New KnoWhys

"And now my son, Shiblon, I would that ye should remember, that as much as ye shall put your trust in God even so much ye shall be delivered out of your trials, and your troubles, and your afflictions, and ye shall be lifted up at the last day."

Alma 38:5

In Remembrance of Me, Walter Rane. Image via lds.org

The Know

After their ministry among the Zoramites, Alma “caused that his sons should be gathered together, that he might give unto them every one his charge, separately, concerning the things pertaining unto righteousness” (Alma 35:16). On this occasion, Alma’s exhortation to his sons may be linked to an ancient Jewish practice associated with the Passover. Gordon C. Thomasson and John W. Welch related:

According to traditions at least as early as the time of Christ and probably earlier, after gathering his family the father then instructed his sons and answered their questions. His words were not fixed but were “to fit the knowledge and understanding of the child” and were supposed “to spell out the sequence of sin, suffering, repentance, and redemption.”1

Although it is unknown how early this particular practice began, the feast of Passover was always celebrated as an important time for family gatherings, eating of the pascal lamb, and remembering the traditional texts associated with God’s deliverance of Israel from servitude in Egypt. Furthermore, it is important to note that scholars understand this Passover ceremony to be developed over time from earlier wisdom traditions.2 It is possible that Alma’s exhortation to his sons could have thematically descended from early strains of these same interweaving wisdom traditions.

What makes the link between Alma’s words to his three sons and this Passover tradition particularly striking is that, according to some Jewish customs, the sons asking questions often played out different roles and characters.3

The first was a wise son, who quoted from Deuteronomy, asking: “What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord our God hath commanded you?” (Deuteronomy 6:7). Alma’s eldest son, Helaman, clearly stands out as Alma’s favored or wise son,4 and it is notable that in addressing him, Alma “mentions ‘wisdom’ at least eight times in Alma 37.”5

The second was a wicked son, who quoted from Exodus, asking: “What mean ye by this service?” (Exodus 12:26).

This son is depicted in the Jewish literature as one guilty of social crimes, who had excluded himself from the community, and believed in false doctrines. According to Jewish practice, he is to be told, in a manner that will “set his teeth on edge,” that he will be punished for his own sins.6

Obviously, this description applies fittingly to Corianton, who struggled with moral transgressions and found several false doctrines attractive.7

Finally, a third son would ask, “What is this?” (Exodus 13:14). “Israelite tradition said that the uninformed son who asked this question needed to be taught the law and given preventative instruction to keep him well away from any risk of breaking the law.”8 Along these lines, Alma informatively warned Shiblon9 concerning the problems of pride, overbearance, unbridled passions, idleness, and the apostate practices of the Zoramites.10

Although it is uncertain if Alma’s exhortation to his sons directly coincided with the Nephite observance of the Passover, the method and content of his instruction is certainly reminiscent of its themes, including suffering in captivity and affliction, crying for deliverance, the appearance of a powerful angel, and deliverance from darkness and bitter pains.11 The timing is also appropriate: just as Israelites returned home to celebrate the Passover, and Alma and his missionary team had just returned to Zarahelma, having completed their efforts to bring the Zoramites in Antionum back to the faith (Alma 35:14).

The Why

The way that Alma’s sermons tie into the ancient traditions of the Jewish Passover provides evidence of his conscious awareness of and adherence to the righteous “traditions of [his] fathers” (Alma 3:11). Moreover, recognizing the sacred, ceremonial nature of these patriarchal moments of heart-felt testimony, instruction, and exhortation may help explain the remarkable sophistication and elegance of the literary and rhetorical forms used by Alma on this occasion.12

The Passover tradition was intended to help Israel remember the Lord’s hand in leading them out of Egyptian oppression. Likewise, Alma’s words to his sons were filled with exhortations to remember sacred things. For example, Alma’s chiastic13 discourse to Helaman began precisely with the very admonition to “do as I have done, in remembering the captivity of our fathers” (Alma 36:2) and ended similarly by reaffirming that Alma had “always retained in remembrance their captivity” (v. 29). In this context, Alma even specifically mentioned the Israelite exodus when stating, “I will praise him forever, for he has brought our fathers out of Egypt” (v. 28).

Alma’s words and commandments to his sons were thus highly suitable for the time of Passover. Speaking on such an occasion would only have enhanced the serious momentousness of that occasion.

Similar to the various exodus narratives among the Nephites,14 the modern church has its own parallels to ancient Israel’s miraculous deliverance. Such observances in our day can help readers of the scriptures to appreciate and relate to the solemn impact of the words of Alma centuries ago. Elder Russel M. Nelson taught, “Both groups shared many miracles that are memorialized annually. The celebration of Passover relates to the travels of the ancient Israelites. And each July we repeat legendary stories of our pioneers.”15

Like Alma’s sons, modern members of the house of Israel of all kinds have a duty to “always retain in remembrance” the hand of the Lord in their own divine deliverance (Alma 36:29).

The Know

Alma’s counsel to his sons Helaman, Shiblon, and Corianton comprise Alma 36–42. The wise prophet’s words were tailored to each of his sons, and addressed specific doctrinal topics that reflected their strengths and weaknesses respectively.1

Rather striking in Alma’s words to his young-adult son Corianton (Alma 39–42) is the uncompromising denouncement of sexual sins. “Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me,” Alma lamented to his then wayward son. “For thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel” (Alma 39:3). The implications are clear: Corianton had committed grievous sexual sins.

Readers of Alma 39:5 have understandably identified sexual transgression as a “sin next to murder.”2 Seeing here the infamy of sexual transgression comes directly from Alma’s rhetorical question to Corianton: “Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5)

Certainly all sexual transgressions are serious matters that should be entirely avoided and quickly repented of if committed, and indeed some sexual sins are more serious than others.3 Reading Alma 39 more closely reveals some additional insights regarding Corianton’s behaviors that intensify Alma’s teachings to his son concerning sexual misconduct.

As pointed out by Michael R. Ash and B. W. Jorgensen, for instance, it appears Corianton’s sin was more than just sexual immorality.4 They argue that Corianton’s sin was a composite of several elements, specifically sexual immorality by a priesthood leader that caused him to abandon his ministry and therefore neglect the spiritual needs of his flock, thereby leading them into apostasy. In effect, Corianton metaphorically “murdered” the testimonies of those he was commissioned to bring unto Christ when he was lured away by Isabel (cf. Alma 36:14).

This understanding of Corianton’s particular situation is strengthened by of the fact that in Alma 39:5, Alma speaks of “these things” (plural) being “an abomination in the sight of the Lord.” Apparently “these things” included not only Corianton committing sexual sin, but purposefully neglecting “the ministry wherewith [he] wast entrusted” (v. 4). Perhaps, then, “the more serious infraction was the resulting spiritual damage inflicted upon others who had witnessed Corianton’s sinful actions.”5

If Corianton’s only sin was committing sexually immoral acts, then it’s curious why Alma did not focus on that in the rest of the chapter. Instead of warning against sexual immorality, the remainder of Alma 39 focuses on such topics as “a description of the unpardonable sin—to knowingly deny the Holy Ghost.”6

Apostasy is a sin of unfaithfulness that was seen in some ways by Old Testament prophets as conceptually similar to adultery.7 Alma associated the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost with leading others into apostasy. This he did by explaining that ‘whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness’ (Alma 39:6). “Denying the Holy Ghost is unforgivable,” Alma’s logic goes, “but those who murder ‘against the light and knowledge of God’ can receive forgiveness, albeit with great difficulty.8

In light of the entirety of Alma 39, it is clear that Corianton was not just guilty of sexual sin, but was also “guilty of leaving his mission to chase a harlot (either literally and/or figuratively). This harlot has damaged many testimonies already, and Corianton’s actions have also led some of the people to destruction instead of to God.”9

The Why

Corianton’s sin was a composite crime of sexual immorality and leading others into apostasy through neglecting the ministry, being unfaithful to his priesthood calling, and setting a poor example. The crime of leading others into apostasy through sinful behavior was, in Alma’s view, next to shedding innocent blood and denying the Holy Ghost in seriousness. Given that he himself was once guilty of that particular crime (Mosiah 27; Alma 36), Alma’s pleading with Corianton to repent is all the more powerful (Alma 39:9–13).

To be clear, sexual immorality is an enormously harmful sin that can result in excruciating spiritual and temporal consequences. Both ancient and modern prophets have unequivocally condemned sexual immorality and related vices, and the Book of Mormon repeatedly warns all readers against adultery, fornication, whoredoms, lasciviousness, and sexual sins of all kinds (Jacob 3:12; Alma 16:18; Alma 45:12; 4 Nephi 1:16). These and any other types of wickedness become all the more serious when combined with any other dereliction of spiritual or religious duty.

Happily, Corianton did repent and soon returned successfully to the ministry alongside his brothers (Alma 49:30). This shows that repentance and forgiveness is possible for even severe sins, and that God is always willing to receive again those who forsake their transgressions (Doctrine and Covenants 58:42–43).

The Know

After censuring Corianton for his immoral and detrimental conduct (Alma 39:1–3), Alma perceived that his son’s “mind [was] worried concerning the resurrection of the dead” (Alma 40:1). Corianton’s concern is somewhat startling, though, considering that his father, Alma, was a prophet and the high priest over the land (Alma 5:3). Why would the son of a prophet struggle to understand one of the most fundamental doctrines of the gospel?

One likely possibility is that Corianton was exposed to religious philosophies that either dismissed or corrupted the true doctrine of the resurrection. Early in the Book of Mormon, Lehi and his son Jacob taught the reality of the resurrection explicitly (2 Nephi 2:8; 9:6).1 It seems, though, that sometime between the death of Jacob and the reign of King Mosiah a portion of the people rejected this teaching.2

For instance, the way Abinadi emphasized the resurrection when he confronted King Noah and his priests suggests that this doctrine was not being correctly or sufficiently taught among the people in the city of Nephi.3 Likewise, when Alma the Elder strove to perpetuate Abinadi’s teachings, many of the rising generation “did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead” (Alma 26:2).4

As a rebellious youth, Alma the Younger himself likely rejected the reality of the resurrection and was “numbered among the unbelievers” before his miraculous conversion (Mosiah 27:8). These types of textual clues indicate that some outside teaching or philosophy may have been competing against the true doctrine of the resurrection.

What is more certain is the way that Nehor negatively influenced attitudes toward this doctrine. Unlike Korihor, who completely denied the existence of God (Alma 30:2), Nehor introduced the concept that the “Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life” (Alma 1:4). Nehor’s divergent theology obviously had influenced the young Corianton’s views of resurrection and judgment, and yet it conflicted with the eternal laws of justice and judgment embedded in the true doctrine of the resurrection (see Alma 42:22).5

Despite his trial and execution,6 Nehor’s enticing doctrines became popular among the people—so much so that his philosophy was formally designated as “the order of Nehor” (Alma 14:16; 24:29). Unfortunately, Nehor’s heresy was promulgated by the Amlicites,7 who, by the time of Corianton’s ministry, had gained prominent influence.8

The Why

Recognizing the historical controversy that surrounded the doctrine of the resurrection can help readers better understand the root cause of Corianton’s confusion. His concern over this doctrine was not likely due to casual curiosity or mere inquisitiveness. It seems, rather, that he was surrounded by philosophical and theological ideologies that directly contradicted a foundational tenet of his father’s religion. Corianton’s immoral behavior can also be meaningfully correlated to his concerns and doubts that threatened his faith in Jesus Christ, the reality of His death, the resurrection, and the final judgment.9

These topics had been of great concern to many people, not only to Corianton but also to Alma. Charting the development of the doctrine of resurrection in the Book of Mormon can also help us appreciate the new contributions of Alma’s teachings to his son. As noted earlier, Alma himself had once been an unbeliever. In order to satisfy his own questions or concerns about this issue, he had “inquired diligently of the Lord” (Alma 40:9). In response, the Lord sent an angel to enlighten him. From this experience, Alma was able to add the following insights to what was already written about the resurrection in the Book of Mormon:

No one is resurrected until after the coming of Christ (Alma 40:2).
There is a specific time appointed when every person will be resurrected, but only God knows that time (Alma 40:4, 9).
There will likely be multiple times of resurrection since there will be righteous people who live and die after Christ dies and is resurrected (Alma 40:5, 8).
Alma believed that the righteous till the time of Christ would be resurrected with Him (Alma 40:20).10

It is uncertain what Corianton’s specific beliefs were prior to his father’s exhortation, but, thematically speaking, Alma’s treasured instructions to Corianton helped him understand the systematic nature and crucial functions of the resurrection. Alma had clearly taught on several occasions that an essential part of the gospel was believing that through the resurrection all men shall eventually stand before God in their bodies to be judged according to their works while in the flesh (Alma 33:22; 40:22–26). Recognizing that Corianton and others were questioning and were worried about this very thing, Alma then patiently guided Corianton through the logical argument which explained the meaning of the word “restoration” (41:2–15) and defended the balance of justice and mercy inherent in this system (Alma 42).11

Similar to Corianton’s environment, modern society faces a host of misguided philosophies and false teachings which can threaten faith in true doctrines. Alma’s brilliant exposition powerfully demonstrates that true knowledge of sacred things cannot be inherited and is only obtained through diligent seeking and sincere prayer. In all of this, modern readers can learn much from Alma’s example of helping a loved one find meaningful answers to difficult and productive questions.

The Know

In order to help Corianton understand the fairness and justice inherent in the doctrine of the resurrection,1 Alma expounded upon what he called “the plan of restoration” (Alma 41:2). The usage of this term marks a notable shift from the previous chapter, wherein Alma almost exclusively referred to this doctrine as the “resurrection.”2 The transition in terminology seems to signal that a more nuanced and developed explanation was underway.

Concerning the meaning of the word restoration, Alma explained that “some have wrested the scriptures, and have gone far astray because of this thing” (Alma 41:1). This allusion likely referred to those who were “after the order and faith of Nehor” (Alma 14:16). Before his execution,3 Nehor

testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life. (Alma 1:4)

The way that Alma’s discourse directly addressed these assumptions about universal salvation indicates that Corianton subscribed to Nehor’s heretical teachings. For example, Alma cautioned his son to “not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness” (Alma 41:10). Alma supported his reasoning by further defining and elaborating upon the meaning of restoration:

the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful. (v. 13)

An ancient legal principle known as talionic justice embodies this sentiment. John W. Welch explained, “Talionic justice achieved a sense of poetic justice, rectification of imbalance, relatedness between the nature of the wrong and the fashioning of the remedy, and appropriateness in determining the measure or degree of punishment.”4 Essentially, this was the famous law of an “eye for an eye” and a “tooth for a tooth” which was divinely revealed in the Old Testament and applied broadly throughout the ancient Near East (Exodus 21:24).5

Not only did Alma’s explanation to Corianton aptly utilize this ancient legal principle, but he structured his sermon in a chiastic form6 similar to legal parallelisms found in Mosaic Law. For instance, in Leviticus 24:17–21 we read:

And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
        And he that killeth a beast shall make it good, beast for beast.
                 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour as he hath done
                so shall it be done to him.
                        Breach for breach
                        Eye for eye
                        Tooth for tooth
                As he hath caused a blemish in a man
                so shall it be done to him again
        And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it.
And he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.7

Alma’s sermon on restoration provides a striking parallel:8

“The twist here is clever: After listing four pairs of terms, Alma pairs two lists of four terms and reverses their order at the same time.”9 Notably, this chiasm focuses mostly on the positive aspects of restoration. It is true that evil, carnal, and devilish behavior will in some way return to afflict the sinner, but in this instance Alma chose instead to emphasize the blessings of goodness, righteousness, justice, and mercy that will be restored to the righteous. Although he was very explicit and emphatic in his denunciation of sin, Alma ultimately wanted Corianton to “let the justice of God, and his mercy, and his long-suffering have full sway in [his] heart” (Alma 42:30).

The Why

Some readers may view the legal statutes of the Old Testament as irrelevant or obsolete, but Alma’s exhortation demonstrates that their fundamental principles are eternally relevant. Clearly, a divine implementation of talionic justice will be the guiding principle of restoration as it relates to final judgment and the resurrection. For example, people will receive forgiveness as they have forgiven (Matthew. 6:12); and people will be judged by the way they have judged others (Matthew. 7:1). Awareness of this principle can deepen appreciation for how, even though the application of truth may vary, “God is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Mormon 9:9).

Alma’s use of chiasmus to illustrate this principle is also instructive. What better way to demonstrate the inverse principles of divine justice than by using an inverse form of poetic parallelism? As Welch explained, “an elaborate and elegant chiastic structure embodies the very notion of the talion.”10 Therefore, both the form and the content of Alma’s sermon converge upon a singular, overarching principle of divine justice: “that all things should be restored to their proper order” (Alma 41:2). Such a profound and elegant truth must have stood in stark contrast to the unbalanced and incoherent program of salvation promoted by Nehor.

The Know

Alma 42 concludes Alma the Younger’s powerful, four-chapter exhortation to his son Corianton. After explaining the consequences of sin and expounding upon the resurrection (Alma 39–41), Alma perceived that Corianton was still troubled and confused concerning the justice of God. In particular, Alma noted that Corianton tried “to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery” (Alma 42:1). In order to help his son reconcile himself to God’s justice, Alma explained how the balance of justice and mercy is integral to “the great plan of salvation” (Alma 42:5).1

A feature of Alma’s discourse that may be easy to overlook is the symbolic use of the number ten. In many ancient civilizations, including the Israelites, certain numbers were considered to hold sacred meaning or importance. For example, John Welch explained that the number ten “conveyed a tight cluster of symbolic messages associated with the divine realms, namely, completeness, perfection, worthiness, consecration, testing, justice, reverence, atonement, supplication, and holiness (to mention ten).”2 It seems likely that this sacred use of numbers was preserved in the plates of brass and perpetuated by Nephite prophets as part of their literary tradition.3

Evidence from the earliest Book of Mormon manuscripts indicates that its original chapter units were divinely revealed to Joseph Smith,4 and according to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Alma 39–42 comprised a single, cohesive chapter.5 It may well be significant, therefore, that within these chapters Alma referred to the plan of redemption (or its variants, such as plan of salvation or plan of happiness) precisely ten times.6

During this period, Alma was the high priest over the church and likely fulfilled temple responsibilities similar to those found in the Old Testament (Alma 5:3).7 This is notable because the number ten features prominently in temple architecture and ritual formula:

When the temple of Solomon was built, it also contained many features that came in tens. The height and width of the cherubim in Solomon’s temple were both ten cubits … [the] diameter of the brazen sea was ten cubits … the brass altar was ten cubits high; ten candlesticks were made of gold; and ten tables were placed, five on each side.8

We know that Nephi’s temple, which was probably a model for later Nephite temple worship,9 was itself constructed “after the manner of the temple of Solomon” (2 Nephi 5:16). Thus, it makes sense that Alma, being the high priest in charge of temple worship, would have been aware of this number’s sacred meaning and purposefully utilized it to help his son comprehend the plan of salvation.

Alma’s tenfold invocation of the plan of salvation could also be connected to his high priestly role to determine worthiness in relation to the Ten Commandments. Welch proposed that “the Ten Commandments may have functioned somewhat like a list of modern temple recommend requirements to determine who might ascend into the mountain of the Lord, or the temple (see Psalm 24).”10 In this way, Alma’s exhortation could be seen as symbolically bringing Corianton to stand trial before God for violating one of those sacred Commandments. Alma desired that Corianton would take advantage of the time for repentance that is mercifully allowed under God’s overarching plan of happiness.

Furthermore, Alma’s exhortation to Corianton doesn’t contain the only discernable example of sacred numerals found in the Book of Mormon.11 Of particular relevance is another tenfold repetition of the word “plan” found in Alma 12. In that case, the first three uses of the term are in reference to Zeezrom’s “subtle plan” to deceive the people and turn them against Alma and Amulek (Alma 12:32–33). In contrast, the last seven uses (seven itself being a sacred priestly number12) all refer to the “plan of redemption” (see Alma 12:25–33). The occurrence of negative examples or contexts of a repeated item being supplanted or overpowered by a greater number of positive usages is not an isolated phenomenon and can be found elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.13 It therefore seems more than coincidental that both Alma 12 and Alma 39–42 use the same pattern of tenfold repetition to expound upon the same sacred topic—the plan of redemption.14

The Why

Corianton had bought into the wrong "plan" (as had Zeezrom in Alma 12), and thus Alma's sermon, in order to turn his son back onto the true path, needed to state the totality of the true plan. Even if someone isn’t aware of this tenfold thread, the subconscious effect of its tenfold repetition allows the spirit to gather momentum to a very satisfying conclusion and convincing admonition. Alma's words had a very salutary effect on Corianton.15 This emphatic element may be one of the reasons why these words left such an indelible impression on his son and still leave such a powerful impact on readers today.

Understanding the numeric symbolism that underlays parts of the Book of Mormon can also deepen comprehension of the scriptures and the prophets who wrote them. For example, identifying Alma’s symbolic repetition of “the plan of redemption” helps readers recognize how significant this concept might have been to him. He likely saw God’s plan as a perfect or complete solution to his son’s moral confusion and wayward behavior. Not only does Alma repeat the concept exactly ten times, but in Alma 39–42 he uses five connotative variations to describe it: plan of redemption, restoration, salvation, mercy, and happiness.

Readers should be cautious to not assume that every instance of a sacred number, whether explicitly mentioned or implied through repetition, is symbolically significant. Yet many of the text’s attestations of symbolic numbers are so distinctive and cogent that it is difficult to see them as anything other than intentional. The fact that specific words, phases, or concepts are repeated a sacred number of times in a meaningful context is evidence that the authors were familiar with ancient numeric symbolism. Exploring the sacred significance of numbers, therefore, reveals an insightful layer of subtle complexity in the Book of Mormon.

The Know

After including in his record much of Alma’s counsel to his three sons, Mormon picked up where he had left off in giving his historical narrative report “of the wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites” (Alma 43:3). Nearly all of the remainder of the book of Alma (Alma 43–62) gives one detailed account after another of battles and strategies used during a period of extensive warfare. At the head of the armies at this pivotal time was one Moroni, who “took the command of all the armies of the Nephites” at the age of 25, in the eighteenth year of the Nephite reign of judges (Alma 43:16–17).

Despite his youth, Moroni proved to be an effective military commander. There seem to be two reasons for Moroni’s success: (1) he implemented innovative defensive measures; and (2) he sought and followed prophetic counsel.

1. Innovative Defensive Measures

Douglas J. Bell, a former BYU professor and officer in the U.S. Army, succinctly listed Moroni’s innovative leadership practices: “he creatively fortified his cities, designed body armor, and motivated every city with the Title of Liberty.”1

The first innovation mentioned is the protective armor with which Moroni equipped his men (Alma 43:19).2 Earlier mentions of armor are rare and vague.3 David E. Spencer, a professor of counterterrorism and insurgency, suggested that prior to this point, individual soldiers were responsible for arming themselves.4 This probably resulted in uneven or inadequate armor for the rank-in-file. Under Moroni’s command, each soldier was equipped with a full ensemble of protective gear, which included breastplates, arm-shields, head-shields, and thick clothing.5

Moroni also built extensive fortifications, with ditches, earthen walls, and palisades (see Alma 49–50).6 Like armor, fortifications had been known among the Nephites at an earlier time, but they are only briefly mentioned and only in the Land of Nephi.7 Mormon reported that Moroni’s fortifications were “in a manner which never had been known among the children of Lehi” (Alma 49:8).

Moroni also rallied the people behind a righteous cause, and raised a battle standard upon a pole to represent that cause (Alma 46). Using a battle standard allowed for greater cohesion and unity on the battlefield.8 Never before was the use of a battle standard mentioned among the Nephites.

Each of these innovations may have been borrowed from nearby cultures or earlier antecedents which had previously been forgotten. For example, a similar ensemble of armor was known in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.9 Comparable earthwork fortifications are known among the Israelites and various pre-Columbian American cultures,10 and in Mesoamerica, a proliferation of such fortifications can be confidently dated to the Late Preclassic period, coinciding with the time of Moroni.11 Battle standards are also well attested in many cultures from both the Old and New Worlds, including the Israelites and Mesoamerican peoples.12

2. Seeking and Following the Prophet

In addition to the physical preparations, Moroni sought and followed the guidance of the Lord. Before going to rally the people with his battle standard, “he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God” (Alma 46:13). In the first battle under his command, he “sent certain men” to the prophet, Alma, “that he should inquire of the Lord whither the armies of the Nephites should go to defend themselves against the Lamanites” (Alma 43:23). As a result, the Lord revealed the activities of the Lamanite army, and Moroni was able put his troops in place to cut off the Lamanite soldiers.

Moroni was not the first to draw on the prophet for guidance in wartime (see Alma 16:5–6). In fact, he was part of a long-standing Israelite and ancient Near Eastern tradition.13 While innovative in so many ways on the battlefield, he proved willing to continue on in righteous traditions like this one, much to his benefit and success.

The Why

Moroni’s age likely played a crucial role in the Nephites’ military successes. As a young military captain, he was particularly open to applying and adapting military technology present or emerging within wider society.14 Similarly, younger leaders today may have an advantage in using innovative technologies to further the Lord’s work. Elder David A. Bednar taught, “The youth can offer much to older individuals who are uncomfortable with or intimidated by technology.”15

Not only did Chief-Captain Moroni help his soldiers physically and spiritually clothe themselves in the armor of God,16 but he also demonstrated the importance of humbly heeding prophetic counsel. Rather than simply relying on his own gifts in military strategy, Moroni looked to Alma for divine revelation and guidance. John Bytheway, a prominent LDS author and youth speaker, insightfully commented, “Prophets know where the enemy will attack and can prepare us to meet the threat!”17

After demonstrating how heeding the words of a living prophet had blessed his own life, President Russell M. Nelson has testified:

Prophets see ahead. They see the harrowing dangers the adversary has placed or will yet place in our path. Prophets also foresee the grand possibilities and privileges awaiting those who listen with the intent to obey. I know this is true! I have experienced it for myself over and over again.18

Moroni followed divine counsel in wartime preparations and by so doing succeeded in the face of impossible odds. He not only preserved the Nephite people from a dangerous adversary, but he also secured his place in Nephite history. President Nelson directly declared, of the millennial generation of the church—those who are close to the same age as Moroni was when he assumed command of the Nephite armies:

As a True Millennial whom the Lord can count on, you will make history too! You will be asked to accept challenging assignments and become an instrument in the Lord’s hands. And He will enable you to accomplish the impossible.19

The Know

Just before the so-called “war chapters” of the book of Alma (Alma 45–62) is the account of a clash between the Nephite and Lamanite military commanders Moroni and Zerahemnah, respectively (Alma 43–44). After affirming that the Nephites did “not desire to be men of blood” (Alma 44:1), Moroni commanded their foe “in the name of that all-powerful God” (v. 5) to “deliver up [their] weapons of war unto” the victorious Nephites (v. 6). If Zerahemnah would do this his life and the lives of his men would be spared (v. 6).

Zerahemnah’s response was terse and adamant: “Behold, here are our weapons of war; we will deliver them up unto you, but we will not suffer ourselves to take an oath unto you, which we know that we shall break, and also our children; but take our weapons of war, and suffer that we may depart into the wilderness; otherwise we will retain our swords, and we will perish or conquer” (Alma 44:8). Believing he had been defeated through Nephite ingenuity rather than divine intervention, Zerahemnah was willing to cede the immediate battle but refused perpetual surrender (v. 9).

After another round of negotiations (Alma 44:10–11), Zerahemnah suddenly attacked when Moroni briefly let his guard down. However, the Lamanite commander was halted when “one of Moroni’s soldiers . . . smote Zerahemnah that he took off his scalp and it fell to the earth” (v. 12). Immediately thereafter.

the soldier who stood by, who smote off the scalp of Zerahemnah, took up the scalp from off the ground by the hair, and laid it upon the point of his sword, and stretched it forth unto them, saying unto them with a loud voice: Even as this scalp has fallen to the earth, which is the scalp of your chief, so shall ye fall to the earth except ye will deliver up your weapons of war and depart with a covenant of peace. (Alma 44:13–14)

Utterly defeated, and moments away from death, Zerahemnah finally covenanted with Moroni and withdrew what was left of his now unarmed and humiliated army, never to be heard of again (Alma 44:19–24).

It is important to note that Moroni invoked the name of God in the brief covenant-making ceremony he enacted with Zerahemnah (Alma 44:4). Invoking the name of a deity to witness and ratify a covenant or oath was standard procedure in ancient Near Eastern oath-making ceremonies. The understanding anciently was that if a party failed to keep the covenant, then that party would face divine retribution. This might explain why Zerahemnah initially refused to make an oath he knew he couldn’t (or wouldn’t) keep. He may have feared God at least enough to anticipate divine wrath should he fail to keep the covenant, even if he disbelieved it was God who granted the Nephites victory (Alma 44:9).

Whatever the case on Zerahemnah’s part, the subsequent action of Moroni’s soldier who lifted up the Lamanite commander’s scalp makes perfect sense from an ancient perspective. Scholars have identified a pattern of oath-making in the ancient Near East that involves what is commonly called a simile curse.1 As found in Hittite and Semitic cultures, simile curses involved one party in a covenant forewarning the precise penalties that should befall the other parties if they were ever to break the pact.

These penalties were framed in the form of a simile: “If so-and-so does not keep this covenant, then may he be destroyed just or even as this object shall be destroyed.” Simile curses were sometimes accompanied by the party giving the terms dramatically destroying some kind of object, animal, or figure that symbolized the doomed party.

For example, an eighth century BC Aramaic treaty contains a clear example of a simile curse. “Just as this wax is burned by fire, so shall Mati[el be burned by fi]re. Just as (this) bow and these arrows are broken, so may Anahita and Hadad break [the bow of Matiel] and the bow of his nobles. And just as a man of wax is blinded, so may Mati[el] be blinded.”2

The Hebrew Bible also contains an example of a simile curse. In 1 Kings 14 the prophet Ahijah was commanded by God to foretell divine retribution for the wicked king Jeroboam. “Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam,” God promised, “and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone” (1 Kings 14:10; compare 2 Kings 21:13). Simile curses are found in a number of Hittite texts, such as a series of oaths Hittite soldiers made as part of their military service.3 Curses against those who break or alter the terms of suzerain-vassal treaties are also included in some Hittite texts written on bronze plates.4

The Why

As explored in a previous KnoWhy, the nature of oaths and oath-making in the Book of Mormon closely follows an ancient Near Eastern pattern.5 This includes a sometimes life-or-death seriousness when it comes to making and keeping covenants and oaths. A close reading of Alma 44 reveals that Moroni’s interaction with Zerahemnah followed the same pattern.

Latter-day Saint scholars have noted that the pronouncement of the Nephite soldier who scapled Zerahemnah follows the simile curse formula almost perfectly: “Even as this scalp has fallen to the earth, which is the scalp of your chief, so shall ye fall to the earth except ye will deliver up your weapons of war and depart with a covenant of peace” (Alma 44:14).6 From an ancient perspective this simile curse would have greatly reinforced the life-and-death seriousness of the covenant Moroni had commanded Zerahemnah to enter, and would have given Zerahemnah even more reason not to agree with Moroni’s demand without absolute certainty of keeping it.

The elements of Alma 44 combine to show that both the Nephites and Lamanites, including even the wrathful Zerahemnah, respected the seriousness of oaths, especially oaths sworn in God’s name. This in turn demonstrates “the rich complexity of the Book of Mormon” as well as its ancient provenance.7

The Know

At the beginning of Alma 45, Mormon provided a special heading summary,1 sometimes referred to as a colophon,2 which reads: “The account of the people of Nephi, and their wars and dissensions, in the days of Helaman, according to the record of Helaman, which he kept in his days” (Alma 45, chapter heading). Although still in the book of Alma, Mormon’s helpful summary reveals that a shift in the source text has taken place and emphasizes that Helaman will unfortunately have to face wars and dissensions during his ministry.

After preparing Helaman as his successor, Alma mysteriously disappeared while journeying toward the land of Melek (Alma 45:18–19).3 While Mormon doesn’t reveal how Helaman felt about this sudden loss of his father or his new burden of responsibility, the text immediately reports that Helaman went forth to “declare the word” and “establish the church again in all the land” (vv. 20, 22).

Unfortunately, Helaman’s diligent efforts were promptly rejected by a substantial segment of the people:

And now it came to pass that after Helaman and his brethren had appointed priests and teachers over the churches that there arose a dissension among them, and they would not give heed to the words of Helaman and his brethren. But they grew proud, being lifted up in their hearts, because of their exceedingly great riches; therefore they grew rich in their own eyes, and would not give heed to their words, to walk uprightly before God. (Alma 45:23–24)

The animosity towards Helaman’s spiritual reforms was so strong that these dissenters gathered together and were “determined to slay” him and his brethren (Alma 46:1). The culprit behind this movement was a “large and strong man” named Amalickiah, who, through flattery, had convinced many “lower judges of the land” to “support him and establish him to be their king” (vv. 3–5). Not only was he popular among society at large, but “there were many in the church who believed in the flattering words of Amalickiah” (Alma 45:7).

For those Nephites familiar with their own history, this state of affairs would have indeed seemed “exceedingly precarious and dangerous” (Alma 45:7). Less than twenty years earlier,4 King Mosiah had, in allusion to King Noah, reminded them of “how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction” (Mosiah 29:17). In the deeper past, the early Israelites sought to pressure Samuel into anointing a king who would “judge [them] like all other nations” (1 Samuel 8:5).5 Samuel similarly tried to warn the people about the excesses and abuses of power to which monarchs often succumbed (see 1 Samuel 8:11-18).6

It may also be noteworthy that during the approximate timeframe of Helaman’s ministry, a fundamental political shift took place among the ancient Maya. “Though the significance of the Preclassic-Classic divide can be overstated, the distinction does seem to reflect a transformation from one social and political order to another. . . . Elements of this system took root in various parts of Mesoamerica between 100 BC and AD 100.”7

During this transition, the “relationship between kingship and cosmos was re-articulated, even reconceived.”8 This suggests, perhaps, that the Nephites who supported Amalickiah were, like the Israelites in Samuel’s day, influenced by the political movements of surrounding nations.

The Why

In the cases of Samuel and King Mosiah, the moral was not necessarily that kingship was or is inherently evil.9 Rather those histories show that when the people would not take counsel from the Lord, their desire for worldly monarchs readily led to sorrow and destruction. In both narratives, the Lord, through an appointed prophet, counseled the people to either adopt or maintain a specific political system—in these cases, a system of judges.

In large part, then, it would appear that Helaman was rejected because the people allowed their own political agendas to supersede their faith in prophetic counsel. Especially from the perspective of Mormon, who himself saw much the same development among his own people, this loss of faithful loyalty and good judgment was tragic. As in Mormon’s day, many members of the church in Helaman’s day were not immune to flattery and desertion.

Mormon reported that Helaman’s people “dissented even from the church” (Alma 46:7). Yet, as the Lord told Samuel anciently, “they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them” (1 Samuel 8:7). This same sentiment can certainly be applied to Helaman and his brethren who “notwithstanding their exceedingly great care over the church,” failed to persuade the people to heed the Lord (Alma 46:6).

The rise of Amalickiah and the kingmen who supported him led the Nephite civilization into a decade of intermittent but steady warfare and destruction.10 This terrible course of events helps demonstrate the importance of remembering the Lord in times of prosperity and peace, and it warns against rejecting prophetic teachings in favor of popular political ideologies. In the wake of these events, Mormon’s lament provides a stirring warning to modern readers to not repeat such follies: “Thus we see how quick the children of men do forget the Lord their God, yea, how quick to do iniquity, and to be led away by the evil one” (Alma 46:8).

The Know

To quell dissensions and treason among his fellow Nephites, many of whom were being persuaded by the flattery of Amalickiah (Alma 46:10), Moroni undertook it to rally Nephite morale and faithfulness. Accordingly, “He rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole” (v. 12).

This banner, called the “title of liberty” (Alma 46:13), was used at first as a war banner for the Nephite forces (vv. 19–20).1 Following the well-attested ancient Near Eastern phenomenon of the simile curse, those soldiers who rallied around Moroni rent2 their own garments as a token of their covenant, pledging that if they transgressed God’s commandments “the Lord should rend them even as they had rent their garments” (v. 21).3

While gathering support for the Nephite military cause, Moroni curiously invoked the words of the Old Testament patriarch Jacob, the father of Joseph of Egypt (Alma 46:24). He prefaced his recitation of Jacob’s words by reminding his comrades,

Behold, we are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; yea, we are a remnant of the seed of Joseph, whose coat was rent by his brethren into many pieces; yea, and now behold, let us remember to keep the commandments of God, or our garments shall be rent by our brethren, and we be cast into prison, or be sold, or be slain. (v. 23)

Moroni then went on to quote Jacob thus:

Even as this remnant of garment of my son hath been preserved, so shall a remnant of the seed of my son be preserved by the hand of God, and be taken unto himself, while the remainder of the seed of Joseph shall perish, even as the remnant of his garment. Now behold, this giveth my soul sorrow; nevertheless, my soul hath joy in my son, because of that part of his seed which shall be taken unto God. (Alma 46:24–25)

To drive the point home and to reiterate the simile curse already annunciated, Moroni concluded by stating that even as a remnant of Joseph’s seed had perished as had his garment, “even it shall be ourselves if we do not stand fast in the faith of Christ” (Alma 46:27).

Moroni’s use of a war banner converges comfortably with martial practices found in ancient Israel and Mesoamerica. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls is the so-called War Scroll, which details how the Qumran community was to prepare for the great and final battle between good and evil.

Included among the listed military equipment to be used were war banners with written text on them. “Rule of the banners of the whole congregation according to their formations. On the grand banner which is at the head of all the people they shall write ‘People of God,’ the names ‘Israel’ and ‘Aaron,’ and the names of the twelve t[ribes of Isra]el according to their order of birth.”4

As explained by Kerry Hull, Mesoamerican cultures also utilized war banners in highly ritualized ways that are closely comparable to Moroni’s title of liberty.5 This unexpected convergence of linguistic and cultural data “is a striking endorsement for the validity of the text as an ancient document and provides evidence of a Mesoamerican cultural background for the Book of Mormon.”6

The Why

Ultimately, Moroni’s war banner and quotation of Jacob went together to effectively legitimate the Nephite cause. “Moroni pulled out all the stops with the title of liberty,” Hull clarified. With his title of liberty, Moroni reminded his soldiers that they were fighting for three ultimate values: their God and religion, their liberty and peace, and their women and children.

Moroni’s symbolic action also invoked the power of ancestral heritage and God’s covenants with Nephite ancestors. “He provided legitimization for the covenant-entering ceremony by hearkening back to an apocryphal story of Jacob with a remnant of his son Joseph’s coat.”

Since Lehi was a descendant of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:14), the archaic nature of the rite by their lineage ancestor would have garnered Moroni additional support. The innovative use of a standard to display the rent garment shows Moroni adapting to the circumstances and culture in which he lived. A banner, well-known as a symbol of warfare, motivation, and leadership in battle in societies around the world, was an eminently appropriate way to rally others to his cause.7

In addition, by explicitly calling upon the words of Jacob, the father of the House of Israel, promising that “a remnant of the seed of my son [Joseph shall] be preserved by the hand of God,” Moroni renewed and extended Jacob’s promise to his soldiers, who were themselves a remnant of the house of Jacob in a foreign land. It is hard to imagine a symbol that would have been more energizing and reassuring to Moroni’s soldiers than this. That remnant had portended such ill, but in the end, it opened the door for God’s preservation of the people of Israel as strangers in the land of Egypt.

The Know

Mormon, the warrior-historian-prophet who wrote the majority of the narrative contained in the book of Alma, had much to say about Moroni, the young chief captain over the Nephite armies. Mormon was writing nearly four centuries after the events of the so-called “war chapters” in the second half of the book of Alma. It seemed that Mormon had many records from which to draw his history. However, he decided to make the figure of Chief-Captain Moroni one of his main focuses. The heroic acts of Chief-Captain Moroni are discussed in nearly twenty chapters of the book of Alma.

In Alma chapters 46–48, especially, readers can perceive that Mormon holds this Moroni in very high regard and considers him an example that “all men” should emulate (Alma 48:17). Starting in Alma 46, Mormon clearly attempts to contrast Moroni and his archenemy Amalickiah, presenting each figure as the antithesis of the other. The following are some of the specific points of comparison that Mormon included in his narrative:

— Moroni —	— Amalickiah —
“a strong and a mighty man” (Alma 48:11)	“a large and strong man” (Alma 46:3)
appointed by “the voice of the people” and by judges (Alma 46:34)	desired to be king through flattery, dissension, fraud and deceit (Alma 46:3–10; 47:1–35; 48:7)
unified his people for the cause of righteousness and to keep their covenants (Alma 46:12–21; 48:7)	caused dissension among people by blinding their minds and stirring them up unto anger (Alma 48:1–3)
rejoiced in the liberty and freedom of his country and people (Alma 48:11)	“sought to destroy the foundation of liberty” (Alma 46:10)
recognized the Lord’s hand, prayed for his people and “was firm in the faith of Christ” (Alma 46:12–13; 48:12–13)	fought against the preaching of Helaman, led dissensions from the church and sought to destroy the church of God (Alma 46:3–10)
“did not delight in bloodshed,” was willing to have his own blood spilled for his people, led his armies into battle and did not attack offensively (Alma 48:11–16)	“did care not for the blood of his people,” “did not come down himself to battle,” attacked the Nephites, hoping to bring them into bondage, “or slay and massacre them” (Alma 49:7, 10–11)
“had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion,” led the people in making a covenant to fight for their freedom, rights, families and religion (Alma 46:19–28)	his chief captains “took an oath that they would destroy the people” of the city of Noah; Amalickiah himself “did curse God, and also Moroni, swearing with an oath that he would drink his blood” (Alma 48:13, 17; 49:27)

Many more points of contrast could be observed between these two figures. Mormon wanted to show what great damage “one very wicked man” (Alma 46:9) could cause, but also, in contrast, how one very righteous man, like Moroni, if emulated by many, had the power to overcome all evil in the world (Alma 48:17).

In addition, it is also worth mentioning that Mormon apparently tried to imitate Moroni’s war strategies in his own time, including the fortification of cities (compare, e.g., Mormon 2:4; Alma 48:9) and trying to rally his people to “fight for their wives, and their children, and their houses, and their homes” (Mormon 2:23; Alma 46:12; 58:12).1

Although not mentioned overtly, Mormon clearly had so much respect and admiration for Chief-Captain Moroni and what he had accomplished that he named his son after his hero.

The Why

President Thomas S. Monson, in the July 2016 Ensign, gave a First Presidency Message entitled: “True to the Faith of Our Forefathers.” The suggested applications of this message include exploring the qualities of people that we admire, whether they be ancestors, family, friends, Church leaders, or figures from the Scriptures. The article provides an example of a hero from the Scriptures: “Perhaps you love Captain Moroni’s courage.”2 Clearly, Captain Moroni is a figure that Mormon considered to be a righteous role model.

Mormon, like Chief-Captain Moroni, was called to be a military leader at a young age (Mormon 1:15; 2:1–2), at a time in which his people were similarly engaged in near constant wars. His exposure to the records containing the history of Moroni showed him a time when the Nephites still had faith in God, were strengthened by the Spirit, and were led to victory because of their righteous desires. At the time when Mormon was abridging this part of the Nephite records, he could see that Chief-Captain Moroni’s example was desperately needed among his people, and he longed to lead his people as Moroni did.

Mormon also longed for the time when his people, like the people of Nephi in Moroni’s day, would recognize the error of their ways, turn their hearts back to the Lord, and be blessed. In Alma 50, Mormon briefly emphasized how good things were for the Nephites in the days when they still kept the commandments of God, likely contrasting that period with his own. He declared:

And they did prosper exceedingly, and they became exceedingly rich; yea, and they did multiply and wax strong in the land.
And thus we see how merciful and just are all the dealings of the Lord, to the fulfilling of all his words unto the children of men;
…
And those who were faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord were delivered at all times, whilst thousands of their wicked brethren have been consigned to bondage, or to perish by the sword, or to dwindle in unbelief, and mingle with the Lamanites.
But behold there never was a happier time among the people of Nephi, since the days of Nephi, than in the days of Moroni, yea, even at this time, in the twenty and first year of the reign of the judges. (Alma 50:18–19, 22–23)

Mormon likely had in mind Moroni’s time when, in Mormon 2:8–13, he tells of how he had hope that his own people would turn from their wicked ways and qualify for the blessings of the Lord once more. Because of their losses and because of the curse that was upon the land, the Nephites of Mormon’s time apparently “began to repent of their iniquity, and began to cry” unto the Lord. He recounted:

And it came to pass that when I, Mormon, saw their lamentation and their mourning and their sorrow before the Lord, my heart did begin to rejoice within me, knowing the mercies and the long-suffering of the Lord, therefore supposing that he would be merciful unto them that they would again become a righteous people. (Mormon 2:12)

However, as a prophet of God, he soon understood the lamentable reality of his people’s situation—that their response was not like the Nephites of yesteryear. Mormon exclaimed in disconsolation:

But behold this my joy was vain, for their sorrowing was not unto repentance, because of the goodness of God; but it was rather the sorrowing of the damned, because the Lord would not always suffer them to take happiness in sin. (Mormon 2:13)

For many reasons and in many ways, Chief-Captain Moroni was a great hero to Mormon. He represented the golden days of the Nephite civilization, a time when the people still repented of their sins and qualified for the blessings of God and the strength that comes from having the Spirit present. Mormon did his best to emulate Chief-Captain Moroni and even named his own son after that great man.

Today, attentive readers can appreciate the numerous subtle signals that Mormon sent in his abridging of the war chapters of the book of Alma that are in the end purposefully echoed 150 pages later in Mormon’s account of the painful conclusion of the Nephite demise. Mormon sincerely hoped that all of his future readers would understand what a powerful disciple of Christ Moroni was. Indeed, he declared that “if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever” and the world would be a better place, concordant with the will of God.

The Know

Before detailing the history of a seven-year war between the Lamanites and the Nephites,1 Mormon spent an entire chapter (Alma 47) explaining how Amalickiah, through deceit and treachery, ascended to become king “among all the people of the Lamanites” (v. 35). It seems that Mormon intentionally provided this lengthy digression into Amalickiah’s exploits in order to directly contrast Amalickiah’s personality, methods, and political ideologies with those of Moroni.

“Now it came to pass that while Amalickiah had thus been obtaining power by fraud and deceit, Moroni, on the other hand, had been preparing the minds of the people to be faithful unto the Lord their God” (Alma 48:7). Mormon described Moroni as a “a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country” (v. 11).

Such language often resonates with modern readers who have embraced similar ideals of freedom, especially those democratic principles which form the basis of many modern constitutions.2 Yet, while it may be tempting to imagine Nephite society as a mirror of the modern democratic republic, their institutional methods for preserving freedom and liberty were actually, in some important ways, quite different from modern secular democracies.

Richard L. Bushman remarked,

Looking at the Book of Mormon as a whole, it seems clear that most of the principles traditionally associated with the American Constitution are slighted or disregarded altogether. All of the constitutional checks and balances are missing. When judges were instituted, Mosiah provided that a greater judge could remove lesser judges and a number of lesser judges try venal higher judges, but the book records no instance of impeachment. It was apparently not a routine working principle. All other limitations on government are missing.3

On the other hand, Ryan W. Davis, a political scholar, has concluded that Nephite society can still be seen as fundamentally democratic because of their freedom of conscience, the potential of “intra-agency checks” to balance their government, and the political voice given to their people.4“It is in this limited but important sense that the regime established by Mosiah should be considered a democracy.”5

Furthermore, several democratizing forces were set in motion by King Benjamin’s speech, including his narrowing of the gap between king and subjects (Mosiah 2:20-26), affirming popular freedom through communal covenant (Mosiah 5:8), and dispensing a new name to all the people at the time of his son’s coronation (Mosiah 3:8; 5:9).6

While the Nephites’ institutional methods of preserving freedom were certainly different from most modern systems of government, several fundamental principles and intents seem to be considerably the same. For instance, Moroni’s preparations for war were intended “to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace” (Alma 48:10). This political emphasis on freedom and liberty provides a sharp contrast with the Lamanites’ aggressive pursuit of autocratic control (where a single ruler holds concentrated power).7

The Why

Exploring the political backdrop of Nephite military campaigns can help readers better understand their success over the Lamanites. After surveying numerous conflicts throughout Nephite military history, Davis concluded:

The trend that emerges from this analysis is that short conflicts … favor the Lamanite autocracy, but extended conflicts are ultimately won by the Nephite democracy. We recall that the theoretical reason democracies are expected to succeed in conflicts is that they can direct greater resources over an extended period of time. While democracies may lose in the short term, “in every prolonged conflict in modern history, such states have prevailed over their illiberal rivals.”8

This explains, in part, why Moroni fought so vigorously to preserve and protect their current method of governance.9 King Benjamin’s political reforms had thus far strengthened and preserved Mosiah’s and Alma’s people from bondage and captivity.10 Neglecting to defend such an institution would directly threaten their religious and personal freedoms.

This is not to say, however, that their safety was ultimately dependent on the arm of flesh or upon the democratic system that they fought to preserve. “The most basic lesson in the Book of Mormon’s politics is simple: God makes all the difference.”11 Time and again, the promise to the people was that they would be divinely blessed and prospered according to their obedience to the commandments.12

In reference to Alma’s teaching that God often works through “small and simple things” (Alma 37:6), Davis proposed that “another possible reading of the term simple is natural, or organic. God uses natural processes—those explainable without use of an appeal to divine intercession—to accomplish his purposes.”13 This reading may help shed light on one possible way that the Lord would protect and preserve the Nephites. Rather than idly waiting for God to miraculously deliver them from their enemies, He expected them to fight to preserve a governmental institution that would, by its very nature, secure their safety and freedoms.

Like Amalickiah and those who followed him, there are many parties today who similarly seek to undermine the sacred principles of individual freedom, conscience, civil duty, and accountability. After identifying three things that church members can do to preserve their sacred freedoms and rights,14 Elder Robert D. Hales taught:

Our Savior’s Second Coming is drawing nearer. Let us not delay in this great cause. Remember Captain Moroni, who hoisted the title of liberty inscribed with the words “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.” Let us remember the people’s response: exercising their agency, they “came running together” with a covenant to act.
My beloved brothers and sisters, don’t walk! Run! Run to receive the blessings of agency by following the Holy Ghost and exercising the freedoms God has given us to do His will.15

The Know

The Book of Mormon is a book saturated with warfare. The grim reality for ancient peoples was that religious, political, and cultural ideologies were frequently enforced through war. Even before bloodshed broke out between the Nephites and Lamanites in the New World, Lehi’s party was exposed to a violent rivalry between Nephi and his brothers, Laman and Lemuel.

John W. Welch has identified at least 15 major wars or conflicts that spanned the history of Book of Mormon peoples (see chart below).1 A fair portion of the book of Alma (Alma 2–3, 16, 24–25, 43–62) sometimes provides excruciating details concerning the wars between the Lamanites and Nephites. Unforgettable is the tragic downfall of the Nephites at the battle of Cumorah, which resulted in unparalleled death and carnage (Mormon 1–6).

Name	Sources	Date	Location	Causes	Results
The Early Tribal Wars	Jacob 1:10, 14; Enos—Omni	6th-2nd century B.C.	Land of Nephi	Popular and fraternal hatred	Nephite ideals and culture did not last; left the land of Nephi
The Wars of King Laman’s Son	Mosiah 9-10; Omni 1:24; Words of Mormon 1:13-14	About 160-150 B.C.	City of Nephi and land of Zarahemla	Lamanite fear of growing Nephite strength	Benjamin’s victory unified and established the land of Zarahemla as Nephite territory
The War of Amlici	Alma 2-3	Fifth year Reign of the Judges [R.J.] (87 B.C.).	Zarahemla, hill Amnihu, and river Sidon	Transition from kingship to judgeship	An uneasy peace in Zarahemla under Alma as chief judge
The Destruction of Ammonihah	Alma 16:1-11; 24:1-25:14	11 R.J. (81 B.C.).	City of Ammonihah to the west of Zarahemla	Lamanites angry at Nehorites and their allies for causing Lamanites to kill other Lamanites	Virtual elimination of Nehorites as a political force
The War of Ammonite Secession	Alma 28	15 R.J. (77 B.C.).	Area in Zarahemla around the land of Jershon	Lamanites attacked the Nephites around the land of Jershon	Ammonites established in the land of Jershon.
The Zoramite War	Alma 43-44	18 R.J. (74 B.C.).	In the land of Manti near the head of the river Sidon	Zoramites separated from the Nephites; entered into a correspondence with the Lamanites.	Almost complete obliteration of the Zoramite army
The First Amalickiahite War	Alma 46-50	20 R.J. (72 B.C.).	Ammonihah, Noah, and the east seacoast near the narrow neck of land.	Political ambitions of Amalickiah, a Zoramite in Zarahemla	Amalickiah defeated, but he swore to return and kill Moroni.
The Second Amalickiahite War	Alma 51-62	25-31 R.J. (67-61 B.C.).	Throughout the land of Zarahemla, cities around the east sea	Return of Amalickiah	A very costly Nephite victory
The Rebellion of Paanchi	Helaman 1:1-13	40 R.J. (52 B.C.).	City of Zarahemla	Dispute over Pahoran, the son of Pahoran, becoming chief judge	Paanchi executed, Pahoran assassinated, and faction of secret murderers led by Kishkumen formed
The War of Tubaloth	Helaman 1:14-34	41 R.J. (51 B.C.).	Cities of Zarahemla	Tubaloth sought to capture the land of Zarahemla	Contributed to the political unrest, the rise of the Gadianton robbers
The War of Moronihah	Helaman 4	54, 57-62 R.J. (38, 35-30 B.C.).	Land of Zarahemla	Continuing dissension in the church, possibly sparked when Nephi became chief judge	Some dissenters returned with Lamanite support and occupied half of the Nephite lands.
The War of Gadianton and Kishkumen	Helaman 6:15-11:20	66-73 R.J. (26-19 B.C.).	The entire land, but centered in the land of Zarahemla	Assassinations of the chief judges Cezoram and his son	The war ended when Nephi declared a famine
The War of Giddianhi and Zemnarihah	3 Nephi 2:11-4:28	A.D. 13-22.	Between the lands of Bountiful and Desolation	Gadianton robbers had established strongholds in the mountains	The unification of Lamanites and Nephites against the threat of robbers
The Rebellion of Jacob	3 Nephi 6:14-7:14	A.D. 30.	Land of Zarahemla	Lachoneus took office and attempted to try the judges who had exceeded their power	Collapse of reign of judges; degeneration to tribal society
The Final Nephite Wars	Mormon 1–6	Circa A.D. 320	Land of Zarahemla and northward	Infestations of robbers; Lamanite aggression	The Lamanites annihilate the Nephite civilization

As is true today, warfare in the ancient world took on ideological importance for both sides of a conflict. The ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans all recorded or recounted tales of combat and war that took on nationalistic and mythic significance for them as a people.2“Scribes often recorded the results of these wars in accounts usually intended to exalt the king and/or the nation’s god(s),” Boyd Seevers observed. “The biblical authors normally write about warfare for some theological purpose, such as illustrating faith–––or lack thereof–––in God by some Israelite leader or the nation as a whole.”3

The same is true of the ancient Maya. Archaeological investigations have determined conclusively that the Maya, Aztec, and other Mesoamerican cultures were often steeped in warfare that carried great cultural and practical significance.4 Warfare “occupied a prominent place in the mind and practice” of ancient Mesoamerican peoples. Just as it did for the Nephites, “warfare, whether real or imagined, played an important role in shaping values, meanings, and identities in the lives of the Maya, and such cultural notions, in turn, affected how war was fought or avoided.”5

This was precisely Mormon’s intention in capturing the history of Nephite warfare. Much more than simply reporting these wars like a modern journalist–––unbiased, impartial, and striving to remain morally neutral–––Mormon infused (sometimes stereotypical) moral and theological significance into his war narratives.6 Thus Mormon’s lament at the end of his records that his people were slaughtered because of their having “departed from the ways of the Lord” (Mormon 6:17). Or his forceful denunciation of Amalickiah, the Nephites’ chief enemy some centuries before Mormon’s time, as a wicked usurper, conspirator, apostate, and traitor who “by his fraud, gained the hearts of the people” (Alma 47:30).

Mormon’s focus on Nephite troop tactics, weaponry, fortifications, and the like might also easily be explained by the simple fact that Mormon himself was a military leader as much as a historian or prophet. With a professional interest in military matters, it makes sense that Mormon would knowledgeably spend time to describe the finer details of Nephite military history. Especially when these details augmented his narrative, such as when Nephite innovations in armor and fortifications granted them victory over their Lamanite foes (e.g. Alma 44:8–9; 50:10–12).7

The Why

When viewed in an ancient context, it begins to make sense why the Book of Mormon would focus so closely on war. As explained by Welch,

Wars and the politics of war were an integral part of history in the Book of Mormon. . . . Most military events in the Book of Mormon have both religious and political importance. The Nephites did not dichotomize their world between church and state as we do. Ancient peoples generally viewed war as a contest between the gods of one people and the gods of another.8

In addition to providing a glimpse into Nephite and Lamanite political and religious culture, the war chapters in the Book of Mormon can also be seen as evidence for the book’s historicity. “One powerful dimension of historicity of the Book of Mormon is the sheer complexity of the record. The amazing achievement of the Book of Mormon is not the fact that it is a big book containing numerous chapters on warfare, but the stark reality that those chapters are complicated and consistent.” Not only the book’s complexity, but also its realism is evidence in favor of its historicity.9“The human and social events recorded in the Book of Mormon are realistic. They make sense in light of the way people and nations in fact behave.”10

These factors combine to make the war chapters in the Book of Mormon powerful for a number of reasons. They not only provide important information on the history of the Nephites and Lamanites, but also give modern readers to a window into Mormon’s thinking on how and why he presented the history of his people the way he did.

War tactics and atrocities, whether conventional or terrorist, continue to plague the world today. The causes of war and armed conflict, the sources of contention and violence, still preoccupy and perplex the minds and hearts of nations everywhere. While Mormon and his peoples proved unable to stave off the horrors of their own annihilation, their record was written as a witness and a warning to help people today all over the world learn wisdom. Its prophetic teachings—of faith in Christ, sincere repentance, obedience to righteous covenants, generous love for all mankind, and concern for children and future generations—offer messages of hope, peace, and eternal rest in the presence of God. Though ancient, the messages of the Book of Mormon could not be more relevant to the urgent needs of modern world today.

The Know

Around the year 75 BC, warfare between the Nephites and Lamanites began to evolve. Only recently in documented Nephite history, the commander of the army was separate from the highest political official. That commander was a young man named Moroni, who employed innovative strategies of defense in warding off invading Lamanite armies.1 One of those innovations was extensive fortifications throughout the land of Zarahemla (Alma 50:1–6).

While there are some mentions of fortifications previous to this time,2 the nature of Moroni’s forts seems to be different than those of earlier times. Lamanites reacted to them with “uttermost astonishment” because such “never had been known among the children of Lehi” (Alma 49:8). Descriptions of those fortifications indicate the following features:

Earth/dirt was “heaped” up into a “ridge” or wall “round about” the city; sometimes a “breastwork of timbers” was used to reinforce the inside of the earthen wall; in at least one instance, stone was also used to build the wall (Alma 48:8; 49:4, 18; 50:1; 53:3).
Naturally, the displacement of dirt created a “ditch … round about” the outside of the wall or bank (Alma 49:18).
A timber palisade, picket, or parapet on top of the earthen wall (Alma 50:2–3).
Towers above the timber picket, with bastions (“places of security”) atop the towers, from which defenders of the city could safely “cast stones … and slay him who should attempt to approach near the walls” (Alma 50:4–5).3

Fortifications of a similar nature are known among many ancient cultures, including some in pre-Columbian America.4 According to Ross Hassig, “during the Late Formative,” also called the Late Preclassic period, “the general sophistication of warfare in Mesoamerica increased.”5 This naturally “spurred the development of defensive architecture” during this time period.6

A pair of Mesoamerican archaeologists agreed, “Defensive features,” on archaeological sites, “appear to have been more prominent, though far from prevalent, during the Late Preclassic (300 BC to AD 250),” noting, “significant transformations in conducts of war appear to have taken place during the Preclassic period.”7 John L. Sorenson documented a minimum of 56 Late Preclassic fortifications, as opposed to only five from earlier time periods.8

More than just documenting the rise in fortifications, however, Sorenson made note of their features in each period. Features documented at Late Preclassic fortifications include: (1) earthen barriers and occasionally even stone walls; (2) a ditch or moat; (3) wooden palisade; (4) isolated guard posts, and towers from which stones and other projectiles could be launched at invaders.9

For example, the defensive earthworks at Becan (ca. AD 100) involved a ditch with an average width of 16 meters, and earth embankment approximately 11 meters high on average, from the bottom of the ditch. Archaeologists suspect a wooden palisade was built atop the embankment, from which stones and perhaps other projectiles were thrown at enemy attackers.10

The few fortifications which predate the Late Preclassic period do not have all these features, while fortifications from later periods have a variety of additional features.11 Thus, in Mesoamerica, fortifications most consistent with those of Moroni in the mid-first century BC are those which date to that general time period. Similar fortifications are also known in pre-Columbian North America, although currently none in that region are known to date to Book of Mormon times.12

The Why

As the frequency and complexity of war increased, there became a greater need for the Nephites to fortify themselves against Lamanite attacks. Under these circumstances, Moroni did not settle for simple or basic fortifications. As LDS author and educator, John Bytheway, pointed out, “it wasn’t just heaps and timbers, but heaps, timbers, pickets, and towers that created places of security.”13 Comparison with the defensive features in contemporary Mesoamerica suggests that Moroni employed all the available methods of his time to protect and fortify his people.

Today, the temptations of the Adversary grow subtler and more sophisticated. Following Moroni’s example, readers today can and should use all the available means to protect themselves against “the temptations and the fiery darts of the adversary” (1 Nephi 15:24).

Elder M. Russell Ballard taught, “there is not one great and grand thing we can do to arm ourselves spiritually.” Instead, Elder Ballard explained, “True spiritual power lies in numerous smaller acts woven together in a fabric of spiritual fortification that protects and shields from all evil.”14 These include prayer, scripture study, and following the living prophets, who are the current “watchmen” positioned atop the towers.15

Each feature of our spiritual defense is designed to further ground individuals and communities upon the rock of Christ, the only true defense and refuge from evil, suffering, and temptation in this fallen world (cf. Helaman 5:12).

The Know

Soon after Pahoran had been appointed as the chief judge (Alma 50:39–40), the Book of Mormon reports that “there began to be a contention among the people … for behold, there were a part of the people who desired that a few particular points of the law should be altered” (Alma 51:2). These political activists were called king-men because they desired to “overthrow the free government and to establish a king over the land” (v. 5).

When “Pahoran would not alter nor suffer the law to be altered” (Alma 51:3), the king-men “were desirous that Pahoran should be dethroned from the judgment-seat” (v. 5). On the other hand, those who supported Pahoran “took upon them the name of freemen; and thus was the division among them, for the freemen had sworn or covenanted to maintain their rights and the privileges of their religion by a free government” (v. 6).

While modern societies typically view laws as provisional products of human creation, ancient civilizations often saw them as immutable decrees publically promulgated and sent forth by divinely appointed rulers.1 Moses, for example, received the Ten Commandments upon “tables of stone, written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18), which in turn were covenantally accepted by the people.2

That these divinely etched tablets were to be transported and memorialized in a sacred vessel, known as the ark of the covenant, only solidified their physical and symbolic permanence (see Exodus 25:10–16).3 Other ancient societies similarly wrote on non-perishable materials, such as stone or metal, in order to establish the durability of laws, treaties, or decrees.4

John W. Welch explained,

Accordingly, in the ancient world, law was much more than a matter of pragmatic policy or economic regulation. Law was an expression of the divine will, the highest ideals of a civilization, the necessary order of life, and the fundamental substance of justice and reality.5

Understanding that ancient peoples typically held their laws “in the highest esteem possible” may help explain why Pahoran and his freemen were so opposed to the king-men’s effort to alter the law.6

Furthermore, ancient law was typically perceived as a binding component of a covenantal relationship.7 The stated reason for the freemen’s support for retaining their current law was that they had “sworn or covenanted to maintain their rights and the privileges of their religion” (Alma 51:6). This likely refers most directly to their covenant to uphold Moroni’s title of liberty (Alma 46:19–21),8 but it also may reflect an earlier commitment to support the laws and government Mosiah established (Mosiah 29:37–39).9

The Why

Recognizing that legal statutes in the ancient world were often seen as permanent, divinely inspired, and covenant-related can help readers better contextualize the political factionalism found in Alma 51. This dispute was about far more than a suggested alteration of legal minutiae. Rather, the king-men’s radical proposal to reverse King Mosiah’s inspired system of judges would have encroached upon both political and religious fundamental norms and freedoms.

Unfortunately, the modern world faces similar threats to culturally crucial and religiously sacred freedoms. Elder D. Todd Christofferson concluded:

My friends and fellow citizens, we live in challenging times. Religious freedom is indeed under fire. And things may get worse before they get better. But these are our times. This is our moment to defend our fundamental freedoms. With courage, conviction, and civility … each one of us can make a profound difference.10

In their perilous circumstances, and in the context of ancient laws associated with religious covenants, Moroni was granted legal permission from the governor and the voice of the people “to compel those dissenters” to carry out their legal obligation “to defend their country,” (Alma 51:15).11 When those dissenters “did lift up their weapons of war to fight against the men of Moroni” (v. 18), many were killed but the rest were given a choice, either to simply yield “to the standard of liberty” (v. 20) or to be held in long-term prison under threat of death until eventually there would be time for their trials (v. 19).

Thankfully, our modern circumstances—although requiring no less boldness—call for civility and patience rather than force or compulsion, and in most places in the world we have the fortunate luxuries of time and resources to be able to respect human rights and constitutional protections. Thus, all people are encouraged “to teach and defend eternal truth in the way that our Heavenly Father desires, while at the same time exemplifying the respect, compassion, and deep love that Christ exemplified.”12

Modern Latter-day Saints and patriots of other faiths see the established laws, rights, and duties of the United States Constitution, as well as many other similarly modeled constitutions or freedom-enabling governments, as being divinely inspired and consonant with God’s will (see D&C 101:76–80).13 While legal changes can and must occur in all societies, those modifications do not justifiably occur by civil disobedience and political opportunism. Therefore, like the freemen in Pahoran’s day, all people who are so benefited are similarly and naturally obligated to defend their fundamental rights and privileges by following the guidance of patriotic leaders in carrying out the righteous will of the “voice of the people” (Alma 51:7).

The Know1

The rebellion of the king-men diverted the attention of Moroni and the Nephite military, creating an opportunity which Amalickiah used to seize control of some Nephite lands along the eastern seashore (Alma 51:12–28). Amalickiah’s army, however, was met by Teancum and his “great warriors” before they could reach Bountiful (vv. 29–30). Teancum and his army pushed Amalickiah back, forcing him to retreat to the coast, where his armies set up camp for the night (vv. 31–32).

After night fell, Teancum snuck into the Lamanite camp, and “stole privily into the tent of the king, and put a javelin to his heart,” thereby putting Amalickihah to death (Alma 51:34). Mormon dramatically reported that this was the final night of the twenty-fifth year of the reign of the judges (v. 37). The next morning, New Year’s day, the Lamanites awoke to find that “Amalickiah was dead in his own tent; and … Teancum was ready to give them battle on that day” (Alma 52:1). The Lamanites “were affrighted,” retreated into a stronghold they had conquered from the Nephites, and appointed Ammoron, Amalickiah’s brother, as king (vv. 2–3).

The timing of this event was significant. In ancient Israel, where people were obligated to keep close track of the days of the months and years (see Leviticus 23), the New Year was traditionally celebrated as “a day of coronation of divine and earthly kings, a day of victory over chaos, a day of renewal of covenant and the reenactment of the king’s enthronement. … This was the day when the king should have ceremonially conquered death and been reenthroned!”2

Taylor Halverson noted, “In the ancient Near Eastern culture, … New Year’s Day was the time when the king of the land would sally forth to demonstrate his vitality and liveliness to successfully rule as a king for another year.”3 As one can imagine, awaking to find the king dead on such a day could not be a good sign. In fact, it was almost certainly interpreted by the Lamanites as a bad omen.

John L. Sorenson explained that, in Mesoamerica, “Omens were regularly sought and frequently were tied to the events of the last, or first, day [of the year].” As such, “It would be highly characteristic of Mesoamericans to act as the Lamanites did upon the death of Amalickiah. To awaken on the first day of a new year to find their leader dead would have been far more unnerving to their omen-conscious feelings than we moderns may appreciate.”4

Allen J. Christensen documented “that as part of their New Year’s rites, ancient Maya kings engaged in ritual combat with evil lords who resided in the north.” Christensen continued, “Their legitimacy and the continued survival of their kingdoms depended on the successful defeat of these powerful adversaries.” These rites can be “traced continuously in time to at least the Late Preclassic period,” placing it squarely within the time of Teancum and Amalickiah.

It is therefore no accident that the Lamanite king Amalickiah chose New Year’s to engage the Nephites in battle (Alma 51:32–52:1). The Nephite general Teancum took advantage of the situation by slaying Amalickiah on New Year’s Eve, precisely when the underworld lords would have been believed to be their strongest. When the Lamanites awoke the following morning, expecting a divinely sanctioned victory, they found instead their king and protector dead. It is no wonder, then, that they fled in terror.5

The Why

Halverson felt that this story illustrated the importance of minute details. “The seemingly small details in the text of the Book of Mormon matter.”6 The exact date of the event is a seemingly minor point, but Mormon goes out of his way to include it. It must have been important. No better day could have been chosen by Teancum for his slaying to have the maximum amount of negative impact on Lamanite morale.

Given the ancient Old and New World backgrounds, it seems likely that Teancum deliberately chose New Year’s Eve for his nocturnal assassination. Daniel C. Peterson reasoned, “Given the importance of ancient kings for guaranteeing prosperity, good harvests and the proper order of the cosmos, and given their central role in military conflicts … the sudden loss of a king at the beginning of the New Year could be psychologically traumatic and disorienting, if not lethal.”7

Halverson agreed: “A dead king was the sure sign of a disastrous future.”

Hence, no act could be more psychologically demoralizing to an opposing army than to find their king dead on New Year’s Day. Teancum chose New Year’s Eve to assassinate Amalickiah. He sought to win a massive psychological victory against the Lamanites by sending a message of disaster, despair and fear.8

This is one of many examples that illustrate the importance for modern readers to not only pay attention to, but to investigate with heightened interest, the seemingly trivial and yet often unexpectedly significant information in the Book of Mormon text.

The Know

About a year into the great Nephite and Lamanite war, the sons of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, “who had not entered into a covenant that they would not take their weapons of war” instead “entered into a covenant to fight for the liberty of the Nephites” (Alma 53:16–17). Some have wondered just how old these “young men” were. While their fathers were still under oath not to take up arms again, these sons were old enough to fight, but young enough to have not made that oath themselves.

While the exact timing of the covenant is difficult to devise from the Book of Mormon narrative, it seems to be shortly before the Lamanites attacked Ammonihah in the 11th year of the reign of the judges (Alma 16:1–4). This attack was precipitated by the Lamanite frustration from having slaughtered their own brethren among the Anti-Nephi-Lehies (Alma 24–25:2). When the stripling warriors enlisted to aid the Nephite armies, it was the 26th year of the reign of the judges (Alma 56:9). So approximately 15 years had elapsed when the young men took up arms.

In ancient Israel, “twenty appears to have been the age at which Israelite males became obligated to serve in the military” (see, e.g., Numbers 1:3).1 A handful of LDS scholars have thus proposed that the “young men” under Helaman’s command were around 20 years of age.2 This would make them about 5 years old at the time their fathers covenanted to never take up arms again, likely too young to have joined in on their covenant making ceremony.3

While 20 years old may have been the appointed age for military service, John W. Welch hinted, “Some of these volunteers may have been under the legal age for military service and for that reason were not serving in the regular Nephite army.”4 Helaman told Moroni that they were “very young” (Alma 56:46), and called them his “little sons” (vv. 30, 39), descriptions that suggest they were younger than the usual age of a soldier.

When Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, the word stripling (Alma 53:22; 56:57) meant “a youth in the state of adolescence, or just passing from boyhood to manhood; a lad.”5 Given that it was typical for young men to be married and starting a family by 17, this could indicate that some of these warriors may have been very young, perhaps between 12–15 years old.6

The Why

Visualizing an army of adolescents, ranging from early teens, or even preteens, to about 20, adds emphasis to key points in the narrative. It heightens Helaman’s fears “that my little sons should fall into [Lamanite] hands” and his reluctance to send them into battle (Alma 56:39). Hence, they must plead with him, “let us go,” arguing, “God is with us, and he will not suffer that we should fall” (v. 46).

Their notable youth also amplifies the greatness of their courage. In the face of an older, larger, more menacing army of blood-thirsty Lamanites, these striplings “did not fear death” (Alma 56:47). No wonder Helaman remarked, “Never had I seen so great courage, nay, not amongst all the Nephites” (v. 45).

It also magnifies the miracle. After the battle, Helaman understandably feared “lest there were many of them slain” (Alma 56:55). Upon learning that all of them had survived, he marveled, “They had fought as if with the strength of God; yea, never were men known to have fought with such miraculous strength; and with such mighty power” (v. 56). Realizing that it was an army of teenagers which fought with such incredible strength can give readers today a greater sense of God’s miraculous power.

For Mormon, this story must have been especially inspiring. Being only 15 when he was appointed as commander-in-chief of the whole Nephite army (Mormon 1:15; 2:2), he would have been intrigued to learn about a whole army of youths who had fought at an earlier time in Nephite history. Learning about how their firm faith and exacting obedience to the gospel teachings of their mothers served to strengthen them in battle would have been stirring for the young commander. It possibly led him to reflect on his own experience and see how the Lord had guided and preserved him in battle from an early age.

Today, the story continues to inspire readers of all ages, but especially youths and young adults, who face an increasingly menacing world.7 Like the stripling warriors, through faith, courage, and obedience, youth today can overcome today’s challenges “with the strength of God” (Alma 56:56).

The Know

The Nephite defector Amalickiah is infamous for his treachery, fraud, and deceit. A descendant of Zoram (Alma 49:25; 54:23), Amalickiah “used flattery and played on the ambitions of others to obtain a substantial following” before eventually assassinating the Lamanite king and launching war on the Nephites (Alma 46–50).1 Amalickiah met his end when the Nephite warrior Teancum snuck into his camp and “put a javelin to his heart” while he slept (Alma 51:34).2

Amalickiah’s legacy did not die with him, however. Amalickiah’s brother Ammoron succeeded him as king of the Lamanites and did not hesitate in continuing his fallen brother’s warfare against the Nephites (Alma 52). Like his brother, Ammoron had no love for his former brethren, and demanded no less than total surrender or annihilation. “We will wage a war which shall be eternal, either to the subjecting the Nephites to our authority or to their eternal extinction,” boasted Ammoron (Alma 54:20).

Ammoron’s hatred for the Nephites also ran on a deeply personal level. In a heated letter to Moroni, the new Lamanite king vowed,

“I am Ammoron, the king of the Lamanites; I am the brother of Amalickiah whom ye have murdered. Behold, I will avenge his blood upon you, yea, and I will come upon you with my armies for I fear not your threatenings” (Alma 54:16).

Ironically, Amalickiah had sworn that he would drink the blood of Moroni (Alma 49:27; 51:9), but now it was Amalickiah’s blood that needed to be avenged.

Besides feeling personally obligated to avenge the blood of his brother, Ammoron went back to the origins of tribal conflict in the earliest days of the Nephite–Lamanite split. “For behold, your fathers did wrong their brethren, insomuch that they did rob them of their right to the government when it rightly belonged unto them” (Alma 54:17). “I am a bold Lamanite,” declared Ammoron, a former Zoramite, thus making it clear he had switched sides, adopting a new political and cultural identity (v. 54).

The dynamics fueling Ammoron’s worldview and objectives are complex. At a most basic level, this is a rather obvious example of tribalism and ethnic tension. While political aspirations were undoubtedly tied up in Ammoron’s declaration, it is important to note that he appealed to a deeply rooted tribal or clan rivalry as the motivation for his political goals. In perpetuating this tribal antagonism, Ammoron promoted an ideology fundamentally at odds with the egalitarian and anti-tribal ideals of Nephite prophets (cf. 2 Nephi 26:33; Mosiah 4:19; 4 Nephi 1:2, 17).3

An additional motivating factor for Ammoron may be related to the Hebrew judicial concept of “blood vengeance.” In a world with no real equivalent to modern law enforcement, “one of the most important clan duties” in many ancient cultures was “for the nearest of kin to hunt down and carry out the death-penalty on a person that had slain a member of the sept or family.”4 Ancient Hebrew law allowed for this, granting the legal right and duty for a kinsman to avenge the blood of a murdered family or clan member (Exodus 21:12–14; Numbers 35:16–28; Deuteronomy 19:4–13).5

This avenger of blood is called a goel in biblical Hebrew. Conventionally translated as “redeemer,”6 one of the responsibilities of being an avenging kinsman (a goel) was to bring about justice, rectifying the intentional and hateful murder of a near family member by killing the murderer or a substitute.7 At the same time, one suspected of wrongful homicide had the right to flee to a city of refuge, where a disinterested body of elders and Levites would hear the case (Numbers 35:9–24; Deuteronomy 4:41–44).

Extending this legal procedure into the theological realm, Jehovah was, naturally, considered the divine goel (redeemer, avenger) of Israel as a whole (Exodus 6:6; 15:13; Psalm 74:2; 94). He was expected to avenge Israel’s blood shed by her physical and spiritual enemies and also to redeem Israel or buy her back from bondage, slavery, or debt servitude.

The language in Alma 54 surely suggests that Ammoron was familiar with this underlying institution of blood redemption. He saw himself as acting in a redemptive capacity. His threat to Moroni that he would specifically “avenge [his brother Amalickiah’s] blood upon you” invokes and captures the thrust of the blood vengeance mechanism stemming from the earliest days of ancient Israelite history.

Recalling that both Amalickiah and Ammoron were former Nephites, it makes sense that Ammoron would invoke the concept of Hebraic blood vengeance in his threat against Moroni. Moreover, since the Zoramites rejected the law of Moses (Alma 31:9), it is not surprising that Ammoron failed to extend to Moroni the protections of refuge and a trial that the law of Moses would have guaranteed to him.

The Why

In a straightforward reaction, Ammoron threatened to hold Moroni personally accountable for the death of his brother, Amalickiah. Teancum was one of Moroni’s warriors, and although he apparently acted on his own initiative, Ammoron would have naturally invoked his traditional rights and duties to avenge the death of his brother. He tried to do this by putting Moroni on notice that he was a hunted man.

Yet Ammoron himself acted rashly in making this threat. His motives were not based in measured legal steps. Why, for example, did he not seek the blood of the slayer, Teancum, who was still alive? The answer to this question probably lies in Ammoron’s desire to escalate the situation, using the death of King Amalickiah as justifying a call for the death of a higher ranking Nephite, like Moroni. This, however, was not a call for legal justice. Ammoron, assuming unto himself the role of divine avenger, would hardly have allowed Moroni to flee to an altar of refuge for protection and justice.8

Ammoron’s reaction typifies one more way in which the war chapters in the book of Alma are composed as a portrait of stark opposites. The righteous heroes Moroni and Helaman stand in contrast with the villains Amalickiah and Ammoron. Where Moroni was honorable, just, and righteous (Alma 48:17–18), Amalickiah was power-hungry, treasonous, and deceitful (Alma 46:4–5; 47:30, 35). Where Moroni treated his enemies nobly (Alma 44:1–7), Ammoron treated his enemies spitefully, and in this case vindictively (Alma 54:16–24). This point was included by Mormon in his final record in order to paint for modern readers a clear picture of what good and bad leaders look like.

By studying Ammoron’s personality, including his literal thirst for blood and vengeance, readers of the Book of Mormon are also warned to avoid allowing past grievances and old wounds to consume one with hatred and malice. Had Ammoron sought the true Redeemer’s way of reconciliation instead of raw vengeance, it’s very likely that thousands of lives, including his own (Alma 62:35–36), would have been spared from years of bloody and senseless conflict.

The Know

After retaking the city of Mulek and fortifying Bountiful (Alma 53:2–3), Moroni received a written message from Ammoron, who desired to exchange prisoners (Alma 54:1). Moroni accepted Ammoron’s offer on the condition that he would “deliver up a man and his wife and his children, for one prisoner” (v. 11).

Yet when Ammoron gladly agreed to these terms (Alma 54:20), Moroni declared, “Behold, I will not exchange prisoners with Ammoron save he will withdraw his purpose, as I have stated in my epistle” (Alma 55:2). This turnabout may be somewhat perplexing for many readers. Why would Moroni set forth the terms for a prisoner exchange and then change his mind once Ammoron accepted his offer?

Among several other literary genres,1 Mormon’s abridgment of Nephite history includes a handful of official communications, such as the above exchange between Moroni and Ammoron.2 Such epistles offer a unique view of characters’ personalities and motivations because we get it firsthand from the authors themselves, rather than as editorialized, secondhand abridgments.3

Concerning the stark differences in character and personality between Moroni and Ammoron, Richard Dilworth Rust explained,

In cosmic terms, these letters between Moroni and Ammoron have to do less with exchange of prisoners than with the irreconcilable conflict between the powers of God and Satan, with Moroni appearing as the Christian champion. … For his part, Ammoron, a Zoramite who has rejected his faith and turned into a Lamanite, epitomizes the apostate who repeatedly leads attacks on the Nephites.4

More than simply setting the terms for an exchange of prisoners, Moroni’s epistle was mainly focused on proclaiming the justness of the Nephite cause and warning Ammoron against continuing to pursue the conflict. “The first half of Moroni’s letter builds on a rhetorical formula repeated four times: ‘except ye repent and withdraw’ (Alma 54:6, 7) or ‘except ye withdraw’ (Alma 54:9, 10) your armies and your murderous intentions, God’s wrath and death will come upon you.”5

When considered in this light, it becomes clear that Moroni’s terms for the prisoner exchange were accompanied by an ultimatum to cease the war. Ammoron’s reply not only revealed his “perfect knowledge of his fraud” (Alma 55:1), but that he would gladly exchange prisoners so that, as he stated, “I may preserve my food for my men, and we will wage a war which shall be eternal” (Alma 54:20). In other words, Ammoron outright dismissed Moroni’s warnings and showed that the prisoner exchange would only facilitate further warfare.

The Why

A careful reading of Moroni’s epistle can help demonstrate that, rather than going back on his word, Moroni was likely justified in withdrawing his offer. Ammoron had utterly refused the most essential part of the bargain—to cease the war—and Moroni was certainly not going to “grant unto him that he shall have any more power than what he hath got” (Alma 55:2).

Because the text demonstrates Moroni’s anger and frustration in response to Ammoron’s actions (Alma 54:13; 55:1), some may read into this scenario that Moroni was simply a hotheaded and unwise negotiator. Yet Mormon, who likely had more access to material about Moroni than appears in the text,6 consistently saw Moroni’s choices and character in a favorable light.7 Moreover, the narrative itself demonstrates that Moroni’s choice to forego a prisoner exchange turned to the Nephites’ favor, for they were able to not only rescue the captives, but also boldly arm even the women and children, results that Moroni had openly announced and predicted in his letter (Alma 55:12, 17).8

Whether or not Moroni’s anger was a form of righteous indignation,9 these epistles demonstrate that he was able to channel his passion toward defending and protecting his people as God had entrusted him to do. Likewise, modern prophets and apostles, with their admitted personal flaws or weaknesses, have been called by God to accomplish His own purposes. Elder David A. Bednar taught,

I am blessed to observe on a daily basis the individual personalities, capacities, and noble characters of these leaders. Some people find the human shortcomings of the Brethren troubling and faith diminishing. For me those imperfections are encouraging and faith promoting.10

Mormon’s assessment of Moroni’s character can be a guiding star in helping readers assess his true worth and character.11 Concerning his righteousness, Mormon declared, “Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men” (Alma 48:17).

The Know

The Book of Mormon’s rich accounts of warfare in the first century BC contain some of the most exciting and interesting material in the thousand-year narrative. The stories are replete with battlefield strategies, various military maneuvers, topographical awareness, innovative fortifications and weaponry, concerns over provisions, military intelligence, and even covert, late-night operations.

These narratives have captured the imagination of Latter-day Saints of all ages, from young boys in primary to popular fiction writers. Perhaps less recognized, these chapters have also caught the attention of those some with both academic and professional military expertise.1

Before Hugh Nibley was the popular BYU professor and scholar, he was a soldier in World War II.2 After experiencing the horrors of war, he strenuously avoided the war chapters in the Book of Mormon.3 When he finally turned his critical-eye toward the military accounts, he quickly saw,

It is real war that we see here, a tedious, sordid, plodding, joyless routine of see-saw successes and losses—brutally expensive, destructive, exhausting, and boring, with constant marches and countermarches that end sometimes in fiasco and sometimes in intensely unpleasant engagements.

Nibley felt this kind of war could only be described by someone who experienced it.

The author writes as one would write—as only one could write—who had gone through a long war as a front-line observer with his eyes wide open. Everything is strictly authentic, with the proper emphasis in the proper place. Strategy and tactics are treated with the knowledge of an expert … it is all there.4

Several years later, former U.S. Army reserve officer John E. Kammeyer concluded, “the Book of Mormon does indeed depict warfare on three levels: it is realistic war, it is realistic Iron Age warfare, and it is realistic Mesoamerican warfare.”5 Consistent with these conclusions, William J. Hamblin, a military historian, also concluded “the Book of Mormon [warfare] uniquely reflects its dual heritage of the ancient Near East and Mesoamerica.”6

Morgan Deane, who is a PhD candidate in military history, also served in the Marine Corps. Bringing his unique set of expertise, Deane remarked, “Leaders in The Book of Mormon responded in realistic and organized fashion.”7

David E. Spencer, who has a unique background that combines U.S. Army experience with an academic and professional expertise in defense studies, concluded, after careful study of the maneuvers in Alma 56, that: “These seemingly sudden, illogical actions … speak volumes about the authenticity of the text and the military expertise of the author, as when all of the clues provided in the text are examined in depth, the logic becomes apparent.”8

The Why

Many aspects of military theory are universal across time and space. Nonetheless, proper understanding and expertise in the strategy and tactics of war requires years of study, extensive training, and real-life experience. Joseph Smith lacked that kind of background,9 yet several modern readers with just such qualifications have found that the Book of Mormon accounts of wartime strategy are strikingly realistic.

According to Spencer—who has been involved in creating battle scenarios for training purposes—this kind of accuracy was beyond the ability of Joseph Smith to fabricate.10

This is the sort of unconscious consistency in war accounts that would be almost impossible for someone writing a made-up story—as Joseph Smith has been accused of—to get right. And yet the Book of Mormon gets them right repeatedly.11

The realism of the Book of Mormon’s crucial accounts about warfare carries with it many equally authentic lessons that are critical for our day.12 The horrors of inhumane militarism carries with it a stark warning for modern societies. No one knew this better than Mormon, the Nephite prophet, historian, and commander-in-chief. Kammeyer rightly concluded that if Mormon’s record presents real, authentic accounts of devastating wars and rightly attributes them to wickedness, then “we have to take seriously the book’s assertion that survival of a society depends on obedience to God."13

The Know

Helaman's stripling warriors are looked to by Latter-day Saints, especially Latter-day Saint youth, as examples of great faith and courage.1 Their exploits are chronicled in Alma chapters 53 and 56 through 58. The stripling warriors were described as “young men . . . exceedingly valiant for courage, and also for strength and activity.”2 More than adept warriors, however, the sons of Helaman were “men of truth and soberness, for they had been taught to keep the commandments of God and to walk uprightly before him” (Alma 53:20–21).

During one skirmish with the Lamanites, the stripling warriors stood out among their Nephite comrades for their unflinching bravery and obedience at a crucial moment. Just as Ammoron’s forces “were about to overpower us,” Helaman reported, “behold, my little band of two thousand and sixty fought most desperately; yea, they were firm before the Lamanites, and did administer death unto all those who opposed them” (Alma 57:18–19). Just “as the remainder of [Helaman’s] army were about to give way before the Lamanites, behold, those two thousand and sixty were firm and undaunted” (v. 20).

Helaman directly attributed the last-minute Nephite victory to the faithfulness of his stripling warriors: “Yea, and they did obey and observe to perform every word of command with exactness; yea, and even according to their faith it was done unto them” (Alma 57:21). This dedication and diligence saved the Nephites from “critical circumstances” (v. 16) that otherwise might very well have doomed the Nephite war effort.

The language in Alma 57 to describe the sons of Helaman hearkens back to the language of another ancient military campaign: that of the Israelite conquest of Canaan as recorded in the book of Joshua. As the children of Israel were preparing for war with Canaanite enemies, the Lord commanded them through the prophet-general Joshua, “Be strong and of a good courage . . . that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest” (Joshua 1:6–7).

This command to the Israelites was repeated throughout the campaign in Canaan (cf. Joshua 10:25; 23:6). It was conjoined with a promise that if the children of Israel were strictly faithful and obedient to all the Lord’s commandments, he would lead them, fight for them, deliver them from their enemies, and prosper them in the land of promise (Joshua 1:8, 23). The book of Joshua retells several instances where the Israelites were routed because of their disobedience to the Lord (e.g. Joshua 7). The clear intention of these accounts was to show the dangers of rebellion, disobedience, and apostasy, especially during precarious times when exacting obedience to God was necessary for collective success and national salvation.

The Why

On a strictly pragmatic level, the success or failure of a military campaign largely depends on the effectiveness of the combat force. Victory is dependent on troops that are disciplined, loyal, obedient, and quick to execute their commanders’ orders. Helaman’s stripling warriors more than proved their combat effectiveness in their quick, decisive, and unflinching bravery and loyalty in the face of opposition.

On a spiritual level, this portrayal of the sons of Helaman may serve to reinforce an important doctrine in the Book of Mormon; namely, “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 9:13). Much more than merely to acquire wealth, to “prosper” in a scriptural sense is to fulfill righteous desires or promises and, ultimately, to find safety in the Lord’s presence.3 This was true also for the ancient Israelites, who were promised both temporal and spiritual blessings in the land of promise should they “prosper” by keeping the Lord’s commandments.

Likening the tenacity of the stripling warriors to modern followers of Christ, Elder David F. Evans of the Seventy remarked, “In life, it is when the rains descend and the floods come and the winds blow and beat upon us and on our house that we determine whether our faith is strong and whether we put our trust in God continually.”4 Like the ancient Nephites and Israelites, modern believers can find strength in following their Lord’s commandments, especially in times of adversity.

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. Innovative Defensive Measures

2. Seeking and Following the Prophet

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 Know1

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