The Know

In Mormon 4:14, Mormon sadly notes that during the final wars of the Nephites and Lamanites, the Lamanites “did take many prisoners both women and children, and did offer them up as sacrifices unto their idol gods” (Mormon 4:14). Though this is the first time human sacrifice is so directly brought up in the Book of Mormon, it likely is not the first time the Nephites were brought face-to-face with this horrible practice.1

While righteous Nephites would not have practiced human sacrifice themselves, they would have likely been aware of such a practice among neighboring civilizations.2 Indeed, human sacrifice was unfortunately present throughout the ancient world, with the earliest evidence for this practice in ancient Mesoamerica dating to early Olmec times (1600–1000 BC). This practice continued until the Spanish conquest millennia later.3

If the Nephites’ neighbors practiced human sacrifice throughout Book of Mormon times, this could offer modern readers insights into other passages in the Book of Mormon that imply these sacrifices were occurring. Furthermore, it can contextualize how the Lord was able to use the cultural language of the New World to discuss His own atoning sacrifice and help the Nephites better understand that sacrifice as having been done on their behalf.

The clearest allusion to human sacrifice earlier in the Book of Mormon is found in Amulek’s discourse to the Zoramites, in Alma 34.4 In it Amulek stated, “According to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, . . . a great and last sacrifice” (Alma 34:9–10). Moreover, Amulek taught what this sacrifice would not be, which may shed light on the religious practices of the Zoramites or their neighbors. Specifically, it would “not [be] a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice . . . ; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal” (Alma 34:10, 14; emphasis added).

According to Mark Alan Wright, the three contrasts Amulek chose were likely deliberate. Under the law of Moses, which was kept by the righteous Nephites, certain types of beasts or fowl were sacrificed, but humans definitely could not be. In contrast, throughout Mesoamerica “human, beast, and fowl” were “the three most common things that were offered by Mesoamerican worshipers.” As such, “it stands to reason that the Zoramites, in rejecting Nephite religion, would embrace the cultural practices of the more dominant culture, as would be expected of an apostate group.”5

This practice may also have influenced how the Nephites recognized the risen Christ in 3 Nephi. According to Mormon, when the Nephites first “saw a Man descending out of heaven,” they “wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them” (3 Nephi 11:8). It was only after Jesus identified Himself as the Savior that they fully realized the implications of this heavenly visit, and Jesus declared, “Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world” (3 Nephi 11:14).

As Wright has observed, this invitation and the invitation Jesus extended to His Apostles in Jerusalem are different in a significant way.6 In Luke, Jesus mentioned only His wounded hands and feet as tokens that He had been slain and resurrected: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Luke 24:39). Similarly, in John—which is the only Gospel to mention Jesus being pierced in the side—Jesus first invited the Apostles to touch the wounds in His hands and feet and only secondarily invited them to feel the wound in His side (John 19:34; 20:19–20, 26–27). This order is reversed in the Book of Mormon.

“To a people steeped in Mesoamerican culture,” Wright observed, “the sign that a person had been ritually sacrificed would have been an incision on their side—suggesting they had had their hearts removed.”7 This would offer a conceptual link between Amulek’s sermon and Jesus’s Atonement in a very real and powerful way for the Nephites gathered at the temple in Bountiful, who could have interpreted Christ’s wounded side as a sign of sacrifice as practiced among their wicked neighbors.

This has also been noted by Brant A. Gardner: “The difference [between the Book of Mormon and Gospel accounts] was not simply in the type of wounds but in the way the wounds defined the person.”8 He continues,

In Jerusalem, Jesus’s disciples had witnessed his hands and feet nailed to a cross as he suffered and died before them. What they needed to know following his resurrection was that the very Jesus they had seen crucified was now the man standing before them. . . . In Bountiful, the people knew that a heavenly being had descended. What they needed to know was that this glorious being before them had once died as a sacrifice. Marks in the hands and feet would not show them that, as they did not have crucifixion as a form of torture and death to give those marks meaning. The killing wound in the side, however, would, signifying his sacrificial death and atoning mission.9

While some of the Nephites may have been aware of Nephi’s prophecy that Jesus would be “lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world,” there would have been no reason for the majority of the Nephites to be familiar with Roman-style crucifixion (1 Nephi 11:33). Therefore, while the wounds in Christ’s hands and feet were undoubtedly important for the Nephites, “they would understand the wounds in the palms and feet as some form of humiliating torture—though not one that they practiced.”10 The wound in Christ’s side would be a clear, universal indicator that Jesus was once dead but was now alive, enabling the Nephites to recognize Him as the “infinite and eternal sacrifice” spoken of by past prophets like Amulek.

The Why

According to the prophet Nephi, “The Lord God . . . speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3). A large part of this language and understanding influencing how the Lord speaks to us may be our cultural perspective. “Cultural context directly impacts the way people interpret manifestations of the divine,” and this was no different for the ancient Nephites.11 By better understanding this context, modern readers can better appreciate the ancient scriptures and gain new insights from them.

Even though those who were righteous would not have participated in certain abominable practices, these practices would have left a clear cultural context from which they could learn. In this case, Amulek was able to clearly teach about the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ as he utilized concepts that would have been familiar to the Zoramites to redirect their minds to Jesus Christ. Similarly, Jesus was able to utilize the Nephites’ cultural language to emphasize His Resurrection in deeply personal and meaningful ways. Throughout all of this, the message that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the whole world, rings clearly.12