was built at the same dimensions as Solomon's temple.

Folks, that is a one-two knockout punch!!

[Shulem]

The Church attempts to depict Nephi’s era as if it was a great civilization whereby a stone temple like Solomon’s was par for the course. The Church website is using art to embellish Nephi’s temple in order to make Smith’s story seem like a reality. Look at the artwork below depicting Nephi teaching, presumably in the temple that was constructed like Solomon’s temple -- and look at those stone columns! There is no way that Nephi cut hewn blocks to raise columns and lintels of that magnitude. It’s impossible. And, that must be Nephi and Sam seated behind their younger brother as he preaches over a pulpit that must weigh at least 2,500 lbs.


"Jacob warns the people of their wickedness"

[Shulem]

Dr. Sidney B. Sperry, former Professor of Old Testament Languages and Literature at Brigham Young University, taught that Nephi constructed his temple after the plan of Solomon’s Temple and that Nephi built it by the book, the brass plates.

The Book of Mormon makes clear that the Nephites, another branch of Hebrew people, knew the uses of temples and built a number of them upon this continent. Apparently the first temple was that constructed by Nephi after he and his followers had separated themselves from their unrighteous brethren. It was built after the plan of Solomon’s Temple, the details of which could be learned from the brass plates. Here are Nephi’s words:

“And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceeding fine.” (2 Ne. 5:16.)

These things were taught at BYU and printed in the official Church magazine to instruct Latter-day Saints in general.

1. Nephi’s temple was built after the plan of Solomon’s Temple
2. Details of temple construction could be learned from the brass plates

[Shulem]

Joseph Smith’s use or terminology of “Temple of Solomon” and “Solomon’s temple” in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism. It doesn’t belong in the Book of Mormon or in the 600 BC era. Smith did not realize that the First Jerusalem Temple was not named after a man but after the LORD. A real Nephi would never have called the Jerusalem temple (the only one he ever knew) after a man’s name because it was the LORD’S house, NOT Solomon’s who lived hundreds of years before his time. The designation of “Solomon’s temple” came much later after it was destroyed by the Babylonians and rebuilt and in order to differentiate between temples the first was called Solomon’s.

If the Book of Mormon were authentic it would read as follows:

And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of JERUSALEM save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto the LORD’S house. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of JERUSALEM; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

For a full treatment of this anachronism, refer to:

“Temple of Solomon”: Two Problems for a Hebraic Book of Mormon

[huckelberry]

In the manner of could be meaning purpose and function. It could have been much smaller made of wood and adobe.

But that’s not what the record claims and Smith made no allusion to such things. The after the manner is clearly a pattern in showing what kind of “construction” they undertook in duplicating the temple of Jerusalem – it’s shell, size, height, and fortitude. Smith knew well enough to leave the precious materials out of the story for obvious reasons.

Brick or mud are inferior material for the LORD’S house which is built of stone. Nephi constructed it after the manner of Solomon's house -- “construction was like unto the temple of Solomon.” Thus, it was constructed of stone just like Solomon’s temple.

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

Moments earlier, Nephi gave the pattern by which one may clearly discern what he means when he says, “after the manner of”:

“And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords”

But the swords made in the manner of Laban's sword , turn out to be wood clubs with flint blades. Fallowing the pattern of this sort of construction "in the manner of" the temple means constructed of wood poles and thatch.

Shulem, you seem not to have included the LDS view (well some LDS) that what you read in Nephi is the reconstructed edition of Nephi made by Mormon and Moroni who lived a thousand years later and were a bit unclear on the building details.

I actually thought your suggestion of there being a city of previous Israelite immigrants to help the project and help Nephi survive could be helpful for peoples efforts to believe the book as history. You suggested that mention of those ancient details got edited out by the misadventure of the 116 pages. That dovetails nicely with everything that Mormon left out to help explain the incongruities between the book and known reality.

(I already mentioned that the effort to make the book believable is curious but has left matters beyond my ability to believe)

[Shulem]

But the swords made in the manner of Laban's sword , turn out to be wood clubs with flint blades.

Who said anything about wood clubs and flint blades? That’s not part of the record and it doesn’t apply to Nephi’s description nor is it descriptive of metal swords so frequently mentioned throughout the many Book of Mormon stories that mention swords. We are assured that Nephi’s swords were crafted and forged, just like Laban’s sword was forged in a blacksmith’s fire -- thus, Nephi crafted many swords and forged them by using metallurgy skills he possessed because Nephi did teach his people to work in all manner of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance. Forging swords in the hot fires of a blacksmith using “bellows” is a Nephite trademark since the time of building his ship in the Old World.

Fallowing the pattern of this sort of construction "in the manner of" the temple means constructed of wood poles and thatch

Where do you read that in the Book of Mormon? Nephi never said anything about wood poles and thatch with regards to building the LORD’S House. The scriptures are quite clear that the LORD requires only the finest materials available in which to build his house. Poles and thatch are not scriptural, but stone is.

Shulem, you seem not to have included the LDS view (well some LDS) that what you read in Nephi is the reconstructed edition of Nephi made by Mormon and Moroni who lived a thousand years later and were a bit unclear on the building details.

Admittedly, Mormons today have a hard time sorting these things out because they realize that claims made in the Book of Mormon are impossible to justify or prove. But Mormons back in Smith’s day were quite confident of the claims and took them literally. So, it depends on whether you’re in today’s Mormon church or yesterday’s Mormon church and then there is tomorrow’s Mormon church and nobody can be sure what that Church will teach.

I actually thought your suggestion of there being a city of previous Israelite immigrants to help the project and help Nephi survive could be helpful for peoples efforts to believe the book as history. You suggested that mention of those ancient details got edited out by the misadventure of the 116 pages. That dovetails nicely with everything that Mormon left out to help explain the incongruities between the book and known reality. (I already mentioned that the effort to make the book believable is curious but has left matters beyond my ability

Faithful Mormons are left with the burden of justifying many outrageous claims made in the book if they want to continue to believe in those claims or they can just give the book a blank check for testimony sake. If they believe the Church is true no matter what, then they can say the same for the Book of Mormon no matter how outrageous some things may be. Take for example the Facsimile No. 3, in the Book of Abraham which claims there is a King’s name written in the hieroglyphic writing, but everyone knows, both member and nonmember, there is no king’s name written in that writing.

[Shulem]

Here is an artist’s rendition on the Church website depicting Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon with a stone placed in a hat. Smith actually didn’t use the alleged gold plates to translate but buried his head in a stovepipe white hat and dictated the story of the Book of Mormon to Oliver Cowdery.




It should be understood that Smith spoke for every character (author) in the Book of Mormon even though they spoke in the first person. The buck stops with Joseph Smith because he is the author of the entire Book of Mormon and his word as translator is final. He dictated the stories while his head was buried in a hat and Cowdery wrote down exactly what he said, word for word, phrase by phrase, and sentence by sentence -- everything came out of Smith’s mind as Cowdery wrote it down. Forget the gold plates! Forget ancient authors! It was Smith doing the thinking and it was Smith doing the talking. The bottom line is, Smith did all the interpreting and explained everything exactly how he wanted it explained. He spoke directly for all of the following characters in his book:

I, Nephi (1 Nephi 1:1)
I, Jacob (Jacob 7:3)
I, Enos (Enos 1:1)
I, Jarom (Jarom 1:1)
I, Omni (Omni 1:1)
I, Amaron (Omni 1:4)
I, Chemish (Omni 1:4)
I, Abinadom (Omni 1:10)
I, Amaleki (Omni 1:23)
I, Alma (Alma 5:5)
I, Helaman (Alma 57:36)
I, Mormon (The Book of Mormon 1:1)
I, Moroni (Moroni 7:7)

Smith ultimately did the speaking for Nephi and Mormon and every other character in *his* book. The bottom line is that every character in the Book of Mormon spoke through the interpretation of Joseph Smith whose word was final. Or, in other words, it was Smith that told the entire story of the Book of Mormon exactly how he wanted it told.

According to the book’s narrative, Nephi and his family were the only people involved with the construction of the temple. There was nobody else on hand to assist with this monumental task of biblical proportion. Here is the chronological sequence according to Nephi (THROUGH JOSEPH SMITH):

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon

17 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did cause my people to be industrious, and to labor with their hands.

18 And it came to pass that they would that I should be their king. But I, Nephi, was desirous that they should have no king

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing.

26 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests

28 And thirty years had passed away from the time we left Jerusalem.

29 And I, Nephi, had kept the records upon my plates, which I had made, of my people thus far.

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

1 For behold, it came to pass that fifty and five years had passed away from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem; wherefore, Nephi gave me, Jacob, a commandment concerning the small plates, upon which these things are engraven.

2 . . . . history of this people which are called the people of Nephi.

9 Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon die; wherefore, he anointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the kings.

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

The storybook narrative lends no credence to a theory of temple builders in the land of Nephi other than those of Nephi and his family. The families of Lehi and Ishmael came across the ocean on a ship built by Nephi and then split into two parties – becoming Lamanites & Nephites. There wasn’t anyone else other than the people of Nephi to build the temple of Nephi. It’s impossible that a small community of people could raise a stone building as sophisticated as the LORD’S house in Jerusalem. At a much later date, the Nephites left the land of Nephi and discovered the people of Zarahemla and realized a civilization and population capable of raising stone.

[Shulem]

And now for the biggest question of all in questioning the legitimacy of Nephi’s temple in Joseph Smith’s book. You’ll notice that the story simply said the temple was built and that’s the end of it. No information regarding construction or anything pertaining to the magnificence that such a project would have on a civilized work force in preparing the site and to assemble all that is needed to erect a structure of biblical proportion. Nothing is said. No details. No updates. No stories. No fanfare for when the building was complete -- no dedication thereof -- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

People, I submit to you that the temple of Nephi as recorded in the Book of Mormon is nothing more than fiction, something Smith recorded into his book with little or next to nothing to say because, frankly, Smith knew nothing about what it took to construct and assemble such a massive building, so he said nothing about it. What could he say? He was unable to explain or tell about things he couldn’t understand or fathom. But the fact that there is nothing about the dedication of the temple and the assembly of those who rose up to bless the works of their hands through their contributions thereof is quite telling.

It never happened. It’s a mere footnote in the Book of Mormon when it should have been a crowing event with details on how it was perceived by the people and the Lord.

[Shulem]

I can understand Smith’s apprehension in discussing anything to have to do with the physical construction of the magnificent first temple built by King David’s son, Solomon. How does someone in the 19th century even begin to discuss these affairs unless they are very learned about the historical origins and have studied the available source materials that provide detailed information about the building of the first temple? Clearly, Joseph Smith was way out of his league! He knew next to nothing about the first temple built a thousand years before Christ. Probably all he did know was what he recalled reading about in the Bible and there is certainly quite a bit of important details therein.

But mark it, and note it well, Joseph Smith didn’t touch temple construction with a ten foot pole and only made a mere reference to the temple construction and then quickly hightailed away from the subject lest he found himself talking about things he knew little of.

It’s really quite telling that Smith didn’t indicate the year the temple was complete. The Book of Mormon keeps meticulous chronological records so it’s like a red flag that the temple gets no chronological mention and there is no mention of the dedication or the use of those who spent time in the temple after its completion. It just disappears from the scene.

It’s obvious to me that Smith was not comfortable telling the story and got off that subject instantly and moved on to far less important things such as endless wars and contentions and things that do not uplift or inspire.

[Shulem]

I think it’s perfectly fair to say that as Smith dictated his story to Cowdery he sensed a little uneasiness about including the bit about building the LORD’S temple so early in his story when the Nephites were just getting started. I think Smith was somewhat uncomfortable about including this into the narrative knowing full well that he hadn’t the means or ability to explain how it was done. But it must have seemed like a good thing to get the temple in his story and what better than to imitate the one back home, in Jerusalem? So it got a very quick mention with nothing to support the reality of demonstrating how a small rag-tag family grouping could possibly pull off such a monumental task of biblical proportion. It’s simply not possible that a small group in survival mode could built a massive stone temple after the manner of the one in Jerusalem. It’s impossible and utterly untrue. This of course means, the Book of Mormon is not true. The whole thing is a story blown out of proportion and stuff made up by Smith as he dictated with his head in a hat.

I know the Book of Mormon is not true. I know it with every fiber of my being, absolutely. It’s just a collection of stories that Smith made up for whatever reasons he had in mind. Saying these things and expressing this gives me a sense of peace and wellbeing. I feel very good about it.