New KnoWhys

“And now Limhi was again filled with joy on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God whereby he could interpret such engravings”

Mosiah 21:28, 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon

A 21st century artistic representation of the Golden Plates, Urim and Thummim, Sword of Laban, and Liahona. Image via Wikipedia.

The Know

Mosiah 21 records how King Limhi sent a small expeditionary force from the land of Nephi to find the land of Zarahemla to the north. The expedition team got lost, and ended up instead finding some Jaredite ruins that included “a record of the people whose bones they had found” engraved on “plates of ore” (Mosiah 21:27). The search party returned with this record and sent it to Limhi for inspection. Because he was evidently unable to read the ancient records himself, the text indicates that “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” (Mosiah 21:28).

While editions of the Book of Mormon since 1837 have read that king Mosiah had the divine gift of interpretation or translation, in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon this passage reads that king Benjamin was the one with the gift. According to Royal Skousen, “the 1837 edition [of the Book of Mormon] made the change from Benjamin to Mosiah to avoid [an] apparent contradiction,” as Mosiah 6:4–5 indicates that Benjamin died three years after Mosiah became king, and since it was Mosiah, not Benjamin, who sent Ammon to search for the people of Zeniff (of whom Limhi was a descendent).1 Skousen observed, “Presumably, this emendation [in the 1837 printing] was made by Joseph Smith, although the change is not marked in the printer’s manuscript,” and so it is impossible to tell for certain who made that change.2 After examining all the evidence, Skousen’s Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text returns the reading in Mosiah 21:28 to “Benjamin.”

Complicating matters further is the fact that Ether 4:1 in the 1830 edition likewise reads that it was King Benjamin, not Mosiah, who did not allow the revelations given to the Brother of Jared to be made public in his day. This reference to Benjamin likewise was changed in 1849 by Orson Pratt to read “Mosiah,” apparently to keep the text consistent with Joseph Smith’s 1837 emendation.3“The occurrence of Benjamin instead of Mosiah” originally in these passages “cannot be readily explained as an error in the early transmission of the text,” Skousen insists.4Readers are thus left with these seeming contradictions in the Book of Mormon’s narrative that Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt sought to resolve by adjusting the text.

However, people have continued to wonder. Perhaps the name Benjamin in these two passages isn’t really problematic. Hugh Nibley was one of the first to suggest that Benjamin and his son Mosiah both had access to the Jaredite records, and so Nibley asked: “Was it necessary to change the name of Benjamin (in the first edition) to Mosiah in later editions of Ether 4:1?” Nibley goes on:

Probably not, for though it is certain that Mosiah kept the records in question, it is by no means certain that his father, Benjamin, did not also have a share in keeping them. It was Benjamin who displayed the zeal of a life-long book lover in the keeping and studying of records; and after he handed over the throne to his son Mosiah he lived on and may well have spent many days among his beloved records. And among these records could have been the [twenty-four] Jaredite plates, which were brought to Zarahemla early in the reign of Mosiah when his father could still have been living (Mosiah 8:9–15).5

In retaining the name Benjamin, Skousen followed Nibley's suggestion reasoning that, “King Benjamin could have still been alive when the people of Limhi arrived in the land of Zarahemla, and he could have later had access to the records, including the Jaredite record.” In other words, the issue may boil down to a matter of how to read the Book of Mormon’s chronology. “Prior to his death, king Benjamin still had access to the records, and the Lord could have told him that the prophesies in those records were not to be revealed at that time.”6 If this is so, then Joseph Smith’s 1837 and Orson Pratt’s 1849 textual emendations would be unnecessary.

Also supporting the retention of the name Benjamin, Brant A. Gardner suggested another explanation. Instead of Benjamin having access to the Jaredite records at the same time as his son Mosiah, Gardner theorizes that Mormon, in abriding the record of Limhi’s people, perpetuated an error in that underlying record that Benjamin was the king being spoken of instead of Mosiah.

The people of Limhi would remember only Benjamin, their first leader, Zeniff, having departed during Benjamin’s reign (Omni 1:24–29). The recorders for Limhi’s records entered their own idea of who the unnamed king was and wrote Benjamin into the record. Mormon used that record and therefore that name.7

This would in turn explain how Moroni, “a dependent witness” who “simply uses the information as it appeared in his father’s text,” confused the name as well as he composed the book of Ether.8 If Gardner is correct, then Joseph Smith’s 1837 emendation could be seen as a prophetic correction to an error in Limhi’s report that was simply not corrected by Mormon.

The Why

In puzzling over the reading or meaning of any difficult text in scripture, it is helpful to know that not all questions cannot be answered. In most historical or ancient textual studies, conclusive data rarely exists. Sometimes it is sobering or even painful to admit that we do not know as much as we would like to know.

After identifying all of the previously proposed solutions, and considering even new information, various resolutions can be entertained. Some explanations will strike people as being more or less plausible than others, and a prevailing consensus may emerge. Even at that, a definitive answer to the question may evade us. However, while a definitive answer to this question remains elusive, readers need not abandon confidence in the Book of Mormon's credibility, especially after only a surface-level look at the issue.

Readers are better served by probing deeper into the Nephite record to try and discern insights that may have been overlooked. Instead of becoming a stumbling block for faith, wrestling with apparent contradictions such as the question of which Nephite king translated the Jaredite records in Mosiah 21:28 may, paradoxically, lead to greater confidence in and appreciation for the Book of Mormon.

Most of all, apparent contradictions such as this one do not detract from the Book of Mormon’s divine doctrinal messages. Even if someone makes a mistake, the authors of the Book of Mormon did not claim to be infallible or flawless.9 As Moroni himself wrote on its title page, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God.” Readers should therefore focus on how they can personally benefit from the profound teachings and eternal doctrines found in the Book of Mormon. Whether accomplished by Benjamin or Mosiah, the Jaredite records were translated and brought forth by the gift and power of God for us today.

The Know

The Book of Mormon contains a number of passages that condemn drunkenness or intoxication, or otherwise portray drunkards as foolish or easily exploitable. At the very beginning of the Book of Mormon, for example, Nephi slayed the treacherous Laban when the latter was found drunk and passed out in the dark streets of Jerusalem (1 Nephi 4:5–7). King Noah and his priests were depicted as immoral and lazy “wine-bibbers” who preyed upon and oppressed their subjects (Mosiah 11:13–15).1 A group of Captain Moroni's Nephite soldiers was freed when he tricked their Lamanite guards into getting drunk (Alma 55:7–16), and the army of Coriantumr was ambushed by the brother of Shared “as they were drunken” (Ether 14:5; cf. 15:22).

The account in Mosiah 22 depicts how the people of Limhi escaped Lamanite bondage by exploiting Lamanite drunkenness. After consulting on the situation (Mosiah 22:1–4),2 Limhi approved Gideon's scheme to deliver a tribute of wine to the Lamanite guards to incapacitate them (Mosiah 22:6–10). Once the guards were drunk, “the people of King Limhi did depart by night into the wilderness” by slipping through “the back wall, on the back side of the city” (Mosiah 22:6).

In this narrative, Limhi’s people are depicted as outsmarting the Lamanites by getting them drunk and taking advantage of the situation. As Brant Gardner elaborated, “The fact that the Lamanites seem to have frequently, or even habitually, gotten drunk is interesting and may have been interpreted, even among the Lamanites, as a moral failing.” Their frequent intoxication impaired these foolish guards’ judgment so much that they “apparently anticipated no efforts that their captives would escape, and especially not at night.”3

In this way the Book of Mormon is consistent with the biblical record. The Hebrew Bible portrays drunkenness as sinful, foolish, and irresponsible.4 In the words of one scholar, drunkenness in the Hebrew Bible is condemned as something that “rendered one insensible and imperceptive, a social nuisance, an economic ruin, and a moral and spiritual reprobate.”5

The Bible stories of Noah (Genesis 9:20–27), Lot (Genesis 19:30–38), Elah (1 Kings 16:8–10), Ben-Hadad (1 Kings 20:13–21), and Nabal (1 Samuel 25:36–38) illustrate the negative consequences of drunkenness. The apocryphal story of Judith and Holofernes shows, much like the story of Nephi and Laban, how a great military leader was killed by the protagonist exploiting his drunken stupor (Judith 10–13). The Book of Proverbs lists drunkenness as a folly, admonishing, “Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags” (Proverbs 23:20–21; cf. 31:4–7). The New Testament likewise views drunkenness negatively (Luke 21:34; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Peter 4:3).

The Why

Liimhi had many reasons to think that Gideon's idea would work. His religious and cultural backgrounds gave him many reasons to see how the Nephites might be able to take advantage of the weak propensities of the Lamanite guards.

Beyond that factor, Limhi trusted Gideon’s loyalty, courage, and good judgment. The people of Limhi were highly motivated by their covenants and wanted to escape in order to be baptized (Mosiah 21:32–34). Faith and reason combined to increase Limhi's confidence that the Lord would open a way for the deliverance of His people. The escape was executed only after a careful study of all the possible ways of deliverance (Mosiah 21:36) and after careful planning in advance with Ammon (Mosiah 22:1).

Thus, getting the Lamanites drunk served a practical purpose in the facts of this event. It worked especially well as a narrative tool in Limhi's retelling of this great escape and Mormon’s final formulation of the story to emphasize the cunning of Limhi’s people. Seeing its literary value in this story is not to say that Limhi or Mormon somehow fabricated the detail of the Lamanites getting drunk, but rather that these writers would have readily utilized it as a strong literary tool to retell the story in a way that would echo biblical portrayals of drunkenness.

Ultimately, Limhi thought Gideon’s escape plan would work because of several interplaying factors, not just because the Lamanites got drunk. By taking note of all these factors, readers of the Book of Mormon can appreciate the richness of the text’s narrative and character depictions.

The Know

The Book of Mormon has much to say about priesthood authority, especially in the book of Mosiah.1 The words “priest” or “priesthood” appear only four times in the books that come before Mosiah, a total of only 3.2 percent of the total mentions in a section of the book that makes up 27 percent of the whole.2 In Mosiah, the text repeatedly asserts that Alma the Elder, and his son Alma after him, acts in his church duties with “authority from God.”3 Why this emphasis on priesthood authority? Where did this authority come from?

These questions become especially poignant when we remember that there were no Levites among the children of Lehi. The Levites were the tribe of Israel who, by lineal descent, were official bearers of the priesthood. They had the right, by birth, to officiate in the lesser, or Aaronic, priesthood, which is why it is often called the Levitical Priesthood.

This priesthood was passed from father to son within the tribe of Levi, down to the time of Christ, and beyond. However, this was not the only way for a man to be given authority by God. Prophets such as Abraham and Elijah, and the priest Melchizedek, spoke and acted in the name of God, although they were not Levites.

The Book of Mormon begins essentially with two families, that of Lehi and Ishmael. Both were descendants of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:14; 2 Nephi 3:4; Ether 13:7), with Lehi being a descendant of Manasseh (Alma 10:3) and Ishmael said to be of Ephraim.4 Thus, none of the descendants of Lehi could have had access to the Levitical Priesthood that officiated in the temple and performed sacrifices in Jerusalem at the time of Lehi. However, the Book of Mormon narrative depicts, early on, the Nephites building temples (2 Nephi 5:16) and living the Law of Moses, with all its rituals and ordinances (2 Nephi 5:10; 25:24–25, 30).5

Although the Book of Mormon says nothing about Lehi or Nephi being ordained to the priesthood, the Nephites apparnetly did have a priesthood order with authority that they believed was given to them by God. Nephi consecrated his younger brothers as priests (2 Nephi 5:26), and Jacob clearly considered his consecration as priest to be “after [God’s] holy order” (2 Nephi 6:2). The Book of Mosiah presents a similar situation when Alma the Elder as high priest, specified “that none received authority to preach or to teach except it were by him from God” (Mosiah 23:16–17).

Alma the Younger later taught that this priesthood order was the high priesthood “after the order of [God’s] Son,” an order the great priest-king Melchizedek exemplified (Alma 13:1–19). The Melchizedek Priesthood did not need to be passed in succession from father to son, as did the Levitical Priesthood, although it often was (see, e.g., Mosiah 2:11; 6:3). The Levitical Priesthood was passed on from generation to generation within the tribe of Levi. The Melchizedek Priesthood, however, was given only to “just men” (Mosiah 23:17), “on account of their exceeding faith and good works” (Alma 13:3). Lehi, a just man and prophet of God, apparently brought this priesthood authority with him from Jerusalem and passed it on to Nephi, who subsequently ordained his brothers, Jacob and Joseph.6

The Why

With this factual background, one can understand why the book of Mosiah talks so much about priesthood authority. Mormon’s abridgment of the Nephite record in Mosiah depicts a variety of political conflicts and priestly situations. As these events progress, the questions of who has authority and the proper use of priesthood authority come to the foreground. For this reason, Mormon seeks opportunities to emphasize the way in which the Nephite priesthood, being based on the example of Melchizedek, functioned in righteousness.

As he looked back over the history of his people, Mormon knew of the importance of being ordained by those in authority, as he knew how the Savior had ordained priesthood leaders in 3 Nephi 11:21, and gave them power in 3 Nephi 18:37 and Moroni 2:1-3:4.

The fact that the Nephites possessed the Melchizedek priesthood proved to be a blessing to them. The Israelites sometimes suffered under wicked and corrupt priests of the Levitical order because these had a lineal right to their office.7In Nephite history, however, the priesthood authority of one wicked lineage or leader woud end and pass to a more righteous and faithful one. The book of Mosiah begins with the case of a righteous leader, King Benjamin. While he was a descendant of Jacob through Amaleki (Omni 1:23), some of whose ancestors considered themselves to be "wicked" (Omni 1:2), Benjamin was selected to lead and to officiate, it says, because he was “a just man before the Lord” (Omni 1:25).

In the middle of the book of Mosiah, although the righteous leader Zeniff had apparently been given authority to consecrate priests, his son Noah abused that privilege, dismissing his father’s priests and appointing corrupt ones in their stead (Mosiah 11:5). The narrative depicts, on the one hand, the swift downfall of the Zeniffite line of authority, with Limhi considering himself without authority to baptize, and on the other hand, the god-protected rise of a righteous lineage in the person of Alma and his descendants. Although Alma had been part of Noah’s council of wicked priests, he repented and God validated the priesthood to which he had legitimately been ordained (Mosiah 18:13, 17–18). The book of Mosiah also makes a point of mentioning that Alma's authority to organize and regulate the covenant communities in Zarahemla was recognized by King Mosiah (Mosiah 26:12) and confirmed by the voice of the Lord (Mosiah 26:14).

The record found throughout the Book of Mosiah, especially the story of King Noah and his priests, add a powerful witness to the lament expressed in Doctrine and Covenants 121:39:

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

When wicked men rule, the people mourn. As the book of Mosiah notes, when long lines of wicked Jaredite kings kept indefinite political or ecclesiastical authority, the people will inevitably suffer. At the end of the book of Mosiah, King Mosiah justified ending his kingship in Zarahemla saying, “because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!” (Mosiah 29:16–18; cf. 29:30–31). Mosiah having been both a king and a priest, these words apply to all who are given authority and exercise it unrighteously.

The book of Mosiah highlights the necessity of righteous living for the exercise of priesthood power and authority. Both King Benjamin and his son, Mosiah, were chosen and able to act with the authority of God because they were righteous leaders who obeyed God’s commandments. Alma the Elder and also his son, Alma, were only able to do God’s work as high priests after they had repented and recommitted themselves to His service. These are powerful examples to us today, and the establishment of the foundational doctrine that men must be given priesthood power to act in God's name is one of the overriding themes of the book of Mosiah, which in turn sets the stage for all that will follow in the book of Alma and all the rest of the Book of Mormon.

The Know

After escaping from King Noah’s court, Alma the Elder established a covenant-community of believers in the wilderness near the waters of Mormon (Mosiah 18). This community, in keeping with the covenants they had made at baptism, did “not esteem one flesh above another,” nor did any man “think himself above another” (Mosiah 23:7). Each member was patient to “love his neighbor as himself” (Mosiah 23:15; cf. Leviticus 19:18). Their consecrated leaders, priests and teachers, were all “just men” (Mosiah 23:17). They were not a frightened people (Mosiah 23:27), and they prayed for their enemies (Mosiah 23:28).

By this account, life was relatively good at first for members of Alma’s fledgling church. Eventually, though, Alma and his people came under bondage to Amulon, the leader of the now-exiled priests of Noah who had joined forces with the Lamanites (Mosiah 23:35). After breaking a treaty with Alma and his people, Amulon “set guards round about the land of Helam, over Alma and his brethren” (Mosiah 23:37).

It wasn’t long until “Amulon began to exercise authority over Alma and his brethren, and began to persecute him, and cause that his children should persecute their children” (Mosiah 24:8). As Mormon retells the account of Alma, Amulon “put tasks upon them, and put task-masters over them. And it came to pass that so great were their afflictions that they began to cry mightily to God” (Mosiah 24:9–10). In response, 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” (Mosiah 24:11).

Alma and his followers endured bitter persecution and subjugation because of the treachery of Amulon. Nevertheless, even if they “did not [vocally] raise their voices to the Lord their God,” Alma and his people “did pour out their hearts to him; and he did know the thoughts of their hearts” (Mosiah 24:12). In response to these prayers the Lord said,

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. 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. (Mosiah 24:13–14)

The narrative continues, detailing a miraculous occurrence for Alma and his people. “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” (Mosiah 24:15). This was followed by another miracle that allowed Alma and his followers to escape their bondage and flee to the land of Zarahemla and find protection under King Mosiah (Mosiah 24:16–25).

The Why

Much as the Lord had delivered the Israelites from bondage in Egypt, he alone freed Alma and his people from bondage under their taskmasters. Also, like the children of Israel, Alma and his people had to endure great trials before their eventual deliverance by the miraculous intervention of the Lord.

Like the children of Israel, Alma's covenant-community camped and traveled in the wilderness for a time after their deliverance under the guidance of their prophet and leader. They trusted in the Lord so that he could "strengthen them that they could bear up their burdens with ease, and...submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord" (Mosiah 24:15).

In our individual lives, we can find strength in times of trial by calling on the Lord. As with the people of Alma, He may not always immediately relive our burdens, but He will strengthen us in our time of need. He can make our burdens light by strengthening us with His Spirit, sending people who can help us with our problems or alleviate our pain, or by performing great and small miracles.

At the same time, we are under obligation to help make others' burdens light as well. Recently, for example, Churhc leaders have urged Latter-day Saints to help relieve the burdens of refugees and other displaced persons seeking shelter from political and civil unrest.1

Ultimately, the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ assures that all will conquer the effects of this fallen world.2 As Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught,

The unique burdens in each of our lives help us to rely upon the merits, mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah (see 2 Nephi 2:8). I testify and promise the Savior will help us to bear up our burdens with ease (see Mosiah 24:15). As we are yoked with Him through sacred covenants and receive the enabling power of His Atonement in our lives, we increasingly will seek to understand and live according to His will. We also will pray for the strength to learn from, change, or accept our circumstances rather than praying relentlessly for God to change our circumstances according to our will. We will become agents who act rather than objects that are acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:14).3

The Know

Archaeologists excavating in Jerusalem discovered a small stamp seal (a clay emblem that would be used to mark documents with a signature) in the 1980s belonging to a certain Malkiyahu ben hamelek, or Malkiyahu son of the king. Dating to the late 7^th to early 6^th centuries BC, “The oval-shaped stamp seal of Malkiyahu ben hamelek was fashioned of bluish green malchite stone and is very small, measuring just 15 mm long by 11 mm wide (smaller than a dime) and only 7 mm thick.”1 Although small, this stamp seal carries great importance for establishing the historical existence of one of the Bible’s more enigmatic figures, and potentially for a Book of Mormon personality.

Jeremiah 38 tells how the prophet Jeremiah was cast “into the dungeon [Hebrew: “the pit”] of Malchiah the son of Hammelech” (KJV Jeremiah 38:6). While the King James Bible improperly rendered it as a proper name, Hammelech (ha-melech) in Hebrew is "the king." This is reflected in modern Bible translations: “So they took Jeremiah and threw him into the cistern of Malchiah, the king’s son” (NRSV).

The name rendered Malchiah in the Hebrew of this passage is Malkiyahu, exactly as the name of the stamp seal, meaning “Yahweh is king.” (This name is composed of the Hebrew elements mlk, “king,” and yhw, an abbreviation of the divine name Yahweh). Accordingly, it is highly likely that the Malkiyahu on the stamp seal is none other than Malchiah in Jeremiah 38.

Turning to the Book of Mormon, Mulek (or Muloch2), the son of Zedekiah (Helaman 6:10; 8:21; cf. 1 Nephi 1:4), makes his first appearance in Mosiah 25. According to the Nephite record, Mulek escaped the massacre of his family at the hands of the Babylonians (cf. 2 Kings 25:1–7) and established a colony in the New World in a region later named Zarahemla, after one of Mulek’s descendants (Mosiah 25:1–5). Upon their discovery, the so-called Mulekites joined with the Nephites and accepted Mosiah as their king (Omni 1:12–19).

The name Mulek is not found in the King James Version of the Bible. Still, some Latter-day Saint scholars have proposed that Mulek is a hypocoristic (abbreviated or shortened) form of Malchiah/Malkiyahu, or a form of this name that dropped the divine name (yhw) element, leaving only mlk (meaning "king").3(Hebrew during the time of Nephi and Lehi was written without vowels.) If the Bible's Malchiah is the same person as the Book of Mormon's Mulek, then the stamp seal belonging to Malkiyahu would lend independent credibility to the historical existence of Mulek.

Complicating things somewhat is the fact that the identity of Malkiyahu’s father (“the king”) is unknown. LDS archaeologist Jeffrey Chadwick has asked, "was Malkiyahu the son of Zedekiah? Since neither the Malkiyahu seal nor the passage in Jeremiah 38:6 specifically stipulate that Zedekiah was the king to whom Malkiyahu was related, we may only assume that this was so.” Nevertheless, Chadwick reasoned “that no other monarch’s name was recorded in Jeremiah 38,” and that this therefore “suggests very strongly that the king who was the father of Malkiyahu was the king in the chapter’s general context—namely, Zedekiah.”4

The Why

Although impossible to definitively prove, Mulek can be seen as a very strong candidate for being one and the same as the Malchiah/Malkiyahu mentioned in the book of Jeremiah and on the stamp seal discovered in Jerusalem. While other unknown factors remain unresolved, such as Mulek’s age when he fled Jerusalem, these complications do not diminish the overall strength of the evidence presented above. Indeed, upon encountering this evidence the prominent non-Mormon biblical scholar David Noel Freedman reportedly exclaimed, “If Joseph Smith came up with that one, he did pretty good!”5

Knowing Mulek’s identity and high status in Jerusalem society helps readers better understand and appreciate both biblical and Book of Mormon history and personalities. “Mulek is important because he established one of the Book of Mormon Peoples and because Bible students have assumed that Nebuchadnezzar executed all of Zedekiah's sons, an observation unsupported by ancient evidence and refuted by the Book of Mormon account of Mulek’s survival.”6

Furthermore, and very importantly for the Book of Mormon’s historicity, as with the rare discovery of the Nihm altars in southern Arabia linked to Ishmael’s death and burial,7 with the even rarer discovery of this small, inscribed seal, “it is quite possible that an archaeological artifact of a Book of Mormon personality has been identified. It appears that the seal of Mulek has been found.”8

The Know

Two kings in the Book of Mormon bore the name Mosiah. Mosiah I was the father of Benjamin and king over Zarahemla (Omni 1:12, 14–19, 20, 23). Mosiah II was his grandson, and is the Mosiah of the book of Mosiah. Both Mosiahs are depicted in the Book of Mormon as exemplary leaders of extraordinary practical and spiritual ability. They both were champions of justice and mercy.

At first glance the name Mosiah might be seen as being derived from the Hebrew word messiah. Kings, after all, were anointed, and so something like this name or ttitle may have been used in the line of Nephite kings.

A more likely suggestion is that the name Mosiah derives from the Hebrew word môšiaʿ (mo-SHE-ah), or “a champion of justice in a situation of controversy, battle or oppression.”1 This word comes from the verb yasha, meaning “to help,” or “save.”2 (Its nominal form yesha means “deliverance, rescue, salvation,” etc.3) As a noun for a deliverer or rescuer, Môšiaʿ appears several times in the Hebrew Bible. Ehud is called a môšiaʿ (“deliverer”) in Judges 3:15. The Lord himself is described as Israel’s môšiaʿ (“saviour”) in Isaiah 49:26. The term likewise appears in the legal context of the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 22:27), as well as Moses’ final speech before the children of Israel entered Canaan (Deuteronomy 28:29).

The Why

While it is not possible to determine absolutely the origin of the name Mosiah, of whether Mosiah was the given name or title of these tow Nephite leaders, it is not at all implausible to see it as deriving from the Hebrew word môšiaʿ. In fact, in the absence of any better alternate propositions, this appears to be the strongest theory.

This is strengthened by the fact that the name Mosiah being derived from môšiaʿ would have had significance for the Nephites. The two Book of Mormon Mosiahs share all six of the characteristics common to those who bear this name or title. For example, it was Mosiah I who delivered the Nephites from the highlands of the land of Nephi down into the land of Zarahemla (Omni 1:12–13). Their escape was nonviolent. Perhaps recognizing that God had "saved" (yasha) His people by His right hand (Psalm 17:7), Mosiah named his son "Benjamin," meaning "son of the right (hand)."

Likewise, Mosiah II was appointed by the authority of God (Mosiah 2:30-31). He received the people of Limhi under his protection (Mosiah 24), delivering them from oppression after they had cried out for help (Mosiah 24). He authorized Alma the Elder to organize the church (Mosiah 25), forbad the persecution of church members (Mosiah 27:1–2), promoted jsutice and “equality among all men” (Mosiah 27:3), and ultimately reformed the Nephite government away from a monarchy and into a system of judges (Mosiah 29).

The book of Mosiah is a book of saviors and deliverers, as explained by Welch:

Indeed, the themes of God’s salvation and the deliverance of his people are strong in the book of Mosiah. It tells of one môšiaʿ after another. Alma was a God-inspired môšiaʿ who peaceably saved his people from king Noah and the Lamanites. Zeniff tried to return to the land of Nephi to repossess the rightful property of the Nephites. His efforts failed, however, and his grandson Limhi eventually functioned as a môšiaʿ by leading his people in their escape back to Zarahemla. At the end of the book of Mosiah, the reign of judges was established, a fitting development for a people that had been well served by môšicim for over a century. Thus, the book of Mosiah, like the book of Judges in the Old Testament, appears to have been meaningfully named.4

This not only strengthens the proposed theory above, but also adds richness and depth to this book's ultimate message. The central core of Benjamin's speech is about the coming of the promised messiah and the only way to be saved through His blood (Mosiah 3). The centerpiece of the book of Mosiah is Abinadi's testimony that God Himself will come down to suffer and to take upon Himself the iniquity and transgressions of His people, to redeem them and satisfy the demands of justice (Mosiah 15:9; 17:8). The culminating crux of the book of Mosiah is the conversion of Alma the Younger, who after three days and nights of spiritual overshadowing was "redemmed of the Lord" (Mosiah 27:24). The book of Mosiah repeatedly witnesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior (môšiaʿ ), the Redeemer, and the Mighty One of Isrrael (Isaiah 49:26). The book of Mosiah is, in short, a book of salvation.

The Know

Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah are introduced as having been “a great hinderment to the prosperity of the church of God” during the reign of Mosiah. Like Saul of Tarsus before his conversion (Acts 9), they persecuted members of the church and actively sought to destroy it. They were said to be responsible for “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” (Mosiah 27:9).

This suddenly changed when Alma and the sons of the Mosiah, in the course of their “rebelling against God,” encountered an angel of the Lord. The scripture says that the angel “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” (Mosiah 27:11). This resulted in so great an “astonishment” on their part that Alma and the sons of Mosiah “fell to the earth, and understood not the words which he spake unto them” (Mosiah 27:12). This dramatic hierophany (manifestation of the divine) concluded with Alma being struck dumb, “for with [his] own eyes [he] had beheld an angel of the Lord; and his voice was as thunder, which shook the earth” (Mosiah 27:18–19).

That the angel manifested himself to Alma in “a cloud” and with “a voice of thunder” which shook the earth makes sense in many contexts, especially from ancient Near Eastern and Mesoamerican perspectives. As explained by Mark Wright, ancient Near Eastern religions included storm deities, such as Baal and Birqu, who were depicted “as mighty warriors who brandished powerful weapons in their hands, such as lightning or fiery maces.” Like mighty Zeus of the Greeks, these deities commanded the rain, lightning, and other natural phenomena in awful displays of divine power. “Storms, then, were hierophanies to cultures who worshipped storm gods, and lightning served as a menacing manifestation of the power their gods wielded.”1

In the Hebrew Bible the God of Israel, Jehovah, absorbed some of the attributes and epithets of the storm god Baal. Psalm 68 praises Jehovah as “him who rides upon the clouds” (Psalm 68:4), an epithet shared by Baal in the mythology of the ancient Canaanite city Ugarit. In Psalm 65 Jehovah is portrayed as a God of fertility, livestock, and rejuvenation, again consistent with Canaanite depictions of Baal (Psalm 65:9–13). David G. Burke explained that the authors of the Hebrew Bible wanted to depict Yahweh, not Baal, as ruling the cosmos, and as “the one who rode the clouds, controlled the storms, and brought freshening rains” to earth.2

As they traveled through the Sinai wilderness, Jehovah revealed himself (a concept that scholar call a theophany) in a cloud or pillar of fire on multiple occasions to the children of Israel.3 During one such theophany at Sinai “there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled” (Exodus 19:16). This functioned as a display of Jehovah’s power, both over Israel’s foes (cf. Exodus 14:24) and the very forces of nature. It was intended to depict him as a divine warrior worthy of an awestruck Israel’s unfeigned devotion and loyalty.4

As Wright explained, “Lightning had far different connotations in the New World, specifically in Mesoamerica” than it did in the ancient Near East. While still associated with the manifestation of divine power, “in Mesoamerica lightning was associated with fertility and regeneration, even resurrection,” and not with violent, destructive forces in the hands of a warrior deity. Wright continued, “A central tenet of ancient Maya theology was that the maize god died, was buried, and was resurrected when lightning cracked open the surface of the earth, which was variously conceptualized as a mountain, a rock, or even a giant turtle carapace.”5 This association between lightning and the dying-resurrecting maize deity would have been significant for Alma, who would later explain that while in his stupor he found salvation in the dying-resurrecting Jesus Christ (Mosiah 27:23–31; Alma 36:12–23).

From an ancient Near Eastern or biblical perspective, then, the voice of the angel being as thunder could be understood as a manifestation of the terrifying power of the storm god or divine warrior. From a Mesoamerican perspective, the voice of the angel being as thunder could be understood as associating the angel with the dying-resurrecting maize god, whom the Nephites worshipped in the form of Jesus Christ.

The Why

It is true that the manifestation of storms and lightning “varied greatly between the peoples of the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon.” Instead of "seeing this as a contradiction or inconsistency in divine symbolism, it is rather a reaffirmation that hierophanies are culturally embedded phenomena.”6 This should come as no surprise, as the Lord reveals himself to his children “after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24; cf. 2 Nephi 31:3). It is important to remember that “language is not limited to the words we use,” but that “it also entails signs, symbols, and bodily gestures that are imbued with meaning by the cultures that produced them.” Further, “As with spoken language, symbolic and gestural languages are culturally specific and can be fully understood only by those entrenched within that particular culture.”7

Understanding this illuminates why the angel spoke in a voice that sounded like thunder. Essentially, the angel wanted to shake up and stop Alma in his tracks; to show him that his life was on a shaky foundation. He spoke like thunder so that Alma would know that this heavenly messenger spoke with power and authority. This hierophany forced Alma to recognize that if he continued in his course he would himself be cast off and destroyed in divine judgment (Mosiah 27:16; Alma 36:9, 11).

The thunder and the accompanying lightning also symbolized regeneration and resurrection, which Alma would have recognized. He later spoke about being “born of God” (Alma 36:23, 24, 26) through this experience; resurrected to a new life, as it were. The angel thus left an indelible impression on the young man. The thunder was unforgettable, impressed his soul, and transformed his life.

The Know

When the sons of Mosiah left on their mission to the Lamanites, it caused a succession crisis for Mosiah (Mosiah 28:1–10). His solution was to discontinue the royal office and transform the Nephite government into a system of judges (Mosiah 29). Between this solution and the description of the problem (Mosiah 28:10), Mormondigressed to explain that before giving up the throne, Mosiah took all the records in his possession and gave them to Alma, son of Alma (Mosiah 28:11–20).

Mormon went out of his way to let the reader know that, before handing over the records, Mosiah translated “the plates of gold found by the people of Limhi,” which are the original source for the book of Ether (Mosiah 28:11; Ether 1:2). While the reader of the book of Mosiah has not yet encountered the Jaredite history, Mosiah as translator, and Mormon and Moroni as abridgers and record keepers, knew this tragic epic all too well.

Right after mentioning the twenty-four plates of gold, Mormon explained Mosiah’s solution to his succession crisis. Mosiah gave a number of justifications for eliminating kingship altogether, yet it has been observed that “most of the reasons Mosiah gave his people had no precedents in Nephite history.”1 John A. Tvedtnes proposed that these reasons were “prompted by Mosiah’s knowledge of the Jaredite history that he had recently translated.”2 Tvedtnes gave several insightful examples.

For instance, Mosiah expressed the fear that should he confer the kingdom onto someone besides his heir, “my son, to whom the kingdom doth belong, should turn to be angry and draw away a part of this people after him,” leading to the “shedding much blood and perverting the way of the Lord, yea, and destroy the souls of many people” (Mosiah 29:7). This kind of scenario played itself out several times in the Jaredite record.3

Mosiah also appealed to the damage that a wicked king can do (Mosiah 29:16–17). While King Noah served as a prime example of this in recent Nephite memory (Mosiah 29:18–19), “this is also a common theme in the book of Ether.”4 The Brother of Jared warned the early Jaredites that kingship would lead to captivity (Ether 6:22–23), and this is borne out in several stories in Ether.5

Mosiah made a clear allusion to the Jaredite saga when warning his people of their fate, should the “voice of the people” choose iniquity: “then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land” (Mosiah 29:27, emphasis added). This could only allude to the Jaredites, whom “the Spirit of the Lord had ceased striving with,” and thus, “Satan had full power over the[ir] hearts” so they were “destroyed” (Ether 15:19).

The Why

It seems that several factors had come together to impress upon Mosiah’s mind the need to abolish the monarchy. Most pressingly, his sons were not available to take the throne (Mosiah 28:10), but other factors included the increasingly cosmopolitan nature of Zarahemla, pressure from Mulekite groups who felt kingship was their right, and the recent experience of some Nephites under King Noah’s regime.6 Perhaps most poignant, though, was his recent translation of the Jaredite record.

The Jardite record had come into the hands of Mosiah and had been translated by the power of God. He couldn’t ignore its messages and applications to his own situation. This stunning record, like a message from heaven, likely caused him to rethink his plans. Because the Jaredite legacy offered strong warnings against the abuses of kingship and power, Mosiah was influenced not to give the throne to someone other than his heir apparent. Knowing how the Jaredites had turned away from God as their heavenly king also influenced Mosiah to stress the accountability of all people to answer equally and individually to God for their sins (Mosiah 29:38).

Why might the inclusion of influence of the Jaredite material on Mosiah be arresting for skeptics today? “Joseph Smith did not dictate the story of the Jaredites until long after he dictated the book of Mosiah,” Tvedtnes reasoned, “so during that earlier effort he could not have known the historical details of Jaredite kingship.” Tvedtnes concluded, “That these two widely separated records agree in such details evidences the authenticity of the account of Mosiah’s having translated the book of Ether and becoming acquainted with its contents. It also is further evidence of the internal consistency of the Book of Mormon.”

It is hard to imagine Joseph Smith drawing on the specific details and final outcome of the Jaredite story he would not compose until later on.7 For Mosiah, with access to actual historical records, however, this is not a problem. As Tvedtnes pointed out, the subtle ways Mosiah appears to be drawing on Jaredite precedent illustrates the consistency and complexity of the Book of Mormon. Yet there is insight here beyond the role of affirming evidence. These connections also explain why Mormon interrupts the narrative about the succession crisis to relate the translation of the Jaredite record.

Why might Mormon have wanted his readers to know this? Recognition of these factors adds rhetorical weight to Mosiah’s warning, one that Mormon himself saw eventually go into fulfillment:

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. (Mosiah 29:27)

Seeing the historical grounding of this cautionary counsel makes Mosiah’s warning all the more potent as a forewarning to readers in the latter days. This was no idle threat, nor was it merely hyperbole in a war of competing ideologies. It was based on the outcome of real historical events Mosiah had become familiar with while translating the Jaredite record. As such, it stands as a witness and warning to modern readers, underscoring the importance of collectively making righteous choices as a society.

The Know

With none of his sons available to succeed him as king, Mosiah instituted governmental reforms. He abolished kingship and established a system of judges, elected, in some form, by “the voice of the people” (Mosiah 29:25).1 The most detailed description of this process is the first election, where it says “they assembled themselves together in bodies throughout the land, to cast in their voices concerning who should be their judges” (Mosiah 29:39; cf. Alma 2:5–6).

Modern readers, however, should not make the mistake of assuming that “the voice of the people” was the equivalent to modern democratic processes. The "voice of the people" played some role in selecting or confirming the king.2 With Judges, successors were still “selected” (Alma 4:16), “appointed” heirs (Alma 50:39; Helaman 2:2), or limited to the previous judge’s sons (Helaman 1:2–4). Mosiah took all the emblems of kingship and “conferred them upon Alma” before he was selected by the people, suggesting he was actually pre-selected by Mosiah (Mosiah 28:20).

In short, the changes were “more nominal and cosmetic that substantive,” as John W. Welch has put it.3 Judges and kings appear to be chosen by, more or less, the same process. Richard Bushman, an expert in early American history, pointed out, "The institution of judgeships, rather than beginning a republican era in Book of Mormon history, slid back at once toward monarchy."4 He added, “The chief judge much more resembled a king than an American president.”5

So what, then, were Judges and how were they chosen? Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican political systems may provide some insight. John L. Sorenson explained, “When they ‘cast their voices,’ the expressions would have come from the senior male of a family or sub-lineage.”6 Another scholar declared, “The voice of the people worked itself out in lineages and representatives of lineages.”7 Many ancient societies followed a similar pattern.

The system of judges itself seems to fit Mesoamerican governmental structures. “Mesoamerican monarchies existed on top of a system of rule that divided power among kin-based lineages, each with their own organizational structure.”8 Many cities had a popol nah (“council house”) “where non-ruling elite lineages might meet.” Archaeology “places this type of government in precisely the time period of Mosiah’s shift to the rule of judges.”9 As such, one Book of Mormon scholar proposed:

What Mosiah did was remove the top layer of political authority by abolishing the position of king. This act easily moved rule to the next functioning level [the council of non-ruling elites, or “judges”] … It did not require the creation of any new level of government or even concept of government. It exalted an existing structure to the next higher level.10

Such a shift is not unparalleled in Mesoamerican archaeology, though the evidence comes from post-Book of Mormon times. Inscriptions indicate that in the ninth century AD, instead of a king, at Chichén Itzá had “rule by council, by the heads of different lineages.”11

The Why

Knowing something about how the Nephite judges were probably elected is useful for several reasons. It helps in comparing and contrasting the Nephite system of government with other political regimes, and it illuminates significant causes and effects in the internal narrative of Nephite history.

Although some modern readers have assumed that judges in the Book of Mormon were democratically elected in ways no different than those of contemporary America. However, the careful analysis by Bushman and others suggests otherwise.12 “In the context of nineteenth-century political thought," Bushman concluded, "the Book of Mormon people are difficult to place.”13 It therefore naturally followed, “The Book of Mormon is not a conventional American book. Too much Americana is missing.”14

While 19^th-century concepts and forms of democracy are missing, Maya civilization provides a closer comparison with the Nephite political system instituted by King Mosiah. The Maya experience also knew transitions from kingship to judgeship, and also saw the “voice of the people” operating both during and after the monarchy. Taken together, these details point away from 19^th-century America and toward pre-Columbian counterparts for Mosiah’s reforms.

Moreover, understanding Mosiah’s political reforms and the social factors which led to them is important for understanding the conflicts that emerge in the books of Alma and Helaman.15 With a system of ruling (and often times, competing) lineages providing “judges” that must lead together in council, the setting was ripe for some to seek greater control. Powerful lineages which had been repressed during the reign of Mosiah’s lineage now sought to capitalize (Alma 2:1–7; 51:5–8). These tensions would define much of Nephite political history for the next four decades.

The Know

Not long after the establishment of the reign of the Nephite judges, a crisis arose that called into the question to viability of the Nephite church and government.1“In the first year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi” a dissenter named Nehor went “about among the people, preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God, bearing down against the church” (Alma 1:1, 3). Nehor was adamant 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” (v. 3).2

Theologically, Nehor preached a version of universalism. He declared, “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” (v. 4).

Nehor’s teachings caught on among the Nephites, and soon his followers “began to establish a church after the manner of his preaching” (v. 6). Nehor, however, went a step further than mere religious dissent. When confronted by Gideon, the apostate Nephite did “contend with him sharply” over doctrine (v. 7). The argument escalated to the point where Nehor “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” (v. 9). What began as religious and cultural dissent turned into outright homicide.

This of course led Nehor to stand before the chief judge Alma, to plead his defense (v. 11). Nehor’s defense failed, and Alma condemned him to die, as he was “not only guilty of priestcraft," but had "endeavored to enforce it by the sword." Alma reasons, "Were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction” (v. 12).

The record describes Nehor’s execution in a single verse. “And it came to pass that they took him . . . 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” (v. 15).3

The Why

The account of Nehor’s life and death is deeply embedded in the context Nephite law. John W. Welch has explored at length how Nehor’s trial and execution are illuminated by looking at both biblical law in general and Nephite law in particular.4

A number of factors, according to Welch, contributed to Nehor ultimately being given an “ignominious death.” These include the recent social reforms of Mosiah and the establishment of the Nephite judgeship at the end of the book of Mosiah, all of which Nehor sought to undermine with violence. Nehor’s trial, therefore, was not a mere triviality.

When Nehor was brought before Alma to be judged, his trial was a major test of Alma’s political and judicial power in the fledgling reign of the judges. How would the new system of judges work? What would the power of the chief judge be? . . . How would the recently enunciated principle of equality and the rubric that a person could not be punished for his beliefs be interpreted and applied in actual practice? . . . All these were open questions that would be tested and settled, intentionally or unintentionally, by the precedent-setting trial of Nehor.5

The seriousness of Nehor’s (seditious) challenges to the Nephite social order, to say nothing of his murder of Gideon, is undoubtedly what prompted his “ignominious” death on the hill Manti.6 Brant A. Gardner commented that, at its core, Nehor’s execution “remove[d] personal honor from him.”7 Not only did Nehor have to be “carried” to his place of execution, suggesting that he resisted his fate in an undignified manner, but both Welch and Gardner posit that he was likely stoned, a method of execution known from both ancient Israel and ancient Mesoamerica, and one that would’ve “connoted shame.”8

That Mormon would say that Nehor’s death was “ignominious” shows the prophet-historian’s complete disdain for one of the Nephites’ worst dissenters.9 Indeed, Nehor’s schismatic teachings would lead to further conflict and bloodshed in Nephite history, most notably with the rise of the Amlicites (Alma 2–3). From the perspective of Nephite law, then, and through Mormon’s moralizing narrative, that Nehor’s death was “ignominious” is understandable. That his ignominious teachings, which did not die with him, would later affect so many lives for the worst is just one of many tragedies in the Book of Mormon.

The Know

Only five years into the reign of the judges, the pressure to reestablish a king was already mounting. A “certain man, being called Amlici,” emerged, and he drew “away much people after him” who “began to endeavor to establish Amlici to be a king over the people” (Alma 2:1–2). When “the voice of people” failed to grant kingship to Amlici,1 his followers anointed him king anyway, and they broke away from the Nephites, becoming Amlicites (Alma 2:7–11).

The rebellion of the Amlicites led to armed conflict with the Nephites (Alma 2:10–20), and then an allegiance with the Lamanites, followed by further bloodshed, wherein Amlici was slain in one-on-one combat with Alma (Alma 2:21–38). From there, the Amlicites seem to completely disappear from the Book of Mormon narrative.2

However, during the account of Aaron’s missionary journey among the Lamanites, he teaches a group of people called “Amalekites,” who are mentioned with no introduction or explanation as to their origins (Alma 21:2–4, 16).3 Later they are included in a list of Nephite dissenters (Alma 43:13), but this is all that is said of their origins.

The complete disappearance of the Amlicites, combined with the mysterious mention of the similarly named Amalekites, has led some scholars to conclude that the two groups are one and the same.4As Christopher Conkling observed, “One group is introduced as if it will have ongoing importance. The other is first mentioned as if its identity has already been established.”5

Royal Skousen has found evidence from the original and printer’s manuscripts that strengthens this suggestion.6 In the printer’s manuscript (Alma 2 has not survived in the original manuscript), the first occurrences of Amlicites are spelled Amlikites, indicating that both Amlici and Amlicites were originally pronounced with a hard c, rather than the soft c Latter-day Saints have come to use.

In addition, in the original manuscript, the earliest surviving references to the Amalekites (first eight occurrences have not survived) are spelled Amelicites, which “differs from Amlicite(s) by only the intrusive e.”7 Skousen felt that this similarity in the original spellings strongly supports the conclusion “that these Amalekites were not an otherwise unidentifiable group of religious dissidents, but were in fact Amlici’s own group, the Amlicites.”8

Similarities between the behaviors and ideologies of the Amlicites and Amalekites also suggest they could be the same people. For example, both have a connection to the Nehors and that they “both pursue the same kinds of goals at the same time and cause the same problems” suggests they could be the same people.9

The Why

If the Amalekites and the Amlicites are indeed the same group, then two mysteries in the Book of Mormon are resolved: (1) what happened to the Amlicites, and (2) who are the Amalekites. It would seem that, rather than completely disappearing after the death of their leader (Alma 2:31), the Amlicites continued as a distinct sub-group among the Lamanites. Cooperating with Lamanites and Amulonites, they had built a city (Alma 21:2). They also “built synagogues after the order of the Nehors” (Alma 21:4), thereby continuing to perpetuate the same ideology as Amlici, who himself is introduced as being “after the order” of Nehor (Alma 2:1).

While these people all professed belief in God, they rejected Christ. They came to believe in the corrupt doctrine that without any kind of atonement, “God will save all men” (Alma 21:6–8). They would participate in the major Lamanite-Nephite wars, many serving as military commanders due to their passionate hatred toward the Nephites (Alma 43:6–7, 20).

Seeing the Amlicites/Amalekites as a single group of apostate Nephites makes better sense of the book of Alma’s structure. “What once was seen as two introductory chapters (Alma 2–3) devoted to a problem soon to disappear can now be seen as introducing the major threat and problem that Alma had to deal with the rest of his life.”10

It also clarifies the ambiguous chronology of the sons of Mosiah’s mission, which started in the first year of the reign of the judges (Alma 17:6) and lasted for 14 years but has very few details or chronological markers. Since the Amlicites/Amalekites were founded in the fifth year of the reign of the judges (Alma 2:1), the events in Alma 21 likely take place at least a year or more later.

Noting that the Amlicites/Amalekites are the same group documents the tragic falling and hardening of this people clearly, adding weight to one of the key points in the book of Alma:

that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things. (Alma 24:30; cf. 21:3)

Told as one story, rather than two, the Amlicites/Amalekites become a more complete case study in the long-term effects of apostasy, right alongside the Zoramites and the Amulonites.

The Know

Apostasy and rebellion mark the opening of the book of Alma. In Alma 2–3 a dissenter named Amlici “had, by his cunning, drawn away much people after him.” This group “began to endeavor to establish Amlici to be a king over the people” (Alma 2:2). Amlici was a follower of the apostate teachings of Nehor, “the man that slew Gideon by the sword” (v. 1).

Through his cunning, Amlici drew many Nephites into apostasy and political rebellion, resulting in a national crisis. The Nephites, under the command of Alma the Younger, suddenly faced a bloodthirsty Lamanite-Amlicite alliance in open warfare (v. 24). The Nephites ultimately prevailed, but only after a “great slaughter” which included Amlici’s demise at the hands of Alma (vv. 18–38).

In this context, Mormon expounds on the nature of the Lamanite “curse” in Alma 3. After detailing Lamanite war regalia, Mormon explained, “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” (Alma 3:5–6).

Mormon clarified that this curse was the result of their violent and rebellious dispositions (v. 7). This was done, Mormon specified, so that the Nephites “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” (v. 8).

As such, Mormon appeared to couch the issue of the Lamanite mark and curse in terms of religious and cultural identity, not skin pigmentation. “Whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites,” or otherwise identified as a Lamanite, had the same “mark set upon him” (v. 10). On the other hand, “whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites, . . . were called the Nephites, or the people of Nephi” (v. 11).

The curse would linger on the Lamanites “except they repent of their wickedness” and turn to the Lord (v. 14). Indeed, there is flexibility in Nephite-Lamanite religious and cultural identity and the blessings and curses associated with it. Thus, the Lord promised, “He that departeth from thee [Nephi] shall no more be called thy seed; and I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth and forever” (v. 17).

Taken in its entirety, Alma 3 appears to illuminate the following about the nature of the Lamanite curse. First, the “curse” of the Lamanites included not just the distinguishing “mark” of darkened “skins” but the ultimate outcome that they would believe “in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction” (i.e. divine judgment).

Second, the dark “skins” in question were possibly clothing, not flesh. This is seen in Mormon’s apparent description of the “skins” being garments the Lamanites wore.1

Third, the curse was not indefinitely fixed, but was as fluid as the religious and cultural identity of both “Nephite” and “Lamanite.” Those who turned away from the Nephites and became Lamanites, either through intermarriage or apostasy, inherited the curse, while those Lamanites who repented and turned to the Lord were saved from the curse.

The Why

An artist's recreation of the Aztecs' island capital of Tenochtitlan. Image via nationalgeographic.com.

As explored in a previous KnoWhy, the issue of racial identity and ethnicity in the Book of Mormon is complex.2 Readers should avoid simplistic approaches that fail to appreciate the nuances of ancient cultural, religious, racial, and ethnic sensibilities. Readers are vulnerable to misread completely the Nephite record if uncritically assumed modern attitudes or outlooks on race and multiculturalism go unchecked. Poor readings do a great disservice to those who want a fuller and more accurate picture of both Nephite and Lamanite culture.

For instance, it would be easy enough to claim the Book of Mormon is racist, or exhibiting antipathy towards a person or group based on skin pigmentation. If read uncritically, Alma 3 could be seen as saying dark skin pigmentation is a sign of divine punishment, or as disapproving of any kind of exogamy (marriage outside of a cultural or racial group) or interracial marriage. However, this fails to take into consideration the context of Alma 3.

At this point in Nephite history, ethnic and religious strife between the Nephites and Lamanites-Amlicites was so severe that war and bloodshed resulted. It was a politically vulnerable moment for the Nephite people, who were transitioning from a monarchy to an unprecedented rule of judges (Mosiah 29).3 The murderous Nehor and his followers exacerbated the insecurities of a regime change by exploiting the situation to further their apostate ends, plaguing the Nephites with persecution, priestcrafts, and other crimes (Alma 1). Having inherited Nehor’s teachings and penchant for violence, and wanting to overthrow the Nephite judges and revert to a monarchy, Amlici and his followers pushed Nephite tolerance to the breaking point by joining forces with the Lamanites.

From a Nephite perspective, then, intermarriage with the Lamanites or Amlicites at a time of war would’ve been unthinkable. It may have even been perceived as a form of treason, or seen as showing support to Amlici and his attempted coup of the Nephite government. In order to ensure national survival, exogamy was out of the question. The Nephites would have to coalesce and unite to defeat this new threat.

The Nephite reluctance towards exogamy also makes sense in light of ancient Israelite marriage culture. At an equally volatile time in their history, the children of Israel were forbidden from intermarrying with Canaanites as they came to repossesses the land of promise, lest they abandon their covenants with the Lord. “Thou shalt smite them, and . . . make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them,” the Lord commanded, as the Israelites and Canaanites were at war. “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son” (Deuteronomy 7:2–3).

Moses’ successor Joshua repeated this prohibition, warning that intermarriage with Canaanites or other non-Israelites would result in “snares and traps” for the Israelites (Joshua 23:11–13). This warning was given even long before the Israelite conquest of Canaan, as the Lord undoubtedly foresaw the potential problems that would face Abraham’s seed (Genesis 24:3; 26:34–35; 27:46; 28:6–9).

To be clear, this is not to say that interracial or intercultural marriage is inherently sinful or dangerous.4 If this were so, then the Lord’s promises to repentant Lamanites who rejoined the Nephites would be self-defeating. Rather, readers should recognize that the Book of Mormon describes instances where intermarriage was not expedient because of specific moments of political tension, ethnic strife, inter-cultural contention, and outright warfare between the Nephites and Lamanites.

As one Book of Mormon scholar put it, “The prohibition against intermarriage” in Alma 3 was “to protect the Nephites from these dangerous false traditions.” It is clear that “the danger the Book of Mormon prophets preach[ed] against [was] not the problem of origins, but the attractiveness of culture. Adopting what ha[d] become Lamanite lifestyles would destroy Nephite cultural ideals.” This included the Lamanite values involving “kings, social stratification, and fine clothing,” which would have undermined “the egalitarian Nephite” ideal.5

While the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ found in the Book of Mormon are timeless, some of its other teachings are largely couched in specific historical contexts. These contexts should serve as interpretive guides, especially for teachings that may trouble modern readers. After all, Mormon as a record keeper was trying to make sense of Nephite history by reacting to specific historical occurrences and interjecting theological and moral rationales to make sense of those occurrences. In order to discern what the Book of Mormon teaches on any number of topics, including race and ethnic identity, it is, therefore, essential for readers to carefully look at the context underlying Mormon’s reconstruction of his people’s history.

The Know

In a previous KnoWhy, it was noted that Abinadi’s peculiar phrase, “the bands of death,”1 appears to be an English translation of the biblical Hebrew phrase heveli-mot.2 The only other Book of Mormon author to use this phrase repeatedly is Alma the Younger. It appears six times in the writings of Alma and once in the words of Aaron included in the book of Alma (Alma 4:14; 5:7, 9–10; 7:12; 11:41; 22:14). Alma the Younger and his contemporaries likely picked up the phrase from Abinadi via Alma’s father. Thus, one may ask, how does Alma the Younger use the phrase as compared to Abinadi?

Both Alma and Abinadi discuss “the bands of death” in conjunction with the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ. In every instance of Abinadi’s use of the phrase “bands of death,” he associates the expression with Jesus Christ, using either the title “Christ” or “the Son.”3 Alma likewise uses the phrase in much the same way, generally focusing on Christ and His Resurrection.

In Alma’s uses, there are two developments. First, Alma’s initial use of “bands of death” comes in chapter 4, where he emphasizes that the humble, faithful members of the Church were optimistically “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” (Alma 4:14). These members of the Church found hope through their faith in Christ’s Resurrection, that Jesus Christ would deliver them from the bands of death. Similarly, Alma 7:12 and 11:41, as well as 22:14, also focus on Christ’s suffering as He atoned for the sins of mankind and how Christ’s Resurrection would free all people from the bands of death.

Second, Alma’s first-person speech in Alma 5 uses and extends the phrase in a way that is distinct. Here Alma spoke of the “bands of death” in a more figurative manner and in direct association with the additional phrase, “the chains of hell.” In fact, all three times “the bands of death” are mentioned in this chapter, the phrase “the chains of hell” follows directly afterwards (Alma 5:7, 9, 10). Interestingly, the phrase “chains of hell” is even rarer than is “bands of death.” Alma and his cohort Ammon are the only figures in all of ancient scripture to use this exact phrase.4

Similar to the case for the Book of Mormon use of the expression “bands of death,” Alma was likely borrowing from the Hebrew Scriptures (on the Brass Plates) when he mentioned the “chains of hell.” Psalm 18:5 (also 2 Samuel 22:6), one of the few biblical passages which uses the Hebrew phrase heveli-mot (“bands of death”), uses another phrase in conjunction with it: heveli-sh'ol (“bands/cords of sheol/hell”). The fact that these two similar Hebrew phrases are used in association with each other in the Bible is significant for our understanding of Alma’s usage.

This overall concept, and similar phrases, can also be found in Psalm 18:4–6 and Psalm 107:10–14, for example, which are actually quite similar to what Alma was teaching in these opening verses of Alma 5. In particular, these psalms speak of the afflicted calling upon or crying unto the Lord for deliverance, as also did Alma. The accompanying chart compares the three passages:

Psalm 18	Psalms 107:10–14	Alma 5:6–10
4 The sorrows of death (or bands of death) compassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid.	10 Such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron (or bound in suffering and iron chains);5	6 … Have you sufficiently retained in remembrance the captivity of your fathers? … have ye sufficiently retained in remembrance that he has delivered their souls from hell?
5 The sorrows of hell (or bands of hell) compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me.	13 Then they cried unto the Lord in their trouble, and he saved them out of their distresses.	7 Behold, he changed their hearts; yea, he awakened them out of a deep sleep ... Behold, they were in the midst of darkness … yea, they were encircled about by the bands of death, and the chains of hell, and an everlasting destruction did await them.
6 In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears.	14 He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder.	9 And again I ask, were the bands of death broken, and the chains of hell which encircled them about, were they loosed? I say unto you, Yea, they were loosed … And I say unto you that they are saved.

The Why

Alma’s use of the phrase “bands of death” in conjunction with “chains of hell” (heveli-mot and heveli-sh'ol), neither of which are found in the KJV Bible, can be understood as further evidence that he, like Abinadi, was likely to have been aware of certain nuances of biblical Hebrew.

Furthermore, Alma does not simply echo Abinadi’s doctrinal understanding of the “bands of death” and that phrase’s relationship to their understanding of the suffering and resurrection of Christ, but he shows that he understands the phrase in great depth and its connection with associated concepts in the Hebrew psalms. For example, Abinadi generally spoke about the “bands of death” in terms of the deliverance of mankind from the grasp of physical death through Christ’s Resurrection. Alma perpetuated this understanding in the majority of his uses of the phrase, and in Alma 5 he speaks not only of deliverance from physical death (“the bands of death”) but of the deliverance from the spiritual death (“the chains of hell”) that otherwise results from sin during this mortal life.6

In the Psalms, deliverance came by calling upon the Lord or crying unto him for deliverance. Having himself been “nigh unto death” (Mosiah 27:28), Alma experienced the words of the angel of the Lord and was converted by calling upon the name of “one Jesus Christ, a son of God” (Alma 36:17), “the Lord Jesus Christ” (Alma 38:8).

From this manifestation and by studying the words of Abinadi and King Benjamin and knowing the teachings of the scriptures, Alma fully believed and taught that Christ would come, that He would suffer for the sins of all mankind, and that He would break the bands of death through the resurrection of the dead. Alma also knew and testified that the power of Christ’s atoning sacrifice reached even further, and could deliver all mankind from all kinds of bondage during this life and also the next.

The Know

Alma 5 records one of the greatest addresses of the Book of Mormon, in which Alma the Younger, the Nephite high priest, posed a total of some fifty questions to the members of the Church in Zarahemla.1 These fifty questions are often rhetorical and are meant to help the people of the Church evaluate their spiritual progress and be able to clearly determine which of the “two ways” they are following: the path to eternal life or the path to eternal damnation.2

Alma’s objective with this speech was, apparently, to renew the covenant that was established not only by his father, Alma, at the Waters of Mormon, but also by King Benjamin at the great Nephite gathering that he convened in Zarahemla. For example, some of the repeated words or ideas between Alma’s and Benjamin’s speeches include experiencing a “mighty change” of heart (Alma 5:14; compare Mosiah 5:2) and being spiritually born of God (Alma 5:14; compare Mosiah 5:7).3

When Alma asked the question “can ye look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands” (Alma 5:19), he was quoting Psalm 24:4.4 Psalm 24 is a temple entry psalm that presents worshippers desiring to pass through the gates of the temple as being presented with moral requirements for entry.5 The worshippers ask the guardians of the gates these two questions: “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who shall stand in his holy place?” The answer is then given: “He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully” (Psalm 24:3–4).

Biblical scholar Sigmund Mowinckel explained that ancient temples had “their own special leges sacrae or 'laws of the sanctuary', their special rules and special demands as to the qualifications of those to be admitted.”6 He notes that Psalm 15, another temple entry psalm parallel to Psalm 24, lists ten requirements for admittance. He believed that at some point these entry requirements became merged with the ten commandments of Mount Sinai, so that entry to the temple involved compliance with these commandments as well.7 Thus, “the instruction as to the conditions of admittance became merged [with] … a renewal of the covenant and a commemoration of the great works of God and of his commandments.”8

Mowinckel believed that these ten commandments of the covenant would have been heard, in the form of questions and answers, at the entry to the gate of the temple and then later at the climax of the pilgrimage festival, at the renewal of the covenant.9 He further described this tradition as a type of “moral catechism.”10 Psalms scholar Craig C. Broyles deduced that the instruction given in this ritual was to help the participant determine which of the “two ways” they would align themselves with—to continue following Jehovah and be identified with “the righteous” or to join the “wicked” forces that oppose him.11

The ancient Israelites were directed to renew the covenant every seven years (sabbatical year) at the Feast of Tabernacles, when they would hear the law read to them and recommit to observe it faithfully (Deuteronomy 31:10–13).

The Why

This information helps explain why Alma asks fifty questions in Alma 5. It is reasonable that Alma’s powerful address to the church in Zarahemla was given in connection with the observation of a sabbatical year, as called for under Israelite tradition. As such, Alma presented his series of introspective questions as part of a covenant renewal ceremony, possibly involving admission into the temple precinct.12 Alma’s speech came in the ninth year of the reign of the judges, 42 years after King Benjamin’s covenant renewal address, or in the sixth sabbatical year since then.13 That would have been the final sabbatical year before the Nephite celebration of the jubilee year, the fiftieth year after King Benjamin’s speech.14 This is conceivably why Alma was keen to quote and echo Benjamin in his speech, and this may also explain why there were exactly fifty questions – as a means of spiritual preparation for the jubilee.

Moreover, Psalm 15, as discussed, presents ten “worthiness” standards, which are stated in both positive (vv. 2, 4) and negative conditions (vv. 3, 5). Psalms scholars Peter C. Craigie and Marvin E. Tate explain the purpose for this: “Both the positive and negative [conditions] are important, for the person who would enter God’s presence must have a life characterized not only by active goodness, but also by the absence of evil.”15 As Craig Broyles stated, the nature of these questions, or standards, is to help the follower define which of the “two ways” he will follow. LDS scholar Mack Stirling has asserted the same for Alma 5.16 In addition, most of Alma’s fifty questions call either for a strongly positive reply or a decisively negative determination.

Alma’s fifty questions were both timely and timeless. They caused the church members in Zarahemla to reflect on the goodness of God in the past, with the desired effect of helping them to have faith in God’s promises and desire to be faithful to their covenants. They also caused the people to reflect on their current spiritual condition and help them to look forward to the day that they would stand before God to be judged of Him. What would that day look like for them? How did the current status of their faithfulness compare to their desired eternal destiny? These powerful and pressing queries could have been readily applied to any subsequent covenant renewal, and they can just as well apply to readers of Alma’s words today.

The Know

Alma the Elder established his covenant community around 140 BC at the Waters of Mormon in the land of Nephi (Mosiah 18:17–18). When his group rejoined the Nephites in Zarahemla after 120 BC, King Mosiah “granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zaramehla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church” (Mosiah 25:19). Soon “there were seven churches in the land of Zarahemla” (Mosiah 25:23).

By about 83 BC, however, Alma the Younger had to once again “establish the order of the church in the city of Zarahemla” (Alma 6:4). A careful review of the many events leading up to this time of reordering explains why the church had to be reconstituted in Zarahemla so soon—only about 35 years after its founding there.

Initially, “many of the rising generation” in the land of Zarahemla had forgotten or “could not understand the words of king Benjamin” and several of them would not be baptized (Mosiah 26:1, 4). Dissensions arose “among the brethren,” and some people, eventually including Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah, “deceived many with their flattering words” (Mosiah 26:6; 27:8). Some dissenters were excommunicated (Mosiah 26:36), and the unbelievers began persecuting members the church (Mosiah 27:1).

Alma the Elder took steps to “regulate all the affairs of the church” (Mosiah 26:37). King Mosiah issued a public proclamation prohibiting persecution of church members (Mosiah 27:2), and Alma required church members to esteem their neighbors as themselves (vv. 3–4). These measures were effective for a while, but undercurrents continued to swirl. A turning point came when Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah were stunned by an angel of the Lord (vv. 18–19). Being converted, they worked zealously among all of Mosiah’s people, trying “to repair all the injuries that they had done” (v. 35), but apparently not everyone was placated.

Amidst this stormy religious and political context, the sons of Mosiah slipped away for a fourteen-year missionary sojourn (Mosiah 28:9). Consequently, King Mosiah abdicated the kingship, a legal reform was adopted, and Alma the Younger, who was also the High Priest over the church, was installed as the first Chief Judge under the new legal regime (Mosiah 29:41). Also during this time, the Mulekites outnumbered the Nephites (Mosiah 25:5), thereby creating a significant political force.

Against this turbulent background, more serious troubles started with Nehor in the very first year of Alma’s reign (Alma 1:2). In conscious opposition to Alma, Nehor taught that all men would be saved without any intervention of an atonement, that the priests should be paid by the people, and he even “began to establish a church after the manner of his preaching” (vv. 3–6).

Even though Nehor was soon executed for enforcing priestcraft by the sword (Alma 1:12),1“this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land.” In fact, it led to the persecution of “those that did belong to the church of God” (v. 16, 19, cf. vv. 19–20). That persecution then led to more apostasy (v. 24).

Although church leaders made diligent efforts to restore order within the Church (Alma 1:28), Nehor’s disruption was only just the beginning. Four years later, a Nehorite disciple named Amlici was “intent to destroy the church of God” (Alma 2:4). His rebellion led to vicious armed conflicts (Alma 2–3).2 In the ensuing four years, the persecution against the church became so great that Alma felt compelled to give up the judgment seat to focus on the ministry (Alma 4:15–17).

At that point, Alma began by addressing the members of the church in Zarahemla (see Alma 5). In the wake of that very powerful speech, “he ordained priests and elders … to preside and watch over the church.” He received new converts and he excommunicated those who would not repent (Alma 6:1–3). In these ways, Alma the Younger “began establishing the order of the church in the city of Zarahemla” (v. 4).

The Why

These events during the early years of the reign of judges are reflective of many larger tensions going on within Zarahelma. Understanding these pressures is crucial because they shape and impact Nephite history for the next 100 years. Alma successfully drew upon his personal and professional awareness of both sides of these political, social, legal, military, and religious pressures, as he wisely led his people and strengthened the church “according to the order of God” (Alma 6:1).

At the same time, Nephite society as a whole also was undergoing major transitions. Not only was there the change from kings to judges,3 but also a separation, to some degree, of church and state,4 something that was uncommon in the ancient world. It was rare for a reason: it created societal strains that were difficult to manage within ancient worldviews. Stated simply, in archaic cultures, “there was no science separate from religion. All explanations of how the world worked were religious.”5

LDS anthropologist Brant A. Gardner saw the implications of this division at work here in Alma’s diverse and divided society: “Zarahemla housed two incompatible ways of viewing ‘reality,’ a conceptual split that was more divisive than two political parties. The tensions between these incompatible worldviews in Zarahemla … might be held in check for a while, but they begin to escalate over the next several years.”6 Nehor, Amlici, and the waves of apostasy they created are manifestations of these difficulties.

The prophet Alma recognized all these problems and took action accordingly. “Alma [was] trying to heal this ideological separation by converting the entire population to” the Lord’s way.7 Alma understood the best way to accomplish unity was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. So he gave everyone in his land an equal opportunity to be able “to hear the word of God” (Alma 6:5). Thus they each had “an equal chance throughout all the land…to answer for his own sins” (Mosiah 29:38).

While not everyone was converted, Alma and his priests and elders did have a measure of success, and “thus they began to establish the order of the church” again in Zarahemla (Alma 6:4). To enable this order as the Lord would have it, Alma commanded the faithful to “gather themselves together oft, and join in fasting and mighty prayer in behalf of the welfare of the souls of those who knew not God” (v. 6).

When carefully considered, valuable lessons for today can be found. First, while questions and struggles are the molecules of a stronger faith, antagonistic apostasy isn’t simply an individual matter, but affects whole communities. The Lord promised that the Nephites would prosper in the land only as they were faithful, as a people.8 If a community, church, or country is not unified in their ideologies, rifts and conflicts in other areas are to be expected.

Another important lesson is that apostasy, whether individual or collective, does not happen in a vacuum. It is shaped and influenced by larger societal trends and cultural factors.9 Identifying the factors influencing people to leave the Church or abandon the gospel is crucial in stemming the tides of apostasy and in kindly and spiritually leading people back into the way of the Lord.

The Know

Alma 7 records Alma the Younger’s address to the righteous people of the city of Gideon,1 who were “not in a state of so much unbelief as were [their] brethren” in Zarahemla (Alma 7:6). Because of their state of spiritual readiness, Alma felt that these people could be taught more about the coming of their Redeemer to this world. He said that the Spirit of God had instructed him to “Cry unto this people, saying—Repent ye, repent ye, and [1] prepare the way of the Lord, and [2] walk in his paths, which are straight; for behold, [3] the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and the Son of God cometh upon the face of the earth” (Alma 7:9).2

Fulfilling this three-fold spiritual assignment and expanding upon it with three different images, Alma affirms that he perceives (1) that these people “are in the paths of righteousness,” (2) that they are walking “in the path which leads to the kingdom of God,” and (3) that they are “making [God’s] paths straight” (Alma 7:19).

These three images of the “paths” or “ways” evoke strong biblical precedents and relevant spiritual messages:

1. “The Paths of Righteousness”

This phrase in Alma 7:19 is found once in the Bible, in Psalm 23:3. The only other place it appears besides Alma 7:19 and Psalm 23:3 is in 1 Nephi 16:5.3 The unforgettable Psalm 23 praises the Lord as the personal Shepherd who “restoreth my soul and leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.”

2. “The Path Which Leads to the Kingdom of God”

Although this exact phrase nowhere else in scripture, the general imagery is not uncommon. In 2 Nephi 31:9, 17–21, Nephi talks about getting “into this strait and narrow path” (v. 19) and enduring on that path to ensure salvation in the “kingdom of God” (v. 21), a clear allusion back to Lehi’s dream of the Tree of Life and the one strai[gh]t and narrow path that leads to it.

Also, the path that leads to the kingdom of God is likely also a recollection of, or a reference to, the ancient path that led to the temple in Jerusalem. See, for example, Psalm 84:5, the last clause of which refers (in Hebrew) to a highway or a raised, public road. The ESV and ASV Bibles render this as “the highways to Zion” and the NET Bible has “the roads that lead to your temple.” Similarly, Isaiah 35:8–10 refers to a “highway” called “the way of holiness” that will lead the redeemed “to Zion.”4

3. “Ye Are Making His Paths Straight”

The highway to Zion, or to the temple of Jerusalem, was also the path that Jehovah was to take as he came to Jerusalem to save (or after he had saved) his people. The people of the land were expected to build up this path in preparation for his coming. Psalm 68 speaks of the Lord, “him that rideth upon the heavens” (v. 4), coming in glory to save His people (see also vv. 7, 17– 18, 24–25). The Hebrew of Psalm 68:4 tells the people to “lift up” something which is not specified,5 but the ASV renders the phrase as “Cast up a highway for him that rideth through the deserts.”

This translation choice may have been made with passages such as Isaiah 62:10 in mind, a passage which describes well the instruction to build up the path of the Lord that the redeemed would travel on to reach Zion. It states: “Go through, go through the gates; prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up a standard for the people.” Similarly, Isaiah 57:14–15 speaks of the path that will be prepared for “him that is of a contrite and humble spirit” to come up to the Lord’s dwelling place. The people are admonished, “Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling block out of the way of my people.” The path was to be built up, smoothed out, and made straight.

The passage that Alma likely had in mind when he used this phrase in Alma 7:19 (“making his paths straight”) is Isaiah 40:3–4:

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain.

This bold prophecy, one which was also known to Lehi and Nephi, who also spoke “concerning a prophet who should come before the Messiah, to prepare the way of the Lord” (see 1 Nephi 10:7; 11:27; 2 Nephi 31:4-18), stands in the same prophetic tradition that Alma draws upon here.

The Why

In Alma 7, the Chief Priest Alma delivered words that discharged his three-fold commission to speak openly to the people of Gideon about the way of the Lord, his paths, and the coming of the Son of God. In speaking profoundly and prophetically, Alma alludes to three uses of the word “path” from the Israelite temple tradition found especially in the Psalms and in Isaiah: the Lord’s paths of righteousness that lead to him, the path or sacred way that leads to the temple, and the path that the Lord will use in coming upon the face of the earth.

With the first, one can imagine several reasons why Alma would have alluded on this occasion to the Lord’s paths of righteousness in Psalm 23. Alma knew his audience well; he praised them as humble followers of Christ whose fathers and mothers had allowed themselves to be led out of captivity by Him (Mosiah 22). Indeed, the Lord had led the people of Gideon into a peaceful valley, as the Lord in Psalm 23 leads his people “to lie down in green pastures, . . . beside the still waters” (Psalm 23:2).

Regarding the second, one might well ask why Alma would have wanted the people in the city of Gideon to remember to be “in the path” or on the road that leads to the temple and the kingdom of God. At the time that Alma spoke to the people in Gideon, he had only recently stepped down from being the Chief Judge and was now focusing his efforts solely on his position and authority as the High Priest in the church and temple of God in the land of Zarahemla (Alma 4:17-18). Thus, he commends these people, living in a valley some distance from Zarahemla, for journeying to the holy temple in Zarahemla.

From the third, understanding the commandment to lift up, or build up, the highway that will welcome the coming Messiah helps readers to understand how this imagery could also have influenced Alma on this occasion. It was in Gideon that Alma discharged his assignment to speak of paths that are straight and of the coming of the Son of God on earth, and so it is here that he directly discloses that the Son of God “shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers,” and then reveals information about the temptations, death, and atoning sacrifice that Jesus would perform there in the land of Jerusalem (Alma 7:10-13). Just as the prophetic highway led to the temple, Alma then welcomed all the worthy people of Gideon to come unto the Lord, to be baptized, washed, saved, and cleansed, to lay aside every sin and enter into a covenant to keep the commandments. They were expected to hear the words that they “shall have eternal life” (Alma 7:14-16). Alma wanted the people of Gideon to have confidence and faith that they had found that path, were being led by the Good Shepherd, and that they were helping to prepare the way both for the coming of the Lord and for others to follow that path.

The language in Alma 7:9 has many parallels to passages in the Psalms and Isaiah. Just as those passages apply their exhortations and acclamations to all the men and women in Israel, Alma applied each of all of these concepts to the congregation at Gideon as a whole. While it is also true that these prophecies can look forward specifically to the mission of John the Baptist (see 1 Nephi 10:7–8; 11:27; 2 Nephi 31:4–18; and Matthew 3:1–3; 4:14–17), every faithful person has a role to perform in making straight the way of the Lord and preparing the world for his coming. As Alma applied this rich imagery to the good people of Gideon, all readers of the Book of Mormon today can find themselves in these words and evaluate where they are along the path that leads to the Savior, and their progress in helping to make that path straight.

The Know

After Alma had faced rejection at the city of Ammonihah, an angel commanded him to go back (Alma 8:8–18). Upon his return, Alma was received by Amulek, who was commanded by an angel to receive him into his home (vv. 19–20). Amulek “received him into his house … and he brought forth bread and meat and set before Alma” (v. 21). After eating the meal set before him, Alma “blessed Amulek and his house, and he gave thanks unto God” (v. 22).

Latter-day Saints and other modern Christians are accustomed to offering a blessing before meals. Yet, “In Judaism, while a brief blessing is recited before eating, a series of longer blessings … follows the meal.” It is “a central feature of the liturgical service in the Jewish home.”1 In 1997, Angela M. Crowell and John A. Tvedtnes explained, “Four blessings come after the consumption of bread, while separate blessings are offered for other foods, depending on their nature and origin.”2

In the Talmud, the four blessings are attributed to significant figures in Israelite history: “the first benediction was instituted by Moses when the manna fell from heaven; the second by Joshua when he conquered Ereẓ Israel; the third by David and Solomon; and the fourth by the rabbis of Jabneh.”3

The practice is found in the Mishnah, which is the “Oral Torah,” first written around AD 200, and believed to contain much older oral traditions. It is also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.4 The Jewish book of Jubilees (ca. 161–140 BC) even depicts the patriarchs engaging in the practice (Jubilees 22:4–9).5 The basis for the practice is found in Deuteronomy 8:10, which reads: “When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless the Lord thy God for the good land which he hath given thee.”

The Why

Against this background, it is clear that Alma the high priest pronounced a blessing upon Amulek and his household because Amulek had fed and filled him. Alma, having generously received, offers a generous blessing in return. In contrast, it is interesting that, in a later Jewish story, “when Rabbi Zadok ate only a small portion of food, he didn’t say the blessing afterward, probably because Deuteronomy 8:10 calls for a blessing only if one has eaten and is full.”6 The Book of Mormon specifically says, “Alma ate bread and was filled” before he gave his blessing (Alma 8:22).

As the High Priest, Alma showed here his ample awareness of the law in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, blessing the Lord after “thou hast eaten and art full” is mentioned as an expression of gratitude for leading the Israelites “into a good land” (Deuteronomy 8:7–10). For Alma, the expression came after the Lord had led him to Amulek, allowing Alma to find a safe haven in a land which had previously rejected him (Alma 8:14–22). In both settings, the blessing is an expression of gratitude and thanks for the Lord’s blessings of safety and prosperity.

Moreover, Alma’s blessing anticipated the time when the Lord would bestow a blessing after a messianic meal. The Savior followed a similar pattern during his first day among the Nephites at the temple in Bountiful. As the sacrament was administered to the people there in 3 Nephi 18, “they were filled” (v. 9), after which Jesus “blessed” them (vv. 10, 14). He then taught them to keep the Father’s commandments and to pray always to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ (vv. 14–20), so that their wives and children “may be blessed” (v. 21).

Finally, on the next day, the sacrament was again administered unto the people, and they “were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard” (3 Nephi 20:9).7 Following that, the Savior went on to confirm in even richer abundance a host of blessings upon the people. These included: that the Father had given them their land for their inheritance (v. 14) and that God will establish and bless his people with his presence (v. 21–22). He also gave them the blessing of Abraham by which “all the kindreds of the earth [shall] be blessed” (v. 25).

Jesus then further “bless[ed them] in turning away every one … from his iniquities” (3 Nephi 20:26), and after being so “blessed,” the people were ultimately “blessed—unto the pouring out of the Holy Ghost” to make them mighty through the fullness of the everlasting gospel (v. 27). It is possible that Mormon recognized the similar pattern found in 3 Nephi 18 and 20 and took delight in retaining this seemingly insignificant detail in Alma 8:22 as an allusion to the messianic pattern.

The Know

When Alma addressed the people of Ammonihah, he reminded them of “the tradition of [their] fathers,” which included the promise: “Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land … Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord” (Alma 9:8, 13). This promise permeates the Book of Mormon and serves as a driving thesis in Mormon’s record.

The first and most detailed expression of this promise is found in 1 Nephi 2:20–24, where the Lord gave this promise to Nephi. In blessing his posterity, Lehi confirmed that this promise had also been given to him. “For the Lord God hath said: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence” (2 Nephi 4:4; 1:20).

Most expressions of the promise throughout the Book of Mormon best match Lehi’s simple declaration, rather than Nephi’s fuller description of the promise.1 This suggests Lehi is the source from which later Nephites drew and Nephite tradition traced the promise back to him. Indeed, Alma called upon the people of Ammonihah to “remember the words which [the Lord] spake unto Lehi” (Alma 9:13, emphasis added).2

While prosperity is commonly associated with riches in today’s world, as it is at times in both the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 27:7; Alma 1:30–31) and Bible (Psalms 73:12), this is not what is meant by “prosper in the land.” The promise is structured as an antithetical parallelism wherein two parallel phrases express opposite meanings.3 Thus, comparing the two conditions side-by-side provides an important clue to what Lehi meant by the word “prosper”:

Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments,
ye shall prosper in the land;

but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments,
ye shall be cut off from my presence.

The parallel expressions “prosper in the land” and “cut off from [the Lord’s] presence” are clearly set up as opposites to each other. This indicates that prospering in the land is equivalent to having the Lord’s presence. That the Nephite record keepers understood this equivalence is shown by the way Amaron substitutes “ye shall be cut off from my presence” with “ye shall not prosper in the land” (Omni 1:6).

The Why

Though some commentators have called it the “Lehitic covenant,”4 the essence of the covenantal promise is the same as that given to Israel as a whole. Variations of the promise “that ye may prosper in all that ye do” are frequently found in God’s covenant with the people of Israel, most notably in Deuteronomy.5 Proverbs 14:34 states, “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”

The blessings of “prosperity” are meant to belong to all who keep their covenantal commitments. Sixty years ago, Professor Eldin Ricks noted, “The idea was not new to Nephi. Hebrew prophets had taught this truth to their listeners for many generations. … It is particularly prominent in the writings of the seventh and eighth-century prophets.”6 Thus, the promise of prosperity to the faithful is extended to the Lord’s children in all ages.

The specific Book of Mormon formulation of this promise clarifies that prospering is being blessed with the Lord’s strengthening and supporting presence, not simply in order to get rich or be successful. Though wealth and success can be byproducts of the Lord’s prospering presence, they are not meant to be equated with it. At its core, the English word “prosper” comes from the Latin pro spere, literally meaning “according to one’s hope” or “agreeable to one’s wishes,” meaning “fortunate” more than “wealthy.”7

Indeed, behind the English word “prosper” in the King James Bible usually stands one of two Hebrew words, either tsalach or sakal, meaning such things as to push forward, overtake, succeed, or advance, or to be skillful, wise, circumspect, or prosperous. Thus, assuming that either of these Hebrew words stood behind Alma’s concept of his word for “prosper,” for several reasons readers should see a wider range of meanings behind that word here than the acquisition of wealth.

One may be fortunate in many ways. Wealth and success are not the only ways the Lord prospers his people, nor are they exclusively the product of the Lord’s blessing. It is misguided, therefore, to think that any and all who are rich or successful are being blessed by the Lord’s hand while the poor and disenfranchised are cut off from his presence.

Within the meaning of the scriptures, perhaps most clearly so in the Book of Mormon, the Lord’s chosen people are known by their faithfulness and diligence to the commandments of the Lord and to the covenants they make to serve those around them.8

The Know

Alma’s first attempt to preach the gospel in the city of Ammonihah was a failure. The people, Mormon recorded, “withstood all [of Alma’s] words, and reviled him, and spit upon him, and caused that he should be cast out of their city” (Alma 8:13). After being prompted by an angel, Alma returned to the apostate city to once again call its inhabitants to repentance (vv. 14–18). Upon returning, Alma found a supporter in the form of Amulek who had been instructed in vision to protect Alma (vv. 20–21).

Amulek was especially grateful for Alma’s blessing over his household, proclaiming, “He hath blessed mine house, he hath blessed me, and my women, and my children, and my father and my kinsfolk; yea, even all my kindred hath he blessed, and the blessing of the Lord hath rested upon us according to the words which he spake” (Alma 8:11).

Amulek specifically mentioning his women, children, father, and kinsfolk as being part of his household provides interesting insight into the social structure of Book of Mormon societies and peoples. Far from the nuclear families prevalent today (consisting of parents and children), this added detail “suggests an interesting pattern of kin connections” known in many ancient cultures, including ancient Mesoamerica.1

“For kin-based societies,” one Book of Mormon scholar noted, “a literal house typically symbolizes the family. Groups of kin frequently live in compounds.” This is suggested by Amulek’s usage of “mine house” to describe his immediate and extended kindred.

Indeed, “It seems likely Amulek’s ‘house’ was a typical Mesoamerican compound. When Amulek speaks of Alma blessing his ‘house’ and then lists specific relatives, these are almost certainly people living in the same ‘house’ or compound, not a single structure.”2

This picture in the Book of Mormon not only converges well with ancient Israelite and eastern Mediterranean family structures,3 but also the archaeological record, which verifies such household compounds existing during the pre-Classic Maya period.4

One oddity in Amulek’s description is his mentioning “my women” as being part of his household. Could he have meant female relatives such as sisters or cousins? Perhaps, but a stronger possibility, as suggested by John A. Tvedtnes, is that Amulek was referring to his wives. As Tvedtnes noted, the Book of Mormon uses the word “woman” to refer to a “wife.”5 If Alma 10:11 is read this way, then it would make Amulek a polygamist.

All of this makes sense. Amulek, after all, was said to have been “a man of no small reputation among” the people of Ammonihah who had “many kindreds and friends” and “much riches” (Alma 10:4). This is consistent with ancient polygamy, which was almost exclusively practiced by wealthy social elites who could afford to support large families, “a small fraction only making use of the privilege.”6 It is also consistent with how the Book of Mormon elsewhere depicts polygamy.7

The Why

The description of Amulek’s household is not mere trivia. Later in the account, Alma and Amulek were forced to witness the horrendous execution of those who believed their preaching. This included women and children, and apparently members of Amulek’s own family (Alma 14:8–15). By describing his family earlier in the account, the narrative deeply humanizes Amulek and his anguish.

Amulek went from being one of Ammonihah’s social elites to losing everything—his reputation, his social status, his riches, and even his family— for the gospel’s sake. The victims themselves were martyrs for the gospel. As John W. Welch explained, the rulers of Ammonihah “burn[ed] the women and children in Ammonihah . . . because they [themselves] had believed . . . having been taught to believe in Alma’s preaching of the word of God.”8

By first coming to know Amulek and his family, readers are able to empathize with them when the narrative makes a tragic turn for the worst. The stakes in this account are heightened, and Amulek’s plea to Alma to save the victims—including his own family—from martyrdom is given far more compelling moral and emotional weight (Alma 14:10).

The Know

Alma and Amulek’s preaching in Ammonihah was suddenly interrupted by Mormon in Alma 11 to give a description of the Nephite monetary system (of weights and measures).1 Immediately after describing this system (Alma 11:1–20), Mormon then reintroduced Zeezrom, mentioned first in Alma 10, as “a man who was expert in the devices of the devil, that he might destroy that which was good” (v. 21).

As one of Ammonihah’s corrupt, wealthy lawyers (Alma 10:31–32), Zeezrom profited by stirring “up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness . . . that [he] might get money according to the suits which were brought before [him]” (Alma 11:20). After gaining his consent, Zeezrom began questioning Amulek on doctrinal points in what was a transparent attempt to trap him in his words (vv. 21–46).

What is curious is what Zeezrom did first. Instead of asking a question, Zeezrom attempted to bribe Amulek into denying the existence of God. “Zeezrom said unto him: Behold, here are six onties of silver, and all these will I give thee if thou wilt deny the existence of a Supreme Being” (v. 22). Amulek rebuffed this bribe. “Thou knowest that there is a God, but thou lovest that lucre more than him,” he retorted (v. 24). Having failed to buy him off, Zeezrom then proceeded to ask his “gotcha” questions, which Amulek answered with precision and insight.

Many things appear to be going on in this passage. First, Mormon’s break to introduce the Nephite monetary system makes sense in light of Zeezrom’s attempted bribe. To give readers a solid understanding of the gravity of the situation, and to help them better appreciate both the level of corruption in Ammonihah as well as the nature of Amulek’s temptation, Mormon provided his description of the monetary system at this place in the narrative. In short, by knowing the Nephite monetary system, readers would know how much Zeezrom’s bribe was worth–––about 42 days of labor (vv. 3, 5–13).2

Furthermore, Zeezrom’s name itself may very well be a dysphemism, or a deliberately derogatory or unflattering word or name meant to disparage the intended recipient. This would follow known ancient Hebrew literary practice, which employs both euphemisms and dysphemisms as substitutes for, among other things, names.3 In this case, as explained by Stephen Ricks, “The Book of Mormon proper name Zeezrom . . . may have the meaning ‘he of the Ezrom’.” Ricks continued, “Ezrom/Ezrum is a Nephite word mentioned in Alma 11:6, 12, as a unit of silver measure. As a silver measure (which, in Hebrew, is kesep, ‘silver; money’), it may be the equivalent of money as well, indicating the meaning ‘he of silver, money,’ suggesting Zeezrom’s early obsession with money.”4

The Why

At a crass level, Zeezrom may have attempted to bribe Amulek for several debating reasons: to taunt, fluster, or distract his opponent. It is unimaginable that Amulek would accept such a blatant bribe. The law of Moses, in Exodus 23:8, specifically forbids Israelites from accepting bribes (“gifts” in the King James Version), and Psalm 15:5 insists that those who wish to enter holy space (the temple or “holy hill” of the Lord) must reject bribes and other extortionary practices.

Since Amulek, as a new convert to Alma’s preaching, would now be bound to obey that law, Zeezrom may have gloated over Amulek’s newly adopted ethical limitations. As a wealthy man in Ammonihah, Amulek perhaps had previously come by some of his attractive social status and economic position by use of the ordinary morals of the marketplace in the Nehorite hotbed of Ammonihah, and Zeezrom figured he could rub that in a bit.

But Mormon may have deliberately emphasized or given Zeezrom his name to turn the tables on his flippant temptation. As a derogatory name, the etymology of this proper name adds a measure of irony to this story: It was Zeezrom, “he of the silver,” literally, who attempted to bribe Amulek with silver. This reinforces Mormon’s intensely negative portrayal of the people of Ammonihah, who are, with the exception of Amulek and a few other believers, presented as corrupt, greedy, murderous, and blasphemous. Zeezrom was nothing but silver, inert and of the underworld. In casting this story as he does, Mormon’s depiction of Zeezrom as weakly and unsuccessfully attempting to bribe Amulek ironically only strengthens the latter’s character.

All of this serves to paint a vivid narrative picture in Alma 11. Zeezrom, a wealthy and corrupt lawyer, thought that his money could buy him anything. Having built a successful career on exploiting others (Alma 10:32), he thought he could get Amulek to deny his faith (and thus compromise his and Alma’s crucial message) for just the right price. Beneath his wealth and smooth face, however, Zeezrom was evidently greatly insecure and completely unready to face the righteous Amulek in a doctrinal debate. His livelihood was being directly threatened by Alma and Amulek’s preaching, and so Zeezrom resorted first to what he knew best: money. The avaricious Zeezrom could talk a big game, but ultimately proved to be little more than a poser, as Amulek spurned his bribe and deftly answered his questions.

Mormon’s account of Zeezrom’s encounter with Amulek in Alma 11, complete with the helpful aside on the Nephite monetary system at just the right place, was therefore highly deliberate and masterfully executed.

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

1. “The Paths of Righteousness”

2. “The Path Which Leads to the Kingdom of God”

3. “Ye Are Making His Paths Straight”

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading

The Know

The Why

Further Reading