Conclusions

From contemporary testimony and scriptural analysis, it is clear that anti-Universalistic rhetoric was part of the Book of Mormon's message. The Book of Mormon was not only presented a generally orthodox theological position but also explicitly attacked the notion of universal salvation. Universalists or those who held Universalist beliefs—such as Asael Smith, Joseph Smith, Sr., Martin Harris, Joseph Knight, Sr., and Eli Gilbert—responded to the Book of Mormon's message by renouncing their former beliefs and (except for Asael smith, who died in 1830) joined the church Joseph Smith founded.

It was perhaps the strong anti-Universalist stance of the Book of Mormon which accounts for some of the adverse reactions Smith received in response to his February 1832 vision of the three degrees of glory. While working on the revision of the New Testament, Smith and Sidney Rigdon received a vision which explained that all but a few would be assigned to one of three heavens depending on their performance in mortality (D&C 76). The revelation reads in part: "And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, . . . that he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness; that through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him; who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him" (vv. 40-43). This revelation was easily recognized as a modified Restorationist position and to some appeared to be a major reversal in doctrine. Not surprisingly therefore, Smith received some immediate resistance to the new doctrine from within the Mormon community.

As stated at the outset, the primary goal of this essay is not determining the Book of Mormon's origin, but the question arises of whether the Book o Mormon's origin, but the question arises of whether ancient American cultures could have debated Universalism in a manner that would have been meaningful to those in early nineteenth-century America. if one allows the possibility of Alma and Amulek discussing Universalism in America nearly a century before Christ, the conscientious reader will be struck by their use of arguments based on the same New Testament passages on which the nineteenth-century debate centered. In addition, the Book of Mormon not only perpetuates misrepresentations of anti-Universalist rhetoric but historicizes them by having ancient Universalists defend these very misperceptions (e.g., Alma 11:34-35).

That rhetorical and historical criticism may not always support traditional views has been recognized by New Testament scholars. "it is not clear," writes Burton L. Mack, that rhetorical criticism "will not should support traditional Christian views about the message of the New Testament and its relevance for instruction, faith, and piety" (Mack 1990, 101-102). Likewise rhetorical criticism may also challenge traditional assumptions about the Book of Mormon, but it does help researchers understand the book's message in its nineteenth-century context. It is doubtful that a study of ancient American cultures would produce a similar context for understanding this central theological focus of the Book of Mormon. The degree to which Smith adapted his narrative to the concerns of his modern audience is a question each reader must answer for him- or herself.