The Book of Mormon's mysterious Amalekites

[Vort]

An apostate Nephite splinter group called the Amalekites make their appearance in the Book of Mormon narrative, but only in the middle of the book of Alma. Mormon is exceedingly careful to introduce new people and groups before telling about them, but he appears to have missed introducing the Amalekites. A description of their original leader (presumably someone named Amalek or Amaleki) and why he rebelled from the rest of the Nephites are items left to our imagination, because Mormon never breathes a word of it. Instead, we just suddenly have the Amalekites being talked about. Did Mormon forget that he never told us who they were? Did he tell us in a part of the abridgment that he later redacted? No way to know.

The first mention of Amalekites occurs in Alma 21, where they are mentioned in conjunction with the Lamanites and the very evil Amulonites. Remember, the Amulonites were the corrupt priests of wicked king Noah and were led by Amulon. They kidnapped and raped/forcibly married the daughters of the Lamanites, then used their connection to the kidnapped Lamanite girls to schmooze their way into the Lamanites' good graces. They busied themselves in persecuting and torturing the righteous Nephite branch, the descendants of those who had migrated south into their original lands and who had later followed the prophet Alma into the wilderness. So later on, a generation or more after these southern Nephites had all returned to Zarahemla, we find the Amalekites mentioned in the same breath as the despicable Amulonites and living in the same area with them.

But the Amalekites were not the same as the Amulonites, even if they were more or less as wicked, and Mormon is careful to distinguish between them, by name at least. For one thing, the Amalekites had kept their ideas of worship, building synagogues among the Lamanites (e.g. Alma 21:4); in contrast, the Amulonites, though previously priests to the king, were apparently atheistic, or at least areligious. Remember that when the "old king", Lamoni's father, was taught by Aaron and his brothers, he mentioned that the Amalekites believed in God and built sanctuaries to worship him in (Alma 22:7).

It also appears -- or at least I infer -- that the Amalekites originated among the northern group of Nephites at Zarahemla, while the Amulonites were of course from the southern group that had left Zarahemla many generations before under Zeniff. Both groups were heavily involved in the Nehor movement, which seems strange, since Nehor was from Zarahemla, and appeared after the return of the southern Nephites (under king Limhi and the prophet Alma) from the original lands of Nephi. How would the Amulonites, who never "returned" to the land of Zarahemla at all, have known about or followed Nehor? Clearly, they were taught Nehor's philosophies by someone else. The Lamanites were never after the order of Nehor, at least not at this time. So the most likely possibility seems to me as follows: The original leader Amalek/Amaleki was a Nehorite (if I can coin the term), and broke off or was chased off from the Nephites along with his followers to go live among the Lamanites. These Amalekites later met up with the Amulonites, found they had a lot in common both in social customs and in philosophical underpinnings, and recruited the Amulonites into the Nehorite order.

It was among these Nehor-loving Amalekites that Ammon's brothers and fellow missionaries first went to preach among the Lamanites. Aaron and company were, of course, treated badly and eventually imprisoned before being rescued by Ammon and his new convert, king Lamoni. Among all of the Amalekites and Amulonites, the Book of Mormon tells us that only one lone person -- an Amalekite -- was converted (Alma 23:14), and this despite many thousands of Lamanites converting. These wicked Amalekites participated in the original slaughter of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, as so tragically but inspirationally recorded in Alma 24; and though over one thousand Lamanites repented of their murders and joined the Anti-Nephi-Lehies at that incident, not a single Amalekite (or Amulonite) did. Later, after being beaten in their battles against the Nephites, these Amalekites were specifically named as deciding to take their frustrations out on the Anti-Nephi-Lehies again. This set off the chain of events that resulted in the graphic, brutal but magnificent "war chapters" of the book of Alma.

The last we hear of the Amalekites is in Alma 43, where it is mentioned that they were appointed to be the chief captains among the Lamanite armies by Zerahemna because of their "wicked and murderous disposition". By the end of the chapter, the great Moroni has routed the Lamanite armies and mostly destroyed their leaders. We never hear of the Amalekites again.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Vort

[Guest]

I had never noticed the difference in spelling before.  Thanks.  Amalickiah.  Amalekites.

The only Amaleki mentioned in the Book of Mormon was the brother of the first Ammon who found and liberated the people of Limhi.  Could it be that he was the father of the Amalekites?  It was one generation later that they were found to be building temples among the Lamanites.

OR

Could it be that they were actually the same Amalekites of the Old Testament who happened to cross the seas just as the Mulekites and Lehites did?

[Fether]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

we just suddenly have the Amalekites being talked about. Did Mormon forget that he never told us who they were? Did he tell us in a part of the abridgment that he later redacted? No way to know.

...We never hear of the Amalekites again.

 

[Vort]

Other than the name and temporal proximity, there is no good evidence that the Amaleki associated with Ammon was the founder or ancestor of the Amalekites. I suppose that Mormon would have given some explanation, if that were the case. (Which I realize is weak sauce, since all we have is inference anyway.) I would guess that "Amaleki" was the name of more than one man among the Nephites, and that it was another who founded the people called after his name -- though of course my guess is worth exactly what you paid for it.

The Biblical Amalekites were from well before Lehi left Jerusalem, and IMO have nothing to do with this Book of Mormon people.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Vort said:

Other than the name and temporal proximity, there is no good evidence that the Amaleki associated with Ammon was the founder or ancestor of the Amalekites. I suppose that Mormon would have given some explanation, if that were the case. (Which I realize is weak sauce, since all we have is inference anyway.) I would guess that "Amaleki" was the name of more than one man among the Nephites, and that it was another who founded the people called after his name -- though of course my guess is worth exactly what you paid for it.

The Biblical Amalekites were from well before Lehi left Jerusalem, and IMO have nothing to do with this Book of Mormon people.

You're probably right. They were Arabs (children of Esau).  So, they would not be of the House of Israel.  So, what faith did the Arabs practice back then?

[Midwest LDS]

I was always impressed with the lone Amalekite in Alma 23:14. We know nothing about him beyond his conversion and the negative character of his people, but I love that Mormon mentions him because it teaches two important lessons too me.

1. It doesn't matter how horrendous the culture of your people, country, family is, if you exercise faith in our Savior Jesus Christ and strive to follow his commandments you can be saved.

2. Don't apostasize! Thousands of wicked Lamanites converted due to the preaching of the Sons of Mosiah, but only one Amalekite would repent. It illustrates with numbers the hardness of heart that occurs when you reject the greater light. It's not that the great majority of Amalekites couldn't repent, as evidenced by the one who did, it's that they didn't want too.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Vort said:

An apostate Nephite splinter group called the Amalekites...

I was thinking the same thing, and in my current reading of the Book of Mormon, I took note of the Amlicites in Alma 2, thinking to trace it through the rest of the book (I'm now in Alma 19). I recall an article I read long ago that the Amlicites  could be same as the Amalekites, a spelling / pronounciation / transcription difference that was not picked up in the manuscript except in a margin note... unless that is what @Carborendum is referrinf to... keep digging!

[mordorbund]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

I was thinking the same thing, and in my current reading of the Book of Mormon, I took note of the Amlicites in Alma 2, thinking to trace it through the rest of the book (I'm now in Alma 19). I recall an article I read long ago that the Amlicites  could be same as the Amalekites, a spelling / pronounciation / transcription difference that was not picked up in the manuscript except in a margin note... unless that is what @Carborendum is referrinf to... keep digging!

This is Royal Skousen's opinion on the subject, that the Amlicites are the Amelekites (as cited here, and here). I don't think they are the same, since the syllable count is consistently off. For additional support for keeping them distinct, and wild guesswork on why we don't have the Amelkite origin story, see here.

Quote

Why is it that we have to piece together an origin story of the Amalekites rather than reading it explicitly in the text? It is quite unusual for Mormon to leave out the origins of a named people. If the scenario above is true, the Amalekites originated in the time before our current Book of Mosiah begins. That means Mormon did not leave this out of his record. The most likely scenario is that he included it in what came to be known as “the lost 116 pages.” In other words, it is likely we don’t know of their origins today because their origin story was in the chapter(s) lost from the Book of Mosiah.

Another plausible explanation for the origins of the Amalekites (but one I consider secondary) lies in Mosiah chapters 26–27. Starting in Mosiah 26:1–7, there was a very large group of people who dissented from the church. They disputed points of doctrine and “were a separate people as to their faith” (Mosiah 26:4). We know about the Amalekite faith; they did not believe in Jesus Christ and did not believe that anyone could know of things to come (Alma 21:5–10). These dissenters’ names were “blotted out” by Alma the Elder as he “did regulate all the affairs of the church” (Mosiah 26:36–37). It could be that this group became the Amalekites. Mosiah gave a strict command that there should be no persecution, and later the people “began to scatter abroad upon the face of the earth, yea, on the north and on the south” (Mosiah 27:3, 6). It is possible that these dissenters left, to the south, at this time when there were many groups leaving Zarahemla.

...

Why, then, would this potential origin for the Amalekites be left out of our Book of Mormon? Perhaps their origin story was never recorded in the large Plates of Nephi, so Mormon simply did not know what it was. Their dissention took place while Alma the Elder was the record keeper. Writing from Zarahemla, he knew there were colonies of people leaving the capitol and settling in other places, but he would not have known that one of them settled back with the Amulonites and called themselves Amalekites. Who might have known where the Amalekites came from? It is likely that Aaron might have been able to find this out. King Lamoni’s father should also have known where they came from, as he was king over all the land and “granted unto them that they should build sanctuaries” (Alma 22:7). Unfortunately, the individuals who may have known the Amalekites’ origins never passed on that information to Alma the Younger, who engraved the Large Plates. Thirty years or more may have passed from the time of their founding to the time that Alma the Younger was writing about them. Thus, if the recorders of the Large Plates were unaware, themselves, of the Amalekite origins, then Mormon had no way to include it in his compilation of the records.

 

[CV75]

19 hours ago, mordorbund said:

This is Royal Skousen's opinion on the subject, that the Amlicites are the Amelekites (as cited here, and here). I don't think they are the same, since the syllable count is consistently off. For additional support for keeping them distinct, and wild guesswork on why we don't have the Amelkite origin story, see here.

Thank you for both references!

[Guest]

On 9/2/2017 at 10:37 PM, mordorbund said:

I don't think they are the same, since the syllable count is consistently off.

While I'm not on either side of the idea of whether they are the same or not, the syllable count is not a valid argument.  Phonetically, the "m" followed by the "L" could very well have been spoken as a separate syllable.  Their language was at least related to Hebrew.  Consonants are their primary pronunciation.  The vowels are sort of inserted at will.

I can say that in Korean, we will insert extra vowels into cognates within such consonant linkages for it to be pronounceable by a Korean tongue.  See my example of "ice cream".  Notice the extra syllable between the "c" and the "r" in "cream".

So, take the Nephite language (where the Amlicites dissented from) and have that name pronounced by the Lamanites (who are the first people to mention the name of Amalekites) could have changed due to different accents or entire language differences between them.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Guest

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

While I'm not on either side of the idea of whether they are the same or not, the syllable count is not a valid argument.  Phonetically, the "m" followed by the "L" could very well have been spoken as a separate syllable.  Their language was at least related to Hebrew.  Consonants are their primary pronunciation.  The vowels are sort of inserted at will.

I can say that in Korean, we will insert extra vowels into cognates within such consonant linkages for it to be pronounceable by a Korean tongue.  See my example of "ice cream".  Notice the extra syllable between the "c" and the "r" in "cream".

So, take the Nephite language (where the Amlicites dissented from) and have that name pronounced by the Lamanites (who are the first people to mention the name of Amalekites) could have changed due to different accents or entire language differences between them.

The syllable count reflects what Joseph pronounced during translation. I think it's a valid counter-argument given the argument for merging the two peoples is largely based on the translation manuscripts. If the manuscripts also show variations of Abinidi as Abnidi or Abindi, then we can safely ignore the syllables, but I don't think that's the case.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

The syllable count reflects what Joseph pronounced during translation. I think it's a valid counter-argument given the argument for merging the two peoples is largely based on the translation manuscripts. If the manuscripts also show variations of Abinidi as Abnidi or Abindi, then we can safely ignore the syllables, but I don't think that's the case.

Not quite.  I'm not talking about the translation through Joseph.  I was referring to the translation/adjustment in pronunciation that had to occur when Nephites (Amlicites) went to go live with the Lamanites.

When Ammon, Aaron and others went to go convert the Lamanites, the Amalekites had already been among the Lamanites for a generation.  That is enough to make a person's pronunciation change.  In addition, these missionaries listened to the Lamanites speaking of them.  So, they heard the Lamanite pronunciation of the name.

That is the change I'm talking about.

This change would have been carried over as Ammon told the story to Alma II.  And Alma would have written it as he heard it from Ammon.

How do you pronounce "Celtic"?  Do the Bostonians pronounce it the same?  And if you'd never heard the name before, how would you write it as it was spoken to you?

Edited September 6, 2017 by Guest

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

How do you pronounce "Celtic"?  Do the Bostonians pronounce it the same?  And if you'd never heard the name before, how would you write it as it was spoken to you?

 

Bostonians are poor examples for spoken and written English.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Bostonians are poor examples for spoken and written English.  

Actually, they are pronouncing it correctly... in English .  It's only the Celtic barbarism requires the Keltic pronunciation. 

BSF, I think you unwittingly made my point for me.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Guest

[mordorbund]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Not quite.  I'm not talking about the translation through Joseph.  I was referring to the translation/adjustment in pronunciation that had to occur when Nephites (Amlicites) went to go live with the Lamanites.

When Ammon, Aaron and others went to go convert the Lamanites, the Amalekites had already been among the Lamanites for a generation.  That is enough to make a person's pronunciation change.  In addition, these missionaries listened to the Lamanites speaking of them.  So, they heard the Lamanite pronunciation of the name.

That is the change I'm talking about.

This change would have been carried over as Ammon told the story to Alma II.  And Alma would have written it as he heard it from Ammon.

How do you pronounce "Celtic"?  Do the Bostonians pronounce it the same?  And if you'd never heard the name before, how would you write it as it was spoken to you?

So you're argument is that the Book of Mormon text correctly has 2 different spellings/pronunciations for the same group? That's certainly plausible (it deviates from the Skousen argument that these should be the same name, but I'm fine with that). I still don't think that flies in this case because both the Amlicites and the Amalekites come into contact with the Nephites through battle (and the correspondence that accompanies it). If the Amalekites referred to themselves as Amlicites, or if the Nephite xenonym for them was Amlicites, I would imagine 'Amlicite' would be used to describe the opposing side. The Amalekites are grouped with the Lamanites and other apostates, so it is again plausible that the Lamanites took the lead in identifying the opposing parties (using their xenonym), but the Nephites also fight the Amalekites in isolation (so the Nephite Amlicite should have been used there), and the events are getting recorded in a Nephite history (so the Nephite Amlicite should be used, just as the Nephite Amulonite is used).

If these are the same peoples but with a xenonym and autonym, then we are back at the original problem - Neither Alma nor Mormon see fit to bridge this for us.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

So you're argument is that the Book of Mormon text correctly has 2 different spellings/pronunciations for the same group? That's certainly plausible (it deviates from the Skousen argument that these should be the same name, but I'm fine with that). I still don't think that flies in this case because both the Amlicites and the Amalekites come into contact with the Nephites through battle (and the correspondence that accompanies it). If the Amalekites referred to themselves as Amlicites, or if the Nephite xenonym for them was Amlicites, I would imagine 'Amlicite' would be used to describe the opposing side. The Amalekites are grouped with the Lamanites and other apostates, so it is again plausible that the Lamanites took the lead in identifying the opposing parties (using their xenonym), but the Nephites also fight the Amalekites in isolation (so the Nephite Amlicite should have been used there), and the events are getting recorded in a Nephite history (so the Nephite Amlicite should be used, just as the Nephite Amulonite is used).

If these are the same peoples but with a xenonym and autonym, then we are back at the original problem - Neither Alma nor Mormon see fit to bridge this for us.

The correspondence argument is a good counter to the belief that they are the same people.  However, the thrust of my last point was to counter Skousen's argument about the missing "e".

Edited September 6, 2017 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

The syllable count reflects what Joseph pronounced during translation. I think it's a valid counter-argument given the argument for merging the two peoples is largely based on the translation manuscripts. If the manuscripts also show variations of Abinidi as Abnidi or Abindi, then we can safely ignore the syllables, but I don't think that's the case.

It's not just what Joseph pronounced; it's what his various scribes (who may have each had their own preferred accents/pronunciations/spellings) *thought* he pronounced.  I haven't really looked into this--can we confirm that the same scribe wrote both "amalekites" and "amlicites"?

[mordorbund]

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/days-never-be-forgotten-oliver-cowdery/3-oliver-cowdery-book-mormon-scribe

Quote

The first part of the text (1 Nephi and the beginning of 2 Nephi) is mostly extant. These portions were apparently written down at the Whitmer home near the end of the translation (in June 1829). Inaddition to Oliver Cowdery, there are two unidentified scribes (probably Whitmers) for this part of the text covering the small plates of Nephi, with Oliver (designated as scribe 1 of O) responsible for almost half of the extant portions for the first 48 pages of manuscript:

The larger portion of O that is extant covers most of the text from Alma 22 through Helaman 3, although no leaf there is fully extant. All of this section is in Oliver Cowdery’s hand except for twenty-eight words in Joseph Smith’s hand (in Alma 45:22). There are also a large number of smaller fragments covering various other parts of the text, including significant portions from 2 Nephi 4 through Enos 1, Alma 10–13, Helaman 13 through 3 Nephi 4, and Ether 3–15. All of these other fragments are in Oliver’s hand.

It looks like Oliver Cowdery was scribe for both, though not certain since O's Amlicite chapter didn't survive.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It's not just what Joseph pronounced; it's what his various scribes (who may have each had their own preferred accents/pronunciations/spellings) *thought* he pronounced.  I haven't really looked into this--can we confirm that the same scribe wrote both "amalekites" and "amlicites"?

I understood that Joseph spelled out each proper noun.  He even corrected one misspelling of a proper noun in Oliver's manuscript.

[mordorbund]

28 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I understood that Joseph spelled out each proper noun.  He even corrected one misspelling of a proper noun in Oliver's manuscript.

Right, but if Martin had written 'Amlicite' and had that corrected, and then Oliver comes along, I don't think his 'Amalekite' would have been corrected since it was already done with Harris. The chance to catch it would be with the printer's manuscript, but it looks like Alma 2 had a different copyist than later Alma chapters, so it would have slipped through.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Right, but if Martin had written 'Amlicite' and had that corrected, and then Oliver comes along, I don't think his 'Amalekite' would have been corrected since it was already done with Harris. The chance to catch it would be with the printer's manuscript, but it looks like Alma 2 had a different copyist than later Alma chapters, so it would have slipped through.

Was Harris allowed to scribe for Joseph after the 116 pages were lost?  I thought he was kinda disqualified for that role after that fiasco.  My understanding was that "save a few pages" that Emma wrote, Oliver wrote the whole thing.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Guest

[mordorbund]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Was Harris allowed to scribe for Joseph after the 116 pages were lost?  I thought he was kinda disqualified for that role after that fiasco.  My understanding was that "save a few pages" that Emma wrote, Oliver wrote the whole thing.

Such is my understanding as well, but it looks like there's evidence that 2 Whitmers also scribd. Rather than guess and assume, I looked it up. And I think that's what @Just_A_Guy was recommending as well.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Such is my understanding as well, but it looks like there's evidence that 2 Whitmers also scribd. Rather than guess and assume, I looked it up. And I think that's what @Just_A_Guy was recommending as well.

Where?

Here's what I got from LDS.org

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2012/09/the-book-of-mormon-from-plates-to-press?lang=eng

Quote

• Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, and Emma Smith served as Joseph’s scribes during the translation of the Book of Mormon (see Church History in the Fulness of Times, 47, 52, 56, 58, and 82).

While it does mention Martin Harris, this particular paragraph doesn't clearly distinguish the translation of the current BoM and the 116 pages.

Earlier in the same section:

Quote

• Joseph first began translating the plates in 1827, when he was 21. The majority of the Book of Mormon (531 pages in English) was translated with Oliver Cowdery as scribe in about 65 working days between April and June 1829. (See Church History in the Fulness of Times, 46–62.)

This clearly included the 116 pages.  And "The Majority" was translated in the 65 days that Oliver was involved.  He himself is oft quoted about writing "the entire Book of Mormon, save a few pages, as it fell from the lips of the prophet."

The EoM states "virtually all" of the BoM was translated with Oliver as scribe.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Guest

[mordorbund]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

33 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Such is my understanding as well, but it looks like there's evidence that 2 Whitmers also scribd. Rather than guess and assume, I looked it up. And I think that's what @Just_A_Guy was recommending as well.

Where?

Where @Just_A_Guy recommended looking it up:

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It's not just what Joseph pronounced; it's what his various scribes (who may have each had their own preferred accents/pronunciations/spellings) *thought* he pronounced.  I haven't really looked into this--can we confirm that the same scribe wrote both "amalekites" and "amlicites"?

Where there's evidence of Whitmer participation: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/days-never-be-forgotten-oliver-cowdery/3-oliver-cowdery-book-mormon-scribe

Quote

In addition to Oliver Cowdery, there are two unidentified scribes (probably Whitmers) for this part of the text covering the small plates of Nephi, with Oliver (designated as scribe 1 of O) responsible for almost half of the extant portions for the first 48 pages of manuscript:

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Where @Just_A_Guy recommended looking it up:

Where there's evidence of Whitmer participation: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/days-never-be-forgotten-oliver-cowdery/3-oliver-cowdery-book-mormon-scribe

 

Ok.  First, I was only asking about what you looked up.  I had already seen JAG's post. 

Second, I had Martin Harris in my mind when I read "Whitmers".  Sorry.  I can totally believe Whitmers were involved.  Harris, less so.

I have now read the link.  The author(s) of that article show no logic, source material, or evidence of their guesses.  While I can see the Whitmers as a good guess since they were in their home, he later guesses that Harris was part of the process, but with no logic behind it.  How did he come to guess that?

So, we've gone from us guessing on this forum to reading other people's guesswork.  Is that an improvement?

Edited September 6, 2017 by Guest