Book of Mormon Evidence: Wordplay on Flattering Words and Slippery Things

In a recent study of the words of Samuel the Lamanite, Matthew Bowen has drawn attention to the Hebrew term ḥālaq.¹ Bowen states,

As a verb, Hebrew ḥālaq (I) in its base stem denotes “to be smooth, slippery.” In its causative stem, this verb denotes “to make smooth” or “to use a smooth tongue, to flatter.” As an adjective, ḥālāq has the basic meaning of “smooth” or “smooth and insinuating.” As a substantive noun, ḥālāq denotes “smoothness, falsehood,” including “smooth words” or “smoothness, flattery” (as in Daniel 11:32 and Isaiah 30:10). However, ḥālāq as an adjective can also denote “slippery.” The reduplicated substantivized form as plural feminine abstract noun denotes “smoothness, slipperiness, flattery, fine promises” or “slippery places.”² 

Within the Hebrew Bible, usages of this term can be found in passages from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalms—texts that were likely known to the people of Lehi from the plates of brass.³  It is therefore significant that when delivering a prophetic warning and curse upon the Nephites, Samuel used terms that overlap with the range of meanings in ḥālaq.

Samuel complained, for instance, that the Nephites were quick to receive any false teacher or prophet who spoke flattering words: “Yea, ye will give unto him of your substance; ye will give unto him of your gold, and of your silver, and ye will clothe him with costly apparel; and because he speaketh flattering words unto you, and he saith that all is well, then ye will not find fault with him” (Helaman 13:28). Then, just a few verses later, Samuel repeatedly used forms of the word slippery when discussing the inability of the Nephites to retain their riches:

And behold, the time cometh that he curseth your riches, that they become slippery, that ye cannot hold them; and in the days of your poverty ye cannot retain them. And in the days of your poverty ye shall cry unto the Lord … O that we had remembered the Lord our God in the day that he gave us our riches, and then they would not have become slippery that we should lose them; for behold, our riches are gone from us. Behold, we lay a tool here and on the morrow it is gone; and behold our swords are taken from us in the day we have sought them for battle. Yea, we have hid up our treasures and they have slipped away from us, because of this curse of the land. O that we had repented in the day that the word of the Lord came unto us; for behold the land is cursed, and all things are become slippery, and we cannot hold them. (Helaman 13:31–36)

In these passages, Samuel appears to have been skillfully playing upon the range of meanings found in the Hebrew word ḥālāq. As Bowen states, “Samuel’s prophecy welds a causative link between the Nephites’ love of ‘flattering words’ (or ‘smooth things’) in Helaman 13:28 and their riches and treasures becoming ‘slippery’ in Helaman 13:31–36.”⁴ The result of such wickedness would entail a talionic judgment, in which the punishment closely matches the crime.⁵ By adhering to the “flattering words” of false prophets and teachers (Helaman 13:28), the people discovered that “all things are become slippery, and we cannot hold them” (Helaman 13:36).⁶

The juxtaposition between flattering words and slippery things is also interesting, since words and things can be represented by the same word in both Hebrew (dbr) and Egyptian (md.t/mt.t).⁷ In fact, when one looks closely at the specific verbiage used by Samuel (“all things are become slippery, and we cannot hold them”), it provides a meaningful contrast to the symbolism of the word of God, as connected to the iron rod from Lehi’s dream of the Tree of Life.⁸ Commenting on this relationship, Bowen explains,

Thus, firmly entrenched in Nephite cultural memory and reemphasized in the book of Helaman is the concept that the “word of God,” like a rod, is tangible—something that one can “lay hold upon.” The contrast between the “word of God,” which one can “lay hold upon,” “catch hold of,” and “hold fast to,” and “flattering words”/“smooth things” or “slippery things” which lead to “all things … becom[ing] slippery, and we cannot hold them” (Helaman 13:36; see also Mormon 1:18) could hardly be more striking.⁹

The Fulfillment of Samuel’s Prophecy in 3 Nephi

As for its fulfillment, it appears that Samuel’s prophecy was realized in multiple ways. Concerning Samuel’s statements about people laying down tools or swords on one day and not being able to find them the next, Brant Gardner asks,

Are these verses to be taken literally or figuratively? There is no way to know. … If the image were literal, then Samuel is describing rampant theft. In a time of poverty, thieves would be alert for any item of value that might be traded for food or other necessities. There is no literal way for the earth to “swallow” goods overnight except possibly by earthquake or landslide, which are not part of the description.¹⁰

Although Gardner is correct that Samuel’s prophecy doesn’t explicitly describe treasure-swallowing calamities, there is reason to conclude that Mormon indeed saw these types of natural disasters as fulfilling Samuel’s prophecy. Before covering that topic, though, Gardner’s proposal that Samuel’s words may have involved theft or robbery should first be explored in greater detail.

Building on Gardner’s suggestion, Bowen proposes that “Samuel is describing a time in which Gadianton lawlessness, which had been temporarily subdued during Samuel’s time, would again run amok. The Gadianton robbers would again become a major problem just years after Samuel’s prophecy.”¹¹ It could, in fact, be argued that the negative consequences of recurring Gadianton insurgency is one of the major themes in Mormon’s abridgment.¹²

What Bowen doesn’t comment on, however, is the penchant for Gadianton robbers and their supporters to use flattery as a means to achieve their sordid goals. As a case in point, when Gadianton is first introduced into the record, his ability to “flatter” his followers is one of the first things that Mormon says of him: 

For there was one Gadianton, who was exceedingly expert in many words, and also in his craft, to carry on the secret work of murder and of robbery; therefore he became the leader of the band of Kishkumen. Therefore he did flatter them, and also Kishkumen, that if they would place him in the judgment-seat he would grant unto those who belonged to his band that they should be placed in power and authority among the people. (Helaman 2:4–5)

Later in Mormon’s abridgment, we learn that the rising generation among the Lamanites “were led away by some who were Zoramites, by their lyings and their flattering words, to join those Gadianton robbers” (3 Nephi 1:29). This connection between the Zoramites and Gadianton robbers is intriguing because the thing Samuel was accusing the people of—placing their hearts on riches and costly apparel—is precisely the moral failing of the Zoramites, recorded previously.¹³

An epistle written by a robber known as Giddianhi is likewise dripping with flattery and fawning language, as he attempted to essentially rob the Nephites of all they owned.¹⁴ Finally, just before the destruction recorded in 3 Nephi 8, another Gadianton leader named Jacob convinced his followers to build up a kingdom in the northern regions, “for he flattered them that there would be many dissenters” until they became strong enough to overcome their enemies (3 Nephi 7:12).

It therefore isn’t a stretch to conclude that the calamities in 3 Nephi were largely precipitated by people heeding the flattering words and messages of the Gadianton robbers and their supporters. Not only is such propaganda a crucial component of successful insurgency, but Mormon himself specifically linked these Gadianton activities to the destruction of his people: “And behold, in the end of this book ye shall see that this Gadianton did prove the overthrow, yea, almost the entire destruction of the people of Nephi” (Helaman 2:13).¹⁵ With this backdrop in place, we can comfortably surmise that Samuel wasn’t strictly speaking in figurative terms when he talked of people losing their property. Real acts of theft and plunder became a significant problem for the Nephites, likely on both a micro and macro societal scale.

At this point, we can return back to Gardner’s claim that there “is no literal way for the earth to ‘swallow’ goods overnight except possibly by earthquake or landslide, which are not part of the description.”¹⁶ Although Gardner is technically correct, he doesn’t acknowledge that a more general prediction of “destruction” is part of Samuel’s prophecy. And when one closely compares the account of the destruction in 3 Nephi 8 with the statements surrounding Samuel’s “slippery” language, it becomes apparent that Mormon indeed saw a connection here. These textual relationships are highlighted in the following chart, with parallel elements color-coded for easier identification.

Yet one may still wonder how exactly the Nephite treasures became “slippery” and were lost. Although the textual unit in 3 Nephi 8 doesn’t dwell on the loss of individual riches, the destruction of entire cities surely included a profound loss of material goods and wealth. It also involved a staggering loss of life. In 3 Nephi 8:25, the people regretted their sins and wished they had repented, stating that “then would our mothers and our fair daughters, and our children have been spared, and not have been buried up in that great city Moronihah.” In other words, the treasures that the people valued most—their cherished loved ones—became “buried up” in the earth, never to be recovered.

At the same time, concerning cities which had been buried by earth or covered by water, the Lord on three occasions emphasized that this was done in order to “hide their wickedness and abominations” (3 Nephi 9:5, 7–8). This language appears to be an ironic reversal of the wicked attempts on the part of the Nephites to “hide up” their riches. As seen in Helaman 13:18–20, Samuel’s prophecy is thoroughly saturated with this concept:

And it shall come to pass, saith the Lord of Hosts, yea, our great and true God, that whoso shall hide up treasures in the earth shall find them again no more, because of the great curse of the land, save he be a righteous man and shall hide it up unto the Lord. For I will, saith the Lord, that they shall hide up their treasures unto me; and cursed be they who hide not up their treasures unto me; for none hideth up their treasures unto me save it be the righteous; and he that hideth not up his treasures unto me, cursed is he, and also the treasure, and none shall redeem it because of the curse of the land. And the day shall come that they shall hide up their treasures, because they have set their hearts upon riches; and because they have set their hearts upon their riches, and will hide up their treasures when they shall flee before their enemies; because they will not hide them up unto me, cursed be they and also their treasures; and in that day shall they be smitten, saith the Lord.

The relationship between buried cities and hidden treasure is further solidified by Mormon’s comments in his segue leading up to Samuel’s prophecy, in which Mormon immediately connected these concepts together: 

Behold, if [the Lord] say unto this mountain—Be thou raised up, and come over and fall upon that city, that it be buried up—behold it is done. And behold, if a man hide up a treasure in the earth, and the Lord shall say—Let it be accursed, because of the iniquity of him who hath hid it up—behold, it shall be accursed. And if the Lord shall say—Be thou accursed, that no man shall find thee from this time henceforth and forever—behold, no man getteth it henceforth and forever. (Helaman 12:17–19)¹⁷

With Mormon’s own commentary as a helpful guide, it seems very likely that he viewed the destruction and burial of cities in 3 Nephi 8–10 as a valid fulfillment of Samuel’s prophecy of “slippery” wealth. These calamities involved enormous loss of physical property, the vanishing of cherished loved ones, and an element of hiddenness that ironically inverts the Nephites’ greedy efforts to bury or hide up their worldly riches.¹⁸ All of this followed in the wake of recurring uprisings from the Gadianton robbers, whose flattering words were a standard and effective part of their guerrilla-style tactics.¹⁹

The Fulfillment of Samuel’s Prophecy in the Days of Mormon

Samuel’s prophecy was fulfilled in a more transparent way just prior to the Nephites’ final destruction. In his day, Mormon reported that there had been a resurgence of Gadianton robbers who “did infest the land” (Mormon 1:18). In the context of their plundering activities, Mormon not only used the term “slippery” but employed several other words and phrases drawn from Samuel’s earlier prophecy:

Lest one doubt that Mormon indeed had Samuel’s prophecy in mind, Mormon clarified in the next verse that these things were “unto the fulfilling of all the words of Abinadi, and also Samuel the Lamanite” (Mormon 1:19). Mormon affirmed the connection again in the next chapter: “And it came to pass that the Nephites began to repent of their iniquity, and began to cry even as had been prophesied by Samuel the prophet; for behold no man could keep that which was his own” (Mormon 2:10).

Conclusion

The apparent wordplay in Samuel’s prophetic curse, based upon the Hebrew word ḥālaq, provides just one of many proposed instances of creative punning in the Book of Mormon.²⁰ It is hard to imagine how Joseph Smith could have ever guessed or intuited this relationship, due to the fact that there is no obvious connection between flattery and that which is slippery in English. Moreover, because flattery is not a high-frequency term in the Book of Mormon, the chances of it randomly occurring so close to the even rarer term slippery are fairly low.²¹

At the same time, this study highlights the Book of Mormon’s remarkable literary complexity and thematic sophistication. Not only did Mormon remember to record the fulfillment of Samuel’s words in his own day in Mormon 1–2, but we can discern a meaningful fulfillment in 3 Nephi 8–10 as well. While the latter example is not as straightforward, a strong case can be made for its validity, once all of the textual data are presented and synthesized.

The notion that Joseph Smith had the literary ability to dictate such subtle and nuanced textual relationships in 1829, especially under the uniquely constraining circumstances of the Book of Mormon’s translation, strains credulity.²² Much more difficult to explain is how he dictated not just one but many dozens of such prophetic fulfillments scattered throughout the Book of Mormon!²³ In these types of situations—where plausible Semitic wordplay overlaps with sophisticated thematic developments and undeniable intertextual complexity—the case for the Book of Mormon’s authenticity becomes especially convincing.