Book of Mormon Word Usage: Glance

At first it seems that a word that occurs only three times in the Book of Mormon is not worth a second glance, but sometimes a word rarely used shows very specific usage. The term glance is one of these.

In Joseph Smith’s day, a glance was “a sudden shoot of light or splendor” or “a shoot or darting of sight; a rapid or momentary view of cast; a snatch of sight; as, a sudden glance; a glance of the eye.” (Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1844), s.v. glance.) That provides a basic meaning in the translation but does not address the particular Book of Mormon usage.

Jacob uses the term twice in quick succession of each other:

I must . . . tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations . . . under the glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God (Jacob 2:10).

O that he [God] would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust!

Alma too uses the term in similar fashion:

then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye (Mosiah 27:31). 

One of the things that is interesting about this passage is that just days before Alma had been one living without God in the world, and had found out from personal experience that the mere presence of an angel “could shake the earth and cause it to tremble” (Mosiah 27:18) and caused him to become “weak, even that he could not move his hands; therefore he was taken by those that were with him, and carried helpless” (Mosiah 27:19).

So in the Book of Mormon, it is never merely a glance, but a glance of the eye of God. That glance pierces and smites, causes things to quake and tremble and shrink.

Thoughts on the Book of Mormon

From Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon (1989), 85

An imitation nursery rhyme may be almost as good as an original, but a knowingly faked mathematical equation would be the abomination of desolation. Curves and equations derive all their value not from the hard work they represent or the neatness with which they are presented on paper, but from one fact alone – the fact that they speak the truth and communicate valid knowledge. Without that they are less than nothing. To those who understand and believe Einstein’s equation that E = mc 2 [Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared], that statement is a revelation of power; to those who do not understand or believe it (and there are many!), it is nothing short of an insolent and blasphemous fraud. So it is with the Book of Mormon, which if believed is a revelation of power but otherwise in a nonsensical jumble.

Religious Genius and the Book of Mormon

From Terryl L. Givens, By The Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture That Launched A New World Religion (Oxford University Press, 2002), 246.


Recognizing the ultimate insufficiency of cultural influences to account for the Book of Mormon taken as a whole, an intrigued observer like Harold Bloom, perhaps the most famous contemporary (non-Mormon) admirer of Joseph Smith, refers to the prophet as an “authentic religious genius.” Many Mormons would be happy for the complement. Such a tribute, however, as foremost historian of Mormonism Richard Bushman realizes, is still just another kind of intellectual failure to come to terms with the golden bible. “Genius, by common admission, carries human achievement beyond the limits of simple historical explanation, just as revelation does. To say that the Book of Mormon could only be written by a genius is logically not much different from saying God revealed it. In both cases, we admit that historical analysis fails us.”

He shall be born at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers (Howlers #8)

In the previous post we saw how the phrase “land of Jerusalem” in the Book of Mormon, which was once derided by critics as an anachronism finds its equivalent in ancient Near Eastern texts, discovered long after the Book of Mormon was published and Joseph Smith was dead. In another early criticism skeptical readers cited the words of Alma’s prophecy to the people of of Gideon as even more problematic. Some eighty-three years before the birth of Christ, this pre-Columbian prophet said, “And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers” (Alma 7:10). Few passages of the Book of Mormon have been the subject of more ridicule and it seems to be a favorite criticism even among critics of the Book of Mormon today. One blast from the past should be adequate.

“This prophet Smith . . . . is better skilled in the controversies in New York than in the geography of history of Judea. He makes John baptize in Bethabara, and says Jesus was born in Jerusalem.”

Alexander Campbell, “Delusions,” Millennial Harbinger, February 7, 1831): 93.

Latter-day Saints have often responded to this criticism (e.g. Robert F. Smith, “The Land of Jerusalem: The Place of Jesus’ Birth” in John W. Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 1992, 170-72). The most significant points in my view are these. Alma’s prophecy speaks of the “land” from which his forefathers came of which “Jerusalem,” the place where the ruling kings of Judah dwelt, was the political center in Lehi’s day. The Amarna letters show how the terms Jerusalem and land of Jerusalem could be used interchangeably, when Jerusalem is understood to be the political center that controls the surrounding land. The troubled writer of el-Amarna Letter 289 says, “And now as for Jerusalem behold this land belongs to the king”  (Prichard, The Ancient Near East, 1:273. Emphasis added), just as Alma speaks of “Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers” (Alma 7:10). In Lehi’s day, as well as in Jesus’ day, Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish people.

More significant, however, is that el-Amarna Letter 290 refers to "a town in the land of Jerusalem" with the Canaanite name Bît-Lahmi, which is, “an almost certain reference to the town of Bethlehem, which thus appears for the first time in history” (James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East, 274, note 1). That is, Bethlehem, known to us as the place of Jesus’ birth, was considered by the ancient writer to have been a town belonging to Jerusalem, a town of the “land of Jerusalem,” which Alma’s prophecy can be taken to imply.

Thoughts on the Book of Mormon

From Neal A. Maxwell, But for a Small Moment (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1986), 18.

Individuals and settings of obscurity are not unusual to the Lord's purposes. Meridian-day Christianity was initiated on a very small geographical scale and with comparatively few people. The larger, busy world paid little heed to it. Likewise with the Book of Mormon peoples. Whether located in Meso-America or elsewhere, they were one people among many peoples on this planet and perhaps even on the western hemisphere. Lack of knowledge of and communication with others was the factor here.

Line upon Line

From Brigham Young, March 15, 1857, JD:4-286-87

Those who humble themselves before the Lord, and wait upon him with a perfect heart and willing mind, will receive little by little, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little, “Now and again,” as brother Taylor says, until they receive a certain amount. They then have to nourish and cherish what they receive, and make it their constant companion, encouraging every good thought, doctrine and principle and doing every good work they can perform, until by and bye the Lord is in them a well of water, springing up unto everlasting life.

Book of Mormon Intertextuality

Dan Peterson has an article on Intertextuality in the Book of Mormon. He notes four places where the Book of Mormon quotes from or refers to itself. Two of these seem to be new.

See more at
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865581907/The-Book-of-Mormon-was-very-carefully-written.html