Book of Mormon Reading Group: 09 Oct - 15 Oct 2023 (Words of Mormon 1 - Mosiah 13)

[zil2]

Mosiah 5

v2: Faith and conversion should come with a change of heart (even if it's small).

v4: And joy.

v5: And commitment.

v7: To my memory, we don't really talk explicitly about this idea of becoming "the children of Christ" in the Church (though I think it's increasing).  We are the spirit children of God the Father, and I can't remember hearing much about being the spiritually begotten children of Christ through our covenants.  This now seems odd to me (that I haven't heard it much) because it's scattered all through the scriptures...  (We talk about all the related things, like what's in verse 8, but not this, not explicitly.)

v7-10: I cannot help but think of the recent thread about whether faith in Christ is important.  Here is further evidence of just how important it is, including knowing the name and making covenants.

v12: Another verse that could be tied to the Sacrament prayers - always remember him.

v13: How and why our actions matter - they are a way to get to know Christ (or not).

v15: "that you may be brought to heaven" - just like the light, we have to be brought - we don't do it ourselves.

Mosiah 6

v2: Not one.  This had to have been a happy place to live, for a while, at least.

v7: Would that our political leaders today gave a thought to whether they themselves were burdensome to the rest of us.

Mosiah 7

Ah.  This is the first Ammon.  Not Ammon the son of Mosiah II¹, but some other Ammon.  This Ammon is going to go in search of the people mentioned at the end of Omni (verses 27-30).

¹ (the guy who became king in the previous chapter - son of Benjamin who was son of Mosiah I who was also mentioned in Omni as leading the people to Zarahemla)

v2: Alien concept to me that they needed permission.  Why not just go?  Perhaps they wanted the king to fund the expedition...

v7: (This sequence of events is very similar to a story yet to come, with another Ammon - the son of Mosiah II, but on a mission to the Lamanites.  It's easy to get the two confused.  Hopefully knowing there are two such stories will help you keep them straight.  You might even want to make a chart or something to note the people and place names, cuz they're really similar - two Ammons, King Limhi in the city of Lehi-Nephi in this story, King Lamoni in the other story and a people who don't want to be Lamanites anymore so they call themselves "Anti-Nephi-Lehies" ("anti-" does not appear to have the same meaning for them as for us), similar story lines - it's enough to make alphabet soup in your brain.)

This made me think that one of the timeline graphics we're used to in the Church would be helpful for you, @Jamie123.  I couldn't find the one I was looking for, but this article in the Liahona magazine has some images (which scale better if you download the PDF of the issue and scroll to page 19 where the article starts).  And here's part 2 of the article in another issue with the rest of the Book of Mormon (and the PDF is here - article starts on page 24).  They may or may not help, depending on how you like to see information...

v19+: Remember the things God has done for his children, and take hope from those memories.

v21: Don't become so obsessed with something that you behave like an idiot to get it and thereby get cheated or tricked into slavery, or some similar unpleasant outcome.

v15, v22-23: a 50% tax rate is "grievous to be borne".  Referred to as bondage.

v25: Once again, internal contention leads to greater problems.

v26-28: It only took the duration of 2 kings before the people had forgotten or abandoned the gospel truths they knew.

v33: Turn to the Lord with full purpose of heart!  (Sounds much better than a whirlwind of poisonous chaff bringing immediate destruction...  It is interesting to note that would could argue these people were still alive, therefore not destroyed, but the instant we willfully turn from God, our spiritual connection to him is destroyed, and remains that way unless and until we choose to repent.  And that's a worse destruction than physical destruction.)

[Jamie123]

On 10/11/2023 at 6:55 PM, zil2 said:

I'm wondering, @Jamie123, if other Christians believe that God knew from the beginning that Christ would come.  And if he did, why would he not reveal the fact to prophets?

I'm not a theologian but i think consensus is that he did know - that the Fall was a necessary part of the overall plan. I don't think anyone could deny that that it was God's intention at the time of Abraham's calling, because of the repeated phrase "through you all nations shall be blessed". The Old Testament prophets are always alluding to the coming Messiah. For example Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 - sometimes called "the heart of the Bible".

Edited October 12, 2023 by Jamie123

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, zil2 said:

v15, v22-23: a 50% tax rate is "grievous to be borne".  Referred to as bondage.

Of interest and a little off topic, top tax rate in the US for Federal Taxes is 37%.

California has a Tax rate of 13.30% for it's top tax rate.

That right there is 50.30% tax!

Add in sales tax at 7.25% and you are talking far over that 50% tax rate.

Does this mean we are in bondage??

 

Note:  This doesn't even include other "taxes" such as property tax or social security, etc.

Edited October 12, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

4 hours ago, zil2 said:

v15, v22-23: a 50% tax rate is "grievous to be borne".  Referred to as bondage.

Not that I disagree—because I think I don't—but paying half of your income each year as taxes in a modern, rich western society is a very great deal different from having soldiers show up at your door, swords in hand, to require you to give half of everything you own. Not just what you've produced in the last year, but all you have. I think the two probably aren't really comparable.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Does this mean we are in bondage??

You get to decide whether you're in bondage.

56 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not that I disagree—because I think I don't—but paying half of your income each year as taxes in a modern, rich western society is a very great deal different from having soldiers show up at your door, swords in hand, to require you to give half of everything you own. Not just what you've produced in the last year, but all you have. I think the two probably aren't really comparable.

Agreed.  (I find it interesting the ways taxes and government are addressed in the BofM.  I believe we'll get to another point where 1/5th is described as excessive - or something like that.  And, of course, we see what wicked kings do with their taxes, but we never hear anything of taxes in societies led by righteous kings.  It changes a bit with the judges...  Anywho, I find it interesting.)

[pam]

 So I've known that the Book of Mormon was written in Reformed Egyptian but what I didn't know is something that Hugh Nibley (LDS Author and Apologist) said:  

"'We now realize that the ancient Jews could write quickly and boldly (in Hebrew), in an artistic flowing hand, with the loving penmanship of those who enjoy writing.' And the Nephites got rid of this to learn in its place the most awkward, difficult, and impractical system of writing ever devised by man! Why all the trouble? Simply to save space. What space? Space on valuable plates. When did the custom begin? With Lehi. Where and when did he learn 'the language of the Egyptians'? In Palestine, of course, before he ever thought of himself as a record-keeper. Did the wealthy Lehi learn Egyptian characters so that he could sit in his house in the land of Jerusalem and by writing Hebrew with demotic (a form of Egyptian writing which differed from classical Egyptian hieroglyphics; it was used for recording deeds, books, etc.) symbols save a few cents a month on writing materials? And did he command his sons to learn Egyptian so they could save space when they kept records? Of course not: when they learned the language, neither Lehi nor his sons had any idea that some day it would be useful to keepers of records on metal plates. They had no other reason for learning Egyptian characters than to read and write Egyptian. It was only later when historians became cramped for space that they saw the advantage of continuing to write in Egyptian. And the Egyptian characters can only have been preserved for their use because the language was also preserved..."

"The fact remains that the abridging and editing of the Book of Mormon was in a language known to no other people on earth but the Nephites." (Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert and The World of the Jaredites , pp. 16-17)

In conclusion, what was the language used by the writers of the Book of Mormon?  The short answer, "reformed Egyptian," is probably more helpful and accurate than the long answer discussed above.

[pam]

In Mosiah 1:3 it mentions the "mysteries of God."  Just what are those mysteries that King Benjamin is referring to?

"The term mysteries of God as used in the Book of Mormon denotes the saving principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They are termed mysteries because they are unavailable to the natural man, not because they are mysterious or difficult to understand. They must be revealed from God through faith and obedience. They are designed to lead God's children to eternal life."

[pam]

Could you imagine having to make a written copy of King Benjamin's speech for every single person there?  Not like in our day today with video/audio recording devices and all of the technology we have.  

[zil2]

39 minutes ago, pam said:

Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert and The World of the Jaredites , pp. 16-17)

I've read this book, but apparently forgot this part. 

[pam]

So I do have a question that might be silly but it just hit me as I was reading in Mosiah 2.  (Yes I'm behind).  

I was always under the impression that all people in the land were invited to come hear King Benjamin speak.  Yet in this chapter, King Benjamin uses the term "brethren" a lot.  So were only men there?  Or was he speaking more to the heads of households so that they could teach their families?  

[Carborendum]

46 minutes ago, pam said:

I was always under the impression that all people in the land were invited to come hear King Benjamin speak. 

They were all invited. See v. 5

46 minutes ago, pam said:

Yet in this chapter, King Benjamin uses the term "brethren" a lot.  So were only men there?  Or was he speaking more to the heads of households so that they could teach their families?  

The feeling I get is that he was going back and forth.  Some things he was addressing directly to the heads of households (fathers) and at other times he was using it as a generic word for everyone he considered his kin.

For example, in Spanish one can say hermanos y hermanas (brothers and sisters).  Or one can say hermanos (brothers, which can imply brothers and sister / siblings).  It is the linguistic quirk that if there is one male in the group to whom you are referring, the grammatical masculine is used to refer to the group. 

In French you'd say ils.  Only when it is 100% female would you refer to them as a plural female group (elles).

I don't know what the Nephite linguistic quirks were like.  So, I can't say that is what it was.  But based on the going back and forth as I interpret from the text, I'm guessing it was something similar.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Carborendum

[zil2]

38 minutes ago, pam said:

So I do have a question that might be silly but it just hit me as I was reading in Mosiah 2.  (Yes I'm behind).  

I was always under the impression that all people in the land were invited to come hear King Benjamin speak.  Yet in this chapter, King Benjamin uses the term "brethren" a lot.  So were only men there?  Or was he speaking more to the heads of households so that they could teach their families?  

This is just typical period-speak.  But entire families were present - see verse 5:

Quote

5 And it came to pass that when they came up to the temple, they pitched their tents round about, every man according to his family, consisting of his wife, and his sons, and his daughters, and their sons, and their daughters, from the eldest down to the youngest, every family being separate one from another.

Without that last phrase, there could be doubt, but that last phrase makes it clear to me that the families were present, not just the men at the head of each family.

But in verse 40:

Quote

40 O, all ye old men, and also ye young men, and you little children...

...I wonder if there was a cultural prohibition of some sort against a man talking to women outside his own family, or something like that.

(Klaw is now biting my hand.  I take this to mean, "Stop typing, Meowmy!")

Mosiah 5:7 shows that women were present:

Quote

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

 

[Jamie123]

50 minutes ago, pam said:

Yet in this chapter, King Benjamin uses the term "brethren" a lot.  So were only men there? 

It's uncommon nowadays, but traditionally when the plural masculine is used, the inclusion of the feminine is implied. In my church we used to say "for us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven". Nowadays we just say "for us and for our salvation" but it was always understood that it was for women too.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Jamie123

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, pam said:

So I do have a question that might be silly but it just hit me as I was reading in Mosiah 2.  (Yes I'm behind).  

I was always under the impression that all people in the land were invited to come hear King Benjamin speak.  Yet in this chapter, King Benjamin uses the term "brethren" a lot.  So were only men there?  Or was he speaking more to the heads of households so that they could teach their families?  

I'm guessing it's one or both of two  possibilities:

1. As you suggest, he was instructing the heads of households what they should teach their households, with the wives and possibly children listening in on information that applied directly to them. We get this kind of instruction ourselves in General Conference from time to time, when e.g. bishops or other leaders are told how to deal with certain situations (such as temple recommend interview questions), with us the people who will be the recipients of this service listening in.

2. The term "brethren" as used by king Mosiah may have been a more general term that applied more widely than the English plural "brothers". This kind of unintended specificity seems to happen a lot when going between languages. 

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

In French you'd say ils.  Only when it is 100% female would you refer to them as a plural female group (elles).

I remember this very thing when I was learning French at school. In my textbook there was a man and a woman watching something (I can't remember what), and in French this was ils regardent. The male pronoun takes precedence. It's a man's world (though admittedly it wouldn't be nothing...nothing...without a woman or a girl).

This was years ago. I wonder if nowadays there's a gender-non-specific collective pronoun (if that's the correct description).  

[zil2]

Mosiah 8

v1: "...and only a few of them have I written in this book..." - this is commentary from Mormon as he abridges.  You'll encounter this a fair amount from here on.  (And later from Moroni in the parts he added.)

v2: Either it was a short summary, or people had longer attention spans before electronics.  (I suspect the latter.  Plus, the alternative was hard labor... )

v5: The idea of record-keeping as deeply instilled into the Nephites.

v8: They found evidence of the Jaredite people (we'll read about them in the book of Ether - second to last book in the BofM).

v9: Moroni abridges a portion of these plates to write the book of Ether.

v13: This has always interested me: "...and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish."  Whether that's punishment from God or simply a natural consequence of learning things you're not ready for or something else, it's an interesting idea.

Mosiah 9

Now we go back two generations to learn how Limhi's people came to be where they were.

v1: "land of our father's first inheritance" - it seems like they're really going back to the land Mosiah 1 led them from, which isn't where Lehi and his family arrived - Nephi fled from that place and Laman and Lemuel stayed there. Perhaps the place to which Nephi fled is the place they think of as their first inheritance.  Or maybe I'm wrong and they're looking for that first "landing spot".  (v13 names the king "Laman", suggesting he's king of all the Lamanites, so did the king move into conquered Nephite land, or was he back where they first started...?)

v1: Even the people trying to destroy you might not be all bad.  Be sufficiently humble and compassionate to recognize that.

v2: Internal conflict again.

v3: Be quick to remember God.  Better yet, "always remember him"...

v11: The Lamanite king waited 12 years - even the wicked were more patient back in the day!

v17: When going into battle (regardless of the type of battle), go in the strength of the Lord (or don't go).  And "cry mightily to the Lord".

[Carborendum]

25 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I remember this very thing when I was learning French at school. In my textbook there was a man and a woman watching something (I can't remember what), and in French this was ils regardent. The male pronoun takes precedence. It's a man's world (though admittedly it wouldn't be nothing...nothing...without a woman or a girl).

This was years ago. I wonder if nowadays there's a gender-non-specific collective pronoun (if that's the correct description).  

I know that most Latinos bristled at this idea of using LatinX as a gender neutral pronoun.  They didn't want to use it.  They (not in so many words) thought it was a white savior complex.  No one in the Latino community cared about this AT ALL.  It was just a bunch of entitled white people with too much time on their hands trying to virtue signal.

Univision took a poll and determined that

• only 4% of Hispanics would like to use Latinx.
• 57% really don't care what you call them as long as it's not obscene. 
• 23% prefer Hispanic
• 15% prefer Latino

But virtually no one would be offended if you called them something other than LatinX.

The French?  Don't know.  But I'd assume it would be about the same.

[Vort]

32 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I remember this very thing when I was learning French at school. In my textbook there was a man and a woman watching something (I can't remember what), and in French this was ils regardent. The male pronoun takes precedence. It's a man's world (though admittedly it wouldn't be nothing...nothing...without a woman or a girl).

That's one way of looking at it. Another is, "We'll use the male pronoun for all ambiguous cases as well as for male cases, and we will save the female pronoun for when it's only women." In other words, preserve the gendered integrity of the female pronoun and use the male pronoun for all the ambiguous or indeterminate cases.

I have very little patience these days for zealous efforts to identify and condemn non-existent linguistic sexism. (Not that you were doing so, Jamie. Just a general observation.)

32 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

This was years ago. I wonder if nowadays there's a gender-non-specific collective pronoun (if that's the correct description).  

There is not. Even if there were a big push in France toward such nonsense (and I think there is no such push), the Académie française would quickly put an end to it. Once in a long while, having an iron-fisted linguistic ruling elite pays dividends.

[Jamie123]

I've raced on ahead a bit, but I remember the missionaries telling me about King Noah and the story of the mustard tree*. (They were always banging on about the mustard tree. At first I thought they were talking about what Jesus said about the mustard tree in Matthew 13.) It seems strange that a bad guy should be called "Noah"!

Presumably this "record of Zeniff"  in Chapter 9 is what Ammon read in the plates King Limhi showed him. (These plates only very briefly mentioned, and are obviously not to be confused with the other plates that were found by the 43 people who were searching for Zarahemla. It was only when I reread it I realised this was not what Ammon's "seer" translated from those plates.

*Now I'm getting confused. I seem to associate the mustard seed story with King Noah, but scanning around I can't seem to find it. Is it in this part or somewhere different entirely?

P.S. I'm now Googling "book of mormon" and " mustard seed" it now and pulling a complete blank. Perhaps it's the Mandela effect...

Edited October 13, 2023 by Jamie123

[Vort]

35 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I've raced on ahead a bit, but I remember the missionaries telling me about King Noah and the story of the mustard tree*. (They were always banging on about the mustard tree. At first I thought they were talking about what Jesus said about the mustard tree in Matthew 13.) It seems strange that a bad guy should be called "Noah"!

Presumably this "record of Zeniff"  in Chapter 9 is what Ammon read in the plates King Limhi showed him. (These plates only very briefly mentioned, and are obviously not to be confused with the other plates that were found by the 43 people who were searching for Zarahemla. It was only when I reread it I realised this was not what Ammon's "seer" translated from those plates.

*Now I'm getting confused. I seem to associate the mustard seed story with King Noah, but scanning around I can't seem to find it. Is it in this part or somewhere different entirely?

P.S. I'm now Googling "book of mormon" and " mustard seed" it now and pulling a complete blank. Perhaps it's the Mandela effect...

I'm not sure. Alma 32 details the idea of nurturing the seed of the word of God in your heart, and having it grow up to be a tree of life for you. It's dissimilar in meaning but not really so much in feel to Christ's parable of the mustard seed, which perhaps explains the confusion. Not sure what king Noah has to do with anything; he was a wicked Nephite king that led his people into slavery for probably 20 years by his immorality and irresponsibility (and his penchant for hunting down prophets who said things he didn't like). You'll be reading about him soon enough.

[zil2]

35 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I've raced on ahead a bit, but I remember the missionaries telling me about King Noah and the story of the mustard tree*. (They were always banging on about the mustard tree. At first I thought they were talking about what Jesus said about the mustard tree in Matthew 13.)

The word "mustard" does not appear in the Book of Mormon - I have a PDF copy for doing faster and more confident simple searches like that.  So they must have been talking about the New Testament "faith as a grain of mustard seed".  There is another seed and tree analogy coming up, but that's in Alma.

37 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

It seems strange that a bad guy should be called "Noah"!

It always seemed that way to me too.

38 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Presumably this "record of Zeniff"  in Chapter 9 is what Ammon read in the plates King Limhi showed him. (These plates only very briefly mentioned, and are obviously not to be confused with the other plates that were found by the 43 people who were searching for Zarahemla. It was only when I reread it I realised this was not what Ammon's "seer" translated from those plates.

Yes, exactly!

[Jamie123]

I could have absolutely sworn there was a story about the mustard seed growing into a giant tree in the Book of Mormon, and the missionaries making a big thing out of it. I'm not sure why i connected it with King Noah but I'm sure I got that from one of the missionaries too. I'm almost starting to question my sanity here...

[Jamie123]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

You'll be reading about him soon enough.

I'm reading about him now. (I've raced ahead a bit.) I have heard of him before - but somehow I associate him with the mustard seed story - and I could have sworn I got that information from the missionaries. This is beyond weird...

Edited October 13, 2023 by Jamie123

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, zil2 said:

The word "mustard" does not appear in the Book of Mormon - I have a PDF copy for doing faster and more confident simple searches like that.  So they must have been talking about the New Testament "faith as a grain of mustard seed".  There is another seed and tree analogy coming up, but that's in Alma.

This brings up an area of personal interest to me. There are several cases in the Book of Mormon of seemingly incongruous mention of animals—incongruous because the animal is not known to be native to the Americas and is thought to have been introduced much later. One that professional antiMormons have made much of is the mention of "horses" in the Book of Mormon, when it has been assumed that horses were unknown to the Americas until introduced by the Spanish Conquistadores in about the sixteenth century. There are ancestral horse fossils in the Americas, of course, but no convincing horse remains from the past three thousand or so years up until the Conquistadores. Typical efforts to explain, or explain away, such objections usually focus on (1) identifying other, non-equine species of animal that may have served the same purposes as horses served in the Old World, such as being pack animals or food (or drawing a conveyance of some sort, as in Lamoni), and (2) claiming (rightly) that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and that small groups (or even large herds) of horses could well have existed in ancient Mesoamerica without leaving behind any trace of evidence. This is more like hand-waving than it is presenting any strong thesis, but such is the state of our understanding of ancient Mesoamerica. Grapes are another example of something mentioned or implied in the Book of Mormon but not known to grow in the Americas before the European colonization.

What is never observed is the opposite: Animals and plants being excluded from mention that would not be expected. For example, I believe that the word "pig" never occurs in the Book of Mormon. Similarly, the idea of a seed of mustard is compelling and used to great effect in the Bible, so I would naively expect to have that same imagery carried over in the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon were a fraudulent work of fake scripture, I would still assume such a mention to be made. Curiously, it's never mentioned in the Book of Mormon. A quick Google search confirms that mustard is an Old World plant that was imported into the Americas only in the past few centuries.

So I'm not really going anywhere with this. I am not one to latch onto this or that oddity and try to use it to "prove" that the Book of Mormon is True. I do find such things interesting. I suppose such things could be considered "an evidence" of the Book of Mormon's literal truthfulness, and I'm not averse to using such examples as evidence of truth, as long as we're willing to concede the other side when it's used against the Book of Mormon.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Vort

[Carborendum]

55 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I've raced on ahead a bit, but I remember the missionaries telling me about King Noah and the story of the mustard tree*. (They were always banging on about the mustard tree. At first I thought they were talking about what Jesus said about the mustard tree in Matthew 13.) It seems strange that a bad guy should be called "Noah"!

Presumably this "record of Zeniff"  in Chapter 9 is what Ammon read in the plates King Limhi showed him. (These plates only very briefly mentioned, and are obviously not to be confused with the other plates that were found by the 43 people who were searching for Zarahemla. It was only when I reread it I realised this was not what Ammon's "seer" translated from those plates.

*Now I'm getting confused. I seem to associate the mustard seed story with King Noah, but scanning around I can't seem to find it. Is it in this part or somewhere different entirely?

P.S. I'm now Googling "book of mormon" and " mustard seed" it now and pulling a complete blank. Perhaps it's the Mandela effect...

Mustard?  In the BoM?  Never heard of it.

There is the allegory of the olive tree that we've already gone over with Zenos in Jacob 5.  But a mustard tree?  Heck if I know.

I would reckon that it was some kid who thought he knew more about the scriptures than he actually did.  Or it's been a while and you are confusing some things from various lessons with various missionaries.