Who is Aminadi in the Book of Mormon?

Question

 

Gramps,

I’ve tried my best to find out who this descendant of Amulek (Aminadi) is. Footnote 10:2a Dan. 5:16.  Is Aminadi Daniel?

Rod

 

Answer

 

Dear Rod,

One of the interesting things about studying the Book of Mormon is that it occasionally mentions people who are otherwise unknown. A good example is found in Alma 10:2, where Amulek introduces himself by saying:

“I am Amulek; I am the son of Giddonah, who was the son of Ishmael, who was a descendant of Aminadi…”

The footnote on the word Aminadi points to Daniel 5:16, leading some readers to wonder if Aminadi and the Old Testament prophet Daniel are actually the same person. It’s a thoughtful question, but according to Latter-day Saint doctrine and the available evidence, the answer is no.

The confusion comes from the footnote rather than the text itself.

The footnote in Alma 10:2 refers to Daniel 5:16 because both passages contain a similar phrase about interpreting scripture or writing. In Daniel 5, King Belshazzar tells Daniel:

“I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts…” (Daniel 5:16)

Meanwhile, Alma 10:2 says that Aminadi “interpreted the writing which was upon the wall of the temple.”

Since both verses involve someone interpreting miraculous writing, the footnote simply cross-references a similar event. It is not suggesting that Aminadi and Daniel were the same individual.

Cross-references in the scriptures connect similar ideas, words, or events. They are not intended to identify people as being the same unless the scriptures specifically say so.

So who was Aminadi?

The truth is that we know very little about him. The Book of Mormon mentions him only once, in Alma 10:2. According to Amulek, Aminadi was one of his ancestors and was known for interpreting miraculous writing that appeared on the temple wall.

Unfortunately, Mormon doesn’t provide any additional details. We aren’t told when Aminadi lived, what office he held, whether he was a prophet, priest, judge, or teacher, or exactly what the writing on the temple wall said.

Because he is mentioned only in passing, most of what people say about Aminadi is speculation.

Some readers have wondered whether the event involving the writing on the temple wall occurred around the time Lehi and his family left Jerusalem. Others have suggested it may have been an event among the Nephites after they arrived in the promised land.

The Book of Mormon simply doesn’t say.

Could Aminadi have been Daniel?

Several reasons suggest he was not.

First, the names are completely different. Daniel is consistently called Daniel throughout both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon references to him. If Mormon intended readers to understand Aminadi as Daniel, there would likely have been some indication of that.

Second, Daniel never traveled with Lehi’s family to the Americas. The Bible records that Daniel was taken captive into Babylon around 605 B.C. and spent the remainder of his life serving under Babylonian and Persian kings. There is no biblical or Book of Mormon evidence that he ever left the Old World.

Third, the timeline doesn’t fit very well. Daniel was a contemporary of Lehi, while Alma 10 identifies Aminadi as an ancestor several generations removed from Amulek. Although Daniel lived long before Amulek, there is no connection between his family line and Amulek’s genealogy.

Finally, the two events themselves are different.

In Daniel 5, the famous writing appears on the wall of King Belshazzar’s palace during a royal feast. Daniel interprets the words “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN,” announcing God’s judgment upon Babylon.

In Alma 10, the writing appeared “upon the wall of the temple.” The Book of Mormon gives no further explanation about the message or the circumstances. While both accounts involve miraculous writing on a wall, they are clearly separate events occurring in different places and among different people.

Why, then, does Mormon mention Aminadi at all?

Most likely, Mormon wanted readers to understand that Amulek came from a faithful family with a spiritual heritage. By tracing his lineage back to someone remembered for interpreting sacred writing, Amulek establishes that he was not just an ordinary citizen suddenly speaking about God. His family had a history of faith and service.

Interestingly, Amulek later explains that although he had once known many gospel truths, he had become spiritually complacent before being called to preach (see Alma 10:6). His conversion reminds us that even people with righteous ancestors must choose faith for themselves.

There is also a valuable lesson about scripture study here. Sometimes we want answers that the scriptures simply don’t provide. It’s natural to be curious about people like Aminadi, but responsible gospel study means distinguishing between what the scriptures actually say and what we might guess.

President Boyd K. Packer once taught that “the study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior.” That principle also reminds us to focus on the doctrines the Lord has revealed rather than becoming overly concerned with questions He has chosen not to answer.

In the end, the identity of Aminadi remains one of the Book of Mormon’s small mysteries. We know he was an ancestor of Amulek, that he interpreted miraculous writing on a temple wall, and that he was remembered generations later for that remarkable event. Beyond those few facts, the scriptures are silent.

So, is Aminadi Daniel? According to Latter-day Saint doctrine and the scriptures, the answer is no. The footnote to Daniel 5:16 simply points readers to another example of someone interpreting miraculous writing. It is a helpful cross-reference, not an identification. Sometimes the best answer is also the simplest one: we know exactly what the Lord has chosen to reveal, and for now, that is enough.

 

Gramps