Are There Demons in the Book of Mormon?

Two distinct classes of demonic entities exist in the Book of Mormon: “unclean spirits” and “devils.” While some of the book’s teachings mirror demonology from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, others introduce new concepts. For instance, the prophet Jacob describes Satan as the leader of disembodied devils, Lehi₁ characterizes the adversary as “miserable,” and Jesus refers to the devil as the “father of contention.” Theologian Daniel Becerra explores these unique perspectives on Book of Mormon demonology in this interview.

Learn more about Jacob and Demonology in the Book of Mormon in Jacob: Faith and Great Anxiety (BYU Religious Studies Center, 2024).

Sign up to be notified when we publish new content, like interviews about Latter-day Saints and the American Apocalypse, anointing in the Bible, and the foreordination of Abraham.

What is demonology?

Demonology is a branch of theology which concerns primarily non-human evil beings that are antagonistic toward God and his purposes.

Is demonology a standard component of theologies?

Yes, broadly speaking, the term theology refers to the study of the nature of God and religious belief. There are also different branches within this larger field of study.

These include:

Christology (the nature of Christ)
Anthropology (human nature)
Soteriology (the nature of salvation)
Ecclesiology (the character of Christ’s Church)
Pneumatology (the nature of the Holy Spirit)
Demonology (evil forces)
Eschatology (last things).

What’s your vein of inquiry into Book of Mormon demonology?

I locate myself in a vein of inquiry which seeks to situate the theology of the Book of Mormon historically and in language that is intelligible to those both inside and outside of the Latter-day Saint faith.

To be clear, this is not a study of Latter-day Saint “doctrine,” which is authoritative, declared by leaders of the Church, and distilled from sources including but not limited to the Book of Mormon. Instead, my focus is exclusively on Jacob’s theological assumptions, where they might originate, and how they might inform other Book of Mormon figures’ teachings about the devil and his minions.

In addition to his scholarship about Book of Mormon demonology, Daniel Becerra has also written and spoken about Christ in Latter-day Saint scripture and ancient Christianity.

How can teachings about demonology shed light on the development of Nephite theology?

Identifying what a single individual in the Book of Mormon teaches about any given topic makes it possible to compare and contrast that person’s teachings with others’. By doing this, scholars become better equipped to answer questions like:

Where did such teachings originate?
How were they received?
How do they differ from or seem to inform other teachings?
Etc.

Concentrated discourse about the devil and his minions appears most frequently in the recorded words of Nephi₁, Lehi₁, Jacob, Abinadi, Alma₂, Amulek, and Mormon₂. I am trying to map out the trajectory of ideas and their development among such figures.

I argue that Jacob was a significant and influential part of this tradition of thinkers and is responsible for some of the most innovative teachings regarding demons in the Book of Mormon.

What main scriptural sources about devils would Lehi have had access to?

Lehi would have access to at least to the brass plates, which contained some texts now found in our Bible as well as some that are not.

Do we know if his interpretations align with those of his contemporaries in the Hebrew Bible?

Lehi’s views about devils seem to derive primarily from Genesis 2–3 and Isaiah 14. His teachings center on the devil’s agency in the past: his origin story as a fallen angel of God and as the liar who deceived Adam and Eve.

Some scholars believe that Lehi would have been unique in his linking of these two biblical texts together to inform his understanding of Satan, as this kind of interpretation would occur only later in the Jewish tradition.

One aspect of Lehi’s teaching that does not appear in the Hebrew Bible is his claim that the devil is “miserable” (2 Ne. 2:18).

Does Jacob extend beyond his father Lehi’s related teachings?

Jacob’s demonology periodically reflects his father’s, although he is not beholden to it. Jacob is usually clearer and more concise than his father in his claims.

At times, however, he also adds to them or does not repeat them. One example of this relates to the malleability—i.e. the ability to change form—of the devil. Whereas Lehi₁ taught that the devil used to be “an angel of God” (2 Nephi 2:17), Jacob adds that the devil also has the capacity to change back into one: he “transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light” (2 Nephi 9:9). Jacob also sometimes uses terms to describe the devil—e.g. “awful monster,” “evil one,” and “devil of all devils”—that are not found in his father’s teachings.

Are Jacob’s teachings about devils more aligned with the Hebrew Bible or New Testament?

Jacob’s teachings mirror teachings found in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Sometimes they are more consistent with the latter. For example, the idea of a demonic hierarchy of disembodied beings, of which a single demon—“the devil” or “Satan”—is the head, is not present in the Book of Mormon prior to Jacob, nor is it mentioned in any of the biblical texts that were likely on the brass plates.

In the biblical tradition, such beliefs seem to have emerged in the New Testament period (for example, see Matthew 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18). In this respect, Jacob’s demonology is more developed than the demonology of the Hebrew Bible and more in line with that of the New Testament.

N. T. Wright on the New Testament in Its World

What are the most likely ways he could have gained that kind of understanding?

To say that Jacob’s views mirrored those later expressed in the New Testament is not to say that he necessarily derived them from the New Testament. Historically speaking, Jacob would have died long before the texts that became the New Testament were written. One possibility is that Jacob was taught such things through revelation from God. Another possibility is that he was taught them by other humans or that he came to them on his own. Some combination of these options could also be possible.

Are devils in the Book of Mormon invested in human sin?

Two classes of demonic entities appear in the Book of Mormon: “unclean spirits” and “devils”. Unclean spirits inhabit human beings, cooperate with devils in some of their activities, need to be cast out by divine power, and are linked to physical or mental ailments. Devils, however, are more closely linked to human immorality and are portrayed as authors of temptation and instigators of sin.

Does the Book of Mormon have a formal hierarchy of devils?

Jacob teaches that the devil is at the top of a hierarchical relationship with others of his kind: he is “the devil of all devils” (2 Nephi 9:37). Jacob is unique not in his assumption that the devil has minions but rather in that he is the first to claim that such beings include disembodied entities.

In the writings of Nephi₁, for example, the devil’s minions appear to be exclusively embodied human beings who are active in the New Testament era after the death of Christ, when the devil establishes the “great and abominable church” on the earth (1 Nephi 22:14). These humans are referred to as the devil’s “child(ren)” and as part of his “kingdom . . . which shall be built up among the children of men . . . established among them which are in the flesh” (1 Ne. 22:22).

Jacob, on the other hand, introduces the idea that the devil also has disembodied, spiritual beings in his employ. These beings are referred to as his “devils” and his “angels” (2 Nephi 9:9, 37). This is not to say that Nephi₁ did not know or believe these things, only that he did not write about them. The idea that the devil has disembodied minions also appears elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, perhaps reflecting Jacob’s influence on the later demonology.

Is there any evidence that the Nephites and Lamanites held substantially different views about devils?

In the Book of Mormon, we find primarily the voices and teachings of Nephites. Consequently, it is difficult to reconstruct what Lamanites might have believed about demons and the devil.

The Lamanites also rejected many of the teachings and traditions of Nephites. Samuel the Lamanite mentions “demons” in Hel. 13:37, but only in passing. Ammoron, the king of the Lamanites, acknowledges that he does not know if things like the “devil and a hell” exist (Alma 54:22).

Does Jesus say anything in the Book of Mormon about devils that differs from His teachings in the New Testament?

Jacob and Jesus mention that the devil and his angels laugh, rejoice, and delight in human sin, particularly when humans engage in idolatry and murder (see 2 Nephi 9:37; 3 Nephi 9:2). Jesus also refers to the devil as the “father of contention,” which term does not appear in the New Testament.

Aside from these things, Jesus’ mention of demons in the Book of Mormon is consistent with his teachings in the New Testament.

Do Book of Mormon teachings about devils influence Latter-day Saint doctrine?

Our doctrine and practice are informed by our scriptural canon—which includes but is not limited to the Book of Mormon—and by our prophetic tradition (i.e. the teachings of Church leaders). For this reason, one might expect to see Latter-day Saint teachings about Satan and his minions drawn from the Book of Mormon. One can also find precedents in the Book of Mormon for Latter-day Saint practices like casting out evil spirits in the name of Jesus.

What related research questions could scholars pursue?

Scholarship that explores the theology of the Book of Mormon continues to grow. Some of this work may be appropriately characterized as “synthetic,” meaning attentive to the unity and coherence of the text, whereas other work is more “descriptive,” acknowledging where diversity and development of thought occurs. Still other approaches might compare the Book of Mormon’s teachings to that of other texts and traditions or highlight the practical applications of such teachings.

There are numerous possibilities for further exploration. A colleague and I are currently completing a book-length project which seeks to articulate the theology of the Book of Mormon according to traditional theological categories and to trace the development of theological thought within the text itself.

Did you enjoy this interview?

Sign up to be notified when we publish new content!

About the Interview Participant

Daniel Becerra is an Assistant Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University. He holds a PhD in Religion and an MA in Religious Studies from Duke University, as well as an MTS in New Testament / Early Christianity from Harvard Divinity School. He is the author, editor, or contributor to several related publications, including Book of Mormon Studies: An Introduction and Guide, Jacob and Demonology in the Book of Mormon, and 3rd, 4th Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction. He is currently working on a full-length book about the development of theological thought within the Book of Mormon.