Helaman 6

Helaman 6:7-8 They Did Have Free Intercourse One with Another, to Buy and to Sell, and to Get Gain:

Helaman 6:7-8 reports at about the time of Christ, “the Nephites did go into whatsoever part of the land they would, whether among the Nephites or the Lamanites. And . . . the Lamanites did also go whithersoever they would. . .; and thus they did have free intercourse one with another, to buy and to sell, and to get gain.” (3 Nephi 6:8,12 imply the same thing).

John Sorenson notes that at a few points in the Book of Mormon account we read of extensive commerce. It is impossible that a civilization that included widespread trade and related components–record keeping, craft production, knowledge of routes, and so on–would have arisen suddenly at just those moments. The pattern must have been going on for a long time, becoming particularly visible when it reached a climax level.¹

Helaman 6:8 They Did Have Free Intercourse One with Another, to Buy and to Sell, and to Get Gain . . . and They Became Exceeding Rich, Both the Lamanites and the Nephites:

We find in Helaman 6:8-9 that by means of free trade, or “free intercourse one with another, to buy and to sell, and to get gain,” both the Lamanites and Nephites “became exceedingly rich.” According to Daniel Peterson, the principle underlying this situation is put in modern terms by the Nobel laureate economist Paul A. Samuelson, in his famous textbook Economics, 8th ed.²: “There is essentially only one argument for free or freer trade, but it is an exceedingly powerful one, namely: Unhampered trade promotes a mutually profitable international division of labor, greatly enhances the potential real national product of all countries, and makes possible higher standards of living all over the globe.” (Emphasis in the original.) That the Book of Mormon so well depicts the operation of an economic law that was not generally recognized in Joseph Smith’s time–and perhaps is not yet, even today–is a good illustration of its plausibility as authentic historiographical material.³

Helaman 6:10 The Land North Was Called Mulek, Which Was after the Son of Zedekiah; for the Lord Did Bring Mulek into the Land:

In 1967, John W. Welch first encountered the study of chiasmus (inverted parallelism) in the New Testament. This led within a few weeks to his landmark discovery of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. Most recently, another fine example of chiasmus was discerned in Helaman 6:7-13, the annual report for the sixty-fourth year of the Reign of the Judges, whose main features can be displayed as follows:

A. “And behold, there was peace in all the land”

   B. [Freedom of travel and trade in both lands is discussed]

      C. “And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich,

         D. and they did have an exceeding plenty of gold, and of silver, etc. [riches] both in the land

           south and the land north

            E. Now the land south was called Lehi and the land north was called Mulek

               F. which was after the son of Zedek(iah)

               F’ for the (Lord)

            E’ did bring Mulek into the land north and Lehi into the land south

         D’ “And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands

      C’ and thus they did become rich

   B’ [Economic prosperity in both lands is discussed]

A’ “And thus the sixty and fourth year did pass away in peace“

This composition is remarkable in several ways. First, the report itself is beautifully executed. Words, phrases, and ideas that appear in the first half are repeated with precision and balance in the second half. This entry exhibits both fine quality and admirable length.

Second, since the chiasm encompasses the entire report for the year, this unifying structure strongly suggests that the account was written as a single literary unit that Mormon copied verbatim from the Large Plates of Nephi into his abridgment.

Third, and most remarkable, the center of this chiasm involves two individual words. At the very apex, the words “Zedekiah” and “Lord” stand parallel to each other, which is intriguing since the Hebrew word for “Lord” constitutes the theophoric suffix -yah at the end of the name “Zedekiah” (yah = iah).⁴

Helaman 6:10 The Land South Was Called Lehi:

Helaman 6:10 says that “the land south was called Lehi.” One must define what is meant by “land south.” One might ask, South of what? What is the dividing line? And what is the extent of the land we are talking about? Was this the southern part of the possessions of the Nephites? Or was this the land south of the narrow strip of wilderness? Or was this the land south of the small neck of land? Whatever the decision, the dividing line marks the northern limits of where Lehi could have landed.⁵

Helaman 6:10 The Land North Was Called Mulek:

Helaman 6:10 states that “the land north was called Mulek . . . for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north.” Once again we must ask, What is meant by “the land north”?

(1) If we can interpret Alma 22:30 correctly, then the land “Desolation was so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their first landing.” Therefore, we might choose to say that the most plausible location for the “land north” would coincide with the land Desolation.

(2) On the other hand, Alma 22:31 says “and they (the Mulekites) came from there (Desolation) up into the south wilderness. The south wilderness was south of the small neck of land and thus part of the general land of Zarahemla. But depending on the geographical model, the “south wilderness” might have actually been north of the local land of Zarahemla. Therefore, we might say that the northern part of the general land of Zarahmela might have also been included in the land called Mulek. The question now becomes, Did the “land north called Mulek” include the land Desolation or the land Bountiful, or both?

(3) Furthermore, if we take into account the entire definition of lands in Alma 22:27-34 so that the narrow strip of wilderness is the dividing line between the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi, and if Mosiah met the descendants of Mulek in the land of Zarahemla, then all the land of Zarahemla north of the narrow strip might be termed the “land of Mulek.” All the land south of the narrow strip (land of Nephi) would be termed the “land south” or the “land of Lehi.” [Alan C. Miner, Personal Notes] [See Geographical Theory Maps]

Helaman 6:10 The Land North Was Called Mulek, Which Was after the Son of Zedekiah:

Helaman 6:10 implies that “Mulek” was the name of “the son of Zedekiah.” Zedekiah was the king of Judah at the time Lehi and his colony fled from Jerusalem (1 Nephi 1:4). A few years later when the Babylonians besieged Jerusalem, they “slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes” (2 Kings 25:7). Most people have assumed that all of the sons of Zedekiah were killed at that time; however, the Book of Mormon records that the sons of Zedekiah were slain “all except it were Mulek” (Helaman 8:21).⁶

Helaman 6:10 The Land North Was Called Mulek, Which Was after the Son of Zedekiah:

Helaman 6:10 implies that “Mulek” was the name of “the son of Zedekiah.” Zedekiah was the king of Judah at the time Lehi and his colony fled from Jerusalem (1 Nephi 1:4). A few years later when the Babylonians besieged Jerusalem, , we find written that they “slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes” (2 Kings 25:7). Most people have assumed that all of the sons of Zedekiah were killed at that time; however, the Book of Mormon records that the sons of Zedekiah were slain “all except it were Mulek” (Helaman 8:21). Is there a logical explanation?

According to Verneil Simmons, Zedekiah was only thirty-two years of age when his rule in Jerusalem came to an ignominious end. We do not know how many sons he had, since he had more than one wife, but none could have been older than fourteen or fifteen years of age and they could well have been much younger. In Ezekiel’s prophecy the Lord had referred to them as “young twigs” (Ezekiel 17:4,22). Nebuchadnezzar had little interest in the household of Zedekiah. His contempt for the substitute king is evidenced by the manner in which he treated him and his family. He was publicly humiliated, his sons killed, and his daughters sent back to join the few people left in the land (Jeremiah 41:10).

Could a son of Zedekiah’s house have escaped the fate of his brothers, and if so, how was it done? What was Jeremiah’s fate when the city fell? Could Jeremiah have had a hand in the avowed purpose of the Lord to “plant a tender twig” in another place?

While the biblical account is garbled as to time and place, it is certain that at Ramah, north on the road to Riblah where the king of Babylon awaited the captives, Jeremiah was not only freed but also given food and money and permission to travel where he chose. He was invited to Babylon where he would have been treated honorably, but if he did not wish to accept the king’s invitation, then he was to do whatever seemed good to him. In other words, he had complete freedom to move about the country at will (Jeremiah 39:11-15; 40:1-6). Later we find him living with Gedaliah, the governor of the province under the king of Babylon, among the poor people left behind, and we discover that the daughters of Zedekiah are also in this group (Jeremiah 41:10). Were these children returned to Gedaliah in the care of Jeremiah? The king’s daughters were obviously not considered valuable as marriage pawns and were not even taken to Babylon but sent back to remain in the care of Gedaliah. It is possible that among the king’s daughters, who would have been small children, there could have been a young or infant son who was still included with the “little ones.”

In Old Testament writing we find evidence that male infants were numbered among the “little ones” still in the care of the women in the royal nursery. Those old enough to be under the care of palace officials in the men’s quarters were termed “sons.” (See Numbers 16:27; 31:7-9). That there were males among the “little ones” is indicated by the following, “Thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones” (Deuteronomy 20:13,14).

On biblical precedent a male infant, still among the “little ones’ of the women’s courts, would be excluded as a “son” of Zedekiah. Thus the historian could have been technically correct in reporting that the “sons” of Zedekiah were beheaded (2 Kings 25:7), even though a male heir might have been left alive.

Jeremiah had been told in his initial call that part of his work would be to “plant.” (Jeremiah 1:10) Ezekiel said the Lord would take an heir of the king of Judah and “plant” him in an eminent “mountain,” or nation (Ezekiel 17:22). Is it possible that the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophetic statement occurred when Jeremiah preserved an infant son of King Zedekiah by arranging for his escape from the country? ⁷

Helaman 6:11 There Was All Manner of Gold in Both These Lands, and of Silver, and of Precious Ore of Every Kind:

According to John Sorenson, the Book of Mormon text says almost nothing about metallurgical techniques, and what is said need not be interpreted as involving particularly complex operations. Consider the case of Peru, whose museums display abundant metal artifacts, yet Bray emphasizes the “rudimentary nature” of the equipment and methods used for processing, while Peruvian miners, he says, employed only “the simplest possible technology.”⁸ Clearly the “curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore,” among the Nephites (Helaman 6:11) or the like among the Jaredites, need not have had “a sophisticated development of . . . metallurgy” nor have involved “complex technological processes” . . . as critics might imply.

Despite the simple means they employed, Mesoamerican metalworkers did remarkable work. Albrecht Durer, the son of a European goldsmith, saw Aztec metal artifacts in Brussels in 1520, and praised the results roundly: “I have never in all my days seen anything that so delighted my heart as these things. For I saw amazing objects and I marveled at the subtle ingenuity of the men in these distant lands.”⁹

Mesoamerican smiths produced a lot of metal and crafted it with great skill. For example, Cortez was given whole bars of gold when he landed in Veracruz. But of the “immense riches” and “huge quantities . . . of golden objects” the Spaniards found, “the number [surviving in American museums] is negligible compared to the great quantity” sent by the Spaniards to Europe, where “most of the metal objects were melted and made into bars.”¹⁰ Estimates are that at least 350 kilograms of silver and 4,000 kgs. of gold were looted from Mexico at the time of the Conquest, and 61,000 kgs. of silver and 8,000 of gold from Peru.¹¹

Helaman 6:11 There Was All Manner of Gold in Both These Lands, and of Silver, and of Precious Ore of Every Kind:

In Helaman 6:11 we find the following:

And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands [the land north and the land south], and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind; and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore and did refine it.

In challenging the idea that metallurgy was a part of Mesoamerican culture during Book of Mormon times, especially in the area of the proposed geographical map of John Sorenson, Deanne Matheny notes that in discussing metals, it is important to distinguish between metalworking, “the act or process of shaping things out of metal,” and metallurgy, the “science and technology of metals” which may involve such processes as smelting, casting, and alloying. Many groups in both the Old World and the New developed the art of cold-hammering naturally occurring nuggets of copper, gold and meteoric iron. Some areas of Latin America are rich in precious minerals and other ores, but other areas are not. Mineralogical maps of Mexico show no deposits of gold, silver, copper, or other ores in the states of Veracruz, Tabasco, or Chiapas.¹² A major source of gold and silver exists in Oaxaca located in the north central portion of the state near its border with Veracruz. A few scattered deposits of copper, silver, gold and other ores can be found in the highlands of Guatemala, although the most significant are located near the present frontiers with Honduras and El Salvador.¹³

John Sorenson responds with the following:

Matheny discusses Mesoamerican ore sources but inexplicably refers to “mineralogical maps of Mexico” based on present day commercial exploitation of minerals (pp. 287-88). I would have thought she would follow her training in the documents from the period around the Spanish Conquest to find out where the peoples of Mesoamerica then obtained metals. The location of modern mines is irrelevant. Contrary to the geographical picture she offers, placering [ ], the commonest pre-Columbian method employed, was used in Veracruz, Oaxaca, Tabasco, and Chiapas states in Mexico and in Belize, El Salvador, and Guatemala.¹⁴ Furthermore, Clair Patterson argues that ores in ancient times were easier to locate and exploit than in late pre-Spanish times, by which time many surface sources were likely to have been exhausted.¹⁵ Hence even the ore locations known to the Indians at the time of the Conquest might not reflect fully the wider sources accessible in the Book of Mormon era.¹⁶

Helaman 6:12 They Did Raise Grain in Abundance, Both in the North and in the South:

According to John Sorenson, the overall structure of the [Nephite/Lamanite] economy is laid out most clearly in a passage in Helaman 6:

They did raise grain in abundance, both in the [land] north and in the [land] south; and they did flourish exceedingly. . . . And they did multiply and wax exceedingly strong in the land. And they did raise many flocks and herds, yea, many fatlings. Behold their women did toil and spin, and make all manner of cloth, of fine-twined linen and cloth of every kind, to clothe their nakedness” (Helaman 6:12-13)

It has been supposed by some readers of the Book of Mormon that the Lamanite economy differed markedly from that of the Nephites, but that is largely due to not reading the text with sufficient care. The Nephites display a prejudiced stereotyping of their enemies, claiming that they subsisted by hunting, in contrast to the Nephites’ agrarian ways. The difference would have been only a matter of degree, however. As Sorenson has argued elsewhere¹⁷ the large numbers of Lamanites reported, including the existence of Lamanite cities, as against the Nephites’ smaller population, can only be accounted for by a Lamanite economic system that was also basically agrarian. As shown by the lengthy quotation from Helaman 6 above, Lamanite economic activities were essentially like those of the Nephites.¹⁸

Helaman 6:12 They Did Raise Grain in Abundance, Both in the North and in the South:

Helaman 6:12 states that the people “did raise grain in abundance, both in the north and in the south; and they did flourish exceedingly, both in the north and in the south.” Richard E. W. Adams, a leading Maya archaeologist and professor of anthropology at University of Texas, San Antonio relates:

One of the long-standing misconceptions of Maya archaeology has been that Maya civilization existed within dense tropical forest much the same as the environment today. This now appears false (1986:443)¹⁹

Among the modifications Adams lists that the Maya performed are:

     1. Nearly every hillside was terraced.

     2. There were raised fields.

     3. There were water holes enlarged and new ones dug.

     4. Swamps were drained.

     5. Water-filled canals were common.

     6. Dams conserved water for use in the dry season.

     7. Trees were planted forming boundaries.

     8. There were large agricultural zones in suburbs with remains of laboriously created gardens (some enormous).

     9. Forest existed only in remnants, with stands left for hunting and logging, and selected tree species were left.²⁰

Helaman 6:13 Fine-Twined Linen:

According to Daniel Ludlow, the term “fine-twined linen” (Helaman 6:13) was evidently used quite extensively by the Hebrews; it appears nine times in the Book of Mormon and is used 32 times in the Biblical book of Exodus.

It is not clear what material was used to make the linen mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Hunter and Ferguson discuss this problem as follows:

The Book of Mormon makes reference to “linen,” without qualifying it. It may be that the early Nephites had flax-linen. On the other hand, flax . . . was not found in America at the time of the Conquest. . . . The present scientific view is that linen from flax did not exist in ancient America. However, the word for linen would have been in the vocabulary of settlers coming from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. It occurs many times in the Old Testament. However, Bible scholars have suggested that the various Hebrew words that have been translated “linen” in the Old Testament are, for the most part, of uncertain meaning, and in some cases varieties of cotton are meant. In the United States today we sometimes refer to cotton products as “linen.” Thus, perhaps the Nephites did not have flax, but rather used their word for “linen” in a broader sense. . . . The Hebrew background of the Nephites is reflected by its use.²¹

Helaman 6:13 Their Women Did Toil and Spin, and Did Make All Manner of Cloth:

In Helaman 6:13 we find that the Nephite women “did toil and spin and did make all manner of cloth.” According the Works of Ixtlilxochitl, they [the Tultec women of Mesoamerica] were great spinners, and weavers, weaving very gallant mantles of a thousand colors and figures — those which they (the men) wanted, and as fine as those of Castile; and they wove the cloth in many different ways, some that looked like velvet, and others like very fine cloth; others like damask and satin; others like thin linen and others like thick linen, just as they (the men) wanted and needed.²²

Helaman 6:15 Cezoram Was Murdered . . . and His Son [Seezoram] . . . Had Been Appointed by the People in His Stead:

The chief judge Cezoram “was murdered by an unknown hand as he sat upon the judgment-seat And . . . his son [“Seezoram”–see Helaman 9:23], who had been appointed by the people in his stead was also murdered” (Helaman 6:15). The Book of Mormon student should note that the name Cezoram and Seezoram both contain the name “Zoram.”

According to Michael Hobby, it may be that the descendants of Zoram had consolidated the support necessary to wrench the government of the land of Zarahemla from the Nephites with Mulekite support. It is very significant that for a number of years, dissident Zoramites (Amalickiah, Ammoron, and Tubaloth) had succeeded in establishing a ruling dynasty over the Lamanites. ²³

Helaman 6:15 Cezoram was murdered . . . and his son, who had been appointed by the people in his stead, was also murdered (Nephite Chief Priests) [Illustration]: Nephite Chief Priests. Adapted from [John W. Welch and Morgan A. Ashton, “Charting the Book of Mormon,” Packet 1, F.A.R.M.S., 1997]

Helaman 6:17 The Lord Had Blessed Them So Long with Riches:

In Helaman 6:17 we find the following:

For behold, the Lord had blessed them so long with the riches of the world that they had not been stirred up to anger, to wars, nor to bloodshed; therefore they began to set their hearts upon their riches; yea, they began to seek to get gain that they might be lifted up one above another; therefore they began to commit secret murders, and to rob and to plunder, that they might get gain.

Hugh Nibley notes that they were getting rich so they didn’t need wars anymore. They were rather happy about it. With riches of the world they hadn’t been stirred up to bloodshed nationally, so they got rich and were stirred up to private bloodshed. Their wars are lowered to a private level now. . . . President Lee says, “ethical conduct is essential to a person’s financial success. Over the long run ethical conduct pays off.” But if you are in insurance or in real estate or in the law, it’s the short-run that pays off. Remember, as against the Japanese, the American stock market is aimed entirely at short gain–quick short gain. That’s the way these big fortunes are being made. Anyway, he says that in the long run ethical conduct pays off in dollars and cents. But, if being honest meant financial ruin, would you still be honest then? Of course you would have to be. It has very often happened that a person has suffered financial ruin because he wouldn’t collect on a certain thing, or wouldn’t crack down. On the other hand, there are situations in which being honest will make less money than in the long run. That’s a strange thing. Remember, Plato says the honest man is a man who will do right even with the “ring of Gyges.” Gyges was one of the tyrants, and he had a ring that made you invisible. Now, if you had the ring of Gyges, you could do anything you wanted to because you would be invisible. That shouldn’t change your behavior at all. You should do the right thing because it is the right thing–not because it will make you money, bring you financial success, or in the long run dollars and cents.²⁴

Helaman 6:18 Those [Secret] Murderers and Plunderers Were [Gadianton’s] Band:

Hugh Nibley notes that the best treatise you will find on secret societies and their works is this in Helaman 6 and what follows:

1. In the first place there are no “isms”; there are organizations. As Liddell Hard says, war is an individual affair. Religion and nationality are not basic. You can belong to anything you want. It’s not the party machine, the politburo or anything like that. It’s something else–personal ambition, etc.

2. Secondly, it must have a power base. It must have a market. As a way of robbery, piracy has been official. Then it was bootlegging and things like that. Today it’s drugs. It won’t be for always. It used to be pearls. It was cattle-stealing and then gambling, as in Vegas. You can build an empire on gambling. You can build an empire on drugs and all of these things. You can build an empire on prohibition of illicit things.

3. A third point is that the object has the broadest appeal. Those four things that both Nephites mention: It is for money and for power, the one that holds the gun has the power. It is for popularity; they must have public support–they always do. And the lusts of the flesh–the glitzy clubs, the high-class dames, the Tony resorts and places like that. These all fit into the same setting that we are all so fond of today, as you know from our television.

4. The fourth point is that it must offer protection. The Book of Mormon goes right into this Gadianton stuff. It breaks it all down. You’ll find all these elements are there. You must offer protection.

5. The fifth is, it must seek an air of total respectability. The stretch limo, the overdressing and very expensive dressing, even piety. These people are good church members, like the Mafia–very pious family people, loyal to each other. They strive for an image of ultimate respectability. They have their own mystique. They are entirely independent of state.²⁵

Helaman 6:21 They Did Unite with Those Band of Robbers, and Did Enter into Their Covenants:

In Helaman 6:21-22 we find evidence of ancient wicked secret covenants:

But behold, Satan did stir up the hearts of the more part of the Nephites, insomuch that they did unite with those bands of robbers, and did enter into their covenants and their oaths, that they would protect and preserve one another in whatsoever difficult circumstances they should be placed, that they should not suffer for their murders, and their plunderings, and their stealings.

And it came to pass that they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who did belong to his band, who had taken this covenant.

Victor Ludlow notes that 17 of the 154 references to “covenant” in the Book of Mormon relate to evil, secret covenants made between men and the devil. Fifteen of these secret covenant references are found in 12 verses in the book of Helaman and the first chapters of 3 Nephi. From the book of Deuteronomy we find that the covenant making process can be divided into the five steps: (1) Historical background (2) Stipulations (3) Blessings and Curses (4) Witnesses (5) Remembrance. These are the same steps that a sovereign ruler would use to establish a covenant or treaty relationship with his vassals in the ancient Near East. These same five steps also exemplify the covenant process between the Heavenly Sovereign of this earth and his children, particularly as demonstrated through baptism and the temple ordinances. We will see that all five of these steps are found among the imitation secret covenants of wicked men as recorded in Helaman and 3 Nephi. Analyzing these specific verses will tell us much about secret, evil vows. . . . The key elements and covenant steps are highlighted in charts. ²⁶

Helaman 6:21-26 (Covenants of Wickedness):

According to Donald Parry, the prevalent poetic form of the canon of scripture is not the ode, the lamentation, nor the psalm, but parallelism. Chiasmus is a form of inverted parallelism in which the flow of ideas move progressively to the most important central point, and then flow outward in the exact same parallel fashion. This parallel inward/outward flow of ideas is symbolized by the Greek letter chi representing the letter “x”.

Helaman 6:21-26 talks of Satan, the Gadianton band, and their oaths and covenants of wickedness. According to Parry, the key elements of these verses have been recorded in chiastic form in order to emphasize the message of the author, and appear as follows:

A. But behold, Satan

  B. did stir up the hearts of the more part of the Nephites,

    C. insomuch that they did unite with those bands of robbers,

      D. and did enter into their covenants and their oaths,

        E. that they would protect and preserve one another in whatsoever difficult circumstances they

           should be placed.

          F. that they should not suffer for their murders, and their plunderings, and their stealings.

            G. And it came to pass that they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their

           secret words;

              H. and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant,

                I. that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do

              H’ he should not be injured by his brother,

            G’ nor by those who did belong to his band, who had taken this covenant.

          F’ And thus they might murder, and plunder, and steal, and commit whoredoms and

           all manner of wickedness, contrary to the laws of their country and also the laws of their God.

        E’ And whosoever of those who belonged to their band should reveal unto the world of their

           wickedness and their abominations, should be tried, not according to the laws of their

           country, but according to the laws of their wickedness, which had been given by Gadianton

           and Kishkumen.

      D’ Now behold, it is these secret oaths and covenants which Alma commanded his son should not go

           forth unto the world, lest they should be a means of bringing down the people unto

           destruction. Now behold, those secret oaths and covenants did not come forth

    C’ unto Gadianton from the records which were delivered unto Helaman;

  B’ but behold, they were put into the heart of Gadianton

A’ by that same being who did entice our first parents to partake of the forbidden fruit–²⁷

Helaman 6:26 That Same Being:

Hugh Nibley notes that the term “that same being” is mentioned five times from Helaman 6:26 to Helaman 6:29. Mormon emphasizes this; he wants us to know that there is a being [Satan].²⁸