BOM questions?

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I'm guessing I've probably read the Book of Mormon from start to finish at least 50 times, in addition to thousands of individual subject and word searches. I love the book.

All that reading over the years has generated a number of questions in my mind, and no doubt many of you have stumbled upon verses or stories that make you wonder also. 

I thought it might be interesting to start a thread where those questions are shared and discussed.

 

For instance: Where did Mormon get the details of Abinadi’s message to King Noah and his priests after Alma was chased off? He certainly didn't get them from Alma's writings because Alma wasn't there to witness any of it. 

Was there another one of Noah's priests that (much like Alma) repented after Abinadi's death and subsequently recorded his words?

Did Mormon just receive them via revelation?

Any ideas?

 

[cdowis]

Where did Alma get the priesthood to baptize?

 

How did the Nephites carry out the law of Moses when there were no Levites among them?

 

Which BOM prophet was a polygamist?  (the text makes it very clear)

 

How do we reconcile the BOM dating of Lehi leaving Jerusalem with the secular (Biblical) dating?

[Vort]

Great thread.

 

For instance: Where did Mormon get the details of Abinadi’s message to King Noah and his priests after Alma was chased off? He certainly didn't get them from Alma's writings because Alma wasn't there to witness any of it.

Was there another one of Noah's priests that (much like Alma) repented after Abinadi's death and subsequently recorded his words?

Did Mormon just receive them via revelation?

Any ideas?

 

Minutes of trials have been kept for a long time, not just in modern times. I suspect Abinadi's trial may have been open. In any case, it would have included non-judges in the form of servants, guards, etc. But these are not very satisfying explanations, because it's a pretty detailed history.

 

Where did Alma get the priesthood to baptize?

 

He got it from king Noah, who got it from his father, who got it from king Benjamin.

 

How did the Nephites carry out the law of Moses when there were no Levites among them?

 

The Nephites had the higher Priesthood, so they did not need the Levitical Priesthood to perform Priesthood rites.

 

Which BOM prophet was a polygamist?  (the text makes it very clear)

 

So this is a trivia question and not an actual question.

 

I disbelieve there is any Book of Mormon prophet whom the text makes "very clear" was a polygamist.

 

How do we reconcile the BOM dating of Lehi leaving Jerusalem with the secular (Biblical) dating?

 

I know of no such reconciliation that needs to be made. Perhaps you can be more specific about what you see as problematic.

[Just_A_Guy]

 Where did Mormon get the details of Abinadi’s message to King Noah and his priests after Alma was chased off? He certainly didn't get them from Alma's writings because Alma wasn't there to witness any of it. 

Was there another one of Noah's priests that (much like Alma) repented after Abinadi's death and subsequently recorded his words?

Did Mormon just receive them via revelation?

Any ideas?

 

I rather suspect the Nephites had excellent memories (by modern standards), honed by a strong tradition of oral history.  We know that Gideon was with Noah until the end of Noah's life, and we know he was later affiliated with the church (presumably in Zarahemla).  I think that, at some point during that time, he went ahead and wrote down his recollection of Abinadi's ministry and death.  That would also explain why Mormon thought Gideon's later murder by Nehor was worth including in his own account. 

 

Which BOM prophet was a polygamist?  (the text makes it very clear)

 

Amulek was a great missionary, to be sure; but I'm not sure I'd call him a "prophet" in the classical sense.  And though I'm inclined to read his reference to "women" as you do, it's also possible that he meant to include women who were under his care but to whom he did not consider himself married--an aged mother or unmarried sisters, perhaps.

 

He got it from king Noah, who got it from his father, who got it from king Benjamin.

 

Zeniff and his people returned to the land of Nephi during the reign of Benjamin's father, Mosiah the First.  That (to me) is one of the great ironies of the tale of the People of Zeniff/Noah/Limhi--that while they were squabbling amongst themselves down in the land of Nephi, they completely missed out on the righteousness and unity that Benjamin's reign brought about up in Zarahemla.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

If he's talking about Amulek, then I do not read it as you and he do, but as you mentioned otherwise. To my ear, "women" refers to women of his household, meaning his wife, adult unmarried daughters, unmarried sisters, and any other female dependents. And I also agree that Amulek was not a "prophet" in the traditional sense of the word.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Vort

[Anddenex]

"My children" would refer to unmarried daughters.  My "women", I am also inclined to understand this as multiple wives; however, as he was a rich man it could mean servants or as Vort specifies "other female dependents."  Amulek mentioned his father, and I would find it awkward that he would refer to his mother as one of his "women" noting he mentions children and father in the same sentence.

[Anddenex]

Also, Alma may have been chased off but he was not away from the city.  He continued to preach, after Abinadi's death, and gained a significant following that the King and guards even took notice. Surely, one of these individuals witnessed, or was informed, by whom then informed Alma.  I would not be surprised if it was not Gideon.

 

Limhi, also probably new of his father's sentencing of Abinadi, and death, who then could have relayed this event within records by which Moses read.  

[kapikui]

Keep in mind that by his own admission, prior to his conversion Abinidai wasn't exactly keeping to the commandments all that well.  He could have easily had more than one wife.  After his conversion he would need to do something, and simply turning out other wives after such a conversion would not exactly be a good thing either. Since the law of Moses does in fact allow for polygamy it could have easily been handled as a one off situation.  "You can't have any more wives, but you don't have to divorce the ones you married in ignorance or misunderstanding of the law."

[Anddenex]

Hehe, I typed "Moses" that was supposed to say "Mormon" -- doh!

[Capitalist_Oinker]

The thread isn't for trivia questions or doctrinal issues, but rather just questions of little importance that make you go, "Hmmmm?" 

 

As to my question, some of your answers were interesting. Thanks.

 

Here's another one.

We know that because of the "difficulty of engraving [their] words upon plates" (Jacob 4:1), the Nephites wrote only what they determined to be important. In light of this, I've always wondered why Mormon included the names of four men (Zeram, Amnor, Manti, and Limher) who went out to watch the camp of the Amlicites. (Alma 2:22). There doesn't appear to be any reason why their names would be important; the story doesn't require it, and they are never mentioned in the narrative again. Mormon could have saved himself the trouble of engraving  an entire paragraph and nothing important (apparently) would have been lost.

 

Any thoughts?

[Average Joe]

 

The thread isn't for trivia questions or doctrinal issues, but rather just questions of little importance that make you go, "Hmmmm?" 

 

As to my question, some of your answers were interesting. Thanks.

 

Here's another one.

We know that because of the "difficulty of engraving [their] words upon plates" (Jacob 4:1), the Nephites wrote only what they determined to be important. In light of this, I've always wondered why Mormon included the names of four men (Zeram, Amnor, Manti, and Limher) who went out to watch the camp of the Amlicites. (Alma 2:22). There doesn't appear to be any reason why their names would be important; the story doesn't require it, and they are never mentioned in the narrative again. Mormon could have saved himself the trouble of engraving  an entire paragraph and nothing important (apparently) would have been lost.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

Sometimes its the number of names which has meaning and not the names themselves as in Mosiah 18:30 -

 

And now it came to pass that all this was done in Mormon, yea, by the waters of Mormon, in the forest that was near the waters of Mormon; yea, the place of Mormon, the waters of Mormon, the forest of Mormon..."

 

Names or rather the repetition of names is a device that is sometimes employed in the Book of Mormon as a place holder of numeric value for a deeper truth that underlies the narrative which is not revealed by casual or literal reading, like your "why the names of four men (Zeram, Amnor, Manti, and Limher)" reading. It may well have to do with something related to the number "4"  :)

Edited September 19, 2015 by Average Joe

[Traveler]

 

The thread isn't for trivia questions or doctrinal issues, but rather just questions of little importance that make you go, "Hmmmm?" 

 

As to my question, some of your answers were interesting. Thanks.

 

Here's another one.

We know that because of the "difficulty of engraving [their] words upon plates" (Jacob 4:1), the Nephites wrote only what they determined to be important. In light of this, I've always wondered why Mormon included the names of four men (Zeram, Amnor, Manti, and Limher) who went out to watch the camp of the Amlicites. (Alma 2:22). There doesn't appear to be any reason why their names would be important; the story doesn't require it, and they are never mentioned in the narrative again. Mormon could have saved himself the trouble of engraving  an entire paragraph and nothing important (apparently) would have been lost.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

There is another reason - once something was engraved on the plates or even just started - it was not worth the effort to erase it.  Even if just one name was engraved - you would have to include the others to make sense - trying to say woops - did not need to include that name; just would not be worth the effort so what had been started had to be finished.  Kind of like writing in ink in our society - rather than scribble over a mistake you might as well just finish writing it.  And such mistakes would be very easy to make if one was coping another record.

 

I am inclined to think that this is evidence that Joseph did not make it up.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Traveler

[cdowis]

 

Minutes of trials have been kept for a long time, not just in modern times. I suspect Abinadi's trial may have been open. In any case, it would have included non-judges in the form of servants, guards, etc. But these are not very satisfying explanations, because it's a pretty detailed history.

 

There were many witnesses to Abinidai's preaching.  The record tells us that Alma had many converts, of which many who personally witnessed what Abinidai said.

 

 

He got it from king Noah, who got it from his father, who got it from king Benjamin.

 

I considered this as the most likely answer, but I find it difficult to accept that King Noah would have the keys to pass on the priesthood.  So he was likely to have been a priest under King Noah's father.

 

 

The Nephites had the higher Priesthood, so they did not need the Levitical Priesthood to perform Priesthood rites.

 

While this is indeed correct, my gut tells me that we are missing something here.

 

I know of no such reconciliation that needs to be made. Perhaps you can be more specific about what you see as problematic.

 

There is a problem reconciling the 600 BCE date that Lehi left Jerusalem, and the date of King Zedekiah's reign.  

Zedekiah's reign began in 597BCE, rather than 600 BCE

 

 

Edited September 20, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

 I've always wondered why Mormon included the names of four men (Zeram, Amnor, Manti, and Limher) who went out to watch the camp of the Amlicites. (Alma 2:22). 

 

 

He was giving an exact quote from the record that he was copying. 

[cdowis]

Note on Amulek and polygamy==

Alma 10 [11]... he hath blessed me, and my women, and my children, and my father and my kinsfolk;

 

1. The word translated as "woman" is often interchangeable with "wife" in many languages.

2. My children, my father, my kinsfolk, and my "women".

3. While possible that it refers servants, they would all be female.  I don't think he's talking about servants.

4.  I am assuming that women refers to wives, since everyone else is mentioned except his spouse.

 

For me it is a clear reference to wives, but obviously others disagree with me. 

Edited September 20, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest]

His mother isn't mentioned, either.

[askandanswer]

 

The thread isn't for trivia questions or doctrinal issues, but rather just questions of little importance that make you go, "Hmmmm?" 

 

As to my question, some of your answers were interesting. Thanks.

 

Here's another one.

We know that because of the "difficulty of engraving [their] words upon plates" (Jacob 4:1), the Nephites wrote only what they determined to be important. In light of this, I've always wondered why Mormon included the names of four men (Zeram, Amnor, Manti, and Limher) who went out to watch the camp of the Amlicites. (Alma 2:22). There doesn't appear to be any reason why their names would be important; the story doesn't require it, and they are never mentioned in the narrative again. Mormon could have saved himself the trouble of engraving  an entire paragraph and nothing important (apparently) would have been lost.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

Lehi gave commandment that the authors of the plates do not occupy them with things which are of no worth and either he or Nephi specified that the plates were written for future generations. However, these directives were given more than 400 years before the events referred to in Alma 2:22. Perhaps later plate writers did not follow this direction as strictly as Lehi/Nephi intended. Perhaps there may have been some reason that was important at the time that Alma 2:22 was first engraved to include these four names, but which reason is now lost in the 2100 years that have passed since then. In the medieval records of England, it was often the case to record the names of knights who did important things, and there are accounts in the Old Testament that listed the names and deeds of David's mightiest men, for example 1 Chronicles 12.

[Vort]

 

 

He got it from king Noah, who got it from his father, who got it from king Benjamin.

 

I considered this as the most likely answer, but I find it difficult to accept that King Noah would have the keys to pass on the priesthood.  So he was likely to have been a priest under King Noah's father.

 

Why is it difficult to believe that Noah would have received the keys from his father? That's the most natural thing in the world -- the king assigns one of his sons to be the new king, then ordains him and gives him all the keys of leadership. That Noah proved unworthy of those keys doesn't imply or even suggest that he never received them, or that he was not authorized to use them in calling his own priests.

 

 

 

The Nephites had the higher Priesthood, so they did not need the Levitical Priesthood to perform Priesthood rites.

 

While this is indeed correct, my gut tells me that we are missing something here.

 

Yes, I agree. I think we're missing a lot of detail, and that our understanding of many specifics is pretty tenuous.

 

 

I know of no such reconciliation that needs to be made. Perhaps you can be more specific about what you see as problematic.

 

There is a problem reconciling the 600 BCE date that Lehi left Jerusalem, and the date of King Zedekiah's reign.  

Zedekiah's reign began in 597BCE, rather than 600 BCE

 

I don't perceive this as any sort of problem. When was Christ born? AD 1? Who knows? The Book of Mormon's careful chronology puts Lehi's departure from Jerusalem at apparently exactly 600 years before Jesus' birth. At that time, Zedekiah was king. So for example, if Jesus was actually born in AD 4 (by our Gregorian calendar), that would put Lehi's departure at 596 BCE.

 

 

Note on Amulek and polygamy==

Alma 10 [11]... he hath blessed me, and my women, and my children, and my father and my kinsfolk;

 

1. The word translated as "woman" is often interchangeable with "wife" in many languages.

2. My children, my father, my kinsfolk, and my "women".

3. While possible that it refers servants, they would all be female.  I don't think he's talking about servants.

4.  I am assuming that women refers to wives, since everyone else is mentioned except his spouse.

 

For me it is a clear reference to wives, but obviously others disagree with me. 

 

By logic and tradition, who would have been a part of Amulek's household? Assuming he was the oldest (or oldest surviving) son, that would include:

• Father, if invalid
• Mother, if widowed (it appears that she may have been dead)
• Unmarried or widowed sisters
• Wife
• Children not yet of age or unable to care for themselves (retarded, handicapped)
• Unmarried adult daughters
• Personal servants

By this reckoning, "my women" would refer to any adult women under his care, not only wife/wives but mother (possibly deceased, since she is not mentioned with his father), unmarried sisters, unmarried adult daughters, and perhaps even female personal servants.

 

You may, of course, read polygamy into the verse -- but you would indeed be reading it in. There is no obvious implication of polygamy in the wording, and the verse can be perfectly well explained without resorting to polygamy. Since Jacob had taught very clearly against polygamy among the Nephites and we can expect the Nephites to have had those teachings, it seems to me highly unlikely that an even moderately observant Nephite (and we must assume Amulek to have been at least moderately observant) would have engaged in the practice.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

This is relatively insignificant, but still a question that I had about my scripture reading today.  When Lehi and his family left Jerusalem, Lehi named a river after Laman.  I've read that many times but never really thought about it.  Why did Lehi name the river?  Didn't it already have a name?  And they were only passing through so what would it matter anyway.  Perhaps he did it for some symbolic reason, or a teaching moment? 

[Average Joe]

There is another reason - once something was engraved on the plates or even just started - it was not worth the effort to erase it.  Even if just one name was engraved - you would have to include the others to make sense - trying to say woops - did not need to include that name; just would not be worth the effort so what had been started had to be finished.  Kind of like writing in ink in our society - rather than scribble over a mistake you might as well just finish writing it.  And such mistakes would be very easy to make if one was coping another record.

 

I am inclined to think that this is evidence that Joseph did not make it up.

 

This isn't written in error. There is evidence to suggest that BoM prophets recorded their experiences and only later in life had them engraved on the plates. The things they engraved and Mormon abridged were not done in error.

 

As for my assertion that the names were not included by mistake, there are numbers and phrases included in the narrative to form a pattern. All things are first spiritual, and underlying this seemingly historical narrative is a spiritual pattern. Now I said the names in Alma 2:23 "Now those whom he had sent out to watch the camp of the Amlicites were called Zeram, and Amnor, and Manti, and Limher[.]" represented  4. So what comes before the number four? In Alma 2:20 we read:

 

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

 

So we have the valley 3 times. You have to admit that it would have been much simpler to write: "And it came to pass that when Alma could pursue the Amlicites no longer he caused that his people should pitch their tents in the valley of Gideon." if all Alma intended to convey was where they camped, however he is conveying more than this.

 

Again, names as numeric place holders and certain phrases are used here to convey a deeper spiritual pattern on which historic narrative is written. 

Edited September 21, 2015 by Average Joe

[Average Joe]

This is relatively insignificant, but still a question that I had about my scripture reading today.  When Lehi and his family left Jerusalem, Lehi named a river after Laman.  I've read that many times but never really thought about it.  Why did Lehi name the river?  Didn't it already have a name?  And they were only passing through so what would it matter anyway.  Perhaps he did it for some symbolic reason, or a teaching moment? 

 

It was definitely a teaching moment. 

 

It was also symbolic. In 1 Ne. 2: 8-10 we read: 

 

And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof. And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!  And he also spake unto Lemuel: O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!

 

Now if the names have meaning, what does this say? If Laman is "shining, glimmering" and Lemuel is "devoted to God" we read: 

 

And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Shining, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof. And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Shining, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!  And he also spake unto devoted to God: O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!

 

A Shining [pure] river [course of life] continually running into [approaching] the fountain [source]  of all righteousness [God].

 

The devoted to God [disciples] firm and steadfast [like a valley = their course is carved in stone], and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!

 

These are a couple of my thoughts on your question. And also, this narrative is part of a larger narrative written upon an underlying spiritual pattern. Hope this helps :)

Edited September 20, 2015 by Average Joe

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

It was definitely a teaching moment. 

 

It was also symbolic. 

 

These are a couple of my thoughts on your question. And also, this narrative is part of a larger narrative written upon an underlying spiritual pattern. Hope this helps :)

 

Yes, that was very helpful.  Thanks!

[Average Joe]

Yes, that was very helpful.  Thanks!

 

Sssshhh! Don't tell anyone I was trying to be helpful...well, I guess it doesn't matter, they won't believe it anyway!   

[cdowis]

 

 

 

That Noah proved unworthy of those keys doesn't imply or even suggest that he never received them, or that he was not authorized to use them in calling his own priests.

 

King Noah was unworthy to exercise any authority that he had received from his father.  Perhaps you are suggesting that worthiness is not a requirement to exercise those keys? Another instance where we will agree to disagree.

 

I don't perceive this as any sort of problem. When was Christ born? AD 1? Who knows? The Book of Mormon's careful chronology puts Lehi's departure from Jerusalem at apparently exactly 600 years before Jesus' birth.

 

 “The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April.” [D&C 20:1]

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2015 by cdowis

[Vort]

 

That Noah proved unworthy of those keys doesn't imply or even suggest that he never received them, or that he was not authorized to use them in calling his own priests.

 

King Noah was unworthy to exercise any authority that he had received from his father.  Perhaps you are suggesting that worthiness is not a requirement to exercise those keys? Another instance where we will agree to disagree.

 

Noah was not "unworthy" at the moment he was appointed by his father. His dismissal of his father's priests and ordaining his own also did not in itself make him "unworthy"; that was his right. His wicked actions after that point made him unworthy, but that did not undo the reality of the Priesthood authority he had received and exercised.

 

You appear to be confusing Priesthood authority with Priesthood power. Noah did not have the latter, and probably never did, but he surely did have the former (at least at the beginning of his reign).

 

 

I don't perceive this as any sort of problem. When was Christ born? AD 1? Who knows? The Book of Mormon's careful chronology puts Lehi's departure from Jerusalem at apparently exactly 600 years before Jesus' birth.

 

 “The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April.” [D&C 20:1]

 

This formalistic opening, which was not part of the revelation and in fact was not even written by Joseph Smith, has nothing to do with the actual chronology of Christ's birth.