Who Was Aminadi?

The Know

Amulek, Alma’s convert-turned-companion, was not unknown to the people of Ammonihah when he “stood forth, and began to preach unto them” (Alma 9:34). Despite his being “a man of no small reputation among all those that know me” and having “acquired much riches,” these aren’t the credentials that Amulek uses to begin his introduction. Instead, he recites his genealogy, explaining that he was “a descendant of Aminadi … who interpreted the writing which was upon the wall of the temple, which was written by the finger of God” (Alma 10:2, 4).

This passing reference is all that is known about Aminadi and this incident today. But clearly, Amulek expected his irreligious audience in Ammonihah, “people known to us not for zealously reading the scriptures, but for zealously burning them,” to know who Aminadi was and to be familiar with this specific incident1.

Mormon may not have provided further comments on this miraculous event because he potentially had already given an account of it in the portion of his abridgment now lost on the 116-page manuscript2. The only piece of information we have about Aminadi is his genealogy as given by Amulek. That genealogy may tell us more than most readers have thought.

When and Where Did Aminadi Live?

Amulek himself states that he was “the son of Giddonah, who was the son of Ishmael” (Alma 10:2). “Was” in this sentence indicates that Amulek’s grandfather Ishmael had probably already passed away3. Furthermore, Ishmael was a descendant of Aminadi. This does not indicate how much time had passed between Ishmael and Aminadi, but the phrase descendant of in the Book of Mormon usually denotes two or more generations4.

As argued by Latter-day Saint scholars Brant Gardner and Don Bradley, the total distance of at least four generations here would place Aminadi’s story before Mosiah the Elder’s departure from the land of Nephi. Thus, this incident would have occurred at the temple in the city of Nephi5. As Bradley notes, Aminadi’s role as interpreter “logically places [the story] in the land of Nephi. … Given Mosiah₁ and his successors’ prophetic ability to interpret sacred writings, there would have been no need for Aminadi to interpret the writing on the temple wall during their reigns”6.

A Wisdom Figure

Moreover, Aminadi’s interpretative act is “not entirely unique.” Rather, it is “part of a broader pattern of incidents in which Hebrew prophets, biblical and Nephite, acted as wisdom figures”—that is, “a prophet … interpreting for others a divine manifestation they could not interpret for themselves”7. Other wisdom figures include Abinadi, Joseph of Egypt, and Daniel8.  

The strongest parallel to the brief account involving Aminadi is the biblical story of Daniel interpreting the writing on the palace wall of the Babylonian king Belshazzar. During a feast, Belshazzar brought out gold and silver drinking vessels—which his father, Nebuchadnezzar, had plundered from Solomon’s temple—and used them to drink wine and praise the Babylonian gods (Daniel 5:1–4).

According to the biblical text, “in the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote” (Daniel 5:5). Terrified, the king demanded that the writing be interpreted. No member of Belshazzar’s court was able to do until Daniel—known for interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams—was brought forward9. Daniel interpreted the writing to “portend Belshazzar’s death and the fall of his kingdom, both of which occurred immediately ‘in that night’”10.

What Could the Nephite Writing Have Been?

With the biblical parallel in mind, what was the writing Aminadi interpreted in the temple of Nephi? The writing Daniel interpreted was prompted by people using temple vessels in the praise of foreign gods. Don Bradley has proposed the following connection between the two accounts:

In the Aminadi event, one natural subject for writing appearing on the temple would be the temple itself. God’s writing would affirm the temple’s sacredness and might warn of the consequences that were to follow for profaning it—judgments on the wicked and the withdrawal of his presence—leading to the temple’s destruction, and the ultimate destruction of the people of the land of Nephi11.

Bradley theorizes that the fulfillment of this potential interpretative prophecy could have been the destruction among the Nephites that Amaron briefly spoke of near the end of the small plates, where he recorded that “the more wicked part of the Nephites were destroyed”12. This can especially be seen in the fact that “both events built on the pattern of repeated prophetic warning that the Nephites must keep the commandments or, in accordance with God’s covenant, they would no longer prosper in the land and ultimately be destroyed”13.

The Why

Amulek was a recent convert of Alma the Younger, brought to the gospel after an angel directed him to return home to entertain a prophet (Alma 8:20–21). Alma and Amulek went forth, prophesying that the people of Ammonihah would be destroyed by the fierce anger of the Lord if they did not repent (Alma 8:29–30). One possibility that follows here is that Amulek used his ancestor Aminadi’s experience as a powerful object lesson in delivering that prophetic injunction.

Aminadi had interpreted a warning written on the wall of the temple of Nephi that predicted its destruction if the people did not repent. Amulek’s own unrepentant audience was aware of Aminadi’s warning and its fulfillment in the city of Nephi. Therefore, it made sense for Amulek to remind the people in the wicked city of Ammonihah about the warning of Aminadi, Amulek’s own forebearer. Only a short time later, the city of Ammonihah would be utterly destroyed by an invading Lamanite army, thus fulfilling the prophetically uttered words of the Lord (Alma 16:9–10).  

In speaking as he did, Amulek remembered the words of his ancestor, thus exemplifying to modern readers of the Book of Mormon another important principle. As the prophet Malachi and the angel Moroni taught, “the heart of the children [should turn] to their fathers,” and from this comes a critical lesson about how important it is that we remember the spiritual experiences of our ancestors (Malaquías 4:6; see DyC 2:2). Although Amulek had previously not been faithful, he still knew and remembered his spiritual heritage. And although Amulek’s missions would cause him to wade through fire and affliction, many of the children of Lehi would be blessed through him.

Just as Amulek did, Latter-day Saints today must turn their hearts to their ancestors—whether related by blood or not—by continuing to remember and learn from them today. There are many faithful examples of individuals who have been “so in tune with the Lord” that they were able to interpret their own writings on the wall14. Remembering and telling their miraculous stories generates strength for us today, as it did for Amulek over two thousand years ago.