And It Came to Pass:
The Book of Mormon’s Most Commonly Used Idiom
The first time my family read the Book of Mormon, my younger brother could not read fluently. Thus, as we went around our little circle one verse at a time, he was not able to completely take his turn, so we gave him a different job. Even at his young age, Jordan noticed the repetition of the phrase “and it came to pass” in the Book of Mormon. Every time we came to this phrase, we would all stop and wait for Jordan to fill in the gap with his then high-pitched voice. As we slowly made our way through chapter after chapter, Jordan inserted the phrase hundreds upon hundreds of times. To me, it seemed like nothing more than a tagline in the scriptures. I had no idea that this five-word idiom is actually one of the controversial topics in the worldwide discussion on the Book of Mormon.
As with every literary aspect of the Book of Mormon, the transitional phrase “and it came to pass” is received by readers with a wide spectrum of emotion, speculation, and intellect. After digging deeper into the usage of the phrase, I have found that the idiom “and it came to pass”—which I will abbreviate AICTP—is much more than just the tagline of the Book of Mormon. In this paper, I will examine the variety of ways the phrase is received as well as what I consider to be the real purpose of AICTP: a structural transition that makes perfect sense given the book’s origin.
AICTP as a Transition
Transitional words, phrases, and paragraphs are used in writing to keep the reader on track. They give a sense of direction to the literary work. Though they may seem somewhat frivolous, transitions are absolutely crucial as literary devices to link one idea to the next, to highlight the relevance of each passage. AICTP keeps the reader on track throughout the often confusing timelines of the Book of Mormon. While the transition itself certainly does not vary from one copy of the Book of Mormon to another, how AICTP is received varies greatly, from very emotional responses to intellectual, even skeptical ones.
An Emotional Reaction
2 Nephi 9:28 states, “When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.” The meaning of this verse is simply that we need to trust in the wisdom of God. I am reminded of Proverbs 3:5-6 in which we are told to “lean not unto [our] own understanding.” However, some readers take this scripture to an extreme and decide that all earthly wisdom is foolishness, so we should never interpret what we read intellectually.
For this reason, many Latter-day Saints interpret AICTP very emotionally. Upon an internet search of AICTP, dozens of blogs come up. Many detail the opinion that the significance of the phrase is found in the word “pass.” Many of these entries boast titles like “It Came to Pass. . . Not to Stay”, interpreting AICTP as a constant reminder of hope that our trials will pass, not stay, remaining indefinitely. This seems like a reasonable, even desirable conclusion when examining a verse such as Ether 9:23, which reads, “. . .And it came to pass that he had no children even until he was exceedingly old.” Another example where this interpretation of AICTP is ideal is found in 1 Nephi 7:16, which says:
And it came to pass that when I, Nephi, had spoken these words unto my brethren, they were angry with me. And it came to pass that they did lay their hands upon me, for behold, they were exceedingly wroth, and they did bind me with cords, for they sought to take away my life, that they might leave me in the wilderness to be devoured by wild beasts.
However, if this meaning of AICTP is what the authors of the book intended, other verses make little or no sense. For instance, the verse in Alma 63 that states, “And it came to pass that they were never heard of more.” Since this verse asserts the word never, the “and it came but would certainly end” interpretation of AICTP doesn’t seem like a logical one. Yet another confusing example is found in Enos 1:25, which reads, “And it came to pass that I began to be old. . .” Once again, the emotional interpretation of AICTP doesn’t make sense in this instance.
Furthermore, scanning through my list of some of the occurrences of AICTP, I came across many instances where this explication is not only confusing but in direct contradiction to the principles being taught in the verse. For example, it comes to pass in 1 Nephi 7:21 that Nephi did “frankly forgive [his brothers] all that they had done.” It is doubtful that Nephi meant that he forgave them at that moment, but this forgiveness would inevitably end.
It is clear that, while this somewhat sappy, perhaps cliché interpretation of AICTP fits well and provides a measure of hope for Latter-day Saints in some instances, in the majority of contexts, this explanation simply does not make sense. Therefore, it is logical that a more intellectual explanation of the use of AICTP may be closer to the real purpose of the phrase. As far as I can see, intellectual responses to AICTP come in two categories. I will analyze first what I consider to be the less intellectual of the two.
The Secondary Intellectual Response
Many critics of the Book of Mormon use the frequency of AICTP as evidence that Joseph Smith fabricated the entire story and book. Many assert that Joseph Smith knew a few scriptural phrases and threw them around to make his book more believable but got carried away with AICTP. Well-known humorist Mark Twain commented that AICTP is overused, saying:
The author [Joseph Smith] labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James translation of the Scriptures. . . . Whenever he found his speech growing too modern—which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as “exceeding sore,” “and it came to pass,” etc., and made things satisfactory again. “And it came to pass” was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet (103).
While Mark Twain may have simply been satirizing the Book of Mormon, many agree with his stance. Posted on his blog, Dwindling in Unbelief, Steve Wells explored various reasons for the frequent use of AICTP in the Book of Mormon, concluding, “It looks to me like Mark Twain had it exactly right. Joseph Smith thought the and-it-came-to-passes made it sound like scripture, and it would make his rather short book a bit longer. So he couldn’t resist” (N.P.). Reverend Keith Gibson came to a similar conclusion, using AICTP as evidence, saying that the “over-use of a particular phrase throughout the entire Book of Mormon also testifies to the book having a single human author as opposed to the multiple authors it claims” (N.P.). This element of the secondary intellectual interpretation of AICTP seems to be consistent no matter who is writing the article, blog, or book. Each opposer of the Book of Mormon argues that the continued use of AICTP throughout each book in the Book of Mormon proves that the entire work was written by one person. However, by that logic, Genesis, 1 Kings, Joshua, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Nehemiah, Exodus, Judges, Jeremiah, and 2 Chronicles were all written by the same author, since each of those books uses AICTP multiple times.
As an author, I borrow phrases from my favorite classic novels all the time. The authors of each of these books in the Old Testament had access to scripture that came before them, and they all used AICTP. Why would the authors of the Book of Mormon behave any differently? One phrase is certainly not enough to constitute an entire writing style, and, since there are distinct stylistic differences among the different books of the Book of Mormon—the blatant contrast of Nephi’s writing style, which includes many tangible details, and the heavily metaphorical style of Alma, for instance—I cannot reconcile the idea that one common phrase strung heavily throughout the book is enough concrete evidence to prove that it was all written by the same person.
This secondary intellectual explanation of AICTP, that it is just a scriptural phrase, does not seem to be adequate as a reason for the frequent use. Furthermore, many of the people who support this idea, while they may have considered other reasons, conclude that Joseph Smith was just trying to make his translation sound biblical. After looking deeper into the subject, this explanation seems uninformed and not at all reasonable, so I will continue to examine a more plausible explanation of the purpose of AICTP.
The Primary Intellectual Response
A more intellectual explanation of the frequent use of AICTP is that it was a phrase Joseph Smith used to give structure to his translation of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon did not have separate paragraphs or even punctuation until they were added by the printer, Gilbert. Many ancient writing systems had no punctuation; the idea of separating paragraphs with a space and an indentation was not widespread until the 17th century. Ancient writers used symbols to indicate where one idea ended and another began. In keeping with this practice, ancient writers sometimes used AICTP as a structural marker to signal the beginning of a new section (Sampson 78).
Another common element of these opposing arguments is that Joseph Smith included the phrase much too often. However, the Hebrew form of AICTP, wayehi, is found in the Hebrew Bible 1204 times. AICTP is most frequently used as a transition in narrative, historical, and chronological writings. This remains consistent throughout the Bible and the Book of Mormon; the expression is rarely found in the poetic or literary sections. This consistency suggests that the purpose of AICTP is very structural as well as a phrase only anciently accepted in certain types of writing. It also helps in disbanding the argument that Joseph Smith used the phrase too much. In relative comparison to the Bible, the Book of Mormon contains much more narrative, historical, and chronological writings whereas the Bible contains more poetic or literary writings. Since AICTP is used very seldom in the figurative, poetic, and literary writings and frequently in the narrative, historical, and chronological, it seems a logical conclusion that AICTP would have a higher rate of occurrence in the Book of Mormon.
Upon further digging, I find that this constant use of a phrase is inherent in the ancient languages. In Mayan hieroglyphs, a symbol has been found that translates to “it happened” which was used at the beginning of almost every thought as a structural element (Coe 33). At some periods of historical Egyptian writing, every speech is introduced with the phrase “I opened my mouth.” Other Egyptian texts are held together by repetition of Khpr-n, which is translated as “It happened that” or “It came to pass”. While it seems frivolous to us, these phrases are grammatically necessary in Egyptian (Coe 46). Thus, it makes sense that the Book of Mormon, which was translated from Reformed Egyptian, would frequently insert a transition to tie the whole thing together.
Conclusion
AICTP is not just a catch phrase as I thought when I was younger. It is also not just biblical fluff, as Mark Twain and others have suggested. It is not even a motivational phrase that begs to be used as a motto for a relief society activity. Rather, AICTP is a literary device that was crucial for the Book of Mormon to be acceptable as an ancient Reformed Egyptian text. Everyone who has read the Book of Mormon seems to have an opinion on this idiom. In response to the arguments that Joseph Smith was simply throwing around the few scriptural phrases he was familiar with and did so much too frequently, I believe, after careful research and an in-depth study of when the phrase is used, that AICTP is used not erroneously but exactly where it should be. As an element of literature in the Book of Mormon, AICTP serves as a structural transition that makes sense in light of the book’s origin.
Works Cited
The Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989.
Print.
Coe, Michael D.. Reading the Maya Glyphs. London: Thames and Hudson, 2001.
Gibson, Keith. "Evaluating the Book of Mormon". Apologetics Resource Center. 1 March
2010 .
Sampson, Geoffrey. Writing Systems: a Linguistic Introduction. Stanford University Press:
1990.
Twain, Mark. Roughing It. New York: New American Library, Inc., 1962.
Wells, Steve. "Dwindling in Unbelief". N.P.. 1 March 2010
