Our ward has brought in a bunch of single females into the baptism font recently and the trajectory has been almost identical for all of them:

Phase One:  Missionaries love me. I feel the pull of the truth and the Lord’s love.  Church members are coming over in droves to listen to me talk for 90 minutes about the inside of my dog’s ear if I want to, waiting to get a niblit of gospel teaching into the conversation. I love the church.

Phase Two:  Excited, everyone showed up at my baptism and I’m willing and eager to learn a new life with new friends and the ward family I was welcomed into.  This is gonna be so great.  The Church is true.

Phase Three:  They are now letting me know that the Jesus I shared my love for doesn’t want me alone and won’t let me hang around unless I’m married and my chances of that are slim to none.  I explained I had a horrible marriage, divorce, abuse situation, etc but they summarily dismiss that and insist on family as the ultimate reason to exist and praise Jesus. Redemption and repentance are important but only as paths to get to family.  Not to live with the Savior, but to live with my family.  I sit in sacrament meetings all about forever families, but I can’t be sealed to my own children.  The “it will come later” explanation seems the same sort of mystery that they said wasn’t good in my old church.  But people are nice and seem devoted, at least to their own family.

Phase 4: This is very differerent than my first month here.  They don’t know I’ve gone back to my old church to visit.  Everyone here is too busy protecting time with their own insulated families.  We had prayer circle on Wed and I loved it.  I felt like a real family of worshipers again.  No one from the new church comes to talk or listen anymore, missionaries stopped coming and the assigned teachers don’t seem to have a genuine interest in anything but the magazine they read from.  They don’t come other than that.  I thought all that was the beginning of new friendships but I guess not.  I don’t know what happened.  We had such a good time talking last month.  I have friends at my (old) church without even trying.  They seem to need friends too so we all have that common support for each other.  They have families too but are more open with their time.

Musings:

Maybe the baptisms serve to help us not have so many to do in the millenium but they don’t seem to be much more than that.  While I don’t want to be the socially favorite church, it sure seems like investigators don’t understand what they are getting into and either don’t have the motivation or don’t have the skills to withstand the isolation we put them through as singles.

While Sis Beck talked about the women flooding into the church as we found our vision of RS, I don’t think she meant they would come for 4 month stints and leave.  It’s so frustrating and heartbreaking.  The ones most attracted are those that need a community and think they’ve found it as the missionaries are so very attentive.  Then they get suddenly ignored.

So solutions?  Still pondering what to do.  Reading through some RS histories to try to get some ideas.  [She here names a few women in her ward who do a good job maintaining relationships with singles.]  Some friends from Utah do it well.  It’s far more rare than it should be.  And mothers/families suffer from the consequenses of being so isolated from others and overly insulated as a family.

When I was new to the church, I was convinced the choirs needed robes.  I’ve since realized that was just my own wish for something familiar in an unfamiliar religionworld.  Is this just a choir robe issue or do we really need to be more of a community?  Will a community distract from our duties and abilities to care for our families?

“No success will compensate for failure in the home.”  If I hear that quote one more time over the pulpit… I may scream.  I don’t think they were talking about saying no to callings or spending time with new members.  I can come up with example after example of pioneer stories that WE promote in our talks and lesson, about people inviting refugees into their home nad having all their kids die of smallpox.  Of wagon company members sharing food with others and suffering terribly.  Missionaries going on 3 yr missions, leaving women and children, sick and pregnant behind.  The list of overdramatic stories we love are rife with sacrificing for others.

1 Now when Mosiah had done this he sent out throughout all the land, among all the people, desiring to know their will concerning who should be their king.

Once again I am surprised at the outsized role the concept of “desire” plays in the BoM.

Note that the people’s will plays into who will be the king.  Could you then make the case that “king” isn’t the best translation then?

Obligatory Monty Python reference:

King Arthur:  I am your king.
Peasant Woman:  Well I didn’t vote for you.
King Arthur:  You don’t vote for kings.

 2 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came, saying: We are desirous that Aaron thy son should be our king and our ruler.

What do you make of the “voice of the people”?  (I suspect that not every single literal one of them agreed, or said these exact words.)

Desire, again.

Are “king” and “ruler” two separate things or two ways of saying the same thing?

 3 Now Aaron had gone up to the land of Nephi, therefore the king could not confer the kingdom upon him; neither would Aaron take upon him the kingdom; neither were any of the sons of Mosiah willing to take upon them the kingdom.

Why would the people want someone who had no interest in the job?  What does this say about them?

Why mention that the other sons don’t want it when the people didn’t want the other sons?

This isn’t new information; it was covered in the middle of ch28.  But we got a little sidetracked there when Mosiah2 turned his attention from the next-king problem to the records, with some details of Mosiah translating the Jaredite record and giving the plates to Alma.  What this means is that the story of that translation is sandwiched in between discussions of the succession crisis.  How might we read the story of the translation of the Jaredite records differently in that context?  How might we read the story of the succession problem differently in that context?  (One thought is that Mosiah2 was horrified by record of leadership among the Jaredites, but that doesn’t quite make sense of v1 in this chapter when he asks the people which king they want next.)

 4 Therefore king Mosiah sent again among the people; yea, even a written word sent he among the people. And these were the words that were written, saying:

Is it significant that it was a written request?  (Note that we get that idea not just mentioned but repeated in this verse.)

 5 Behold, O ye my people, or my brethren, for I esteem you as such, I desire that ye should consider the cause which ye are called to consider—for ye are desirous to have a king.

Is this the first we get of Mosiah2′s direct speech (writings)?

Desire x2 here.

The last line seems not entirely accurate to me.  This isn’t the OT, where the people are the driving force behind wanting a king.  Here, Mosiah asked them not whether there should be a king, but who the king should be.  So is the reconsideration of the idea of even having a king based on the fact that they wanted someone to be a king who is not available?  (In other words, if Aaron had been willing to come home and be king, would none of this change of government ever have happened?)  Did Mosiah not realize that Aaron would say no?  (But how is that possible when Mosiah 28:10 says, “Now king Mosiah had no one to confer the kingdom upon, for there was not any of his sons who would accept of the kingdom.”?)  So:  Why does this chapter begin with Mosiah asking them who they want when Mosiah knows full well that his sons have already said they won’t serve?  (Did Mosiah think that the “voice of the people” would sway his son[s] into reconsidering?)

6 Now I declare unto you that he to whom the kingdom doth rightly belong has declined, and will not take upon him the kingdom.

Is it significant that Mosiah uses an elaborate circumlocution in order to avoid saying his son’s name?

Was it right or wrong for Aaron to decline?

Is it possible this verse is referring to a son other than Aaron?

How do you reconcile the idea of the kingdom “rightly belonging” to someone with the idea of Mosiah2 seeking the voice of the people “concerning who should be their king”?  (Is there any analogy to modern practices of sustaining callings?)

 7 And now if there should be another appointed in his stead, behold I fear there would rise contentions among you. And who knoweth but what my son, to whom the kingdom doth belong, should turn to be angry and draw away a part of this people after him, which would cause wars and contentions among you, which would be the cause of shedding much blood and perverting the way of the Lord, yea, and destroy the souls of many people.

Why would contentions arise if Aaron was totally clear about not wanting to be king?

This verse sketches an odd scenario:  Would you really worry that a kid who had very publicly turned down the throne would later pitch a fit and cause a civil war?

Note the sequence of shed blood -> pervert ways of the Lord -> destroy souls.  What might you learn from this sequence?

I hate to cast aspersions on Mosiah2′s motives, but I think it is worth remembering that he took over from his father without a peep.  One wonders what he makes of his kids’ different choices and whether any part of his letter here is reactionary.  (It is worth noting that he is going to introduce an entirely new form of government in order to avoid a specific set of problems, but those problems end up happening anyway.)

 8 Now I say unto you let us be wise and consider these things, for we have no right to destroy my son, neither should we have any right to destroy another if he should be appointed in his stead.

So when Simon was about five, he came to me and seemed very angry with me and said something like:  ”Nathan’s making me mad.  And he’s going to keep making me mad.  And then I’m going to hit him.  And then you are going to send me to time out for NO REASON!”  I see the same thing happening here:  Mosiah is concerned that “we” will destroy his son, when his son (1) chose to refuse the throne and (2) would choose to cause a civil war to get it back.  How is that “we” destroying his son and not his son destroying himself?

At this point, one wonders why Mosiah solicited the “voice of the people” in the first place if he wasn’t going to go along with it.

 9 And if my son should turn again to his pride and vain things he would recall the things which he had said, and claim his right to the kingdom, which would cause him and also this people to commit much sin.

Webster 1828 recall:

1. To call back; to take back; as, to recall words or declarations.

2. To revoke; to annul by a subsequent act; as, to recall a decree.

3. To call back; to revive in memory; as, to recall to mind what has been forgotten.

4. To call back from a place or mission; as, to recall a minister from a foreign court; to recall troops from India.

Er, is this a “no confidence” vote in the genuineness of his son’s repentance?  And why was he offering the kid the throne in the last chapter if he felt this way?

Does this verse imply that only a wicked person would want to be king?  It seems to, inasmuch as it suggests that unrighteousness would lead the son to the throne, but that sounds like an odd thing for the kid of king Ben to think about a king.

Brant Gardner:

In Zarahemla, we have four known peoples who have had a king tradition of their own, the Nephties, Zarahemlaite/Mulekites, Limhites, and Almaites. Any one of those groups would have within them kin groups that would remember that they had once been in a royal lineage, and might elect to assert that lineage to elevate one of their own to the throne. With the contentions that we have seen lie so close to the surface of Zarahemlaite society already, Mosiah’s fear for outright civil war if there is a contested succession would appear to be quite legitimate.  Citation

 10 And now let us be wise and look forward to these things, and do that which will make for the peace of this people.

Note the words “look forward,” used, I think, in a much more literal sense than the way we mean “looking forward in a good way.”  His scenario here about his son causing a civil war after backsliding seems . . . a bit tenuous, but the one thing that we know about Mosiah2, repeated more than once, is that he is a seer.  He can translate ancient records, and he just did in the last chapter.  So I wonder if maybe we should just trust his judgment on this one.  Perhaps the process of translating the Jaredite record led him to these very concerns, and he wants his people to “look forward” in the sense of being seers of the risks of giving the kingdom to someone other than the person legally entitled to it.

Note that v8 also had the idea of “being wise.”  Why do you think Mosiah mentions that twice?  (Note the idea of “wise” men as judges in the next verse–is he making a link between wise people and wise judges?  Is he suggesting that they should rule themselves?)

 11 Therefore I will be your king the remainder of my days; nevertheless, let us appoint judges, to judge this people according to our law; and we will newly arrange the affairs of this people, for we will appoint wise men to be judges, that will judge this people according to the commandments of God.

So with this verse, the BoM inverts the order of biblical history, which went from judges to kings.

In our view, judges have a judicial role (obviously) and kings have an executive role.  However, there is ample evidence in the book of Judges that those judges also had an executive role (for example, Deborah leads people into battle).  Can you determine what these BoM judges did?

Is there necessarily a decentralizing of power with judges?  Is that a good thing?  (In the book of Judges, it is a problem, because everyone walks after their own path [in a bad way].  Of course, they think kings are bad, too, so there’s pretty much no winning.)

If the judges are judging “according to the commandments of God,” then is there really any separation of civil and religious authority, even if the high priest is separate from the judges (which he won’t be with Alma, but that’s another story).

This verse has “according to our law” and “according to the commandments of God.”  How do those two phrases relate?

Brant Gardner points out that the move from kings to judges elevates the role of the law, because the king can just make stuff up (and claim it is the will of God), but a judge has to judge according to a pre-determined law.  (What I find murky about this is that a judge [according to that definition] just can’t fulfill all of the requirements of a king:  How does foreign policy work?  What about new situations that the law hadn’t anticipated?  How’d they set their budget?)

Mosiah2 seems to think that the existence of laws makes a king more trouble than he is worth.  But that just doesn’t seem right, and history (as we’ll see in the next few chapters–it only takes about 4 years and 3 chapters for this government to implode) seems to prove that his idea was wrong.  How are we supposed to read this chapter, then?  Mormon meticulously preserved Mosiah2′s letter to the people outlining the rationale for a change in government, but are we supposed to nod along as we read, or are we supposed to see the seeds of destruction being planted?  Or something in between?  Or both?  In my more cynical moments, I could read this as a testament to the futility of any political system in a fallen world.

Byron R. Merrill traces the history of Nephite kings:

The only four kings over the main body of Nephites of whom we have any particular knowledge are Nephi, at the very beginning of the monarchy, and Mosiah I, Benjamin, and Mosiah II, the last three kings before the reign of the judges ended the tradition of kingship among the Nephites. These men were prophets as well as civic leaders, largely providing for their own needs instead of burdening the people, and thus serving God by serving his children (2 Nephi 5:14–18; Mosiah 2:12–14; 6:7; 29:14, 40). That other men of similar spiritual stature served as kings during the period between the reigns of Nephi and Mosiah I, a span of over 200 years, is indicated by Jarom’s comment: “Our kings and our leaders were mighty men in the faith of the Lord” (Jarom 1:7). With that heritage, it is easy to understand why the two contemporaries Mosiah II and Alma both counseled that if it were possible to always have just men as kings, it would be well to have a king (Mosiah 23:8; 29:13). Citation

I include that quote because it is worth remembering that the Nephites have had a positive and long track record with their kings.  Now perhaps they were influenced by the train wreck of Noah, but what country would change when things have been going basically pretty well just because some renegades living next door had a bad experience with their own king?  It doesn’t make sense.  One possibility is that Mosiah2 has some qualms about the genuine-ness or stickiness of Aaron’s repentance.  (After all, that is how he introduces the issue of a problem with a king.)  It seems unsavory to me that he would doubt his own son’s repentance, but there you go.

Does it surprise you that Mosiah goes to such great lengths to set out a rational set of reasons for why they should switch governments, instead of just announcing, from his authority as king and/or via religious authority, that this is what they should be doing?  (Does his appeal to reason suggest that the change in government was not divinely inspired?)

 12 Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.

It sounds like he is about to point out the weaknesses of having (human) judges, but that isn’t where he goes with this . . .

Because the context is human judges, it is easy to lose the fact that he is pointing out that God is always a just judge.  This is a basic concept, but very important.

Is it possible to always be judged of God?

What are the broader implications of this verse?  (I think one is that he is implying that there is no automatic translation of the judgments of God into the human realm–they are always mediated by flawed human beings.)

 13 Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you.

Remember that the set-up here was that, in ch28, he offered his sons the kingship and got turned down.  In this chapter, he sought the “voice of the people” and then told them “nah, you don’t really want that.”  It’s weird.

How did he make the shift in v12 from judges to kings in this verse? (It seems as if one way of relating v12 to v13 is that a king is capable of transmitting the judgments of God, but another type of ruler is not.  Is this accurate?  Does it suggest that kings have a bit 0′ divinity in them?)

Again, given that the Nephites have had a history of righteous kings, this verse feels like a big ol’ slap in the face to his son Aaron.  (It’s a good thing that Aaron is on a mission and not reading this, because a rough translation is, “I seriously doubt my son can do as good of a job as my dad did.”) I’m having a hard time getting past the idea that Mosiah2 doesn’t really believe that his son’s repentance is genuine.

Note how similar this verse is to Mosiah 23:8:  ”Nevertheless, if it were possible that ye could always have just men to be your kings it would be well for you to have a king,” which is Alma1 speaking.  Given that Mosiah didn’t come by his anti-monarchy ideas from his dad (!), one wonders if he has gotten them from Alma.  One also wonders if they are actually the right thing for his society (given how spectacularly disastrous their adoption is), or if Mosiah is making a mistake here in importing ideas that might have been beneficial/inspired for a community emerging from the post-King-Noah chaos, but not right for a community with a lengthy history of decent kings (Of course, this doesn’t address the issue of who the next king would have been, given that the sons of Mosiah and, we can presume, Alma2 wouldn’t accept the gig.  That’s a problem.  But it isn’t the problem that Mosiah is concerned about–he’s concerned about his son changing his mind and causing a civil war.)

Why didn’t God raise up someone who could be a decent king for them in this generation?

 14 And even I myself have labored with all the power and faculties which I have possessed, to teach you the commandments of God, and to establish peace throughout the land, that there should be no wars nor contentions, no stealing, nor plundering, nor murdering, nor any manner of iniquity;

 15 And whosoever has committed iniquity, him have I punished according to the crime which he has committed, according to the law which has been given to us by our fathers.

 16 Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.

“All men” is a lovely euphemism for the fact that he is mainly talking about his son here!

Why “king or kings”?

 17 For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!

This verse (and, obviously, v18) suggest that Mosiah’s thinking about monarchy was deeply affected by the experience of their renegade brethren with Noah.

 18 Yea, remember king Noah, his wickedness and his abominations, and also the wickedness and abominations of his people. Behold what great destruction did come upon them; and also because of their iniquities they were brought into bondage.

But, we want to object, this is a fruit of the poisonous tree.  Had Zeniff not caused a civil war and stormed off in a huff, they never would have had a wicked king–they would have been home safe and snug with good old Ben.  Wasn’t the real problem defecting from a functioning society because you thought the Lamanites were not-so-bad?

 19 And were it not for the interposition of their all-wise Creator, and this because of their sincere repentance, they must unavoidably remain in bondage until now.

This is the only time the word “interposition” is used in the scriptures.

My theory that Mosiah2 is suspicious of the genuine-ness of his son’s repentance is, I think, added to by the reference to “sincere repentance” in this verse.

 20 But behold, he did deliver them because they did humble themselves before him; and because they cried mightily unto him he did deliver them out of bondage; and thus doth the Lord work with his power in all cases among the children of men, extending the arm of mercy towards them that put their trust in him.

Do v19-20 refer to Limhi’s people as well as Alma’s?

 21 And behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood.

Was this really true of Noah?  Is it really not true of a bad judge?

 22 For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God;

What’s to stop a judge from doing the same thing?

 23 And he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness.

 24 And now behold I say unto you, it is not expedient that such abominations should come upon you.

 25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.

Will there be any mechanism for the creation of new laws?

Are these strictly religious laws, or are they also secular?  (Can secular laws be “correct?”)

Ryan W. Davis:

Mosiah’s new regime is not a democracy as the term is understood in contemporary society. Unlike American democracy, there is no legislative branch. By modern standards, other nondemocratic elements include that the chief judge is not apparently limited in his term of office and that judges not only govern but also “reign,” to point out a few examples (see Alma 1:2; 60:21). And although political dynasties do occur in democratic states, the anticipation of familial succession seems especially strong in Nephite governance. Further, it is unclear whether the “voice of the people” implies democratic choice in creating the set of possible political options or only in choosing among a set arranged by leaders.  Citation

 26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

NB “desire.”

What (if anything) does his statement about the voice of the people usually desiring the good say about our society today?  What does it say about minority rights/desires?

Again, I am curious if “voice of the people” is a technical term.

Irony alert:  the whole point of this letter is that the “voice of the people” has desired something that is not right and he, the monarch, is trying to talk them down.

Probably the most surprising thing about this verse is that it locates the check on judges not with the church hierarchy, but with the people, even while acknowledging the fallibility of the people (and not providing a corrective mechanism for that fallibility, other than destruction!).  Why do you think that these verses didn’t direct them to consider the voice of the high priest or the elders?

Is Mosiah2 right about this?  It seems that we are repeatedly warned in scriptures about the evils of a people or a society.  Shouldn’t his knowledge of things under King Noah have shown him that it is entirely possible for virtually everyone in a society to want the wrong thing?

Harold B. Lee:

Those who have served as public officials soon learn that there is always the imperative necessity of deciding whether or not demands on a controversial issue are being made by a well-organized loud minority or by a greater majority of those who might be less vocal but whose cause is just and in accordance with righteous principles. Always we would do well to reflect upon the counsel of a wise king of ancient times: “Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore . . . do your business by the voice of the people.”  Let this counsel of that wise ancient king be our counsel to our Church members and the honorable of the earth everywhere. Be alert and active in your business and political interests. The great danger in any society is apathy and a failure to be alert to the issues of the day, when applied to principles or to the election of public officials.  Apr 72 GC

Delbert L. Stapley:

As in past ages, men will continue to arise to plague the work of God, for this is the intent of Satan and ever has been since the beginning of man on the earth. There are infallible guiding principles found in the revelations and in the historical records of the Lord’s dealings with his people for their guidance and protection. Here is a very important one given in this last dispensation to the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Lord gave it as a guiding admonition to his people. Said he:

“And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith” (D&C 26:2).

If the members of the Church will follow this counsel and act together in prayer and true faith, the Holy Ghost will not permit them to yield to the influence of error and false teachings of those who seek to overthrow the work of God. The great Nephite prophet, Mosiah, warning his people against kingcraft, counseled them concerning the manner in which judges to govern them should be selected, and wisely advised:

“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people” (Mosiah 29:26).

All wavering and disaffected individuals should remember the safeguards to faith and testimony given by the Lord through revelation, and, recognizing and working through constituted channels of priesthood authority, submit their views or claims and be willing to abide by the voice of the people, who, conforming to the above-quoted revelation, are to decide the matter after exercising much faith and prayer. If they would do this before permitting themselves to follow a deviating or contrary course, and manifest the faith to abide by the voice of the Saints, they would not go astray nor depart from the right way, and their souls and those of their posterity would, through obedience to the commandments, be saved in the kingdom of God.  Oct 59 GC

I find it interesting that he applied these verses to matters within the Church, not just political matters.

27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

I think you could read this verse as saying that either the “voice of the people” will lead you to righteousness or to destruction, and either is fine.  But shouldn’t we want some “voice” leading the people back to righteousness?  I guess I am just surprised that the son of King Ben could write this letter.

So . . . what does this verse say to you about government in modern societies?

 28 And now if ye have judges, and they do not judge you according to the law which has been given, ye can cause that they may be judged of a higher judge.

Who is the “ye” in this verse?  How precisely would the appeals process work?

It seems sort of odd to me that we were not introduced to the idea of levels of judges (“higher judge”) until we need them for appeal.

 29 If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, according to the voice of the people.

This strikes me as something of a circular firing squad (and about as likely to be successful)–if the lower judges didn’t get it right, and the higher judges didn’t get it right, then why would the lower judges judging the higher judges get it right?  And how exactly does “the voice of the people” fit in to this system?

 30 And I command you to do these things in the fear of the Lord; and I command you to do these things, and that ye have no king; that if these people commit sins and iniquities they shall be answered upon their own heads.

Wait–this chapter begins and ends with the importance of “the voice of the people,” but now he’s commanding them here to do something contrary to the voice of the people?  (“Help, help, [they're] being oppressed!”)

 31 For behold I say unto you, the sins of many people have been caused by the iniquities of their kings; therefore their iniquities are answered upon the heads of their kings.

General thought:  the idea that the Lord is the king is fairly well established in the OT, and is part of the basis for the prophetic distaste for earthly kings.  Given that that argument fits Mosiah’s context so very well, one wonders why he does not resort to it.

 32 And now I desire that this inequality should be no more in this land, especially among this my people; but I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land, yea, even as long as any of our posterity remains upon the face of the land.

What inequality?  Does “inequality” refer to the dynamic in v31?  Is that what “inequality” always means in the BoM?

Wouldn’t the presence of judges (and “higher judges”) reproduce inequality?  If not, why not?

Desire x2.

Brant Gardner:

It is very interesting that Mosiah declares that “this inequality should be no more in this land, especially among this my people.” He appears to make a distinction between this land and my people. It is possible that he is referring to the presence of this mode of kingship in other locations, and that he wishes it were removed from other cities as well as from his own people. Citation

 33 And many more things did king Mosiah write unto them, unfolding unto them all the trials and troubles of a righteous king, yea, all the travails of soul for their people, and also all the murmurings of the people to their king; and he explained it all unto them.

What a whiner!  I don’t remember Ben complaining about any of this.  Ben thought he was serving them and God by being a good, humble king.

I think it is interesting that Mormon gives us a summary, and not the direct text, of Mosiah’s whining here.

 34 And he told them that these things ought not to be; but that the burden should come upon all the people, that every man might bear his part.

OK, three dozen verses ago, he seemed content to put this burden on someone.  (Remember how the chapter began by him asking the voice of the people regarding who the next king should be?)  Has he had a mid-chapter change-of-heart?  If so, what caused it?  Or was the initial request a set-up?

 35 And he also unfolded unto them all the disadvantages they labored under, by having an unrighteous king to rule over them;

Once again–this is his son we’re talking about here!  The missionary!

 36 Yea, all his iniquities and abominations, and all the wars, and contentions, and bloodshed, and the stealing, and the plundering, and the committing of whoredoms, and all manner of iniquities which cannot be enumerated—telling them that these things ought not to be, that they were expressly repugnant to the commandments of God.

Wait, have these people never read the book of Judges?  Because having judges didn’t spare them from any of this.

 37 And now it came to pass, after king Mosiah had sent these things forth among the people they were convinced of the truth of his words.

So much for the usefulness of “the voice of the people”!  I’m just completely overwhelmed at how this chapter collapses in on itself as the voice of the people, which wanted the wrong thing, is thrown under the bus by the dictatorial king, who wants the right thing.  It’s making my head hurt.

Interesting to compare this letter (which, according to this verse, seems to have been effective) with, say, Paul’s letters, where the sense is that no one listened to him.

 38 Therefore they relinquished their desires for a king, and became exceedingly anxious that every man should have an equal chance throughout all the land; yea, and every man expressed a willingness to answer for his own sins.

What do you make of the linkage between form of government and responsibility for sin in this verse?

In keeping with our examination of the theme of desire, I’m fascinated by the idea of them “relinquishing” a desire.

39 Therefore, it came to pass that they assembled themselves together in bodies throughout the land, to cast in their voices concerning who should be their judges, to judge them according to the law which had been given them; and they were exceedingly rejoiced because of the liberty which had been granted unto them.

Irony alert:  they were granted liberty by a good king.

 40 And they did wax strong in love towards Mosiah; yea, they did esteem him more than any other man; for they did not look upon him as a tyrant who was seeking for gain, yea, for that lucre which doth corrupt the soul; for he had not exacted riches of them, neither had he delighted in the shedding of blood; but he had established peace in the land, and he had granted unto his people that they should be delivered from all manner of bondage; therefore they did esteem him, yea, exceedingly, beyond measure.

Argh!  Again!  I swear Mormon is playing with us here–pitching out the kingship system was supposed to make everyone bask in their liberty and equality, but what’s the very first thing that happens?  They get all gushy over their king!  This text is enacting precisely the opposite of what it is saying.  The whole point of getting rid of kings is so that everyone would be equal, but the very first thing they do with their new-found freedom is to “esteem [the king] more than any other man . . . exceedingly, beyond measure.”  This is CRAZY!

41 And it came to pass that they did appoint judges to rule over them, or to judge them according to the law; and this they did throughout all the land.

 42 And it came to pass that Alma was appointed to be the first chief judge, he being also the high priest, his father having conferred the office upon him, and having given him the charge concerning all the affairs of the church.

Skousen omits “first” here.

Once again, I ask how much we are really protecting against abused of power by conjoining religious and civil authority.

Note that the first act of this newly-expanded “voice of the people” is to (re)conjoin civil and religious authority.

43 And now it came to pass that Alma did walk in the ways of the Lord, and he did keep his commandments, and he did judge righteous judgments; and there was continual peace through the land.

We really need to ask:  Would this have been any different had he been named king instead of chief judge?

 44 And thus *commenced the reign of the judges throughout all the land of Zarahemla, among all the people who were called the Nephites; and Alma was the first and chief judge.

 45 And now it came to pass that his father died, being eighty and two years old, having lived to fulfil the commandments of God.

 46 And it came to pass that Mosiah died also, in the thirty and third year of his reign, being sixty and three years old; making in the whole, five hundred and nine years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem.

Skousen omits “old” here.

 47 And thus ended the reign of the kings over the people of Nephi; and thus ended the days of Alma, who was the founder of their church.

CHAPTER 1

1 NOW it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, from this time forward, king Mosiah having gone the way of all the earth, having warred a good warfare, walking uprightly before God, leaving none to reign in his stead; nevertheless he had established laws, and they were acknowledged by the people; therefore they were obliged to abide by the laws which he had made.

General comment on the book of Alma from the Feast wiki:

Events in the Book of Alma are covered in more detail than those in other periods of Book of Mormon history. There are 2,065 words per year in Alma whereas there are only 5 per year in 4 Nephi. Apparently, in Mormon’s view, the events treated in Alma are of special relevance to us, the intended audience of the book. Presumably, the Book of Alma is so important because it recounts the years that lead up to the coming of Christ in the New World. That first coming in the Americas is the best analog we have for the Second Coming of Christ. In both cases, the Lord comes in power to usher in an extended period of righteousness and peace. Mormon, presumably, thinks this account of the last days before Chrit’s arrival in power in the New World has special value for the last few generations who live in the period that leads up to the Second Coming of the Savior.

“Warred a good warfare” sounds borrowed from Paul’s “fight the good fight,” but, if anything, more literal and less metaphorical.  How literally do you read it?

Is “leaving none to reign in his stead” a good thing?  That language makes it sound like an accident, but we know it was definitely deliberate.  The “nevertheless” that follows it suggests that it may not have been a good thing.

More on the laws of Mosiah here.

Brant Gardner:

When the people of the land of Zarahemla agreed to abandon kingship for the rule of judges they were signaling a major change in their understanding of their relationship to those who ruled over them. One of the ways they used to emphasize this complete change in their social structure was to accompany this new government with a completely new count of years. Rather than continue with the count of years since the departure from Jerusalem, they begin a completely new count that dates years from the first year of the reign of the judges. According to the Nephite-year-to-modern-year correlation used in this commentary, the reign of the judges begins in 92 BC. The social implications of resetting the year should not be missed. There was no compelling reason for the people of Zarahemla to change the way they ordered their conception of time. Nevertheless, they made a change so complete as to discard a mode of counting years and establish a new one. Such calendric manipulations are not made upon whimsy, as the way years are conceived partially orders our perception of the world. Citation

2 And it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of Alma in the judgment-seat, there was a man brought before him to be judged, a man who was large, and was noted for his much strength.

(I’m going to start calling him Nehor, even though we won’t get his name until the end of the story, and I don’t think that that is accidental, but it is too awkward not to name him.)  Why is the first thing that we need to know about Nehor his physical strength and size?  (It comes into play later in his story with Gideon, but doesn’t seem immediately relevant to his false preaching.)  So this very curious thing happens:  we need his name now, but we don’t get it until the end of the story.  We don’t need to know how strong and big he is until later, but we learn that now.  Is Mormon playing with us and, if so, to what effect?

What is the point of v3-8, given that the crime of murder happens in v9?  (In other words, Mormon could have very easily told this story and omitted those verses; why were they included?)

 3 And he had gone about among the people, preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God, bearing down against the church; declaring unto the people that every priest and teacher ought to become popular; and they ought not to labor with their hands, but that they ought to be supported by the people.

What does “bearing down” suggest to you about false preachers?

Dallin H. Oaks:

A gospel teacher does not preach “to become popular” (Alma 1:3) or “for the sake of riches and honor” (Alma 1:16). He or she follows the marvelous Book of Mormon example in which “the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner” (Alma 1:26). Both will always look to the Master. Oct 99 GC

So the BoM makes a huge deal about priests laboring “with their own hands.”  But note that what Nehor is proposing here is not just that they go on the church payroll, but that they get paid according to how popular they are.  (Which, incidentally, is the way it works out with many ‘celebrity’ preachers today and, one might add if one were brave, LDS teachers/leaders/preachers who make money from speaking/writing.)

Webster 1828 popular:

1. Pertaining to the common people; as the popular voice; popular elections.

2. Suitable to common people; familiar; plain; easy to be comprehended; not critical or abstruse.

3. Beloved by the people; enjoying the favor of the people; pleasing to people in general; as a popular governor; a popular preacher; a popular ministry; a popular discourse; a popular administration; a popular war or peace. Suspect the man who endeavors to make that popular which is wrong.

4. Ambitious; studious of the favor of the people.

[This sense is not used. It is more customary to apply this epithet to a person who has already gained the favor of the people.]

5. Prevailing among the people; extensively prevalent; as a popular disease.

6. In law, a popular action is one which gives a penalty to the person that sues for the same.

[Note. Popular, at least in the United States, is not synonymous with vulgar; the latter being applied to the lower classes of people, the illiterate and low bred; the former is applied to all classes, or to the body of the people, including a great portion at least of well educated citizens.]  Note that the material in the brackets is from Mr. Webster, not from me!

I think most people think #3 is the definition of “popular.”

What I find so interesting about Nehor’s position here is that it is nicely aligned with Mosiah2′s plan for the government, where instead of a king hoarding (and probably misusing) power, it belongs to “the voice of the people.”  Nehor is here suggesting that precisely the same principle be applied to preachers and teachers, which, given the overlap in Zarahemla civic/religious structure, is really not a leap at all.  So I think analysis of this story needs to go much deeper than “paying priests is bad” to tease out what precisely was wrong about Nehor’s suggestion, and how it might have seemed to be a natural outgrowth of Mosiah’s reforms.

 4 And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.

Will all mankind be saved at the last day?  Should people fear and tremble?  Should people lift up their heads and rejoice?  Has the Lord redeemed all people?  Will all people have eternal life?  The reason that I turned all of Nehor’s statements into questions is that I think his intermixing of truth and error is fascinating and subtle.  Mostly, he’s taken absolutely true things and decontextualized them to make them misleading.  This seems to me to be a huge danger that we should be aware of today.  It isn’t as simple as “making a false statement;” it is more like uprooting a true statement and presenting it in a false way.

Irony:  Nehor is a preacher of salvation and eternal life and rejoicing and the Lord as creator.

There may be a link between the rise of Nehor and the new system of government.  Note that some of Nehor’s key ideas are that all mankind should be saved and that all men are redeemed and that all should have eternal life.  I think we can say that he has taken this whole equality idea just a little too far.  We can see the same twisting in v2, where the idea that priests should be popular could be based on the idea that people have an increased responsibility for themselves (now that their is no king) and that part of that responsibility is supporting their priests.  (And you are probably tired of me beating this drum, but I’m still toying with the idea that Mosiah2′s governmental innovations were a mistake, and that the rise of Nehor is some evidence for that.)

Is there a link between the false ideas he preaches or is it just a grab bag?  (That is to say, is there something about popular preachers that is somehow linked to the idea of universalism?)

L. Tom Perry:

Nehor’s words appealed to the people, but his doctrine, while popular to many, was incorrect. As we face the many decisions in life, the easy and popular messages of the world will not usually be the right ones to choose, and it will take much courage to choose the right. Oct 93 GC

D. Todd Christofferson:

On the surface such philosophies seem appealing because they give us license to indulge any appetite or desire without concern for consequences. By using the teachings of Nehor and Korihor, we can rationalize and justify anything. When prophets come crying repentance, it “throws cold water on the party.” But in reality the prophetic call should be received with joy. Without repentance, there is no real progress or improvement in life. Pretending there is no sin does not lessen its burden and pain. Suffering for sin does not by itself change anything for the better. Only repentance leads to the sunlit uplands of a better life. And, of course, only through repentance do we gain access to the atoning grace of Jesus Christ and salvation. Repentance is a divine gift, and there should be a smile on our faces when we speak of it. It points us to freedom, confidence, and peace. Rather than interrupting the celebration, the gift of repentance is the cause for true celebration. Oct 11 GC

5 And it came to pass that he did teach these things so much that many did believe on his words, even so many that they began to support him and give him money.

Interesting that they are supporting a (wicked) cause that is against their own economic self-interest (because they are better off if they don’t have to pay their preachers, but the preachers are self-supporting).

Brant Gardner:

This verse contains a clear translation error. The people of Zarahemla clearly provided Nehor support so that he did not have to work, but Joseph Smith translated this support as “money.” The use of money as a medium of exchange was not known in Mesoamerica. Even though the original Nephites would have known of money, it is unlikely that they would have instituted a monetary system early in their community as there was nothing to give it value. Money has value only because we agree that it has value. In the types of communities known in Mesoamerica, there was little to “buy” in many cases. Barter was the means of exchange, and the support Nehor received would have initially been subsistence that he didn’t provide with his own hands. However, it is also clear that he was provided with more than simple necessity. He was supplied with some type of surplus. Nehor was able to turn his “support” into the trappings of wealth. It is in this sense that Joseph translated “money.” Nehor was able to “buy” the trappings of wealth. While the word is technically incorrect, the connotation is correct. Citation

If Gardner is right about that, then it may be that was he was given was the fine clothing described in the next verse.

 6 And he began to be lifted up in the pride of his heart, and to wear very costly apparel, yea, and even began to establish a church after the manner of his preaching.

I find in intriguing that pride wasn’t a problem *before* this.

Do you conclude from this verse that wearing expensive clothes is an outward manifestation of pride?

Given that this church he establishes requires people to do something that is against their own economic self-interest, why would it have been appealing to people?

7 And it came to pass as he was going, to preach to those who believed on his word, he met a man who belonged to the church of God, yea, even one of their teachers; and he began to contend with him sharply, that he might lead away the people of the church; but the man withstood him, admonishing him with the words of God.

8 Now the name of the man was Gideon; and it was he who was an instrument in the hands of God in delivering the people of Limhi out of bondage.

Once again, we get this odd thing where we aren’t given Gideon’s name when we would have expected it, in the middle of v7, especially since we have been introduced to him before.

What does the image of “an instrument in the hands of the Lord” suggest to you?

The “it was he . . . ” seems a little gratuitous, given that we should, I think, be able to remember what happened in Mosiah 22–it wasn’t that long ago.  But characterizing Gideon’s actions there (which, frankly, seemed like a somewhat odd plot, especially given the parallels with the way that Alma’s people escape–they didn’t have to get anyone drunk, God took care of it for them) as being an instrument in God’s hands is quite the gloss on that story.  Why do we get that gloss here and not before?

9 Now, because Gideon withstood him with the words of God he was wroth with Gideon, and drew his sword and began to smite him. Now Gideon being stricken with many years, therefore he was not able to withstand his blows, therefore he was slain by the sword.

We were introduced to Gideon in Mosiah 19:4:

And now there was a man among them whose name was Gideon, and he being a strong man and an enemy to the king, therefore he drew his sword, and swore in his wrath that he would slay the king.

Is this a “he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword” moment?

They start with a verbal battle, but when Nehor seems to be losing, he switches to a physical battle.  Gideon wins the verbal but loses the physical battle; Nehor is the reverse.

 10 And the man who slew him was taken by the people of the church, and was brought before Alma, to be judged according to the crimes which he had committed.

Skousen reads “crime” here.

This verse is quite awkward because it doesn’t use Nehor’s name.  One suspects at this point, given that awkwardness, that the lack of a name is deliberate for some reason.  What effect does it have on the audience?

 11 And it came to pass that he stood before Alma and pleaded for himself with much boldness.

Was he pleading just because he was desperate?  Or did he have some reason to think he might be treated leniently?

 12 But Alma said unto him: Behold, this is the first time that priestcraft has been introduced among this people. And behold, thou art not only guilty of priestcraft, but hast endeavored to enforce it by the sword; and were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction.

What does this verse (and the preceding story) teach you about the definition of “priestcraft”?

Why would priestcraft be so destructive?

This verse is Alma explaining why Nehor shouldn’t be treated leniently . . . why is that entirely necessary given that he just murdered someone?

Is this really the first time priestcraft is introduced?  On the one hand, that’s a pretty good record.  On the other hand, I can’t help but noting that the first time it is introduced is in the first year of the judges.  Did the shift from kings to judges make priestcraft more likely?  If so, why?

One would have suspected that Alma would have been focused on the murder, but instead Alma leads off with a discussion of priestcraft.  Why?

 13 And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare thee his blood would come upon us for vengeance.

How literally do you take the idea of blood seeking vengeance?

 14 Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and it has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law.

Does this mean that they aren’t really following the law of Moses anymore?

Do the last two phrases imply that there was a formal, explicit social contract?

 15 And it came to pass that they took him; and his name was Nehor; and they carried him upon the top of the hill Manti, and there he was caused, or rather did acknowledge, between the heavens and the earth, that what he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death.

What effect does it have on the reader not to get Nehor’s name until the story is almost over?

In the Bible, to know someone’s name is to have some control over them.  (This explains some of the odder elements of the stories involving Jesus and demons.)  In this case, we don’t get Nehor’s name until the people have “taken him.”  We are at quite a distance from biblical culture here, but I wonder if there is something going on here with us not getting Nehor’s name (when it was pretty darn awkward to tell the entire story without using it) until Nehor was taken in control by the people.

Brant Gardner:

Nehor was the main city in the land of Nehor described in the Book of Ether (Ether 7:4,8). Thus Nehor is a Jaredite name. Nehor appears to be old enough that his naming would have preceded Mosiah’s translation of the record of Ether (recorded in Mosiah 28:11-18). Had he been named after the translation, we might suppose that he could have been named for the city because of the translation. Since this does not appear to be the case, he must have received his name through some other connection to the Jaredite culture and lands. While a name in and of itself does not clearly indicate an affiliation, it is likely that Nehor’s differences in religion have something to do with outside influences coming from the Jaredite regions. Citation

If Gardner is right about that link, then that may explain the reason for withholding Nehor’s name until the end of the story–it would answer the looming question of “where did this guy come from?” in a most dramatic way.

Is there any link between the idea of “acknowledging” the law in the previous verse and Nehor’s acknowledgement in this verse?

What does “between the heavens and the earth” mean?

I want gory details on his ignominious death!

This is the only time “ignominious” is used in the scriptures.

Spencer W. Kimball:

The antediluvians were a law unto themselves and locked doors against themselves. Jonah, in his egotism, took offense when the repentance of Nineveh rendered unnecessary the fulfillment of his prophecy (Jonah 4:1-3). Judas fought against God (Luke 22:3) and suffered the buffetings of Satan (D&C 104:9). Sherem with his learning, his eloquence and his flattery, sought to turn away people from the simple faith, and he died in remorse and humiliation (Jacob 7:17-20). Nehor tried to advance his own cause, increase his popularity, and lead a following with his criticisms and flatteries, and came to ignominious death (Alma 1:15). Korihor, with his teachings of intellectual liberty and his rationalizations, followed his temporary popularity with begging in the streets (Alma 30:58-59). The Jonahs and Almas and Korihors live on and undertake cover their sins, gratify their pride, and vain ambitions (D&C 121:37). They grieve the Spirit of the Lord, withdraw from holy places and righteous influences, and in the words of the Savior: Behold, ere he is aware, be is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints and to fight against God (D&C 121:38).  Apr 55 GC

(Mostly I included that SWK statement because [1] ‘antediluvian’ is one of my favorite words and [2] he doesn’t white-wash Jonah like most LDS readers do.)

Does this sound like a coerced confession to you?

16 Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor.

Should we have expected his death to put an end to priestcraft?

What do you conclude from the fact that a public confession and execution was not enough to end priestcraft?

Why would loving the vain things of the world correlate with spreading priestcraft?  What are the vain things of the world?  (Are they riches and honor?  Isn’t honor usually a good thing?)

So does this mean that Alma was wrong in v12?

In what ways is what Nehor preaches “vain”?

Given that the execution of Nehor didn’t stop his ideas, what is the moral of the story?  Was executing him the right thing to do?  Why was his story included in the record?  Was there something that they could have done to stop priestcraft?  If so, what?  Contrast with the story of Sherem, where a religious figure (and not a judge, applying the law) dealt with the situation.  There was more divine intervention there (at least in the record that we have), and what seems like genuine contrition (see Jacob 7:18f) (as opposed to Nehor, where it feels forced).  And note the conclusion to that story:  not more dissent, but “it came to pass that peace and the love of God was restored again among the people; and they searched the scriptures, and hearkened no more to the words of this wicked man.”  In other words, I think it is safe to say that the resolution to the Sherem story is far superior to that of the Nehor story.  Sherem wasn’t executed via legal mechanism, he dies according to the will and act of God.  I think you can compare the Nehor and Sherem story and easily conclude that the religious solution to heresy is far superior in its effects than the legal solution.  So, again, are we supposed to conclude that Mosiah2′s legal reforms were a bad idea?

Did the Nephite policy of not paying priests (but requiring them to earn their own money through other labor) open the door to problems of seeking riches that might have been avoided if they’d all been boringly, predictably, middlingly, on the church payroll?

In what ways would their false preachings have brought them honor?

So the BoM doesn’t like market economics applied to priests.  I don’t think anyone would disagree with that; but the more interesting question to me is this:  What else should we not be monetizing?  (Can’t wait to read this.)

 17 Nevertheless, they durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished; therefore they pretended to preach according to their belief; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief.

A question to ponder, but not to ask in Sunday School:  What laws do we have that could be considered as punishing someone for their beliefs?

I think this verse implies that they could preach things contrary to the Nephite church as long as (and only as long as) they genuinely believed those things.  How might this have worked?  I think this verse is saying that if the law could show that they preached things that they knew to be false, they’d be toast.  But if they preached things that they pretended to believe, they were fine.  This strikes me as weird, since it locates the violation of the law in the (dis)belief of the preacher, which strikes me as a difficult and subjective case (on both sides) to have to make in front of a judge.

 18 And they durst not steal, for fear of the law, for such were punished; neither durst they rob, nor murder, for he that murdered was punished unto death.

Is the implication that they wanted to steal or rob?

Are stealing and robbing two different things in this verse?

Do v17-18 picture a society where the “letter of the law” was followed but evil was allowed to flourish because people were just following the letter of the law?  It seems to me that if this reading is correct, then it is quite the indictment of Mosiah2′s reforms that placed the law and not the king at the center of their society.  Brant Gardner provides an opposing view:

Mormon finishes with these two affirmations of law. These should be seen in contrast to the continuation of the pressures towards priestcraft in verse 16. What Mormon is doing is noting that law did not cure the priestcraft, but that law was applied for greater order. It is as if he is contrasting the failure on the one hand with successes on the next. Also implicit in Mormon’s argument is that the ideas of priestcraft were not against the law.  Citation

 19 But it came to pass that whosoever did not belong to the church of God began to persecute those that did belong to the church of God, and had taken upon them the name of Christ.

(How) is this related to the verse before it?

Why would non-members persecute members?  (Is it specifically related to the false teachings in some way?)

Given that we already know that church members have taken Christ’s name, what does that phrase accomplish in this verse?

 20 Yea, they did persecute them, and afflict them with all manner of words, and this because of their humility; because they were not proud in their own eyes, and because they did impart the word of God, one with another, without money and without price.

I love the idea of being afflicted with words!

Why would their humility make them a target of persecution?

 21 Now there was a strict law among the people of the church, that there should not any man, belonging to the church, arise and persecute those that did not belong to the church, and that there should be no persecution among themselves.

How might we be guilty of persecuting those who do not belong to the church?

Does this “law” mean a law through the legal system, or the law of the church?  What are the implications of a civil law that prevented persecution of non-members?

 22 Nevertheless, there were many among them who began to be proud, and began to contend warmly with their adversaries, even unto blows; yea, they would smite one another with their fists.

I think, based on v21, that this verse is describing something that is happening within the church.

Again, does this activity suggest that their legal regime was insufficient?  Note that even church members ended up participating in physical violence here.

Do you take Mormon’s abridgment as objective fact, or do you suspect that he or his source(s) would have placed Nephite participation in violence and persecution in the best possible light?

 23 Now this was in the *second year of the reign of Alma, and it was a cause of much affliction to the church; yea, it was the cause of much trial with the church.

Wow!  That happened fast!

Are affliction and trial two separate things or two ways of saying the same thing?

 24 For the hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out, that they were remembered no more among the people of God. And also many withdrew themselves from among them.

Skousen thinks “remembered” should be “numbered.”

The second sentence seems to be describing something different from the first sentence.  What is the distinction between the two groups?

 25 Now this was a great trial to those that did stand fast in the faith; nevertheless, they were steadfast and immovable in keeping the commandments of God, and they bore with patience the persecution which was heaped upon them.

In what ways would what was described in v24 be a trial to the saints?

Usually the image is “walking with God” but here it is “steadfast and immovable.”  Interesting inversion.  Maybe this was chosen because other people are walking out of the church and this group is staying firmly in place.

 26 And when the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength.

Note that the frequent BoM theme of priests laboring is shown here to be motivated by a desire to maintain equality (not, as we might think, to avoid corruption or burdening the church members).  Implications?

I think it is safe to say that the BoM hits us over the head with the idea that (1) inequality is really bad and (2) the chief source of inequality stems from the improper relationship to labor/wealth.  What conclusions and modern applications might we draw from this?

 27 And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely.

Note again the emphasis given to clothing as an indicator of equality.

I’m curious about a possible relationship between the Lamanite “mark” and the mark of costly apparel.  How might they be related and what could we learn from that?

Susan W. Tanner:

The pleasures of the body can become an obsession for some; so too can the attention we give to our outward appearance. Sometimes there is a selfish excess of exercising, dieting, makeovers, and spending money on the latest fashions (see Alma 1:27). Oct 05 GC

Brant Gardner:

Mormon is continuing his descriptions of the good things about the Nephite church. Notice that the very specific “good things” are defined economically. When these good things are contrasted with the “bad things” of the non-churchmen, the differences will continue to be defined economically rather than theologically. No matter what else Mormon is telling us, he is highlighting the fact that the major controversy between churchmen and non-churchmen was a particular attitude towards a social system of economics. The churchmen advocated an egalitarian society, and the non-churchmen advocated a stratified society. Citation

 28 And thus they did establish the affairs of the church; and thus they began to have continual peace again, notwithstanding all their persecutions.

 29 And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceedingly rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need—an abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth.

What does this verse tell us about the bad kind of costly apparel?  (Or:  is it OK to wear silk and fine-twined linen, or is that part of the problem?)

I think it is possible to read this verse as saying that “having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need” is the definition of “rich.” (This could perhaps be distinguished from their larger cultural view of wealth, as having the ability to wear costly clothes.) Is that the case?  If so, how might that impact our reading of the idea of wealth in the BoM?

James E. Faust:

We recognize that the process of establishing the Lord’s church encompasses much more than baptizing people. In the first chapter of Alma in the Book of Mormon we find an instructive sequence of events outlining the way by which the Lord’s church is established. Beginning with verse 26 we read: “The priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people. … And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; … and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength. And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely” (Alma 1:26–27). Let us take note of this process: First, the doctrines are taught (see Alma 1:26). Second, members esteem each other as themselves (see Alma 1:26). Third, they all labor; they work and earn that which they receive (see Alma 1:26). Fourth, they impart of their substance to the less fortunate; they serve one another (see Alma 1:27). Fifth, they discipline their own appetites while at the same time caring appropriately for their own needs (see Alma 1:27). Now, listen to the declaration of the prophet: “And thus they did establish the affairs of the church. … And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceeding rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need” (Alma 1:28–29). This mighty change happened, not because the people were given things, but rather because they were taught and began to help themselves and to care for those who were less fortunate. It was when they gave of themselves in the Lord’s way that their circumstances began to improve. This process of establishing the Church can apply anywhere. Oct 79 GC

 30 And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.

Note that they are following King Ben’s counsel not to judge people who are needy.

Usually, prosperous people have a problem with wealth but here we are specifically told that they did not set their hearts upon riches.  Are there any indications in the text as to how they were able to accomplish this?

I love how the climax of their wealth is not “stuff” but the ability to care for everyone who needs it.

 31 And thus they did prosper and become far more wealthy than those who did not belong to their church.

Note the “thus”:  the reason they became wealthy was because they were giving their wealth away.  This is a nice parallel to Psalm 72, which posits the peace, stability, and overall success of Israel as the outgrowth of the king’s actions in caring for the poor (discussion here).

 32 For those who did not belong to their church did indulge themselves in sorceries, and in idolatry or idleness, and in babblings, and in envyings and strife; wearing costly apparel; being lifted up in the pride of their own eyes; persecuting, lying, thieving, robbing, committing whoredoms, and murdering, and all manner of wickedness; nevertheless, the law was put in force upon all those who did transgress it, inasmuch as it was possible.

We can imagine how idolatry or wearing costly clothing would deplete their riches, but what is the relationship to sorcery, babblings, etc.?  I think this verse is fascinating when read in conjunction with v31, because it in effect is saying:  if you want to be wealthy, don’t do these things.  And many of “these things” have no obvious economic impact.

Note the final line:  once again, I feel that Mormon or his source is implicitly criticizing the legal regime established by Mosiah2 because of the system’s tepid ability to respond to social problems.

 33 And it came to pass that by thus exercising the law upon them, every man suffering according to that which he had done, they became more still, and durst not commit any wickedness if it were known; therefore, there was much peace among the people of Nephi until the fifth year of the reign of the judges.

CHAPTER 2

1 And it came to pass in the commencement of the *fifth year of their reign there began to be a contention among the people; for a certain man, being called Amlici, he being a very cunning man, yea, a wise man as to the wisdom of the world, he being after the order of the man that slew Gideon by the sword, who was executed according to the law—

Why “their reign” and not “his reign?

Does “after the order” mean that Nehor wasn’t a lone wolf?  If so, why are we not learning that until now?  (The natural order of things would have been to have introduced the idea of an “order” when Nehor introduced it and not wait until after his story is over to mention it.)

“Who was executed”–we know that.  Why repeat it?

“The man that slew Gideon” is a lot more work to write than “Nehor.”  Why do you think Nehor’s name is left out?  (Is that at all related to the fact that Nehor was not named until, awkwardly, the very end of his story?  It is hard to escape the idea that the [un]naming of Nehor has some fairly weighty significance.)

2 Now this Amlici had, by his cunning, drawn away much people after him; even so much that they began to be very powerful; and they began to endeavor to establish Amlici to be a king over the people.

Note that this is the second time in as many verses that we are told about his cunning.  What are we to learn from that?

So–does this mean that all of Mosiah2′s planning was for naught, since even having judges didn’t save them from plotters who would be king?  (And it has only been five years!)

I would have expected Amlici to be seeking religious authority, since Nehor was concerned with religious, not civil, issues and Amlici was just described as being “after the order of [Nehor].”  But this verse shows Amlici seeking civil authority.  What gives?

What kind of power did they have?  Where did they get it and how was it manifest?  (And how does their quick and disturbing rise to power relate to the recent switch away from having kings, which was justified in terms of potential abuse of power?)

What does this verse tell us about cunning?  What should our attitude toward it be?  How can we recognize it?

3 Now this was alarming to the people of the church, and also to all those who had not been drawn away after the persuasions of Amlici; for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people.

Again I am curious about the tension between their laws from their fathers and the voice of the people.

Does the last line mean that it would have been OK to have a king had it been the will of the voice of the people?

4 Therefore, if it were possible that Amlici should gain the voice of the people, he, being a wicked man, would deprive them of their rights and privileges of the church; for it was his intent to destroy the church of God.

So . . . does this mean Mosiah2 did a bad job of setting up the government?  After all, if they had a king, then they wouldn’t have to worry about Amlici amassing power via the voice of the people here.  Note that the first mention of the “voice of the people” is Mosiah 7:9, which is Zeniff, who we know was at best over-zealous and at worst a civil-war-starting crazy dude.  (But to be fair, Mosiah 2:11 implies that Ben was chosen by the voice of the people without using those exact words.)  Of course, this raises the question of what exactly Mosiah2′s reforms would accomplish if they had already been selecting their leaders by the voice of the people.  Brant Gardner examines the evidence for how the voice of the people functioned in Nephite society here.

5 And it came to pass that the people assembled themselves together throughout all the land, every man according to his mind, whether it were for or against Amlici, in separate bodies, having much dispute and wonderful contentions one with another.

What does “in separate bodies” mean:  just that for practical reasons they had to have many small confabs, or that the “pro” and “anti” Amlici groups met separately?

Does “wonderful” mean these contentions were good, or that they caused wonder?

6 And thus they did assemble themselves together to cast in their voices concerning the matter; and they were laid before the judges.

I’m curious about “voices” (especially voices that can be “cast in”), since “the voice of the people” has been something of a technical term, but always singular, as it is in the next verse.

7 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came against Amlici, that he was not made king over the people.

8 Now this did cause much joy in the hearts of those who were against him; but Amlici did stir up those who were in his favor to anger against those who were not in his favor.

Doesn’t this verse prove that Mosiah2′s effort to establish a “no kings = no contention” government has just failed?

9 And it came to pass that they gathered themselves together, and did consecrate Amlici to be their king.

10 Now when Amlici was made king over them he commanded them that they should take up arms against their brethren; and this he did that he might subject them to him.

11 Now the people of Amlici were distinguished by the name of Amlici, being called Amlicites; and the remainder were called Nephites, or the people of God.

12 Therefore the people of the Nephites were aware of the intent of the Amlicites, and therefore they did prepare to meet them; yea, they did arm themselves with swords, and with cimeters, and with bows, and with arrows, and with stones, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons of war, of every kind.

What made the Nephites aware of their intents?  (It seems to be the taking on of a new name . . . very interesting.)

Why was it important to Mormon that we get a weapons catalog here?

13 And thus they were prepared to meet the Amlicites at the time of their coming. And there were appointed captains, and higher captains, and chief captains, according to their numbers.

Interesting that their military organization is parallel to their civic one (X, higher X, chief X, where X can be judge or captain, but note in v16 that there is more than one chief captain), but not their religious one (where we have teachers, elders, priests, and a high priest).

14 And it came to pass that Amlici did arm his men with all manner of weapons of war of every kind; and he also appointed rulers and leaders over his people, to lead them to war against their brethren.

15 And it came to pass that the Amlicites came upon the hill Amnihu, which was east of the river Sidon, which ran by the land of Zarahemla, and there they began to make war with the Nephites.

Skousen reads “up upon” here.

16 Now Alma, being the chief judge and the governor of the people of Nephi, therefore he went up with his people, yea, with his captains, and chief captains, yea, at the head of his armies, against the Amlicites to battle.

What does “governnor” mean here–is it a title or a description?

Interesting that he isn’t the chief captain.

Does “at the head of his armies” mean that the chief captain(s) was the head of the army, or that Alma was?  (I think it is interesting in v29 it is Alma taking on the enemy leader and not one of the chief captains.)

17 And they began to slay the Amlicites upon the hill east of Sidon. And the Amlicites did contend with the Nephites with great strength, insomuch that many of the Nephites did fall before the Amlicites.

18 Nevertheless the Lord did strengthen the hand of the Nephites, that they slew the Amlicites with great slaughter, that they began to flee before them.

Skousen reads “a great slaughter” here.

The point seems to be that the Nephites are losing (v17) until the Lord intervenes.  What should we learn from this?

19 And it came to pass that the Nephites did pursue the Amlicites all that day, and did slay them with much slaughter, insomuch that there were slain of the Amlicites twelve thousand five hundred thirty and two souls; and there were slain of the Nephites six thousand five hundred sixty and two souls.

I think that there might be a moral here that even when the Lord is fighting your battles for you, you still have to fight your own battles.

Why do you think Mormon wanted us to know the death tallies here?

Brant Gardner:

What makes these numbers most fascinating is that they appear to be interrelated. Using numerals instead of words, we have 12,562 and 6,532. There are comparisons that are difficult to explain between the two. First, there is 12,000 versus 6,000. Whatever we might think of the 12 and the 6, the very fact that one is precisely twice the other is suspicious. On top of the precise doubling of the thousands, and have an absolute match in the hundreds, with both having 500. In the final set of numbers, there is a difference, but a fascinating one. In the tens column we again have a doubling, and then in the ones column an exact match. The gross match is then described as doubled/exact/doubled/exact. The more exact pattern, from the larger to the smaller number, is: halved/exact/doubled/exact. This most specific set of counts in the Book of Mormon is highly suspicious, and appears to be a created number. Citation

Gardner also posits a relationship between this and Mesoamerican number systems, but I dunno.

20 And it came to pass that when Alma could pursue the Amlicites no longer he caused that his people should pitch their tents in the valley of Gideon, the valley being called after that Gideon who was slain by the hand of Nehor with the sword; and in this valley the Nephites did pitch their tents for the night.

Does this verse imply that the location is significant?  (I suspect that the explanation of why it was called after Gideon and who Gideon was–which we already know!–implies that it is significant.)

Why couldn’t he pursue them any longer?

Note that Nehor is named this time; that’s unusual for him.  Why might this be?

21 And Alma sent spies to follow the remnant of the Amlicites, that he might know of their plans and their plots, whereby he might guard himself against them, that he might preserve his people from being destroyed.

I’m curious about the idea of spies in the BoM.  Remember that Zeniff was a spy, and his (mis)interpretation of what he saw when spying leads to an unimaginable calamity.

Is there a moral to be drawn from the idea of sending spies if we read allegorically?  (Crazy idea for a short story:  a little department of the church that sends its employees into strip clubs and porn websites so they can be aware of what the enemy is doing.  Haha.)

22 Now those whom he had sent out to watch the camp of the Amlicites were called Zeram, and Amnor, and Manti, and Limher; these were they who went out with their men to watch the camp of the Amlicites.

Why do we need to know the names of the spies?  (This is the only time they show up in the record, but Manti will be a hill and Amnor a unit of measurement later on.)

23 And it came to pass that on the morrow they returned into the camp of the Nephites in great haste, being greatly astonished, and struck with much fear, saying:

Echoes of the spies sent to Jericho here?  Echoes of Zeniff’s spying mission?

Was fear the right reaction to have?  After all, the Lord is helping them?  Is the point that they mess up?  Why was their emotion recorded in the first place?  Or is the point that they are valiant in that they didn’t succumb to Lamanite charms the way that Zeniff did?

24 Behold, we followed the camp of the Amlicites, and to our great astonishment, in the land of Minon, above the land of Zarahemla, in the course of the land of Nephi, we saw a numerous host of the Lamanites; and behold, the Amlicites have joined them;

Is there a “moral of the story” to the idea that the Amlicites joined the Lamanites?  (It seems to me that in some ways, the BoM is one big long winnowing, as more and more people peel away from the righteous remnant and choose to join the Lamanites.)  How might this be relevant to our day?

25 And they are upon our brethren in that land; and they are fleeing before them with their flocks, and their wives, and their children, towards our city; and except we make haste they obtain possession of our city, and our fathers, and our wives, and our children be slain.

But note that these Nephites (even though they have to risk their lives to spy on them, and they are their military enemies) haven’t disowned the Amlicites, but still call them “our brethren.”

Is there a moral to be drawn from this–perhaps something about leaving Zarahemla insufficiently defended?

Fathers, wives, and children is an interesting grouping–it is usually wives and children.  And why the heck don’t they mention their mothers?

Do you find it odd that the Lamanites would so willingly accept the Amlicites, especially when, to all observers, the Amlicites would have looked as if they were prepared to go to battle against the Lamanites?

Brant Gardner writes, “The ethnic identity of the Amlicites apparently held no inherent impediment for joining with the Nephites,” which is very interesting food for thought when thinking about all this business of “marks” and “curses” that we are about to read.

Brant Gardner:

Sorenson suggests that this meeting was planned beforehand, and that the Amlicite attack on the East side of the Sidon was calculated to draw the Nephite army off away from Zarahemla, and thus leave it more vulnerable from the main Lamanite attack on the West side of the Sidon (Sorenson 1985, p. 196). While there is no direct hint at collusion between the Amlicites and the Lamanites in the text itself, the particulars of the Amlicite attack make this scenario quite plausible, and perhaps best explains how the Amlicites could come upon the Lamanite army in full battle regalia and be accepted so quickly.  Citation

26 And it came to pass that the people of Nephi took their tents, and departed out of the valley of Gideon towards their city, which was the city of Zarahemla.

Is it significant that they are called “the people of Nephi” and not called some military designation here?  (“The armies of Nephi” or something seems to make more sense.)

We already know that their city was the city of Zarahemla–why mention it?

27 And behold, as they were crossing the river Sidon, the Lamanites and the Amlicites, being as numerous almost, as it were, as the sands of the sea, came upon them to destroy them.

“The sands of the sea” is frequently used to describe the extent of Abraham’s posterity.  Is that meaning alluded to here?  Also, the last number we got was a very specific death count.  How does that relate to this very imprecise count?

28 Nevertheless, the Nephites being strengthened by the hand of the Lord, having prayed mightily to him that he would deliver them out of the hands of their enemies, therefore the Lord did hear their cries, and did strengthen them, and the Lamanites and the Amlicites did fall before them.

This is the second time in this passage that we hear of the hand of the Lord strengthening them.  What I find interesting is that the spy mission and its results are not described in terms of divine intervention, but are sandwiched in between references to that intervention.

I think the right way to read v28 is as a pre-summary of the material in v29-38.  If this is correct, why would Mormon have wanted us to have this summary (and interpretation) of events before we read the story itself?  Also, this summary suggests a very general thing (“deliver them,” “strengthen them,” “fall before them”) but what is actually narrated is a one-on-one story of Alma.  Why do you think this summary is more corporate but the narrated experience is more personal?

29 And it came to pass that Alma fought with Amlici with the sword, face to face; and they did contend mightily, one with another.

Is it significant that the leaders are going mano a mano here?

The sword of Laban functioned for many generations as a symbol of Nephite kingship.  There is reference to a sword here, but not the sword of Laban.  It is wielded by the Nephite leader, who is not a king.  What’s going on here?

If we want to read metaphorically, I find it most interesting that what the Lord has done for Alma is strengthen him (v28, v31), not fight his battles for him or find a way to help him avoid his battles.

30 And it came to pass that Alma, being a man of God, being exercised with much faith, cried, saying: O Lord, have mercy and spare my life, that I may be an instrument in thy hands to save and preserve this people.

Skousen reads “protect” instead of “preserve” here.

Throughout this entire section of the BoM, the phrase “instrument in the hands of God” is frequently used.  What does that metaphor suggest to us about how we should view our lives?

Are “save” and “preserve” to different things or two ways of saying the same thing?

31 Now when Alma had said these words he contended again with Amlici; and he was strengthened, insomuch that he slew Amlici with the sword.

In what situations might you want to model Alma’s prayer here?

Are you bothered by the fact that the answer to Alma’s prayer was his ability to kill someone?  (But note that he didn’t pray for Amlici’s death; he prayed that his own life would be spared.  This may be an important key to understanding warfare in the BoM.)

Note that Alma asked for his life to be preserved and what he got was strength.

32 And he also contended with the king of the Lamanites; but the king of the Lamanites fled back from before Alma and sent his guards to contend with Alma.

Does this text encourage you compare Amlici and the king of the Lamanites?  If so, what do you conclude and what should you learn from this?

Is the point of this just to show that the Lamanite king was a wimp (and, if so, what should we learn from that?) or is there more going on here?

33 But Alma, with his guards, contended with the guards of the king of the Lamanites until he slew and drove them back.

34 And thus he cleared the ground, or rather the bank, which was on the west of the river Sidon, throwing the bodies of the Lamanites who had been slain into the waters of Sidon, that thereby his people might have room to cross and contend with the Lamanites and the Amlicites on the west side of the river Sidon.

I’m having a hard time figuring out what is happening in this verse–is he saying that they crossed the river on a bridge of corpses (ew), or is he saying that he put the bodies into the river so the bank would be unencumbered so they could approach the river?  (See 3:3 for, maybe, support for this idea.) The fact that the ground cleared and the battle occur on the west side of the river sounds as if he cleared the bodies so there would be room to fight–is that right?  Either way, why was this material included in the record?

35 And it came to pass that when they had all crossed the river Sidon that the Lamanites and the Amlicites began to flee before them, notwithstanding they were so numerous that they could not be numbered.

Why would they flee if they had superior numbers?

I assume the “they” that crossed in the first phrase were Nephites.  If so, it suggests that crossing the river was the turning point of the battle, which suggests that moving the bodies was the cause of the turning point of the battle.  Are we to learn something from this and, if so, what?

36 And they fled before the Nephites towards the wilderness which was west and north, away beyond the borders of the land; and the Nephites did pursue them with their might, and did slay them.

37 Yea, they were met on every hand, and slain and driven, until they were scattered on the west, and on the north, until they had reached the wilderness, which was called Hermounts; and it was that part of the wilderness which was infested by wild and ravenous beasts.

We also learned that the area near the waters of Mormon was infested with wild beasts–is there a connection here?

Should you be reading this (especially the references to wilderness and scattering) metaphorically?

Brant Gardner:

Mormon’s description of what happened to the army does not appear to be a first hand account, but rather one that is made of conjecture. His evidence for those who died by being devoured is the bones which have been found. When those bones were found is a question, but certainly it was not during the pursuit, but some time later. What we have with [sic] Mormon’s relation is second hand information and inference. The bones that are found are presumed to relate to this incident, but there would be little clear evidence for that fact. This type of “historical” recording is very typical of ancient writers. The supposition is easily taken as declaration of fact, a presumption that would not pass modern historical practices.  Citation

38 And it came to pass that many died in the wilderness of their wounds, and were devoured by those beasts and also the vultures of the air; and their bones have been found, and have been heaped up on the earth.

Why was this included in the record?

CHAPTER 3

1 And it came to pass that the Nephites who were not slain by the weapons of war, after having buried those who had been slain—now the number of the slain were not numbered, because of the greatness of their number—after they had finished burying their dead they all returned to their lands, and to their houses, and their wives, and their children.

Note here.

In the last chapter, we got the number of the slain.  It sounded terrible.  In this case, we find out that the numbering was actually suggestive of the fact that the slaughter was not as terrible.

Note that the “fathers” drop out here–in the last chapter, they wanted to protect fathers, wives, and children.  Is the change significant?

Brant Gardner points out that this verse implies that they did not have a standing army.  In what ways might this be significant?

2 Now many women and children had been slain with the sword, and also many of their flocks and their herds; and also many of their fields of grain were destroyed, for they were trodden down by the hosts of men.

Does it surprise you that they left the homeland undefended?  Does it surprise you that the Lord intervened so they would win the battle, but didn’t protect the civilians back home?  What are we to learn from this?

3 And now as many of the Lamanites and the Amlicites who had been slain upon the bank of the river Sidon were cast into the waters of Sidon; and behold their bones are in the depths of the sea, and they are many.

Why was this included in the record?  (The multiple references to this seem to suggest some importance, but for the life of me, I cannot figure out what that might be.)

4 And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.

Is this a new practice after the battle (and the Nephites are, perhaps, only finding out about it now either as a result of the battle or of the handling of the corpses) or something they had been doing before?

What does it suggest about the Amlicites to say that they adopted one of the Lamanite markers but not the other?

What might a red mark on the forehead have symbolized?  What might a shorn head have symbolized?  Why aren’t we told?

Does this verse (and the following discussion) apply only to the dead bodies?  Or does it apply to the entire culture, but was brought to mind by the handling of the dead bodies in v3?  (Perhaps this is when these Nephites learned of these differences, if they hadn’t already noticed them in battle.)  More generally, what is the link between v3 and v4?

Presumably (and as v6 suggests), the Lamanites had darker skin than the Nephites.  Remember that the Amlicites were Nephites about ten minutes ago, but have now joined the Lamanites.  So it is interesting that they choose to identify with the Lamanites through this red mark.  But their skin colors would have been different.  If you saw the battle, you would have seen Nephites (no red mark, light[er] skin), Amlicites (red mark, light[er] skin), and Lamanites (red mark, darker skin).  So the “deciding factor” in identification was the red mark, not the darker skin.  I find that interesting, because it wasn’t the mark the Lord put on anyone but one that they chose to take upon themselves (and why, by the way, did the Lamanites choose this mark?) that becomes the main identifier.

5 Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.

Skousen reads “a skin” here.

This reminds me of the time I picked up one of my kids from a playdate and asked, “Have you eaten anything?”  ”No . . . just a hamburger.  And a hot dog.  And three cookies.”  So:  What is accomplished here by saying that they were naked, when they weren’t really naked?  Is there a relationship between their “nakedness” and their shorn heads?  In the Bible, nakedness is associated with innocence (before the fall) or shame (after the fall)–are either of those meanings here?

Mosiah 10:8 also lumps nakedness with a catalog of military gear–why link these two things together?

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

So we are now talking about three marks:  red forehead, shorn heads, and dark skin.  How do these relate?  How are they different?

It is very difficult to talk about a curse that takes the form of darkened skin.  Given that the BoM was written “for our day,” what is this material doing here and what should we learn from it?

Previously, leadership was seen to belong to Nephi; why do you think Jacob, Joseph, and Sam are also mentioned here?  Perhaps more significantly, why are we reminded that they were “just and holy” men here?

Is “transgression” the same thing as, or different from, sin in this verse?

Is the reference to “skins” in this verse related to the reference to “skin” in the previous verse?

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

From this book:

6 A And the skins of the Lamanites were dark,
B according to the mark which was set upon their fathers,
C which was a curse upon them
D because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren,
E who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam,
E who were just and holy men.
7 D And their brethren sought to destroy them,
C therefore they were cursed;
B and the Lord God set a mark upon them,
A yea, upon Laman and Lemuel,

What’s interesting about that chiasmus is the shift in the word “brethren.”  In the D line, brethren refers to the Nephites, but in the D’ line, it refers to the Lamanites.  But, significantly, both groups are described as “brethren” to each other.  It is a sad little thing.

The logic of this verse is a little hard to follow, especially with all of the pronouns where we might have appreciated nouns.  I think that the “their brethren” means Laman and Lemuel and the first “them” is the Nephites.  The people who get the mark are the Lamanites, and they get it from God because they tried to destroy the Nephites.

What is accomplished by mentioning Ishmael and the women?  (And isn’t it interesting that that poor guy got dragged to the new world just to see his descendants cursed?)

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

The one main story of mixing that we have had up to this point is there the priests of Noah (who, being descended from the Nephites that followed Zeniff, would not have had the curse) stole Lamanite girls and married them.  So . . . did the curse not work then and, if not, why not?  (In other words, why did the priests of Noah “mix” with the daughters?)

Implicit in this verse is the importance of not “mixing” (Is that just marriage, or is it broader? I think this verse is broad, but v9 points to marriage.)  Also implicit is the idea that otherwise righteous people might be tempted beyond that which they could bear to “mix,” but that a physical mark would stop them from so doing.  Do you agree with my analysis and, if so, what does it teach you about humans and about God?

So in the OT, the concern is always that a son will marry a pagan woman, because the assumption is that the wife’s beliefs/practices will become the children’s.  In the BoM, we don’t hear about that–we hear that an entire group has a visible mark so that there will be no intermarrying.  What does this difference tell us about the old world and new world cultures?  What else might we learn from it?

Note that the emphasis here is on belief (“believe in incorrect traditions”) and not practice (“commit sinful acts” or whatever).  What might we learn from this?

This verse sorta sounds as if beliefs were a sexually transmitted virus (i.e., something you might unwilling pick up from someone you are in an intimate relationship with, not something you choose one way or the other).  What are the consequences of thinking about beliefs in this way?

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

Shouldn’t he also have brought that curse upon himself?

10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him.

This verse suggests that the mark didn’t only go to the person’s children (which is covered in v9), but went to the person who followed the Lamanites.  Does this imply that the mark was not simple “race,” since, we would presume, one’s race would not change in this situation?  (Or did it?  Does this verse assume divine intervention to darken the skin of anyone who followed the Lamanites?)

11 And it came to pass that whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites, but believed those records which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and also in the tradition of their fathers, which were correct, who believed in the commandments of God and kept them, were called the Nephites, or the people of Nephi, from that time forth—

Now, we used to define “Nephite” as followers of God and “Lamanite” as “everyone else,” but here, we begin the definition of Nephites with a negative (“whoever would not believe . . .”).  What is accomplished by this?

It seems that this verse sets up a four-part Nephite statement of faith:

1.  did not believe Lamanite tradition

2. believed Jrsm records

3. believed traditions of their fathers

4. believed in the commandments and kept them

What can you learn from that list?  In what ways would, for example, 2 and 4 be different?  Of what would 3 have consisted if it wasn’t the same thing as 2 and 4?

12 And it is they who have kept the records which are true of their people, and also of the people of the Lamanites.

Notice how very central the records are to what is happening in v12.  The records and the foundation and delineation of their societies.

13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.

This verse acknowledges that v5-12 have been something of a digression from the main story line.  Why was this digression inserted?  What does the sad story of the Amlicites have to do with the curse–they aren’t part of the curse (they didn’t have children with Lamanites, they just died with them) and they choose themselves to take on a Lamanite mark (and a different one from the curse) themselves before they die. Mormon (or his source) seems to be making a link between the mark of the Amlicites and that of the Lamanites, but what exactly is that link–and why isn’t it explained to us?  (One theory:  by putting a mark in their own forehead, the Amlicites were taking the Lamanite curse on themselves. I think v18 supports this.  What is interesting about that is that it is an entirely different mark than the one that the Lord put on the Lamanites.  It also has a slightly different function–it identifies the Amlicites for purposes of battle, not for marriage.)

I’ve never met a member of the church who wasn’t made a little squirmy by these verses (and other discussions of the curse/dark skin) in the BoM, and yet we know the BoM was written “for our day.”  What do you do with this material?  What is the message in it for us?  Is there anything palatable and useful that can be drawn from it?  Is it as ugly as it seems?

So was this mark “set upon them” or did they “set the mark upon themselves”?  Or what?

The Lamanite mark is dark skin; the Amlicite mark is a red forehead.  What to make of this?

14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.

Is the suggestion here that the mark is something that people set upon themselves?  (This would fit nicely with the idea from Ben’s speech that hell is entirely self-selected and self-inflicted and internal.)

What does “forever” mean in this verse?  Does it mean that this verse should be applied to our lives in some way?

Interesting that we don’t have this statement to Nephi recorded in Nephi’s own writings.  How did it end up here and not there?

15 And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also.

16 And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.

Why the triple repetition here?  Triple repetition, especially when it is clearly signposted as such, is a huge, huge deal.  What made the concept of the mark worth mentioning three times?

There’s an interesting shift from v15 (mingling seed) and v16 (fighting against seed).  These things would seem to be opposites (love and war! life and death! sex and battle!), but here, they have precisely the same consequence.  Why is that?

17 And again, I say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth and forever; and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and to his seed.

This feels very much like the “punchline” to the entire Amlicite story, but what’s weird about it is that we didn’t have this revelation from the Lord to Nephi until this moment.  What effect does it have on the reader to get it now?

18 Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.

But . . . if God was giving the curse, and the curse was darker skin, and the point was to avoid intermarrying, then how does a self-inflicted, red-forehead, battle-identifying mark fulfill the words of God?  Since it apparently does fulfill the curse, then what does this verse teach us about the curse?

Is it only “bad guys” who can fulfill prophesy without knowing that they are doing it?  In what other situations might this happen?

19 Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.

Direct address is very rare in the scriptures.

Note what a huge point Mormon (presumably) is making here of making sure we know that the Amlicites brought the mark upon themselves.  This reminds me of the teachings about “hell” that we’ve gotten:  hell is an internal state that you bring upon yourself when you know what you have given up.

Ah, I love these explanatory verses from Mormon–if only the author of Genesis had similarly made our lives easy by explaining the point of the story!  In this case, it appears that the entire point of the Amlicite story is to show that people curse themselves.

20 Now it came to pass that not many days after the battle which was fought in the land of Zarahemla, by the Lamanites and the Amlicites, that there was another army of the Lamanites came in upon the people of Nephi, in the same place where the first army met the Amlicites.

21 And it came to pass that there was an army sent to drive them out of their land.

22 Now Alma himself being afflicted with a wound did not go up to battle at this time against the Lamanites;

23 But he sent up a numerous army against them; and they went up and slew many of the Lamanites, and drove the remainder of them out of the borders of their land.

24 And then they returned again and began to establish peace in the land, being troubled no more for a time with their enemies.

25 Now all these things were done, yea, all these wars and contentions were commenced and ended in the *fifth year of the reign of the judges.

26 And in one year were thousands and tens of thousands of souls sent to the eternal world, that they might reap their rewards according to their works, whether they were good or whether they were bad, to reap eternal happiness or eternal misery, according to the spirit which they listed to obey, whether it be a good spirit or a bad one.

Is this verse suggesting that one’s works determine one’s eternal destiny?

Does this verse provide a scriptural gloss to the popular image of a little angel on one shoulder and a little demon on the other?

This verse described one year when tens of thousands of people die.  But the previous verse said that it was a time of peace.  So . . . does this verse backtrack?  (And, if so, why is the text structured so oddly?) Or was there a plague or natural disaster or something? (Then why not explain that?) Or is the population so large that 10s of 1000s is the normal mortality?  (But then why mention it if it were the norm?)

Mormons pride themselves on a multi-level heaven; how do you reconcile that idea with this binary verse?

27 For every man receiveth wages of him whom he listeth to obey, and this according to the words of the spirit of prophecy; therefore let it be according to the truth. And thus endeth the fifth year of the reign of the judges.

What does the idea of “wages” suggest to you about eternal rewards?

CHAPTER 4

1 Now it came to pass in the *sixth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, there were no contentions nor wars in the land of Zarahemla;

2 But the people were afflicted, yea, greatly afflicted for the loss of their brethren, and also for the loss of their flocks and herds, and also for the loss of their fields of grain, which were trodden under foot and destroyed by the Lamanites.

3 And so great were their afflictions that every soul had cause to mourn; and they believed that it was the judgments of God sent upon them because of their wickedness and their abominations; therefore they were awakened to a remembrance of their duty.

Does the fact that they stopped mourning surprise you?  (If anything, I think they might be mourning more!)

Were they right about it being the judgments of God?

What does “awakened” suggest to you about what happened to them here?

4 And they began to establish the church more fully; yea, and many were baptized in the waters of Sidon and were joined to the church of God; yea, they were baptized by the hand of Alma, who had been consecrated the high priest over the people of the church, by the hand of his father Alma.

Remember that the last time Alma, the river Sidon, and bodies were mentioned, Alma was putting dead Lamanite bodies into the river.  I suspect these verses are related, but how?  What is the point?

5 And it came to pass in the *seventh year of the reign of the judges there were about three thousand five hundred souls that united themselves to the church of God and were baptized. And thus ended the seventh year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi; and there was continual peace in all that time.

6 And it came to pass in the *eighth year of the reign of the judges, that the people of the church began to wax proud, because of their exceeding riches, and their fine silks, and their fine-twined linen, and because of their many flocks and herds, and their gold and their silver, and all manner of precious things, which they had obtained by their industry; and in all these things were they lifted up in the pride of their eyes, for they began to wear very costly apparel.

Does pride in the BoM focus on clothing because that was one of the few avenues that they had for displaying social status, or is there something special about clothing?

Note that it was only two years ago that they were suffering from a war-induced famine–this is a remarkably quick turn-around.  In fact, all of the events of the reign of the judges seem to happen remarkably quickly.  Why might this be?

Virtually every time clothing is criticized in scripture, it is because of cost, not modesty (using the modern sense of modesty, not the broader sense).  What should we learn from this?

So we have industry -> accumulating good stuff -> pride.  What should we learn from this progression?  (The cynic would say:  industry is the start of bad stuff.  Better to watch Netflix.)

The beginning of this verse seems to suggest that they were proud because of their nice stuff; the end seems to suggest that their pride caused them to accumulate nice stuff.  Which way is the arrow pointing?

7 Now this was the cause of much affliction to Alma, yea, and to many of the people whom Alma had consecrated to be teachers, and priests, and elders over the church; yea, many of them were sorely grieved for the wickedness which they saw had begun to be among their people.

We’ve heard a lot about priests and teachers, but I think this is our first reference to “elders” in Alma’s church.  Is this just a result of the randomness of the record, or is it significant that they are introduced in this context?

What do you think of “grief” as a response to wickedness?  (Is that our usual response?)

Nice irony that “affliction” was used in v3 to describe how the people felt about the famine but is used here to describe how the church leaders felt about wealth (=the inverse of a famine).  Another point of comparison is that the famine caused mourning and here the leaders are grieving.

8 For they saw and beheld with great sorrow that the people of the church began to be lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and to set their hearts upon riches and upon the vain things of the world, that they began to be scornful, one towards another, and they began to persecute those that did not believe according to their own will and pleasure.

How does being scornful stem from pride?  In what ways are people scornful today?  Is it every OK to be scornful?

What work is “according to their own will and pleasure” doing in this verse?

9 And thus, in this eighth year of the reign of the judges, there began to be great contentions among the people of the church; yea, there were envyings, and strife, and malice, and persecutions, and pride, even to exceed the pride of those who did not belong to the church of God.

Note that church members were more prideful than those outside of the church.

Are you surprised at how quickly this all happened?

10 And thus ended the eighth year of the reign of the judges; and the wickedness of the church was a great stumbling-block to those who did not belong to the church; and thus the church began to fail in its progress.

What should we learn from this verse?  How might this happen today?

Does this verse define the “progress of the church” in terms of how well the church appeals to non-members?

What does the image of a stumbling-block suggest to you?

Do you believe Mormon here?  It seems equally (if not more) likely that the progress of the church was slowed by the fact that their wealth made them less receptive to the gospel than a famine did.

11 And it came to pass in the *commencement of the ninth year, Alma saw the wickedness of the church, and he saw also that the example of the church began to lead those who were unbelievers on from one piece of iniquity to another, thus bringing on the destruction of the people.

What does “piece” suggest to you about iniquity?

Note that the church members were setting an example (although in this case a bad one!) for those outside the church.

12 Yea, he saw great inequality among the people, some lifting themselves up with their pride, despising others, turning their backs upon the needy and the naked and those who were hungry, and those who were athirst, and those who were sick and afflicted.

Does this verse teach that great inequality is a sin?

13 Now this was a great cause for lamentations among the people, while others were abasing themselves, succoring those who stood in need of their succor, such as imparting their substance to the poor and the needy, feeding the hungry, and suffering all manner of afflictions, for Christ’s sake, who should come according to the spirit of prophecy;

14 Looking forward to that day, thus retaining a remission of their sins; being filled with great joy because of the resurrection of the dead, according to the will and power and deliverance of Jesus Christ from the bands of death.

15 And now it came to pass that Alma, having seen the afflictions of the humble followers of God, and the persecutions which were heaped upon them by the remainder of his people, and seeing all their inequality, began to be very sorrowful; nevertheless the Spirit of the Lord did not fail him.

16 And he selected a wise man who was among the elders of the church, and gave him power according to the voice of the people, that he might have power to enact laws according to the laws which had been given, and to put them in force according to the wickedness and the crimes of the people.

Notice the interplay of the voice of the people and Alma’s choice–what does that tell you about how things were being run?

17 Now this man’s name was Nephihah, and he was appointed chief judge; and he sat in the judgment-seat to judge and to govern the people.

It would have been more natural to give his name in v16.  Why don’t we get his name here?

Do v16-17 imply that Mosiah2′s reforms needed, well, reform?  That is, Mosiah pictures laws from the fathers sufficient for governing, but here, Nephihah is given the authority to enact new laws (v16).  Note that Mosiah’s system lasted less than 10 years, and virtually every year was horrid, with things moving at an unbelievably fast pace.

Are judging and governing two separate things?

18 Now Alma did not grant unto him the office of being high priest over the church, but he retained the office of high priest unto himself; but he delivered the judgment-seat unto Nephihah.

Does this action imply that Mosiah2′s plan of uniting chief judge + chief priest was not a great idea?  (Or is the message here that different times require different church/civic organizations in order to work most effectively?)

Is there a lesson about the separation of church and state here?  Why do you think this change of government was included in the record?

19 And this he did that he himself might go forth among his people, or among the people of Nephi, that he might preach the word of God unto them, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty, and that he might pull down, by the word of God, all the pride and craftiness and all the contentions which were among his people, seeing no way that he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in pure testimony against them.

What does “stir up” suggest to you?

What does “bearing down” suggest to you?

Why use “pure” to modify “testimony”?

This verse (and the next one) implies that the reason for making the chief judge separate from the high priest is so he (Alma) could focus on the church and that the civil matters were a distraction to him.  If this is the case, then how do we reconcile the frequent admonitions in the BoM that priests should labor with their own hands–wouldn’t that also be a huge distraction?

20 And thus in the commencement of the ninth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, Alma delivered up the judgment-seat to Nephihah, and confined himself wholly to the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to the testimony of the word, according to the spirit of revelation and prophecy.

What is “the holy order of God” in this verse–is it the same as the high priesthood?

General thoughts:

(1) I’ve always thought that Gideon deserved a Best Supporting Actor award.  He’s never the protagonist, but he keeps showing up and quietly doing amazing things.  See Mosiah 19:4-8, 20:16-18, 22:3-9; Alma 1:8-9.

(2) Nephite government.  There’s an awful lot of ink spilled in this section about their form of government, its merits and drawbacks, and its consequences.  (An interesting article on this here.) Noel B. Reynolds wrote this:

Alma₂ became the first chief judge and served simultaneously as high priest, governor, and military chief captain. Because these offices required the approval of the people, who had rejected monarchy, critics have tended to confuse the Nephite system with the democracy of the United States. However, there was no representative legislature, the essential institution in American republican ideology. Also, the major offices were typically passed from father to son, without elections (Bushman, pp. 14—17); “the voice of the people” is reported many times as authorizing or confirming leadership appointments and other civic or political actions.  Citation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 And now king Mosiah caused that all the people should be gathered together.

2 Now there were not so many of the children of Nephi, or so many of those who were descendants of Nephi, as there were of the people of Zarahemla, who was a descendant of Mulek, and those who came with him into the wilderness.

Skousen reads “Muloch” instead of “Mulek” here.

Why did Mormon think that we should know this?  Isn’t it sort of inside baseball?  (Same with v3.)

Brant Gardner has some interesting thoughts here on why their would have been a population difference between the Lehites and the Mulekites when they both left at roughly the same time, and then why that information might matter enough to make it worth mentioning.

3 And there were not so many of the people of Nephi and of the people of Zarahemla as there were of the Lamanites; yea, they were not half so numerous.

One wonders if the point of all of the census-reporting is a subtle hint that some groups had been intermarrying with local populations, and others (namely, the Nephites) not as much.

4 And now all the people of Nephi were assembled together, and also all the people of Zarahemla, and they were gathered together in two bodies.

This strikes me as a bad omen, that these people are still very much divided.  (Spoiler alert:  I wonder if the creation of “churches,” a new thing, that happens in this chapter, has anything to do with the continuing divisions of the people.  Perhaps the “church” entity is meant to displace the ethnic/social identity to which they have been clinging.)

5 And it came to pass that Mosiah did read, and caused to be read, the records of Zeniff to his people; yea, he read the records of the people of Zeniff, from the time they left the land of Zarahemla until they returned again.

Skousen reads “until the time they returned again.”

Usually in the BoM, we get “X, or Y,” which I take to mean, “I wrote X, realized it wasn’t quite right, but you can’t erase on these darn plates, so I’ll write Y to clarify.”  But that isn’t quite what we have here–we have “did read, and caused to be read.”  It isn’t an “or,” so I don’t think it is a correction by a writer/redactor who wanted to make clear that he (=Mosiah) personally didn’t read it.  Perhaps it is meant to allude to a Ben-style situation where there were so many people that they couldn’t all hear him.  (That would be very interesting, given that we just got a lecture on how small their numbers are.)  (For all we know, he’s reading this from Ben’s tower.  But the text doesn’t point that out.)

Can you discern a motive here?  Is this just an interesting bit of history?  Or were they to learn a moral lesson from the record of Zeniff?  (I commented in the notes on the Zeniff section that the moral is much harder to derive than it is in other sections of the BoM.  Perhaps that is because Mormon’s guiding hand is not as heavy in that section?  I don’t know.)

In the OT, the only thing that gets read to groups is the Law (am I forgetting anything?).  Is it significant that all of the people are brought together to hear the story of some neighbors (and new immigrants)?

6 And he also read the account of Alma and his brethren, and all their afflictions, from the time they left the land of Zarahemla until the time they returned again.

Wait–when were Alma and his brethren in the land of Zarahemla?  (This article offers two possible explanations for this phrase.)

I do suspect that the way the material is structured as “the record of Zeniff” and “an account of Alma” that the purpose of the reading is that we’d compare the two, and learn from the experiences of one group that was slow to focus on the Lord and another that was better sustained in their trials because of their righteous choices.

7 And now, when Mosiah had made an end of reading the records, his people who tarried in the land were struck with wonder and amazement.

Really?  I’ve read (Mormon’s abridgment of) that record, and that wasn’t my reaction . . .  (Later, when they hear the Jaredite record, they mourn.)

8 For they knew not what to think; for when they beheld those that had been delivered out of bondage they were filled with exceedingly great joy.

Why didn’t they know what to think?  Is that the reaction that we should have when we read this section of Mosiah?

How does not knowing what to think relate to being filled with joy?  (Or the wonder and amazement of the previous verse?) Is that a contradiction (=they did know what to think)?  Or does it suggest that joy and confuzzlement can coexist?

9 And again, when they thought of their brethren who had been slain by the Lamanites they were filled with sorrow, and even shed many tears of sorrow.

I love this–these are people who didn’t follow Mosiah1, or left after the civil war that Zeniff caused, and they are brethren, and their loss is mourned.  No schadenfreude here.

So from v7-9, their reactions are:  wonder, amazement, not knowing what to think, major joy, and sorrow.  Are these people just melodramatic, or what?  And, given the highly compressed nature of this record, why do we get this panoply of emotions?  What are we supposed to take from it?  (And note that their next thought, if not emotion, is the goodness of God in v10.)

10 And again, when they thought of the immediate goodness of God, and his power in delivering Alma and his brethren out of the hands of the Lamanites and of bondage, they did raise their voices and give thanks to God.

Does this verse imply that God didn’t help Limhi’s people?

11 And again, when they thought upon the Lamanites, who were their brethren, of their sinful and polluted state, they were filled with pain and anguish for the welfare of their souls.

This is even better than v9–they have been separated from the Lamanites for 500 years, but still consider them their brethren.  (You could make a nice application here by thinking about how we are all, ultimately, God’s children.)  And they still care about them, a lot.

Are “sinful” and “polluted” two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?

Are “pain” and “anguish” two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?

I’m struck by the balance of sinful/polluted and pain/anguish:  Are these pairs (and/or the items constituting them) related in some way?

Notice the structure in v8, v9, v10, and v11:  each verse introduces a topic (those delivered, brethren slain, goodness of God, the Lamanites) and then gives a reaction to is (joy, sorrow, gratitude, pain).  What can you learn from this pattern?  (So maybe the part about not knowing what to think is that they didn’t know how to reconcile all of these conflicting emotions in to one overriding emotion.  And that’s rather grand of them, not to just brush off the loss of some people in their joy over other people).

Grant Hardy:

If one tries to imagine this scene, the importance of Mormon’s editing becomes obvious. The people were undoubtedly moved by what they had heard. Yet are we to suppose that the people in unison thought of each of these things in turn, with one voice weeping and then praising as if on cue? (Remember that this behavior was described as occurring after the reading had finished.) Or is it more probable that some shed tears while others rejoiced, each reflecting individually on the great events that had been recounted? The reactions of crowds are difficult to describe. Here, though Mormon apparently took a few liberties with the actual event, he established a vivid sense of the emotions that the people must have felt. Perhaps more importantly, Mormon’s account is itself moving. Note how it shifts back and forth from joy in verse eight to sorrow in verse nine, to praise in verse ten, and back to pain and anguish in verse eleven. In each case, the pains of the disobedient contrast sharply and immediately with the joys of the obedient. The exposition of God’s justice is clear, simple, and concise, and it owes its striking form to Mormon’s editorial hand. Citation

Sidenote:  I’d happily sell my firstborn if Grant Hardy would write a verse-by-verse BoM commentary.  (Heck, I’d throw in the other two kids if I had to.)

12 And it came to pass that those who were the children of Amulon and his brethren, who had taken to wife the daughters of the Lamanites, were displeased with the conduct of their fathers, and they would no longer be called by the names of their fathers, therefore they took upon themselves the name of Nephi, that they might be called the children of Nephi and be numbered among those who were called Nephites.

Wait–what?  What happened here?  This is huge!  Why do we not hear about it in any detail?  Whassup, Mormon?

Brant Gardner:

This is the first time we learn of children of Amulon being among those who arrive in Zarahemla. Not only is this the first time we are made aware of them, Mormon neglects to tell us whether they arrived with Limhi or Alma.  Citation

What effect does it have on the reader to have these people come, textually, out of nowhere?

It’s worth noting again that by this point, “Nephite” and “Lamanite” are cultural and religious distinctions, but not ethnic ones.

Does this verse imply that the children of Amulon did not know their history until Mosiah2 read the records, or is v12 introducing an entirely new topic?

Methinks those Lamanite daughters purified this line of the wickedness of Noah’s priests.

Brant Gardner points out that these “children of Amulon and his brethren” may be the children born *before* the escape with the dancing Lamanite daughters and abandoned in the battle with the Lamanites.

13 And now all the people of Zarahemla were numbered with the Nephites, and this because the kingdom had been conferred upon none but those who were descendants of Nephi.

Was there something wrong with conferring the kingdom to a descendant of Zarahemla?

Is this numbering a new thing?  Does it suggest that the divisions highlighted at the beginning of the chapter have been overcome?  If so, did the reading of the Zeniff and Alma records have anything to do with that?  (I find it interesting that the reading of the records is sandwiched by references to the political situation of who is numbered with who in Zarahemla.)

Is there a relationship between v12 and v13?  That is, did the numbering of Amulon’s people with the Nephites somehow (how, exactly?) lead to the people of Zarahemla wanting to be numbered among the Nephites?

How does the first part of this verse relate to the second part?  That is, what is it about conferring the kingdom on descendants of Nephi that would make the Zarahemla-ites want to be numbered with the Nephites?  (Did they sense some kind of protection in that?  Or, per the example in v12, some element of making a righteous choice to identify that way?)

14 And now it came to pass that when Mosiah had made an end of speaking and reading to the people, he desired that Alma should also speak to the people.

Note that he actually finished speaking/reading in v7.  What is the result of repeating that information here?

Do you read this chapter differently if the reading of the record of Zeniff and of Alma was for the purpose of introducing Alma to the people, as happens in this verse?  In what ways would a reading of the record be a different introduction to Alma than other possible introductions that we might imagine?

15 And Alma did speak unto them, when they were assembled together in large bodies, and he went from one body to another, preaching unto the people repentance and faith on the Lord.

I wonder if it was difficult for the audience to accept Alma–an outsider, an upstart, culturally different, and without the same depth of knowledge or years of religious experience and leadership (esp. Mosiah2, presumably) that they had.

16 And he did exhort the people of Limhi and his brethren, all those that had been delivered out of bondage, that they should remember that it was the Lord that did deliver them.

This is very interesting, because I think Mormon really wanted us to compare the Alma and Limhi escape-from-bondage stories and to conclude that the Lord helped Alma’s people more than the Lord helped Limhi’s people precisely because they trusted in the Lord more.  (For example, Alma’s people didn’t have to get their guards drunk–the Lord took care of that.)  So now, what do we make of Alma telling them that they should remember that the Lord got them out of bondage?

Interesting that the first thing we learn about Alma’s preaching is faith and repentance in the previous verse, but the next thing is a message delivered particularly to Limhi’s people.

Who else had been delivered out of bondage besides Limhi and his people?  Well, an obvious answer is Alma’s people.  One wonders why they were not specifically mentioned in this verse and just included in the “all others” umbrella.

Grant Hardy:

Two assumptions about this passage seem reasonable: Limhi and his brethren made up one of these large bodies of people, and Mormon had access to records of Alma’s words to each of these groups. Mormon mentioned general preachings of repentance and faith, but the only specific instruction he recounted was the exhortation to Limhi’s people to remember that the Lord was responsible for their deliverance. Why is this detail so important that it alone received attention when so much else was left out? This editorial choice is especially puzzling when we recall that Limhi’s people had freed themselves by getting their Lamanite guards drunk (see Mosiah 22). We even know the name of the man who concocted the scheme—Gideon. We also remember the conference in which Ammon and Limhi “began to consult with the people how they should deliver themselves out of bondage” (22:1). Their liberation seemed to be the result of sheer cunning—chapter twenty-two does not mention God once. And yet in chapter twenty-five, Mormon’s editing stressed that, despite appearances, God delivered Limhi’s people just as much as he did Alma’s people (who had made a miraculous escape, recorded in Mosiah 24:16-25). Of course this is precisely the point behind Mormon’s editing—no matter what we may think about our own resourcefulness, decisiveness, and timing, God is still in charge. Mormon tended to interpret political and historical events in spiritual terms, and this inclination is evident in his editing as well as in his direct “thus we see” comments. Citation

17 And it came to pass that after Alma had taught the people many things, and had made an end of speaking to them, that king Limhi was desirous that he might be baptized; and all his people were desirous that they might be baptized also.

This is a little a weird, because it makes it sound like a new desire, when we know that they had this desire before.  A more interesting question is why the desire wasn’t manifest before this time (especially because the Limhi people landed in Zarahemla at least awhile before Alma’s people did).  Is there something about the preceding verses that (re)triggered their desire for baptism?

18 Therefore, Alma did go forth into the water and did baptize them; yea, he did baptize them after the manner he did his brethren in the waters of Mormon; yea, and as many as he did baptize did belong to the church of God; and this because of their belief on the words of Alma.

“Words of Alma” as opposed to “words of the Lord” makes me a little nervous here.

Note that the result of baptism here is belonging to the the church of God.  (That is, it is primarily described in terms of its communal, not individual, effects.)  This supports my thinking from the last set of notes that Alma’s innovation is in community-formation.  Religion is starting to be independent of politics/society, we might say in modern terms.

19 And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church.

This is a little weird–why didn’t they have churches before this?  (Does v20 answer the question?) (Did they have priests and teachers?)

What do you make of the fact that the king is in charge of the church?  Is that a good thing?

Brant Gardner:

The separation of realm of influence now extends to Mosiah himself. Mosiah grants to Alma the power to ordain priests and teachers over each “church.” Effectively this diminishes the regnal power of Mosiah, as he is now removed from an essential role in the religious institution of his society. While Mosiah would certainly be titularly the head of the “church,” he was no longer the effective leader of it. That position passed to Alma. Citation

20 Now this was done because there were so many people that they could not all be governed by one teacher; neither could they all hear the word of God in one assembly;

But it was also true during Ben’s time that all the people couldn’t hear the word of God in one assembly, but they didn’t create churches then.

I don’t want to attack the memory of dear old Ben, but given the problems that arise with the rising generation that doesn’t believe him, and the actions taken in this verse, one wonders if administration just wasn’t his strong suit (remember all that bumbling about the people not being able to hear him?) and the lack of structure for the church was a problem that Alma (not Mosiah2) was uniquely capable of solving.  (I’m probably too mean.  But I think it is useful to recognize that all human leaders have weaknesses.)  One wonders, then, what it is about Alma’s background (in the courts of Noah of all people!) that gave him this organizational ability.  (Perhaps you’ll say that it wasn’t Alma but God.  Fine, but then why didn’t Ben or Mosiah2 clean house under God’s guidance?)

21 Therefore they did assemble themselves together in different bodies, being called churches; every church having their priests and their teachers, and every priest preaching the word according as it was delivered to him by the mouth of Alma.

Once again, I note that in the OT, priests do temple rituals.  Now in the BoM, their role seems different.

What the heck happened to the legitimate authority of Mosiah2?  This is Ben’s kid, duly authorized, but you’d get the impression here that the situation in Zarahemla was a complete apostate mess until Alma showed up.

22 And thus, notwithstanding there being many churches they were all one church, yea, even the church of God; for there was nothing preached in all the churches except it were repentance and faith in God.

What does this verse tell you about what the word “church” means (and doesn’t mean) in the BoM?

I think the second phrase is a most interesting definition of what it means to be “one church.”

Were they teaching the law of Moses?

23 And now there were seven churches in the land of Zarahemla. And it came to pass that whosoever were desirous to take upon them the name of Christ, or of God, they did join the churches of God;

Seven is one of the most frequently used numbers in the scriptures as a symbol.  (It is a symbol for completeness.)  Could that be its meaning here?  Could it be related to the seven churches to which John sent his revelation?

24 And they were called the people of God. And the Lord did pour out his Spirit upon them, and they were blessed, and prospered in the land.

What does the phrase “pour out” suggest to you about the Spirit?

Are being blessed and prospering the result of having the Spirit?

Are “blessed” and “prospered” two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?  What does prospered mean?

CHAPTER 26

1 Now it came to pass that there were many of the rising generation that could not understand the words of king Benjamin, being little children at the time he spake unto his people; and they did not believe the tradition of their fathers.

There was no chapter division here in the 1830 BoM.  What is the relationship of this verse to the material in the verse before it?  (It is quite jarring if you read it without the distance that the chapter division creates.)

It seems to me that “being too young to hear Ben” is not a sufficient cause for “not believing parents.”  What else might be going on here?  (One possibility:  there was civil unrest–perhaps a civil war–caused by Zeniff’s desire to leave.)

I’m curious about the present tense of “could not understand,” when the verse is clearly describing something that happened in the past of the story.  Perhaps accidental, but perhaps it is suggesting that their problem is not that they were young when Ben gave the talk (presumably others were, who now believe his words), but that they chose not to understand the talk (now).

Usually “traditions of the fathers” is a negative thing in the BoM, so it is interesting to me that it is positive here.

I’m curious about the semantic shift from “the words of king Ben” to “the traditions of their fathers.”  Is that two ways of saying the same thing?  Two different things?  How are those things related?

Remember that Ben is no longer king; his son is.  Why is Ben’s discourse mentioned when it is old news?

So is this a big old parental fail that their parents hadn’t taught them what Ben taught?

Is “fathers” literal here (therefore meaning the people in Ben’s audience) or more metaphorical (=the prophetic tradition, which would include Ben and may or may not include their biological fathers)?

2 They did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead, neither did they believe concerning the coming of Christ.

Why single out these two items?  (My thought:  these seem, in a sense, sort of ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,’ in that they have no direct impact on their lives, but have to do with future [to them] events.  Of course, that would then be precisely the point of the passage:  that what we believe about future events [such as the Second Coming and judgment] absolutely does impact our lives in the present.)

3 And now because of their unbelief they could not understand the word of God; and their hearts were hardened.

What is it about not believing about the resurrection and incarnation that would lead them to not understand “the word of God”?  What precisely is the cause and effect described in v2-3?

I find this verse fascinating, because it suggests that faith (and the lack thereof) impact our ability to understand things.  (This is maybe obvious, but we act like it isn’t sometimes.)

Does this verse suggest that they wanted to understand the word of God, but couldn’t?  (I don’t think they wanted to, but then why bring it up?)

Who hardened their hearts?  Are you surprised to see heart-hardening as the result of disbelief instead of the cause of disbelief?  What might this imply?

If you think about the biblical meaning of hearts as minds, this verse makes perfect sense:  they didn’t believe, they couldn’t understand, and their minds were closed.

Brant Gardner suggests that, because this apostasy developed so quickly and because it is the same as other BoM apostasies, it seems to have the same source:  outside influence.  These kids appear to be succumbing to the non-messianic beliefs of people they know (as do other apostate BoM groups).  Once again, we see more evidence for interaction with native people suggested but not directly mentioned in the text.

4 And they would not be baptized; neither would they join the church. And they were a separate people as to their faith, and remained so ever after, even in their carnal and sinful state; for they would not call upon the Lord their God.

Does this verse affirm or deny the idea (suggested before) that being baptized and joining the church are the same thing?

What do you make of the “ever after,” since this is not literally true?

So:  What went wrong here?  What is the moral of the story for the apostasy of these people–what is the warning to us?  Does the text give you any clues?

5 And now in the reign of Mosiah they were not half so numerous as the people of God; but because of the dissensions among the brethren they became more numerous.

Does this verse have any relation to the material about Nephite v. Lamanite numbers at the beginning of ch25?

Does “among the brethren” mean dissension within the church?  (Note that, in the Bible at least, brethren is nothing more than the plural for brothers [or brothers and sisters].)  Is Mormon attributing this episode of apostasy to conflict within the church and/or its leadership?

Is this verse suggesting that an apostasy that began with the children filtered upward [in age]?  If so, how might that happen today?

6 For it came to pass that they did deceive many with their flattering words, who were in the church, and did cause them to commit many sins; therefore it became expedient that those who committed sin, that were in the church, should be admonished by the church.

What would be some modern examples of this?  How does flattery lead to deception?  (Note that it is of people in the church–is there anything that might make church members particularly susceptible to flattery?)

Who is the “they”–the children who started this or the brethren?

Does this verse describe the dissensions that are mentioned in v6, or does it describe the result of those dissensions?

Think about the flattery -> deception -> sins sequence that this verse sets up.  What might we learn from that?  How might that happen today?

Note that the kids did not object to a practice but to a belief.  But here, that unbelief has led to action.

In what situations should sinners be (or not be) admonished by the church?  (I’d like to point out that sacrament meeting would be a lot more interesting if we got to listen to the bishop admonish specific people [but not me] for their sins.)

7 And it came to pass that they were brought before the priests, and delivered up unto the priests by the teachers; and the priests brought them before Alma, who was the high priest.

This verse suggests that the priests have a higher rank than the teachers; it also suggests that the teachers had a role in church discipline and didn’t just teach.

What should we gain from this chain-of-command verse?  Should the teachers have just taken the apostates straight to Alma?

I think this verse goes in a non-chronological order:  Did they go to the teachers or the priests first?  I think they started with the teachers and then they were delivered up to the priests.  This is interesting because it suggests that the teachers were not just Spewers of True Doctrine, but were taking the spiritual temperature of their flock and therefore knew that there was a problem with their belief/practice, and then turned them over to the priests.

8 Now king Mosiah had given Alma the authority over the church.

9 And it came to pass that Alma did not know concerning them; but there were many witnesses against them; yea, the people stood and testified of their iniquity in abundance.

Skousen reads “Alma did know” here.

Skousen reads “for there” instead of “but there” here.

Why didn’t Alma know about them?  Does this suggest some neglect on his part?  (Pretty amazing to think of this big apostasy and him not knowing.)

10 Now there had not any such thing happened before in the church; therefore Alma was troubled in his spirit, and he caused that they should be brought before the king.

Really–apostasy hadn’t happened before?

So the king is the religious superior to the high priest?  Interesting . . .

11 And he said unto the king: Behold, here are many whom we have brought before thee, who are accused of their brethren; yea, and they have been taken in divers iniquities. And they do not repent of their iniquities; therefore we have brought them before thee, that thou mayest judge them according to their crimes.

I find it interesting that the issue here is sin, not disbelief.  The story was introduced with Mormon’s gloss that the underlying issue was their disbelief.

Why do you think Mormon wasn’t more specific about exactly what these people had done?

12 But king Mosiah said unto Alma: Behold, I judge them not; therefore I deliver them into thy hands to be judged.

Was this the right or wrong thing to do?  (Was Alma right or wrong to turn the apostates over to the king?)

Is it right to say that Alma thought the issue was civil, so he handed them over to Mosiah, while Mosiah thought the real issue was religious, so he punted them back to Alma?  (Is this not, perhaps, part of [or similar to] the dissension among the brethren in v5?)

13 And now the spirit of Alma was again troubled; and he went and inquired of the Lord what he should do concerning this matter, for he feared that he should do wrong in the sight of God.

How do you read Alma’s troubled spirit?  Is it the Lord’s way of telling him that he’s messing up?  That he has work to do?  Or just that the whole situation is sad?

Shouldn’t he have inquired of the Lord before all this?  Is this story meant to suggest a learning experience for Alma as a newish high priest (over all of these Zarahemla people, anyway) who doesn’t quite know how to do things?  (Was that the point of v10–that Alma had never had to deal with this before?)

14 And it came to pass that after he had poured out his whole soul to God, the voice of the Lord came to him, saying:

15 Blessed art thou, Alma, and blessed are they who were baptized in the waters of Mormon. Thou art blessed because of thy exceeding faith in the words alone of my servant Abinadi.

Remember that, at this point, Alma is the high priest for a lot more people than just those who were baptized at the waters of Mormon–at least the Limhites and presumably other people from Zarahemla.  Why would the Lord single out the waters of Mormon people at this point?

Does “words alone” mean that Alma wasn’t overly swayed by Abinadi’s martyrdom, or does it mean that Alma had no other person’s words to convert him?  (What about the Isaiah record that Alma had access to?  Don’t those words count?  Were they not part of his conversion?  What about the idea that the truth is established by two or three witnesses–why didn’t that apply to Alma?  Wouldn’t Ben’s words be a part of Alma’s faith by this point?)  (See the next verse for more on this.)

Note how long it takes the Lord to answer Alma’s question, and everything the Lord does before actually answering the question.  I think it is very significant that the Lord doesn’t lead with, “You really screwed up by allowing this huge apostasy to happen because you didn’t know your people very well and then trying to dump it all in Mosiah’s lap.”  (Although it appears that Alma did in fact do those two things.)  The Lord leads with reassuring Alma of his worth and recognizing his faith.

16 And blessed are they because of their exceeding faith in the words alone which thou hast spoken unto them.

I suspect the phrase “words alone” is related to the same phrase in the previous verse, but I am not entirely sure how.  One thing it seems to be doing is suggesting that Abinadi : Alma :: Alma :: Alma’s people.

17 And blessed art thou because thou hast established a church among this people; and they shall be established, and they shall be my people.

Note again that the same kind of syllogism is developed:  Alma establishes a church among the people, the people shall be established.  Is this related to believing on “words alone” in the previous two verses?  (And, again, why the emphasis on “words alone”:  was this not a day of miracles?)

Brant Gardner:

Perhaps the recent events had raised some question in Alma’s mind about the wisdom of the churches since they appear to have engendered divisions as a side effect. The Lord may be allaying those fears by telling Alma that his establishment of the church is accepted.  Citation

18 Yea, blessed is this people who are willing to bear my name; for in my name shall they be called; and they are mine.

What does the word “bear” convey that another word (honor, carry, be called by, etc.) might not?  Why is the idea of bearing the Lord’s name a good metaphor for, um, whatever it is a metaphor for?  (What is it a metaphor for?)

19 And because thou hast inquired of me concerning the transgressor, thou art blessed.

Does “transgressor” imply that the issue is behavior and not belief?

Why is “transgressor” singular here?

Note that the structure of the Lord’s speech so far has been to list things for which Alma is blessed.  And Alma’s question falls right into that list of blessings–it isn’t treated as a separate thing.

You know that expression “it’s always easier to ask forgiveness than permission”?  It might be true at work, but it isn’t the Lord’s way.  Here, Alma is called blessed for asking what to do.  I think one of the vast unexplored frontiers of pride afflicts leaders (which is all of is, in some sphere or another) who assume that they know what to do instead of asking the Lord what they should be doing.

20 Thou art my servant; and I covenant with thee that thou shalt have eternal life; and thou shalt serve me and go forth in my name, and shalt gather together my sheep.

What does the metaphor of sheep suggest to you about what Alma should do as a leader?

Jim F.:  ”Three things occur in this verse: the Lord calls Alma his servant; the Lord covenants that Alma will have eternal life; and the Lord says that Alma will serve him. (This rhetorical pattern, a cousin of chiasmus, is called inclusion.) How are these things connected to one another? Why is the covenant “sandwiched” between the descriptions of Alma as a servant—what does the arrangement tell us? What is a covenant? (It is more than a contract or mutual promise.) What does this covenant mean? What does it mean to have eternal life?”

Note the structure here:  the Lord mentions a bunch of things for which Alma is blessed, with the last item on the list being asking about the church discipline hot potato.  Then immediately after, the Lord covenants with Alma.  So:  What is the relationship between v19 and v20, which is another way of saying:  what is the relationship between Alma asking his question and Alma being offered this covenant?  (I would guess that Alma’s willingness to ask the Lord for guidance was the indicator of his readiness to enter into this covenant.)

I’m trying to get my mind around the relationship of the parts of this verse, which I see as:

(1) thou are my servant

(2) thou shalt have eternal life

(3) thou shalt serve me

(4) [thou shalt] go forth in my name

(5) [thou shalt] gather my sheep

Is (1) just an intro?  Do (4) and (5) explain what (3) is?  Or does Alma do three things (3, 4, and 5) in order to get (2)?  Or are there other ways of understanding the relationship of the parts of this covenant?

Does the “gather my sheep” part of this covenant relate in any way to the fact that Alma’s question that prompted the Lord’s statement was about what to do with apostates? (Save thoughts on this for the next verse.)

21 And he that will hear my voice shall be my sheep; and him shall ye receive into the church, and him will I also receive.

I think the point of this is to explain who is to be gathered, per v20.

What does “hearing his voice” suggest about our relationship to the Lord?

I think most of us secretly hate being compared to sheep.  Why do the scriptures do this so often?  What can you do to be more sheep-like?

Note that the Lord receives whoever Alma receives into the Church.  What should we learn from this?

22 For behold, this is my church; whosoever is baptized shall be baptized unto repentance. And whomsoever ye receive shall believe in my name; and him will I freely forgive.

What does “unto repentance” mean?  (I would have picked a different preposition.)

Would you read this verse differently if there were a colon instead of a semi-colon after church?  (Woohoo!  That multi-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars English BA is really paying off now, Mom and Dad!)

Does “this is my church” relate to the material before it in v21 or the material after it in v22?

Note that v21 said that whoever Alma received, the Lord would receive.  (What does “receive” mean in this context?)  Here, whoever Alma receives will be freely forgiven.  What is the relationship of all of these ideas?

Does being received by Alma cause the believing on Jesus’ name?  (That doesn’t sound quite right, but I’m trying to figure out how “shall believe in my name” fits in to the train of thought here.)

Brant Gardner:

The Lord uses the word “sheep” here. In a New World context this would be rather out of place. While one may discuss what other animal might be meant by “sheep” in some verses, the “sheep” here are clearly humans. This is a literary device, not a specific animal. It may or may not have been the precise word Alma understood, but it is the term used for similar meaning in the New Testament, and therefore is used here. It is understandable in its imagery, even though the imagery is more modern than ancient in this context. Citation

23 For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I that hath created them; and it is I that granteth unto him that believeth unto the end a place at my right hand.

Skousen reads “in the end” here.

Note how this verse relates to v22 (the “for” here encourages us to read it as “the reason for” the conclusion to v22).

What does “taking” sins suggest about sin?

Why does the Lord mention that He created people here?  (In other words, how is that idea related to taking on the sins of the world?)

The obvious antecedent of “them” is “sins of the world,” but that doesn’t quite work.  (I presume that the them is all the people from v22.)

What does the place at the right hand symbolize?

24 For behold, in my name are they called; and if they know me they shall come forth, and shall have a place eternally at my right hand.

What does it really mean to “know” the Lord?

The idea of being called by someone else’s name is . . . weird.  What does it suggest about our relationship to the Lord?

Compare with v23:  both verses end the same way, but this verse adds “eternally.”  Is that change significant?  What does the paralleling of “believe unto the end” (v23) and “know me” (v24) suggest about those two ideas?

25 And it shall come to pass that when the second trump shall sound then shall they that never knew me come forth and shall stand before me.

How literally do you take the second trump?  What might it symbolize?

26 And then shall they know that I am the Lord their God, that I am their Redeemer; but they would not be redeemed.

Is the “knowing” in this verse the same as the “knowing” in v25?

27 And then I will confess unto them that I never knew them; and they shall depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

What is the relationship between the Lord’s (not) knowing them and their (not) knowing the Lord?  Why is knowledge the metaphor used here for the covenant relationship?

It is, of course, not literally true that the Lord did not know them.  (A cynic might even say that this statement is a lie.)  What is the Lord accomplishing by describing his relationship to the people who refused redemption in this way?

Previously, in Ben’s speech, we saw that the fiery (It just struck me how weird it is that fire become fiery–how does the ‘e’ get on the other side of the ‘r’?) description of hell was metaphorical.  Is that the case here?

28 Therefore I say unto you, that he that will not hear my voice, the same shall ye not receive into my church, for him I will not receive at the last day.

I think it is safe to say that this verse assumes that the church should be a template, at least in some ways, for the afterlife.

Notice how the Lord has presented the policy on apostates not as some discrete “policy,” but as the logical conclusion (seriously, note how carefully controlled the logic is in this passage) of doctrine concerning the final judgment, which is based on covenant-keeping.  Sometimes I see some LDS make a firm distinction between “doctrine” and “policy” (usually this is done to avoid stigma for any unfortunate past policies, or to minimize the importance of current policies perceived to be unsavory), but this passage suggests, I think, that policies should be firmly rooted in doctrine and treated as such.

For what is “hearing his voice” a metaphor?

Note how thoroughly the sheep-shepherd imagery imbues this passage.  Why do you think the Lord chose to use a metaphor, and why this one?

29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.

Does “according to the sins” mean that beliefs are not a problem? (Or is lack of belief a sin?)  I’m still trying to work through the implications of the fact that this story begins by pointing out that these people did not believe, but then pivots to talking about their sins and not about their lack of belief.

This verse implies that a dual confession (=before the Lord and before the high priest) is required as is a dual forgiveness.  Why might this be so?

What is “go” doing in this verse?

What do you make of “transgress against me” as opposed to “transgress against the law”?

As we get the answer to Alma’s question, we see how far out of line the idea of turning people over to the king was:  this is a matter with eternal consequences, patterned after eternal realities.  It is not a political or civil matter.

Given that the Lord has framed the church as a template for the heavenly realm in this answer, what should that teach us about the church?  About heaven?  What other church policies might we intuit from this passage, besides those related to excommunication?

When we talk about sins being forgiven, we usually think about our sins.  Think about a pedophile’s or a terrorist’s sins and then reread this verse.

30 Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me.

The cynic asks:  How is this not a license to sin?

31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.

Shouldn’t it be “one another their trespasses”?

What are we to do about the problems that can arise when someone lies about having repented?

In the NT, “verily I say unto you” is sort of a technical phrase meaning something like, “listen up, this is really important!”

Note that forgiving gives us an opportunity to be literally Christ-like.

Note that we have to take our neighbor at her word when she says that she repents.  That’s kind of scary.

What do you make of the word “neighbor” (as opposed to friend or church member or fellow child of God or whatever) in this verse?

32 Now I say unto you, Go; and whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward.

So I’m fascinated by the fact that Alma approached the Lord with the question, “Who is supposed to deal with apostates?”  And the Lord gave him v15-31 before answering his question.  It would probably be a good idea to review those verses and consider why the Lord told all that to Alma instead of just sticking to v32.  Also, notice how (not just what) the question was answered–what do you see in the Lord’s answer that you might want to use as a pattern?

Also, why didn’t Alma have this information before he needed it?  Now that we know this, it looks like there was a lot of bumbling from teacher to priest to high priest to king and back to high priest when it should have just been the high priest.  Also, doesn’t it kind of make Alma look bad that he wanted to pawn off on Mosiah2 something that the Lord wanted him (Alma) to do?  And why didn’t Alma ask the Lord for direction before to sent them to Mosiah2?

This is the second “go” statement:   How does it relate to the first?

What does the idea of “numbering among people” suggest?  (It seems we have switched from a sheepfold to a census or list or some sort.)

Is this only supposed to apply to big, fat, hairy sins?  (Because it doesn’t say that.  It actually says anyone who won’t repent.)

Why do you think the Lord chose to wait to give Alma this information until (1) after there was a crisis and (2) after Alma asked about it, instead of putting it in the handbook Alma got when he was given this calling?  In what situations might the Lord do the same thing with us?  (And is this fair?)

33 And it came to pass when Alma had heard these words he wrote them down that he might have them, and that he might judge the people of that church according to the commandments of God.

Why did we need this verse in the record?

Honestly, did Alma think he might forget this?

34 And it came to pass that Alma went and judged those that had been taken in iniquity, according to the word of the Lord.

35 And whosoever repented of their sins and did confess them, them he did number among the people of the church;

Wouldn’t they already have been numbered among the people?

36 And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out.

“Blotted out” suggests the image of a book with the names of church members in it, with names removed.  What can this image teach us about the Church?

37 And it came to pass that Alma did regulate all the affairs of the church; and they began again to have peace and to prosper exceedingly in the affairs of the church, walking circumspectly before God, receiving many, and baptizing many.

Webster 1828 circumspectly:

Cautiously; with watchfulness every way; with attention to guard against surprise or danger.

Are “receiving” and “baptizing” two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?

38 And now all these things did Alma and his fellow laborers do who were over the church, walking in all diligence, teaching the word of God in all things, suffering all manner of afflictions, being persecuted by all those who did not belong to the church of God.

39 And they did admonish their brethren; and they were also admonished, every one by the word of God, according to his sins, or to the sins which he had committed, being commanded of God to pray without ceasing, and to give thanks in all things.

A talk from Elder Oaks stemming from the admonition to “give thanks in all things” in this verse.

Notice how careful this verse is to point out that the leaders of the church needed, and received, correction.

CHAPTER 27

1 And now it came to pass that the persecutions which were inflicted on the church by the unbelievers became so great that the church began to murmur, and complain to their leaders concerning the matter; and they did complain to Alma. And Alma laid the case before their king, Mosiah. And Mosiah consulted with his priests.

Does murmuring strike you as an odd reaction to persecution?  I think murmuring usually happens in the scriptures when you don’t like what a leader did.  Is there some implication that they didn’t like Alma’s excommunication policy and perhaps they saw a link between it and the persecutions?  Total speculation alert, but I am wondering if there was a faction that thought everyone should just be kept in the church, because if they were kicked out, then they’d fight the church, but if they were in the church, then they wouldn’t fight the church.

I see a fascinating parallel with the last chapter, where Alma also turned an issue over to Mosiah.  (Of course, we later learn that the Lord wanted Alma to handle that issue himself.)  Here, Alma is again turning a problem over to Mosiah–but this time, the problem is persecution (or church members complaining about persecution).  Are you surprised that Alma didn’t ask the Lord what to do about this?

Are murmuring and complaining two different things in this verse, or two ways of saying the same thing?

Are they right to murmur/complain about this?

Now, the last time Alma took something to Mosiah, it didn’t turn out well.  Does that incident predispose us to expect the same here?

Notice what happened:  Alma went to Mosiah and Mosiah went to his priests.  But Alma is a high priest.  So are they just playing hot potato, or what?

2 And it came to pass that king Mosiah sent a proclamation throughout the land round about that there should not any unbeliever persecute any of those who belonged to the church of God.

3 And there was a strict command throughout all the churches that there should be no persecutions among them, that there should be an equality among all men;

What is the relationship that this verse is suggesting because equality and persecution?  What does equality mean in this verse?  Does the phrase “that there should be equality” apply just to v3, or also to v2?

Note that, while v2 is concerned without people outside the church persecuting those within the church, that this verse is concerned about people within the church persecuting other people within the church.  How might that happen today?

4 That they should let no pride nor haughtiness disturb their peace; that every man should esteem his neighbor as himself, laboring with their own hands for their support.

Does this verse answer the question about what equality means above?

The BoM places a huge emphasis on laboring with one’s own hands.  Is this about the virtues of manual labor, self-sufficiency, or something else?  How is it relevant today?  (How does it apply to SAHMs?)

What is the link between the material in this verse and the problem of persecution?  (I suspect that the persecution had a socio-economic as well as a religious component based on this verse.)

5 Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God.

The idea of priests laboring is such a theme in the BoM . . . I am half wondering if the issue isn’t so much that they would be moochers as that priests/teachers need to be connected to the “real world” of employment (farming, whatever).  There are problems that arise when priests/teachers are insulated from the “real world” because they don’t have to work in it (especially with the people in it) (and, yes, I am concerned about how this might apply to full-time CES people).

6 And there began to be much peace again in the land; and the people began to be very numerous, and began to scatter abroad upon the face of the earth, yea, on the north and on the south, on the east and on the west, building large cities and villages in all quarters of the land.

So in this case, a king passing a law ending religious persecution had a good outcome.  What is the moral of this story?

7 And the Lord did visit them and prosper them, and they became a large and wealthy people.

8 Now the sons of Mosiah were numbered among the unbelievers; and also one of the sons of Alma was numbered among them, he being called Alma, after his father; nevertheless, he became a very wicked and an idolatrous man. And he was a man of many words, and did speak much flattery to the people; therefore he led many of the people to do after the manner of his iniquities.

Interestingly, there isn’t much idolatry in the BoM.  Do we have any indication from his background or from the situation in Zarahemla as to why idolatry would appeal to Alma2?

How would you respond to the cynic who suggests that this verse implies that parenting doesn’t matter?

Brant Gardner:

The “wicked” might lead us to think of any number of possible sins, but why is Alma the Younger “idolatrous?” Clearly to be guilty of that sin he is not only an unbeliever in the Nephite religion, but is apparently abeliever in an idolatrous religion. In the context in which we have been viewing these events, Alma the Younger has adopted the idolatrous “outside” religion. Having adopted that position, he actively encourages others to follow his lead. Citation

9 And he became a great hinderment to the prosperity of the church of God; stealing away the hearts of the people; causing much dissension among the people; giving a chance for the enemy of God to exercise his power over them.

Remember that in the OT, hearts usually means minds.

What do you learn about Satan from this verse?

10 And now it came to pass that while he was going about to destroy the church of God, for he did go about secretly with the sons of Mosiah seeking to destroy the church, and to lead astray the people of the Lord, contrary to the commandments of God, or even the king—

I find it interesting that our last references to secrecy were about Alma1 hiding from Noah to build up the church, but here Alma2 goes about secretly to tear it down.  Is this just an ironic reversal, or what?

What work is “or even the king” doing in this verse?

11 And as I said unto you, as they were going about rebelling against God, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto them; and he descended as it were in a cloud; and he spake as it were with a voice of thunder, which caused the earth to shake upon which they stood;

What happened to “faith precedes the miracle”?  Does it strike you as odd that wicked people would see an angel?

Why don’t all wicked people see an angel?

What work is “as it were in a cloud”  doing in this verse?  What does that even mean?

Note that, in Paul’s conversion, the Lord comes in light; here, it is a cloud.  Is that a significant difference?

Why the voice of thunder?  (And now I’ve got that song in my head.)

What is the earth shaking supposed to do to Alma2 and the sons of Mosiah?

I’m thinking that the cloud/thunder/earthquake is meant to suggest natural phenomenon, but that is kind of weird in a verse about an angelic visitation.  What’s going on here?

So not only does this conversion story have many parallels to Paul’s in content, but also in form, in the sense that the NT has multiple accounts of it and the BoM has multiple accounts of Alma’s. Note that we also have multiple accounts of the First Vision.  (Do you consider that a conversion narrative?  It is missing the element of hostility to the church that Alma and Paul had.)  How might this be significant?

12 And so great was their astonishment, that they fell to the earth, and understood not the words which he spake unto them.

Why couldn’t they understand him?

13 Nevertheless he cried again, saying: Alma, arise and stand forth, for why persecutest thou the church of God? For the Lord hath said: This is my church, and I will establish it; and nothing shall overthrow it, save it is the transgression of my people.

There are obvious parallels here to Paul’s experience.  What can you learn from comparing the two?  Why do you think there was such dramatic intervention in these cases but not others?

Note that we are not given the angel’s first words, the words that they didn’t understand.  Why is that?  Is it safe to assume those words were identical to this verse?

What is the point of “arise and stand forth”?

Does “why are you persecuting the church” seem like an odd opener to you?  (As if there were anything that Alma could say that would make the angel respond with, “Oh, well, in that case, OK.  Carry on.  Good day, then.”)  Why does the angel ask this question?  Why not just say “Stop persecuting the church!”?

I find the idea that transgressions could overthrow the church intriguing.  It suggests that they are powerful.

14 And again, the angel said: Behold, the Lord hath heard the prayers of his people, and also the prayers of his servant, Alma, who is thy father; for he has prayed with much faith concerning thee that thou mightest be brought to the knowledge of the truth; therefore, for this purpose have I come to convince thee of the power and authority of God, that the prayers of his servants might be answered according to their faith.

It is worth noting that even someone like Alma1 could end up with a totally wayward child.

What do you take from the fact that the angel conceives of convincing Alma2 of the power and authority of God as the solution to his problem?

Howard W. Hunter:

If a parent has made what could be considered an error—or, on the other hand, has never made a mistake, but still the lamb has wandered from the fold—in either case there are several thoughts I would like to share with you. First, such a father or mother is not alone. Our first parents knew the pain and suffering of seeing some of their children reject the teachings of eternal life. (See Moses 5:27.) Centuries later Jacob came to know of the jealousy and ill feelings of his older sons toward his beloved Joseph. (See Gen. 37:1–8.) The great prophet Alma, who had a son named Alma, prayed at length to the Lord regarding the rebellious attitude of his son and no doubt was overwhelmed with concern and worry about the dissension and the wickedness his son was causing among those who were within the Church. (See Mosiah 27:14.) Our Father in Heaven has also lost many of his spirit children to the world; he knows the feelings of your heart. Oct 83 GC

Boyd K. Packer:

He was struck down by an angel, not because he deserved it but because of the prayers of his father and others (see Mosiah 27:14). Apr 06 GC

15 And now behold, can ye dispute the power of God? For behold, doth not my voice shake the earth? And can ye not also behold me before you? And I am sent from God.

Here’s the thing:  if a little celestial fireworks are all it took to get Alma2 to repent, then do you assume that Alma2 has never seen a miracle before?  By which I mean:  it seems hard to imagine Alma2 in this situation if he had grown up ‘feeling the spirit’ and seeing the Lord’s power.

So the set-up here is that a little angelic appearance would convince Alma of the truth.  But:  When we read the story of Laman and Lemuel being visited by an angel and not reforming, we take that story as evidence of the fact that miracles do not produce belief.  So how might we resolve this paradox?

16 Now I say unto thee: Go, and remember the captivity of thy fathers in the land of Helam, and in the land of Nephi; and remember how great things he has done for them; for they were in bondage, and he has delivered them. And now I say unto thee, Alma, go thy way, and seek to destroy the church no more, that their prayers may be answered, and this even if thou wilt of thyself be cast off.

What is remembering the recent captivity supposed to do for/to Alma?

What does “cast off” mean here?  (There is some debate by scholars as to whether, in the OT, it means death, excommunication, eternal punishment, disinheritance, etc.)

17 And now it came to pass that these were the last words which the angel spake unto Alma, and he departed.

Why is the message targeted so specifically at Alma and not really at the people with him?

What is the point of this verse?

18 And now Alma and those that were with him fell again to the earth, for great was their astonishment; for with their own eyes they had beheld an angel of the Lord; and his voice was as thunder, which shook the earth; and they knew that there was nothing save the power of God that could shake the earth and cause it to tremble as though it would part asunder.

There’s something about this story that seems . . . unbiblical . . . to me.  I just don’t like the idea of Alma converting because of a magic show as it were.

19 And now the astonishment of Alma was so great that he became dumb, that he could not open his mouth; yea, and he became weak, even that he could not move his hands; therefore he was taken by those that were with him, and carried helpless, even until he was laid before his father.

Are the muteness and weakness literal?  Symbolic?  What might they represent?

20 And they rehearsed unto his father all that had happened unto them; and his father rejoiced, for he knew that it was the power of God.

Why do you think the people with Alma (who are always narrated as having precisely the same reaction as Alma) do not have the physical consequences of the visitation that Alma has?

21 And he caused that a multitude should be gathered together that they might witness what the Lord had done for his son, and also for those that were with him.

22 And he caused that the priests should assemble themselves together; and they began to fast, and to pray to the Lord their God that he would open the mouth of Alma, that he might speak, and also that his limbs might receive their strength—that the eyes of the people might be opened to see and know of the goodness and glory of God.

What does the fasting in this verse tell us about the practice of fasting?

If Alma’s muteness and weakness are the result of divine intervention, should they be praying for them to end?

I find it interesting that we hear about Alma’s mouth (makes sense), Alma’s limbs (also makes sense), but then the people’s eyes (seems to come out of nowhere).

Brant Gardner:

In the context of the Book of Mormon, Alma the Younger has been fighting against the church, and particularly against the coming atoning Messiah. The prophecies of that Messiah are that he will die and be resurrected. In a very dramatic fashion, Alma the Younger becomes the visual symbol of that coming atoning Messiah. Alma the Younger, symbolically dead, will be resurrected to life. As with the atoning Messiah, where the pre-death being was mortal and subject to the world (as Alma had proved to be) the post-resurrection being would be God. While Alma was certainly not resurrected to the status of god, his transformation was still tremendous, and the new person was a powerful advocate for the church he had once persecuted.  This possible resurrection theme places a context to this particular difference between the experiences of Alma the Younger and Saul. Where Saul is blinded (perhaps symbolic of his prior refusal to “see” the reality of Jesus as Savior), Alma is debilitated. Symbolically, Alma the Younger also underwent an experience that was highly symbolic, but in Alma’s case, most directly related to the nature of his particular apostasy. Citation

23 And it came to pass after they had fasted and prayed for the space of two days and two nights, the limbs of Alma received their strength, and he stood up and began to speak unto them, bidding them to be of good comfort:

Is the timing of the fast symbolic?

What do you make of the fact that the scriptures usually (always?  almost always?) link fasting and prayer?

Where does the “good comfort” message come from?

What do you learn about fasting from this verse?

24 For, said he, I have repented of my sins, and have been redeemed of the Lord; behold I am born of the Spirit.

What does “born of the Spirit” imply?

I’m interested in the repented–redeemed–born pattern here . . . what could we learn from it?

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;

Note gender-inclusive language in this verse (twice).

Do you read this verse to suggest that Alma had been marveling that people needed to be born again?

We hear the phrase “born again” so frequently in our culture that it can become disassociated from its meaning.  What is accomplished by describing the repentance/redemption process in terms of birth imagery?

What does this verse teach you about the Fall?

James E. Faust:

A rebirth out of spiritual adversity causes us to become new creatures. From the book of Mosiah we learn that all mankind must be born again—born of God, changed, redeemed, and uplifted—to become the sons and daughters of God. Apr 79 GC

Dallin H. Oaks:

The question of whether a person has been saved is sometimes phrased in terms of whether that person has been “born again.” Being “born again” is a familiar reference in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. As noted earlier, Jesus taught that except a man was “born again,” of water and of the Spirit, he could not enter into the kingdom of God. The Book of Mormon has many teachings about the necessity of being “born again” or “born of God.”As we understand these scriptures, our answer to whether we have been born again is clearly “yes.” We were born again when we entered into a covenant relationship with our Savior by being born of water and of the Spirit and by taking upon us the name of Jesus Christ. We can renew that rebirth each Sabbath when we partake of the sacrament. Latter-day Saints affirm that those who have been born again in this way are spiritually begotten sons and daughters of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, in order to realize the intended blessings of this born-again status, we must still keep our covenants and endure to the end. In the meantime, through the grace of God, we have been born again as new creatures with new spiritual parentage and the prospects of a glorious inheritance. Apr 98 GC

26 And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

What does “new creatures” suggest to you?  Is there any relation to the creation?

What does the “inherit” language suggest to you about the kingdom of God?

Brant Gardner points out that Alma’s experience here is not connected to baptism (we usually connect baptism and being born again).  What are the implications of this?

Corbin T. Volluz points out that this passage uses multiple synonyms for the same concept:

• “Redeemed of God”;
• “Born of the Spirit”;
• “Born of God”;
• “Born again”;
• “Becoming [God's] sons and daughters”; and,
• “Becom(ing) new creatures.”  Citation

27 I say unto you, unless this be the case, they must be cast off; and this I know, because I was like to be cast off.

I’m curious about the relationship of knowledge and experience in this verse.

28 Nevertheless, after wading through much tribulation, repenting nigh unto death, the Lord in mercy hath seen fit to snatch me out of an everlasting burning, and I am born of God.

What does “wading” imply to you?

What does “repenting nigh unto death”?

What does “snatching” suggest?

Is the “everlasting burning” literal or figurative?

Is being born of God (this verse) the same as born of the Spirit (v24)?

Does this verse provide a definition of what it means to be born of God?

29 My soul hath been redeemed from the gall of bitterness and bonds of iniquity. I was in the darkest abyss; but now I behold the marvelous light of God. My soul was racked with eternal torment; but I am snatched, and my soul is pained no more.

Webster 1828 gall:

1. In the animal economy, the bile, a bitter, a yellowish green fluid, secreted in the glandular substance of the liver. It is glutinous or imperfectly fluid, like oil.

2. Any thing extremely bitter.

3. Rancor; malignity.

4. Anger; bitterness of mind.

Why are “bonds” a good metaphor for the results of iniquity?

Webster 1828 abyss:

1. A bottomless gulf; used also for a deep mass of waters, supposed by some to have encompassed the earth before the flood.

2. That which is immeasurable; that in which any thing is lost.

3. In antiquity, the temple of Proserpine, so called from the immense treasures it was supposed to contain.

4. In heraldry, the center of an escutcheon.

Webster 1828 racked:

1. Tortured; tormented; strained to the utmost.

2. Drawn off, as liquor.

Boyd K. Packer:

The prophets teach how painful guilt can be. As I read what they have said, be prepared for very strong words. Even so, I will not read the strongest things they have said. The prophet Alma, describing his feelings of guilt, said, “I was racked with eternal torment, for my soul was harrowed up to the greatest degree and racked with all my sins.” The prophets chose very graphic words. Racked means “tortured.”Anciently a rack was a framework on which the victim was laid with each ankle and wrist tied to a spindle which could then be turned to cause unbearable pain. A harrow is a frame with spikes through it. When pulled across the ground, it rips and tears into the soil. The scriptures frequently speak of souls and minds being “harrowed up” with guilt. Torment means “to twist,” a means of torture so painful that even the innocent would confess. The prophets speak of the “gall of bitterness”and often compare the pain of guilt to fire and brimstone. Brimstone is another name for sulfur. King Benjamin said that those who are evil will be “consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord into a state of misery and endless torment.” The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner. … The torment of disappointment in the mind of man [or woman] is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone.” That lake of fire and brimstone, ever burning but never consumed, is the description in the scriptures for hell. Suppose there was no cure, no way to ease spiritual pain or to erase the agony of guilt. Suppose each mistake, each sin, was added to the others with the racking, the harrowing up, the torment going on forever. Too many of us needlessly carry burdens of guilt and shame.  Apr 01 GC

30 I rejected my Redeemer, and denied that which had been spoken of by our fathers; but now that they may foresee that he will come, and that he remembereth every creature of his creating, he will make himself manifest unto all.

Skousen reads “but now I know that they may foresee” here.

Who is the “they” who are foreseeing in this verse?  This verse doesn’t make sense to me on a grammatical level:  I think he is saying that he no longer rejects his Redeemer because “they foresee.”  But they (assuming this means prophet) *always* foresaw Christ, it was just that Alma wouldn’t recognize that.  So how exactly does this verse work?

Is it literally true that Christ will manifest himself unto every creature?

31 Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye.

Is there a relationship between the quaking and trembling here and those things in the angelic visitation?

32 And now it came to pass that Alma began from this time forward to teach the people, and those who were with Alma at the time the angel appeared unto them, traveling round about through all the land, publishing to all the people the things which they had heard and seen, and preaching the word of God in much tribulation, being greatly persecuted by those who were unbelievers, being smitten by many of them.

33 But notwithstanding all this, they did impart much consolation to the church, confirming their faith, and exhorting them with long-suffering and much travail to keep the commandments of God.

34 And four of them were the sons of Mosiah; and their names were Ammon, and Aaron, and Omner, and Himni; these were the names of the sons of Mosiah.

It is somewhat odd to name people after the major event in which they are participants.  Why do you think Mormon did so here?

35 And they traveled throughout all the land of Zarahemla, and among all the people who were under the reign of king Mosiah, zealously striving to repair all the injuries which they had done to the church, confessing all their sins, and publishing all the things which they had seen, and explaining the prophecies and the scriptures to all who desired to hear them.

We know that Zeniff’s “overzealousness” was bad.  Is “zealous” good here?

Interesting–where/how did they get this knowledge of the scriptures?

We don’t get too many pictures of restitution for sins in the scriptures, so this is a nice one.  (It is also a great picture of humility.)

36 And thus they were instruments in the hands of God in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth, yea, to the knowledge of their Redeemer.

Gideon was described also as an instrument in the hands of God.  What does that image suggest?

37 And how blessed are they! For they did publish peace; they did publish good tidings of good; and they did declare unto the people that the Lord reigneth.

CHAPTER 28

General thoughts:

(1) This chart compares the three BoM accounts of Alma’s conversion.  I think it would be worthwhile to study the similarities and differences in depth.  This article is also useful.  Why would three accounts of the same event have been included in a record that frequently reminds us of how very little it had space to include?

(2) This chart shows the famous chiasmus in Alma 36. (Article here.) My sense is that LDS scholars have generally been more concerned with the apologetic than the literary uses of chiasmus; I am more interested in the latter.  In that vein, I think it significant that the focus of this chiasmus is on crying to Christ.  It would be easy, I think, in reading this to focus on the angel, because that is outside of normal experience.  But that isn’t the focus of this story as written–this story is focused on calling out to Christ.  (Also note what isn’t at the center:  pain, fear, etc.) Also note that calling on Christ is literally surrounded by being harrowed up–I think that is also very telling.  Other notes on the structure:

–verses 1 & 30

–Alma’s word is associated with the Lord’s word.

–‘Keep the commandments’ is big picture.

–verses 2 & 28?29

–Notice link between knowing and doing

–What’s the point of remembering the captivity and liberation?

–Alma is associating his own release from sin with the historical release from sin, thereby teaching something about how to read the scriptures

–verses 4?5 & 26

–point about how we know what we know

–notice 4-5 are personal, but 26 shows how anyone can do this; this is important

–verses 6 & 24

–notice complete shift in attitude

–verses 10 & 23

–Ask: what’s the symbolism here?

–verses 14?15 & 22

–thoughts of being in presence of God

–this may a be good personal worthiness interview question . . .

–verses 16 & 20

–Ask: do you have this attitude that your joy will ultimately exceed your pain?

(3) Note that the structure of these lessons means that we lose the context of Alma 36, which is that Alma is about to hand over the plates to his son Helaman.  Do you read it differently in that context?

(4) I can’t convince myself to get interested in this, but maybe someone else will find it helpful.

(5) The cynic says:  It is a good thing that some of the kids who listened to Ben’s speech went apostate, because otherwise we never would have gotten Alma’s powerful conversion story and the record of it.  Response?

(6) Can you make any interesting comparisons between the conversion processes of Alma1 and Alma2?

(7) The heading before Alma 36 reads “The commandments of Alma to his son Helaman.  Comprising chapters 36 and 37.”  In what way might we read Alma 36 as “commandments”?

 1 And now, it came to pass that Alma, who had fled from the servants of king Noah, repented of his sins and iniquities, and went about privately among the people, and began to teach the words of Abinadi—

Are “sins” and “iniquities” two different things or two different ways of saying the same thing?

Why “privately”?  (See v3 for more on this.)

I love the idea that he is a fugitive.

From the FEAST wiki:  “Why is it that Alma has success in preaching where Abinadi didn’t?”

Do you interpret all of Abinadi’s teaching differently if you think of their purpose as the raw material for Alma’s teachings instead of for a show-down between Abinadi and Noah’s priests?

Why don’t we get any meat here for Alma’s conversion story?

  2 Yea, concerning that which was to come, and also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and the redemption of the people, which was to be brought to pass through the power, and sufferings, and death of Christ, and his resurrection and ascension into heaven.

I’m curious about the tripartite division of Christ’s work into “power, suffering, and death”?  Why this formulation?  (Or, you could call it a five-partite division if you wanted to add in resurrection and ascension.)

Why “that which was to come” as opposed to being more specific about what Alma taught?

  3 And as many as would hear his word he did teach. And he taught them privately, that it might not come to the knowledge of the king. And many did believe his words.

Is the moral here that it is OK to subvert the will of a government to teach the gospel?  (We usually want to couch every issue in terms of AoF #12, but I think D&C 134:2-4 implies a duty to sustain only those governments that protect basic rights.  I dunno, tho.)

Are you  surprised by the word “privately” here?

Are you surprised that “many” would listen to him, after these people had been so wicked that Abinadi had to appear in disguise to get past them?  (I am wondering if the spectacle of Abinadi’s death may have touched some hearts.)

  4 And it came to pass that as many as did believe him did go forth to a place which was called Mormon, having received its name from the king, being in the borders of the land having been infested, by times or at seasons, by wild beasts.

Why are the wild beasts important enough to mention?  (Is the point that they are putting themselves in danger not just from Noah but also from wild animals? Hemmed in on every side, as it were.)

Why is the name of the place important enough to mention?

Do you assume that “the king” who named the place was Noah?  Or that that phrase means that there was a king Mormon who gave his name to this place? Why is it significant enough to tell us that the king named the place (why bother mentioning it?) but not significant enough to tell us which king?   We are reading the abridgement made by a man who was named after this land; how might that be significant?

Compare v30, where we get more on the space.  I wonder if these verses are making some overtures in the direction of appreciating sacred space (that is not a temple).  It is worth noting that Noah has a temple.

Now it is infested not by wild beasts (who we don’t hear anything more about), but by secret followers of Jesus.  Is that supposed to be ironic?

Do you get the impression that they live out there, or just go there for church?

Is the wilderness idea a significant component of what is going on here?  (I don’t know how strong it is in this particular passage–which ends ultimately with everyone back in a city [Zarahemla], but in the Bible, cities are usually pretty bad places.)

  5 Now, there was in Mormon a fountain of pure water, and Alma resorted thither, there being near the water a thicket of small trees, where he did hide himself in the daytime from the searches of the king.

This is a lot of scene-setting and stage directions; why were they included?

Is the idea of pure water related to the baptisms that will follow?

  6 And it came to pass that as many as believed him went thither to hear his words.

  7 And it came to pass *after many days there were a goodly number gathered together at the place of Mormon, to hear the words of Alma. Yea, all were gathered together that believed on his word, to hear him. And he did teach them, and did preach unto them repentance, and redemption, and faith on the Lord.

Is there a difference between teaching and preaching in this verse?

Given that we know that their community of origin did not teach or live by the law of Moses, is it significant that the law of Moses is not mentioned here?  Did they teach and live by it?  (I know this is speculative, but I am thinking of Abinadi’s “if ye teach the law of Moses” [Mosiah 16:14; emphasis added] and wondering if Alma didn’t teach it.)

  8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

What work is “for thus were they called” doing, especially since we already know that?

What does the image of a fold (presumably, a sheepfold) suggest about the community of God?

Why the emphasis on bearing burdens?

If we were on a hike and we all switched gear, it would not make our burdens lighter, it would just redistribute them.  I think this verse is describing something that is contra-factual.  What might be the point of that?

The obvious meaning of “light” here would be “not heavy,” but could you also make a case for “not dark”?

  9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—

What is mourning with someone not an example of comforting them?  (In other words, why is it mentioned separately?)

Advice on “how not to talk to someone in mourning” is a veritable (and necessary) cottage industry.  Can you glean any advice from this passage on how to do that?

In what ways is this verse different from or the same as the Golden Rule?

Does “even until death” suggest that this does not need to go beyond mortal life?

From the FEAST wiki:  “It is also interesting to note the way verse 9 introduces the themes that will then be played out in the narratives of chapters 19-24. If we look at the two main stories of trial and deliverance—the people of Limhi and the people of Alma—we have both an example of a people who mourn and a people who stand in need of comfort. The people of Limhi will fight battle after battle, both in their defense and in their pursuit of freedom. Their losses are extremely numerous (enough so that in Mosiah 21:17 Limhi has to command the remaining men to help support the widows and their children): throughout this process they are truly a people acquainted with mourning. The people of Alma will be persecuted by Amulon: they will be in bondage, they will carry impossibly heavy burdens, they will be refused the comfort of vocal prayer. As such, they will truly be a people who stand in need of comfort.”

I’m thinking that this verse would have had a particular resonance with people who had just seen (or heard about) the death of Abinadi.

I’m curious about how very focused on life-in-a-community these promises are, as opposed to a baptismal covenant focused on faith-prayer-repentance, none of which require you to interact with another human being in the same way that mourning, comforting, and standing as a witness do.

Joseph B. Wirthlin:

Alma explained to his followers that baptism requires that we serve others, that we “bear one another’s burdens, … mourn with those that mourn; … comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and … stand as witnesses of God at all times.”^{[Mosiah 18:8–9.]} We cannot work out our salvation alone. We cannot return to the presence of our Father in Heaven without helping our brothers and sisters. Apr 98 GC

Harold B. Lee:

I call your attention to one of these requirements, particularly that which has been stressed by direct and indirect words in this conference: “are willing to bear one another’s burdens that they may be light.” If I were to ask you what is the heaviest burden one may have to bear in this life, what would you answer? The heaviest burden that one has to bear in this life is the burden of sin. How do you help one to bear that great burden of sin, in order that it might be light? Apr 73 GC

Virginia H. Pearce:

In truth, the surest way to increase our love for someone is to listen with patience and respect. I believe that our baptismal covenant demands this. How can we “mourn with those that mourn” and “bear one another’s burdens” (Mosiah 18:8–9) if we don’t listen to know what those burdens are? Oct 93 GC

Dallin H. Oaks:

When Alma spoke to a group of prospective members at the Waters of Mormon, he instructed them on the duties of those who were “desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people.” (Mosiah 18:8.) One of those duties was “to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death.” (Mosiah 18:9.)

How do members become witnesses? The original Apostles were eyewitnesses to the ministry and resurrection of the Savior. (See Acts 10:39–41.) He told them, “Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8; see also Acts 10:42–43.) However, he cautioned them that their witnessing would be after they had received the Holy Ghost. (See Acts 1:8; see also Luke 24:49.)

An eyewitness was not enough. Even the witness and testimony of the original Apostles had to be rooted in the testimony of the Holy Ghost. A prophet has told us that the witness of the Holy Ghost makes an impression on our soul that is more significant than “a visitation of an angel.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954, 1:44.) And the Bible shows that when we testify on the basis of this witness, the Holy Ghost testifies to those who hear our words. (See  Acts 2; Acts 10:44–47.) Oct 90 GC

M. Russell Ballard:

We are asked to stand as a witness of Him “at all times and in all things, and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9). This means that we must be willing to let others know whom we follow and to whose Church we belong: the Church of Jesus Christ. We certainly want to do this in the spirit of love and testimony. We want to follow the Savior by simply and clearly, yet humbly, declaring that we are members of His Church. We follow Him by being Latter-day Saints—latter-day disciples. Oct 11 GC

Dallin H. Oaks:

Those who have a testimony of the restored gospel also have a duty to share it. The Book of Mormon teaches that we should “stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that [we] may be in” (Mosiah 18:9). One of the most impressive teachings on the relationship between the gift of a testimony and the duty to bear it is in the 46th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. In describing different kinds of spiritual gifts, this revelation states: “To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful” (vv. 13–14; see also John 20:29). Apr 08 GC

Bruce R. McConkie:

When we Latter-day Saints pass through the waters of baptism, it is with a covenant that we will stand as witnesses of Christ at all times and in all things, and in all places that we may be in, even until death, that we may be redeemed of God, numbered with those of the first resurrection and gain eternal life (Mosiah 18:9), by which we mean life in the celestial kingdom of heaven. Oct 48 GC

Dieter F. Uchtdorf:

As disciples of Jesus Christ, our Master, we are called to support and heal rather than condemn. We are commanded “to mourn with those that mourn” and “comfort those that stand in need of comfort.”^{[ Mosiah 18:9.]} It is unworthy of us as Christians to think that those who suffer deserve their suffering. Easter Sunday is a good day to remember that our Savior willingly took upon Himself the pain and sickness and suffering of us all—even those of us who appear to deserve our suffering. Apr 10 GC

This entire passage but v9-10 especially seem to enjoy an enormous popularity in the church.  Why do you think this might be?

I love this story in connection with thinking about this verse.

We’re so used to these verses that we might forget how different they are from modern LDS practice.  Think about what our missionaries now teach people as being the requirements for baptism; how do they differ?  In what ways are they the same?

  10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

Note the emphasis on desire.

Why is this verse phrased as a question?   Is it rhetorical?

In what ways is baptism a witness?

The law of Moses does not include baptism per se (although there is an ancient Jewish tradition of ritual washing, and this is probably the basis for John the Baptist’s baptism).  This appears to be an innovation here.  (Baptism is mentioned in 2 Ne 31:17, but it isn’t performed in the BoM before this, as far as we know.)  It seems to come out of nowhere, particularly since (as far as we can tell) Abinadi is the sole source for Alma’s religious education and he didn’t say anything about it.  What’s going on here?

Daniel Peterson:

It would be foolish to argue that baptism was unknown among the Nephites before the time of Alma. References to baptism are not uncommon in the small plates. Indeed, Moses 6:52–53, 64 informs us that the ordinance was known to Adam. Although baptism is said to “fulfil all righteousness” (Matt. 3:13–15), to open the gate for salvation (2 Nephi 31:17), and to enable us to obtain a remission of sins (Mark 1:4), no text in the small plates describes baptism as an initiatory rite for entrance into a church. It is also important to bear in mind that the Church and the priesthood are not inseparably linked. It is possible for the priesthood to exist without a church, although it is impossible for the true church to exist without priesthood. The Church today is simply the essential but temporary scaffolding which surrounds an eternal structure of family and priesthood. Until we are worthy, the priesthood is mediated through and associated with the Church. Although Nephi makes it clear that baptism is the first step on the path toward eternal life (2 Nephi 31:9, 18), it is not self-evident that baptism has always signified entrance into a church, or that entrance to a church has always been a part of that path. I propose that before the ordinance of baptism signified membership in the Church the early Nephites found their primary social and religious identification in the very fact that they were Nephites. In the earliest days of the Nephites in the New World, following Nephi required a deliberate commitment which demanded sacrifice from those who made it. Baptism was preached, and, indeed, stressed to these early Nephites as something pleasing to God and as a necessity for salvation in his kingdom-but it would be easy for unbaptized Nephites to think of themselves as members of God’s people strictly because of their heritage. Eventually, however, it became apparent that being a Nephite had become merely a matter of lineage, that it involved no deliberate personal commitment to serve the Lord (Jacob 1:13–14; Omni 1:1–2; W of M 1:12–13). It was obvious that the Nephites, as such, were not “the Lord’s people.” A more precise definition of that phrase, and a marker for who was to be counted among the Lord’s people and who was not, became necessary. Citation

What is the difference between serving God and keeping his commandments, or is that two ways of saying the same thing?

More on the innovation of baptism as a covenant/community entrance thingie:  here is what I am wondering:  is there something about the wickedness of King Noah that made the idea of a ritual that marked one’s entry into the community necessary?  I know this is speculative, but I am wondering if the complete corruption of the priesthood made it seem that they needed some marker of individual choice in entering the community and that geography and position just weren’t going to cut it anymore.

What does “pouring out” suggest about God’s Spirit?

  11 And now when the people had heard these words, they clapped their hands for joy, and exclaimed: This is the desire of our hearts.

Clapping is odd.  Here are all of the other scriptural references.  What’s going on here?

Groups of people generally do not all spontaneously say the same thing, suggesting that this might be a ritual here.  If so, do you read it differently?

Question:  How has your baptismal covenant brought you joy?

  12 And now it came to pass that Alma took Helam, he being one of the first, and went and stood forth in the water, and cried, saying: O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart.

Why haven’t we been properly introduced to Helam?  Why is his name given?

Of what is Helam one of the first?  From the FEAST wiki:  “Who is this Helam, and why does he have the same name as the royal Mulekite and brother of Ammon sent later to inquire about the whereabouts of the Zeniff colony?”  We might think “one of the first to be baptized,” but that doesn’t quite fit since he is THE first to be baptized.

Note that modern baptismal ritual does not include a statement like this; why?

Does the pouring out of the Spirit relate in some way to the water of the ritual?

Is the servant in this verse Alma or Helam?

  13 And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world.

Is the “him” who the Spirit is on Alma or Helam?

FEAST wiki:  “Why does this baptismal prayer differ from the one we use today?”

Where did Alma get this authority?  There’s been a lot of discussion on this topic!  Theories:

–Abinadi ordained him. (But when and how?)

–An angel ordained him. (Why not record it?)

–He got it direct from God–as this verse suggests.

–He was ordained before Noah. (But Noah deposed priests.) (Joseph Fielding Smith supported this one.)

–He was ordained by Noah. (Would it be valid?)

–He held it as a part of Nephi’s line. (But when ordained?)

–He gets his authority in verse 12 and is baptized in v14 (cf. JS-H 1:70-71) (But there is no precedent for self-baptism.)

While the “he already had the authority” theories seem compelling, to me they don’t offer a good explanation as to why Alma is also buried in the water with the first baptism.

In JS-H 1:70, we learn that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were commanded to baptize each other.  Perhaps something similar is happening here, although then one wonders why that was not explained more clearly.

Daniel Peterson:

We have to assume Alma and his one-time colleagues were ordained validly by Noah (Mosiah 11:5), who was also ordained validly by his father, Zeniff. The fact that Noah was not righteous after he was ordained and that Alma himself was part of Noah’s priestly group during his early ministry has nothing to do with Alma’s priesthood authority. Until superior priesthood authority withdraws permission to exercise priestly functions, a legitimately ordained holder of the priesthood continues to hold valid priesthood-however unrighteous he may be, however dead to spiritual promptings, and however unlikely it may be that he will ever actually exercise his priesthood. Citation

I think we get so dug in on explaining where his authority came from that we might miss a more trenchant question:  The text could have been clear about the source of his authority, but it is not.  The text is clear that he had authority.  What is accomplished–what effect does it have on the reader–to not be clear on the source of his authority?

Does “until you are dead” suggest that the baptismal covenant is for this life only?  (If so, how does that relate to proxy baptisms?)

What does it mean to say that Christ was prepared from the foundation of the world?

  14 And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.

What does “buried” and “arose” suggest to you about this ritual?

Why was Alma also buried (cf. v15, where he is not)?

Note that the immediate result of baptism is rejoicing.

Does “filled” relate to the water of the ritual in some way?

  15 And again, Alma took another, and went forth a second time into the water, and baptized him according to the first, only he did not bury himself again in the water.

Why is this person not named?

Why doesn’t Alma bury himself this time?

  16 And after this manner he did baptize every one that went forth to the place of Mormon; and they were in number about two hundred and four souls; yea, and they were baptized in the waters of Mormon, and were filled with the grace of God.

Saying “about” and then “204″ is weird–why not just “about 200″?

V14 said filled with the Spirit as a result of baptism; this verse says filled with the grace of God.  Is that the same thing?

What does it suggest to say that grace is something that can fill you?  (What else can fill you?)

  17 And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward. And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church.

Is “church of Christ” a correction or clarification of “church of God”?

Are power and authority two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?  (And, again, where did this authority come from?)

Daniel Peterson:

Another consequence of Noah’s iniquity was the establishment of a Nephite church. It is striking that the small plates of Nephi do not record a single reference to any church actually existing in the New World, while such references are quite common in and after the book of Mosiah. The small plates refer to only one actually existent church at Jerusalem with which Laban was thought to be affiliated (1 Nephi 4:26). Laban’s link with that church is perhaps almost enough in itself to account for the strange neglect of the term throughout the small plates-a neglect broken only by occasional references, the majority of which are negative. Again, it is striking that no mention occurs of an actually existent New World church, despite the fact that the small plates cover nearly the first five centuries of Nephite history.  Citation

  18 And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

NB the reference to Alma’s authority–it is important enough to mention numerous times but not important enough to tell us where it came from.

Is the 1:50 ratio significant?

Why 1:50 when they have 204 people?  (“You get 50, you get 50, you get 50, you get 50, but you get 4.”) Seems weird.  The only idea I can come up with is that it anticipates growth, and is prepared for it.

Under the law of Moses, priests don’t preach, they perform temple sacrifices.  Why is it different here?

Are preaching and teaching two different things in this verse?  If so, how are they different?

I find it interesting how closely we feel obligated to hew to the idea of priests not getting paid, but we feel absolutely no obligation to ordain one priest to every 50 members.  Clearly, their church organization is not identical to ours.  (It looks like their “priest” is halfway between a bishop and a home teacher, or a Gospel Doctrine instructor, maybe.)

  19 And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets.

What access does this group have to sacred writings?

I like the idea that he is trying to keep the doctrine pure (ask me how I feel about the guy who went off on Nancy Pelosi during Church today . . .), but a little uncomfortable with the implications of “don’t teach anything I didn’t teach” in the way that it sets him up as the ultimate authority and seems to deny continuing revelation.  Thoughts?

How literally do you take a verse like this one?

  20 Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people.

Is this literal or hyperbole?

  21 And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.

Is this just directed to the priests, or to everyone?

Does the second half of the verse explain how to avoid contention?

There’s an echo of Ephesians 4:5 here:  “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”  What might we learn from comparing them?  Is the allusion deliberate and, if so, what might that imply about sources and/or translation?

Is this verse related to the one before it?  (I think it is.  If we only taught the basics, we’d have much less room for contention because people would be leaving their crazy stuff out of the equation.)

I think Numbers 27 (the daughters of Zelophehad) and 1 Samuel 1 (Hannah before Eli’s crazy accusations) is a great story for thinking about avoiding contention.

What does it mean to “look forward with one eye”?

What does the image of knitting suggest about their hearts?

  22 And thus he commanded them to preach. And thus they became the children of God.

What do you make of them “becoming” children of God (instead of just being children of God)?

  23 And he commanded them that they should observe the sabbath day, and keep it holy, and also every day they should give thanks to the Lord their God.

Does this verse suggest that observing the sabbath and keeping it are two separate things?

What does it mean to make a day holy?

Normally, the sabbath command does not mention other days; why does this one?

  24 And he also commanded them that the priests whom he had ordained should labor with their own hands for their support.

Note that the law of Moses is different in this regard, where the priests are given a portion of the offerings for their own use.  Why would this be different?

We are not surprised to see Alma making a big deal of this principle after his experience with Noah and his priests.  (More interesting, I think, is what a theme it was for King Ben, who didn’t come to this topic out of the same background.)

Given that they have a 50:1 priest ratio, I wonder to what extent we are getting a universal rule about priest support here as opposed to a rule relevant to their own situation.  (Even today in denominations that pay their clergy, a priest probably couldn’t survive if she expected her [only] 50 parishioners to completely support her.)

If you do not conclude from this verse that priests are required to do manual labor (“with their own hands”), how do you decide how literally to read the scriptures?

Wanna see the fur fly in Sunday School?  Ask whether full-time employment in CES or the GA stipend violates this rule.  Go ahead–I dare you!  (Just kidding.  Please do not do this.)

  25 And there was one day in every week that was set apart that they should gather themselves together to teach the people, and to worship the Lord their God, and also, as often as it was in their power, to assemble themselves together.

Is this the sabbath?  If so, why is it not specified?

Are the assemblies different from the weekly meetings?  What do they do at these assemblies, and why is that not specified the way that the one day per week meeting is?

  26 And the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for their labor they were to receive the grace of God, that they might wax strong in the Spirit, having the knowledge of God, that they might teach with power and authority from God.

Why is this idea of the priests’ support repeated?

Wouldn’t you have thought that the priests would have gotten money for their labor?  Why mention the grace of God?

What does the metaphor of waxing (not that kind!) tell you about the Spirit?

What does having the knowledge of God mean–knowledge from God, knowledge about God, etc.?  Regardless, isn’t that more of a continuum than a having or not having situation?

Note what this verse lays out as the requirements for teaching with power and authority.

  27 And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given.

I’m struck by how frequently care for the poor is mentioned in the BoM.

You can’t help but see the profound similarity between what Alma is teaching here and what King Ben said in his address, which is all the more interesting given that there is no way that Alma had heard/read Ben’s address.  I think that one of the points that the BoM is making here is that this is the core of the gospel, not something just relevant to one community or place or time, but something that would be preached wherever the gospel was preached.  (By contrast, we have Alma as anti-monarchy and Ben as, well, a king, so we might conclude that form of government is not an essential characteristic for living the gospel.)

  28 And thus they should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God, and to those priests that stood in need, yea, and to every needy, naked soul.

Does the image of poor priests surprise you?

Why are the poor described as “naked”?  Why as “souls”?

  29 And this he said unto them, having been commanded of God; and they did walk uprightly before God, imparting to one another both temporally and spiritually according to their needs and their wants.

Why is walking a good metaphor for being righteous?

What do you make of needs and wants?

I’m curious about the jump from temporal things in the previous verses to spiritual things in this one, and what that might be saying about the link between the two.

  30 And now it came to pass that all this was done in Mormon, yea, by the waters of Mormon, in the forest that was near the waters of Mormon; yea, the place of Mormon, the waters of Mormon, the forest of Mormon, how beautiful are they to the eyes of them who there came to the knowledge of their Redeemer; yea, and how blessed are they, for they shall sing to his praise forever.

Again, why so much emphasis on the place?  This is rare up to this point in the BoM?

Here’s a representation of this verse:

in Mormon,

yea, by the waters of Mormon,

in the forest that was near the waters of Mormon;

yea, the place of Mormon,

the waters of Mormon,

the forest of Mormon,

how beautiful are they to the eyes of them who there came to the knowledge of their Redeemer

Notice the repetition of waters/forest/place, except that in the second iteration, place is re-placed [ha!] by the “how beautiful” line.  I suspect this is significant, and meant to suggest something about the sacredness of this place, not as a place per se but because it is a place where people came to the knowledge of their Redeemer.  I also think it is interesting that it is a natural place, not a temple or a family tent or whatever.

  31 And these things were done in the borders of the land, that they might not come to the knowledge of the king.

How do you square this verse with the 12th A of F (“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”)?

This verse seems to function as a bracket, since we have already been given this information.  If you read it that way, what difference does it make to this famous baptism and church-establishment scene to know that it is in the context of people who are basically outlaws?

  32 But behold, it came to pass that the king, having discovered a movement among the people, sent his servants to watch them. Therefore on the day that they were assembling themselves together to hear the word of the Lord they were discovered unto the king.

You know, I had been taking “a movement” completely literally as in “people coming and going,” but it occurred to me that it might be “a movement” like “the civil rights movement,” in the sense that Noah gets wind of the church, perhaps as people are sharing the gospel with neighbors and inviting them out to hear Alma.  This makes sense of “sending servants to watch,” since the servant could have been pretending to be golden investigators or whatever.

  33 And now the king said that Alma was stirring up the people to rebellion against him; therefore he sent his army to destroy them.

Do you think the king genuinely believed this, or was it a convenient story used to get the army to act?

Was Alma stirring the people to rebellion?  (To the extent that his preaching would have led people to believe that Noah was wicked, it might very well have had that effect, regardless of Alma’s intent.)  (Thought:  I wonder if the ‘preach nothing but the basics’ line from above was deliberately designed to avoid this type of accusation.)

  34 And it came to pass that Alma and the people of the Lord were apprised of the coming of the king’s army; therefore they took their tents and their families and departed into the wilderness.

Do the tents imply that the people of Alma were living near the waters of Mormon?

I’m wondering if the tents/families reference is meant to heighten the contrast between Benjamin and Noah:  Ben’s people put their families and tents facing Ben; Noah’s people have to get their families and tents and hide from Noah.  Ben’s people go to him; Noah’s away from him.

  35 And they were in number about four hundred and fifty souls.

Why bother telling us this?  (Is the point to show the growth of the community? That now that one priest who only had 4 people has a full compliment of 50?  That’s a nice idea that could be worked into its own ‘parable of the talents’ type story:  the poor guy only gets 4 people to start, but ends up with 50 by the end of the chapter.)

CHAPTER 19

  1 And it came to pass that the army of the king returned, having searched in vain for the people of the Lord.

Note that there is no chapter division here in the 1830 BoM, which strengthens the link between these two stories.  I think a huge point in this section of the BoM is that we are supposed to compare/contrast the fates of Alma’s and Limhi’s peoples and learn from them, so it is better no not have a full stop here.

I like how they are called “the people of the Lord” and not “the people of Alma” here.

Do you read this verse as serendipity, or divine protection?  (Given the setbacks Noah is shown to have suffered in the next few verses, it is possible that there was no direct divine intervention here.)

  2 And now behold, the forces of the king were small, having been reduced, and there began to be a division among the remainder of the people.

Why were they reduced?  (Could this be because Alma & Co. had taken off?  Why else might this have happened?)

What caused the division among the people–was it Alma’s teachings or something else?  (The info that we get about Gideon soon might imply that there was a falling away by military who no longer supported Noah.)

  3 And the lesser part began to breathe out threatenings against the king, and there began to be a great contention among them.

Given that this is a wicked king, is this contention good?  (Especially given the identification of Gideon in the next verse.)  Is contention ever good?

“Breathe out threatenings” sounds terrible, but we are on their side, right?

It seems clear that, regardless of the cause of the smaller army and civil unrest, things have really changed for Noah–when we first met him, he was very powerful.  Now, not so much.  The control of the priests over Noah (as shown in the Abinadi story) may have been a transition point.

  4 And now there was a man among them whose name was Gideon, and he being a strong man and an enemy to the king, therefore he drew his sword, and swore in his wrath that he would slay the king.

FEAST wiki:  “In Hebrew, the name Gideon means “hacker.” The root verb is used elsewhere to describe the hacking down idolatrous images or shrines (cf. Deut 7:5; 12:3; 2 Chr 14:3; 31:1). The Old Testament judge Gideon may have recieved this name as a likely foreshadowing of either hacking down of the altar of Baal in Judg 6:25-32, or the hacking down of Israel’s enemies depicted in Judg 7. The Book of Mormon Gideon is similarly a man of the sword; he draws it here in fighting King Noah, and is ultimately killed by the sword in Alma 1:9.”

Should we assume that Gideon is unrighteous because he wasn’t out with Alma?

  5 And it came to pass that he fought with the king; and when the king saw that he was about to overpower him, he fled and ran and got upon the tower which was near the temple.

Brant Gardner points out that Noah’s ability to go mano a mano with Gideon and not get totally slaughtered speaks against the Frieburg vision of Noah as a fat slob.

Going to a tower for protection seems weird, because then you would be trapped.  Why might Noah have done this?

Random thought:  we often look to people who share the same name in scripture as if their predecessor’s life might tell us something about their life.  Not surprisingly, no one ever does this with Noah.  ( I was in an Institute class once with an investigator who thought we were talking about what the BoM had to say about the biblical Noah when we discussed these chapters.  That was fun to sort out.)  Is there anything we can learn from comparing the two scriptural Noahs?

  6 And Gideon pursued after him and was about to get upon the tower to slay the king, and the king cast his eyes round about towards the land of Shemlon, and behold, the army of the Lamanites were within the borders of the land.

If this were a novel, we’d never believe the too-convenient timing.

 7 And now the king cried out in the anguish of his soul, saying: Gideon, spare me, for the Lamanites are upon us, and they will destroy us; yea, they will destroy my people.

Skousen reads “destroy them” here.

This story is an awful lot of action/adventure that could have been skipped; why do you think Mormon included it?

  8 And now the king was not so much concerned about his people as he was about his own life; nevertheless, Gideon did spare his life.

Was this the right thing for Gideon to do?

 9 And the king commanded the people that they should flee before the Lamanites, and he himself did go before them, and they did flee into the wilderness, with their women and their children.

Is it significant that they are, in a sense, recreating the fleeing into the wilderness that Alma’s people had done?

Brant Gardner:

A plausible reading of verse 18 [sic, I think, did he mean v9?]would be that Gideon was not one of those who fled with Noah before the Lamanite advance. Indeed, the character of Gideon as we glimpse it would have been antithetical to such a cowardly flight. The scenario that appears to best fit the description is that Gideon and those loyal to him would have remained to defend the city, and it was those loyal to Noah, and those who panicked who fled to the wilderness. The flight of an entire city would be a remarkably easy target, and while even this group was destined to be caught, it is most probable that the flight was of Noah’s loyalists and their families in the immediate vicinity of the palace.  Citation

  10 And it came to pass that the Lamanites did pursue them, and did overtake them, and began to slay them.

  11 Now it came to pass that the king commanded them that all the men should leave their wives and their children, and flee before the Lamanites.

Grrrr . . .

  12 Now there were many that would not leave them, but had rather stay and perish with them. And the rest left their wives and their children and fled.

I’m getting the feeling that one of the points of this story is the dividing into groups, according to the split-second but enormously important decisions that we make (and I’d include Gideon not killing Noah here).

  13 And it came to pass that those who tarried with their wives and their children caused that their fair daughters should stand forth and plead with the Lamanites that they would not slay them.

Wise?

The idea of pleading women seems to be almost a theme in the BoM.  What to make of this?

I find it interesting that Noah regarded the women and children as baggage who would be more likely to get them killed.  However, and perhaps ironically, they end up using their daughters to save them.  (Reminds me of how Pharoah thinks that only males are a threat but it is a whole host of women, and not one man, who save Moses’ hide.) One could almost draw a feminist moral-of-the-story out of this, if only it weren’t the daughters’ charm and beauty that ultimately saved them.

  14 And it came to pass that the Lamanites had compassion on them, for they were charmed with the beauty of their women.

I don’t think “compassion” and “charmed” are quite the same thing; what’s going on here?

Brant Gardner:

It is hard to understand how a marauding army would be touched by beauty to the point of forgiveness.  Citation

  15 Therefore the Lamanites did spare their lives, and took them captives and carried them back to the land of Nephi, and granted unto them that they might possess the land, under the conditions that they would deliver up king Noah into the hands of the Lamanites, and deliver up their property, even one half of all they possessed, one half of their gold, and their silver, and all their precious things, and thus they should pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites from year to year.

  16 And now there was one of the sons of the king among those that were taken captive, whose name was Limhi.

  17 And now Limhi was desirous that his father should not be destroyed; nevertheless, Limhi was not ignorant of the iniquities of his father, he himself being a just man.

How do you end up just with a dad like Noah?

I presume that Limhi was part of the group that fled the city and part of the group that left the women and children.  How does that comport with him being “just”?

Was Limhi right to not want his father to be destroyed?

  18 And it came to pass that Gideon sent men into the wilderness secretly, to search for the king and those that were with him. And it came to pass that they met the people in the wilderness, all save the king and his priests.

Should we see an echo of Alma in the secret-into-the-wilderness theme here?

I presume the “secretly” is so the Lamanites won’t find out about it, so if they find Noah, they can keep him away from the Lamanites.

  19 Now they had sworn in their hearts that they would return to the land of Nephi, and if their wives and their children were slain, and also those that had tarried with them, that they would seek revenge, and also perish with them.

  20 And the king commanded them that they should not return; and they were angry with the king, and caused that he should suffer, even unto death by fire.

And thus Abinadi’s prophecy comes to pass.

Why would Noah not want them to go back?

  21 And they were about to take the priests also and put them to death, and they fled before them.

  22 And it came to pass that they were about to return to the land of Nephi, and they met the men of Gideon. And the men of Gideon told them of all that had happened to their wives and their children; and that the Lamanites had granted unto them that they might possess the land by paying a tribute to the Lamanites of one half of all they possessed.

  23 And the people told the men of Gideon that they had slain the king, and his priests had fled from them farther into the wilderness.

  24 And it came to pass that after they had ended the ceremony, that they returned to the land of Nephi, rejoicing, because their wives and their children were not slain; and they told Gideon what they had done to the king.

Skousen reads “sermon” instead of ceremony here.  (Ceremony is weird, but sermon is weird, too.)

 25 And it came to pass that the king of the Lamanites made an oath unto them, that his people should not slay them.

What would motivate this oath?  (He already has them totally under his thumb.)

  26 And also Limhi, being the son of the king, having the kingdom conferred upon him by the people, made oath unto the king of the Lamanites that his people should pay tribute unto him, even one half of all they possessed.

I’m fascinated by “by the people.”  One would assume that the kingdom would be conferred because he was the son of the previous king, but “by the people” suggests that they had either a voice in the matter or a ritual role in selecting/consecrating the new king.

  27 And it came to pass that Limhi began to establish the kingdom and to establish peace among his people.

  28 And the king of the Lamanites set guards round about the land, that he might keep the people of Limhi in the land, that they might not depart into the wilderness; and he did support his guards out of the tribute which he did receive from the Nephites.

  29 And now king Limhi did have continual peace in his kingdom for the space of two years, that the Lamanites did not molest them nor seek to destroy them.

Just thought you should know that no part of ch19, 20, 21, or 22 has ever been quoted or referenced in General Conference.

CHAPTER 20

  1 Now there was a place in Shemlon where the daughters of the Lamanites did gather themselves together to sing, and to dance, and to make themselves merry.

We so rarely hear about women in the BoM, but we just had the daughters plead with the Lamanites, and now we get Lamanite daughters.  What’s going on here?

  2 And it came to pass that there was one day a small number of them gathered together to sing and to dance.

S. Kent Brown wrote an interesting article on this story. (Although I do wonder to what extent the laws related to marriage that we know from the OT would have been in force at this place and time.)

Perhaps a stretch, but the last chapter began with the note that there was only a small number of Noah’s army available.  Can we draw any useful parallels between the daughters of the Lamanites and Noah’s army?

Another article on this story.  Alan Goff explores the parallels between this story and the similar one in Judges 21 to conclude:

The story of the abduction of the daughters of Shiloh is the final story in Judges. One of the main purposes of Judges was to justify the establishment of a king. Judges described the evil the Israelites did in the Lord’s sight (see Judges 3:7; 4:1), explaining that they did evil because there was no king over the people (see Judges 17:6; 18:1). Judges ends with three stories about the tribe of Benjamin that illustrate this evil. The stories are preceded by a statement about the lack of a king over the land: “And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel . . . ” (Judges 19:1). The third story ends with a similar statement: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). The topsy-turvy world described in Judges 17-21 demonstrates that doing what is right in one’s own eyes is often the same thing as doing what is evil in the Lord’s eyes. By emphasizing parallels to the kidnapping story in Judges, the author of the story in Mosiah seems to me to have strengthened the moral point. The wicked priests led by Amulon were also evil, doing what was right in their own eyes rather than following the Lord. Citation

What I find interesting about that parallel is this: In the BoM, this kind of child-abduction craziness is not seen as a justification for a king, but rather the opposite:  we get Alma’s anti-monarch speech in this section.  Remember that these were priests who had belonged to the court of a king!  The BoM seems to be making the point that having a king does not protect you from this kind of societal decay that ends up with abducted girls.

How does this story compare with the similar story of abducted girls in Judges 21?

 3 And now the priests of king Noah, being ashamed to return to the city of Nephi, yea, and also fearing that the people would slay them, therefore they durst not return to their wives and their children.

As Brant Gardner points out, they were unwilling to seek shelter with the Lamanites and therefore “without a nation.”  This is an interesting position for them to be in; they were originally ‘hired’ by Noah because they’d be a blank slate for his debauchery but they, with some poetic justice, end up as a real blank slate–without home or family.

  4 And having tarried in the wilderness, and having discovered the daughters of the Lamanites, they laid and watched them;

  5 And when there were but few of them gathered together to dance, they came forth out of their secret places and took them and carried them into the wilderness; yea, twenty and four of the daughters of the Lamanites they carried into the wilderness.

Is 24 significant?  (Do we assume that there is a similar number of Noah’s priests?)

Brant Gardner:

While twenty-four women were taken, we cannot be precisely certain that this was a single woman for every man, though that is most likely given the hardship of the land. However, these priests had been used to polygamy if not concubinage, and might have preferred to have more women to do more of “women’s work” which in agricultural societies was very important to survival. It is tempting to see twelve priests each taking two wives. This would suggest that they followed the Israelite penchant for honoring the twelve tribes, and had replaced Alma as a member of their group to return the number to twelve after his departure. Citation

I find it interesting that they were ashamed to go home (v3), but not ashamed to play peeping tom or to kidnap women.  What’s going on here?

  6 And it came to pass that when the Lamanites found that their daughters had been missing, they were angry with the people of Limhi, for they thought it was the people of Limhi.

  7 Therefore they sent their armies forth; yea, even the king himself went before his people; and they went up to the land of Nephi to destroy the people of Limhi.

  8 And now Limhi had discovered them from the tower, even all their preparations for war did he discover; therefore he gathered his people together, and laid wait for them in the fields and in the forests.

Fields and forests strikes me as odd–wouldn’t they have had some kind of fortifications?

I’m wondering if we can learn anything from comparing Limhi on the tower with Noah on the tower (the last time the Lamanites attacked) or Ben on his tower (in a religious, not military, setting).

  9 And it came to pass that when the Lamanites had come up, that the people of Limhi began to fall upon them from their waiting places, and began to slay them.

  10 And it came to pass that the battle became exceedingly sore, for they fought like lions for their prey.

  11 And it came to pass that the people of Limhi began to drive the Lamanites before them; yet they were not half so numerous as the Lamanites. But they fought for their lives, and for their wives, and for their children; therefore they exerted themselves and like dragons did they fight.

This doesn’t make sense to me–the Lamanites were also fighting for their children, because they are seeking vengeance for (or the return of) their daughters.

First lions and now dragons–what’s up with the animal comparisons?

  12 And it came to pass that they found the king of the Lamanites among the number of their dead; yet he was not dead, having been wounded and left upon the ground, so speedy was the flight of his people.

This is an awful lot of detail for a highly abridged record . . . why do we get this?

  13 And they took him and bound up his wounds, and brought him before Limhi, and said: Behold, here is the king of the Lamanites; he having received a wound has fallen among their dead, and they have left him; and behold, we have brought him before you; and now let us slay him.

  14 But Limhi said unto them: Ye shall not slay him, but bring him hither that I may see him. And they brought him. And Limhi said unto him: What cause have ye to come up to war against my people? Behold, my people have not broken the oath that I made unto you; therefore, why should ye break the oath which ye made unto my people?

  15 And now the king said: I have broken the oath because thy people did carry away the daughters of my people; therefore, in my anger I did cause my people to come up to war against thy people.

  16 And now Limhi had heard nothing concerning this matter; therefore he said: I will search among my people and whosoever has done this thing shall perish. Therefore he caused a search to be made among his people.

  17 Now when Gideon had heard these things, he being the king’s captain, he went forth and said unto the king: I pray thee forbear, and do not search this people, and lay not this thing to their charge.

Why not search the people, just to be thorough?

  18 For do ye not remember the priests of thy father, whom this people sought to destroy? And are they not in the wilderness? And are not they the ones who have stolen the daughters of the Lamanites?

That’s pretty conjectural, no?  Is that why he phrases it as a question?

I want to like Gideon, I really do, but I’m kind of worried about his willingness to be so speculative here, particularly combined with his desire to not even search out the people (v17).  (Brant Gardner, more sympathetic that I, suggests that if Gideon is the captain of the guard, he would have known that no group had left the city and returned dragging a group of ticked-off women.)

  19 And now, behold, and tell the king of these things, that he may tell his people that they may be pacified towards us; for behold they are already preparing to come against us; and behold also there are but few of us.

Given that the guy is wounded, abandoned, and bound, one wonders if they could have just ordered him to tell his army to knock it off, without blaming Noah’s priests for the abduction.

  20 And behold, they come with their numerous hosts; and except the king doth pacify them towards us we must perish.

  21 For are not the words of Abinadi fulfilled, which he prophesied against us—and all this because we would not hearken unto the words of the Lord, and turn from our iniquities?

Why bring up Abinadi now?  Presumably neither Gideon nor Limhi was particularly sympathetic to him when he preached . . .

What’s really weird about v20-21 is that it suggests that the pacification of the Lamanite king (with the knowledge that Noah’s priests are to blame) will somehow prevent Abinadi’s prophecies from coming to pass, but I don’t think that is quite the right way to look at the situation.

  22 And now let us pacify the king, and we fulfil the oath which we have made unto him; for it is better that we should be in bondage than that we should lose our lives; therefore, let us put a stop to the shedding of so much blood.

Note repeated references to “pacify.”

Brant Gardner:

Notice how foreign this seems. We have the victors of a battle being concerned with honoring an oath with the man they have captured, and who is completely at their mercy. Notice also that the honorable fulfillment of the oath will place the Limhites again in “bondage.” Citation

  23 And now Limhi told the king all the things concerning his father, and the priests that had fled into the wilderness, and attributed the carrying away of their daughters to them.

This turns out to be right, but is it really fair when he doesn’t actually know who took the girls?

  24 And it came to pass that the king was pacified towards his people; and he said unto them: Let us go forth to meet my people, without arms; and I swear unto you with an oath that my people shall not slay thy people.

Is it realistic that the Lamanite king would believe Limhi’s story, when the Lamanite king has absolutely no reason to believe that Limhi is telling the truth but every reason to believe that he’s just trying to save his butt?

How much weight would anyone put in that oath when the reason they are in the situation that they are in is that he violated his past oath with the same content?

  25 And it came to pass that they followed the king, and went forth without arms to meet the Lamanites. And it came to pass that they did meet the Lamanites; and the king of the Lamanites did bow himself down before them, and did plead in behalf of the people of Limhi.

We get a few references to pleading women in this section; what to make of the fact that a king is here doing the same?

Does it strike you as at all plausible that a king would plead before his own army on behalf of a people that they had just gone to battle against and were likely to conquer in the next round of fighting?

  26 And when the Lamanites saw the people of Limhi, that they were without arms, they had compassion on them and were pacified towards them, and returned with their king in peace to their own land.

Note that this is the second time in this story that refers to the compassion of the Lamanites.  Since this is the most frequent emotion attributed to Jesus in the gospels, that is even more significant.

Why would a Lamanite army have compassion on an opposing force without arms?

The last time the Lamanites had compassion on people who they were otherwise about to kill, it was the people escaping from Nephi-Lehi who sent their women out to plead.  In this case, their own king has pled.  What else do these stories have in common?  Are we supposed to compare them?  Also note that in ch23, we’ll get more pleading met with Lamanite compassion . . .

Larger question:  What was the point of this chapter?  Why was it included in the record?  What moral lessons might we draw from it?

CHAPTER 21

  1 And it came to pass that Limhi and his people returned to the city of Nephi, and began to dwell in the land again in peace.

  2 And it came to pass that after many days the Lamanites began again to be stirred up in anger against the Nephites, and they began to come into the borders of the land round about.

Why are they mad this time?

Does this mention of borders have any relation to the borderlands where Alma’s people met?

  3 Now they durst not slay them, because of the oath which their king had made unto Limhi; but they would smite them on their cheeks, and exercise authority over them; and began to put heavy burdens upon their backs, and drive them as they would a dumb ass—

Is this related to Alma’s words at the baptism re bearing one another’s burdens?

I can’t help but notice how good the Lamanites are a lot of the time–here, they clearly want to kill the people, but they don’t because they are loyal to the oath that they have made.  (Thought:  perhaps that was the point of the previous chapter, to show that the Lamanites were loyal to their oaths.)

  4 Yea, all this was done that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled.

What in v3 led to the fulfillment of the word of the Lord?

  5 And now the afflictions of the Nephites were great, and there was no way that they could deliver themselves out of their hands, for the Lamanites had surrounded them on every side.

  6 And it came to pass that the people began to murmur with the king because of their afflictions; and they began to be desirous to go against them to battle. And they did afflict the king sorely with their complaints; therefore he granted unto them that they should do according to their desires.

Interesting that at the same time, people are complaining to Mosiah2 (“teasing” him) about these guys.

Usually you murmur “against” someone–does the phrasing “murmur with” suggest that the king was also murmuring.

I find it interesting that the “house arrest” and huge tax didn’t get them lathered up, but what was described in v3 apparently did.

  7 And they gathered themselves together again, and put on their armor, and went forth against the Lamanites to drive them out of their land.

Given that the last chapter told us that their military was much smaller, these seems like sheer stupidity.  (And Mormon’s editorial insertion of “there was no way” in v5 makes it look even more blindingly stupid to us.) Why would they have tried to do this and why would Limhi have permitted it?  (Thought:  I am wondering if their military [but not really military] success in the last chapter somehow made them think they could defeat the Lamanites.)

  8 And it came to pass that the Lamanites did beat them, and drove them back, and slew many of them.

  9 And now there was a great mourning and lamentation among the people of Limhi, the widow mourning for her husband, the son and the daughter mourning for their father, and the brothers for their brethren.

Again, the same language (mourning) as at the baptism.

Again, the unusual references to women.

What about the sisters?  Did they mourn?

  10 Now there were a great many widows in the land, and they did cry mightily from day to day, for a great fear of the Lamanites had come upon them.

More women!

The laundry list of grievers in v9 strikes the reader as odd.  But then note how in this verse, it is the widows who are the focus of attention.  I am wondering why the sons and daughters and brothers from the previous verse drop out of the story.  Wouldn’t they also have been afraid of the Lamanites (at least the daughters, if you need to be sexist about it)?

  11 And it came to pass that their continual cries did stir up the remainder of the people of Limhi to anger against the Lamanites; and they went again to battle, but they were driven back again, suffering much loss.

Is this stirring up good or bad?

Again, why just the widows and not the other relations from v9?

What include v9-11 in the record?  What are we supposed to learn from the story of why they went to battle the second time?  (I’m not sure, but I do think that it is very interesting that their motive for battle changes from one to the next.)

  12 Yea, they went again even the third time, and suffered in the like manner; and those that were not slain returned again to the city of Nephi.

At this point, they have tried three times to free themselves from Lamanite bondage by military means.  All three have failed (v8, 11, v12).  As you read the rest of the chapter, look for what was necessary to free them from bondage.  If you want to read this allegorically as being about freedom from bondage to Satan, what would the three military fails represent?

We get the reasons for battle #1 and battle #2, but not battle #3.  Why?

  13 And they did humble themselves even to the dust, subjecting themselves to the yoke of bondage, submitting themselves to be smitten, and to be driven to and fro, and burdened, according to the desires of their enemies.

This is a weird verse.  Are we to understand that they willingly chose this (see also v14) as a–what–self-inflicted pain for military loss?  Or that the Lamanites forced this on them?  (And, if so, there is a bit of irony that this is what they went to war to protest against in the first place.)

  14 And they did humble themselves even in the depths of humility; and they did cry mightily to God; yea, even all the day long did they cry unto their God that he would deliver them out of their afflictions.

To summarize:  they went on completely hopeless military ventures, got their trash kicked three times, and then decided to turn to God.  Moral of the story?  Should this be read metaphorically?  (If I wanted to be a cynic, I might suggest that we deliberately create experiences that people would fail at in order to humble them and turn them to the Lord.)

  15 And now the Lord was slow to hear their cry because of their iniquities; nevertheless the Lord did hear their cries, and began to soften the hearts of the Lamanites that they began to ease their burdens; yet the Lord did not see fit to deliver them out of bondage.

How do you feel about the Lord being slow to hear their cries:  is that the logical, natural consequences of unrighteousness, or is that the Lord being mean and unjust?

This verse pictures the Lord as fine-tuning trials and punishments.  Do you think that vision is universally true?

  16 And it came to pass that they began to prosper by degrees in the land, and began to raise grain more abundantly, and flocks, and herds, that they did not suffer with hunger.

  17 Now there was a great number of women, more than there was of men; therefore king Limhi commanded that every man should impart to the support of the widows and their children, that they might not perish with hunger; and this they did because of the greatness of their number that had been slain.

Grant Hardy has pointed to this incident as a righteous example of taxation to aid the poor (or, to use the parlance preferred by some, a righteous example of governmental theft to enable the moochers).

What’s interesting about this verse is that the sequence from v15 to 16 to 17 implies that what Limhi does here is evidence of increasing righteousness and increasing blessings from the Lord to his people.  The situation where Limhi did not tax them was a less righteous circumstance.

  18 Now the people of Limhi kept together in a body as much as it was possible, and secured their grain and their flocks;

Skousen reads “to secure” here.

  19 And the king himself did not trust his person without the walls of the city, unless he took his guards with him, fearing that he might by some means fall into the hands of the Lamanites.

Interesting, this is exactly the state that Ammon finds him in.

  20 And he caused that his people should watch the land round about, that by some means they might take those priests that fled into the wilderness, who had stolen the daughters of the Lamanites, and that had caused such a great destruction to come upon them.

  21 For they were desirous to take them that they might punish them; for they had come into the land of Nephi by night, and carried off their grain and many of their precious things; therefore they laid wait for them.

Do they actually know this, or is it more speculation?

  22 And it came to pass that there was no more disturbance between the Lamanites and the people of Limhi, *even until the time that Ammon and his brethren came into the land.

Should we read this to say that the arrival of Ammon caused a disturbance, or just to say that we are now brought up to date on the story?

  23 And the king having been without the gates of the city with his guard, discovered Ammon and his brethren; and supposing them to be priests of Noah therefore he caused that they should be taken, and bound, and cast into prison. And had they been the priests of Noah he would have caused that they should be put to death.

And now we are back to the beginning, with the flashback having caught up to current events.  This is a good moment to pause and ask:  What was accomplished by telling the whole Zeniff and Noah and Abinadi stories in flashback that would not have been accomplished by presenting them in normal chronological order, which Mormon certainly could have done had he wanted to?  (My guess would be that the flashback puts certain stories adjacent other stories, and the point is to call our attention to the similarities and differences between those stories.)

Interesting that we find out here about him thinking that they were priests of Noah, but we didn’t know that before when we first got the story of Ammon arriving.  In fact, we see Limhi as something of a creep for how he treats Ammon, but here, his overreaction makes perfect sense.

  24 But when he found that they were not, but that they were his brethren, and had come from the land of Zarahemla, he was filled with exceedingly great joy.

  25 Now king Limhi had sent, previous to the coming of Ammon, a small number of men to search for the land of Zarahemla; but they could not find it, and they were lost in the wilderness.

  26 Nevertheless, they did find a land which had been peopled; yea, a land which was covered with dry bones; yea, a land which had been peopled and which had been destroyed; and they, having supposed it to be the land of Zarahemla, returned to the land of Nephi, having arrived in the borders of the land not many days before the coming of Ammon.

Dry strikes me as sort of a redundant adjective for bones.  (Wet bones?  Unlikely.) So I suspect that it is meant to tie to the only biblical usage of the phrase, which is Ezekiel 37:4:

 4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.

 5 Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:

 6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the Lord.

What’s interesting about this is that if we are meant to compare the two, we see that the “resurrection” of the Jaredites seems to happen through the translation and distribution of their record, not through a literal physical translation (which is how most, if not all, people read Ezekiel).  What is interesting to me about this is not going down the path of denying or even of minimizing physical resurrection, but rather of suggesting that records can have a similar sort of power.

  27 And they brought a record with them, even a record of the people whose bones they had found; and it was engraven on plates of ore.

What’s really trippy about v25-27 is that they are (1) another flashback and (2) redundant for us–we’ve already heard all about this.  So–why are these verses in the record?  It seems to me that you either have to think that Mormon was being sloppy, or you need to find something significant going on here.

  28 And now Limhi was again filled with joy on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice.

Skousen reads “king Benjamin” here.

Why “again”?  (Is the first instance of joy figuring out that Ammon is there to save them?)

Interesting that in the original iteration, we never get the name of King Mosiah as the seer, but we get it here.

Again, I am fascinated at the use of “interpret” instead of “translate” and what this might imply for various acts of interpreting/translating in the Restoration (BoM, JST, papyri, etc.)

Why did Ammon rejoice?

Why is rejoicing such a big theme?

  29 Yet Ammon and his brethren were filled with sorrow because so many of their brethren had been slain;

I’m fascinated by the fact that we just heard about Ammon’s joy but here we get his sorrow.  Does that suggest some sort of relationship (but an inversion) between the interpretation and the loss of the people?  (This is also perhaps interestingly related to the idea of records as resurrection . . .)

  30 And also that king Noah and his priests had caused the people to commit so many sins and iniquities against God; and they also did mourn for the death of Abinadi; and also for the departure of Alma and the people that went with him, who had formed a church of God through the strength and power of God, and faith on the words which had been spoken by Abinadi.

Interesting that this is faith in Abinadi’s words and not Alma’s words.

Can someone cause someone else to sin?

Are sins and iniquities two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?

Did they mourn for Alma’s departure?  (There is no verb there.)  Why would that be a cause of mourning?

  31 Yea, they did mourn for their departure, for they knew not whither they had fled. Now they would have gladly joined with them, for they themselves had entered into a covenant with God to serve him and keep his commandments.

Then why didn’t they join them before?

What did this covenant look like–was it also baptism?

  32 And now since the coming of Ammon, king Limhi had also entered into a covenant with God, and also many of his people, to serve him and keep his commandments.

  33 And it came to pass that king Limhi and many of his people were desirous to be baptized; but there was none in the land that had authority from God. And Ammon declined doing this thing, considering himself an unworthy servant.

Such an interesting contrast with Alma, where the text very clearly tells us that he has authority, but doesn’t give its source.

Was Ammon unworthy or is that just hyperbole? (If we was unworthy, do we need to re-read that whole conversation about seers and wonder if he might not have been teaching true doctrine?) Does this mean that Ammon had been given the authority, but was unworthy to use it?

Why do you think the Lord arranged things so that there would be no one available to perform baptisms for people who wanted them?

  34 Therefore they did not at that time form themselves into a church, waiting upon the Spirit of the Lord. Now they were desirous to become even as Alma and his brethren, who had fled into the wilderness.

What does this verse suggest about the relationship between a church and the Spirit of the Lord?

Why mention “who had fled into the wilderness” when we already know that?  What does the repetition accomplish?

  35 They were desirous to be baptized as a witness and a testimony that they were willing to serve God with all their hearts; nevertheless they did prolong the time; and an account of their baptism shall be given hereafter.

This idea of being patient and waiting is interesting, given that the root of their society and all of its problems is Zeniff’s lack of patience.

Why hereafter?  Why not tell us now?

I’m curious about the intrusion here that speaks directly to the reader of the abridged record.  What might have been Mormon’s motivation in drawing us directly into the text at this point?

“Prolong the time” is an awkward phrase; is it just infelicitous, or does it mean something special?

  36 And now all the study of Ammon and his people, and king Limhi and his people, was to deliver themselves out of the hands of the Lamanites and from bondage.

“Study” is a little weird–does that mean our study of the stories as readers?  Does it mean the keeping of the record?  Does it mean Ammon and Limhi’s own study?

How does this verse relate to what comes before?  (A difficult reader might say that they deliberately decided to shelve the whole baptism and church formation business because they prioritized their temporal salvation instead of their spiritual salvation.)

CHAPTER 22

  1 And now it came to pass that Ammon and king Limhi began to consult with the people how they should deliver themselves out of bondage; and even they did cause that all the people should gather themselves together; and this they did that they might have the voice of the people concerning the matter.

Was this some sort of democracy?  Why did they consult with the people?  Is there perhaps a contrast to the repeated references to King Noah consulting his priests?

“Deliver themselves out of bondage” should strike us as, in a biblical sense, a completely inappropriate phrase since it is the Lord who does the delivering.  Is that how we should read it here?

Why was it important to Mormon that we know that the people were involved in planning the escape?

Brant Gardner writes, “This tells us first that it was probably not the normal form of government, else it would not be necessary to mention.”  Citation.  Does that seem like a reasonable conclusion?  If so, then why would they have consulted, contra the usual practice, in this case?

  2 And it came to pass that they could find no way to deliver themselves out of bondage, except it were to take their women and children, and their flocks, and their herds, and their tents, and depart into the wilderness; for the Lamanites being so numerous, it was impossible for the people of Limhi to contend with them, thinking to deliver themselves out of bondage by the sword.

Does it strike you as odd that they would want to take all of their “stuff”?  Wouldn’t it have been safer to leave without all the baggage, and just start over in Zarahemla?

Pro forma note that I hate it when women are lumped in with animals and possessions.

What is the purpose of this verse?

Does this verse show a lack of faith in the Lord?  (Compare numerically unlikely biblical victories when the Lord was on their side.)

  3 Now it came to pass that Gideon went forth and stood before the king, and said unto him: Now O king, thou hast hitherto hearkened unto my words many times when we have been contending with our brethren, the Lamanites.

Is the implication that he is a trusted adviser, or is it that he’s really messed up several times (since the Lamanites defeated them 3x?)

  4 And now O king, if thou hast not found me to be an unprofitable servant, or if thou hast hitherto listened to my words in any degree, and they have been of service to thee, even so I desire that thou wouldst listen to my words at this time, and I will be thy servant and deliver this people out of bondage.

What’s with all of this bowing and scraping when Limhi invited audience participation?

Is there a prideful edge to this?  (Crazy speculation alert:  Does this sorta kinda remind you of Satan stepping up to offer a plan?)

  5 And the king granted unto him that he might speak. And Gideon said unto him:

  6 Behold the back pass, through the back wall, on the back side of the city. The Lamanites, or the guards of the Lamanites, by night are drunken; therefore let us send a proclamation among all this people that they gather together their flocks and herds, that they may drive them into the wilderness by night.

That triple repetition of “back” feels significant.

I don’t care how drunk they are, I can’t really imagine a decent-sized group of flocks and children getting past them.  Has Gideon ever actually spent any time with a three-year-old who has been woken up in the middle of the night and taken out (“Where are we GOING?  Why do I have to BE QUIET?  IS THAT A MONSTER?”)?  And they couldn’t even give them Benedryl!

  7 And I will go according to thy command and pay the last tribute of wine to the Lamanites, and they will be drunken; and we will pass through the secret pass on the left of their camp when they are drunken and asleep.

Moral of the story:  it is OK to get people drunk if you want to escape the agreements that you have made with them.

  8 Thus we will depart with our women and our children, our flocks, and our herds into the wilderness; and we will travel around the land of Shilom.

  9 And it came to pass that the king hearkened unto the words of Gideon.

  10 And king Limhi caused that his people should gather their flocks together; and he sent the tribute of wine to the Lamanites; and he also sent more wine, as a present unto them; and they did drink freely of the wine which king Limhi did send unto them.

  11 And it came to pass that the people of king Limhi did depart by night into the wilderness with their flocks and their herds, and they went round about the land of Shilom in the wilderness, and bent their course towards the land of Zarahemla, being led by Ammon and his brethren.

  12 And they had taken all their gold, and silver, and their precious things, which they could carry, and also their provisions with them, into the wilderness; and they pursued their journey.

Should we look for parallels with the Israelites leaving Egypt in this story?

  13 And after being many days in the wilderness they arrived in the land of Zarahemla, and joined Mosiah’s people, and became his subjects.

  14 And it came to pass that Mosiah received them with joy; and he also received their records, and also the records which had been found by the people of Limhi.

  15 And now it came to pass when the Lamanites had found that the people of Limhi had departed out of the land by night, that they sent an army into the wilderness to pursue them;

  16 And after they had pursued them two days, they could no longer follow their tracks; therefore they were lost in the wilderness.

Does “they” refer to the people of Limhi or to the Lamanite army?

CHAPTER 23

  1 Now Alma, having been warned of the Lord that the armies of king Noah would come upon them, and having made it known to his people, therefore they gathered together their flocks, and took of their grain, and departed into the wilderness before the armies of king Noah.

So we are picking up a story here that we left off at the end of ch18.  That means that 19-22 are “sandwiched” in this story.  When we see this sandwiching structure in the NT, it is usually very deliberately done to call the reader’s attention to the relationship of the “bread” to the “meat.”  If you take that approach to this text, what might you learn?

Similarities to Limhi’s people:  taking flocks and going into the wilderness.  Differences:  they were warned by the Lord, they don’t take gold/silver/precious things and, perhaps most significantly, women are not part of the “things they took” list.  They are escaping from Noah’s army, not the Lamanite army.  They don’t get anyone drunk before they leave.  There is no public discussion of what to do.  Which of those differences are significant and what should we learn from them?

  2 And the Lord did strengthen them, that the people of king Noah could not overtake them to destroy them.

No similar mention of the Lord’s strength in the Limhi story.

  3 And they fled eight days’ journey into the wilderness.

  4 And they came to a land, yea, even a very beautiful and pleasant land, a land of pure water.

Limhi’s people end up in Zarahemla, not an unnamed place.

  5 And they pitched their tents, and began to till the ground, and began to build buildings; yea, they were industrious, and did labor exceedingly.

This sounds as if they are planning to stay there permanently . . .

Brant Gardner:

Not removed until 1920 was “began to build buildings &c” (Book of Mormon Critical Text. FARMS 1987. 2:473). The removal of the “&c” does not change the essential meaning of the text, but it is curious that it was there at all. The “&c” indicates that something else was built, but is non-specific. Any guess as to what was represented in the plate text is absolutely conjectural, but it is surprising for Mormon to generalize thus, unless the word being translated had a meaning of “build buildings and other evidences of civilization.” Such a hypothetical word might exist, and might be reasonably translated as “build buildings &c.” Citation

  6 And the people were desirous that Alma should be their king, for he was beloved by his people.

  7 But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.

This is very interesting, because there are so many other kings–including righteous kings–in the BoM.  Why is it different here?

What is the relationship of thinking one flesh above another and kingship?  How are these related?  How are they avoided with other forms of government?

Did King Ben think of himself as above his people?  Would Alma say that he did?

We are not shocked that Alma, after his first-hand experience with the wicked king Noah, is anti-monarchist.  This raises some interesting questions about the role that personal experience plays in shaping political beliefs, because you do not, for example, get the impression that King Ben is anti-monarchist (duh), since his experience with the institution was rather positive.  I wonder to what extent we might want to read a passage like this as “just Alma’s opinion” as opposed to doctrine, given the other patterns in the BoM.  Also interesting is that Alma seems to bring Mosiah2 around to Alma’s anti-monarchy views in Mosiah 29:13-18.

  8 Nevertheless, if it were possible that ye could always have just men to be your kings it would be well for you to have a king.

V8 seems to contradict v7 to me:  v7 says that the problem with kings is that they introduce unrighteous hierarchies; v8 says that just kings are OK.  But wouldn’t a just king (v8) still create the kinds of problems with hierarchy that v7 is concerned about?  Or is there a way to reconcile these verses?

  9 But remember the iniquity of king Noah and his priests; and I myself was caught in a snare, and did many things which were abominable in the sight of the Lord, which caused me sore repentance;

Why is a snare a good metaphor for Alma’s experience?

What does the word “sore” suggest to you about the process of repentance?

So Alma has presented two arguments against kingship:  one is social stratification and the other is leading people to sin.  Here’s what I find interesting:  I think a lot of people would look at those two arguments and think, “therefore, it is really, really important that you get a good king and so, yes, I will be your king because I can help you avoid those dangers.”  But that, obviously, is not the tack that Alma takes.  Instead, he says, “No kings for you!”  Two things about this:  First, is this meant to be a commentary on the story immediately before it, where Limhi’s people put themselves under Mosiah2′s kingship?  Secondly, assuming that Alma wasn’t hoping for an anarcho-syndicalist commune, then what form do you think Alma thought the government could have taken that would not have led to the two problems he mentions?  Because it seems to me that any amount of power given to any form of government could lead to these two problems.

  10 Nevertheless, after much tribulation, the Lord did hear my cries, and did answer my prayers, and has made me an instrument in his hands in bringing so many of you to a knowledge of his truth.

What does tribulation mean?  Was it a part of his repentance?

What does the image of an instrument in the hands of the Lord suggest to you?

  11 Nevertheless, in this I do not glory, for I am unworthy to glory of myself.

  12 And now I say unto you, ye have been oppressed by king Noah, and have been in bondage to him and his priests, and have been brought into iniquity by them; therefore ye were bound with the bands of iniquity.

Brant Gardner:

Remember that for at least some of the time, the people willingly followed Noah (Mosiah 11:7 at least implies that they began to accept Noah’s methods; Mosiah 11:17-19 has the people rejoicing after the success in the skirmish with the Lamanites, which would have appeared to give a divine stamp of approval on Noah).  Citation

  13 And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you.

  14 And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.

This verse seems to set up a dynamic where the people (and not just, say, their bishops) are responsible for vetting their leaders and responding accordingly.  So how would you respond to someone who used this verse as an argument for hall walking during Sunday School when she did not like the current Gospel Doctrine teacher?

  15 Thus did Alma teach his people, that every man should love his neighbor as himself, that there should be no contention among them.

What is the relationship of contention to the rest of this little speech?  Wouldn’t a state of increased liberty be more likely to result in contention?  (Especially when individuals are taking it upon themselves to assess the righteousness of their teachers and preachers.)

How does loving neighbor as self relate to the verse before it?

How does loving neighbor as self result in a lack of contention?  (Does the verse imply that?)

  16 And now, Alma was their high priest, he being the founder of their church.

Daniel Peterson writes,

Alma founded the Church among the Nephites (Mosiah 23:16) in the sense of a separately existing organization within the larger society. It is easy to see why he did so. King Noah had rejected his part in the hierarchical social system of the Nephites, and Alma had taken his place as the spiritual leader and the earthly source of priesthood authority for those who dissented from Noah’s leadership. Alma’s colony thus became a secessionist group. Birth as a Nephite was no longer enough to make a man or woman one of God’s people; instead, a conscious and personal decision was required of anyone who wished to be numbered among the people of God.  Citation

Note that “high priest” is not being used in the same sense as it is in the OT, where the high priest is in charge of temple worship.  Nor is it used in the same sense as it is in the modern LDS Church.  (It bugs me greatly when people assume that a word describing an office means the same thing regardless of where/when it was used.)

Brant Gardner points out that we are kind of left hanging in that we never do find out what kind of government they get; instead, we find out what kind of church government they got.  I’m wondering if perhaps this is more clever than sloppy, and that there is some significance in opening with a discussion of civil government but then pivoting to church government.

 17 And it came to pass that none received authority to preach or to teach except it were by him from God. Therefore he consecrated all their priests and all their teachers; and none were consecrated except they were just men.

Hm, more references to his authority . . .

Why is “just” the emphasized word here?

Note that, as established, there appears to be no room in this society for “the voice of the people” (unless you think v14 gives them some power).  Is this an ideal?  (Note especially the contrast with Limhi’s people in the last chapter; they get to have a say.)

  18 Therefore they did watch over their people, and did nourish them with things pertaining to righteousness.

What does “watch” mean here?

Why is “nourish” a good word to use here?

Note how v16, 17, and 18 show that a great deal of power was concentrated in Alma’s hands.  What safeguards would have been necessary to ensure that the problems of social stratification and leading people to sin would have been avoided by him?  (You could say that Alma not only ends up with as much power as a king, but that the religious gloss of being a high priest put him or his successor in a position that made it even more likely that the power would be abused.)  And what does it say about Alma’s two objections to kings above that apparently being a high priest (and wielding a great deal of power) was apparently not a cause of concern to him?

  19 And it came to pass that they began to prosper exceedingly in the land; and they called the land Helam.

Why didn’t they call it Alma?

Why do we get the name of the land here, instead of when the place was introduced above?

The fact that they name the land after Helam and not Alma may suggest that Helam was equal to or even regarded more highly than Alma was.  We can probably assume that this is the same Helam who was named in the baptismal scene at the waters of Mormon.  It strikes me as curious that his probably role in the government isn’t mentioned.

  20 And it came to pass that they did multiply and prosper exceedingly in the land of Helam; and they built a city, which they called the city of Helam.

Do you think Helam was their not-king and that’s why they named everything after him?

  21 Nevertheless the Lord seeth fit to chasten his people; yea, he trieth their patience and their faith.

  22 Nevertheless—whosoever putteth his trust in him the same shall be lifted up at the last day. Yea, and thus it was with this people.

What does the image “lifted up at the last day” suggest to you?  (Irony alert:  Jesus was lifted up on the cross on his ‘last day.’)

  23 For behold, I will show unto you that they were brought into bondage, and none could deliver them but the Lord their God, yea, even the God of Abraham and Isaac and of Jacob.

This is a very interesting verse (also v21-22), because Mormon is telling us exactly what we are supposed to conclude from this story.  This explicit “and thus we see” doesn’t always happen, but I think it happens here because we are about to get into the very sticky business of why bad things happen to good people.

Thinking to the previous story re Alma’s little lecture on kingship:  he spoke specifically about the bondage that could come about from a wicked king.  So I am thinking that it is ironic that the people, with no king, end up in bondage because the chastisements of their heavenly king.

What happens to the reader as a result of the Abe, Isaac, Jacob reference here?

  24 And it came to pass that he did deliver them, and he did show forth his mighty power unto them, and great were their rejoicings.

  25 For behold, it came to pass that while they were in the land of Helam, yea, in the city of Helam, while tilling the land round about, behold an army of the Lamanites was in the borders of the land.

  26 Now it came to pass that the brethren of Alma fled from their fields, and gathered themselves together in the city of Helam; and they were much frightened because of the appearance of the Lamanites.

  27 But Alma went forth and stood among them, and exhorted them that they should not be frightened, but that they should remember the Lord their God and he would deliver them.

In other words, Keep Calm and Carry On.

  28 Therefore they hushed their fears, and began to cry unto the Lord that he would soften the hearts of the Lamanites, that they would spare them, and their wives, and their children.

Gah–I hate constructions like this.  You read v27 and think that there were, of course, females in the audience and we find out in v28, nope.

  29 And it came to pass that the Lord did soften the hearts of the Lamanites. And Alma and his brethren went forth and delivered themselves up into their hands; and the Lamanites took possession of the land of Helam.

I like the juxtaposition of v27 and v29:  Alma says “don’t worry” and the end result is the enemy takes over their land.  I’m curious about the idea of the Lord delivering them from the Lamanites in v27 and the idea of them being delivered to the Lamanites in this verse.

  30 Now the armies of the Lamanites, which had followed after the people of king Limhi, had been lost in the wilderness for many days.

And this brings us back to the last story, meaning that the story of Alma’s people entering bondage to the Lamanites is sandwiched by this reference.  Do you read the story differently in that frame?

  31 And behold, they had found those priests of king Noah, in a place which they called Amulon; and they had begun to possess the land of Amulon and had begun to till the ground.

There are so many journeys in this part of the Book of Mormon–why might that be?

  32 Now the name of the leader of those priests was Amulon.

This seems more typical of the naming pattern of the BoM and makes me wonder again why Alma’s people had a different practice in Helam.

  33 And it came to pass that Amulon did plead with the Lamanites; and he also sent forth their wives, who were the daughters of the Lamanites, to plead with their brethren, that they should not destroy their husbands.

Yet another reference to pleading women!  If I had more time, I’d put together some thoughts on the intercessory role of women in the BoM.

Interesting that these kidnapped women now defend their husbands.

Note that these women–the former ‘dancing girls’ captured by the priests–are called “wives.”  S. Kent Brown writes,

One of the complicating issues that does not arise in the narrative has to do with the legal status of the priests’ previous wives whom they had abandoned.  Citation

  34 And the Lamanites had compassion on Amulon and his brethren, and did not destroy them, because of their wives.

More Lamanite compassion!

  35 And Amulon and his brethren did join the Lamanites, and they were traveling in the wilderness in search of the land of Nephi when they discovered the land of Helam, which was possessed by Alma and his brethren.

  36 And it came to pass that the Lamanites promised unto Alma and his brethren, that if they would show them the way which led to the land of Nephi that they would grant unto them their lives and their liberty.

Why would they want to go to the land of Nephi at this point?  (And:  What exactly are we talking about, since a Lamanite army knows well the Limhites used to live?)

  37 But after Alma had shown them the way that led to the land of Nephi the Lamanites would not keep their promise; but they set guards round about the land of Helam, over Alma and his brethren.

Interesting that all of their righteous living didn’t protect them from this.

So was this an “oops” moment for Alma?

  38 And the remainder of them went to the land of Nephi; and a part of them returned to the land of Helam, and also brought with them the wives and the children of the guards who had been left in the land.

  39 And the king of the Lamanites had granted unto Amulon that he should be a king and a ruler over his people, who were in the land of Helam; nevertheless he should have no power to do anything contrary to the will of the king of the Lamanites.

So this really rubs salt in the wounds of Alma’s people to have a successor to Noah in charge of them now . . .

At this point, you could understand if some of Alma’s people saw him as a “fallen prophet.”  (I used quotes because there is no indication at this point that he was considered a prophet; he’s called a high priest and church founder.)  Remember that Alma told them that God would deliver them.  And it appears that they have been delivered . . . right into the hands of their ancient enemy!  I think there is a strong message here for people trying to figure out how to live with the tension of prophetic statements that seem like they have not been true.

Brant Gardner:

We can easily imagine that the appointment of Amulon as king over Alma’s people would be the worst possible thing for them. The real question is why it was an acceptable proposition for the Lamanite army. Why do they post a man as king over a subject people when that man had stolen away the daughters of the Lamanites, and had only recently been united with them? Citation

CHAPTER 24

  1 And it came to pass that Amulon did gain favor in the eyes of the king of the Lamanites; therefore, the king of the Lamanites granted unto him and his brethren that they should be appointed teachers over his people, yea, even over the people who were in the land of Shemlon, and in the land of Shilom, and in the land of Amulon.

  2 For the Lamanites had taken possession of all these lands; therefore, the king of the Lamanites had appointed kings over all these lands.

  3 And now the name of the king of the Lamanites was Laman, being called after the name of his father; and therefore he was called king Laman. And he was king over a numerous people.

  4 And he appointed teachers of the brethren of Amulon in every land which was possessed by his people; and thus the language of Nephi began to be taught among all the people of the Lamanites.

So clearly Mormon wanted us to know that Nephite language (and, presumably, some cultural and religious ideas along with it) spread into Lamanite culture.  But why would we need to know this?  And are there any moral lessons to be drawn from this cultural exchange?

The Nephites and Lamanites have been separated for +/-500 years at this point.  That is probably not long enough to them to develop two mutually unintelligible languages, so this verse would then be indirect evidence that at least one of the groups had been intermixing with native people.

  5 And they were a people friendly one with another; nevertheless they knew not God; neither did the brethren of Amulon teach them anything concerning the Lord their God, neither the law of Moses; nor did they teach them the words of Abinadi;

Does the note about their being friendly surprise you?  Does it imply that “the saints” don’t have a corner on the “good neighbor” market?

The law of Moses note is interesting, since the predecessors of the brethren of Amulon (=the priests of Noah) claimed that they were in fact teaching the law of Moses, and they were cognizant of it enough that they thought to trip Abinadi up with it.  (One wonders if this is a bit of editorializing by Mormon to say that they weren’t teaching it properly.)

The “nor did they teach . . . Abinadi” seems sort of gratuitous–of course they wouldn’t teach that!

  6 But they taught them that they should keep their record, and that they might write one to another.

Why would he have taught them to keep a record, without a religious motivation to do so?

I’m curious about the balance (or:  opposition) between v5 and v6:  what does the inversion suggest?

What do you make of this ‘secularization’ of knowledge?  Are you surprised that they aren’t mentioned as teaching false religion?

  7 And thus the Lamanites began to increase in riches, and began to trade one with another and wax great, and began to be a cunning and a wise people, as to the wisdom of the world, yea, a very cunning people, delighting in all manner of wickedness and plunder, except it were among their own brethren.

What does this portrait tell you about life without the law?

  8 And now it came to pass that Amulon began to exercise authority over Alma and his brethren, and began to persecute him, and cause that his children should persecute their children.

  9 For Amulon knew Alma, that he had been one of the king’s priests, and that it was he that believed the words of Abinadi and was driven out before the king, and therefore he was wroth with him; for he was subject to king Laman, yet he exercised authority over them, and put tasks upon them, and put task-masters over them.

Does the use of “task-masters” invite us to compare the situation of Alma’s people with the children of Israel in Egypt?  If we make that comparison, what might we learn?

  10 And it came to pass that so great were their afflictions that they began to cry mightily to God.

Wait–they weren’t crying before?  What is this verse intended to convey?

  11 And Amulon commanded them that they should stop their cries; and he put guards over them to watch them, that whosoever should be found calling upon God should be put to death.

Is there a useful comparison to the Daniel story here?

 12 And Alma and his people did not raise their voices to the Lord their God, but did pour out their hearts to him; and he did know the thoughts of their hearts.

This suggests that they stopped their vocal/communal prayers, but continued to pray individually.  (Interesting parallel with 1 Samuel 1, when Hannah gets busted by Eli because she’s praying silently, which he didn’t recognize.)

  13 And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord came to them in their afflictions, saying: Lift up your heads and be of good comfort, for I know of the covenant which ye have made unto me; and I will covenant with my people and deliver them out of bondage.

Is it significant that it is “the voice” of the Lord and not just the Lord, or something else?  (I am wondering if this is related somehow to the idea of not praying out loud.  It might make a nice little commentary on the idea that even if you can’t get your voice to the Lord, the Lord can get a voice to you.)

Does the last line suggest something about a *new* covenant?  (I would have thought that this verse would refer to the Lord honoring the baptismal covenants that these people had already made, but that isn’t what the language suggests.)

Do you read this as Mormon’s summary, or as a revelation Alma received for all of the people, or as a personal revelation that all of the people received individually, or what?

  14 And I will also ease the burdens which are put upon your shoulders, that even you cannot feel them upon your backs, even while you are in bondage; and this will I do that ye may stand as witnesses for me hereafter, and that ye may know of a surety that I, the Lord God, do visit my people in their afflictions.

What does this verse suggest about the responsibilities of those who have been through trials?

David A. Bednar:

Now if I had been one of Alma’s people and received that particular assurance, my response likely would have been, “I thank thee, and please hurry!” But notice in verse 15 the process the Lord used to lighten the burden: “And now it came to pass that the burdens which were laid upon Alma and his brethren were made light; yea, the Lord did strengthen them that they could bear up their burdens with ease, and they did submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord” (emphasis added). Brothers and sisters, what was changed in this episode? It was not the burden that changed; the challenges and difficulties of persecution were not immediately removed from the people. But Alma and his followers were strengthened, and their increased capacity and strength made the burdens they bore lighter. These good people were empowered through the Atonement to act as agents and impact their circumstances–”in the strength of the Lord.” Alma and his people were then directed to safety in the land of Zarahemla. Now some of you may legitimately be wondering, “Brother Bednar, what makes you think the episode with Alma and his people is an example of the enabling power of the Atonement?” I believe the answer to your question is found in a comparison of Mosiah 3:19 and Mosiah 24:15. Let’s resume reading in Mosiah 3:19 where we previously had stopped: “and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father” (emphasis added). As we progress in the journey of mortality from bad to good to better, as we put off the natural man or woman in each of us, and as we strive to become saints and have our very natures changed, then the attributes detailed in this verse increasingly should describe the type of person you and I are becoming. We will become more childlike, more submissive, more patient, and more willing to submit. Now compare these characteristics in Mosiah 3:19 with those used to describe Alma and his people in the latter part of verse 15 in Mosiah 24: “and they did submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord” (emphasis added). I find the parallels between the attributes described in these verses striking and an indication that Alma’s good people were becoming a better people through the enabling power of the Atonement of Christ the Lord.  Citation

  15 And now it came to pass that the burdens which were laid upon Alma and his brethren were made light; yea, the Lord did strengthen them that they could bear up their burdens with ease, and they did submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord.

The obvious meaning of “light” would be “not heavy,” but is it possible that it could mean “not dark,” or be somehow related to the idea of Christ as the light of the world?  I’m also curious about how this language relates to the baptismal covenants that these people have made–but here, they are not carrying each other’s burdens (or are they)?

The “submit cheerfully” language just ticks me off.  (Sorry.)  I don’t think “cheerful” submission is required, I’m not convinced it is helpful, and I’m concerned that it conveys a certain form of denial-of-reality that is not helpful and can be confusing to other people (“Well, she seems to enjoy cleaning the kitchen all by herself, so I’m not going to get in her way.”).

  16 And it came to pass that so great was their faith and their patience that the voice of the Lord came unto them again, saying: Be of good comfort, for on the morrow I will deliver you out of bondage.

What do you conclude from the fact that faith and patience are singled out here?

  17 And he said unto Alma: Thou shalt go before this people, and I will go with thee and deliver this people out of bondage.

  18 Now it came to pass that Alma and his people in the night-time gathered their flocks together, and also of their grain; yea, even all the night-time were they gathering their flocks together.

  19 And in the morning the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites, yea, and all their task-masters were in a profound sleep.

Interesting contrast with Limhi–they didn’t need to get them drunk.

Does the “deep sleep” have any relationship to Adam in the garden?

  20 And Alma and his people departed into the wilderness; and when they had traveled all day they pitched their tents in a valley, and they called the valley Alma, because he led their way in the wilderness.

Thank you for not including the women as chattel.  Seriously, if we are going to draw a list of comparisons between Limhi’s and Alma’s people, it would be fair to include their categorization of women.

Interesting that previously, they didn’t call the place where they lived Alma but Helam.  Why Alma now?  (One wonders why they bothered naming the place at all when they knew they weren’t staying there.)

Shouldn’t they have credited the Lord–and not Alma–with leading their way in the wilderness?

  21 Yea, and in the valley of Alma they poured out their thanks to God because he had been merciful unto them, and eased their burdens, and had delivered them out of bondage; for they were in bondage, and none could deliver them except it were the Lord their God.

  22 And they gave thanks to God, yea, all their men and all their women and all their children that could speak lifted their voices in the praises of their God.

Again note that when Alma’s people mention women, it is not as chattel but as full participants in the life of the community.

  23 And now the Lord said unto Alma: Haste thee and get thou and this people out of this land, for the Lamanites have awakened and do pursue thee; therefore get thee out of this land, and I will stop the Lamanites in this valley that they come no further in pursuit of this people.

Given that we know that the Lord made them sleep, why do you think the Lord let them get up at this point?  But then note that he will stop the Lamanites.  What moral lessons might we draw from this?

  24 And it came to pass that they departed out of the valley, and took their journey into the wilderness.

  25 And after they had been in the wilderness twelve days *they arrived in the land of Zarahemla; and king Mosiah did also receive them with joy.

Compare 22:13-14:  “And after being many days in the wilderness they [=Limhi's people] arrived in the land of Zarahemla, and joined Mosiah’s people, and became his subjects. And it came to pass that Mosiah received them with joy.”  That verse seems to explain the “also” in this verse, and adds a little fuel to the fire (not that we needed any) that suggests that we should be closely comparing the experience of Limhi’s and Alma’s peoples.

This article on ch23-24 by Heather Hardy is very interesting.

General thoughts:

(1) Both Limhi’s group and Alma’s group are in bondage to the Lamanites and are freed from bondage in this section.  It would be interesting to compare their situations.  This article includes a chart that does that, at least in part.  What can you learn from comparing the two?  (I think one of the most important conclusions is that righteous living is no insulation from trial; it means the promise of help in trial.  For more on this theme, read this.)  Note that for Limhi’s people, the Lord was slow to hear their cry.  This is in contrast with Alma’s people, who have a much better connection to the Lord because of their righteousness.

(2) These chapters strike me as odd ducks.  Once we get past the classic baptism scene, we get war and abducted women and all sorts of things that you would have thought would have been left on the cutting room floor.  As I noted above, it seems that the GAs have collectively voted with their talks, so to speak, to leave these chapters out by not including them in any General Conference talks.  That might speak not only to the odd subject matter, but also to the fact that trying to draw moral conclusions from these passages is something of a head-scratcher (“Don’t let your daughters dance near hiding wicked priests.”).  What do you make of these chapters?  Why were they included?  What can we learn from them?

(3) More contrasts:   Alan Goff writes,

Both Alma and Amulon led colonies into the wilderness: Alma and his people, when Noah’s soldiers discovered their “movement,” “took their tents and their families and departed into the wilderness” (Mosiah 18:32, 34). Amulon and his followers also fled into the wilderness, but at Noah’s command they left their families behind (see Mosiah 19:11-23). . . .

The wicked priests abandoned their wives when King Noah “commanded them that all the men should leave their wives and their children, and flee before the Lamanites” (Mosiah 19:11), then they went about trying to find substitute wives. The other Zeniffites would rather have perished than leave their wives and children behind (see Mosiah 19:12). Thus those who remained behind “caused that their fair daughters should stand forth and plead with the Lamanites that they would not slay them” (Mosiah 19:13). The daughters inspired “compassion” among the Lamanites, for they “were charmed with the beauty of their women” (Mosiah 19:14). Later, Amulon would do the same thing, sending out the Lamanite daughters he and the other priests had kidnapped to plead for mercy (see Mosiah 23:33-34).

The text has set up parallel examples for the reader to compare. The Zeniffites sent men out to find those who had fled their children and wives, “all save the king and his priests” (Mosiah 19:18), and had vowed that they would return to their wives and children or die seeking revenge if the Lamanites had killed them (Mosiah 19:19). The parallel stories of sending the two sets of daughters to beg for mercy from the Lamanites teach the reader that what appear to be the same actions actually differ when performed by the good-hearted on the one hand or the evil-hearted on the other. When we compare the people as the text invites us to do, we contrast the care the men of Limhi showed for their wives and children with the abandonment by the priests of Noah. All of these events define the lack of moral character of the priests. The fact that the Lamanite king was willing to permit the stealing of the Lamanite daughters by welcoming Amulon and the priests into his kingdom speaks badly of this king, just as the Israelites’ encouragement of the Benjaminites to kidnap their own daughters speaks badly of all Israel. The people of Limhi, on the other hand, “fought for their lives, and for their wives, and for their children” (Mosiah 20:11). These differences reveal not only the character of the priests of Noah, who abandoned their families rather than fall into Lamanite hands, but also of the Nephites, who decided to face death with their families rather than abandon them. Citation

(4) Heather Hardy writes:

The ambiguity increases as we continue to contrast the deliverance of Limhi’s and Alma’s peoples in light of Abinadi’s prophecies. In direct conflict with a central tenet of his message—that only God could deliver them—Limhi’s people appear to deliver themselves from the hands of the Lamanites by getting their guards drunk with a tribute of wine (Mosiah 22:1—2, 4—11). The text makes clear that this successful stratagem—as well as several previous failures—came from their own design, rather than from relying upon the Lord. Ammon and Limhi consult with the people about “how they should deliver out of bondage” (Mosiah 21:36; 22:1), and then Mormon tells us the name of the man who came up with the plan (Gideon) and has him present it to King Limhi in words that emphasize the theological difficulty: “I will be thy servant and deliver this people out of bondage” (Mosiah 22:4). “And it came to pass,” we are told, “that the king hearkened unto the words of Gideon” (Mosiah 22:9). This should sound ominous—wasn’t the Lord supposed to deliver them? And didn’t their afflictions only intensify when they tried to deliver themselves previously? (Mosiah 21:5—12). Are the vultures, hail, pestilence, and insects close at hand? Contrary to our expectations, all goes well with them. Gideon’s plan works, and they make their way to Zarahemla where they are received with joy. Yet the central tenet in Abinadi’s prophecy does matter, and Alma sets the record straight after both groups are united in Zarahemla: “And he did exhort the people of Limhi . . . that they should remember that it was the Lord that did deliver them” (Mosiah 25:16), contrary to both their own experience and the narrative’s naturalistic account of causation. And much later, when we meet Gideon again, Mormon recasts his role by describing him as “he who was an instrument in the hands of God in delivering the people of Limhi out of bondage” (Alma 1:8). Mormon believes, although he does not explicitly tell his readers, “Although we may attribute our successes to our own intelligence and daring, we nevertheless owe everything to God.” He is teaching us how to see here, suggesting that there is more to understand about how God operates in human lives. Citation

(5) Heather Hardy raises another issue:

When we examine the account of Alma’s people and attempt to correlate their experiences with Abinadi’s prophecies, an even more troubling discrepancy appears. Emphatically, Abinadi tells Noah’s people twice, in the name of the Lord, “Except this people repent and turn unto the Lord their God, they shall be brought into bondage” (Mosiah 11:23, 21). As we learn, Alma’s people do repent, stunningly. They believe the words of Abinadi and enter into a covenant at the waters of Mormon to serve the Lord and keep his commandments. They establish a church and flee at great peril from Noah’s kingdom (Mosiah 18). When Mormon picks up their story again in Mosiah 23, we find that they are prospering in their new land (Mosiah 23:19—20), precisely as we would expect, given Lehi’s promise to those who keep the commandments (2 Nephi 1:20). But again our expectations are overturned. If Abinadi’s prophecy is reliable, why should Alma’s people have been brought into bondage at all?  Citation

1 And it came to pass that *after the space of two years that Abinadi came among them in disguise, that they knew him not, and began to prophesy among them, saying: Thus has the Lord commanded me, saying—Abinadi, go and prophesy unto this my people, for they have hardened their hearts against my words; they have repented not of their evil doings; therefore, I will visit them in my anger, yea, in my fierce anger will I visit them in their iniquities and abominations.

This is THE funniest verse in the entire BoM and no one appreciates it–he goes to great lengths to hide his identity so he won’t get killed and then he blows his cover on the eighth word out of his mouth!  It’s hilarious!  And the best part is that he does it because he is so very committed to accurately relating God’s words to the people that he repeats his name.

Is the two years significant?  Why mention it?

In 11:29 that the eyes of the people were blinded–I am wondering if this might have some relationship to the fact that Abinadi can/does enter in disguise here.

Brant Gardner explains the blown disguise this way:  it was the people (11:29) who wanted to kill Abinadi, so he needs a disguise to get past them.  His real goal is the audience before Noah (and Alma).

The idea of a prophet in disguise is kind of interesting.  We can understand why it would have been necessary in this case, but it seems to put an usual burden on the audience to have a prophet in disguise, no?

In the Bible, “hearts” usually means “minds.”  What would it mean to harden your mind against the Lord’s words?  In what ways might we do that now?

“Visit” is a common OT word, with a much richer connotation than we usually give to it.

We are frequently told not to act from anger and to do what we can to dissipate our anger.  In this verse, the Lord is acting in his fierce anger.  What do you learn about anger from this?  In what ways might it be appropriate to have and act on anger in your own life (or does only the Lord get to do that)?

2 Yea, wo be unto this generation! And the Lord said unto me: Stretch forth thy hand and prophesy, saying: Thus saith the Lord, it shall come to pass that this generation, because of their iniquities, shall be brought into bondage, and shall be smitten on the cheek; yea, and shall be driven by men, and shall be slain; and the vultures of the air, and the dogs, yea, and the wild beasts, shall devour their flesh.

Is “this generation” just boilerplate, or is the idea of generations significant in some way?

Note that his first preaching mission was more repentance-focused, but this one is more focused on judgment.  We might then think a little more deeply about the “point” of his preaching if it is too late for repentance.  Reaching Alma is certainly part of it, speaking to modern audiences perhaps part of it.  It seems to me that one difficult piece of the puzzle to explain is the deep, rich doctrine (relation of Father and Son, prophecies of Jesus Christ, facets of resurrection) that Abinadi preaches to a crowd that has gone permanently around the bend.  Why would he do that?  How is that not ‘pearls before swine’?

One wonders how Mormon got his hands on a record of this speech–who would have preserved it?

Some modern translations of the Bible use “damn you” for “wo,” not in the casual modern cursing sense, but in the sense that the Lord really would damn someone.  What do you think “wo” means here?

Is the stretching forth of the hand symbolically significant?  (Note that Abinadi repeats very carefully the directions that he got from the Lord.)

It seems very obvious to say that our sins lead to spiritual bondage the way that in the Bible and BoM show sin leading to physical bondage.  Might there be something else going on here?  Do our sins lead to literal bondage in some ways?

One assumes that “smitten on the cheek” is in some way symbolic or representative.  What’s going on here?

3 And it shall come to pass that the life of king Noah shall be valued even as a garment in a hot furnace; for he shall know that I am the Lord.

The thing is:  in the ancient world, garments would have been expensive and highly valued.  You’d be really bummed if yours went into a furnace!  Of course, once it was in, it would be of no value.  But there are a lot of other metaphors that Abinadi (or the Lord) could have used to make the point of “worthless.”  So why this one–what does it accomplish?

I don’t care if he was a jerk, I don’t really like the idea of any human life being regarded as without value.

What is the relationship between the value of Noah’s life and his knowing or not knowing the Lord?

The focus on the value of Noah’s life seems out of place.  Why is that an issue here?

What is the link between the two phrases in this verse?

Hugh Nibley suggested that this statement is a curse and a riff on Isaiah 50:9-11 (which is also found in 2 Nephi).  If so, that’s interesting because of the context there:

4 The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned. 5 The Lord God hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. 6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. 7 For the Lord God will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed. 8 He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand together: who is mine adversary? let him come near to me. 9 Behold, the Lord God will help me; who is he that shall condemn me? lo, they all shall wax old as a garment; the moth shall eat them up. 10 Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.  11 Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

Note how well those verses fit what is happening in Abinadi’s life, and even perhaps allude (in this application, if not in Isaiah’s original intention) in v10 to Alma.  It is easy to see how Abinadi would have seen these verses applying to his life.  John A. Tvedtnes points out here that the parallel is not perfect because in Isaiah, the garment is consumed by the moth (v9) and not the fire (v11); he points out that under the law of Moses, a plagued garment was to be burned.  That also makes sense as a context here–that Abinadi is categorizing Noah as plagued, hence the burning.

4 And it shall come to pass that I will smite this my people with sore afflictions, yea, with famine and with pestilence; and I will cause that they shall howl all the day long.

It is very easy, I think, to focus on how mean the Lord is in this verse.  It is worthy remembering that the larger context is that, despite the terrible behavior of the people, the Lord warned them of what would happen and was, in that sense, merciful.

5 Yea, and I will cause that they shall have burdens lashed upon their backs; and they shall be driven before like a dumb ass.

Every deacon’s favorite verse!

Brant Gardner suggests that since the ancient Americas did not have beasts of burden, this is a “thought-for-thought” and not a “word-for-word” translation into English.  (This, of course, raises huge issues about the translation of the BoM.)

6 And it shall come to pass that I will send forth hail among them, and it shall smite them; and they shall also be smitten with the east wind; and insects shall pester their land also, and devour their grain.

Do you feel that natural disasters are evidence of God’s wrath?  Should you?  (If not, then why are things different now?)

7 And they shall be smitten with a great pestilence—and all this will I do because of their iniquities and abominations.

8 And it shall come to pass that except they repent I will utterly destroy them from off the face of the earth; yet they shall leave a record behind them, and I will preserve them for other nations which shall possess the land; yea, even this will I do that I may discover the abominations of this people to other nations. And many things did Abinadi prophesy against this people.

Previous chapters made a big deal of the fact that it was wicked priests and leaders that set the people on the wrong path.  In this chapter, by contrast, it looks like it is the responsibility of the people (not the leaders or priests in particular) to get things ship-shape.  I’m curious about this dynamic.

Do you think the dynamic described in this verse is what happened with the Jaredites and the Nephites?  If it is a pattern, what do we learn from the pattern about the Lord?  About societies?  Anything about individuals?

I would think that the “them” in “preserve them” refers to “a record,” but there is a singular/plural disagreement there.  If the “them” refers to the people-who-don’t-repent, then it is interesting that the people are preserved, not literally but through their records.

Thinking about the last sentence–why might the record be cut off here, so that we don’t get the record of the other things that Abinadi prophesied?

This verse reminds me of this.

Donald W. Parry identifies the following chiasmus:

A Abinadi, go and prophesy unto this my people, for they have hardened their hearts
against my words
B they have repented not of their evil doings; therefore,
A I will visit them
B in my anger,
B yea, in my fierce anger
A will I visit them
C in their iniquities and abominations.
2 D Yea, wo be unto this generation! And the Lord said unto me: Stretch forth thy
hand and prophesy saying: Thus saith the Lord, it shall come to pass that
this generation,
E because of their iniquities, shall be brought into bondage, and
shall be smitten on the cheek;
F yea, and shall be driven by men, and shall be slain; and the vultures of
the air, and the dogs, yea, and the wild beasts, shall devour their flesh.
3 And it shall come to pass that the life of king Noah shall be valued
even as a garment in a hot furnace; for he shall know that I am the Lord.
4 G And it shall come to pass that I will smite this my people with
sore afflictions, yea, with famine and with pestilence; and I
will cause that they shall howl all the day long.
5 H Yea, and I will cause that they shall have burdens lashed
upon their backs;
H and they shall be driven before like a dumb ass.
6 G And it shall come to pass that I will send forth hail among them,
and it shall smite them; and they shall also be smitten with the east wind;
and insects shall pester their land also,
F and devour their grain.
7 E And they shall be smitten with a great pestilence—
D and all this will I do
C because of their iniquities and abominations.
8 B And it shall come to pass that except they repent I will utterly destroy them from off
the face of the earth; yet they shall leave a record behind them, and I will preserve
them for other nations which shall possess the land; yea, even this will I do that I
may discover the abominations of this people to other nations.
A And many things did Abinadi prophesy against this people. Citation

What I find interesting about that structure is that it turns the focal point of the passage to the burdens.  Why might that be so significant?  (Is that because it is what Limhi & Co. are complaining about in the future, which we’ve already encountered in the text?)

9 And it came to pass that they were angry with him; and they took him and carried him bound before the king, and said unto the king: Behold, we have brought a man before thee who has prophesied evil concerning thy people, and saith that God will destroy them.

In v1, this speech was introduced as “prophesying.”  Why do you think that word was chosen?  What does it tell us about what we should expect from prophesying?

Does the reaction of anger surprise you?

Note that we recently had reference to the Lord’s anger.  What can you learn from comparing the Lord’s anger with the anger of the people?

Their complaint is so interesting:  it is very true that Abinadi has prophesied evil.  But in this case, it was the right thing to do.  This reminds me of Jana Riess’s tweet for Micah 3:  “If a prophet takes your $$ & says you’re amazing…fraud alert! Real prophets have mood disorders & lecture you for free.”

If we agree with Gardner that the only purpose of v1-9 was to get Abinadi an audience with Noah, then it might be interesting to review those verses, realizing that touching the hearts of the audience was never really an option.  How might you read those verses differently in that case?  (One thought I had is that Abinadi sounds something like John the Baptist in these verses, and so it might be interesting to speculate as to whether John’s mission was in any way similar.)

10 And he also prophesieth evil concerning thy life, and saith that thy life shall be as a garment in a furnace of fire.

What he actually said in v3 was, “the life of king Noah shall be valued even as a garment in a hot furnace.”  Is the difference significant?  (I’m wondering if there is a commentary on literalness here, made more interesting by Noah’s ultimate fate [see Mosiah 19:20].)

11 And again, he saith that thou shalt be as a stalk, even as a dry stalk of the field, which is run over by the beasts and trodden under foot.

Um, no.  He didn’t actually say that, at least not in the record we have.  So are we to assume that he said this but it wasn’t recorded  (which would be interesting and weird, because it would require us to use these tattlers as a source for a prophet’s words) or that he didn’t say it but they are making it up (also weird, given that you can’t really top v11–so what’s the point?)?

12 And again, he saith thou shalt be as the blossoms of a thistle, which, when it is fully ripe, if the wind bloweth, it is driven forth upon the face of the land. And he pretendeth the Lord hath spoken it. And he saith all this shall come upon thee except thou repent, and this because of thine iniquities.

Same as v11–did he really say this?

I like the “pretendeth” that the Lord has spoken it.  What should we learn from this?

Also note that they make personally applicable to Noah what Abinadi said of the people more generally.  Why might they do this?

13 And now, O king, what great evil hast thou done, or what great sins have thy people committed, that we should be condemned of God or judged of this man?

Such an interesting verse–clear irony in that their words are true.

I’m curious about the “or”:  is it suggesting that a king’s evil and a people’s sins are interchangeable?  Then we get another “or,” linking together being condemned of God and judged by Abinadi.

Note the subtle shift in making the judgment Abinadi’s and not the Lord’s.

14 And now, O king, behold, we are guiltless, and thou, O king, hast not sinned; therefore, this man has lied concerning you, and he has prophesied in vain.

15 And behold, we are strong, we shall not come into bondage, or be taken captive by our enemies; yea, and thou hast prospered in the land, and thou shalt also prosper.

Note the role they are assigning to their own strength.

What do you learn from this verse about the moral relevance of “prospering”?

16 Behold, here is the man, we deliver him into thy hands; thou mayest do with him as seemeth thee good.

Why are so many verses devoted to the (at least partially) false report of Abinadi’s speech?  What is the reader to learn from this?

I was struck as I reread these chapters at how orderly and law-abiding Noah’s society was:  notice that the mob doesn’t just kill him–they aren’t really a mob.  They turn him in to the proper authorities.  Later, Noah will consult with his priests (v17 and others).  I think there is a subtext of condemning a “we’re just following the laws–not my fault a prophet was killed” or “we must be good–we follow laws!” society in the Abinadi story.

Another thing:  note that the majority of the people seem happy to live under Noah’s rule.  When Abinadi says that Noah is toast, there’s no “yeah!  I never liked that guy anyway!”  Instead, the impulse of the crowd is to turn Abinadi in.  So perhaps another subtle critique is that a wicked person like Noah can be the kind of ruler that makes his people really content.

17 And it came to pass that king Noah caused that Abinadi should be cast into prison; and he commanded that the priests should gather themselves together that he might hold a council with them what he should do with him.

Does it surprise you to see Noah counseling with his priests?

Note that the end result of Abinadi faithfully fulfilling his assignment from the Lord is a prison sentence.

18 And it came to pass that they said unto the king: Bring him hither that we may question him; and the king commanded that he should be brought before them.

Do you have any sense as to why they would want to question him?  Do they not believe the people’s report?

Does it surprise you that, at least in this verse, the priests appear to be calling the shots for a king who acts like a puppet?

19 And they began to question him, that they might cross him, that thereby they might have wherewith to accuse him; but he answered them boldly, and withstood all their questions, yea, to their astonishment; for he did withstand them in all their questions, and did confound them in all their words.

Do you take from “that thereby they might have wherewith to accuse him” that they couldn’t accuse him based just on the word of the people?  (I’m wondering if maybe the point is to show that they were very diligently following parts of the law of Moses re witnesses here.)

What does “cross him” mean here?

I find it interesting that the priests’ response is to want an open airing of ideas so that Abinadi can be shot down in the court of public opinion (so to speak) as opposed to being shot down by a firing squad (so to speak) or condemned with a simple appeal to the authority of the priests or whatever.

Does “boldly” surprise you?  What does it mean here?  Given that the sentence with “boldly” in it begins with “but,” I suspect that “boldly” is presented as hampering the “crossing.”  I suspect that this is significant, but I don’t know what it means.

How might he have “withstood” their questions?  (It seems that he would have “succumbed” to their questions, inasmuch as he would have said that Noah and the people in general were very, very naughty.)

Do you read this verse as a summary of what will follow (and, in that case, what do we learn from this framing?) or as its own incident, in which case, why don’t we get any details about what happened (because it sure does sound interesting!)?

Webster 1828 confound:

1. To mingle and blend different things, so that their forms or natures cannot be distinguished; to mix in a mass or crowd, so that individuals cannot be distinguished.

2. To throw into disorder.

3. To mix or blend, so as to occasion a mistake of one thing for another.

4. To perplex; to disturb the apprehension by indistinctness of ideas or words.

5. To abash; to throw the mind into disorder; to cast down; to make ashamed.

6. To perplex with terror; to terrify; to dismay; to astonish; to throw into consternation; to stupify with amazement.

7. To destroy; to overthrow.

20 And it came to pass that one of them said unto him: What meaneth the words which are written, and which have been taught by our fathers, saying:

Why is the question-asker not named?

The passage quoted beginning in the next verse is Isaiah 52:7-10.

Ann Madsen has suggested that the reason they ask him about this particular passage is that they are trying to imply that prophets are supposed to offer shiny, happy messages–not all this gloom and doom that Abinadi has spoken.  In other words, I think most readers assume that the “what meaneth” is a genuine “we have no idea what Isaiah means, but think that you do.”  This seems unlikely; why would these priests think that Abinadi is better at interpreting Isaiah than they are?  Instead it seems more likely that the priests are somewhat snarkily saying “Isaiah said prophets are supposed to bring good news, so you are obviously a false prophet–what do you make of that?”  and hence “cross” him because he either needs to rescind his own gloomy message or take a position contrary to Isaiah’s.  In that case, I think there is a bigger message here about how you interpret the prophets.  There’s also an interesting critique of Noah’s priests for their false interpretations.  (And, really, crazy interpretations–you can’t get very far in Isaiah without getting doom and gloom.  If I ever gave a talk on prooftexting, I’d probably start with this incident as an example of What Not to Do.)  The wo that Abinadi delivers in v26 for perverting the way of the Lord suggests this.

21 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings;

that publisheth peace;

that bringeth good tidings of good; that publisheth salvation;

that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth;

Translation:  “We’re so dang happy to see the messenger come with good news!”

Irony alert:  these people just got a messenger, Abinadi.  On the surface, his message sounds terrible and dismal, but if they listen to it and repent, it is a message of good tidings, because it will save their sorry butts from destruction.

22 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice;

with the voice together shall they sing;

for they shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion;

Translation:  “When the watchmen see the Lord coming, they will shout for joy!”

Irony alert:  These priests should have been these watchman, but instead, they are working right now to accuse the watchman (perhaps this is why the word “prophesy” is used several times to describe what Abinadi said?) so they can kill him.

23 Break forth into joy;

sing together ye waste places of Jerusalem;

for the Lord hath comforted his people,

he hath redeemed Jerusalem;

Translation:  “Be happy, Jersualem!  The Lord will protect you!”

Irony:  Noah’s people will be destroyed, because they will not listen to the messenger.

24 The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations,

and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God?

Translation: “The Lord will show his power and everyone will know the score.”

Irony:  In v2, the Lord told Abinadi (and he made a point of telling us) about the outstretched arm.  Everyone should be able to see what is going on, but no one (except Alma, but we aren’t there yet) does.

I think we can conclude from this except that Zeniff and Co. took a copy of (at least part of) the brass plates with them.

This passage from Isaiah is very much a time when “all is well in Zion,” and the priests of Noah use it to suggest that Abinadi is wrong in thinking that they are in big trouble.  The real issue here (as it so often is in the BoM) is proper interpretation of the scriptures.  (And, a side point or two:  the scriptures do not interpret themselves, and the interpretation really, really matters.)  His wo for perverting the way of the Lord (v26) suggests this.

25 And now Abinadi said unto them: Are you priests, and pretend to teach this people, and to understand the spirit of prophesying, and yet desire to know of me what these things mean?

What justifies his snark?

In the OT, priests are responsible for the sacrifices of the temple system, but not really teaching per se.  Here, those roles seem more combined.

What does “the spirit of prophesying” have to do with anything?

We know that Jesus frequently had to deal with people trying to trip him up with unanswerable questions.  (Are there other scriptural examples of this?)  What might we learn from comparing Abinadi and Jesus?

Do you conclude from Abinadi’s words that real priests should all understand Isaiah?  ;)

I think he’s calling their bluff–the priests weren’t genuinely asking him if he could explain it, they were trying to trip him up since he wasn’t delivering shiny, happy prophecies.  But they asked “what meaneth” and so he responds to that actual question, perhaps hoping to embarrass them, or perhaps to avoid saying something like “those words from Isaiah don’t apply to your current situation.”  Instead, the walk-through the Ten Commandments that he is about to deliver will show them why the glad tidings don’t apply to their situation.

26 I say unto you, wo be unto you for perverting the ways of the Lord! For if ye understand these things ye have not taught them; therefore, ye have perverted the ways of the Lord.

It seems normal to ask a prophet to interpret another prophet; why does he condemn them?

Why does he say “if ye understand these things” when it seems pretty clear that they don’t?

What precisely are the things that they should have been teaching, in relation to the Isaiah quote?

27 Ye have not applied your hearts to understanding; therefore, ye have not been wise. Therefore, what teach ye this people?

In the Bible, “heart” usually means “mind.”

What would it look like to apply your heart to understanding?

Is Abinadi defining “wise” as someone who applies their heart/mind to understanding?  Is that a good definition?

You like how he turned the tables on them with his own question?

When we get to the Ten Commandments discussion, things seem really straight-forward.  Why would “thou shalt not kill” require you to apply your heart/mind to understanding?  Or, maybe a better context would be the Isaiah “beautiful feet” passage just discussed.  What would applying your heart/mind to understanding that passage actually look like?  What does this teach us about scripture interpretation?

28 And they said: We teach the law of Moses.

Such a fascinating answer!  It is orthodox and correct!  As Brant Gardner writes, “What they are attempting to do is place themselves as defenders of the law of Moses, and by contrast, Abinadi would have to be against the law of Moses, and therefore culpable.”  Citation

29 And again he said unto them: If ye teach the law of Moses why do ye not keep it? Why do ye set your hearts upon riches? Why do ye commit whoredoms and spend your strength with harlots, yea, and cause this people to commit sin, that the Lord has cause to send me to prophesy against this people, yea, even a great evil against this people?

Does Abinadi assume here that it is possible to keep the law of Moses, and does this contradict Paul?

Why is riches the first thing that he mentions?  How does that relate to “keeping the law of Moses,” which we tend to think of as being a list of rules, and not so much related to “what your heart is set on”?

What would it mean to set your heart/mind on riches?  How does this relate to applying your heart/mind to understanding in v27?

30 Know ye not that I speak the truth? Yea, ye know that I speak the truth; and you ought to tremble before God.

What purpose is accomplished by asking a question and then immediately answering it yourself?

31 And it shall come to pass that ye shall be smitten for your iniquities, for ye have said that ye teach the law of Moses. And what know ye concerning the law of Moses? Doth salvation come by the law of Moses? What say ye?

Does salvation come by the law of Moses?  (See v33.)

32 And they answered and said that salvation did come by the law of Moses.

Note that this interchange began with them attempting to set a trap for Abinadi, but here he has set one for them; they have to say that salvation comes by the law, because they haven’t been teaching anything else (i.e., about the coming Messiah).

33 But now Abinadi said unto them: I know if ye keep the commandments of God ye shall be saved; yea, if ye keep the commandments which the Lord delivered unto Moses in the mount of Sinai, saying:

So that is a “yes, salvation does come by the law of Moses”?  Is that what you expected?  (See also 13:27.)  How does this verse relate to v32?  (Brant Gardner suggests that what Abinadi is doing here is starting from common ground with them.)

34 I am the Lord thy God, who hath brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Is this a commandment?  (Notice the set-up in v33.)

35 Thou shalt have no other God before me.

Our version of the Ten Commandments in Exodus has “gods” instead of “God.”  Thoughts on how/why the change was made?

36 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven above, or things which are in the earth beneath.

37 Now Abinadi said unto them, Have ye done all this? I say unto you, Nay, ye have not. And have ye taught this people that they should do all these things? I say unto you, Nay, ye have not.

Were they actually practicing idolatry?  Had they created other gods?

I’m a little curious about the diction because v35 and v36 say “thou shalt not” but this verse says “have ye done all this?” when following the Ten Commandments should mean that they had not done anything.

CHAPTER 13

1 And now when the king had heard these words, he said unto his priests: Away with this fellow, and slay him; for what have we to do with him, for he is mad.

This seems like one of chapter divisions that would be best ignored since it breaks apart one scene.

Can you discern what set Noah off in 12:37 that didn’t set him off before that point?

“For what have we to do with him” is reminiscent of the language that the demons use to speak to Jesus.

What would madness have meant to Noah?  Do you think he genuinely believed Abinadi was mad, or is this just CYA?

Do you find it curious that it is the king who responds this way when it is the priests who have been slammed in the previous verse?  (I’m wondering if we might read this outburst from Noah as filling the stunned silence of the priests.)

2 And they stood forth and attempted to lay their hands on him; but he withstood them, and said unto them:

What do you make of a prophet fighting off priests?  (And, note, fighting off a legitimate legal authority.)

3 Touch me not, for God shall smite you if ye lay your hands upon me, for I have not delivered the message which the Lord sent me to deliver; neither have I told you that which ye requested that I should tell; therefore, God will not suffer that I shall be destroyed at this time.

What a great verse:  “I’ve got work to do–back off!”

Given that his fulfilling of his mission landed him in prison, how does he know that God won’t let him be destroyed at this point?

Does “destroyed” strike you as the right word here?

I suspect the “destroyed at this time” line means that he knows (through logic or through revelation) that he would in fact be destroyed by/for this mission.  So he’s pretty awesome (an anti-Jonah, if you will) for fulfilling the mission anyway.

4 But I must fulfil the commandments wherewith God has commanded me; and because I have told you the truth ye are angry with me. And again, because I have spoken the word of God ye have judged me that I am mad.

I’m feeling like there is a warning here in the dispensing of labels re mental illness, but perhaps that is a stretch.

5 Now it came to pass after Abinadi had spoken these words that the people of king Noah durst not lay their hands on him, for the Spirit of the Lord was upon him; and his face shone with exceeding luster, even as Moses’ did while in the mount of Sinai, while speaking with the Lord.

Is it significant that this verse refers to the people and not the priests?

Why does our author want us to think about Moses here?  What can we learn from comparing Abinadi and Moses?  How do their experiences differ?

What’s up with the shiny face?  Isn’t that precisely the kind of miracle that faith should have preceded (which clearly isn’t the case here)?  (Crazy idea:  I wonder if Alma, our presumed writer here, saw the shiny face but the rest of the people could not, and were just unable to touch Abinadi.)

“While speaking with the Lord” is interesting because it highlights the fact that Abinadi is not currently speaking to the Lord, but to someone who is opposed to the Lord.  What should you learn from this contrast?  (One message I like:  I think we sometimes act like you can only have a ‘spiritual experience’ if your environment is perfect, so I like how this shows that Abinadi can have that kind of experience in the presence of really bad people, because he is where the Lord called him to be.)

Elaine S. Dalton:

Can one righteous young woman change the world? The answer is a resounding “yes!” You have the Holy Ghost as your guide, and He “will show … you all things … [you] should do.” It is the daily consistent things you do that will strengthen you to be a leader and an example—daily prayer, daily scripture study, daily obedience, daily service to others. As you do these things, you will grow closer to the Savior and become more and more like Him. Like Moses and Abinadi and other faithful leaders, your face will glow with the fire of your faith.  Apr 06 GC

6 And he spake with power and authority from God; and he continued his words, saying:

Are “power” and “authority” two different things, or two ways of saying the same thing?

The cynic asks:  Was he not speaking with God’s power and authority before this point?

7 Ye see that ye have not power to slay me, therefore I finish my message. Yea, and I perceive that it cuts you to your hearts because I tell you the truth concerning your iniquities.

Is it true that they don’t have power–is that what v5 said?  Or that they didn’t choose to?

8 Yea, and my words fill you with wonder and amazement, and with anger.

I’m curious about the idea of a prophet knowing so much about the interior state of his listeners. . .

Brant Gardner:

In order to feel this pain, however, their hearts had to be capable of being touched by the spirit, otherwise they could not have recognized that they were personally in conflict with message Abinadi was delivering. This pain is the first step to an ability to repent, but it clearly does not guarantee repentance. Of all of the priests who were pierced by this awakening of the spirit, only one is known to have accepted the pain for what it was and repented. Citation

9 But I finish my message; and then it matters not whither I go, if it so be that I am saved.

What words would you use to describe Abinadi and what has to happen for someone to have those characteristics?

Does it bother you that Abinadi seems to value his life so very little?  Shouldn’t he care more?  (By comparison, Jesus asks for the cup to pass in Gethsemane.)

10 But this much I tell you, what you do with me, after this, shall be as a type and a shadow of things which are to come.

This is interesting . . . usually types and shadows are of Jesus.  This is more of a lived example of the Golden Rule in action.

11 And now I read unto you the remainder of the commandments of God, for I perceive that they are not written in your hearts; I perceive that ye have studied and taught iniquity the most part of your lives.

Was he “reading”?  Whose text?  Did he bring it, or was it in Noah’s court?  Why would he need to “read” the ten commandments–you’d think he’d know those, especially after the little lecture he just gave the priests for not understanding Isaiah.  Or does he mean “read” not in the sense of reading from a written source?

12 And now, ye remember that I said unto you: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of things which are in heaven above, or which are in the earth beneath, or which are in the water under the earth.

Note that Noah’s outburst is framed by references to this commandment.  Is this significant?  (Perhaps Noah has made his priests into idols?  Perhaps Noah and Co. are worshiping God as if God were a mere idol?  Something else?)

He would have said this all of a few minutes ago, so does the repetition surprise you?

13 And again: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me;

What does “jealous” mean in this context?  Should you be jealous?

Why is it right for the Lord to put the parents’ sins on the children?  (Why does it stop after the 4th generation?)  Note that in recent BoM history, a decent guy (Zeniff) had an awful kid (Noah) who had a decent kid (Limhi).  How does that square with what is being described in this verse?

14 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

What does this verse suggest about the relationship between loving God and keeping his commandments?

Why is mercy the appropriate result for loving God and keeping his commandments?

Russell M. Nelson:

Scriptures recorded in all dispensations teach that we show our love of God as we hearken to His commandments and obey them. These actions are closely connected. Apr 91 GC

15 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Aside from the random casual curse, how might we be tempted to take the name of the Lord in vain?

16 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

17 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work;

18 But the seventh day, the sabbath of the Lord thy God, thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates;

19 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Note that the “reason” given for the sabbath observance is because the Lord observed a sabbath after the creation.

20 Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Henry B. Eyring:

It is the only one of the Ten Commandments with a promise. Oct 09 GC

21 Thou shalt not kill.

Irony alert!  (Although the law of Moses does allow for–in fact, require–killing false prophets.)

22 Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal.

23 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

24 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.

Why does he recite the Ten Commandments instead of answering the question they asked?

I’m sorry, but this seems sort of . . . pedantic.  They might not have been doing a very good job in keeping the ten commandments, but surely they knew them!  Abinadi comes off as sort of . . . weird . . . to recite them, especially when the set up is, “What does this passage from Isaiah mean?”  What do you think is going on here?

25 And it came to pass that after Abinadi had made an end of these sayings that he said unto them: Have ye taught this people that they should observe to do all these things for to keep these commandments?

The 1830 BoM has a chapter break here.

Here’s what I find interesting:  if someone says “law of Moses,” I think most Mormons think:  “a bunch of picky rules that were supposed to point them to Christ but didn’t.”  But here, in a conversation about “the law of Moses,” Abinadi first discusses the Ten Commandments.  So:  If you think of the Ten Comm as central to the law of Moses (which on the one hand is obvious but on the other hand, I don’t think people really think of it that way), how does it shape your thinking about “the law of Moses”?

26 I say unto you, Nay; for if ye had, the Lord would not have caused me to come forth and to prophesy evil concerning this people.

How do you interpret what is going on in v25 if Abinadi answers his own question here?

Note the central role that the ten commandments play here.

It might be useful to review the description of Noah’s wickedness now that we know that Abinadi said that if they had just kept the Ten Comm, he wouldn’t have had to visit them.  (Is it true that all of the things they were doing wrong were violations of the Ten Comm?)

I find the idea of “prophesying evil” very interesting . . .

27 And now ye have said that salvation cometh by the law of Moses. I say unto you that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses.

Webster 1828 expedient:

1. Literally, hastening; urging forward. Hence, tending to promote the object proposed; fit or suitable for the purpose; proper under the circumstances.

2. Useful; profitable.

3. Quick; expeditious.

Really basic issue, but does it seem weird to you that the Lord would give different rules to people at different times?  What does this teach us about the Lord?

Can you determine how/why Abinadi shifts from the ten commandments specifically to the law of Moses more generally here?

Given that Abinadi has just taken the Ten Comm as the centerpiece of the Law of Moses, would it be fair to say that he is here saying that the time would come when the people would no longer need to follow the Ten Comm?  Is this right?

28 And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses.

Was Abinadi reasonable to think that this audience would understand what “atonement” means here?

What do you make of the “God himself” language here?

Are “sins” and “iniquities” two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?

Brant Gardner:

When we understand that Abinadi is speaking of the Messiah, and referring to the Messiah in terms of “God himself” atoning for man, we can see Abinadi setting up a situation in which the priests of Noah are teaching a false god because they are denying the Messianic role of that God. Thus Abinadi is very purposefully exposing the priests of Noah as having another god before the true God, the God-who-will-be-Messiah. Citation

29 And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God;

If a stiff-necked people require a strict law, what would a humble, celestial people require?

Is the gospel less “strict” than the law of Moses?

I’m curious about “quick” and “slow.”  Why those words?  Does it suggest something about what is “natural”?  Does it suggest that we need to slow down, so that we aren’t following our “quick” reaction?

30 Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.

What are “performances,” exactly, if they are not ordinances?  Are there “performances” for the gospel?

Why “from day to day”?  Does that mean “daily”?  Is the gospel any different–is it not “day to day”?

Duty is an interesting word–

31 But behold, I say unto you, that all these things were types of things to come.

What were the performances of the law of Moses, and of what were they types of?

What were the ordinances of the law of Moses, and of what were they types of?

Do you find it odd that something could be “strict” but still be a “type”?

What does this verse suggest to you about how you should read the Old Testament?

32 And now, did they understand the law? I say unto you, Nay, they did not all understand the law; and this because of the hardness of their hearts; for they understood not that there could not any man be saved except it were through the redemption of God.

A cynic would say that if they did not understand the law, then the Lord must have been doing something wrong.  How would you respond to that argument?

Why would being hard-hearted (or hard-minded) make it impossible to understand the law?  In what ways might we be hard-hearted, and therefore not be able to understand things?

The two negative in the end of the sentence are confusing me.  Does this sentence mean that they thought people could be saved without redemption?

What does redemption mean in this verse?

33 For behold, did not Moses prophesy unto them concerning the coming of the Messiah, and that God should redeem his people? Yea, and even all the prophets who have prophesied ever since the world began—have they not spoken more or less concerning these things?

(Do we have anything Moses said about the Messiah?)

I’m sorry, but I just love “more or less.”

Why would Abinadi mention Moses instead of Isaiah, when Isaiah is the one he quotes and Isaiah speaks more specifically about the Messiah than Moses does (at least in the records that we have)?

34 Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?

Do you take it as literally true or as hyperbole that all prophets (more or less) taught this?  (If they did, it suggests that almost all of them either didn’t write it down or at some point it didn’t make it into the canon, because we actually have messianic prophesies from very few prophets.)

“Mighty power” is interesting because we usually think of the incarnation as showing Jesus taking on a powerless state.

35 Yea, and have they not said also that he should bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, and that he, himself, should be oppressed and afflicted?

CHAPTER 14

1 Yea, even doth not Isaiah say:

Who hath believed our report,

and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

There is no chapter break in the 1830 BoM and the one now here is most unfortunate if it obscures the fact that the Isaiah quotation here is meant as Exhibit A for the argument that Abinadi was making in 14:34-35, which is that the prophets testified of the Messiah who would come.  (I have to say:  Abinadi’s use of Isaiah is super-straightforward compared to Jacob or Nephi.  It is patently obvious why and how Abinadi is using this Isaiah quotation.  Whew.)

This is a very interesting verse because the parallel could be read to construe that if you believe Isaiah’s report, then the arm (a symbol for power) of the Lord will be revealed to you.

This is nicely ironic, since no one (except Alma!) will believe what Abinadi is saying here.

2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,

and as a root out of dry ground;

he hath no form nor comeliness;

and when we shall see him there is no beauty that we should desire him.

What does this verse teach you about beauty?

3 He is despised and rejected of men;

a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;

and we hid as it were our faces from him;

he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

The word translated “grief” in this and the next verse can also be translated “disease.” Why is it important for us to know that Jesus was despised and rejected, that he felt sorrow and was acquainted with grief or disease?

Sometimes we try to answer the question, “Why is there suffering?” and we rarely come up with very satisfying answers. Notice, however, that the scriptures don’t even ask the question. Instead, as here, they point to Christ, showing that he too suffered, seeming to suggest that if he did we should expect to.  How do we square such an approach with our desire to account for suffering?

Note that if you are being Christ-like, you would be like the description in this verse.

I’m wondering if a secondary purpose of this quotation might be to draw a contrast between the Messiah and the character of Noah’s court, which would have been very appealing to the sense.

Why do “we” hide our faces from Christ?

Joseph B. Wirthlin:

May I extend a word of caution? There are those who feel that if we follow the Savior, our lives will be free from worry, pain, and fear. This is not so! The Savior Himself was described as a man of sorrows. Apr 02 GC

4 Surely he has borne our griefs,

and carried our sorrows;

yet we did esteem him stricken,

smitten of God, and afflicted.

This is a very interesting verse:  it says that we assume that people think/thought that Christ was being punished by God.

Again, Noah’s court assumed that their wealth and political stability meant that “all was well,” so we might see a contrast here.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions,

he was bruised for our iniquities;

the chastisement of our peace was upon him;

and with his stripes we are healed.

6 All we, like sheep, have gone astray;

we have turned every one to his own way;

and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all.

In verse 6 we were compared to sheep. In verse 7, he is. But our comparison was negative and this one is positive. What might the use of sheep in both comparisons indicate?

7 He was oppressed,

and he was afflicted,

yet he opened not his mouth;

he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,

and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb

so he opened not his mouth.

Interesting irony that Abinadi is very much opening his mouth here . . .

I suspect that Abinadi knew that his mission would end with his martyrdom.  If so, these words may have been particularly poignant to him, as he imagined himself in the same position.  (This would also apply to the next few verses.)

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment;

and who shall declare his generation?

For he was cut off out of the land of the living;

for the transgressions of my people was he stricken.

9 And he made his grave with the wicked,

and with the rich in his death;

because he had done no evil,

neither was any deceit in his mouth.

One wonders if Abinadi would have seen his own life in this passage, as a type of Christ or as a (very literal) follower of Christ.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him;

he hath put him to grief;

when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed,

he shall prolong his days,

and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see the travail of his soul,

and shall be satisfied;

by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;

for he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,

and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;

because he hath poured out his soul unto death;

and he was numbered with the transgressors;

and he bore the sins of many,

and made intercession for the transgressors.

Did Abinadi have this text in front of him or did he have it memorized?

Neal A. Maxwell:

Redeeming Jesus also “poured out his soul unto death.” As we on occasion “pour” out our souls in personal pleadings, we are thus emptied, making room for more joy! Apr 01 GC

CHAPTER 15

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

Does it surprise you that Abinadi is trying to teach such core doctrine to such wicked people?  Does Abinadi really think that they would/could understand this?  Why would he feel the need to preach this to them?  (Shouldn’t he have picked maybe “no more harlots” for his theme?)

Again we get the “God himself” language.

Brant Gardner points out that this verse, along with Mosiah 13:34-35 (“Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth? Yea, and have they not said also that he should bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, and that he, himself, should be oppressed and afflicted?”) bracket the quotation of Isaiah 53.  Oh, would that all Isaiah quotations were so transparently explained!  (More seriously, one gets the sinking feeling that the only way you get this “Isaiah for Dummies” type of explanation is . . . by being wicked enough to need it.)

I’m wondering if it is so easy to get caught up in the “God himself” language as a stumbling block that we might miss the larger message here:  that God (however defined) is so concerned about us that direct, personal, physical, painful action is warranted to save us from the fall.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

I think this verse (and those that follow) sounds 100% compatible with classic Trinitarian doctrine and 100% incompatible with modern LDS understanding.  We see the Son and the Father as fundamentally separate, not separate just because the Son is “dwelling in the flesh.”  We do not see anyone as being “the Father and the Son.”  (I am familiar with the adoptionist theology and some other apologetic readings of these verses that some LDS subscribe too; it seems too convenient and reverse-engineered to me.)

I’m curious about “subjected the flesh to the will of the Father.”  First, does it surprise you that the will of the Son and the will of the Father would not necessarily be the same (see also v7)?  What should we learn from this?  Second, why the emphasis on “the flesh”?

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

I think this verse is suggesting that the Son is the Father because he was conceived by the power of God.  In what sense might this be true?

Joseph Fielding Smith:

What is a father? One who begets or gives life. What did our Savior do? He begot us, or gave us life from death, as clearly set forth by Jacob, the brother of Nephi. If it had not been for the death of our Savior, Jesus Christ, the spirit and body would never have been united again. Death would have been inevitable and, as Jacob states . . . if there had been no redemption from death our spirits would have been taken captive by Satan, and we would have become subject to Satan’s will forever. What did our Savior do? He begot us in that sense. He became a father to us because he gave us immortality or eternal life through his death and sacrifice upon the cross. I think we have a perfect right to speak of him as Father. Oct 62 GC

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Can you discern what relation v1-4 has to the Isaiah quotation that comes right before it?

Here‘s a First Presidency statement on the Father and the Son.

I really don’t like to get into these christological debates, but one wonders if Abinadi’s emphasis on the unity of the Father and the Son (“God himself” said twice) is related to the outburst in 12:37-13:1, with the point being that Noah’s priests were somehow very involved in separating the Messiah from God.  (Although this, nor any other really theological item, is included in the laundry list of sins in Mosiah 11.  Sidenote on that:  one looks at that list and thinks that what these people need is a lecture on social justice and the gospel.  But what they get is doctrine about the relationship of the Father and the Son.  I’m not sure what to make of that.)

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

Can you determine why Christ’s flesh is the subject that Abinadi focuses on here?  Remember that the setting is that he is being entrapped by Noah’s priests, they have asked about the “beautiful feet” quote, and Abinadi has answered with the Ten Commandments and Isaiah 53.  How does this all relate?

This verse (and the ones before it) seem to want to emphasize the flesh=Son and Spirit=Father angle.

What is the subject for “suffereth” and “yieldeth”?

Neal A. Maxwell:

Enduring temptation is one of the greatest challenges. Jesus endured temptation but yielded not. (See Mosiah 15:5.) Christ withstood because He gave “no heed” to temptations. (D&C 20:22.) You and I tend to dally over and dabble in temptations, entertaining them for a while, even if we later evict them. However, to give temptations any heed can set the stage for later succumbing. Apr 90 GC

D. Todd Christofferson:

Jesus was also a being of flesh and spirit, but He yielded not to temptation (see Mosiah 15:5). We can turn to Him as we seek unity and peace within, because He understands. He understands the struggle, and He also understands how to win the struggle. As Paul said, “We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). Oct 02 GC

6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.

7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.

Modern (Christian) readers usually read Isaiah 53 as being primarily about Jesus Christ and his suffering.  (Jews usually read it as being about Israel corporately.) Abinadi is at least as interested in what it says about the relationship of the Father and the Son.  What to make of this?

For all that the surface reading of Abinadi’s words would suggest that he appears to think the Father and the Son are the same person, this verse (with the suggestion that the will of the Son was not the same as the will of the Father) would suggest that he thought there were two separate beings.

Once again, I think we might miss some of what Abinadi is teaching because we are so busy apologizing for the fact that he uses some terms differently than we usually do, but there is a fascinating bit here about, if I can combine two phrases, the will of the spirit swallowing up the will of the flesh.  This of all things could and should be most relevant to our lives.

I’m curious about the flesh:son::spirit:Father thing set up here.

8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—

9 Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice.

Skousen reads “having taken” here.

I feel like the semi colon after mercy shouldn’t be there.

What does the image of Christ standing between you and (anthropomorphized?) justice suggest?

What does the image of death having bands suggest to you?

10 And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?

Interesting that the first question is straight out of the Isaiah passage that he just quoted but the second and third are his own creation.

11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.

12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

Does this verse imply that Christ did not die for those who are not faithful (per v11)?

What is accomplished by describing the faithful as Christ’s children?  (See maybe Mark 15:34 for an example of a child of Christ.)

It seems pretty clear that what Abinadi is doing here is saying that Christ’s seed is the faithful saints.  If that is the case, could you read this passage as a larger commentary on the (lack of) importance of biological relationships, a theme most at home in the OT and the NT but one, obviously, at some odds with modern LDS thought?

13 Yea, and are not the prophets, every one that has opened his mouth to prophesy, that has not fallen into transgression, I mean all the holy prophets ever since the world began? I say unto you that they are his seed.

Interesting that this verse implies that some prophets have fallen into transgression.

What is the verb in the question in this verse?  (I think it is implied that the faithful prophets are Christ’s seed, but it doesn’t actually say that.)

If you read v11-12, I think you would assume that all the prophets would be included.  What does Abinadi accomplish by mentioning them separately here?

14 And these are they who have published peace, who have brought good tidings of good, who have published salvation; and said unto Zion: Thy God reigneth!

“Published peace” is a very interesting phrase, when most prophets have actually sown contention, including Abinadi himself!

15 And O how beautiful upon the mountains were their feet!

I like how Abinadi kind of sneaks up on answering their question.  At this point, we need to ask:  Why did he lead in with the Ten Commandments and Isaiah 53 before getting to what they asked him?  And, why does he chastise them for asking before he answers the question?

So note that what he is saying is that those who believe Christ are his seed, and those are the same people who publish peace and have pretty feet.  How, then, would this address the original use of this passage by Noah’s priests which, I think, was to entrap Abinadi since Abinadi was preaching doom and gloom and not happy stuff?

Why is pretty feet on the mountain a good metaphor for prophets teaching about Jesus?

16 And again, how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those that are still publishing peace!

Is this a less-than-perfectly-humble moment for Abinadi?

17 And again, how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those who shall hereafter publish peace, yea, from this time henceforth and forever!

18 And behold, I say unto you, this is not all. For O how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that is the founder of peace, yea, even the Lord, who has redeemed his people; yea, him who has granted salvation unto his people;

Note the big point here:  Noah’s priests thought that the “good news” prophets should be bringing is “all is well in Zion,” but Abinadi teaches that the good news prophets should be bringing is about the Messiah.  And sometimes, if you are really wicked, that good news about the Messiah is actually going to sound pretty bad.

19 For were it not for the redemption which he hath made for his people, which was prepared from the foundation of the world, I say unto you, were it not for this, all mankind must have perished.

20 But behold, the bands of death shall be broken, and the Son reigneth, and hath power over the dead; therefore, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead.

21 And there cometh a resurrection, even a first resurrection; yea, even a resurrection of those that have been, and who are, and who shall be, even until the resurrection of Christ—for so shall he be called.

22 And now, the resurrection of all the prophets, and all those that have believed in their words, or all those that have kept the commandments of God, shall come forth in the first resurrection; therefore, they are the first resurrection.

Donald W. Parry identifies the following chiasmus:

20 A But behold, the bands of death
B shall be broken,
C and the Son reigneth,
D and hath power over the dead;
E therefore, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead.
21 F And there cometh a resurrection,
G even a first resurrection;
H yea, even a resurrection of those that have been, and who
are, and who shall be,
I even until the resurrection
J of Christ—
J for so shall he be called.
22 I And now, the resurrection
H of all the prophets, and all those that have believed in their
words, or all those that have kept the commandments of God,
G shall come forth in the first resurrection;
F therefore, they are the first resurrection.
23 E They are raised to dwell with God who has redeemed them;
D thus they have eternal life
C through Christ,
B who has broken
A the bands of death. Citation

I like how that structure puts the emphasis of the passage on Christ.

23 They are raised to dwell with God who has redeemed them; thus they have eternal life through Christ, who has broken the bands of death.

Does it surprise you that there is no discussion of necessary ordinances here?

24 And these are those who have part in the first resurrection; and these are they that have died before Christ came, in their ignorance, not having salvation declared unto them. And thus the Lord bringeth about the restoration of these; and they have a part in the first resurrection, or have eternal life, being redeemed by the Lord.

Skousen reads “and there are those who have part” here.

Wait–why “in their ignorance” is all the prophets had taught of Christ?

Robert J. Matthews:

An interesting note is that in speaking of the righteous who have the gospel and obey it in mortal life, Abinadi says, “They are the first resurrection” (Mosiah 15:22; emphasis added). Whereas, in speaking of those who did not have the gospel and who died in an ignorance not of their own making, he says, “They have a part in the first resurrection” (Mosiah 15:24; emphasis added). There is a distinction in the diction used here, but I am not certain what we can make of it. Citation

25 And little children also have eternal life.

26 But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection.

Is this verse teaching that post-mortal repentance is impossible?

27 Therefore ought ye not to tremble? For salvation cometh to none such; for the Lord hath redeemed none such; yea, neither can the Lord redeem such; for he cannot deny himself; for he cannot deny justice when it has its claim.

Does this verse parallel or conflate “the Lord” and “justice”?

28 And now I say unto you that the time shall come that the salvation of the Lord shall be declared to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.

29 Yea, Lord, thy watchmen shall lift up their voice; with the voice together shall they sing; for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion.

Does it surprise you at this point that Abinadi shifts to addressing the Lord?

Interesting that “voice” is singular here.  Is that related to the watchmen seeing “eye to eye”?  If so, does that imply that the watchmen do not see eye to eye now?

30 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.

What do you make of the fact that the last verse had the watchmen singing together but this verse has the waste places singing together?

Given that Abinadi just made a big point of saying that the unpenitent can’t be redeemed, who or what is the redeemed Jrsm in this verse?  (How do you know?)

31 The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.

CHAPTER 16

1 And now, it came to pass that after Abinadi had spoken these words he stretched forth his hand and said: The time shall come when all shall see the salvation of the Lord; when every nation, kindred, tongue, and people shall see eye to eye and shall confess before God that his judgments are just.

Is there a relationship between the Lord’s arm in 15:31 and Abinadi’s hand here?

There wasn’t originally a chapter break here, and the one here now obscures the fact that Abinadi just quoted Isaiah saying that the ends of the earth would see salvation, and this verse continues on that very same theme by describing what exactly they will see.

2 And then shall the wicked be cast out, and they shall have cause to howl, and weep, and wail, and gnash their teeth; and this because they would not hearken unto the voice of the Lord; therefore the Lord redeemeth them not.

3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.

Interesting that they are described as “carnal” when the last chapter was so focused on the flesh . . .

Why is the serpent a good symbol for the devil?  (There are lots of interesting theories on this, such as the fact that the serpent is nothing more or less than a digestive tract means that it is all appetites.)

Does this verse suggest that Adam was also “beguiled”?  (Or that they were a unit?)

Is it significant that, contra the usual practice, evil is mentioned before good here?

Is the fall the same as becoming carnal, etc.?

Why is sensual added to the carnal and devilish list?

I’m curious about “subjecting themselves to the devil.”  Did they do this when they ate of the fruit?

Can you determine why Abinadi begins to discuss the fall at this point?

The verse begins by describing those who are not redeemed as carnal and devilish and ends by describing all mankind as carnal, sensual, and devilish.  The next verse points out the connection more specifically, and v5 really pounds it home.  This is a strong message that the “default setting” of fallen humanity is unredeemed.

4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.

Think about the word “lost.”  What does it mean here?  In what sense have they been “found”?

5 But remember that he that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him. Therefore he is as though there was no redemption made, being an enemy to God; and also is the devil an enemy to God.

Are sin and rebellion two separate things or two ways of saying the same thing?

If you don’t go on in sin, are you no longer in a fallen state?

Does the devil literally have all power over fallen people, or is this hyperbole?

Is enemy the right word here?  (Is there no neutral?)

6 And now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they had already come, there could have been no redemption.

Why is he speaking of things to come as if they had already come?  (Should we do this?)

7 And if Christ had not risen from the dead, or have broken the bands of death that the grave should have no victory, and that death should have no sting, there could have been no resurrection.

Skousen omits the “have” before broken.

The phrase “bands of death” is used multiple times in this speech.  What does it suggest?

Isn’t it fair to say that death still has a sting?  (I think v8 addresses this more.)

8 But there is a resurrection, therefore the grave hath no victory, and the sting of death is swallowed up in Christ.

9 He is the light and the life of the world; yea, a light that is endless, that can never be darkened; yea, and also a life which is endless, that there can be no more death.

10 Even this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruption shall put on incorruption, and shall be brought to stand before the bar of God, to be judged of him according to their works whether they be good or whether they be evil—

1 Cor 15:53-54 reads:

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.  So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

What do you make of the similarities?

11 If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation, being delivered up to the devil, who hath subjected them, which is damnation—

12 Having gone according to their own carnal wills and desires; having never called upon the Lord while the arms of mercy were extended towards them; for the arms of mercy were extended towards them, and they would not; they being warned of their iniquities and yet they would not depart from them; and they were commanded to repent and yet they would not repent.

What does the image of extended arms of mercy suggest to you?

13 And now, ought ye not to tremble and repent of your sins, and remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved?

14 Therefore, if ye teach the law of Moses, also teach that it is a shadow of those things which are to come—

I’m surprised by the “if”; is he implying that there is a scenario under which they might not teach the law of Moses?

Think about shadows for a minute.  (I’m thinking about Plato’s Cave.)  What does the idea of a shadow suggest about the law of Moses?  How should this impact how we study and interpret the law of Moses?

15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

CHAPTER 17

1 And now it came to pass that when Abinadi had finished these sayings, that the king commanded that the priests should take him and cause that he should be put to death.

Had I been Abinadi, I’d have gone all Scheherazade on them, because if I hadn’t finished my message, then the powerful protection couldn’t be removed, and they wouldn’t have been able to kill me.

2 But there was one among them whose name was Alma, he also being a descendant of Nephi. And he was a young man, and he believed the words which Abinadi had spoken, for he knew concerning the iniquity which Abinadi had testified against them; therefore he began to plead with the king that he would not be angry with Abinadi, but suffer that he might depart in peace.

What’s interesting about Alma being a descendant of Nephi is that he is also the descendants of people who either (1) did not choose to follow Mosiah when Mosiah was told by the Lord to get the heck out of dodge or (2) did choose to “overzealously” return with Zeniff’s people, in disobedience to their own king.  So there’s some skeletons there, along with Nephi.

Do you have any sense as to how Alma is able to become/remain a decent human being in the environment that he is living in?

Brant Gardner:

The most perplexing comment is that “he was a young man.” According to the chronology worked out and discussed after Mosiah 7:1, we have Alma being born in the year 159 BC, and dying at the age of 82 in the year 77 BC (probable dating, though the time depth is explicit). According to the correlation of dates, Mosiah I leaves the City of Nephi in 148 BC, and Zeniff leaves Zarahemla in approximately 143 BC. Thus when Mormon states that Alma is a descendant of Nephi, he may mean a literal descendant from both the lineage and the city. Alma the Elder would have been 11 when Mosiah I left the City of Nephi, and would have returned with Zeniff when he was 16. While that is young enough, he would have been 36 when Zeniff died and Noah took power. Abinadi is clearly coming later, perhaps between five and ten years later. At 40-45 years old, it is hard to see how Mormon could call Alma “young.” It is quite possible that Mormon never bothered to work out the dates, and his sources never said. We may be seeing a presumption on Mormon’s part that was simply mistaken. Citation

Do you read Abinadi’s speech differently knowing that, in some sense, it was “for” Alma?

Brant Gardner:

It appears that Abinadi was sent on a mission that spelled certain physical doom for himself because God needed to touch one man; Alma. Is there any more powerful case for God’s concern with an individual? Citation

Robert D. Hales:

When Abinadi fearlessly taught the gospel of Jesus Christ to the wicked King Noah and his priests, only Alma recognized the truth. Alma then had to demonstrate great faith in the words of Abinadi as he sought to bring about a mighty change of heart. This change of heart strengthened his conversion with a desire to forsake his sins. The conversion of each member of the Church is not unlike that of Alma (see Mosiah 17). Apr 97 GC

Is it significant that Alma is “young”?

Alma shows a lot of nerve by arguing with the king’s decree, especially since Alma is “young” and of no apparent status or authority.

Note that in this verse, but not v1, we are introduced to the idea that the king was angry.

3 But the king was more wroth, and caused that Alma should be cast out from among them, and sent his servants after him that they might slay him.

Is the “him” who the servants try to slay Alma?  If it is Alma, then why kick him out and then try to kill him.  (Hint:  it is easier to kill someone *before* you kick them out.)

Nice irony that Alma asks for Abinadi to be banished and, as a result, ends up being banished himself.

4 But he fled from before them and hid himself that they found him not. And he being concealed for many days did write all the words which Abinadi had spoken.

Interesting little backstory into how we got Abinadi’s words . . .

We don’t really get much intro to Alma above, but his literacy and writing supplies in this verse suggest that he had some measure of status.

5 And it came to pass that the king caused that his guards should surround Abinadi and take him; and they bound him and cast him into prison.

I’m a little confused as to what has been happening to Abinadi while the Alma situation played out–was he just roaming free or what?

6 And after three days, having counseled with his priests, he caused that he should again be brought before him.

Is the three days significant?

I’m once again curious as to why Noah is so frequently shown counseling with his priests.  We usually like our evil leaders to be purely autocratic.

7 And he said unto him: Abinadi, we have found an accusation against thee, and thou art worthy of death.

At the risk of sounding as if I am defending Noah (please understand that I am not), death is the law of Moses penalty for false prophets.  So we might find a fun bit of irony that Noah and Co. finally decide to follow (their interpretation of) the law of Moses.  (Perhaps this is why the counseling with the priests is mentioned.)

8 For thou hast said that God himself should come down among the children of men; and now, for this cause thou shalt be put to death unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people.

How do you reconcile Abinadi’s claim that all of the prophets have testified of Christ with Noah’s claim that the idea of God coming down is so obviously false that it makes Abinadi a false prophet, worthy of death according to the law of Moses?  Does this teach us anything about the nature of prophecy?

Note what this decree reveals about Noah:  he’s putting Abinadi to death because Abinadi said God would come down, but he’ll release him if Abinadi recants the evil he’s spoken of Noah (note:  not if Abinadi recants the teaching that God will come down!).

9 Now Abinadi said unto him: I say unto you, I will not recall the words which I have spoken unto you concerning this people, for they are true; and that ye may know of their surety I have suffered myself that I have fallen into your hands.

Note that Noah said “me and my people” in v8 but Abinadi says “this people” here.  Is that significant?

Do you think this idea that Abinadi allowed himself to be taken could be comparing with Jesus’ arrest?

How would Abinadi’s allowing himself to be arrested have an impact on the people’s knowing the truthfulness of what he had taught?  (Is Abinadi alluding to his own martyr’s death here?–v10 suggests so.)

10 Yea, and I will suffer even until death, and I will not recall my words, and they shall stand as a testimony against you. And if ye slay me ye will shed innocent blood, and this shall also stand as a testimony against you at the last day.

11 And now king Noah was about to release him, for he feared his word; for he feared that the judgments of God would come upon him.

Do you conclude from this verse that Noah was a basically decent guy after all?

Note what almost happens here–what could have happened here.  Even as wicked as Noah was, he was capable of being touched, of being redeemed.  He chose otherwise, but it didn’t have to happen this way.  In this little verse that kind of sounds like a side issue, we get a very profound teaching about the possibility of repentance–for everyone.  Even really bad people.

12 But the priests lifted up their voices against him, and began to accuse him, saying: He has reviled the king. Therefore the king was stirred up in anger against him, and he delivered him up that he might be slain.

I’m very intrigued by the role the priests are playing here–it seems as if they have the real power and have turned Noah into a puppet.  I wonder if we could read this as a commentary on Noah deposing all of the priests that his father (presumably had appointed) and filling out the ranks with yes-men who, apparently, have turned on him.

This is weird:  the priests are said to be accusing Noah.  But what the priests say is that Abinadi is accusing Noah.  I suspect that this odd little bit of recursiveness is significant.

How do you explain Noah’s shift from v11 to v12?  (I’m thinking that there are some lessons to be learned here about fomenting anger.)

Robert J. Matthews:

Keeping Abinadi in hold for three days before formally accusing him may reflect the difficulty Noah and the priests had in finding a capital charge against him. Or it may have been a psychological maneuver to give him time to think about and to fear his punishment and thereby break his spirit. Citation

13 And it came to pass that they took him and bound him, and scourged his skin with faggots, yea, even unto death.

faggot = bundle of sticks

Skousen thinks “scorched” instead of “scourged” is original here.

14 And now when the flames began to scorch him, he cried unto them, saying:

The way this verse is written, the flames just come out of nowhere.  Was that deliberate?  Why?

15 Behold, even as ye have done unto me, so shall it come to pass that thy seed shall cause that many shall suffer the pains that I do suffer, even the pains of death by fire; and this because they believe in the salvation of the Lord their God.

There’s an interesting inversion here with the Isaiah 53 material that Abinadi quoted above.  There, Christ’s pains meant that we became his children.  Here, the infliction of pain on Abinadi means that Noah & Co.’s children will experience the same pains as Abinadi.

Who is the “they” in the final line?

16 And it will come to pass that ye shall be afflicted with all manner of diseases because of your iniquities.

17 Yea, and ye shall be smitten on every hand, and shall be driven and scattered to and fro, even as a wild flock is driven by wild and ferocious beasts.

18 And in that day ye shall be hunted, and ye shall be taken by the hand of your enemies, and then ye shall suffer, as I suffer, the pains of death by fire.

19 Thus God executeth vengeance upon those that destroy his people. O God, receive my soul.

20 And now, *when Abinadi had said these words, he fell, having suffered death by fire; yea, having been put to death because he would not deny the commandments of God, having sealed the truth of his words by his death.

I like the contrast of this story with Daniel 1-3, where Rack, Shack, and Benny are saved from the fire.  You could easily misread the scriptures to conclude that people are rewarded in this life for their righteousness, but Abinadi shows us that this in not always the case.

I’m curious about the idea of death sealing the truth of someone’s words.  We all know of people who have died for their false beliefs.  So in what sense is this true?

General Thoughts:

(1) John Welch explores here the idea that Abinadi may have been speaking at the time of Pentecost.  Key points:

1. Timing would have been important to Abinadi. He had already been expelled once from the city, two years earlier (see Mosiah 11:28-12:1). His reentry on a festival day would have given him a ready audience.

2. Both of Abinadi’s speeches deal with the themes of Pentecost. He reversed the festival’s blessings and rejoicing, and turned them into curses and predictions of gloom. At the time when a bounteous grain season would have been at hand, Abinadi cursed the crops: he prophesied that hail, dry winds, and insects shall ruin “their grain” (Mosiah 12:6). While Israel’s deliverance from bondage was traditionally being celebrated, Abinadi called upon Exodus terminology to proclaim that bondage and burdens would return to the wicked people in the city of Nephi: “They shall be brought into bondage; . . . and none shall deliver them” (Mosiah 11:21, 23), “and I will cause that they shall have burdens lashed upon their backs” (Mosiah 12:2, 5; compare Exodus 1:11).

3. At precisely the time when Noah’s priests would have been hypocritically pledging allegiance to the Ten Commandments (and indeed they professed to teach the law of Moses; see Mosiah 12:27), Abinadi rehearsed to them those very commandments (see Mosiah 12:33). On any other day this might have seemed a strange defense for a man on trial for his life, but not on Pentecost—the day on which the Ten Commandments were on center stage!

4. Indeed, the connection with Pentecost could hardly have been more graphic than when Abinadi’s “face shone with exceeding luster, even as Moses’ did while in the mount of Sinai, while speaking with the Lord” (Mosiah 13:5, italics added; compare Exodus 34:29-30). . . .

5. There are further connections between Abinadi and Exodus 19. For example, cursing Noah to be like a “garment in a hot furnace” may well recall the fact that Mt. Sinai became a furnace (see Exodus 19:18) and that people whose garments were not clean were not “ready” for the Lord (see Exodus 19:10-15).  . . .

6. The ancient festival appears to have been a three-day event (see Exodus 19:11), which may explain why Abinadi’s trial was postponed for “three days” (Mosiah 17:6).

7. Finally, there are intriguing parallels between Abinadi’s piercing rebukes and Psalm 50, identified by Weinfeld as a psalm of Pentecost.

(2) Our first introduction to Abinadi comes in Mosiah 7:26-28, where Limhi says this:

And a prophet of the Lord have they slain; yea, a chosen man of God, who told them of their wickedness and abominations, and prophesied of many things which are to come, yea, even the coming of Christ. And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth—And now, because he said this, they did put him to death; and many more things did they do which brought down the wrath of God upon them. Therefore, who wondereth that they are in bondage, and that they are smitten with sore afflictions?

(I suppose this could be a different prophet since he is not named, but it is almost certainly Abinadi.)  Do you see anything here that should shape your interpretation of Abinadi’s story?  One thing that strikes me is the centrality of “that Christ was the God, the Father of all things.”  (What’s ironic about that is that a similar sentiment would not get a Mormon nihil obstat today!)  Robert J. Matthews points out that the part about the image is not contained in Abinadi’s teachings as we have them, so maybe Alma didn’t write that part and/or Mormon didn’t include it (see Mosiah 12:8), but Limhi knew about it.  Or maybe Limhi had a false tradition there (although the teaching is accurate, I think).  We know we have an abridged account, because it refers to multiple questions from the priests but we only get one (the beautiful feet one) and also because Mormon 1:19 talks about sorceries, something our account doesn’t mention.

(3) With all due respect to Arnold Friberg, we have no idea how old or how buff Abinadi was.  I’ve read that Friberg wanted to show people’s spiritual strength through their physical strength, which is fine, but I also think it would be powerful {ha!} to show Abinadi as a physically weak person who does not look as if he could go mano a mano with one of the jaguars, but still stands up to Noah and the priests because he knows that God has told him to.

(4) Robert J. Matthews wrote, “the content of his teachings and his mannerisms when confronting the priests of Noah—baiting them, challenging their knowledge, and questioning their behavior—tells us quite a bit about his courage, his agile mind, his knowledge of the gospel, and his strength of character.”  Citation.  What do you think of this statement?

(5) Rodney Turner has found the following parallels between Abinadi and John the Baptist:  “both were lone preachers of righteousness; both encountered wicked kings; both spoke of the sinful practices of the king and his people; both testified of the coming of Christ; and both were martyred as victims of priestcraft.” Citation What can you learn from these parallels?  Are they useful?

(6) Todd B. Parker wrote,

In Hebrew, ab means “father,” abi means “my father,” and nadi is “present with you.” So the name Abinadi may reflect his mission; it may mean something like “my father is present with you.” That is actually why they said they killed him—because he said God would come down and would be with man. That was the charge of blasphemy that they finally used to put him to death. Citation

If that is accurate, it is interesting because it point to a prophetic role for his parents, whoever they were.

(7) Todd B. Parker:

We have twenty-five different things here that Benjamin and Abinadi say basically the same. They both teach that God will come down; he will do miracles; he will suffer temptation; he will be called Jesus; he is the Father of heaven and earth; he will bring salvation; he will be scourged and crucified; he will overcome death; he will do these things that men can be judged; his atonement redeems those who have ignorantly sinned; those who willfully rebel will not be redeemed; all prophets declare this same message; the prophets spoke as if things had already happened; because Israel was stiff-necked, the law was given them (the law of Moses); the law included types, or shadows, or symbols, of things to come; the prophets spake concerning his coming; Israel hardened their hearts against the prophets; the law of Moses is ineffectual without the atonement; the atonement provides eternal life for little children; salvation is in Christ, and there is no other way under heaven whereby man can be saved; the natural man is an enemy to God; the knowledge of Christ is going to spread throughout the whole world; receiving this message makes a person accountable; everybody is going to be judged; and the prophets’ words stand as a testimony.  Citation

He goes on the suggest that the angel who taught these things to Ben might have been Abinadi, but I think that’s a bit speculative.

(8) A general thought on this chapter: usually, exploring relationship of Father and Son is a cause for (1) explaining how we aren’t Trinitarian (not easy to do in this chapter!) and/or (2) being defensive against antis.  This type material (such as whether the Son was begotten–or made–or eternal) has been contentious all thru history.  From Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity:

 “Gregory of Nyssa, at Constantinople in the early 380s, complained that he could not obtain a straight answer to a practical question: ‘If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten . . . . If you say to the attendant ‘Is my bath ready?’, he tells you that the Son was made out of nothing.’  The rival factions at the horse races in the sixth-century Hippodrome, the Blues and the Greens, each championed a particular standpoint in Christology.  An enthusiasm for ecclesiastical controversy has continued to be a feature of the Greek people in modern times.  In 1901 the publication of a translation of the New Testament in contemporary Greek led to the downfall of the government and to student demonstrations in which eight people were killed.  On a recent occasion in central Athens, so I recall, I was delayed by a massive traffic jam.  This was caused, as my taxi-driver explained, by a ‘riot of unemployed theologians.’”

Here’s the thing: I just have no patience whatsoever with this kind of stuff.  (I think people something think that if you’ve done biblical studies this is supposed to be your very favoritist topic ever, but I hate it.  To me it is the proverbial how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin question.)  I think that ultimately we just can’t get our puny mortal minds around the actual relationship of the Father and the Son (and the Spirit), and that all of our efforts to do so will be inadequate and most will be arrogant and over-limiting (kind of like the real problem with creeds–it isn’t that they are wrong, it is that they are too limited).  Further, I think we unconsciously assume that the scriptures are completely consistent in their use of titles (i.e., Jehovah always means Jesus Christ), which strikes me as a completely unreasonable assumption, especially since we are not always consistent (like calling Christ “the Father”).  I think we take scriptural data points that don’t fit our current understanding and then we wrest them so that they fit.  (I’m not going to link, because that would be mean, but I was completely flabbergasted by some of the knots LDS scholars have tied themselves into in order to make Abinadi’s words in this chapter fit the 20th century LDS understanding of the relationship of the Father and the Son.)  I hate all of it.  So that’s why there is the bare minimum of discussion about what Abinadi meant in these notes.  So there.

A related topic:  we spend a lot of time talking up how plain, precious, clear and uncorrupted the BoM is, but then when it says things that don’t obviously line up with modern LDS thought (“God himself”), we get all, “Well, what Abinadi really meant was . . .”  Of course, if an Evangelical were to do that with any part of the Bible, we’d role our collective Mormon eyes at her.

(9) Grant Hardy suggests many parallels between Abinadi and Moses:  both speak before wicked leaders, both deliver the Big Ten, both have shiny faces, both stories use “who is the Lord?” hardened hearts, stretched forth hands, hail/east wind/insects, and others.   What I find particularly interesting about this is not the laundry list of similarities but the ends of the stories:  Moses, as you may recall, was not killed by Pharoah.  What would be the point of drawing our attention to all of these similarities only to subvert them at the end?  (Is it useful to see Alma as standing in for Israel?)

It has recently come to my attention that my ward and stake are in a gross state of apostasy.  I was completely unaware of this until I saw this infographic on the LDS Newsroom site, but now that I know about it, I really think you need to send us some GAs to reorganize everything, because we’re doing it all wrong here in the suburbs of Austin (and every other place I’ve ever lived, come to think of it).

First thing:  in my ward and stake, the bishopric and the stake presidency are the main leadership.  But according to the infographic, they are supposed to be marginal, sidelined figures.  I had no idea!

Next thing:  a quick look shows that the stake RS, YM, YW, and Primary presidencies are the central leaders for the entire stake.  We don’t do that at all.

Also, I did not realize that the YM program was an auxiliary.  I think this might be news to them.

Further, I had no idea that the stake high council was so unimportant.  But look how tiny they are!  Here, they are very well known because they speak regularly to the wards, whereas most ward members have absolutely no idea who the stake-level YM, YW, and RS pres, members are, even if they are in those organizations themselves.  We are way off-base here in Austin!

Also, our stake has a Sunday School presidency, but apparently those aren’t supposed to exist.  Oops.

Also, we are really messing up by having the same women who are in the ward RS, YW, and Primary presidencies serve on the ward council, when this graphic suggests that there are entirely separate women serving on the ward council. (Who are they?  What are their callings?)

And as if that weren’t bad enough, our ward council is way wrong, too:  apparently it is supposed to have a total of six people with an equal number of men and women, but ours has almost a dozen men and three women.

And here’s where we are really messing up:  we have divided our men into an “Elders Quorum” and a “High Priests Group.”  But now I know that they are all supposed to be part of one group that is called “the Lay Priesthood Presidency.” I’ve never even heard of this before–that’s how apostate we are down here.

Plus, I don’t think my ward RS Pres knows that they are over the Sunday School and Primary the way that this chart shows.

More generally, this chart suggests that stake and ward leadership responsibilities are roughly evenly divided between men and women, and that the men and women have similar roles.  Um, I don’t quite know how to put it gently, but:  we do nothing of the sort down here.  Here, almost all leadership responsibilities are given to priesthood holders.  Who are all male.   Wait . . . are we doing that wrong, too?

Thanks,

Julie M. Smith

HT:  BCC

CHAPTER 7
 1 And now, it came to pass that after king Mosiah had had continual peace for the space of three years, he was desirous to know concerning the people who went up to dwell in the land of Lehi-Nephi, or in the city of Lehi-Nephi; for his people had heard nothing from them from the time they left the land of Zarahemla; therefore, they wearied him with their teasings.

Webster’s 1828 on teasing:  “Combing; carding; scratching for the purpose of raising a nap; vexing with importunity.”

This is the only use of “teasing” in scripture.

This is, presumably, the group from Omni 1:27.

Does the continual peace have any relation to his desire to find out what happened to these people?  Does the lack of communication lead to teasing and, if so, why?

 2 And it came to pass that *king Mosiah granted that sixteen of their strong men might go up to the land of Lehi-Nephi, to inquire concerning their brethren.

In the Bible, numbers are sometimes symbolic.  (Generally, however, 16 is not high on the list of symbolically used numbers, as 3, 4, 7, and 12 are.)  The only other BoM use of 16 is Ether 3:1, where the brother of Jared moltens (is that a word?) 16 stones for the Lord to touch to give him light.  In this passage, does 16 have a symbolic element and/or relate to Ether 3:1?

“Brethren” is rather charitable, given that these people took off after causing contention and civil insurrection.

3 And it came to pass that on the morrow they started to go up, having with them one Ammon, he being a strong and mighty man, and a descendant of Zarahemla; and he was also their leader.

Why do you think the fact that Ammon was a descendant of Zarahemla was mentioned? Do we know why a person from Zarahemla would be so very concerned about these other Nephites?

 4 And now, they knew not the course they should travel in the wilderness to go up to the land of Lehi-Nephi; therefore they wandered many days in the wilderness, even forty days did they wander.

The combo of wandering and 40 suggests to me a reproduction of the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness under Moses.  If that is alluded to here, what might we learn from comparing these incidents?  Is Ammon a Moses?

5 And when they had wandered forty days they came to a hill, which is north of the land of Shilom, and there they pitched their tents.

Tents:  just a fact or a symbolic meaning?

 6 And Ammon took three of his brethren, and their names were Amaleki, Helem, and Hem, and they went down into the land of Nephi.

The idea of taking a subgroup of three away from the larger party is reminiscent of Jesus with his disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration, in the home at the raising of Jairus’ daughter, or in Gethsemane.  Are any of those comparisons useful?

 7 And behold, they met the king of the people who were in the land of Nephi, and in the land of Shilom; and they were surrounded by the king’s guard, and were taken, and were bound, and were committed to prison.

 8 And it came to pass when they had been in prison two days they were again brought before the king, and their bands were loosed; and they stood before the king, and were permitted, or rather commanded, that they should answer the questions which he should ask them.

 9 And he said unto them: Behold, I am Limhi, the son of Noah, who was the son of Zeniff, who came up out of the land of Zarahemla to inherit this land, which was the land of their fathers, who was made a king by the voice of the people.

The following text sounds as if it had been written down by a transcriber in the court.

 10 And now, I desire to know the cause whereby ye were so bold as to come near the walls of the city, when I, myself, was with my guards without the gate?

Does it strike you as odd that a king would be with his guards outside the gate?

Why does the king’s location outside of the city speak to the boldness of Ammon et al?

 11 And now, for this cause have I suffered that ye should be preserved, that I might inquire of you, or else I should have caused that my guards should have put you to death. Ye are permitted to speak.

suffered = allowed

 12 And now, when Ammon saw that he was permitted to speak, he went forth and bowed himself before the king; and rising again he said: O king, I am very thankful before God this day that I am yet alive, and am permitted to speak; and I will endeavor to speak with boldness;

Is speaking with boldness in this context a good thing?  (How) does it relate to the boldness in v10?

“Saw” is a little unusual–didn’t he “hear”?  Could this be significant?

 13 For I am assured that if ye had known me ye would not have suffered that I should have worn these bands. For I am Ammon, and am a descendant of Zarahemla, and have come up out of the land of Zarahemla to inquire concerning our brethren, whom Zeniff brought up out of that land.

 14 And now, it came to pass that after Limhi had heard the words of Ammon, he was exceedingly glad, and said: Now, I know of a surety that my brethren who were in the land of Zarahemla are yet alive. And now, I will rejoice; and on the morrow I will cause that my people shall rejoice also.

Does this verse show Limhi to have been a jerk to have bound them in the first place?

 15 For behold, we are in bondage to the Lamanites, and are taxed with a tax which is grievous to be borne. And now, behold, our brethren will deliver us out of our bondage, or out of the hands of the Lamanites, and we will be their slaves; for it is better that we be slaves to the Nephites than to pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites.

In this verse, are bondage and taxation two ways of saying the same thing or two different things?

This verse provides some interesting context for considering what it means to say that Limhi is a king.

What principles can you glean from his position that it would be better to be Nephite slaves than pay tribute to the Lamanites?  Is this true, or is it hyperbole?  And why would he say this when, as far as we know, the Nephites do not practice slavery?  (And, at the very least, isn’t this a bad opening position–shouldn’t he have tried to get them to rescue him without committing his people to slavery unless that were absolutely necessary?)

Is there a similarity here with the parable of the prodigal son, where he says at one point that he’d rather be his father’s servant?

 16 And now, king Limhi commanded his guards that they should no more bind Ammon nor his brethren, but caused that they should go to the hill which was north of Shilom, and bring their brethren into the city, that thereby they might eat, and drink, and rest themselves from the labors of their journey; for they had suffered many things; they had suffered hunger, thirst, and fatigue.

I’m almost wondering if “hunger, thirst, and fatigue” is something of a term of art in the BoM:

1 Ne 16:25:  daughters of Ishmael:  “we have wandered much in the wilderness, and we have suffered much affliction, hunger, thirst, and fatigue”

Alma 17:5:  sons of Mosiah:  “Now these are the circumstances which attended them in their journeyings, for they had many afflictions; they did suffer much, both in body and in mind, such as hunger, thirst and fatigue,”

Alma 60:3:  Moroni:  “And now behold, I say unto you that myself, and also my men, and also Helaman and his men, have suffered exceedingly great sufferings; yea, even hunger, thirst, and fatigue, and all manner of afflictions of every kind.”

Mosiah 3:7:  King Ben, about Jesus:  “And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death;”

 17 And now, it came to pass on the morrow that king Limhi sent a proclamation among all his people, that thereby they might gather themselves together to the temple, to hear the words which he should speak unto them.

Does this verse encourage us to find parallels to Ben speech from the beginning of the book?  (This article explores the possible parallels.)

 18 And it came to pass that when they had gathered themselves together that he spake unto them in this wise, saying: O ye, my people, lift up your heads and be comforted; for behold, the time is at hand, or is not far distant, when we shall no longer be in subjection to our enemies, notwithstanding our many strugglings, which have been in vain; yet I trust there remaineth an effectual struggle to be made.

Webster’s 1828 effectual:  “Producing an effect, or the effect desired or intended; or having adequate power or force to produce the effect.”

Do you think Ammon was perhaps panicking a little when he heard it announced that he was there to deliver them?  (“Um, guys, I didn’t really agree to . . .”)

This statement is so . . . tepid.  What does it tell you about Limhi?

Cf. 8:2-3, where we learn that Ammon speaks, but not what he said.  What purpose is served by the preservation of Limhi’s words and not Ammon’s?

Usually a lifted head would be associated with a stiff neck, as in pride.  Is that what Limhi intends here?  If so, is it good or bad?

 19 Therefore, lift up your heads, and rejoice, and put your trust in God, in that God who was the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; and also, that God who brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, and caused that they should walk through the Red Sea on dry ground, and fed them with manna that they might not perish in the wilderness; and many more things did he do for them.

What’s the purpose for recounting ancient history here?

Is Ammon a Moses figure?  Can you learn anything useful by comparing them?

 20 And again, that same God has brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, and has kept and preserved his people even until now; and behold, it is because of our iniquities and abominations that he has brought us into bondage.

How do we know when our afflictions are the result of iniquities or not?

 21 And ye all are witnesses this day, that Zeniff, who was made king over this people, he being over-zealous to inherit the land of his fathers, therefore being deceived by the cunning and craftiness of king Laman, who having entered into a treaty with king Zeniff, and having yielded up into his hands the possessions of a part of the land, or even the city of Lehi-Nephi, and the city of Shilom; and the land round about—

Does “over-zealous” imply that “zealous” is good?

Webster 1828 zealous:  “Warmly engaged or ardent in the pursuit of an object.”

This verse begins with the idea that the audience members are all witnesses.  That concept seems to me to get lost in a digression.  Is this significant?  (What were they witnesses of anyway, when Zeniff was two generations ago?)

Is Limhi’s assessment of Zeniff as overzealous a fair one?  (This seems a particularly important question given the continual issue in the BoM of people [un]fairly reading history in order to further current political issues.)

Can you think of examples where someone today might be “overzealous” in pursuit of a(n otherwise worthwhile) goal?  (This is a great talk on this topic.)

 22 And all this he did, for the sole purpose of bringing this people into subjection or into bondage. And behold, we at this time do pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites, to the amount of one half of our corn, and our barley, and even all our grain of every kind, and one half of the increase of our flocks and our herds; and even one half of all we have or possess the king of the Lamanites doth exact of us, or our lives.

Is the first sentence strictly true, or is it from the PR department? (I’m never a fan of announcing other people’s motives.)

Presumably they all know (too well) exactly how much they are paying in tribute.  What, then, is Limhi’s purpose in reciting it?

 23 And now, is not this grievous to be borne? And is not this, our affliction, great? Now behold, how great reason we have to mourn.

Is “mourn” the word you would have expected here?

 24 Yea, I say unto you, great are the reasons which we have to mourn; for behold how many of our brethren have been slain, and their blood has been spilt in vain, and all because of iniquity.

 25 For if this people had not fallen into transgression the Lord would not have suffered that this great evil should come upon them. But behold, they would not hearken unto his words; but there arose contentions among them, even so much that they did shed blood among themselves.

Does this verse imply that all people who live under oppressive political regimes are in that situation because of transgression?

We know of three instances of “bloodshed” within the community of Zeniff:  the first is when they separate from Ben’s people.  The second is the blood shed when some of Noah’s men turn on him and kill them.  The third is killing Abinadi.  Do you think Limhi is referring to one of these events, or to events unknown?  (The death of Abinadi seems like the obvious candidate for causing the Lord’s wrath, but describing a prophet’s death as the result of contention seems not quite right.  Also, v26-28 kinda sorta make it sound as if the death of Abinadi is a separate complaint from what is being discussed in this verse.)

 26 And a prophet of the Lord have they slain; yea, a chosen man of God, who told them of their wickedness and abominations, and prophesied of many things which are to come, yea, even the coming of Christ.

Who is this prophet?  Why is he not named?  (Most LDS scholars think that he is Abinadi, because the narrative fits.  But if that is the case, what is accomplished by not naming him?)

 27 And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth—

“The God” sounds a little awkward.  Why might it have been used here?

“Image” is a very interesting word in this verse.  Usually in the OT, “image” and “idol” are translations of the same word.  (This gets interesting in the creation where Adam is in the image of God.  That’s the usual word for idol.  Not a bad thing, but means that Adam should be doing God’s work, just as idolaters think that their idol will do the word of their god.)  Does it mean that Christ was not really a man, like an idol is not really a god?

What does “face of the earth” accomplish here?

28 And now, because he said this, they did put him to death; and many more things did they do which brought down the wrath of God upon them. Therefore, who wondereth that they are in bondage, and that they are smitten with sore afflictions?

What about this preaching described in v27 would have made the people want to kill this prophet?

Why is a high tax rate paid to an unfriendly king an appropriate consequence for killing a prophet?

The question here could be read as rhetorical or even snarky.  What effect did Limhi want to have on his audience by phrasing it this way?

Brant Gardner calls attention to a shift from “this people” in v25 to “they” in this verse.  Do you think this shift was sloppiness on Limhi’s part, or a deliberate move?  If deliberate, what was he trying to accomplish?

29 For behold, the Lord hath said: I will not succor my people in the day of their transgression; but I will hedge up their ways that they prosper not; and their doings shall be as a stumbling block before them.

Webster 1828 succor:  “Literally, to run to, or run to support; hence, to help or relieve when in difficulty, want or distress; to assist and deliver from suffering; as, to succor a besieged city; to succor prisoners.”

Webster 1828 hedge:  ” To inclose with a hedge; to fence with a thicket of shrubs or small trees; to separate by a hedge; as, to hedge a field or garden.”

What does the image of a hedge suggest to you about what God is doing here?

NB that he is “quoting” the Lord.  Is this ‘lost scripture’?  Is it a new revelation to Limhi?  (If v30 and v31 are a continuation of the Lord’s words from the same source, it suggests that the source has an Old World origin, where we know that the actual east wind was harmful.  This gets really interesting if we speculate that Zeniff and Co. took a copy of the brass plates with them into the wilderness.)

 30 And again, he saith: If my people shall sow filthiness they shall reap the chaff thereof in the whirlwind; and the effect thereof is poison.

I think we get the symbolic idea of what sowing filthiness means, but what does it mean on a literal level?

chaff = the useless husk that surrounds the grain

 31 And again he saith: If my people shall sow filthiness they shall reap the east wind, which bringeth immediate destruction.

There are many OT references associating the east wind with destruction:  it is what causes the famine in Egypt in Joseph’s dream, the source of the locusts that Moses brought up during the plagues, and the cause of the parting of the Red Sea.

“Immediate” is somewhat surprising, since we frequently talk about the consequences, both positive and negative, of our behavior as sometimes taking a long time to manifest.

 32 And now, behold, the promise of the Lord is fulfilled, and ye are smitten and afflicted.

 33 But if ye will turn to the Lord with full purpose of heart, and put your trust in him, and serve him with all diligence of mind, if ye do this, he will, according to his own will and pleasure, deliver you out of bondage.

This is the second time he has mentioned trust.  Why was that such an important concept in this context?  Is it because Zeniff’s overzealousness showed a lack of trust?

This verse suggests that, at least in mortality, punishment from the Lord is always temporary, conditional on the repentance of the person involved.  Is this accurate?

How does “according to his own will and pleasure” work in this sentence?  What is the difference between that phrase and saying that the Lord is capricious?

Limhi is a pretty decent guy.  How’d he end up that way with Noah for a dad?

CHAPTER 8
 1 And it came to pass that after king Limhi had made an end of speaking to his people, for he spake many things unto them and only a few of them have I written in this book, he told his people all the things concerning their brethren who were in the land of Zarahemla.

NB that the original translation did not have a chapter division here.

Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Limhi to let Ammon speak “concerning their brethren . . . in . . . Zarahemla” instead of Limhi sharing second-hand information?  Why do you think Limhi spoke instead of turning the microphone over to Ammon, especially since Ammon appears to rehash the same material in the very next verse?

I read a verse like this as an invitation to go back to ch7 and ask, “So why was this material included, when so much other material was left on the cutting room floor?”  A verse like this one might seem like mere housekeeping, but it functions as a reminder of the importance of the material that was included.  As Brant Gardner points out, this is particularly interesting given that pretty much everything mentioned by Limhi in the last chapter ends up being discussed in greater, clarifying detail at some other point in the Book of Mosiah.  So . . . why include a second copy in ch7?

 2 And he caused that Ammon should stand up before the multitude, and rehearse unto them all that had happened unto their brethren from the time that Zeniff went up out of the land even until the time that he himself came up out of the land.

 3 And he also rehearsed unto them the last words which king Benjamin had taught them, and explained them to the people of king Limhi, so that they might understand all the words which he spake.

Makes me wonder what parts of Ben’s speech needed explaining . . .  Of course, Ben’s words were not addressed to the people of Limhi, but to people living in an entirely different religious, social, and political context.  I wonder if some of Ammon’s ‘splainin had to do with bridging that gap.  (And the gap-bridging is not, of course, a straight up endeavor, but rather one fraught with complication.  Given that Ammon was hired for this job because he was “strong,” one wonders about his authority or capability to ‘translate’ Ben’s words appropriately.)

I wonder if “rehearsed” is a technical term for oral transmission.  (And, of course, given the obsession with written records in the BoM, that would be nicely ironic.)

 4 And it came to pass that after he had done all this, that king Limhi dismissed the multitude, and caused that they should return every one unto his own house.

Compare this verse with Mosaiah 6:3, where King Benjamin dismisses people after his own speech.  Do you see any interesting similarities or differences?

 5 And it came to pass that he caused that the plates which contained the record of his people from the time that they left the land of Zarahemla, should be brought before Ammon, that he might read them.

I’m a little surprised that Ammon didn’t read these records *before* the big public speeches.

Are you surprised that Zeniff’s people kept plates?

What’s the purpose of this verse?  Is it just setting up v6 (and, if so, how does it do that)?

 6 Now, as soon as Ammon had read the record, the king inquired of him to know if he could interpret languages, and Ammon told him that he could not.

Webster 1828 interpret ” To explain the meaning or words to a person who does not understand them; to expound; to translate unintelligible words into intelligible ones; as, to interpret the Hebrew language to an Englishman.”

What I find interesting about that is that it does not comport with modern usage; we’d call that “translating,” not interpreting.

Do you have any sense as to why Limhi pivots from the issues concerning his own people to these plates?  Is there some sort of a connection?

 7 And the king said unto him: Being grieved for the afflictions of my people, I caused that forty and three of my people should take a journey into the wilderness, that thereby they might find the land of Zarahemla, that we might appeal unto our brethren to deliver us out of bondage.

This is almost a perfect inversion of Ammon’s journey.  (It also explains why Limhi immediately jumped to the idea that Ammon & Co. were there to deliver them.)  But was Ammon’s motive to rescue them?  On a strictly literal reading, he was sent out because people were teasing Mosiah about the missing people.  What can you learn from comparing the two journeys?

 8 And they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel.

So if we think of the comparison between Ammon’s journey and this journey, do we then conclude that Limhi’s people are to be compared with the Jaredites here?  What could we learn from that comparison?

I’m wondering if the reference to the hosts of Israel has any function beyond the numerical (and, I assume, hyperbolic)–What might happen to the reader as a result of thinking about the hosts of Israel here?

 9 And for a testimony that the things that they had said are true they have brought twenty-four plates which are filled with engravings, and they are of pure gold.

Again with the comparison:  Limhi’s people had records, these people have records.

 10 And behold, also, they have brought breastplates, which are large, and they are of brass and of copper, and are perfectly sound.

 11 And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust; and there is no one in the land that is able to interpret the language or the engravings that are on the plates. Therefore I said unto thee: Canst thou translate?

We know that the sword of Laban was something of a relic and symbol of authority for the Nephites; do these swords have a similar role in their own collection?

NB that he says ‘translate’ and not ‘interpret’ here; is this significant?

NB that the breastplates (v10) are in perfect condition but the swords (v11) are not.  Note also that we have two references to their plates (v9, v11) sandwiching mention of their defensive (v10) and offensive (v11) military equipment.  Remember that this is a most condensed record, with only the important things included.  What are we supposed to learn from the differing conditions of the swords and breastplates, and why was this worth including in the record?

 12 And I say unto thee again: Knowest thou of any one that can translate? For I am desirous that these records should be translated into our language; for, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of a remnant of the people who have been destroyed, from whence these records came; or, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of this very people who have been destroyed; and I am desirous to know the cause of their destruction.

So this idea of artifacts is similar to the BoM itself–the recursiveness here is most interesting . . .

While we can understand the curiosity here, it seems a little off in context:  here’s a guy, Limhi, whose people are in terrible bondage and he has just met the person who he hopes will be his deliverer.  They have a lot of work to do!  (As Limhi himself suggests above, a great struggle yet to happen.)  So I find it odd that Limhi would then pivot to this academic question about these old records.  Of course, it is interesting and relevant to us, but why to him?

 13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.

“Wherewith” means “which with.”

Should the last line of the verse more properly be “called _a_ seer”?  Does the fact that it is written this way suggest that “seer” is being used as an adjective?

I think we commonly think of a seer as someone who can see the future.  The point of this verse is that a seer can translate ancient records.  What are the implications of this?

This verse defines a seer as one who has been commanded to look at some object which allows that person to translate ancient records.  How does that comport with our modern understanding of the word?

The idea of objects with sacred significance is, perhaps, an uncomfortable one for moderns (and even modern Mormons).  Yet here they are, tied to the gift of seership.  Do we need to reconfigure our understanding of sacred objects?

Are there things at which we ought not look?

Given that we sustain the FP and Q12 as seers, does that mean that they fulfill the role of seer as described in this verse?

Brant Gardner:

At the end of the verse is the simple definition of the seer as the possessor of the interpreters. Look, however, at what the interpreters do. Of course the seer can use them to “translate all records that are of ancient date…”, but they are so powerful that their use must be restricted. They operate only on command of God, for if they were to work all of the time, one might “look for that he ought not…” It is this statement that shows the true nature of the interpreters as the tool of the revelator. If the interpreters dealt only in ancient languages, what kind of out of control linguist might we imagine? What destruction to his soul might occur if one translated a Hittite grocery list? The power of the interpreters is not simply in translation, but rather in revelation. One without the spirit might see in them information that he would be tempted to use unrighteously. One might understand that which he should not. Through the past, one might see the future clearly enough to abuse that vision.  Citation

Remembering that Ammon is a “strong man” with no particular authority, what do you make of his words?  Is it strictly accurate to say that the gift of seership allows the seer to understand -all- ancient records?

 14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.

Why would this assignment be a “high gift”?

Ammon, in v13-14 seems very familiar with all of this.  Had his king been acting as a seer?  If so, why don’t we hear about that?

 15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.

Is this Limhi speaking?  Or is this Ammon continuing to speak, and telling us what the king of Zarahemla said?  Why does he say this?  Is he right?

What does ‘prophet’ mean in this context?

 16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.

What does “the power of God” mean in this verse?  (Wouldn’t the ability to see or prophesy be an example of the power of God?  What is this power that no man can have?)

What is the definition of a prophet here, if a prophet is not necessarily a seer?

Is this hyperbole, or is being a seer really the greatest gift from God?

Does “a seer is a revelator and a prophet also” mean that the act of seeing necessarily constitutes revealing and prophesying?  (But wouldn’t that depend on the content of the ancient text seen?)  Or does it mean that if one person is given the gift of being a seer, he is also given the (completely separate) gifts of being a revelator and a prophet?

 17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

I don’t think we usually think of a seer has being able to see the past, but just the future.  How might this backward-seeing ability be significant?  What scriptural examples are there of it?  It makes sense in the context of this discussion of a seer translating/interpreting ancient writings, but in other contexts, we might think of a seer as only able to see the future.  Of what benefit is it to be able to see the past?

What does “all things” mean in this verse?

 18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.

What do you see in v15-18 that should shape your relationship with the living prophet?

Where does faith fit in to the seeing process?

Is seeing through a seer stone a miracle?

How are people benefited by a seer?

 19 And now, when Ammon had made an end of speaking these words the king rejoiced exceedingly, and gave thanks to God, saying: Doubtless a great mystery is contained within these plates, and these interpreters were doubtless prepared for the purpose of unfolding all such mysteries to the children of men.

How the heck does he know what the plates say?  He turns out to be right, but at this point, he has no way of knowing if the plates contain anything interesting.  Might this be another example of the “overzealous” pattern of his people?

 20 O how marvelous are the works of the Lord, and how long doth he suffer with his people; yea, and how blind and impenetrable are the understandings of the children of men; for they will not seek wisdom, neither do they desire that she should rule over them!

See this article for more on wisdom.

Where on earth does this come from?  Limhi has just sought wisdom (=the translation of the plates) and been told he will get it.  So is this bit about people not seeking wisdom just a little self-aggrandizement?

Is the “blindness” in this verse meant to contrast with the vision of the seer?  Is Limhi saying that he (and his people) are blind because they are not seers?  But is he then saying that he (and his people) don’t seek wisdom?  Clearly, he is here when he is looking for an interpreter of the plates.

Is there meant to be a contrast between being ruled by wisdom and being ruled by the Lamanites?

 21 Yea, they are as a wild flock which fleeth from the shepherd, and scattereth, and are driven, and are devoured by the beasts of the forest.

What do you make of Limhi’s response (v20-21) to Ammon’s teachings?  Is it what you would have expected?

What does this observation have to do with the events of ch8?

I can imagine two contexts for this comment:  one is the party Limhi sent out, that was “scattered” in the sense of wandering in the wilderness and not finding what they were after (=Zarahemla).  The other is the destroyed civilization that they found, if we assume that the bones and empty city was, at least metaphorically, “devoured by the beasts of the forest.”  But I don’t feel that either of these is a really good fit.  So what is going on here?

CHAPTER 9

The Record of Zeniff—An account of his people, from the time they left the land of Zarahemla until the time that they were delivered out of the hands of the Lamanites.

 1 I, Zeniff, having been taught in all the language of the Nephites, and having had a knowledge of the land of Nephi, or of the land of our fathers’ first inheritance, *and having been sent as a spy among the Lamanites that I might spy out their forces, that our army might come upon them and destroy them—but when I saw that which was good among them I was desirous that they should not be destroyed.

It is somewhat unusual to have such a major transition covered just with a header and not with actual text explaining what is going on.  Might there be a reason for this?

Our usual BoM intro refers to parents and language and teaching.  Therefore, Zeniff’s record is somewhat startling for omitting any mention of his parents.  Why might this have happened?

What’s interesting about this is that Zeniff is giving us a bit of history that we don’t get from the “main” account, where we learned that Mosiah was told to flee, but we don’t learn that they were sending back spies and planning to destroy the Lamanites.

We might have expected that the record we’d get now would be the one that Ammon and Limhi were just discussing, that is, the Jaredite record, and not Zeniff’s record.  What does it do to the reader if s/he expects Jaredites but gets Zeniff?

In addition to Zeniff’s record, we have another record of these events at the end of the book of Omni, recorded by Amaleki (during the time of King Benjamin):

And now I would speak somewhat concerning a certain number who went up into the wilderness to return to the land of Nephi; for there was a large number who were desirous to possess the land of their inheritance. Wherefore, they went up into the wilderness. And their leader being a strong and mighty man, and a stiffnecked man, wherefore he caused a contention among them; and they were all slain, save fifty, in the wilderness, and they returned again to the land of Zarahemla. And it came to pass that they also took others to a considerable number, and took their journey again into the wilderness. And I, Amaleki, had a brother, who also went with them; and I have not since known concerning them.  Omni 1:27-30

A few things about this:

(1) I’m intrigued by the fact that Zeniff is so eager to give us exact numbers, but Amaleki says “a certain number” (although later we get 50).

(2) Zeniff makes it sound like he’s the ringleader; Amaleki makes it sound like a bunch of people wanted to do this.

(3) Amaleki characterized Zeniff as a strong and mighty and stiff-necked man.  Zeniff just calls himself “overzealous.”  Remembering that Amaleki is the authorized record keeper, do you suspect that Zeniff is, perhaps, sugar-coating his character and that, even to the end, he still isn’t quite willing to entirely take responsibility for what has happened and his role in it?

(4) Why do you think Amaleki didn’t include Zeniff’s name?

I’m pretty sure this is the first reference we get to Nephites assigned to spy on the Lamanites.  What might we learn from this?  Does it legitimate spying (and, if so, is that somehow relevant to individuals, or just to governments)?  Or does it delegitimate it, since his spying seems to led to him being sympathetic to the Lamanites, which leads to the various downfalls related in his story?

Can you make any interesting comparisons with the OT spies in Joshua 2?

This is most interesting–they end up having a whole host of problems for which the root cause is that Zeniff “saw that which was good” in other people.  (Is the issue that his assessment that they are “good” is incorrect?  Or was he right?) Thoughts on how this might apply to us?  Shouldn’t we be seeing the good in other people?

I think the meaning of “Lamanite” is a little confusing here.  Given that these “Lamanites” are in the land of Nephi, and that Zeniff’s knowledges of Nephite language is helpful to his spying mission, I presume that these Lamanites are actually the Nephites-who-were-Jacobites-but-who-didn’t-follow-Mosiah and not “real” Lamanites.  They have become Lamanites in the sense that they are not a part of the righteous remnant.

 2 Therefore, I contended with my brethren in the wilderness, for I would that our ruler should make a treaty with them; but he being an austere and a blood-thirsty man commanded that I should be slain; but I was rescued by the shedding of much blood; for father fought against father, and brother against brother, until the greater number of our army was destroyed in the wilderness; and we returned, those of us that were spared, to the land of Zarahemla, to relate that tale to their wives and their children.

Just to be clear on what is happening here:  the spy Zeniff comes back and says, “hey, let’s not kill them–they’re good!”  The ruler wants Zeniff killed for this, but Zeniff argues (or fights?) back, resulting in a fight that ends with most of the army in the wilderness being destroyed.  The survivors straggle home to tell the tale.

“Austere” is an interesting word.  I wonder if what it is hinting at is this:  in v1, Zeniff thought the Lamanites were “good.”  If these Lamanites are actually Nephites who didn’t listen to Jacob’s warnings about riches, then perhaps what Zeniff calls “good” is actually “rich.”  And maybe this leader, because he is “austere,” is not as impressed by riches as Zeniff is.

There is certainly an irony here that Zeniff is accusing this leader of being blood-thirsty, but it is Zeniff’s own disobedience and rabble-rousing that leads to bloodshed here.  Another layer of irony:  Zeniff, in attempting to avoid a war (against the Lamanites), creates one (within his own army).

The “brother against brother” line is easy to make sense of:  two biological brothers could be fighting.  But what, then, would “father against father” mean?  It suggests not that the men were each other’s fathers (in the way that men can be each other’s brothers), but that the men involved were fathers.  Why mention this?

My radar always goes up when there is a reference to women in the BoM.  This one is pretty unusual.  It is also fairly horrible–these women are presumably the newly-minted widows, and the situation is even more terrible given that the fighting was “brother against brother.”  Zeniff and the other survivors have to go to these women and say that even though they were sent out on the same side as the dead men, they turned against them and killed them.

We always want to draw neat little moral lessons from the scriptures, but this one is so complicated.  I could conclude from these verses that you shouldn’t try to make peace when you have a chance to make war.

 3 And yet, I being over-zealous to inherit the land of our fathers, collected as many as were desirous to go up to possess the land, and started again on our journey into the wilderness to go up to the land; but we were smitten with famine and sore afflictions; for we were slow to remember the Lord our God.

NB that Limhi also said that Zeniff was overzealous.  How can we tell the difference between being zealous and being overzealous?  Can you think of an experience where you realized that you were being overzealous?

So . . . what exactly did Zeniff do wrong:  see the good in people?  Try to countermand his king?  Participate in a civil war?  Rally people to his side?  Led a group to enter a treaty with the Lamanites? Be slow to remember God (as a separate matter from all of the above)?

We don’t get a lot people clearly naming and owning and recounting their flaws in the scriptures.  (We actually do get a fairly large collection of flaws, but they are usually presented to us via a third party, a narrator.)  What effect does this kind of record have on the reader?

 4 Nevertheless, after many days’ wandering in the wilderness we pitched our tents in the place where our brethren were slain, which was near to the land of our fathers.

Is it somehow symbolic or significant that they end up in the same place?

 5 And it came to pass that I went again with four of my men into the city, in unto the king, that I might know of the disposition of the king, and that I might know if I might go in with my people and possess the land in peace.

There’s a sense in which he is duplicating Ammon’s journey here (I should perhaps say that Ammon duplicated Zeniff, since Ammon occurs later in time, but the way the text is written with the flashback, Zeniff is duplicating Ammon.)  What useful parallels can you draw between the two?

 6 And I went in unto the king, and he covenanted with me that I might possess the land of Lehi-Nephi, and the land of Shilom.

If we want to read this allegorically, what does this covenant/treaty represent?

Unless something was abridged, he got a much better welcome than Ammon did.  What might you conclude from this?

 7 And he also commanded that his people should depart out of the land, and I and my people went into the land that we might possess it.

Can you discern the king’s motive here?  (Yeah, I know I just said that we weren’t supposed to speculate about motives.)  Compare v10 (which makes it sound like he planned bondage from the beginning) but also v11 (which makes it sound like he didn’t necessarily plan it from the beginning, but did it because he feared the power of the people after twelve years).

 8 And we began to build buildings, and to repair the walls of the city, yea, even the walls of the city of Lehi-Nephi, and the city of Shilom.

 9 And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits; and we did begin to multiply and prosper in the land.

 10 Now it was the cunning and the craftiness of king Laman, to bring my people into bondage, that he yielded up the land that we might possess it.

Is this strictly true, or is it the PR department, or is it how things happened to turn out, even if that wasn’t king Laman’s original intention?  (Why else might a king kick his own people out of a land [v7] to give it to someone else, when apparently it even had improvements, even if they did need repair [v8]?)

So I’m struck by the comparison with what happens with the Zarahemla people back in Omni, where the people led by Mosiah I go into the land of Zarahemla and join in with the people there.  What kinds of comparisons can you make?  Why did that turn out so well but this incident turned out so disastrously?

It is interesting that he is called “king Laman.”  (See notes above re meaning of “Lamanites” in this chapter.)  It hasn’t been that long since Enos railed against the Lamanites, and now, apparently, the king is, either by throne name or birth name, known as “Laman.”

 11 Therefore it came to pass, that after we had dwelt in the land for the space of *twelve years that king Laman began to grow uneasy, lest by any means my people should wax strong in the land, and that they could not overpower them and bring them into bondage.

Twelve years:  symbolic?

If you read v6, 10, and 11 allegorically instead of historically, what would you conclude about how evil works? (My thoughts:  things that look too easy may be traps, Satan has things that we want, there is a wrong way to go about a right thing, negative effects are not always immediate, etc.)

NB that these are the same fears that led Pharoah to want to exercise tighter control over the children of Israel.

Do you take this verse to mean that King Laman’s intentions were initially good, and only later did he decide to mistreat the people after he began to perceive them as a threat?

Is king Laman’s assumption of the people of Zeniff’s military threat realistic?  (After all, only twelve years ago he invited them in.)  Or, is it possible that Zeniff is misunderstanding of misstating king Laman’s position here?

 12 Now they were a lazy and an idolatrous people; therefore they were desirous to bring us into bondage, that they might glut themselves with the labors of our hands; yea, that they might feast themselves upon the flocks of our fields.

Again:  strictly true, or a missive from PR?

If I was right that, in v1, what Zeniff interpreted as the “good” of the Lamanites was actually wealth, then there is a nice little irony that as soon as the people of Zeniff begin to enjoy that wealth, then the very same wealth makes them a target of Lamanite covetousness.

Is there  a link between being lazy (which is an attitude toward work) and being idolatrous (which is the result of an attitude toward God)?

 13 Therefore it came to pass that king Laman began to stir up his people that they should contend with my people; therefore there began to be wars and contentions in the land.

I’m curious about “stir up,” which makes me think of a megaphone and a soap box, when you’d think a king would just order his army to war.  Am I misunderstanding the meaning of “stir up” here?

Is there any significance to the fact that contentions is mentioned after war?  (You’d think the contentions would come logically and chronologically before the war.)

 14 For, in the *thirteenth year of my reign in the land of Nephi, away on the south of the land of Shilom, when my people were watering and feeding their flocks, and tilling their lands, a numerous host of Lamanites came upon them and began to slay them, and to take off their flocks, and the corn of their fields.

Skousen reads “take of” instead of “take off” their flock here.

 15 Yea, and it came to pass that they fled, all that were not overtaken, even into the city of Nephi, and did call upon me for protection.

 16 And it came to pass that I did arm them with bows, and with arrows, with swords, and with cimeters, and with clubs, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons which we could invent, and I and my people did go forth against the Lamanites to battle.

A sad irony:  this was the guy who, in the beginning of the chapter, didn’t want to fight the Lamanites.  Now (he thinks that) his hand has been forced.

 17 Yea, in the strength of the Lord did we go forth to battle against the Lamanites; for I and my people did cry mightily to the Lord that he would deliver us out of the hands of our enemies, for we were awakened to a remembrance of the deliverance of our fathers.

I’m curious about “in the strength of the Lord” after everything we know about the wrong decisions they have made.  What are we to conclude from this?  Is it because they decided to remember the Lord finally?

 18 And God did hear our cries and did answer our prayers; and we did go forth in his might; yea, we did go forth against the Lamanites, and in one day and a night we did slay three thousand and forty-three; we did slay them even until we had driven them out of our land.

 19 And I, myself, with mine own hands, did help to bury their dead. And behold, to our great sorrow and lamentation, two hundred and seventy-nine of our brethren were slain.

Why was it important for Zeniff to let us know that he personally helped bury the dead?

NB that v18-19 pay more attention to the Lamanite dead than the Nephite dead.  What do you make of this?

CHAPTER 10

 1 And it came to pass that we again began to establish the kingdom and we again began to possess the land in peace. And I caused that there should be weapons of war made of every kind, that thereby I might have weapons for my people against the time the Lamanites should come up again to war against my people.

 2 And I set guards round about the land, that the Lamanites might not come upon us again unawares and destroy us; and thus I did guard my people and my flocks, and keep them from falling into the hands of our enemies.

 3 And it came to pass that we did inherit the land of our fathers for many years, yea, *for the space of twenty and two years.

So . . . does this cause you to reread his overzealousness at the beginning of ch9?  Things didn’t really turn out so bad after all, did they?

 4 And I did cause that the men should till the ground, and raise all manner of grain and all manner of fruit of every kind.

 5 And I did cause that the women should spin, and toil, and work, and work all manner of fine linen, yea, and cloth of every kind, that we might clothe our nakedness; and thus we did prosper in the land—thus we did have continual peace in the land for the space of twenty and two years.

Skousen would omit the second “and work” here on a conjectural basis.  This is one of the few times that I would like to vociferously dispute his reading, on the grounds that it should be obvious that women work and work.

The BoM rarely pays attention to what the women were doing.  Why is this passage an exception to that rule?

What does the “and I did cause” mean in this verse and in v4?  What precisely would he have done, exactly?

The end of this verse makes it sound as if the content of v4-5 were the cause of their peace in the land?  How might this be possible?  If it is, what exactly led to the peace:  the king coercing labor?  The king coercing gender-assigned labor?  Or what?

 6 And it came to pass that king Laman died, and his son began to reign in his stead. And he began to stir his people up in rebellion against my people; therefore they began to prepare for war, and to come up to battle against my people.

 7 But I had sent my spies out round about the land of Shemlon, that I might discover their preparations, that I might guard against them, that they might not come upon my people and destroy them.

Can’t help but find some irony in that Zeniff got his start (at least, in our record he got his start) as a spy who went rogue.

 8 And it came to pass that they came up upon the north of the land of Shilom, with their numerous hosts, men armed with bows, and with arrows, and with swords, and with cimeters, and with stones, and with slings; and they had their heads shaved that they were naked; and they were girded with a leathern girdle about their loins.

Why were the details in this verse included?

“They had their heads shaved that they were naked” does not compute, especially since they had a leather loin covering (so they were not naked).  Presumably it means that their heads were naked.  Why might this be worth mentioning?

 9 And it came to pass that I caused that the women and children of my people should be hid in the wilderness; and I also caused that all my old men that could bear arms, and also all my young men that were able to bear arms, should gather themselves together to go to battle against the Lamanites; and I did place them in their ranks, every man according to his age.

Does the hiding in the wilderness mean that they didn’t think they could defend their cities?  (Wouldn’t you normally hide the vulnerable population in the fortified city?)

Why was this verse included in the record?  Perhaps because it seems particularly irrelevant, we might wonder why the idea that the fighters were arranged by age is mentioned.  Could it possibly have any relationship to the arrangement by families at Ben’s speech?  (This might be too much of a stretch, but I’m wondering if the idea is that age and gender are the keys to organization when we are at war, but family is the primary organization for peace and worship.)

 10 And it came to pass that we did go up to battle against the Lamanites; and I, even I, in my old age, did go up to battle against the Lamanites. And it came to pass that we did go up in the strength of the Lord to battle.

I mentioned above that Zeniff seemed unusually introspective with his comments on his overzealousness; here, he seems rather martyr-ish or melodramatic or something with his “I, even I, in my old age” line.  What can you learn from Zeniff’s character?

 11 Now, the Lamanites knew nothing concerning the Lord, nor the strength of the Lord, therefore they depended upon their own strength. Yet they were a strong people, as to the strength of men.

NB that Ammon was described as a “strong man” when he was introduced.

What’s interesting and sad about this is that these “Lamanites” are not that far removed from the audience of Jacob’s speech in Jacob 2, and yet here they know nothing of the Lord (unless this is more hyperbolic PR).

 12 They were a wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, believing in the tradition of their fathers, which is this—Believing that they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem because of the iniquities of their fathers, and that they were wronged in the wilderness by their brethren, and they were also wronged while crossing the sea;

Interesting contrast here–remember that before Ben’s speech, the people gave thanks that they had been taken out of Jrsm before it was destroyed.  I think it was William Faulkner who said, “The past isn’t dead.  It isn’t even past.”  Righteous or wicked, they were all acting according to their beliefs of what happened in the past.

 13 And again, that they were wronged while in the land of their first inheritance, after they had crossed the sea, and all this because that Nephi was more faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord—therefore he was favored of the Lord, for the Lord heard his prayers and answered them, and he took the lead of their journey in the wilderness.

See v17 for more Lamanite revisionist history.  The BoM makes frequent mention of the role that false information about history played in making the Lamanites resistant to true teachings.  What are the lessons for us from all of this?  How can we know if our history (both sacred and secular) and our interpretation thereof is accurate?

 14 And his brethren were wroth with him because they understood not the dealings of the Lord; they were also wroth with him upon the waters because they hardened their hearts against the Lord.

 15 And again, they were wroth with him when they had arrived in the promised land, because they said that he had taken the ruling of the people out of their hands; and they sought to kill him.

 16 And again, they were wroth with him because he departed into the wilderness as the Lord had commanded him, and took the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, for they said that he robbed them.

This raises the question of why they would even have wanted the plates.  I think it points to the fact that they were not simply wicked, but rather were plenty religious, they just disagreed with Nephi’s interpretation of religious things.

 17 And thus they have taught their children that they should hate them, and that they should murder them, and that they should rob and plunder them, and do all they could to destroy them; therefore they have an eternal hatred towards the children of Nephi.

So . . . did Zeniff just conveniently forget these troubling facts when he was a spy and urging his people not to kill the Lamanites?  And then when he took a bunch of people and entered a treaty to live among them?  What did he see among the Lamanites that caused him to blank out their nefarious nature, and then choose to live among them?  (I don’t think “overzealousness” quite explains it.)  Has his view changed now that he has more experience with the Lamanites?  Or is he, perhaps, just as guilty of one-sided, not-entirely-true, revisionist history as they are?

This verse ends a relatively long passage (going back to v12) that covers the (false) Lamanite beliefs. Why would it have been important to include this in the record?

NB that these “Lamanites” appear to include the descendants of the people who followed Nephi away from Laman and Lemuel, but did not follow Mosiah away from the wicked Nephites (see Omni 1:12).  It is somewhat amazing to think of this group of people, whose ancestors chose to go with Lehi, whose ancestors chose to go with Nephi, but who then chose to align themselves with the Lamanite view of the world.

I think it is easy to read a verse like this and think about all of the Bad Things that Other People think about us.  It is a little harder to read this verse and consider the Bad Things that we think about Other People.  Probably not a question I’d be brave enough to ask in Sunday School, but a great one for private reflection:  What do I believe about other groups of people that is based on a convenient (for me) interpretation of history?

So I’ll confess to being a Howard Zinn, Joshua Freeman, and James W. Loewen fan before I say that I find the BoM’s repeated emphasis on the (ab)uses of history fascinating.  You can’t, I think, walk away from this book thinking that history is an objective set of facts, but rather that history is always a narrative motivated by the desires of the teller.  This would be true for the “good” guys as well–they recount history not because they are history nerds but because they see it as a way to get people to trust God.  Note that in this verse, the study of history is not some ivory tower affair, but rather the prime mover for their attitude toward the Nephites, which is then manifested in war and plunder.

 18 For this very cause has king Laman, by his cunning, and lying craftiness, and his fair promises, deceived me, that I have brought this my people up into this land, that they may destroy them; yea, and we have suffered these many years in the land.

Wait–if v17 is correct, then shouldn’t king Laman have tried to murder Zeniff’s people?  Why, instead, did he actually make a treaty with them and let them live in peace for 12 years?  (Of course, their military defeat may have necessitated that.)  But the larger point is this:  if the goal was to destroy them, why drag it out with the treaty and the settlement and all that?  Why not just kill them right away?

Brant Gardner:

Finally, how is it that Zeniff knows so much about the reasons behind a Lamanite attack? Does he confer with king Laman? No. What we have are Zeniff’s suppositions, not facts. Those suppositions are filtered through the antipathy and distrusting separation between Lamanite and Nephite. Citation

I agree with Gardner here and find it very interesting to consider the implications if we assume that we have an unreliable narrator here.

 19 And now I, Zeniff, after having told all these things unto my people concerning the Lamanites, I did stimulate them to go to battle with their might, putting their trust in the Lord; therefore, we did contend with them, face to face.

If you agree with the Gardner quote from v18, then Zeniff has done exactly what he is accusing the Lamanites of doing:  he has created a historical narrative of questionable accuracy in order to motivate people to go to war.  (Irony alert.)

 20 And it came to pass that we did drive them again out of our land; and we slew them with a great slaughter, even so many that we did not number them.

 21 And it came to pass that we returned again to our own land, and my people again began to tend their flocks, and to till their ground.

There are many references in Zeniff’s record to the daily work of the people (agricultural pursuits).  They seem to always be juxtaposed to warfare.  I am wondering if there is a deeper meaning to this.

 22 And now I, being old, *did confer the kingdom upon one of my sons; therefore, I say no more. And may the Lord bless my people. Amen.

Why doesn’t he tell us the son’s name here?  (Note:  it is Noah.)

Grant Hardy:

In Mosiah 9-10, we find the personal memoirs of Zeniff, the founder of a colony in the Land of Nephi.  He wrote these two chapters toward the end of his life, and to me they seem to recount a slow transition from youthful idealism to a mature, wary realism.  At every turn, Zeniff’s good intentions and willingness to give others the benefit of the doubt turn out badly.  In the first verses, he tries to convince the leader of his expedition to not destroy the Lamanites and the result is a massacre among his fellow Nephites.  As part of a second expedition, Zeniff establishes a treaty of peaceful coexistence with the Lamanites, which is broken twelve years later when the Lamanite king attempts to enslave the Nephite colony.  Zeniff ends his days by militarizing his people with weapons, spies, and slaughter—the very tactics that he had so forcefully rejected as a young man.  And since Zeniff appoints his son Noah as his successor—wicked king Noah—his last act is, once again, to put his trust in someone unworthy of it. Citation

CHAPTER 11
1 And now it came to pass that Zeniff conferred the kingdom upon Noah, one of his sons; therefore Noah began to reign in his stead; and he did not walk in the ways of his father.

Note that there is a change from the end of ch10, which was Zeniff’s own record, to this record, which appears to be an abridgement.  (One wonders who kept the record during the time of Noah.)    One of the interesting effects of this is that we get a very clear moral judgement on Noah right off the bat (in this verse), whereas we have to work a little harder to discern the moral in Zeniff’s story.

Why do you think the scriptures use the metaphor of walking for righteousness?

Jim F.:  “If something about his background might account for Noah’s wickedness, what can you imagine it might be?”  Zeniff didn’t seem to be such a bad egg; how does he end up giving his kingdom to Noah, especially when he had other sons?

I find it interesting that Zeniff is regarded fairly highly in this verse (in contrast with his son) when the last two chapters were chock-full of his mistakes.

 2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.

Is it possible for one person to cause another person to commit sin?

What do you make of putting “keeping the commandments” into opposition with “walking after the desires of his own heart”?  Is that unique to bad guys like Noah, or is it universal?

What does this verse teach you about your desires?  (In other words, is it always right to place following your own desires in opposition to keeping the commandments of God?)

So of course no king is ever going to keep a record that says, “And then, I forced everyone to sin.”  So Mormon is probably reading between the lines of the records from Noah’s reign in order to put this story together.  (That would make a fun “fan fiction” for the BoM:  write the records that survived from Noah’s court.  I suppose if Alma wrote, then they’d be pretty straightforward, though.)

While it isn’t mentioned in this verse, we’re about to get an earful about their economic sins.  So like with Jacob, polygamy (which is also condemned there) goes along with economic sin.  Is there a message in this–either in the linking of polygamy and wealth-seeking, or in the mention of themes found in Jacob, as if Jacob’s warning found their fulfillment in Noah’s wickedness?  (One link might be that keeping all of those women required him to levy a big tax.)

 3 And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed, a fifth part of their gold and of their silver, and a fifth part of their ziff, and of their copper, and of their brass and their iron; and a fifth part of their fatlings; and also a fifth part of all their grain.

How might this be related to the 50% tax that the Lamanites would levy on Noah’s son’s generation?

 4 And all this did he take to support himself, and his wives and his concubines; and also his priests, and their wives and their concubines; thus he had changed the affairs of the kingdom.

Just a quick note to those who use v3 to suggest that a 20% tax rate is obviously evil:  it isn’t clear that Noah did anything wrong in v3 (the OT tradition is supportive of kings gathering resources–what we would call a tax–to help the poor and well as in the BoM).  The wrong may appear in this verse, where the tax money is used for personal needs.

 5 For he put down all the priests that had been consecrated by his father, and consecrated new ones in their stead, such as were lifted up in the pride of their hearts.

I’m interested in the parallel between the uses of priests and the uses of history.  One wants both priests and history to be objective parties, but this verse, and the Lamanite use of history, suggests that both can be perverted to support pre-determined desired outcomes.

I’m wondering if part of the lesson here is that the priests were supposed to be functioning as a check on the behavior of the king.  If so, what might we learn from this?

 6 Yea, and thus they were supported in their laziness, and in their idolatry, and in their whoredoms, by the taxes which king Noah had put upon his people; thus did the people labor exceedingly to support iniquity.

What can you learn from comparing Noah and Benjamin as kings?  Given that you are not a king (or queen), how is this material relevant to you?

 7 Yea, and they also became idolatrous, because they were deceived by the vain and flattering words of the king and priests; for they did speak flattering things unto them.

What would our cultural equivalent of flattery leading to idolatry be?

 8 And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper;

The other buildings with nice ornaments that we hear about in the scriptures are the temples/tabernacles, which makes for an interesting inversion . . .

 9 And he also built him a spacious palace, and a throne in the midst thereof, all of which was of fine wood and was ornamented with gold and silver and with precious things.

 10 And he also caused that his workmen should work all manner of fine work within the walls of the temple, of fine wood, and of copper, and of brass.

 11 And the seats which were set apart for the high priests, which were above all the other seats, he did ornament with pure gold; and he caused a breastwork to be built before them, that they might rest their bodies and their arms upon while they should speak lying and vain words to his people.

 12 And it came to pass that he built a tower near the temple; yea, a very high tower, even so high that he could stand upon the top thereof and overlook the land of Shilom, and also the land of Shemlon, which was possessed by the Lamanites; and he could even look over all the land round about.

Contrast with Benjamin’s tower–what are the crucial differences?

(I’m sorry, but this verse makes me think of Yertle the Turtle.)

 13 And it came to pass that he caused many buildings to be built in the land Shilom; and he caused a great tower to be built on the hill north of the land Shilom, which had been a resort for the children of Nephi at the time they fled out of the land; and thus he did do with the riches which he obtained by the taxation of his people.

Usually in the scriptures, the “watchman on the tower” image is a positive one.  Many places in the BoM speak positively of preparing defenses, which would include watch towers.  And today, even the most ardent small-government people recognize the need for defense expenditures. Why, then, is this a part of Mormon’s litany of complaint against Noah?

 14 And it came to pass that he placed his heart upon his riches, and he spent his time in riotous living with his wives and his concubines; and so did also his priests spend their time with harlots.

I’m wondering if the contrast between Noah’s wives and concubines and the priests’ harlots means that he had forbidden the priests to marry.

I’m curious about the image of placing a heart upon riches.  Usually in the Bible, they use heart where we would use mind.  What would it mean to place your mind upon your riches?  You obviously have to spend some amount of time thinking about your financial security; how and where do you draw the line?

The only other scriptural use of the phrase “riotous living” (which, by the way, is one of my favorite phrases and it would be fun to imagine it as the title of a home magazine) is in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15).  What can you learn from comparing these two stories?

 15 And it came to pass that he planted vineyards round about in the land; and he builtwine-presses, and made wine in abundance; and therefore he became a wine-bibber, and also his people.

 16 And it came to pass that the Lamanites began to come in upon his people, upon small numbers, and to slay them in their fields, and while they were tending their flocks.

 17 And king Noah sent guards round about the land to keep them off; but he did not send a sufficient number, and the Lamanites came upon them and killed them, and drove many of their flocks out of the land; thus the Lamanites began to destroy them, and to exercise their hatred upon them.

 18 And it came to pass that king Noah sent his armies against them, and they were driven back, or they drove them back for a time; therefore, they returned rejoicing in their spoil.

 19 And now, because of this great victory they were lifted up in the pride of their hearts; they did boast in their own strength, saying that their fifty could stand against thousands of the Lamanites; and thus they did boast, and did delight in blood, and the shedding of the blood of their brethren, and this because of the wickedness of their king and priests.

This is reminiscent of Cain’s wives.

Where does the agency of the people come in if they are acting because of the wickedness of their leaders?

Jim F.:  “How does Noah’s attitude about war compare with Moroni’s? Could Noah say, as did Moroni, that he and his soldiers are fighting for religion, their freedom, their peace, their wives, and their children (Alma 46:12)? Why or why not? If he could say something like this, how does he differ from Moroni? How do we avoid being like Noah? ”

Note that their military adventures get quite a bit of airtime along with their other sins.  This may just be Mormon’s fingerprint, but I wonder what else we can glean from the presentation of Noah’s sins–are there patterns?  Relationships?

 20 And it came to pass that there was a man among them whose name was Abinadi; *and he went forth among them, and began to prophesy, saying: Behold, thus saith the Lord, and thus hath he commanded me, saying, Go forth, and say unto this people, thus saith the Lord—Wo be unto this people, for I have seen their abominations, and their wickedness, and their whoredoms; and except they repent I will visit them in mine anger.

Why is there no background information given for Abinadi?  (John A. Tvedtnes suggests that he might have been one of the priests that Noah deposed–I’m not sure if Noah’s lack of knowledge of who Abinadi is in v27 supports or refutes that theory.  It is also possible that Noah is speaking more metaphorically there.)

At this point it seems that v1-19 has mostly been a build-up to the introduction of Abinadi.  If you reread those verses, in what ways do they set the stage for him?

I’m curious about the word “prophesy” in this verse:  read what Abinadi says in this verse (and the next)–does it meet what you usually consider the definition of prophesying?

What work is “and thus hath he commanded me” accomplishing in this verse?

Note that “thus saith the Lord” is repeated. What effect does this emphasis have?

This question may need to wait until the end of Abinadi’s story, but is there any indication as to how he is able to avoid the wickedness around him?

 21 And except they repent and turn to the Lord their God, behold, I will deliver them into the hands of their enemies; yea, and they shall be brought into bondage; and they shall be afflicted by the hand of their enemies.

You can just see the people saying, “Repent?  Well, that’s a good idea, but you’d have to be pretty naive to think that a big ol’ wall of repentance will stop the Lamanites from attacking us.  What stops the Lamanites is their belief that we’ll pound them if they attack, and that belief stems from us being super-fortified with walls and arms.  Repentance has nothing to do with it.”  See this article for more on this theme.

 22 And it shall come to pass that they shall know that I am the Lord their God, and am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of my people.

When the scriptures describe God as “jealous,” no one is a literalist.  Is that wrong?  What does it mean to say god is jealous?  In what situations, if any, is it appropriate for a person to be jealous?

What exactly does “visiting the iniquities” mean?

 23 And it shall come to pass that except this people repent and turn unto the Lord their God, they shall be brought into bondage; and none shall deliver them, except it be the Lord the Almighty God.

Skousen reads “turn to” instead of “turn unto” here.

It is easy to lose the message here since we know how the story ends, but it is a remarkable indication of the Lord’s mercy toward these very wicked people that the Lord was willing to (1) send them this message and (2) make it possible for them to repent and be delivered. It is easy to read this speech as a condemnation (and, in a sense, it is), but it is also an invitation.

 24 Yea, and it shall come to pass that when they shall cry unto me I will be slow to hear their cries; yea, and I will suffer them that they be smitten by their enemies.

 25 And except they repent in sackcloth and ashes, and cry mightily to the Lord their God, I will not hear their prayers, neither will I deliver them out of their afflictions; and thus saith the Lord, and thus hath he commanded me.

In the OT, sackcloth and ashes are symbols of mourning.  (It is kind of fun to imagine modern versions of this:  “except they repent with funeral potatoes and stiff black clothes . . .”)

Donald W. Parry identifies the following chiasmus in this text:

A Behold, thus saith the Lord, and thus hath he commanded me, saying, Go forth, and say unto this people,
B thus saith the Lord—
C Wo be unto this people, for I have seen their abominations, and their wickedness, and their whoredoms;
D and except they repent I will visit them in mine anger.
E And except they repent and turn to the Lord their God, behold, I will deliver them into the hands of their enemies; yea, and they shall be brought into bondage; and they shall be afflicted by the hand of their enemies.
F And it shall come to pass that they shall know that I am the Lord their God
G and am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of my people.
H And it shall come to pass that except this people repent
H and turn unto the Lord their God
G they shall be brought into bondage;
F and none shall deliver them, except it be the Lord the Almighty God.
E Yea, and it shall come to pass that when they shall cry unto me I will be slow to hear their cries; yea, and I will suffer them that they be smitten by their enemies.
D And except they repent in sackcloth and ashes, and cry mightily to the Lord their God
C I will not hear their prayers, neither will I deliver them out of their afflictions;
B and thus saith the Lord,
A and thus hath he commanded me.  Citation

26 Now it came to pass that when Abinadi had spoken these words unto them they were wroth with him, and sought to take away his life; but the Lord delivered him out of their hands.

I bet there’s a really good story here . . .

Reread Abinadi’s message, looking for what would have made them angry.

Brant Gardner:

We might assume that it was the officials who were wroth, but it appears that it was the people themselves who rejected Abinadi. In verse 26 it is apparently the people to whom Abinadi was preaching who sought his life. Noah does not appear to hear of Abinadi until after this event, witnessed by the following verse. Thus it is convenient to blame Noah for the apostasy of the people, but their bondage was brought on by their own decisions, and not simply the rule of Noah. Citation

 27 Now when king Noah had heard of the words which Abinadi had spoken unto the people, he was also wroth; and he said: Who is Abinadi, that I and my people should be judged of him, or who is the Lord, that shall bring upon my people such great affliction?

The question about Abinadi seems fair (as there is no background given–see verse 20), but why is he asking that about the Lord?

Implicit in the structure of this verse is a comparison between Abinidi and the Lord; this is most ironic.

 28 I command you to bring Abinadi hither, that I may slay him, for he has said these things that he might stir up my people to anger one with another, and to raise contentions among my people; therefore I will slay him.

NB how the desire to avoid contention is being perverted here as a cover to kill a prophet.  In what ways might we falsely claim the banner of “but we’re just avoiding contention!” in order to shut down someone who shouldn’t be?

 29 Now the eyes of the people were blinded; therefore they hardened their hearts against the words of Abinadi, and they sought from that time forward to take him. And king Noah hardened his heart against the word of the Lord, and he did not repent of his evil doings.

Does this verse, with the blind and hard references, seek to compare Abinadi with Isaiah?  (If so, what is interesting about that is that it might imply that Abinadi had a theophany we don’t know about, but I admit that that is a stretch.)

Who is doing the blinding here–the Lord?  Noah?  The people themselves?

Does the final sentence indicate that Noah had not hardened his heart before this time?  (That’s somewhat hard to believe, but if he hadn’t then what would that phrase mean here?)

General thoughts:

(1) We have some stories with interesting overlaps here:

–Ammon’s journey to the Land of Nephi

–Zeniff’s journey to the land of Nephi

–Limhi’s people sending people out to Zarahemla (which they fail to find, but they find Jaredite remains)

–Limhi anticipating a journey to Zarahemla

And then the text draws out attention to parallels between these journeys and Lehi’s and Moses’ exoduses.  What should we conclude from the similarities and differences between these journeys?

(2) Many scholars have noted parallels between King Ben’s speech and Limhi’s speech and/or Noah’s lifestyle as king.  What can you learn from comparing them?

(3) The order of the Book of Mosiah is really weird, with flashbacks and digressions.  There’s more to come on this topic in future weeks as we press through Mosiah, but at this point, note that we get Ben’s speech, then the contemporaneous Limhi, then a flashback to Zeniff’s record, then the barest of introductions to the Jaredites.  Should we assume that the ordering of material is significant?  If so, what are we to learn from this flashback?

Do you read this verse to say that all of ch3 was the words of the angel (and none was Ben’s commentary)?  Are there other possible interpretations?

Is “cast his eyes” simply a stage direction or might it be a more technical term?  Here’s a list of all of the occurrences of “cast his eyes” in the BoM.

What in ch3 caused fear?  (Maybe his preachings about condemnation in the last chapter–but what about 1:11?) Was that the right reaction to have?

Did Ben need to cast his eyes to realize that they had fallen? (Would it not have been obvious?)  (Can he see into their tents?) Why didn’t he notice this while he was still speaking?

Is the “fallen” in this verse related to all of the material about the fall of Adam earlier in Ben’s speech?  If so, what light might that shed?

2 And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.

Remember that Ben has told us that these people are basically righteous–what do you make then of the idea that the people had realized that they are “in a carnal state”?  Is that compatible with righteousness?

Here’s a list of all of the BoM uses of “carnal.”  NB Alma 41:13 seems to take it as a synonym for evil; Mosiah 16:3 for devilish; Alma 41:11 takes it as a state of nature.  What does this word mean?

In my experience, huge crowds do not spontaneously all say the same thing at once (at least, not without a little prompting).  (See also 5:5 and my comment on it.) How, then, do you read the statement of the crowd in this verse?

I’m wondering if there is a link between falling to the earth in v1 and seeing oneself as less than the dust of the earth in v2–are they in a way re-enacting the undoing of the creation (that is, Adam returns to the dust), or is that too weird?

3 And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them.

NB that the Spirit comes to them as a result of what they said in the previous verse, which means that we should be able to use the previous verse as a template for inviting the Spirit.  If you do that, what do you learn?

There’s that joy again!

Does remission of sins require baptism?  If so, then what do you make of the lack of reference to baptism here?

Does the reference to “peace of conscience” help us better understand what Ben meant when he used that term before?

This verse reflects a pretty sudden turn around from the less-than-dust carnal state above.  How do you account for such a sudden shift?

What do v2-3 teach you about the results of accepting the gospel?

If we met someone who viewed themselves as less than the dust of the earth, we would tell them to get therapy for low self-esteem.  What are we missing?

V1-3 are a break from speechifying; if you consider them as “sandwiched” between parts of the speech, what do you conclude?  How are they shaped by the speech?  How do they shape the speech?

Richard G. Scott:

God wants each of His children to enjoy the transcendent blessing of peace of conscience.A tranquil conscience invites freedom from anguish, sorrow, guilt, shame, and self-condemnation. It provides a foundation for happiness. It is a condition of immense worth, yet there are few on earth that enjoy it. Why? Most often because the principles upon which peace of conscience is founded are either not understood or not adequately followed. My life has been so richly endowed from peace of conscience that I would share insights on how it can be obtained. Oct 04 GC

4 And king Benjamin again opened his mouth and began to speak unto them, saying: My friends and my brethren, my kindred and my people, I would again call your attention, that ye may hear and understand the remainder of my words which I shall speak unto you.

What work is “opened his mouth” doing?  (Wouldn’t we just assume that when we learn that he began to speak?)

Why friends/brethren/kindred [NB:  not literally true]/people?

Brant Gardner suggests that, from this point forward and contra what we have had before, the speech is unscripted because its content depended on the people’s response  (v1-3) to what had come before.  Do you find this plausible?  If so, how does it impact your interpretation of the speech?

5 For behold, if the knowledge of the goodness of God at this time has awakened you to a sense of your nothingness, and your worthless and fallen state—

Does the awakening here have anything to do with the angel asking Ben to awaken in the previous chapter?

Worthless?  Really?

6 I say unto you, if ye have come to a knowledge of the goodness of God, and his matchless power, and his wisdom, and his patience, and his long-suffering towards the children of men; and also, the atonement which has been prepared from the foundation of the world, that thereby salvation might come to him that should put his trust in the Lord, and should be diligent in keeping his commandments, and continue in the faith even unto the end of his life, I mean the life of the mortal body—

This verse includes five characteristics of God (goodness, power, wisdom, patience, long-suffering).  How do they relate?  What is the difference between patience and long-suffering?  What is the relationship between power and wisdom?  Why did Ben mention these five (and not any number of others)?

What does it mean to “come to a knowledge” of these things?

The verse continues with reference to the atonement, which I see as the hinge of the verse.  The five characteristics of God lead to the plan for the atonement.  Then, the verse concludes with three desired human responses:  trust, diligence, faith.

7 I say, that this is the man who receiveth salvation, through the atonement which was prepared from the foundation of the world for all mankind, which ever were since the fall of Adam, or who are, or who ever shall be, even unto the end of the world.

Why is the idea of atonement being prepared from the foundation of the world repeated from the previous verse?

8 And this is the means whereby salvation cometh. And there is none other salvation save this which hath been spoken of; neither are there any conditions whereby man can be saved except the conditions which I have told you.

Why doesn’t Ben include ordinances in his discussion of the requirements of salvation?

9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

I think the last line of this verse is singularly important and singularly ignored by people.  Note that Ben is assuring us that there will be things that we will not understand, that the Lord does understand, and that this fact is a fundamental on par with the idea of believing in God.  Yet most of us walk around acting as if we have been robbed if there are things that we do not understand, when Ben has taught us that that is actually the normal state of affairs!

I’m curious about the phrasing of this verse as if it were a commandment.  Can you command someone to believe something?  Can you choose to believe in something?  I’m probably getting into angels-on-the-head of a pin territory here,  . . . but it seems like you either believe something or you don’t.  (I think about this in the context of my own conversion–at one point I didn’t believe things, at another point I did, but I have no idea how I got from A to B; it just happened. But I kind of doubt that someone telling me to believe something would have worked.)  Of course, in context, Ben isn’t speaking to a bunch of non-believers, but rather to basically good (see 1:11) people who have furthered their commitment to God in this very chapter.  In that context, what does telling them to “believe in God” mean?  To believe what God says?  (That is, believe in God’s words, as opposed to believe in God’s existence?)

What is the relationship of this verse to the one before it?

Neal A. Maxwell:

No wonder King Benjamin pleads with us to believe that we do not comprehend all that God comprehends (see Mosiah 4:9). Ignoring the revelations about God’s astounding capacity is like playing aimlessly and contentedly with wooden blocks featuring the letters of the alphabet, without realizing Shakespearean sonnets were created using that same alphabet. Oct 02 GC

10 And again, believe that ye must repent of your sins and forsake them, and humble yourselves before God; and ask in sincerity of heart that he would forgive you; and now, if you believe all these things see that ye do them.

Consider the five “believe” statements in v9-10.  Is there a pattern?  How do these statements relate to each other?

Richard Dilworth Rust:

A figure of speech King Benjamin uses effectively is to begin a series of clauses with the same word, a device called anaphora, as in this passage:

Believe in God;
believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven
and in earth;
believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven
and in earth;
believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the
Lord can comprehend.
And again, believe that ye must repent of your sins and forsake
them, and humble yourselves before God;
and ask in sincerity of heart that he would forgive you;
and now, if you believe all these things see that ye do them.
(Mosiah 4:9–10)The cumulative power of this figure is the climactic shift from believe to the injunction “see that ye do them.”  Citation

11 And again I say unto you as I have said before, that as ye have come to the knowledge of the glory of God, or if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love, and have received a remission of your sins, which causeth such exceedingly great joy in your souls, even so I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves even in the depths of humility, calling on the name of the Lord daily, and standing steadfastly in the faith of that which is to come, which was spoken by the mouth of the angel.

“Unworthy creatures” seems a bit over-the-top as a way to directly address the audience, especially after their experience in v2.  Why does Ben use this language?

Does the “or” in this verse mean that “com[ing] to the knowledge of the glory of God” is the same thing as “know[ing] of his goodness.”

What does “taste” suggest to you about the process of experiencing God’s love?

There’s that joy again.  I’m curious about the remission of sins -> joy dynamic that we keep hearing about.  How does this work?  Why does this work?

What does the image of “standing steadfastly” suggest to you about faith?

It seems that a lot of BoM faith is aimed forward–they are asked not so much to have faith in things that are true that they can’t perceive but rather in things that are true that will happen in the future.  In what ways is that the case for us?  In what ways is it different?

12 And behold, I say unto you that if ye do this ye shall always rejoice, and be filled with the love of God, and always retain a remission of your sins; and ye shall grow in the knowledge of the glory of him that created you, or in the knowledge of that which is just and true.

Is it literally true that you will “always” rejoice if you do the things from v11?

Does “love of God” mean love from God, love toward God, or something else?  (I think if biblical scholars could ban one word it would be “of,” which is an omnipresent but evil little beast that can mean many, many different things.)

This section has a big emphasis on “knowledge.”  What is its ultimate message about knowledge?

What does the word “just” mean in this verse–what would it mean to have knowledge of things that are just?

13 And ye will not have a mind to injure one another, but to live peaceably, and to render to every man according to that which is his due.

“Have a mind” is unusual language; what does it mean?

I like the idea that as we increase in righteousness, our desire for sin will decrease.  That is a powerful promise.

Wouldn’t we have expected Ben to tell us that we should render to everyone more than their due?

14 And ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked; neither will ye suffer that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin, or who is the evil spirit which hath been spoken of by our fathers, he being an enemy to all righteousness.

How do you reconcile this counsel not to suffer (=permit) your children to violate God’s law with the idea that agency is really important?

Every LDS parent secretly hates this verse.  How exactly are we supposed to stop our children from fighting and quarreling with each other?

Do you think this verse applies to “your [biological] children” or to all of the children in the community?  I think we usually assume the former, but given the location of this verse in a context of community, not family situations, perhaps we should consider the latter.

15 But ye will teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; ye will teach them to love one another, and to serve one another.

What does “soberness” mean?

How do you teach someone to love someone else?

Russell M. Nelson:

In rearing our own family, Sister Nelson and I have been very grateful for this counsel from the Book of Mormon: “Ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked; neither will ye suffer that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and quarrel one with another, … But ye will teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; ye will teach them to love one another, and to serve one another.” (Mosiah 4:14–15.) And I might add, please be patient while children learn those lessons. Apr 89 GC

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

Does this verse mean that you must give money to every beggar that you see?  (If not, how do you decide when and to what extent to take the scriptures completely literally)?

In thinking about the relationship of this verse to the section before it, we might conclude that the role of children is to be taught and cared for, but the role of adults (“ye yourselves”) in this verse is to help those who need it.  Is this a productive way of thinking about the world?

Arguments from silence are dangerous things, but I do find it interesting that we know that women are present but they are not addressed as a separate group.  Ben divides the world into “adults” and “children.”

What kinds of conclusions do you draw from both the overlap and the dissimilarities between what children needed in the last few verses and what “beggars” (which, Ben will tell us, is everyone) need in this and subsequent verses?

Brant Gardner writes,

How should this verse be interpreted in a modern context? All of the social rules that governed Benjamin’s society have changed dramatically. Benjamin’s people were primarily agricultural and rural. His people had no monetary economy, but rather one built on exchange. Thus for Benjamin, one who had no food was one who had somehow become displaced from his land, and therefore his ability to grow his own food. Whether through war or illness, the removal of a person from his land created a condition of need, not poverty in the sense that we might understand it. Citation

Henry Eyring:

“The conversation turned to the particularly troublesome scripture in this regard in Mosiah:  (Mosiah 4:16-18.) I asked Spencer [W. Kimball] what he thought of my chances and how he dealt with that particular scripture, since he must have a never-ending stream of such visitors. His eyes twinkled, and he smiled slightly as he said, “I always read fast when I get to those verses.” He didn’t mean it, of course. I don’t know anyone who comes closer to meeting the high standard of that scripture than Spencer, but it’s nice to know that he understands the rest of us.”  Citation

Thinking about v12-16, do you read this section as (1) a commandment or (2) the results of retaining a remembrance of God?

17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

If you take the attitude that Ben encourages in v18 (as opposed to the attitude that he criticizes in this verse), aren’t you making it possible for people to escape the consequences of their actions, and isn’t that a bad thing?  What happened to personal responsibility?  Self-reliance?  Etc.  How do we know when/how (not) to ‘interfere’ with someone’s just punishment?

The anticipation and rebuttal of an argument is not terribly common in scriptures, although Deut 15:9 might be a parallel example; note that it also concerns treatment of the poor.

18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

This is a pretty strong response for an attitude that, I think my questions for v17 show, is not an entirely unreasonable position.  Why does Ben respond so strongly here?

Is this hyperbole?  Is it literally possible that someone could do/believe every single other thing that they were supposed to but be classed with those who have “no interest” in the kingdom because of their attitude toward the poor?

19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?

For the argument in this verse to work, you have to make a direct parallel between God’s provision of stuff to us and out provision of stuff to other people.  What can you learn from that parallel?

I can pretty much guarantee you that if we didn’t have Ben’s speech and someone made this argument in a sacrament meeting talk, the conversation that most of the ward would have on the ride home would be along these lines:  “That was a lame argument.  You can’t compare what God gives us, which we have to work for, with what we give to the poor, which is just a handout.  When God gives us food or clothing, he gives us the opportunity to earn it, not a roast beef tree and a Nike tree.  But that’s what we do when we give a beggar a handout.”  How would you respond to this critique of Ben’s argument?

There are only two other scriptural uses of the word “beggar:”  in Jesus’ parable of the beggar Lazarus (see Luke 16:20f) and in Hannah’s song of praise in 1 Samuel 2 (“The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them.”), in the context of the reversals that the Lord will cause.  Do either of those texts influence your reading of this text?

Would it be right to conclude from this verse that a saint can’t own (in the sense of: being unwilling to part with) anything?

Gordon B. Hinckley:

I am confident that a time will come for each of us when, whether because of sickness or infirmity, of poverty or distress, of oppressive measures against us by man or nature, we shall wish for mercy. And if, through our lives, we have granted mercy to others, we shall obtain it for ourselves. Oct 90 GC

20 And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with joy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.

What does the image of “pouring out” suggest about the Spirit?

Again, for this argument to work, we need a direct parallel between begging for remission of sins and begging for temporal help.  Is that a legitimate parallel?  What does it imply?  What are its repercussions?

21 And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.

For the logic of this verse to work, there needs to be a parallel between God’s willingness to grant the remission of sins to those who do not deserve it and our willingness to grant of our physical substance to those who do not deserve it.  What can you learn from that parallel?

22 And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.

23 I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to the things of this world.

What is your definition of “rich”?  What do you think Ben’s definition of “rich” was?

24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.

What do you conclude from Ben’s definition of “the poor” as those “who have not and yet have sufficient”?

This verse suggests that a prime concern for Ben, in addition to caring for the poor, is the attitudes of the people.  (Note that regardless of the attitude that the poor have, they will not be helping anyone financially.)  What do you make of this emphasis on attitude?

This verse seems to elevate attitude/motive above deed.  What are the advantages and possible disadvantages of that position?

This verse suggests (I think?) that neutrality is not enough to help you remain guiltless, but an affirmation that you would help if you could.  What do you make of that idea?

25 And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.

What does this verse teach about coveting?

Marion G. Romney:

Once we are convinced that we have an obligation to give, we must learn that to render service in the proper spirit is of first importance. Mormon, speaking to those who give for the wrong reasons, said, “For if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing. Oct 81 GC

26 And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

Webster 1828 on “remission”:

1. Abatement; relaxation; moderation; as the remission of extreme rigor.2. Abatement; diminution of intensity; as the remission of the sun’s heat; the remission of cold; the remission of close study or of labor.3. Release; discharge or relinquishment of a claim or right; as the remission of a tax or duty.4. In medicine, abatement; a temporary subsidence of the force or violence of a disease or of pain, as distinguished from intermission, in which the disease leaves the patient entirely for a time.5. Forgiveness; pardon; that is, the giving up of the punishment due to a crime; as the remission of sins.

Do you read this to say that Ben is setting up the items in this verse as the key to keeping sins in remission?

Marion G. Romney:

Is there any question, brothers and sisters, about our obligation in this program? Is there any doubt that retaining a remission of sins depends on our caring for one another? If we believe these teachings, if we profess to follow the Savior and his prophets, if we want to be true to our covenants and have the Spirit of the Lord in our lives, then we must do the things that the Savior said and did.  Oct 80 GC

H. David Burton:

In 1897 a young David O. McKay stood at a door with a tract in his hand. As a missionary in Stirling, Scotland, he had done this many times before. But on that day a very haggard woman opened the door and stood before him. She was poorly dressed and had sunken cheeks and unkempt hair.  She took the tract Elder McKay offered to her and spoke six words that he subsequently would never forget: “Will this buy me any bread?”  This encounter left a lasting impression on the young missionary. He later wrote: “From that moment I had a deeper realization that the Church of Christ should be and is interested in the temporal salvation of man. I walked away from the door feeling that that [woman], with … bitterness in [her heart] toward man and God, [was] in no position to receive the message of the gospel. [She was] in need of temporal help, and there was no organization, so far as I could learn, in Stirling that could give it to [her].” A few decades later the world groaned under the burden of the Great Depression. It was during that time, on April 6, 1936, that President Heber J. Grant and his counselors, J. Reuben Clark and David O. McKay, announced what would later become known as the welfare program of the Church. . . . The commitment of Church leaders to relieve human suffering was as certain as it was irrevocable. President Grant wanted “a system that would … reach out and take care of the people no matter what the cost.” He said he would even go so far as to “close the seminaries, shut down missionary workfor a period of time, or even close the temples, but they would not let the people go hungry.”  Citation

That quote perhaps isn’t directly related to our passage, but it makes two important points:  (1) the final paragraph shows the importance of temporal help and (2) Pres. McKay’s experience shows that temporal welfare is a precondition (in some cases) to spiritual welfare.

An interesting statement from the head of Church Public Affairs on “social justice.”

Grant Hardy:

Benjamin taught his great sermon on social justice as a reigning king, and just as there are accounts of taxes being wickedly squandered (Mosiah 11), there is also an example of the government righteously redistributing wealth in order to support those in need: “Now there was a great number of women, more than there was of men; therefore King Limhi commanded that every man should impart to the support of the widows and their children, that they might not perish with hunger; and this did because of the greatness of their number that had been slain” (Mosiah 21:17). . . .  Sometimes I hear complaints about government social programs that seem to have been rebutted long ago by King Benjamin:

I shouldn’t have to share what I have with people who have not worked as hard or who have made bad decisions or broken the law. Benjamin: “Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this, the same hath great cause to repent” (Mosiah 4:17)

Why should I have to support people who are not like me? My children deserve more than other people’s children; Mormons deserve more than non-Mormons; Americans deserve more than foreigners: “Are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches we have of every kind?” (v. 19)

I worked hard for what I’ve got and so I deserve to do with it as I please. This actually sounds a little like Korihor at Alma 30:17. Benjamin reminds his people that they actually can’t claim credit for their own wealth: “If ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth. (v. 22) (By the way, the “hard work” argument is especially difficult to make for those who have inherited money, or whose families have paid for their education or given them loans.)

I’m a good person, even an upstanding churchgoer; why should I have to care about the poor? Benjamin: “For the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every many according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants” (v. 26).

It’s true that Benjamin counsels conservative caution—“See that all these things are done in wisdom and order” (v. 27)—and he had earlier mentioned overly burdensome taxes (2:14, though in the context of a subsistence economy), but his emphatic insistence on meeting basic human needs makes the exact mechanism of secondary importance. Citation

27 And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

What is the difference between “wisdom” and “order” in this verse, or are they two different ways of saying the same thing?

Why is running (presumably a race) a good analogy for helping the poor?

The verse starts with wisdom and order, then in a restatement we get “diligent,” then at the end, we get order (but not wisdom).  How do these three statements of what is required relate to each other?

This verse seems to me the crux of the complication:  How much am I supposed to give?  How much am I supposed to save against my own future need?  How much can I spend on non-essentials?

In context, this verse is clearly about charity.  We often extend its meaning to any other topic for which we might be tempted to overdo it.  Is that a legitimate application of this verse?

Neal A. Maxwell:

Yet in the intensity of King Benjamin’s discipleship, there is also balance. After his exhortation on caring for the poor, he nevertheless urged that we do things “in wisdom and order” (Mosiah 4:27). How like the counsel of the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith: “Do not run faster or labor more than you have strength and means provided to enable you to translate” (D&C 10:4). A lack of balance can burn out discipleship. Hence we have Benjamin’s wisdom and order test, and we have the strength and means test given to Joseph Smith by the Lord. I wonder if, in this connection, Benjamin’s time spent gardening and farming in order to avoid being a burden might also have provided him with much-needed therapy and with time for unhurried reflection. Citation

Joseph B. Wirthlin:

We don’t have to be fast; we simply have to be steady and move in the right direction. We have to do the best we can, one step after another. Oct 01 GC

Dallin H. Oaks:

We should remember King Benjamin’s caution to “see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength” (Mosiah 4:27). I think of that inspired teaching whenever I feel inadequate, frustrated, or depressed. Oct 93 GC

M. Russell Ballard:

As a result of their focusing too much time and energy on their Church service, eternal family relationships can deteriorate. Employment performance can suffer. This is not healthy, spiritually or otherwise. While there may be times when our Church callings require more intense effort and unusual focus, we need to strive to keep things in proper balance. We should never allow our service to replace the attention needed by other important priorities in our lives. Remember King Benjamin’s counsel: “And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength” Oct 06 GC

H. David Burton:

The great King Benjamin taught that one of the reasons we impart of our substance to the poor and administer to their relief is so that we may retain a remission of our sins from day to day and walk guiltless before God.Since the foundation of the world, the cloth of righteous societies has ever been woven from the golden threads of charity. We yearn for a peaceful world and for prosperous communities. We pray for kind and virtuous societies where wickedness is forsaken and goodness and right prevail. No matter how many temples we build, no matter how large our membership grows, no matter how positively we are perceived in the eyes of the world—should we fail in this great core commandment to “succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees,”or turn our hearts from those who suffer and mourn, we are under condemnation and cannot please the Lord and the jubilant hope of our hearts will ever be distant. Apr 11 GC

Dieter F. Uchtdorf:

This very hour there are many members of the Church who are suffering. They are hungry, stretched financially, and struggling with all manner of physical, emotional, and spiritual distress. They pray with all the energy of their souls for succor, for relief. Brethren, please do not think that this is someone else’s responsibility. It is mine, and it is yours. We are all enlisted. “All” means all—every Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood holder, rich and poor, in every nation. In the Lord’s plan, there is something everyone can contribute.The lesson we learn generation after generation is that rich and poor are all under the same sacred obligation to help their neighbor. It will take all of us working together to successfully apply the principles of welfare and self-reliance. Too often we notice the needs around us, hoping that someone from far away will magically appear to meet those needs. Perhaps we wait for experts with specialized knowledge to solve specific problems. When we do this, we deprive our neighbor of the service we could render, and we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to serve. While there is nothing wrong with experts, let’s face it: there will never be enough of them to solve all the problems. Instead, the Lord has placed His priesthood and its organization at our doorsteps in every nation where the Church is established. And, right by its side, He has placed the Relief Society. As we priesthood holders know, no welfare effort is successful if it fails to make use of the remarkable gifts and talents of our sisters. Oct 11 GC

28 And I would that ye should remember, that whosoever among you borroweth of his neighbor should return the thing that he borroweth, according as he doth agree, or else thou shalt commit sin; and perhaps thou shalt cause thy neighbor to commit sin also.

How does this verse relate to the ones before it?  (I can think of two ways:  one is that God lends us everything and we return it, not to God but to other people who are in need.  Another is that the lending of objects is a separate category from the giving of charity and the two should not be confused.)

I’m always uncomfortable with the idea that we can cause other people to sin.  Thoughts?

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

What does this verse teach you about the nature of sin?  (My thought:  This is very profound, and not just a throw-away “hey, folks, looks like I’m outta time!”  Rather, sin is not in a list of discrete acts that can be numbered in a big list of “thou shalt not”s but rather has a lot more to do with attitude, as described above.)

30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

Skousen thinks “and observe to keep the commandments of God” is original here.

What do you learn from the fact that Ben lists the self, the thoughts, the words, and the deeds as separate items, each one capable of sin?  What would the self be in this context?

There is a great irony here:  we all “perish” at the end of our lives in the sense of dying, but Ben is presenting a way by which we do not “perish” at the end of moral life.

This is not the first time that Ben has used “O man” as a way of addressing the audience directly.  (He has also used other ways–see v4.)  What does Ben accomplish with this method of address?

Why is “perish” such a big theme in this chapter?

CHAPTER 5
1 And now, it came to pass that when king Benjamin had thus spoken to his people, he sent among them, desiring to know of his people if they believed the words which he had spoken unto them.

Wouldn’t 4:2 have made clear that they believed him?  Or does he suspect that the rest of ch4 may have lost them?  Either way, this audience response test is somewhat unusual in a biblical context; why does Ben do it?  In what situations might you want to model it?

The last chapter began with Ben “casting his eyes” and knowing for himself that all the people had fallen in fear.  This time, he has to have intermediaries assess the state of the audience.  Why the difference?

2 And they all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.

In 4:2, the crying with one voice was unprovoked; here, it is in response to Ben’s survey in 5:1.  What do you make of the difference?

The idea of not having a disposition to do evil is interesting; what do you make of it?  Is it a continuum, or a on-off switch?  Any personal experiences?

David A. Bednar:

This mighty change is not simply the result of working harder or developing greater individual discipline. Rather, it is the consequence of a fundamental change in our desires, our motives, and our natures made possible through the Atonement of Christ the Lord. Our spiritual purpose is to overcome both sin and the desire to sin, both the taint and the tyranny of sin. Oct 07 GC

As mentioned in the previous chapter, there is something more going on here–it seems unlikely that everyone would all cry with one voice, especially in a context where the crowd is so large that Ben can’t assess the audience himself but needs people to help him.  I almost wonder if you couldn’t read the beginning of v6 to suggest that this (and v3-5) is a prepared statement to which the people assented.  Given that, in v6, the words spoken seem to have constituted the covenant, then it becomes even more likely that they were repeating what they were supposed to say and not engaging in a spontaneous outpouring.

3 And we, ourselves, also, through the infinite goodness of God, and the manifestations of his Spirit, have great views of that which is to come; and were it expedient, we could prophesy of all things.

This is a very strong statement, especially when contrasted with the set-up in ch3, when an angel had to talk to Ben and Ben had to talk to the people.  It seems that their willingness to believe ch3 (prophecies about Christ) and ch4 (need to care for others) has had an enormous impact on their spiritual sensitivity.

What does the (unnecessary) word “ourselves” accomplish in this verse?

4 And it is the faith which we have had on the things which our king has spoken unto us that has brought us to this great knowledge, whereby we do rejoice with such exceedingly great joy.

There’s that joy theme again.  I think it might be the great under-appreciated motif in Ben’s speech.

5 And we are willing to enter into a covenant with our God to do his will, and to be obedient to his commandments in all things that he shall command us, all the remainder of our days, that we may not bring upon ourselves a never-ending torment, as has been spoken by the angel, that we may not drink out of the cup of the wrath of God.

In this article, John Welch suggests that this material is the basis for the sacrament prayers as found in 3 Nephi 18 and Moroni 4-5.  Do you think it makes sense to read this verse as the precursor to the sacrament prayers?  If you do, would you understand it differently?  Does it help us make sense of so many people speaking as one?

6 And now, these are the words which king Benjamin desired of them; and therefore he said unto them: Ye have spoken the words that I desired; and the covenant which ye have made is a righteous covenant.

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

Mentioning daughters is somewhat unusual in the BoM; why does it happen here?

Does this verse imply that people who have not entered into the covenant are not (yet) children of Christ?

What are the elements of being spiritually begotten of Christ that you can deduce from this passage?

What is the difference between being a child of Christ and a child of God?

Would it be right to conclude from this verse that Christ “adopts” you when you enter into the covenant?  (That seems all well and good until you start thinking about the implication that God the Father has lost His parental rights!)

Should we be thinking and speaking more of Christ as our Father than as our Elder Brother based on this verse?

The birth imagery in this verse is rich.  What do you make of the application of childbirth imagery to fatherhood?

Dallin H. Oaks:

We also take upon us the name of Jesus Christ whenever we publicly proclaim our belief in him. Apr 85 GC

David A. Bednar:

The spiritual rebirth described in this verse typically does not occur quickly or all at once; it is an ongoing process—not a single event. Line upon line and precept upon precept, gradually and almost imperceptibly, our motives, our thoughts, our words, and our deeds become aligned with the will of God. This phase of the transformation process requires time, persistence, and patience. Apr 07 GC (The famous pickle talk!)

8 And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.

In the Bible, the entire point of a “head” is that you are not free, but under that head.  So there is a great little paradox in this verse.

Notice the shift from “birthing father” in the previous verse to “head” in this verse.  What does Ben convey through using this two images that one alone would not have suggested?

M. Russell Ballard:

We take the name of Christ upon us in the waters of baptism. We renew the effect of that baptism each week as we partake of the sacrament, signifying our willingness to take His name upon us and promising always to remember Him. Oct 11 GC

9 And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ.

10 And now it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ must be called by some other name; therefore, he findeth himself on the left hand of God.

11 And I would that ye should remember also, that this is the name that I said I should give unto you that never should be blotted out, except it be through transgression; therefore, take heed that ye do not transgress, that the name be not blotted out of your hearts.

This verse almost reads as if post-conversion repentance where not possible (and, indeed, there have been some people in the history of Christianity who have believed just that).

The picture created at this point is this:  because the people were willing to enter into a covenant, they received Christ’s name written in their hearts.  What does this imagery of a name written on a heart suggest to you?  (What about the potential to have it blotted out?)

12 I say unto you, I would that ye should remember to retain the name written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the left hand of God, but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called, and also, the name by which he shall call you.

Does this verse allude to the shepherd imagery?  What else might “hearing the voice” refer to?

A that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ
B must be called by some other name;
C therefore, he findeth himself on the left hand of God.
11 D And I would that ye should remember also, that this is the name
E that I said I should give unto you that never should be blotted out,
F except it be through transgression; therefore,
F take heed that ye do not transgress,
E that the name be not blotted out of your hearts.
12 D I say unto you, I would that ye should remember to retain the name
C written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the left hand of God,
B but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called,
A and also, the name by which he shall call you.  Citation

13 For how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?

How do we serve God?  How does that service help us know God?

What does this verse suggest to you about what you can do to improve your relationship with God?

Henry B. Eyring:

Now, you will still be startled, as President Benson said you would be, to realize how familiar the face of our Heavenly Father is. But when you see him, you will know his voice, because you will have prayed, listened, obeyed, and come to share the thoughts and intents of his heart. You will have drawn nearer to him. Apr 91 GC

14 And again, doth a man take an ass which belongeth to his neighbor, and keep him? I say unto you, Nay; he will not even suffer that he shall feed among his flocks, but will drive him away, and cast him out. I say unto you, that even so shall it be among you if ye know not the name by which ye are called.

Here’s what we have so far:  the name can be written in the heart, it can be blotted out, it can be retained, it can be known or unknown.  What can you learn from this imagery?

What does the ass metaphor suggest about our relationship with God?

Do you interpret this verse differently if you think about the ass as an unclean animal under the law of Moses?

15 Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen.

What does “seal” mean in this verse?

CHAPTER 6
1 And now, king Benjamin thought it was expedient, after having finished speaking to the people, that he should take the names of all those who had entered into a covenant with God to keep his commandments.

Is this just stage directions, or is there some significance to the fact that he is taking “the names” of those willing to take the name of Christ?  (Are they symbolically giving their own names away now that they have Christ’s name?)

2 And it came to pass that there was not one soul, except it were little children, but who had entered into the covenant and had taken upon them the name of Christ.

Hyperbole?

This sounds like a census–how would that relate to 2:2?

3 And again, it came to pass that when king Benjamin had made an end of all these things, and had consecrated his son Mosiah to be a ruler and a king over his people, and had given him all the charges concerning the kingdom, and also had appointed priests to teach the people, that thereby they might hear and know the commandments of God, and to stir them up in remembrance of the oath which they had made, he dismissed the multitude, and they returned, every one, according to their families, to their own houses.

In the OT, priest isn’t really a teaching role per se.  Is it here?  Or is it teaching through the temple sacrifices?

Note that Mosiah 1 set us up to see the consecration of Mosiah as a huge thing, but here it is dismissed with with virtually no detail.  Why might that be?

4 And Mosiah began to reign in his father’s stead. And he began to reign in the thirtieth year of his age, making in the whole, about four hundred and seventy-six years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem.

5 And king Benjamin lived three years and he died.

6 And it came to pass that king Mosiah did walk in the ways of the Lord, and did observe his judgments and his statutes, and did keep his commandments in all things whatsoever he commanded him.

7 And king Mosiah did cause his people that they should till the earth. And he also, himself, did till the earth, that thereby he might not become burdensome to his people, that he might do according to that which his father had done in all things. And there was no contention among all his people for the space of three years.

Do you really need a king to make you be a farmer?  What does the first sentence in this verse mean, and why was it worth including in the record?

The second sentence shows a concern with preserving the people’s freedom, but the first sentence is an abridgement of that freedom.  How do you explain this paradox?

Is there any relation between the three years in this verse and the three years in v5, or is that just a coincidence?

Brant Gardner:

The tilling of the soil is symbolic of the leveling of the society. Thus the original intent was probably to show that in addition to Mormon’s “peace” that might have been construed as an external peace, there was a social reorganization that followed Benjamin’ new covenant. Both the people and their leader till the ground” as an indication that they have no stratification between them. If there is not social distance between the king and the tillers of the ground, then there is no distinction throughout the society. The peace in the land is not from the Lamanites, but is as the result of the acceptance and implementation of both the spiritual and social covenant. Citation

General Thoughts:

(1) This essay includes a good analysis of Ben’s audience:

Reading between the lines, we assume that the people are previously baptized church members who are confident they are righteous (King Benjamin says “they have been a diligent people in keeping the commandments of the Lord” [Mosiah 1:11]); they observe the law of Moses (Mosiah 2:3); and they have come “that they might give thanks to the Lord their God” for actions on the part of the Lord and others (Mosiah 2:4). What they do not realize, though, is that this type of observance, including their prayers of gratitude, is passive and low-level obedience. Indeed, the assembled people may have been self-satisified in thinking they were keeping all God’s commandments by avoiding such sins as theft and murder (Mosiah 2:13). Further, they have a tendency to be proud; the king asks, “Of what have ye to boast?” (Mosiah 2:24). Given their self-satisfaction, we may imagine the people’s shock in hearing their kind old king say, “I have caused that ye should assemble yourselves together that I might rid my garments of your blood” (Mosiah 2:28), and to say that the unrepentant person among them is “in open rebellion against God” (Mosiah 2:37).

(2) Stephen D. Ricks has analyzed this speech in terms of the treaty/covenant pattern (I have simplified his chart somewhat):

preamble/titular description–Mosiah 2:9a

antecedent history–2:9-30

individual stipulations–2:22-30

witness/oaths–5:2-8

blessings/curses–5:9-15

recital of covenant and deposit of text–6:1-6 Citation

(3) This article is a good summary of principles of government leadership that we can glean from Ben’s reign.

1 And now there was no more contention in all the land of Zarahemla, among all the people who belonged to king Benjamin, so that king Benjamin had continual peace all the remainder of his days.

Brant Gardner:

The first chapter of Mosiah in our current text does not begin in any expected way. In the first place, we are missing the introductory material that Mormon included with all other books he edited. This strongly suggests that our Mosiah chapter 1 was not the beginning of the book of Mosiah. Skousen’s examination of the manuscripts indicates that what we have as Mosiah 1 was originally Mosiah III, or the third chapter of the book of Mosiah rather than the first (Skousen, Royal. “Critical Methodology and the Text of the Book of Mormon.” In: Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1. FARMS 1994 p. 138).  Citation

Royal Skousen:

The lost 116 pages included not only all of Lehi, but also part of Chapter I of the original Mosiah.  Citation

There’s an interesting contrast with Words of Mormon 1:12 (“And now, concerning this king Benjamin—he had somewhat of contentions among his own people.”).

Is the relationship between contention and peace as obvious as it seems?  Or might this verse be saying something more subtle?

This peaceful state is a most unusual state of affairs for the BoM.  To what do you attribute it?  How should it color your reading of King Benjamin’s speech?

2 And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.

As with Nephi and Enos, record is made of parents teaching the language to their children–something that every parent everywhere has always done.  We might wonder why they bother mentioning it.  Unlike Nephi and Enos, we do get a glimpse as to the reason:  “that thereby they might become men of understanding.”  The Nephites had an unusual emphasis on literacy for an ancient culture.  (I’ve seen estimates of 5-10% literacy rates for the biblical world.  It is possible that the Nephites also had low literacy levels and it is only the “record-keeping class” that is literate.)  Given that we live in a society with virtually universal literacy, how might this emphasis on literacy in the BoM be relevant to us?  Do you think that only a very few people in the BoM were able to read the plates?  If so, why might this be?  (In other words, why didn’t their RS teach people how to read?)  If so, how should that impact your interpretation of the BoM?

I’m curious about the phrase “mouths of their fathers” since the whole point is that they had to read the prophecies, which were written.  Why emphasize the mouths?

Is there any significance in the “mouths” and “hand” references?

L. Tom Perry:

Keeping the doctrine pure was foremost in King Benjamin’s mind, so he wanted all of his people to receive his witness and his word.  Apr 02 GC

3 And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.

Why are they so down on oral tradition in the BoM?  (As best we can tell, oral traditions were extremely common and remarkably accurate in various times and places in the ancient world.)

Does this verse suggest that it is impossible for an illiterate person to know the mysteries of God?

What application does this verse have for a society with universal literacy?

4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.

In oral cultures, people memorize chunks of material at least as lengthy as the brass plates.  So I suspect that the point is not that Lehi couldn’t have remembered these things, but that he couldn’t have remembered them to teach them to his children.  And I suspect the point of that has something to do with written scripture affecting the reader in a different way than oral scripture affects the listener, although I’m not sure exactly how that would be.  Also, if we assume the (likely) scenario that most Nephites are illiterate, we wonder why they didn’t place more emphasis on orality.  (At the risk of being difficult, it almost begins to look like a power play so that the scriptures would only be in the hands of the small number of men [and not the gender-neutral 'men'] who would then be the only ones able to interpret them.  You know, just like the evil apostasy in Europe, where priests controlled the sacred texts, that only ended when brave reformers brought scripture to the masses–plow boys, etc.)

Why would the plates in Laban’s Jrsm house have been written in Egyptian and not Hebrew?

5 I say unto you, my sons, were it not for these things, which have been kept and preserved by the hand of God, that we might read and understand of his mysteries, and have his commandments always before our eyes, that even our fathers would have dwindled in unbelief, and we should have been like unto our brethren, the Lamanites, who know nothing concerning these things, or even do not believe them when they are taught them, because of the traditions of their fathers, which are not correct.

The Lamanites (at least the first ones, Laman and Lemuel) had the records, but fat lot of good it did them.

Cheryl C. Lant:

Each of us has traditions in our families. Some of them are material. Some of them have deep meaning. The most important traditions are connected with the way we live our lives and will last beyond us as our children’s lives are influenced and shaped. In the Book of Mormon, we read of the Lamanites who were deeply affected by the traditions of their fathers. King Benjamin said they were a people who knew nothing about the principles of the gospel “or even do not believe them when they are taught them, because of the traditions of their fathers, which are not correct” (Mosiah 1:5). What kinds of traditions do we have? Some of them may have come from our fathers, and now we are passing them along to our own children. Are they what we want them to be? Are they based on actions of righteousness and faith? Are they mostly material in nature, or are they eternal? Are we consciously creating righteous traditions, or is life just happening to us? Are our traditions being created in response to the loud voices of the world, or are they influenced by the still, small voice of the Spirit? Are the traditions that we are creating in our families going to make it easier for our children to follow the living prophets, or will they make it difficult for them?  Apr 08 GC

Do you read this verse to say that keeping the covenant is impossible without literacy?

I’m thinking about modern applications of the principle here, where the danger isn’t that the word of God will be lost to us because we don’t have the text, but rather that the word of God will be buried in a mountain of other text (and texts).

The records that the Lamanites didn’t have were (some form of) the Old Testament.  And yet, think of all of the people in the old world who had that record and were still not prepared for the coming of the Messiah.  And think of the gulf between what is now generally considered to be the meaning of those texts and the gloss that the BoM prophets give them.  How do we explain these distances?

It seems a little awkward that the only reason that the Lamanites don’t have the record is because . . . Nephi absconded with it.  Of course, he only did that because [1] God told him to and [2] the Lamanites were trying to kill him. Nonetheless, the root of their lack of records is in their desire to kill their prophet leader.

I’m curious about how they didn’t believe truth even when it was taught to them.  Does this happen today?  What is the remedy (because it obviously isn’t the scriptures!)?

There’s a paradox here:  they stick to their (presumably oral) (false) traditions like glue; they lack true traditions because they don’t have the records.  It seems that the oral tradition was quite sticky for them, but the memory of the plates was not.  Why would this be?  How do you explain this paradox? What is the lesson for us?

Brant Gardner writes:

Societies all change over time, and the literate ones simply have the record of those changes. Citation

That simple sentence was a bit of a light bulb moment for me, especially given the questions I have been raising about why a written (as opposed to an oral) record is so important.  I think the key just may be that a written record is far, far more likely to preserve the changes that happen, whereas they may be dropped from the oral tradition because they no longer seem relevant, or now seem embarrassing, or are a threat to the current leaders, etc.

6 O my sons, I would that ye should remember that these sayings are true, and also that these records are true. And behold, also the plates of Nephi, which contain the records and the sayings of our fathers from the time they left Jerusalem until now, and they are true; and we can know of their surety because we have them before our eyes.

Why do you think he calls attention to the records and the sayings separately?

Note that the plates of Nephi contains “records” and “sayings.”  Is this two ways of saying the same thing (and, if so, why would it be phrased this way?) or two different things (and, if so, what is the distinction between the two?)?

The final line suggests an awful lot more than it says.  I think it is saying that when you have a record, you can determine its truthfulness for yourself but when you don’t, you can’t.  This sounds a lot like Moroni’s promise.  It also makes me wonder if we should be privileging written over oral communications.  (I do think that orality can favor charisma, peer pressure, and emotional response more than written records, but maybe I am wrong about this.)

What does “true” mean?  Historically true?  Inerrant?  Teaching true doctrine?  Complete?  Inspired?  Something else?

7 And now, my sons, I would that ye should remember to search them diligently, that ye may profit thereby; and I would that ye should keep the commandments of God, that ye may prosper in the land according to the promises which the Lord made unto our fathers.

What is the difference between searching and reading?

8 And many more things did king Benjamin teach his sons, which are not written in this book.

What is the point of this verse?

9 And it came to pass that after king Benjamin had made an end of teaching his sons, that he waxed old, and he saw that he must very soon go the way of all the earth; therefore, he thought it expedient that he should confer the kingdom upon one of his sons.

I read this verse to suggest that they did not have a uniform succession policy (otherwise, the identity of the next king would have been obvious when Ben died).  I also think it is more common to have kings serve until death, so it is interesting that BoM kings go to “emeritus status.”  What might this suggest about their culture?  Are there any situations where we might want to model this?

10 Therefore, he had Mosiah brought before him; and these are the words which he spake unto him, saying: My son, I would that ye should make a proclamation throughout all this land among all this people, or the people of Zarahemla, and the people of Mosiah who dwell in the land, that thereby they may be gathered together; for on the morrow I shall proclaim unto this my people out of mine own mouth that thou art a king and a ruler over this people, whom the Lord our God hath given us.

Why is it important that Mosiah perform this “gathering” task?  And why is it important for the reader to know that he was given this task?

Brant Gardner:

Once again we are required to read between the lines of the text. Benjamin has had controversy and conflict during his reign, though at this very point in time he as peace (verse 1). Even at this date (comprising the end of the life of Mosiah I and most of Benjamin’s life – perhaps at least 60 years given the typical life span in the Book of Mormon and the overlap between Mosiah I and Benjamin) we have two identifiable political factions, one retaining the identity of Zarahemla and one the identity of Mosiah (and interestingly not Nephi). This division in the people becomes the background against which Benjamin’s coming proclamation will make sense (see verse 11), and potential (or past) divisions between the two groups may also explain the need to declare Mosiah II as king “from mine own mouth.” The clear pronouncement in a public forum would be calculated to decrease potential divisions and disagreements about succession. Citation

11 And moreover, I shall give this people a name, that thereby they may be distinguished above all the people which the Lord God hath brought out of the land of Jerusalem; and this I do because they have been a diligent people in keeping the commandments of the Lord.

Presumably the goal is to forge a combined identity of the people of Mosiah and the people of Zarahemla, and this time of peace and lack of contention might be the best time to do it.  I think this verse asks us to look at naming conventions and their power to unite or to divide–I’m sure we could think of lots of modern examples of both.

This verse suggests that there is merit to a group having a name.  What do you make of this notion?  How might it be relevant to us?

In the Bible, the giving of a new name usually connotes (1) the power of the “namer” over the “namee” and/or  (2) a new identity or role for the “namee.”  Would either of those meanings be relevant here?

See 5:11 for the name that he gives them.  (Is this what you would have expected?)

12 And I give unto them a name that never shall be blotted out, except it be through transgression.

To what use do you put this verse in our very individualistic society?

13 Yea, and moreover I say unto you, that if this highly favored people of the Lord should fall into transgression, and become a wicked and an adulterous people, that the Lord will deliver them up, that thereby they become weak like unto their brethren; and he will no more preserve them by his matchless and marvelous power, as he has hitherto preserved our fathers.

Who is the “you” in this verse–the reader?  Mosiah?  The people?

I’m curious about “weak” in this verse.  Is that the word that you would have expected?

One idea I discovered upon close study of the psalms is that many psalms take as a given that the default state of humanity is pure disaster and it is only the protecting hand of God that protects the righteous from that state.  I think this verse supports that theology, as does v14.

I find it interesting that the “preservation” that they have experienced involved multiple moves out of harm’s way, and not necessarily military or financial superiority.

14 For I say unto you, that if he had not extended his arm in the preservation of our fathers they must have fallen into the hands of the Lamanites, and become victims to their hatred.

In various places in the OT, the arm is a symbol for strength.

15 And it came to pass that after king Benjamin had made an end of these sayings to his son, that he gave him charge concerning all the affairs of the kingdom.

Is there a link between the previous teachings and control of the kingdom?  Is it even possible that the previous text was ritualized?

Do you read Ben’s speech differently if you think of the speaker as the “emeritus king” instead of the king?

16 And moreover, he also gave him charge concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass; and also the plates of Nephi; and also, the sword of Laban, and the ball or director, which led our fathers through the wilderness, which was prepared by the hand of the Lord that thereby they might be led, every one according to the heed and diligence which they gave unto him.

Is the Liahona still functional?  Or is it a relic?

17 Therefore, as they were unfaithful they did not prosper nor progress in their journey, but were driven back, and incurred the displeasure of God upon them; and therefore they were smitten with famine and sore afflictions, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty.

What is the difference between prosper and progress, or are they two different ways of saying the same thing?

Does this verse suggest to you that all famine and affliction is the result of unrighteousness?  How can you tell?

18 And now, it came to pass that Mosiah went and did as his father had commanded him, and proclaimed unto all the people who were in the land of Zarahemla that thereby they might gather themselves together, to go up to the temple to hear the words which his father should speak unto them.

CHAPTER 2
1 And it came to pass that after Mosiah had done as his father had commanded him, and had made a proclamation throughout all the land, that the people gathered themselves together throughout all the land, that they might go up to the temple to hear the words which king Benjamin should speak unto them.

This is the third time that Mosiah’s role in announcing his father’s speech is mentioned.  This is a topic that we might have expected to be skipped entirely, but we have it three times.  Why might it merit this treatment?  (One thought:  it emphasizes Mosiah’s obedience, an interesting thing in a king.)

This is the second time (so far) that the temple is mentioned.  Why might that be significant?

2 And there were a great number, even so many that they did not number them; for they had multiplied exceedingly and waxed great in the land.

Normally, multiplying and waxing great are signs of God’s favor.  Is that the case here?

In the Bible, there is some stigma associated with the idea of taking a census of the covenant people.  (This arises from the idea that Abraham’s descendants would be so numerous that they could not be counted and perhaps might explain some of the sting associated with the census at the time of Jesus’ birth.)  Is that idea relevant here, where it sounds as if the only reason that there is not a census is pragmatic?

Censuses were often taken in the OT (Ex. 30:12; Num. 1:1–4, 26; 2 Sam. 24; 1 Chron. 21). Generally the purpose was to prepare for war, but censuses were also taken as preparation to serve God (Num. 4:1–3, 21–23). In 1 Chron. 23, some kind of census appears to have been associated with David making his son Solomon the king, a situation somewhat analogous to Benjamin’s coronation of Mosiah.  Citation

3 And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses;

Why was this verse included?

4 And also that they might give thanks to the Lord their God, who had brought them out of the land of Jerusalem, and who had delivered them out of the hands of their enemies, and had appointed just men to be their teachers, and also a just man to be their king, who had established peace in the land of Zarahemla, and who had taught them to keep the commandments of God, that they might rejoice and be filled with love towards God and all men.

Why “just” as opposed to another adjective?

What do you see in this verse that you should model?

This is very much a communal act of worship; thoughts about this?

Doesn’t this verse suppose a huge feast, as the worshippers eat all of these sacrificed animals?  Why is that not mentioned?

It has been about 400 years or more since Lehi left Jerusalem.  Can you imagine going to the temple to give thanks for something that happened that long ago?  Should you?

Does this verse suggest that the establishment of peace is (one of) the key characteristics of a “just” ruler?

I like the link between keeping the commandments and rejoicing.  (If I had more time, I’d study the incidents of “rejoice” and its variants in the BoM and see what patterns emerge.)

What does this verse suggest about what it takes to be filled with love toward God?  (I’m toying with the idea that it is saying that love of God and man is not “natural” or the default setting, but rather is the result of keeping the commandments.  If that is true, why would obedience fill you with love?)

5 And it came to pass that when they came up to the temple, they pitched their tents round about, every man according to his family, consisting of his wife, and his sons, and his daughters, and their sons, and their daughters, from the eldest down to the youngest, every family being separate one from another.

This is a tantalizing verse for the sociologist, because if the antecedent of “their” in “their sons” is its immediate predecessor “his daughters,” then it would suggest that Nephite family structure was matrilocal.  However, I wouldn’t bet the farm on that being the right reading, especially given the occasional grammatical sloppiness and translation issues.

Children’s worship is not really a theme in the Bible, save maybe a few references to teaching children and Jesus’ interactions with them.  Why is it important to note that children were here for this speech? And did the Nephites have quiet books?

Why is it significant that they are organized by families?  That the families are separate?  That they are in order by age (and what would that mean, exactly)?

5 A And it came to pass that when they came up to the temple,
B they pitched their tents round about,
C every man according to his family,
D consisting of his wife, and his sons, and his daughters,
D and their sons, and their daughters, from the eldest down to the youngest,
C every family being separate one from another.
6 B And they pitched their tents round about
A the temple,  Citation

Neal A. Maxwell:

Brothers and sisters, we do not go many hours in our lives without having to decide again “which way do we face” and whether we will pitch our tents facing Sodom or the holy temple (see Gen. 13:12; Mosiah 2:6). Oct 03 GC

6 And they pitched their tents round about the temple, every man having his tent with the door thereof towards the temple, that thereby they might remain in their tents and hear the words which king Benjamin should speak unto them;

We already know from v5 that the tents are around the temple–why repeat it?

Why is it significant that they heard this discourse from within their tents?

This seems like a pretty unwieldy arrangement inasmuch as the tents would block the sight and sound of the sermon from people behind that tent (see v7 and v8)–it would be much more logical to put the tents farther away and then have the people gather between the tents and the temple.  Why was it not done that way?

Donald W. Parry:

As the people sat in their tents and listened to Benjamin’s speech, they were able to look past the king at the temple, which stood in the immediate background as a chief point of focus. Citation

7 For the multitude being so great that king Benjamin could not teach them all within the walls of the temple, therefore he caused a tower to be erected, that thereby his people might hear the words which he should speak unto them.

You can’t help  but want to compare his tower with the Rameumptom–how do they differ?  How are they the same?

L. Tom Perry:

In many ways, King Benjamin used all the technologies available to him in his day to gather his people, spread the good word of God, and to reinforce the word. Apr 02 GC

Joanne B. Doxey:

King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon set a wonderful example of how parents should teach their children from the scriptures, as found in Mosiah 1, beginning with verse 3. Note how many times he uses the word remember. . . .I bear testimony that keeping the scriptures “always before our eyes” works! We have found the sweet influence of the Spirit in our home as we have learned from the scriptures daily with our children—beginning while the children were very young. Oct 89 GC

This article suggests that the tower may not have been just pragmatic, but may have been a part of the festival or covenant renewal context (see more about these ideas under General at the end of this post).  This article is similar.

8 And it came to pass that he began to speak to his people from the tower; and they could not all hear his words because of the greatness of the multitude; therefore he caused that the words which he spake should be written and sent forth among those that were not under the sound of his voice, that they might also receive his words.

Why is this verse in the record?  (Again, remember that we should be reading the BoM as if every verse was included for a reason and not as if it is a random collection of material.)  What does the reader gain from this verse?  (Can you imagine if someone 1000 years from now read a report of General Conference that included a verse about how a technical problem involving the satellite feed were resolved?)
I’m wondering if the point of this verse is that the normal ‘rules’ by which we would read a speech are removed since this is an official transcription of a speech.

I’m wondering if the “temple -> tents -> tower -> written” sequence is meant to suggest that waaaay more people showed up for this conference than the activities committee had prepared for.

7 A For the multitude being so great
B that king Benjamin could not teach them all within the walls of the temple,
C therefore he caused a tower to be erected,
D that thereby his people might hear the words which he should speak unto them.
8 D And it came to pass that he began to speak to his people
C from the tower;
B and they could not all hear his words
A because of the greatness of the multitude; Citation

9 And these are the words which he spake and caused to be written, saying: My brethren, all ye that have assembled yourselves together, you that can hear my words which I shall speak unto you this day; for I have not commanded you to come up hither to trifle with the words which I shall speak, but that you should hearken unto me, and open your ears that ye may hear, and your hearts that ye may understand, and your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view.

In the Bible, there is very good reason for reading “brethren” as “brothers and sisters.”  Is that the case here?  We might turn to v5 to answer that question, which on the one hand is very male-centric (“every man”) but on the other hand does make explicit that the audience includes woman of a variety of ages.

For the suggestion that “this day” is a technical term, see here.

Here’s a link to all the uses of mystery or mysteries in the BoM.   Do they help you understand what is meant by that word in this verse?

10 I have not commanded you to come up hither that ye should fear me, or that ye should think that I of myself am more than a mortal man.

What an odd beginning–why would King Benjamin think that the first thing he should do is tell the audience that they shouldn’t fear him?  Did they fear him?

It is somewhat unusual to get a “this is not my goal” at the beginning of a speech, but here we get trifle, fear, and “think me divine.”  Were these legitimate fears Ben had?  Are we tempted to do these things?

Remember from WoM 1:15 (“And it came to pass that after there had been false Christs, and their mouths had been shut, and they punished according to their crimes;”) that Ben had had to deal with false Christs; that might explain his preamble here.  If that is the case, then this verse might cause us to re-examine the ‘cult of celebrity’ that can sometimes develop around church leaders.

Were the Nephites having a problem with thinking of their kings as more-than-mortal?  If not, why would he mention it?

It is fairly odd to begin a discourse by stating things that you don’t want to have happen as a result of it.  Why did he begin this way?

11 But I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been chosen by this people, and consecrated by my father, and was suffered by the hand of the Lord that I should be a ruler and a king over this people; and have been kept and preserved by his matchless power, to serve you with all the might, mind and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me.

How might v10 and v11 inform our thinking about prophetic infallibility (or the lack thereof)?

(Do we know more about his being chosen by the people?  Does this suggest that he wasn’t what we would call a “king” but a “president”?)

I’m curious about the link between the infirmities and being merely mortal.  Another way to say this:  I don’t know if “subject to infirmities” would be the most obvious way to describe a “mere mortal.”  What does Benjamin accomplish by phrasing it this way?

I’m curious about the interplay of the people, his father, and the Lord in his kingship–how would you describe how that works?  Are there any applicable lessons for us in this?

The might/mind/strength combo also occurs in Alma 29:13, Moroni 10:32, 2 Nephi 25:29, but in those verses, the might/mind/strength are used to serve the Lord.  Is Benjamin using the phrase differently, or does a king serving his people have a functional equivalence with serving the Lord?  How does this relate to 2:16-7?

This verse might seem to cover two separate topics (1–his weakness, 2–his kingship), but I think the link is most significant.  I think he is saying that even a king chosen by people, consecrated by dad, and helped by the Lord is still imperfect.  This is a strong anti-infallibility message.

I like the combo–he recognizes popularity/personal success, God, and the unearned blessing of family in contributing to his success.

NB the verbs:  chosen, consecrated, suffered.  What might we learn from them?

I think in OT terms we might think of a king as chosen by God.  Here, he is chosen by the people but allowed (=suffered) by the Lord.  What does this imply about their government and how might it be relevant to us today?

12 I say unto you that as I have been suffered to spend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you;

What does this verse teach you about proper government?

How would you respond to someone who accused King Benjamin of self-aggrandizement or a lack of humility in this section of his speech?  (See v15 and v16 where he says that he does not desire to boast–is he protesting too much?)

Hugh Nibley (citation) has analyzed this speech in terms of the new year rituals of the ancient world.  Because a part of that ritual was giving of gifts to the king, he sees these statements from Benjamin about not being a burden on the people as an inversion of traditional expectations.

suffered = allowed.  Is this our attitude toward service?  (I try to think things like “I get to visit teach . . .” instead of “I have to visit teach” to reflect this attitude toward service, but I am not very good at it.)

How do you become a non-wealth-seeking person?  This seems like the most counter-cultural attitude a person could take on.

Brant Gardner:

While we can take Benjamin at his word that he has not sought wealth at the expense of this people, and that he has not levied taxes (verse 14), it is also clear that he must have required something of the people. He cannot rule without some form of goods from the people to the central government. The most obvious case is the ceremonial architecture of the town. The people are met at a temple with walls. Neither the temple nor the walls were built exclusively by Benjamin – nor by any other single person. Such building projects require large amounts of labor which perforce removes people from other pursuits. It may well be that the majority of the building would     have occurred in times of less intensive agricultural need (as is most logical as food takes precedence over building) but we should understand that while Benjamin did not enrich himself that does not mean that there were no communal requirements on the people. Benjamin’s point is not the absence of requirements, but that they have not been burdensome.     In verse 14 Benjamin notes that it was his intent: and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne.  Citation

13 Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you—

The OT permits slavery–why does he (implicitly) criticize it here?

Dungeons (or: any confinement) is not a part of the Law of Moses, which has only physical and financial penalties, and removal from the community.  What do you conclude about the mention of dungeons here?

What is the difference between plunder and stealing?

A cynic would find violations of the people’s agency in this verse (“he wouldn’t allow them to . . .”).  What is the difference between what Ben did and Satan’s plan?

Given that this verse laundry-lists a bunch of things that he didn’t allow, it now becomes more significant that the first thing that he chose to mention wasn’t the material in this verse, but the fact that he didn’t try to enrich himself.  Why was that the #1 item on his list?

How do you think Ben kept order without prisons or slavery? (See WoM 1:16 maybe.) (Note:  the law of Moses calls for fines, physical punishment, and banishment.)  Are there any lessons for us here?

Brant Gardner:

A possible confirmation that these specific legal prohibitions began as a contrast to Lamanite     (in the wide sense) society is found in the proclamation of the king of the Lamanites after his conversion by the sons of Mosiah II “Alma 23:3 …that they ought not to murder, nor to plunder, nor to steal, nor to commit adultery, nor to commit any manner of wickedness). The very ordered repetition here and the presence of the sons of Mosiah suggests that this legal list became a code for Nephite law (Welch, John W. “A Masterful Oration.” In” King Benjamin’s Speech. FARMS 1998, p. 61 notes the repetition of the phrases and suggests that it is due     to the importance given this text in future years). The repetition of the same (or nearly the same) legal list in Mosiah 29:36, Alma 30:10, and Helaman 6:23 indicates both that the language of Benjamin’s speech became normative for his people, but that these principles became a legal code for the Nephites (see especially Alma 30:10).  Citation

14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.

V12-14 express some of the dangers of having kings.  Compare 1 Samuel 8:11-18.  See also Mosiah 29:23:  “If ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you”

I’m not clear if this means that he did physical labor.  (One wonders how he could be a decent king to so many people that they can’t all hear him at once if he is spending all day on the farm or whatever.)  What does serve mean here?  Does it mean the same as it does elsewhere in this chapter?

15 Yet, my brethren, I have not done these things that I might boast, neither do I tell these things that thereby I might accuse you; but I tell you these things that ye may know that I can answer a clear conscience before God this day.

(Can anyone have a completely clear conscience before God?)

Why is he concerned about what the audience would think about his motives?

The word conscience is not in the OT.

Would it be so wrong for him to boast?  He’s done a great job.

When and how can we talk about our accomplishments?  It seems like there is a fine line between setting a good example and boasting in some cases.

Why would it be important for the people to know that his conscience is clear?  Isn’t that between him and God?  (I’m wondering if there is a link between the idea of a stewardship report to the people, since he was chosen by them.)

The idea of “answering” a “conscience” is somewhat awkward–what’s going on with this phrase?

16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.

Why the repetition from the previous verse?

I’m increasingly intrigued by the meaning of the word serve (or:  service) in this chapter.  I think it may be richer than we are giving it credit for.  By way of comparison, in the NT, the Christian tradition takes the word “serve” in the sense of “menial service” (such as:  waiting tables) and uses it in the sense of “Christian leadership.”  In the OT, serve is often used of temple service.  What layers of meaning might this word have here?

17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.

The “only” in this verse is perplexing:  does it mean that the only person you really serve is God?

Why would learning about service constitute “wisdom”?

Why would serving other people constitute serving God?

I think Matthew 25:35-40 is relevant here:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:  Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Joseph B. Wirthlin

Always be willing, even anxious, to help others. Nothing else you do will give you the same genuine satisfaction and joy within because, and I quote, “when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.” (Mosiah 2:17.) Ignoring the needs of others is a serious sin. Oct 89 GC

Brant Gardner:

In an ancient society that was culturally primed to accept either the king as deity, or at the very least a special relationship between king and deity, Benjamin removes the exclusivity from that relationship. Where the gathered people might have been culturally primed to believe that lineage and rank were the things that created the relationship, Benjamin assures them that the special relationship may be based upon actions available to all.  Citation

18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another?

Why “ye have called me” instead of “I am”?  Especially since it is repeated, it makes me wonder if in some sense he is rejecting something about being a king, or calling attention to the fact that he is king by the will of the people.  (Which, I might note, makes “king” a somewhat misleading translation because we don’t think of a king as someone chosen by the people.)

I think when we read this verse, the “service” sounds like “good works.”  But the “service” in v14 sounded like “working full time for you instead of loafing.”  Is the meaning of service the same in both verses?

Does the argument in this verse require you to assume that King Benjamin is better than his audience?  If so, how does that impact your reading of v10 and v11?  See also v26.

Donald W. Parry:

Significantly, to underscore temple ties, Benjamin’s opening words deal directly with service. He repeated four terms—servants, serve, served, and service—a total of fifteen times in eighteen verses. Benjamin, the master of discourse, presented his words in such a manner that some members of his audience may have understood service from at least three different perspectives.

1. Benjamin spoke of serving and service as manual labor. This is evident in a number of verses. Benjamin himself labored with his own hands instead of seeking gold, silver, or riches (see Mosiah 2:12). He served his fellow citizens so that they would not be overburdened with a tax structure that elevated unnaturally a king and his kingdom (see 2:14).

2. At several points in his sermon, Benjamin briefly connected service and slavery. We note Benjamin’s explicit words: “Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another” (Mosiah 2:13). Benjamin also used subtleties and implicit references that suggest a king-vassal relationship or a master-slave connection. The expressions king (see 2:11, 18, 19, 26)⁹ and unprofitable servants (see 2:21) speak especially of a powerful ruler and his lowly subjects. Also, terms such as lending (see 2:21), indebted (see 2:23—24), and paid (see 2:24) pertain to kings and their vassals. Some of Benjamin’s listeners possibly comprehended Benjamin’s words in light of ancient Near Eastern laws and customs regarding slavery, kings, and servants.

3. Another perspective in which Benjamin’s hearers may have understood service pertains to temple work and religious service—serving one’s fellow beings and serving God in a sacred setting.  Citation

You aren’t a king.  How do these verses apply to you?

19 And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king, who has spent his days in your service, and yet has been in the service of God, do merit any thanks from you, O how you ought to thank your heavenly King!

A cynic would say that this verse teaches that we should never thank people.  How might you respond to that?

Thoughts on showing gratitude?  How have you become better at doing that?

The logic in this verse is a little weird:  it seems to be saying “don’t thank me, thank God, because I’ve actually been serving God and not you.”  But why would the people who wanted to thank Ben thank God if God was the one being served?  Wouldn’t it make more sense (absent everything Ben will say about indebtedness) for God to be thanking Ben?

Donald W. Parry:

It is clear that he is linking together the divine and human spheres of activity.   Citation

Parry points out that v17 does the same.

that ye may learn wisdom;
that ye may learn that when ye are in the
service of your fellow beings ye are only in the
18 service of your God. Behold, ye have called me
your king; and if I, whom ye call
your king, do
labor to serve you, then ought not ye to
19 labor to serve one another? And behold also, if I, whom ye call
your king, who has spent his days in your
service, and yet has been in the
service of God, do merit any
thanks from you, O how you ought to
thank your heavenly King! (gradation) Citation

20 I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—

Notice the repetition of themes from v4.

21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.

Well, that’s a depressing thought.

I find the “lending breath” image interesting.  Thinking about Genesis 2:7 (“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”), what does this image suggest?

Only other scriptural uses of “unprofitable servant” are Matthew 25:30 (“And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”), Luke 17:10 (“So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.”), and Mosiah 22:4.  How are these verses related?

Neal A. Maxwell:

We may, for instance, have a specific set of skills which we mistakenly come to think we somehow own. If we continue to cling to those more than to God, we are flinching in the face of the consecrating first commandment. Since God lends us “breath … from one moment to another,” hyperventilating over these distractions is not recommended! Apr 02 GC

Hartman Rector, Jr.:

The Lord requires sacrifice, meaning something above and beyond the minimum. The Master spoke of the “second mile” and told us to go there (see Matt. 5:41). Why? Because he wants to bless us. So he put all the blessings in the second mile, but we must go where they are before we get them. The first mile, we owe; that’s what we are getting paid for. Recently I mentioned that to an elder who was hardly meeting the minimums. He responded, “Paid? I’m not getting paid.” I said, “Oh? You can breathe can’t you?” “Yes.”“You think you have that coming to you or something? King Benjamin says the Lord is preserving you from day to day by granting you breath—even supporting you from moment to moment” (see Mosiah 2:21). Do we ever thank the Lord for the fact we can breathe? No, not usually, until we get to where we can’t breathe. Then we call upon him in a panic. Apr 79 GC

Gerald Lund:

That we are his children and that he loves us is undeniable. But we must rid ourselves of the notion that we can bring personal profit to God through our own actions. That would make God indebted to us, and that is unthinkable. This explains king Benjamin’s ringing ifs: even if we were to serve him with all the power of our souls, even if we should render thanks with that same power (which very few of us, if any, ever do), we would still be unprofitable servants.  Citation

Neal A. Maxwell:

At first reading, these last words may sound harsh, depreciating, and discouraging, for surely our service to God is significant. But when our service is compared with our blessings, an “outside audit,” said Benjamin in effect, would show us ever to be in arrears. “Catching up” by giving more service does not change the balance, either, because a merciful God, just as soon as we obey or render such service, “doth immediately bless” us. Thus, we are even further in debt to our Heavenly Father. (Mosiah 2:24.) Furthermore, our service is made possible by the elements which make up our natural bodies, but these belong to God, who also gives us breath from moment to moment. Citation

22 And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you.

Do you fault Benjamin for downplaying the difficulty of keeping the commandments in this verse?

How do you reconcile the idea of the Lord never varying with the idea of continuing revelation?

23 And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him.

A general thought on this section:  it seems that this type of basic “God created you; you owe God everything” might be more appropriate to an apostate audience unclear about their fundamental relationship with God.  But in this case, the people are basically righteous.  So, why is Ben covering this material with them?  One assumes that they know it (v34 says this specifically) and are living according to it, or they wouldn’t be in decent spiritual shape.

24 And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?

What do you make of equating “blessing” with “paying” someone?  (How) should this inform your thinking about blessings?

Benjamin referred to himself not boasting more than once and now tells the audience not to boast.  Was boasting a problem for them?

I’m thinking about this statement in light of Ben’s previous statement about a clear conscience and his review of his successful reign, followed by his statement that he was not boasting.  There seems to be a bit of a mismatch between these ideas; is it possible to have a clear conscience if you are aware of your eternal indebtedness to God?

Is it really true that God immediately blesses us?  (How many talks have you heard about the need for patience, about how God doesn’t immediately answer our prayers, about how some blessings are delayed even until the next life, etc.?)  Brant Gardner answers that paradox this way, although I don’t know if I am entirely persuaded:

Benjamin’s “immediately” is a rhetorical device indicating that the blessing is assigned to us – we understand that sometimes there are circumstances in life where the blessing certainly does not appear to be “immediate” Citation

25 And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth; but behold, it belongeth to him who created you.

I think this verse is saying that people are less than the thing from which they are created.  This seems counter-intuitive:  if I take a bunch of raw materials and make an iPhone out of them, I have created something that is of more worth than the raw materials.  Why would Benjamin say that people are less than that from which they were created?  See 4:2 for the phrase again:  “And they [=the multitude listening to king Benjamin] had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth.”

Helaman 12:8:  “For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God.”  So perhaps the idea is that the dust is always perfectly responsive to God’s will, but we are not.  Therefore, we are less than the dust of the earth.  This makes good sense until you start thinking about agency:  shouldn’t our agency, which makes it possible for us to be more god-like, make us more-than, instead of less-than, things without agency?

Gerald Lund [citation] calls attention to the next line, finding the key to the passage in the idea that the dust belonged to God, therefore our bodies belong to God. This argument is intriguing, but not entirely clear to me.

How does this statement relate to Moses’ “Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed” (Moses 1:10)?

Gerald Lund:

Think for a moment how that simple concept would alter our thinking if we would really accept it. We clutch things to our bosoms and say, “These are mine.” People rob, cheat, steal, manipulate, and maneuver so they can claim things as their own. The rich ignore the desperate sufferings of the poor because they somehow think that what they have belongs solely to them. Nations go to war over land which they did nothing to create. If we truly believed that God owns all things and that we only use and borrow what is already his, it would vastly alter the way we approach life. Citation

This talk does a great job of exploring the paradox of human status.

What attitudes and practices might someone adopt if they believed that their body belonged to God?

26 And I, even I, whom ye call your king, am no better than ye yourselves are; for I am also of the dust. And ye behold that I am old, and am about to yield up this mortal frame to its mother earth.

The only other scriptural uses of “mother earth” are 2 Nephi 9:7 (“laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth”) and Mormon 6:15 (“to crumble and to return to their mother earth”).  What does this phrase mean?  Is it purely metaphorical?  (I’d suggest that the close proximity of this phrase to the idea of being created from the earth in v25 implies that it might not be entirely metaphorical.

I’m curious about this verse’s “I am also of the dust” and v25′s “are even as much as the dust of the earth.”  How do they relate?

27 Therefore, as I said unto you that I had served you, walking with a clear conscience before God, even so I at this time have caused that ye should assemble yourselves together, that I might be found blameless, and that your blood should not come upon me, when I shall stand to be judged of God of the things whereof he hath commanded me concerning you.

(Is it possible for anyone to have an entirely clear conscience?)

Why did they need to be assembled together for this purpose?  (IOW, this seems to be mostly about Benjamin.)

If I were a cynic, I would suggest that this verse (particularly coming hard on the heels of v26) shows arrogance on Ben’s part.  He might also be accused, based on this verse, of giving this speech for his own benefit (“that I might be found blameless”) and not the people’s. How might we rescue Ben for these accusations?

What does this verse teach about the obligations of leaders?

28 I say unto you that I have caused that ye should assemble yourselves together that I might rid my garments of your blood, at this period of time when I am about to go down to my grave, that I might go down in peace, and my immortal spirit may join the choirs above in singing the praises of a just God.

There is actually very little in the scriptures that describes the afterlife, so this glimpse of eternal choirs is interesting.  How literally do you take it?

There’s that “just” again.  Why is it such an important concept in this sermon?

In 1:11, he said that they had kept the commandments.  How can you reconcile that with the idea of Ben needing to rid his garments of their blood?

29 And moreover, I say unto you that I have caused that ye should assemble yourselves together, that I might declare unto you that I can no longer be your teacher, nor your king;

Is there a link between the previous comments about indebtedness and less-than-the-dust-ness and this section about Benjamin’s retirement?

30 For even at this time, my whole frame doth tremble exceedingly while attempting to speak unto you; but the Lord God doth support me, and hath suffered me that I should speak unto you, and hath commanded me that I should declare unto you this day, that my son Mosiah is a king and a ruler over you.

Does the command mean that Benjamin was commanded to make the announcement, or also commanded to make Mosiah king?  (I ask because above it was suggested that the people had chosen Benjamin.)

Does this verse suggest that “king” and “ruler” are two separate things?  Compare v29, where reference is made to “king” and “teacher;” why the difference?

Brant Gardner:

It is tempting to read “my whole frame doth tremble exceedingly” as a consequence of Benjamin’s age (verse 26). Remembering that Benjamin is to live three years beyond this point, and that he is in the process of delivering a powerful sermon at the direction of a messenger of God, it is more probable that he trembles because of the effects of the Spirit on his physical body. Later, the spirit will descend upon his people with such power that they will be unable to speak it (Mosiah 4:20). In spiritual anticipation of the great transformation of his people, Benjamin is more likely trembling with power of the spirit than frailty of age. Citation

31 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should do as ye have hitherto done. As ye have kept my commandments, and also the commandments of my father, and have prospered, and have been kept from falling into the hands of your enemies, even so if ye shall keep the commandments of my son, or the commandments of God which shall be delivered unto you by him, ye shall prosper in the land, and your enemies shall have no power over you.

32 But, O my people, beware lest there shall arise contentions among you, and ye list to obey the evil spirit, which was spoken of by my father Mosiah.

Ben names contentions as the cause of “listing” to obey the evil spirit.  Does that surprise you?  Why would contentions be the root cause?  How might we apply this knowledge to our own lives?  How do you disagree without being contentious?

Webster’s 1828 on “list”:

1. To enroll; to register in a list or catalogue; to enlist.

2. To engage in the public service, as soldiers.They in my name are listed.

3. To inclose for combat; as, to list a field.

4. To sew together, as strips of cloth; or to form a border.

5. To cover with a list, or with strips of cloth; as, to list a door.

6. To hearken; to attend; a contraction of listen, which see.

Which definition is applicable here, and how does it shape your impression of what Benjamin is warning them about?

33 For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge.

What does the image of “drinking” damnation suggest?  (See 3:25 for an explanation of drinking damnation.)

34 I say unto you, that there are not any among you, except it be your little children that have not been taught concerning these things, but what knoweth that ye are eternally indebted to your heavenly Father, to render to him all that you have and are; and also have been taught concerning the records which contain the prophecies which have been spoken by the holy prophets, even down to the time our father, Lehi, left Jerusalem;

I have no doubt that all humans are indebted to God.  I do doubt that reminding people of their indebtedness is an effective teaching technique.  It would create guilt, I think.  And I only think guilt is useful when it leads to a behavior change, but if we can’t become “un-indebted,” then we can’t alleviate the guilt.  So:  Do you think Benjamin’s goal here was to inculcate guilt?  What effect does the indebtedness language have on you?  What effect should it have?

Is there a link between the teachings about indebtedness and the teachings about the records?

Neal A. Maxwell:

In this respect, what of the current generation of Latter-day Saints, blessed as we are with the convenient new publications of the scriptures?Are we safe from the indictment of our predecessors who took the Book of Mormon “lightly”? Citation

And he wrote this in 1992, thinking, I presume of the LDS edition of the scriptures.  What would he have made of all of our digital options?

35 And also, all that has been spoken by our fathers until now. And behold, also, they spake that which was commanded them of the Lord; therefore, they are just and true.

36 And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide you in wisdom’s paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved—

The only other scriptural use of “wisdom’s path” is Helaman 12:5.  How are these verses related and what does that phrase suggest?

37 I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples.

38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

Henry B. Eyring:

For me, the power of that warning is the picture it forms in my mind of that time when we will each stand before the Savior after this life to be judged. When King Benjamin speaks to me of shrinking from the presence of the Lord, it puts fear into my heart. I can see myself standing in that day of judgment before the glorified and resurrected Savior. I want with all my heart not to shrink, but rather to look up at Him and see Him smile and say, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant. Enter in.” Apr 06 GC

Dallin H. Oaks:

Such descriptions surely offer sufficient incentive for keeping the commandment of service. But service out of fear of punishment is a lesser motive at best. Oct 84 GC

39 And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.

Brant Gardner:

We might expect that God would assign the torment as the just dessert for one who dies as an enemy to God (thereby remaining an enemy while even closer to God’s presence in the next life). Nevertheless, that is not what Benjamin describes . . . The torment is internal, not external. It is self-imposed, not levied by a vengeful and wrathful God. The pain and anguish are not literal fires, but are rather like and unquenchable fire. Benjamin is placing the blame for the application of the penalty of judgement squarely on the shoulders of the sinner. The torment is not less, the difference is from whence it is assigned.  Citation

40 O, all ye old men, and also ye young men, and you little children who can understand my words, for I have spoken plainly unto you that ye might understand, I pray that ye should awake to a remembrance of the awful situation of those that have fallen into transgression.

Why do you think Benjamin does not mention the women in the audience?

Combining this verse with v34, it seems that one of Ben’s concerns is to teach the young children in the audience.  This is somewhat unusual in the scriptures.

41 And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

Is this verse about meditation/pondering?  What might we take from it?

The structure I see here is:

(a) indebtedness

(b) retirement

(c) warning about apostasy

How do these three themes relate?  How do they prepare the listener or reader for the prophecies of Christ in the next chapter?

CHAPTER 3
1 And again my brethren, I would call your attention, for I have somewhat more to speak unto you; for behold, I have things to tell you concerning that which is to come.

John A. Tvedtnes reads “that which is to come” as a technical term for Jesus Christ in the BoM.  (FWIW, I see it as less a technical term than a point of emphasis, raising the question as to why the BoM people chose to emphasize that aspect of Christ when it would not be relevant in the same way to Restoration readers.)

NB that the 1830 BoM did not have a chapter break here.

2 And the things which I shall tell you are made known unto me by an angel from God. And he said unto me: Awake; and I awoke, and behold he stood before me.

Do you read ch2 differently knowing that it was not revealed to Benjamin by an angel?

Why did Ben include the “awake; and I awoke”?  (These seems to be a bit of stage directions that we might have skipped, especially given the repetition.)  Is it meant to allude to the creation/awakening of Adam in the garden?  Is it related to the multiple calls (esp. since “awake” is repeated in the next verse) of Samuel?

3 And he said unto me: Awake, and hear the words which I shall tell thee; for behold, I am come to declare unto you the glad tidings of great joy.

Why is “awake” repeated when, in v2, Ben told us he was already up?

(How) does this verse relate to Luke 2:10 (“And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.”)?  (NB in v5 that this angelic visitation is also an announcement of the coming of the Lord.)

Do you read this material differently knowing that it was given to Ben so that he could share it with others, as opposed to, say, Nephi, who had a similar vision, but for personal reasons and uses?

Russell M. Nelson:

Sacred scriptures have been repeatedly described as “glad tidings of great joy” (Hel. 16:14; Mosiah 3:3; Alma 13:22; see also Luke 2:10). As we learn and abide their teachings, that joy becomes part of our lives. Oct 86 GC

Why would the angel give this info to Ben to tell everyone, as opposed to giving the info directly to each person?

 A for behold, I have things to tell you concerning
B that which is to come.
2 C And the things which I shall tell you
D are made known unto me by an angel from God.
E And he said unto me: Awake;
F and I awoke, and behold he stood before me.
3 E And he said unto me: Awake,
D and hear the words
C which I shall tell thee;
B for behold, I am come
A to declare unto you the glad tidings of great joy.  Citation

4 For the Lord hath heard thy prayers, and hath judged of thy righteousness, and hath sent me to declare unto thee that thou mayest rejoice; and that thou mayest declare unto thy people, that they may also be filled with joy.

To what do you attribute the emphasis on joy in this verse?

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

What do you take from the “tabernacle of clay” language?  How does it relate to the creation of humans?  To the OT idea of a tabernacle as a portable temple?

Why did the angel emphasize Jesus’ miracles at this point?

I’m intrigued by “with power” because we usually think of Jesus coming to earth without power–that is, as a mortal subject to everything that other mortals are subject to, and born into poverty to boot.

The use of “tabernacle” as a metaphor for “body” is frequent in the Bible.  What does it teach us about our body, and about the OT tabernacle/temple?

Is “of clay” meant to link to the “dust” in the previous chapter?  To the creation story?

General question about this section:  Remember that this information is coming from an angel.  Is it new info to Ben?  If not, then why the angel?

NB that we usually think of raising the dead as the coolest miracle, but this isn’t the biblical view.  They thought the coolest would have been giving sight.  (Note that OT prophets raise people from the dead, but do not give sight and that Isaiah described the giving of sight as one of the signs of the Messiah.)

6 And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men.

NB that demonic possession is a big theme in the NT, but not the OT or the BoM or the Restoration.  What do you make of this?  Does this verse help you understand (note the “or”) what is meant by casting our devils?

Does this relate to 2:32 (“But, O my people, beware lest there shall arise contentions among you, and ye list to obey the evil spirit, which was spoken of by my father Mosiah.”)?

7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

Reread v5-v7, noting that, if this were all the information that one had about Jesus, one would conclude that he would be “all action and no talk,” by which I mean:  there is nothing in this proclamation about Jesus teaching or saying or speaking or writing anything, just enacting–through service and through sacrifice.  Why do you think the angel (and then Benjamin, and then our editor) chose to present Jesus this way?  Does this presentation give us a hint as to how we should interpret the Gospels?

What do you conclude from the fact that Ben first presented Jesus’ powers (namely, to do miracles) and then his struggles?  (How) does this relate to how Ben presented his own accomplishments and mortality and fallibility in the previous chapter?

Here’s a link to all of the uses of the word “anguish” in the scriptures.  What does this word mean?

Is this verse just about what happened in Gethsemane (if so, how do you explain the hunger and temptations and thirst) or more generally about Jesus’ mortality (if so, how do you explain the blood, which was only in Gethsemane)?

There seems to be an odd paradox here:  Jesus suffered more than a mere mortal could suffer (without dying); Jesus suffered as part of being mortal.  How do you resolve this?

This verse makes it sound (to me, anyway) as if the blood were the result of Jesus’ feelings about people’s wickedness.  We usually talk about the blood as the result of Jesus taking on the punishment for everyone’s sins.  Are these ideas two ways of saying the same thing?  Are they otherwise compatible?

Is there a link between this verse and Ben’s previous statement about ridding his garments of the people’s blood?  (I think there is a great ironic inversion that it was, so to speak, Christ filling his garments with the people’s blood that made the atonement possible.)

8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

NB that “Christ” is from a Greek word meaning “anointed.”  (The Hebrew word meaning anointed we translate as “Messiah.”)

Do you parse this so that the phrase “the Father of heaven and earth” applies to God, or to Jesus Christ?  (Oh, how I wish WordPress supported sentence diagrams!). Could it be deliberately ambiguous?  2 Nephi 25:12 (“and when the day cometh that the Only Begotten of the Father, yea, even the Father of heaven and of earth, shall manifest himself unto them in the flesh,”) may be evidence here, but I think it, too, can be read two ways:  the phrase “the Father of heaven and of earth” can apply to “the Father” or to “the Only Begotten of the father.”  Crazy language, English is.)  Helaman 14:12 has the same problem–it could also be read two ways.

Compare 1 Nephi 11:18, where Nephi sees Mary but (apparently) was not given her name.  Why did the angel (and then Benjamin) include Mary’s name here?

9 And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.

Skousen thinks that “as a man” was original here.

“Consider him a man” is interesting language, given that he was a man, and that v7 just emphasized some of his mortal limitations.  I think the idea here is more along the lines of “consider him nothing but a man.”

NB the irony that he cast out devils (=evil spirits), but they consider him a devil.

If Ben is working chronologically through Jesus’ life (and I think v10 supports that reading), then it might be interesting to go back to v8 and consider why that statement of identity appears in the middle of the performance of the atonement.  (I think it might have been more expected to put the identity statement at the beginning or at the end of the chronology.)

10 And he shall rise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world; and behold, all these things are done that a righteous judgment might come upon the children of men.

The idea of Jesus’ judging role as the immediate follow-up to the resurrection seems unusual.  (I think we might have expected the resurrection appearances or something.)  Why do you think the record reads this way?  How does the resurrection relate to judgment?

The second statement is equally surprising:  I read Ben as saying that the purpose of Jesus’ entire life (which he has just recounted) was to judge the world (righteously).  Why didn’t he say something like “all these things are done that mankind may be saved” or something?

We don’t usually emphasize Jesus’ role as judge; I think we focus more on his role as advocate and then we picture maybe God or amorphous “justice” as the judge.  What do you make of this image here?

11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.

The phrasing here is unusual.  (Were there people who have fallen but NOT by the transgression of Adam?  Is it fair to say that if you sin it is because of the transgression of Adam?  If not, why does this phrase make sense?)

Is Ben describing three groups (those who have fallen, those who died not knowing, those who sinned ignorantly), or should the ideas in this verse be outlined differently?

What does the idea of sinning ignorantly teach you about sin?  (I think we assume that sin requires deliberation.)

How does v11 relate to v10?

12 But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.

How does the group mentioned in this verse (those that know they are rebelling) relate to the groups in the previous verse?  Is there overlap?

The cynic says:  the only people in big trouble are those who know the rules and violate them.  Everyone else gets mercy.  Therefore, the best bet is to know as little about the gospel as possible.  How would you respond to the cynic?

Thinking about the second sentence:  doesn’t salvation come to everyone this way?  So then aren’t those who rebel exactly the same as other people?

Dieter F. Uchtdorf:

It is not repentance per se that saves man. It is the blood of Jesus Christ that saves us. It is not by our sincere and honest change of behavior alone that we are saved, but “by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23). True repentance, however, is the condition required so that God’s forgiveness can come into our lives. True repentance makes “a brilliant day [out] of the darkest night” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness [1969], 362). Apr 07 GC

Brant Gardner:

Why does this appear in the middle of a discussion of the atonement. Why does a wo appear in the middle of the “glad tidings”?  Citation

Do you consider this material (and the following verses) to be part of the angel’s message to Ben, or to be Ben’s commentary on the angel’s message?

13 And the Lord God hath sent his holy prophets among all the children of men, to declare these things to every kindred, nation, and tongue, that thereby whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins, and rejoice with exceedingly great joy, even as though he had already come among them.

NB the word “all” in this verse:  Is that literally true or is it hyperbole?

Does this verse teach that if you believe (just) that Christ will come, your sins will be remitted?  Is this true?

I like the partnering of the joy in this verse with the wo in the previous verse.

I’m curious about what this verse is teaching about our ability to overcome temporal boundaries and live “as though” we were in the future.  Thoughts?

If these people could live as if the atonement had already happened, what does that say about Jesus’ agency during his mortality?

14 Yet the Lord God saw that his people were a stiffnecked people, and he appointed unto them a law, even the law of Moses.

Why do you think Benjamin moved backward in time (from Jesus’ mortality to the giving of the Law of Moses) at this point?

Does the time period of this verse suggest to you that v13 was describing the time before the Law of Moses was given?

If the Law of Moses was for a stiffnecked people, what does that teach us about the relationship between the law and righteousness?  What are the characteristics of the Law of Moses?

15 And many signs, and wonders, and types, and shadows showed he unto them, concerning his coming; and also holy prophets spake unto them concerning his coming; and yet they hardened their hearts, and understood not that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood.

Do signs/wonders/types/shadows refer to different things (and, if so, what is the difference) or are they multiple ways of referring to the same thing?

What does this verse teach us about how we should interpret the OT?

16 And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.

What do you make of the equation of Adam and nature in this verse?  How might that concept affect your interpretation of the creation and fall?

Think a bit about the ways in which fall and atonement are opposites.

Why exactly is it that children could not be saved even if they could sin?

It is also true for adults that they fall by Adam and that the blood of Christ atones for their sins, so why does Ben begin this verse by talking about children?

The beginning of the verse says that little children cannot sin but the end of the verse refers to “their sins.”  How might you reconcile this?

The part of the law of Moses that is (perhaps) most applicable to children is the idea that 8-day-old boys are circumcised.  Ben just told us that the law was to lead us to Christ.  So:  What does circumcision teach that is relevant to this discussion?

I read this verse to say that children are fallen from birth, but children cannot sin until they are older.  Assuming you agree with that reading, what do you make of the idea of “fallen-but-not-sinners (yet)”?  That is, what might that teach us about the fall and about sin?  What does it mean to fall if you do not sin (yet)?

17 And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

At the beginning, Ben said he would give them a unifying name.  Is this it?

18 For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

Now we swing back to the idea of Christ as judge.  Note that this concept forms a “sandwich” around the idea of children and there relationship to sin.  What do you learn from this pattern?

What does “perish” mean in this verse?

Does “infancy” mean that Ben had a much lower threshold for the age of accountability than we do?

Weird question:  Assume that their age of accountability was roughly what ours is.  In the ancient world, life spans are in the 30 year range.  Do you read the BoM differently thinking that the time of their mortal probation for which they were accountable was in the 22 year range?

I’m curious about the idea of “become as little children” following hard on the heels of a section focused on the idea that little children cannot sin.  Are these two references to children related?  If so, what might we learn from them?

General comment:  this entire chapter has a huge emphasis on Christ’s blood.  Why?

Howard W. Hunter:

Being childlike and submitting to our Father’s will is not always easy. President Spencer W. Kimball, who knew a good deal about suffering, disappointment, and circumstances beyond his control, once wrote:

“Being human, we would expel from our lives physical pain and mental anguish and assure ourselves of continual ease and comfort, but if we were to close the doors upon sorrow and distress, we might be excluding our greatest friends and benefactors. Suffering can make saints of people as they learn patience, long-suffering, and self-mastery” (Faith Precedes the Miracle, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1972, p. 98).

In that statement, President Kimball refers to closing doors upon certain experiences in life. That image brings to mind a line from Cervantes’ great classic, Don Quixote, that has given me comfort over the years. In that masterpiece, we find the short but very important reminder that where one door closes, another opens. Doors close regularly in our lives, and some of those closings cause genuine pain and heartache. But I do believe that where one such door closes, another opens (and perhaps more than one), with hope and blessings in other areas of our lives that we might not have discovered otherwise. Oct 87 GC

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Skousen thinks that “unless” should be “but if.”

Compare “natural” in this verse with “nature” in v16.  How are they the same?  Different?  What does “natural” mean in this verse?

This entire speech is full of language about “enemy” and “rebellion” to describe those opposed to God.  What effect does that language have on the reader?  What does it suggest about those who oppose God?

What work is the phrase “has been from the fall of Adam” doing?  (Wouldn’t we assume that there were no “natural men” before that?)

What does the word “yield” suggest about how you should treat the Spirit?

What does the word “enticings” suggest about what the Spirit does?

What do you learn from the opposition of “natural man” and “saint”?

Robert D. Hales (Oct 11 GC) made a link between our submission, as described in this verse, and Jesus’ submission in Gethsemane.

Again, I am interested in the representation of children here in the context of the material above about how children can’t sin.  The cynic might say that agency is a big problem!

What does the word “inflict” suggest to you about how the Lord treats us?

Submission is a terribly unpopular word today, not just in the context of women’s submission but also more generally.  What would it take to have a healthy attitude toward this idea?

In what ways should the saint-God relationship be patterned after the parent-child relationship (as this verse suggests that it should)?  In what ways shouldn’t they be similar?  How can we help people who did not have a functional relationship with their earthly parents develop a good relationship with God?

Neal A. Maxwell:

By juxtaposing these lines from Benjamin’s sermon with the Savior’s words concerning the childlikeness required to enter the celestial kingdom, we are admitted into a wondrous but demanding realm of understanding regarding developmental discipleship: “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 18:3.) Citation

“Putteth off” in the scriptures usually means to remove clothes (what else could it mean?).  If we see Benjamin as suggesting that we remove the natural man in the same way that we could remove clothing, what might that teach us?

David A. Bednar:

I draw your attention to two specific phrases. First—“putteth off the natural man.” The journey from bad to good is the process of putting off the natural man or the natural woman in each of us. In mortality we all are tempted by the flesh. The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. But we can increase our capacity to overcome the desires of the flesh and temptations “through the atonement of Christ.” When we make mistakes, as we transgress and sin, we can repent and become clean through the redeeming power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Second—“becometh a saint.” This phrase describes the continuation and second phase of life’s journey to make “good men better” or, in other words, to become more like a saint. This second part of the journey, this process of going from good to better, is a topic about which we do not study or teach frequently enough nor understand adequately. I suspect that many Church members are much more familiar with the nature of the redeeming and cleansing power of the Atonement than they are with the strengthening and enabling power. It is one thing to know that Jesus Christ came to earth to die for us—that is fundamental and foundational to the doctrine of Christ. But we also need to appreciate that the Lord desires, through His Atonement and by the power of the Holy Ghost, to live in us—not only to direct us but also to empower us. Most of us know that when we do wrong things, we need help to overcome the effects of sin in our lives. The Savior has paid the price and made it possible for us to become clean through His redeeming power. Most of us clearly understand that the Atonement is for sinners. I am not so sure, however, that we know and understand that the Atonement is also for saints—for good men and women who are obedient, worthy, and conscientious and who are striving to become better and serve more faithfully. We may mistakenly believe we must make the journey from good to better and become a saint all by ourselves, through sheer grit, willpower, and discipline, and with our obviously limited capacities. The gospel of the Savior is not simply about avoiding bad in our lives; it also is essentially about doing and becoming good. And the Atonement provides help for us to overcome and avoid bad and to do and become good. Help from the Savior is available for the entire journey of mortality—from bad to good to better and to change our very nature.  Citation

Is this verse saying that there was there no “natural man” before the fall of Adam?  If so, then what does that tell you about the meaning of the phrase “natural man”?  (Ironic that it is in some sense not natural.)

NB the verbs in this verse.

What do you make of the opposition between “natural man” and “saint” in this verse?

 A they humble themselves
B and become as little children,
C and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through
the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.
19 D For the natural man
E is an enemy to God,
F and has been from the fall of Adam,
F and will be, forever and ever,
E unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit,
D and putteth off the natural man
C and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord,
B and becometh as a child,
A submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things
which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. Citation

The only biblical use of “natural man” is 1 Cor 2:14:  “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”  How does that verse impact your understanding of this verse, and vice versa (ha!).

20 And moreover, I say unto you, that the time shall come when the knowledge of a Savior shall spread throughout every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.

How does this verse relate to the one before it?

21 And behold, when that time cometh, none shall be found blameless before God, except it be little children, only through repentance and faith on the name of the Lord God Omnipotent.

22 And even at this time, when thou shalt have taught thy people the things which the Lord thy God hath commanded thee, even then are they found no more blameless in the sight of God, only according to the words which I have spoken unto thee.

23 And now I have spoken the words which the Lord God hath commanded me.

24 And thus saith the Lord: They shall stand as a bright testimony against this people, at the judgment day; whereof they shall be judged, every man according to his works, whether they be good, or whether they be evil.

This is the only usage of “bright testimony” in the scriptures.  What does this phrase convey?

Critics might point to this verse as evidence that the BoM is focused on works and not grace.  How might you respond to that position based on this verse?

25 And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord into a state of misery and endless torment, from whence they can no more return; therefore they have drunk damnation to their own souls.

This is really a most fascinating verse:  the consequence for evil deeds is to be consigned (=delivered) to see one’s guilt and actions.  The result of this consequence is that the person then removes herself from God’s presence, which means then being in a state of torment.  This is a much different viewpoint than the traditional, historical Christian notions of hell.  2:38 seems to teach the same principle.

26 Therefore, they have drunk out of the cup of the wrath of God, which justice could no more deny unto them than it could deny that Adam should fall because of his partaking of the forbidden fruit; therefore, mercy could have claim on them no more forever.

What is this verse saying about the limits of mercy?

27 And their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever. Thus hath the Lord commanded me. Amen.

What effect does the repetition of “the Lord commanded me” (compare v23) have on the reader?

General:

(1) Stephen D. Ricks finds the following parallels between this passage and the typical OT/ANE coronation pattern:

(a) Temple location.  (This makes sense of the multiple references to the fact that they were at the temple in this passage.)

(b) Transfer of Important Stuff.  (This is why in 1:15-16, Ben gives Mosiah the sword, Liahona and plates.  Noticing this helps us understand that these objects served to legitimate the king for the Nephites.)

(c) Anointing.  (This is not specifically mentioned here–which is quite interesting–but is in Jacob 1:9).

(d) New name.  (Also not mentioned.  NB that they have stopped using Nephi the __ for all of their kings.)

(e) Misc.:  “Other factors in Mosiah’s enthronement that were typically present at coronations of ancient Israelite kings can also be mentioned: for example, sacrifices of thanksgiving (see Mosiah 2:3-4); acceptance of the new monarch by the people agreeing to obey him and God (see Mosiah 2:31; 5:5); and the reappointment of priests and reconstitution of officers under the new regime (see Mosiah 6:3).” Citation

Honestly, I am not too impressed by 3/5, although it would be interesting to speculate as to why (c) and (d) are missing.

(2) Gary L. Sturgess writes:

We do not have the Original Manuscript for this part of the Book of Mormon, but the unamended text of the Printer’s Manuscript set what became Mosiah 1 as chapter 2, the Words of Mormon being chapter 1. This suggests that the Original Manuscript, and perhaps the plates themselves, failed to identify a new book at that interval. The title of the book of Mosiah, and thus its identification as a discrete book, was provided during the correction of the Printer’s Manuscript by Oliver Cowdery or Joseph Smith.  In its present form, the book of Mosiah takes up the history of Mosiah’s dynasty: “And now there was no more contention in all the land of Zarahemla among all the people which belonged to king Benjamin” (Mosiah 1:1). The beginnings of this history are now to be found in the Words of Mormon, which, according to Joseph Smith, was located not in its present position but right at the end of the plates. This suggests either that the 116 lost pages contained an introduction to the Mosiac dynasty similar to that portion now found in the Words of Mormon, or that an introduction to the book of Mosiah existed but was omitted either by Mormon or Joseph Smith. Citation

Would you read Mosiah 1-3 differently if you read the Words of Mormon as the introduction to it?  Would you read this section of the BoM differently if you moved the Words of Mormon back to the end of the book?  What does this fluidity of placement suggest to you about the BoM and how you should read it?

(3) To what extent might King Benjamin’s speech be modeled on Deuteronomy 17:14-20:

 14 ¶When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; 15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. 16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: 20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

(4) In Helaman 5:9, Helaman says:

O remember, remember, my sons, the words which king Benjamin spake unto his people; yea, remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, who shall come; yea, remember that he cometh to redeem the world.

That’s a pretty long shadow that King Benjamin casts over the BoM, especially since he isn’t the only person to preach such a thing.  Why do you think Benjamin is named here, and does this passage suggest anything about how we should approach Benjamin’s speech in these chapters?

(5) Gerald Lund writes:

To understand the full impact of Benjamin’s address, we must consider the setting in which it was given. Mormon, writing some four centuries after the fact, informs us about king Benjamin and the circumstances leading to his last great sermon (WofM 1:12–18; Mosiah 1:1–2:8). Benjamin did not inherit a comfortable situation when he became king of the Nephite nation; it was a time of war. The armies of the Lamanites came down against the Nephites, and king Benjamin led his people in battle, wielding the sword of Laban with his own hand. Thousands were killed, and eventually the Lamanites were driven out of the land (WofM 1:13–14). But this external threat to the society was not the only problem. Mormon says that the wars with the Lamanites were in addition to “contentions among [king Benjamin’s] own people.” He also explains that there were false Christs, false prophets, false preachers, and false teachers among the people. There was also “much contention and many dissensions,” and the people were described as stiffnecked (WofM 1:12, 15–17). But Benjamin was not content with that state of affairs. With the assistance of holy prophets and through his own personal righteousness, king Benjamin brought about a complete change of heart in his people. In one single sentence Mormon summarizes Benjamin’s greatness: “King Benjamin, by laboring with all the might of his body and the faculty of his whole soul . . . did once more establish peace in the land” (WofM 1:18). By peace, Mormon almost certainly means more than the absence of war. Citation

(6) John Welch has written about the similarities between King Benjamin’s speech and the OT festivals here.  He identifies the main characteristics of the fall new year festival as:  (1) blowing of horns (paralleled, perhaps, by the cries that gather the people), (2) sacrifice (clearly mentioned in this section), (3) judgment (a theme in Ben’s speech), (4) kingship of God (also a theme), (5) creation (ditto), (6) remembrance (“), and (7) the role of the king (“).  He also finds parallels to the day of atonement and the feast of tabernacles, with the parallels that one would expect.  This parallel may make sense of the people being in tents, if they were celebrating the feast of tabernacles.  If we think this might have been a sabbatical year, then that would provide a context for all of the talk about indebtedness. This article is also about parallels with Mosiah 1-6 and the Feast of Tabernacles.  (He notes that Deut 17:14-20 (see (3) above) was read then.)

(7) Blake Ostler writes about Benjamin’s speech in the context of a covenant renewal here.  (He also parallels it to King Limhi’s speech in Mosiah 7, which is useful.)

(8) John Welch also considers Benjamin’s speech as a farewell address here.   It has a chart, which makes me profoundly happy.

(9) This is a good overview of Benjamin as a person.

(10) In 2:9, Benjamin said that his goal for this speech was that “the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view.”  How does he accomplish that goal?  What are the mysteries of God?

(11)  If this was a feast of Booths, and/or a Jubilee, and/or a New Years, etc., then why not mention it?  (The Bible usually tells us if that is happening, both in the OT and the NT.)

(12)  We aren’t kings.  But we will all need to give, in some sense, a stewardship report at the end of our lives.  What do you see in Ben’s effort at this that you might model?

Additional Resources:  not one but two books about the speech available in full online.

1 Behold, it came to pass that I, Enos, knowing my father that he was a just man—for he taught me in his language, and also in the nurture and admonition of the Lord—and blessed be the name of my God for it—

Cf. 1 Nephi 1:1 (“I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father.”).  Was there something significant to the Nephites about good parents and learning the language?  Do you think Enos is deliberately modeling himself on Nephi?

This verse sets up everything that happens as a result of Enos’ knowledge that his father was “just.”

Is it fair to say that this verse defines “just” as teaching your children the language and of the Lord?  Is that what you would have expected “just” to mean?

Does “just” surprise you?  (As opposed to, say, “faithful,” which might have been expected here.)

I like “nurture” and “admonition”–a nice balance of the positive and the corrective.  What does the combination of nurture and admonition look like in a family?

The only other time that the word “nurture” is used in the scriptures is Ephesians 6:4:  “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”  Why would wrath be opposed with nurture and admonition?

David R. Seely:

The word nurture does not occur elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, but it is possible that the concept Enos refers to with nurture may be found in its English cognate nourish (both of which derive from the Latin root nutrire) which occurs 25 times (in various forms) in the book of Jacob, all but one in the context of the allegory of the olive tree where the term is used in reference to the care the Lord and his servants give to the vineyard. Jacob also applies it to the people in conjunction with hearing the word when he mentions their being “nourished by the good word of God all the day long” (Jacob 6:7). The same concept may also be found in the English cognate nursing which is found in Jacob’s quotation of Isaiah referring to the “nursing fathers” and “nursing mothers” (2 Nephi 6:7). Enos’ use of “nurture of the Lord,” as taught him by his father Jacob, might refer to the Lord’s care for his children as demonstrated by Jacob’s quotations and his discussion of the allegory of the olive trees (Jacob 5–6). Citation

Contrast the very gendered use of the word “nurture” in modern LDS usage (for example, the Family Proclamation:  “Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.”) with the fact that the only two scriptural uses of “nurture” apply to fathers.  Conclusions?

What work is “of the Lord” doing in this sentence?  By which I mean:  Is “nurture and admonition of the Lord” different from just “nurture and admonition”?

Virtually every parent who has ever lived has taught their language to their children.  Why, then, do Enos (and Nephi) feel the need to mention it?

2 And I will tell you of the wrestle which I had before God, before I received a remission of my sins.

What does the image of wrestling suggest about repentance?

Does everyone need to wrestle before her/his sins are remitted?

What could you learn from comparing Enos’ wrestle with Jacob’s [remember that Jacob is also Enos' father's name] wrestle (Genesis 32:24f)?

NB “you”–direct address in the scriptures is pretty rare.

If you follow the train of thought from v1 and omit the aside, you end up with “knowing my father was a just man, I will tell you of the wrestle . . .”  Do you think this is an error of sorts (we’ve all begun talking about one thing and shifted to another topic mid-sentence), or does Enos deliberately link Jacob’s justness to his (=Enos’) wrestle?  If so, what about Jacob’s justness led Enos to wrestle before God?

Only other BoM use of wrestle is Alma 8:10 (“Nevertheless Alma labored much in the spirit, wrestling with God in mighty prayer, that he would pour out his Spirit upon the people who were in the city; that he would also grant that he might baptize them unto repentance.”), but that that is a wrestle “with” God and this is a wrestle “before” God.

“Before” in this context probably means something like “in front of.”  With whom or what is Jacob wrestling, and why is it in front of God?

Note that the “before” in “before I received” is probably temporal, but the “before” in “before God” is probably spatial.  Is the multiple but contrasting use of “before” in such close proximity significant in any way or just an accident of language?

Nephi wrote both “doctrinal” and “personal” materials.  Jacob’s writings were almost entirely “doctrinal” (perhaps the “personal” story about Sherem would be an exception to this); Enos’ writings are almost entirely personal.  What conclusions might you draw from this?

Brant Gardner:

The book of Enos is an important departure from the books of Nephi and Jacob. What is significant is what is not here. Contrasting what we will find in the book of Enos with the material from Nephi and Jacob, what we find absolutely missing is any reference to an official position among the people. There are no recorded public ceremonies of recognition of place. Nephi was made king, and Jacob declared a priest. Enos is a prophet, but the nature of a prophet for the Nephite community during this period of development was much more similar to ancient Israel than modern Mormon norms. Enos is a prophet, but there were many prophets (Enos 1:22). While the last of the book of Jacob saw the redemption of Jacob, it apparently does not create a condition that passes on to his son. Enos does not appear to be a formal priest for the people. He has no public function that can be discerned and the process of marginalization we saw with Jacob becomes more apparent in Enos, and becomes painfully obvious in subsequent small plate writers. Citation

3 Behold, I went to hunt beasts in the forests; and the words which I had often heard my father speak concerning eternal life, and the joy of the saints, sunk deep into my heart.

Skousen thinks that the text originally read, “and I remembered the words.”

Skousen thinks that the text originally read, “and the words of my father sunk deep into my heart.”

Is there a link between Enos’ daily work and his spiritual epiphany in this verse?  (I think this is an important idea, perhaps especially for women, who often do ‘daily’ labor and think [incorrectly] that it might isolate them from spiritual experiences.  But as Teresa of Avila said, “The Lord walks among pots and pans.”)

It is perhaps understandable that his father’s teachings about eternal life impacted him, but are you surprised by “the joy of the saints”?

Do you think it would be useful to review Jacob’s teachings and look for teachings about eternal life and the joy of the saints?

I like that he was pondering good stuff (eternal life, joy) and not focusing on negative (fear of hell, etc.).

Considering the evidence in this passage, what kinds of parental teachings are most likely to result in this kind of response from a child?

4 And my soul hungered; and I kneeled down before my Maker, and I cried unto him in mighty prayer and supplication for mine own soul; and all the day long did I cry unto him; yea, and when the night came I did still raise my voice high that it reached the heavens.

Note the powerful verbs in this verse.

How do you move along the continuum from Pro Forma to Really Powerful prayers?  This talk by Wendy Watson Nelson has some great reflections about powerful prayer.

Looking ahead to v5, why do you think the voice did not come to him right away, and what might we learn from this?

“Soul hunger” is an interesting image.  Whether Enos thought soul=spirit or he thought soul=spirit + body, it is normally the case that we associate hunger with physical appetites.  What does Enos accomplish by asking us to think about his soul hungering?  What does the image suggest?  Does your soul hunger?  Should your soul hunger?

Does “reached the heavens” suggest that at this point (but not before it), Enos did something different that allowed his prayers to finally connect with God?  If so, can you determine what he did differently?  If not, then what might this phrase mean?

5 And there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed.

Was Enos seeking a remission of sins?  (He says that before the event, but he doesn’t say that in v4.  Is v4 another way of asking for remission of sins?  If it is, what about his father’s teachings about eternal life and joy led him to the repentance part?)

6 And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away.

Why does he introduce the idea of God lying here?  (Wouldn’t we all have assumed that?)

Why does he mention his guilt now?  (In other words, why isn’t guilt the centerpiece, explicitly, of v4?)

Is guilt a good thing or a bad thing? (My thinking:  guilt that leads to change is a positive force; guilt that doesn’t lead to change and/or isn’t related to a moral issue isn’t helpful.)

Brant Gardner:

It is also interesting that Enos does not feel his sins swept away until he notes that he believes the Lord’s declaration. Citation

7 And I said: Lord, how is it done?

Does this strike you as an odd or inappropriate question?  (Don’t you think gratitude would have been a more expected response?) Does it mean that he doesn’t understand about the atonement?

Wouldn’t you have thought that, as Jacob’s son, Enos would know the answer to this question?

This verse is a testimony that he knows that something has actually happened.

8 And he said unto me: Because of thy faith in Christ, whom thou hast never before heard nor seen. And many years pass away before he shall manifest himself in the flesh; wherefore, go to, thy faith hath made thee whole.

Skousen thinks that “whom thou hast not heard nor seen” is original.  (The current text allows for the interpretation that Enos was currently seeing/hearing Christ; this reading that Skousen suggests does not allow for that reading, so it would require us to reconfigure our understanding of what is happening in this passage.)

Skousen thinks that “go to it” is original.  (That would be quite a significant change–it ruins the parallelism with the NT verses and, I think, is more suggestive of a specific mission.)

What work does “and many years . . . in the flesh” do in this sentence?  Is that information primarily for Enos (and, if so, why does he need to hear that now?) or for the reader?  Either way, how does the “wherefore” relate to what comes before it?  (By which I mean: Is there a relationship to Enos’ faith making him whole and the fact that Christ won’t come in the flesh for many years?)

Does this strike you as interesting given that Enos hasn’t mentioned Christ up to this point, especially in v4?

The phrase “thy faith hath made thee whole” appears three times in the NT (plus parallels):

–Luke 17:19 (thankful leper of ten cleansed)

What do these stories have in common with Enos’?

How does “because of your faith” answer the “how is it done” question from the previous verse?  Does the Lord in fact answer his question?  Might you not have expected the answer to focus more on Christ (by which I mean:  on the atonement) and less on Enos (by which I mean:  on Enos’ faith)?

9 Now, it came to pass that when I had heard these words I began to feel a desire for the welfare of my brethren, the Nephites; wherefore, I did pour out my whole soul unto God for them.

Can you determine what it was about v8 precisely that led to his concern for his brothers and sisters?

What does the image of pouring out a soul suggest?  How does it relate to the hungering soul?  (My thought:  A hungering soul is empty and desiring fulfillment; a pouring-out-soul is full and desiring to share what it has.  Enos’ experience has changed the content of his soul for recipient to giver.)

10 And while I was thus struggling in the spirit, behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind again, saying: I will visit thy brethren according to their diligence in keeping my commandments. I have given unto them this land, and it is a holy land; and I curse it not save it be for the cause of iniquity; wherefore, I will visit thy brethren according as I have said; and their transgressions will I bring down with sorrow upon their own heads.

Is pouring out your soul the same as struggling in spirit?

Does “according to their diligence” imply that Enos’ petition had/has no effect?

“Holy land” is a rare phrase in scripture–only here in the BoM and Zechariah 2:12.

I like the inversion of “joy” above to sorrow here.

Do you think anything in this verse is new information to Enos?  If not, how might it answer his concern from v9?

Boyd K. Packer:

The Lord has many ways of pouring knowledge into our minds to prompt us, to guide us, to teach us, to correct us, to warn us. The Lord said, “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart” (D&C 8:2). And Enos recorded, “While I was thus struggling in the spirit, behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind again” (Enos 1:10).You can know the things you need to know. Pray that you will learn to receive that inspiration and remain worthy to receive it. Keep that channel—your mind—clean and free from the clutter of the world. Oct 09 GC

Boyd K. Packer:

Enos, who was “struggling in the spirit,” said, “Behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind.” (Enos 1:10; italics added.) While this spiritual communication comes into the mind, it comes more as a feeling, an impression, than simply as a thought. Unless you have experienced it, it is very difficult to describe that delicate process. The witness is not communicated through the intellect alone, however bright the intellect may be. Oct 91 GC

James E. Faust:

How is inspiration received? Enos stated, “And while I was thus struggling in the spirit, behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind” (Enos 1:10). One does not necessarily hear an audible voice. The spirit of revelation comes by divine confirmation. “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart,” says the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 8:2). Apr 1980 GC

Harold B. Lee:

Enos, grandson of Lehi, gives us to understand why some can receive a knowledge of the things of God while others cannot. Enos recounts his struggle to obtain a forgiveness of his sins that he might be worthy of his high calling. He then concludes: “And while I was thus struggling in the spirit, behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind again, saying: I will visit thy brethren according to their diligence in keeping my commandments” (Enos 1:10).There you have, in simple language, a great principle: It isn’t the Lord who withholds himself from us. It is we who withhold ourselves from him because of our failure to keep his commandments. Oct 66 GC

Marion G. Romney:

Another manifestation of revelation is the unspoken word, a good illustration of which is given us by Enos. He says: “. . . while I was thus struggling in the spirit, behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind again, saying” (Enos 1:10). Then he tells us what the voice of the Lord put in his mind. This is a very common means of revelation. It comes into one’s mind in words and sentences. With this medium of revelation I am personally well acquainted.  Apr 1964 GC

11 And after I, Enos, had heard these words, my faith began to be unshaken in the Lord; and I prayed unto him with many long strugglings for my brethren, the Lamanites.

What about the previous verse would have strengthened his faith?

Consider the relationship to v8–his faith there was enough to effect the remission of his sins, but it had not yet begun to be unshaken.  We see Enos increasing in faith in this chapter, although he has enough faith at the beginning to have his sins forgiven.

Enos’ first concern was himself, his second concern was his brethren the Nephites, and here it is for his brethren the Lamanites.  I believe that his increased spiritual sensitivity causes his sphere of concern to expand and his definition of “brethren” to expand.  The final expansion happens in v15, where he is concerned with people in the future.  David R. Seely writes:

Thus the experience of Enos demonstrates that a consequence of true conversion is the reception of the gift of charity, a gift of the Spirit, through which an individual feels concern for the welfare and the salvation of his brothers, both friends and enemies.  . . . The experience of Enos demonstrates that the result of receiving the word and feeling the promptings of the Holy Ghost is the desire to share it with others. Citation

12 And it came to pass that after I had prayed and labored with all diligence, the Lord said unto me: I will grant unto thee according to thy desires, because of thy faith.

Here we are introduced to the concern of not just praying, but laboring.  What would labored have meant in this context?  Is it different from praying?

NB the contrast with v10–there he was told that his brethren would be treated according to their obedience, but here, it is according to Enos’ desires.  What accounts for that shift?

Dallin H. Oaks:

Note the three essentials that preceded the promised blessing: desire, labor, and faith. Apr 2011 GC

13 And now behold, this was the desire which I desired of him—that if it should so be, that my people, the Nephites, should fall into transgression, and by any means be destroyed, and the Lamanites should not be destroyed, that the Lord God would preserve a record of my people, the Nephites; even if it so be by the power of his holy arm, that it might be brought forth at some future day unto the Lamanites, that, perhaps, they might be brought unto salvation—

I think it would behoove us to stop and think about how very, very weird this desire is:  Most of us, rubbing the lamp and seeing the genie appear, would be asking for world peace, or the salvation of our children, or a salami sandwich.  We would not be asking that IF our descendants become unrighteous and IF they are then destroyed that God would preserve our journal so that in the future it would be given to our enemies so they might be saved.  First off, that’s a lot of conditions.  Second, it is . . . just weird.  Why does Enos make this request?  What does it teach us about him?

14 For at the present our strugglings were vain in restoring them to the true faith. And they swore in their wrath that, if it were possible, they would destroy our records and us, and also all the traditions of our fathers.

Is the word strugglings in this verse related to the use of that word in his prayers?

I think this is the first we hear of efforts to restore Lamanites to faith.  (It might be interesting to think of Enos’ struggling in prayer and the Nephites’ struggling in missionary work as implying that the conversion of oneself is roughly as hard as converting someone else.)

NB the Lamanite desire to destroy records.  Why would they have wanted to do this?  Is this reference to destroying records relevant to our day?

15 Wherefore, I knowing that the Lord God was able to preserve our records, I cried unto him continually, for he had said unto me: Whatsoever thing ye shall ask in faith, believing that ye shall receive in the name of Christ, ye shall receive it.

Boyd K. Packer:

No message appears in scripture more times, in more ways than, “Ask, and ye shall receive.” (Matt. 21:22; James 4:3; 1 Jn. 3:22; 1 Ne. 15:11; Enos 1:15; Mosiah 4:21; D&C 4:7; and Moses 6:52 are examples.) While we may invite this communication, it can never be forced! If we try to force it, we may be deceived. Oct 91 GC

16 And I had faith, and I did cry unto God that he would preserve the records; and he covenanted with me that he would bring them forth unto the Lamanites in his own due time.

Are you surprised by the idea of covenanting in this verse?

17 And I, Enos, knew it would be according to the covenant which he had made; wherefore my soul did rest.

18 And the Lord said unto me: Thy fathers have also required of me this thing; and it shall be done unto them according to their faith; for their faith was like unto thine.

Can people require things of the Lord?

Compare this with v16:  if the Lord had already covenanted to do this with Enos’ fathers, then why does Enos feel the need to have this promise, and why would the Lord “re-promise”?

19 And now it came to pass that I, Enos, went about among the people of Nephi, prophesying of things to come, and testifying of the things which I had heard and seen.

20 And I bear record that the people of Nephi did seek diligently to restore the Lamanites unto the true faith in God. But our labors were vain; their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us.

Skousen thinks “girded” instead of “girdle” is original.

Did the Lamanites really have “evil nature[s]“, or is this just boilerplate?  (Remember that “the Lamanites” means “Enos’ uncles and their families.”)

I think this is the first we hear of idolatry in the BoM?

In the second sentence, is everything named evil, or at some point (what point?) is it just descriptive?  (In other words, is it evil to have good cimeter skills?  Eat raw meat?  Some of the items on this list, like eating raw meat, are things that Lehi’s people did in the wilderness.)

If we placed this text into modern times, we’d probably end up accusing Enos of repeating the worst sorts of stereotypes about his enemies (who are supposed to be his beloved brethren now that he’s had this spiritual experience anyway).  Further, we frequently hear in the BoM that the Lamanites believed the false traditions of their fathers concerning the Nephites, and yet here is a Nephite presenting a definitely unflattering (if not entirely false) picture of the Lamanites. What sense can you make of Enos’ description of the Lamanites in this verse?

Thinking about my previous two paragraphs, is the point just that there was a huge cultural divide between the Nephites and the Lamanites and that divide made it very difficult–if not impossible–to preach successfully to the Lamanites?  If that is the case, then does Enos’ desire for the preservation of the plates take on a different nuance?  How might we read the plates as capable of bridging a cultural divide? (I get into this idea more with the next verse, but I am wondering if Enos’ own position as a hunter of beasts was perhaps deliberate to position him as someone culturally similar to the Lamanites.)

21 And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also many horses.

Re-read v20-21.  Would you not have expected an explicitly spiritual contrast between the two groups (“And the Nephites did pray oft, but the Lamanites . . .”)?  Why do you think Enos provides cultural information instead? Is this just a factual contrast, or is there something more righteous about the Nephites’ lifestyle as described in this verse?  (If you want to go in that direction, I’m thinking about the difference between Cain and Abel . . .)

NB that the Lamanites hunt “beasts of prey” (v20) while the Nephites raise flocks.  We know that Nephi hunted (remember the bow?), so I suspect that Enos’ goal is to show that the Nephite culture has advanced (except of course that Enos himself is hunting beasts in this very story!) while the Lamanites have either stayed the same or regressed.  Having said that, I think it is problematic to couch societal advancement (nomadic, agricultural, advanced agricultural, industrial, etc.) in terms of righteousness, which is what he seems to be doing here, but which is complicated by the fact that he has this major epiphany while hunting beasts (v3).  What do you think Enos intended to convey by including this cultural explanation?

22 And there were exceedingly many prophets among us. And the people were a stiffnecked people, hard to understand.

What is the relationship between the two sentences in this verse?

Does this mean that Enos could not understand the people (that is, the people were hard to understand) or that the people could not understand the prophets (that is, the people were hard[hearted] and couldn’t understand)?  Are there other ways to read it?

It seems more common in the OT and BoM to have multiple simultaneous prophets, as opposed to how it works in the Church today.  What do you make of this difference?

23 And there was nothing save it was exceeding harshness, preaching and prophesying of wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity, and the judgments and the power of God, and all these things—stirring them up continually to keep them in the fear of the Lord. I say there was nothing short of these things, and exceedingly great plainness of speech, would keep them from going down speedily to destruction. And after this manner do I write concerning them.

I’m not sure how to read this–is he saying “there was nothing save . . .” and this was a bad thing, or a good thing?

24 And I saw wars between the Nephites and Lamanites in the course of my days.

25 And it came to pass that I began to be old, and an hundred and seventy and nine years had passed away from the time that our father Lehi left Jerusalem.

Remember that Enos is Lehi’s grandson, and Lehi was not exactly a spring chicken when he left Jrsm.  It seems that too many years have passed for [typical] human life spans.  How do you understand this?

Brant Gardner:

The brevity of Enos’ account contrasts mightily with his longevity. Enos must have live into his 90′s, and have been in charge of the plates from his youth (given the approximately 170+ years that had to be covered by two life spans, with some overlap). Thus we have Enos in charge of the records for somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 years, and we have one specific event, and a brief synopsis of the rest. Perhaps to Enos it was so much of the same thing that condensing it into lots of preaching and lots of wars said it all. Citation

26 And I saw that I must soon go down to my grave, having been wrought upon by the power of God that I must preach and prophesy unto this people, and declare the word according to the truth which is in Christ. And I have declared it in all my days, and have rejoiced in it above that of the world.

The idea of Enos rejoicing (in this verse and also in v27) is a nice bookend to his pondering the joy of the saints that led to his spiritual experience at the beginning of the book (v3).

27 And I soon go to the place of my rest, which is with my Redeemer; for I know that in him I shall rest. And I rejoice in the day when my mortal shall put on immortality, and shall stand before him; then shall I see his face with pleasure, and he will say unto me: Come unto me, ye blessed, there is a place prepared for you in the mansions of my Father. Amen.

Does the “seeing his face”  and “stand before him” in this verse relate to the “wrestle before God” from v2?

I like the contrast between getting to know God wrestling in the forest but winding up in a mansion.

General question about Enos:  some have read Enos as a fairly wicked person who has a major repentance experience in this chapter.  Others have read him as a pretty decent guy (which, I think, is supported by v14′s suggestion that he has, previous to this time, been involved in missionary work to the Lamanites, unless he was speaking there of Nephite efforts generally that may not have involved him).  Which way do you read him, and how then do you interpret this spiritual experience?

Jarom

1 Now behold, I, Jarom, write a few words according to the commandment of my father, Enos, that our genealogy may be kept.

What does “genealogy” mean in this verse?

Nephi and Jacob describe their task as a record (of sacred things), not a genealogy.  Does Jarom have a different task, or does he misunderstand his task?

2 And as these plates are small, and as these things are written for the intent of the benefit of our brethren the Lamanites, wherefore, it must needs be that I write a little; but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me.

It is very weird to think of this as being written not for himself or his children or us, but for the Lamanites, who are frequently trying to kill him.

The attitude in this verse strikes me as a little off–certain basic messages are frequently repeated in the scriptures.  Why does he hesitate to do so here?

How does this verse relate to our general belief that the BoM was written for our day?

In what way would a Nephite genealogy (see v1) benefit the Lamanites?  (Does this question require us to reconsider what “genealogy” means in v1?)

3 Behold, it is expedient that much should be done among this people, because of the hardness of their hearts, and the deafness of their ears, and the blindness of their minds, and the stiffness of their necks; nevertheless, God is exceedingly merciful unto them, and has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land.

What does the hard/deaf/blind/stiff metaphor suggest about sin?

Is “this people” the Lamanites or the Nephites?

4 And there are many among us who have many revelations, for they are not all stiffnecked. And as many as are not stiffnecked and have faith, have communion with the Holy Spirit, which maketh manifest unto the children of men, according to their faith.

Why “communion”?

V3 made it sound like everyone was wicked, but this verse makes it clear that that is not the case.  It also suggests that Nephite writers are not unfamiliar with the hyperbole or generalizations that some OT/NT writers use.

This verse suggests that we have two categories of Nephites at this point:  the stiffnecked, and the faithful.  Those don’t strike me as precise opposites, partially because one is a metaphorical description and the other a simple factual statement.  Further, I’ve always thought of stiffnecked as having more to do with pride than with lack of faith.  What does the opposition of stiffnecked and faithful teach you about both concepts here?

5 And now, behold, two hundred years had passed away, and the people of Nephi had waxed strong in the land. They observed to keep the law of Moses and the sabbath day holy unto the Lord. And they profaned not; neither did they blaspheme. And the laws of the land were exceedingly strict.

Why do you think the sabbath day gets particular mention here?

What do you take from the note that the laws were very strict?  Does it imply that the laws mirrored (or exceeded?) the law of Moses?

6 And they were scattered upon much of the face of the land, and the Lamanites also. And they were exceedingly more numerous than were they of the Nephites; and they loved murder and would drink the blood of beasts.

Does it surprise you that the Lamanites outnumber the Nephites?

Do you think they really loved murder, or is this the Nephite PR department talking?

Why mention drinking the blood of beasts?  Because it is a violation of the Law of Moses?  (It seems sort of unnecessary after the “love murder” comment.)

Why would it be important to record that both groups were “scattered”?  Does this simply mean that they were spread out (and:  Why mention that?  Because it suggests a peaceful enough existence that they don’t have to huddle together for safety?  But cf. v7.), or does it tap into the spiritualized scatter/gather theme?

7 And it came to pass that they came many times against us, the Nephites, to battle. But our kings and our leaders were mighty men in the faith of the Lord; and they taught the people the ways of the Lord; wherefore, we withstood the Lamanites and swept them away out of our lands, and began to fortify our cities, or whatsoever place of our inheritance.

Does this verse suggest that sometimes they had leaders who were not kings?

This verse suggests a frequent but rarely-believed theme in both the OT and the BoM:  that people will prosper militarily if they are righteous.

Does the idea that they “began” to fortify their cities–coming at the end of the verse–surprise you?

8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

What do you think machinery meant to them?

It sounds like what Jarom was describing here was a good thing; compare that with Jacob 1:16 (“Yea, and they also began to search much gold and silver, and began to be lifted up somewhat in pride.”)–how do you understand why one seems good and the other does not?

Why would Jarom have thought this cultural information was worth including in his record, which he described as a genealogy?

9 And thus being prepared to meet the Lamanites, they did not prosper against us. But the word of the Lord was verified, which he spake unto our fathers, saying that: Inasmuch as ye will keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land.

I don’t have time to do this, but I think it would be interesting to go through v3-9 and follow the “we” and “they” descriptions and see what Jarom is doing with the back-and-forth between the descriptions of the Nephites and the Lamanites and how they compare.

What does the word “prosper” mean in this sentence, and how might that meaning influence how you interpret the word elsewhere in the BoM?  (What I’m getting at:  clearly it does not mean “had a lot of money” in this verse, but we frequently read “prosper” to mean just that elsewhere.)

10 And it came to pass that the prophets of the Lord did threaten the people of Nephi, according to the word of God, that if they did not keep the commandments, but should fall into transgression, they should be destroyed from off the face of the land.

Why do you think “threaten” was used here?  What does that word suggest that “teach” or “warn” might not?

Do you think this verse is making a distinction between transgression and sin?

11 Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers, did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to diligence; teaching the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was. And after this manner did they teach them.

I’m curious about “as though he already was.”  On the one hand, this isn’t 100% true in that they were still keeping the Law of Moses (as this verse itself attests), which they would not have done if he “already was.”  Secondly, it is an interesting idea to think about how it might be relevant to us–how might we choose to live if we were living as if the kingdom of God were already here, or the Second Coming had already happened, or we were already in the celestial kingdom, etc.?

12 And it came to pass that by so doing they kept them from being destroyed upon the face of the land; for they did prick their hearts with the word, continually stirring them up unto repentance.

What does the image of pricking hearts suggest?

Consider v10-12 as a group:  does it describe several different dynamics, or is one dynamic described several ways?  If you took these verses as a guideline, what would you conclude about what Church leaders should be doing?

13 And it came to pass that two hundred and thirty and eight years had passed away—after the manner of wars, and contentions, and dissensions, for the space of much of the time.

What work is “after the manner of” doing?  (Which means:  How would the verse be different without that phrase, or is it just excess verbiage?)

14 And I, Jarom, do not write more, for the plates are small. But behold, my brethren, ye can go to the other plates of Nephi; for behold, upon them the records of our wars are engraven, according to the writings of the kings, or those which they caused to be written.

15 And I deliver these plates into the hands of my son Omni, that they may be kept according to the commandments of my fathers.

Omni

1 Behold, it came to pass that I, Omni, being commanded by my father, Jarom, that I should write somewhat upon these plates, to preserve our genealogy—

2 Wherefore, in my days, I would that ye should know that I fought much with the sword to preserve my people, the Nephites, from falling into the hands of their enemies, the Lamanites. But behold, I of myself am a wicked man, and I have not kept the statutes and the commandments of the Lord as I ought to have done.

NB that second person “ye” again . . . and note that he wants us to know that he fought much.  Why would he want us to know that?

How wicked can you be if (1) you are aware of your wickedness and willing to admit it and (2) still following your father’s commandments (see v1)?  Should we read this as hyperbole?

Brant Gardner:

It should be very clear that Omni’s use of the term Nephite is absolutely political. That is, he is a Nephite because of his allegiance to his community, not because of his religion.  Citation

John S. Tanner:

Many of Jacob’s less distinguished descendants (most conspicuously Omni and Abinadom) are refreshingly frank about their felt weaknesses. Most of us could learn from their humility and unblinking self-honesty. I note further that none of these authors treats the sacred record cynically—not even the avowedly “wicked” Omni. All, except perhaps Chemish, appear to sense the plates’ power. The very inadequacy that they express suggests that Jacob’s descendants had both read the record and been moved by its power. So it is not entirely fair to dismiss these men as apostate; they are certainly not unre-generate. Their commitment to duty, their humility, their honesty, and their reverence for the sacred—all intimate that Jacob’s legacy was not entirely dissipated in his posterity. His righteous blood still flowed in their veins, his sensitivity still circulated in their souls. Citation

3 And it came to pass that two hundred and seventy and six years had passed away, and we had many seasons of peace; and we had many seasons of serious war and bloodshed. Yea, and in fine, two hundred and eighty and two years had passed away, and I had kept these plates according to the commandments of my fathers; and I conferred them upon my son Amaron. And I make an end.

4 And now I, Amaron, write the things whatsoever I write, which are few, in the book of my father.

5 Behold, it came to pass that three hundred and twenty years had passed away, and the more wicked part of the Nephites were destroyed.

6 For the Lord would not suffer, after he had led them out of the land of Jerusalem and kept and preserved them from falling into the hands of their enemies, yea, he would not suffer that the words should not be verified, which he spake unto our fathers, saying that: Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall not prosper in the land.

7 Wherefore, the Lord did visit them in great judgment; nevertheless, he did spare the righteous that they should not perish, but did deliver them out of the hands of their enemies.

8 And it came to pass that I did deliver the plates unto my brother Chemish.

Giving the plates to a brother instead of to a son breaks the pattern (although it is, of course, what Nephi did).

9 Now I, Chemish, write what few things I write, in the same book with my brother; for behold, I saw the last which he wrote, that he wrote it with his own hand; and he wrote it in the day that he delivered them unto me. And after this manner we keep the records, for it is according to the commandments of our fathers. And I make an end.

Why do you think Chemish thought it was important to let us know that his brother wrote with his own hand?  (This might be a given to us, but in the ancient world it was not uncommon to have a scribe write for you–we know that Paul, for example, did this.)

10 Behold, I, Abinadom, am the son of Chemish. Behold, it came to pass that I saw much war and contention between my people, the Nephites, and the Lamanites; and I, with my own sword, have taken the lives of many of the Lamanites in the defence of my brethren.

11 And behold, the record of this people is engraven upon plates which is had by the kings, according to the generations; and I know of no revelation save that which has been written, neither prophecy; wherefore, that which is sufficient is written. And I make an end.

This is interesting–usually, we are told that there were many things that were not written.  I wonder if it is more that he is not in contact with those who are having revelations–I think there is ample evidence in this short book to suggest that Jacob’s descendants end up outside the political and religious power structure of the Nephites.  So maybe other people are having revelations but he just doesn’t know about it.

12 Behold, I am Amaleki, the son of Abinadom. Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made king over the land of Zarahemla; for behold, he being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi, and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also depart out of the land with him, into the wilderness—

Mosiah’s departure mirrors Nephi’s.

Brant Gardner thinks that Mosiah was not a king in the land of Nephi–note that his name does not follow the naming convention from Jacob 1:11 of 1st Nephi, 2nd Nephi, etc.–but that Mosiah becomes a king after they leave.

This article about the possible Hebrew meaning and use of “mosiah” is particularly interesting given that Mosiah shows up here with no genealogical link to anyone else in the small plates, something unique (I think–did I forget anyone?) in this record.

The fact that Mosiah shows up out of nowhere (by which I mean:  he isn’t linked to any person or institution that comes before him) invites comparison with Melchizedek in Genesis 14, who, as the writer of Hebrews makes a big deal out of in Hebrews 7, was also “without father or mother.”  What can you learn from comparing Mosiah and Melchizedek?

Interesting that this verse tells of a revelation–contrast v11, where there seems to be no new revelation.

13 And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla.

From Poetic Parallelism in the Book of Mormon:

A Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made
king over the land of Zarahemla;
B for behold, he being warned of the Lord
C that he should flee out of the land of Nephi,
D and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord
E should also depart out of the land with him, into the wilderness—
F And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him.
E And they departed out of the land into the wilderness,
D as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord;
C and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings.
B And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were
led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness,
A until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla. Citation

14 And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews.

This article explores what we know about the people of Zarahemla (=the Mulekites).

15 Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon.

16 And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth.

So not only does this section feature Mosiah reproducing Nephi’s journey into the wilderness to escape wicked people, but it also has a group of people reproducing Lehi’s journey into the wilderness and across the “great waters.”

17 And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.

Why do you think they didn’t have records?  (Why would the hand of the Lord bring them, but no records?)

Does it surprise you that they knew the material in v15-16 but forgot their language and their God?  (And note that it is the two items that Nephi and Enos mention by way of introduction–language and God–that are the first to go without records.)

This is a fairly substantial language change if Mosiah can’t understand them–these people haven’t had that many centuries for their language to shift.  Does it suggest intermingling with native people?  (John L. Sorenson suggests that, in addition to mingling with natives, their group may have originally included Phoenicians, Egyptians, etc., and that this polyglot nature is what led to the corruption of their language.)

How is the enormous emphasis on language in the BoM relevant to us today?

18 But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory; and they are written, but not in these plates.

Interesting that he had an oral tradition of genealogy–and we are finding out about it from a book that is very, very concerned to have a written genealogy.

Given the importance that the BoM places on having a written record (see: Laban’s head), how confident are you that you can trust anything the people of Zarahemla say about their history?  (To make the most extreme case, is it not possible that they were native New Worlders who realized that Mosiah et al would just eat up a story about them having come from the same homeland?  Would this not explain the language difference, the lack of records, the lack of belief in God, etc.?)

19 And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did unite together; and Mosiah was appointed to be their king.

I find it curious that we learned just a few verses ago that they denied the Creator.  Here, they are joining with Mosiah but there is no discussion of their religious change of heart (if, indeed, they had one).  Why aren’t they, at the very least, hostile the way that the Lamanites are hostile?

Thinking about v18-v19:  NB that the smaller, ragged, nomadic group (led by Mosiah) becomes the politically (=king) and culturally (=language) dominant group.  This is most unusual.

20 And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.

Perhaps this is a stretch, but the moving large stone reminds me of the stone rolled away from the opening of Jesus’ tomb.  This stone has an explicit message (=engravings), but the moved stone has an implicit one (=someone has left the tomb).  Both events happened “by the gift and power of God.”  Further, the story of Coriantumr is, if you will, “resurrected” from the grave by Mosiah (which is, see the link above, perhaps a Hebrew word suggesting a liberator).

21 And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons.

Brant Gardner:

We have our difficulties with the putative “stela of Coriantumr.” Not only is it nearly impossible to find a king who creates a stone monument to the defeat of his people, but we have unanswered the question as to who could have carved the stela if the people of Coriantumr have been vanquished. Carving a stela takes time and the dedication of resources to support the carvers. With the dissolution of the kingdom, Coriantumr would have had no means of providing the support, and would be unlikely to himself have been a carver (not to mention the inexplicable memorialization of his defeat). I can offer only a single suggestion. Since we have the information on Coriantumr through Mosiah’s inspired (perhaps not literal?) reading of the stone, we may have a prophetic/seer “reading” of the stone for information that was not directly written in the text of the stone itself. Mosiah would be using the stone as a base text, but expanding the “text” with the extra information about the end of the Jaredites. Citation

22 It also spake a few words concerning his fathers. And his first parents came out from the tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people; and the severity of the Lord fell upon them according to his judgments, which are just; and their bones lay scattered in the land northward.

Something ironic about the Zarahemla people not having their own records but then ending up with this record . . .

Again, is “scattered” factual or a link to the scatter/gather theme?

23 Behold, I, Amaleki, was born in the days of Mosiah; and I have lived to see his death; and Benjamin, his son, reigneth in his stead.

Interesting that after Mosiah coming out of nowhere (by which I mean:  no genealogy is given of him) we return to the pattern of identifying relationships with his son.

24 And behold, I have seen, in the days of king Benjamin, a serious war and much bloodshed between the Nephites and the Lamanites. But behold, the Nephites did obtain much advantage over them; yea, insomuch that king Benjamin did drive them out of the land of Zarahemla.
Interesting that the Nephites have moved to a new land but are fighting the same old war.

25 And it came to pass that I began to be old; and, having no seed, and knowing king Benjamin to be a just man before the Lord, wherefore, I shall deliver up these plates unto him, exhorting all men to come unto God, the Holy One of Israel, and believe in prophesying, and in revelations, and in the ministering of angels, and in the gift of speaking with tongues, and in the gift of interpreting languages, and in all things which are good; for there is nothing which is good save it comes from the Lord: and that which is evil cometh from the devil.

It has not been the case that the political leadership and the plates have belonged to the same person since Nephi, but it will be again with Benjamin.  Does this suggest that a comparison of Nephi and Benjamin might be useful?

26 And now, my beloved brethren, I would that ye should come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption. Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved.

David A. Bednar:

And after we come out of the waters of baptism, our souls need to be continuously immersed in and saturated with the truth and the light of the Savior’s gospel. Sporadic and shallow dipping in the doctrine of Christ and partial participation in His restored Church cannot produce the spiritual transformation that enables us to walk in a newness of life. Rather, fidelity to covenants, constancy of commitment, and offering our whole soul unto God are required if we are to receive the blessings of eternity. “I would that ye should come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption. Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved” (Omni 1:26). Total immersion in and saturation with the Savior’s gospel are essential steps in the process of being born again. Apr 07 GC

27 And now I would speak somewhat concerning a certain number who went up into the wilderness to return to the land of Nephi; for there was a large number who were desirous to possess the land of their inheritance.

Was this desire a righteous desire?  (v28 suggests no, so it is interesting that v27 doesn’t make that explicit.)  A contrast is drawn with v12–where Mosiah was commanded to depart–and this verse, where it appears to be human-initiated action.  I wonder how we might parse the difference between this situation and, say, the counsel in D&C 58:26 (“it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.”) and how we figure out under what circumstances we should act without specific revelation.

Mosiah 9-22 tells more about this expedition.

What motivated them to return?

28 Wherefore, they went up into the wilderness. And their leader being a strong and mighty man, and a stiffnecked man, wherefore he caused a contention among them; and they were all slain, save fifty, in the wilderness, and they returned again to the land of Zarahemla.

Why isn’t the leader named?  Might that be deliberate?

29 And it came to pass that they also took others to a considerable number, and took their journey again into the wilderness.

30 And I, Amaleki, had a brother, who also went with them; and I have not since known concerning them. And I am about to lie down in my grave; and these plates are full. And I make an end of my speaking.

I may be misreading, but this verse sounds to me like he loved his brother very much, and he is mentioning his situation on the incredibly unlikely chance (especially since Amaleki is about to die) that someone might read the plates and be able to reunite him with his brother, or let his brother know what became of him.  I think we read v27-29 differently knowing that the writer’s brother got caught up in this and almost certainly lost his life because of it.

Gary R. Whiting:

Amaleki’s record in the book of Omni is a very important part of the Book of Mormon because the historical information he includes gives insight into and background for the rest of the Book of Mormon account. He speaks of the Nephite people under king Mosiah, of the people of Zarahemla, and of the Jaredites. In a very few words Amaleki adds to our understanding of each of the three major groups of the Book of Mormon record.  Citation

V26 very much has that “this is my conclusion” sound to it.  What, then, do you make of v27-30, which feel like a sidenote story?  Or:  How might this story be more important than it sounds?

Words of Mormon

1 And now I, Mormon, being about to deliver up the record which I have been making into the hands of my son Moroni, behold I have witnessed almost all the destruction of my people, the Nephites.

What effect does it have on the reader of the BoM to have this “flash-forward” in time to Mormon at this point in the Nephite narrative?  My thought:  particularly given the close proximity of this verse to Omni 1:21 (“an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people”), we are being guided to see the patterns in the BoM.  We see the same principle in Omni 1:12, where Mosiah’s escape to the wilderness for safety replays Nephi’s, and they both replay Lehi’s, and all three replay the Exodus.  (It’s like that old saying about how there were really only seven sit-com plots, with endless recycling and tweaking–there are only a few stories in the scriptures . . . ) Another thought:  it gives the reader first-hand experience with the fulfillment of prophecy and a God’s-eye-view (if you will) perspective on events (see v2)–v4 emphasizes this theme.

This is our first introduction to Mormon in the BoM.  What effect does this verse have on the reader who has no idea of how the book ends at this point in her reading?  What does this intro to Mormon do that wouldn’t happen if we didn’t meet him until the very end of the record?

2 And it is many hundred years after the coming of Christ that I deliver these records into the hands of my son; and it supposeth me that he will witness the entire destruction of my people. But may God grant that he may survive them, that he may write somewhat concerning them, and somewhat concerning Christ, that perhaps some day it may profit them.

3 And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi.

4 And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been prophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to pass—

5 Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people.

Skousen thinks “choose” instead of “chose” is original.  That would be interesting because Mormon would be writing in the present tense.

Cheryl Brown reminds us that BoM writers frequently let us know that they were extremely choosy about what material they included, due to space limitations:

Elsewhere we read, “And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people” (2 Nephi 33:1); “And a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, which now began to be numerous, cannot be written upon these plates” (Jacob 3:13); “And many more things did king Benjamin teach his sons, which are not written in this book” (Mosiah 1:8; see also 1 Nephi 1:16–17; 9:1–4; 10:1; Mosiah 8:1; Alma 9:34; Hel 3:14; 8:3; 3 Nephi 5:8; 26:6; Ether 15:33). Citation

I’ve said this in previous lessons, but I’ll say it again:  I think we often approach the BoM as a grab bag of random stuff, instead of a carefully refined and organized collection where every word was weighed in the balance and only the most useful included in the final redaction.  (Analogy:  If your grandfather left 34 volumes of journals, you would read those differently than if your grandfather left you a 60-page personal history that, he notes on the first page, he selected items for from his 34 volumes of journals.  Which you don’t have.)

I want to introduce a note of skepticism into the “the plates were so small, I could hardly write anything” meme that we frequently encounter in the BoM. Let’s just remember that the same person who commanded them to write had hauled their ancestors over the wide seas . . . had brought other of their ancestors out of Egypt on dried ground . . . etc.  There’s an argument to be made that the “but the plates were small” story just doesn’t wash – - – if the Lord had thought they needed larger plates, they’d have had them.  (Suggestion:  have one of Nephi’s sisters return to Jrsm and swipe a set of blank plates after killing someone to obtain them.  Problem solved!)  So what might really be going on here?  (Perhaps the paragraph before this one might contain the answer to the problem presented in this paragraph:  maybe the Lord only let them have small plates and difficulty writing to force their hand [ha!] into only including the very most important items in the record.  Kind of like when the bishop reminds people of what time F&T meeting ends before opening it up to testimonies.)

But one more item to consider:  How ticked were all of these BoM writers, with their small plates, weary hands, language problems, etc., when Joseph Smith set the plates aside and translated the BoM into English by looking at a rock in a hat?  (“All that work for nuthin’!” Nephi storms from the other side of the veil.)

This article by Cheryl Brown does a great job of tracing all of the statements about writing the BoM in the BoM and is useful for anyone considering the questions raised above.

6 But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren.

7 And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will.

I like the juxtaposition of knowing and not knowing between this verse (not knowing) and v4 (knowing).

Why “whisper”?

I love it when people admit that they don’t understand everything.  Compare 1 Nephi 11:16-17 (“And [the angel] said unto me [=Nephi]: Knowest thou the condescension of God? And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.”) and Moses 5:6 (“And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.”).

8 And my prayer to God is concerning my brethren, that they may once again come to the knowledge of God, yea, the redemption of Christ; that they may once again be a delightsome people.

“Delightsome” (Webster’s 1828:  ‘Very pleasing; delightful.’) strikes me as a very unusual word–wouldn’t we expect something like “faithful” or “covenant-keeping” or something?  Does the “very pleasing” idea put the emphasis on how God views them?  Here’s a link to all of the scriptural uses of “delightsome;” I was struck by how often the land is described that way in the BoM (which raises the question:  What would be the relationship of a delightsome people to a delightsome land?)

9 And now I, Mormon, proceed to finish out my record, which I take from the plates of Nephi; and I make it according to the knowledge and the understanding which God has given me.

10 Wherefore, it came to pass that after Amaleki had delivered up these plates into the hands of king Benjamin, he took them and put them with the other plates, which contained records which had been handed down by the kings, from generation to generation until the days of king Benjamin.

11 And they were handed down from king Benjamin, from generation to generation until they have fallen into my hands. And I, Mormon, pray to God that they may be preserved from this time henceforth. And I know that they will be preserved; for there are great things written upon them, out of which my people and their brethren shall be judged at the great and last day, according to the word of God which is written.

12 And now, concerning this king Benjamin—he had somewhat of contentions among his own people.

13 And it came to pass also that the armies of the Lamanites came down out of the land of Nephi, to battle against his people. But behold, king Benjamin gathered together his armies, and he did stand against them; and he did fight with the strength of his own arm, with the sword of Laban.

14 And in the strength of the Lord they did contend against their enemies, until they had slain many thousands of the Lamanites. And it came to pass that they did contend against the Lamanites until they had driven them out of all the lands of their inheritance.

15 And it came to pass that after there had been false Christs, and their mouths had been shut, and they punished according to their crimes;

16 And after there had been false prophets, and false preachers and teachers among the people, and all these having been punished according to their crimes; and after there having been much contention and many dissensions away unto the Lamanites, behold, it came to pass that king Benjamin, with the assistance of the holy prophets who were among his people—

17 For behold, king Benjamin was a holy man, and he did reign over his people in righteousness; and there were many holy men in the land, and they did speak the word of God with power and with authority; and they did use much sharpness because of the stiffneckedness of the people—

18 Wherefore, with the help of these, king Benjamin, by laboring with all the might of his body and the faculty of his whole soul, and also the prophets, did once more establish peace in the land.

Additional Resources:

This article by Eldin Ricks is a great summary of the redaction history of the BoM.

General:

John S. Tanner writes:

With Jacob the plates passed out of the royal line (Jacob 1:9). Jacobite authors were not kings; nor, from all we can tell, were they even political or military leaders. This, too, has major consequences for the nature of the record they left. After Nephi, never again did the authors of the small plates also occupy the central position in the government. Always deliberately non-secular anyway (see 1 Nephi 19:1–6; Jacob 1:2), the small plates were inscribed increasingly from the margins of the community’s political life (e.g., Enos 1:24). . . . Jacobite authors eventually passed out of the prophetic line as well. Only Jacob himself appears to have exercised dominant priestly authority, equivalent to that of presiding high priest (Jacob 1:17–19). His son Enos and grandson Jarom each characterizes his position as, at most, but one among many prophets (Enos 1:19, 22; Jarom 1:4). Jarom may not have engaged in a public ministry at all. For, though he refers to “my prophesying” and “my revelations,” Jarom speaks pointedly in the third person of “the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers [who] labor diligently, exhorting . . . the people to diligence; teaching the law of Moses” (1:11). Similarly, he writes “our kings and our leaders were mighty men in the faith of the Lord; and they taught the people the ways of the Lord” (1:7; emphasis added). This phrasing sounds like that of a sympathetic bystander, one outside the loop of government power and cultic responsibility as well. By contrast, Jarom refers to Nephite warfare and trade in the first person: “Wherefore, we withstood the Lamanites . . . . And we . . . became exceeding rich in gold, . . . in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war” (1:7–8; emphasis added). This shift from prophecy to weapons of war foreshadows things to come for the descendants of Jacob. Jarom’s son Omni fights for the Nephites, but there is no evidence that he does so as a major military leader, nor that he has any prophetic calling. Far from it: he confesses that he is a “wicked man” (1:2). So is it with the other authors of Omni: Abinadom explicitly acknowledges he “knows of no revelation save that which has been written”; Amaleki says that the people “were led by many preachings and prophesyings”—the impersonal, passive construction again implying that he did not himself act as one of the prophets or preachers (1:11–13). Citation