Book of Mormon Reading Group: 30 Oct - 05 Nov 2023 (Alma 13 - Alma 25)

[Jamie123]

Another thing - Lamoni is a king, and his father is a higher-up king over him. The Lamanites seem to have a kind of "tiered monarchy": a High King with various under-kings. I vaguely remember some reference to this earlier but I forget exactly where.

[Jamie123]

10 minutes ago, zil2 said:

don't recall ever hearing the complete song, let alone poe-tar-toe

I know its irrelevant but I can't hear "potato" and "tomato" in the same sentence without it triggering the song.

10 minutes ago, zil2 said:

potatos or potatoes - one could argue either way, even though only the second is correct.

Yep I think the second is more pleasing to the eye. I wouldn't quite know how to explain why though.

P.S. You're right. I can't write 'potatos' without itching to put an e in it. 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Jamie123

[zil2]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Another thing - Lamoni is a king, and his father is a higher-up king over him. The Lamanites seem to have a kind of "tiered monarchy": a High King with various under-kings. I vaguely remember some reference to this earlier but I forget exactly where.

Apparently this was not uncommon in the ancient middle east - at least, that's what @Traveler tells us.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Ok I get the two ways of saying "tomato". But who ever says "potartoe"? Nobody, that's who. I only ever heard that in that song.

I have no idea.  I don't recall ever hearing the complete song, let alone poe-tar-toe (regardless of where the emphasis is), only puh-TAY-toe and puh-TAH-toe.

Jamie's spelling is phonetic when you factor in the non-rhotic British R, which would come only after a "short" ä, not a "long" ã (using "short" and "long" in the weird, stupid way they're used in describing English vowel pronunciation). So the word "tar" would be pronounced "tah" (or /ta:/) by a Brit, and therefore "potartoe" would be "poh-tah-toh" (technically, /pə ˈtɑː təʊ/).

Edited November 4, 2023 by Vort

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, zil2 said:

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Another thing - Lamoni is a king, and his father is a higher-up king over him. The Lamanites seem to have a kind of "tiered monarchy": a High King with various under-kings. I vaguely remember some reference to this earlier but I forget exactly where.

Apparently this was not uncommon in the ancient middle east - at least, that's what @Traveler tells us.

The vassal kingship was not uncommon anciently. Feudal England was a vassal state under John Lackland, with the king of France, Phillip II, as the overlord king (I believe "suzerain" is the correct term).

Actually, I'm not sure that England was technically part of John's vassalage to Phillip II. John may have been a vassal to Phillip only with the continental territories in Normandy, which he ended up losing (and which I believe is why he was called "Lackland"). Not exactly sure how the vassal kingship worked in Europe. Maybe someone who understands this better can clarify.

The point is, this sort of vassal kingship is not unique to the Book of Mormon, or even particularly rare in historical terms. My testimony of the Book of Mormon comes from its application in my life and the spiritual assurance I have received, but evidence such as a vassal kingship seamlessly woven into the text of the Book of Mormon and mentioned casually, almost in passing terms, suggests an author who had little idea that the situation of a vassal king might not be immediately obvious to the reader. That author would then certainly not be Joseph Smith, or for that matter anyone I can imagine living in America at that time.

[Carborendum]

On 11/3/2023 at 2:44 PM, Jamie123 said:

It's a kind of chameleon!

P.S. This is what it looks like:

I can't tell if my joke went over your head or if ...

[Carborendum]

5 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Why "Anti-Nephi-Lehis"? Were they Lehis who were against Nephi? Or does "anti" mean something other than "against"?

P.S. The Wikipedia article on the Anti-Nephi-Lehis lists some interesting theories about the origin of the name. Yer man Nibley thinks the "anti" part comes from Egyptian not Greek. (In fact, if it is Greek it must be a translation of some other word since the Greek invasion didn't come until long after Lehi left.)

We understand that the proper nouns in the Book of Mormon were transliterations rather than translations.  Records show that whenever Joseph came to a proper noun, he gave the transliteration.  Then through other means at another time, Joseph indicated the pronunciation.

If it was a transliteration, then we have an alternate translation from the Egyptian/Hebrew hybrid language.

Egyptian has a term "nty" (sometimes used as a prefix) which means of the.  In today's English vernacular, we might say with the.  And the combining of two names in this manner is indicating a son-father relationship. 

Thus it would be a label for a people who are with the people of Nephi (son of) Lehi.

EDIT:  I see you found something similar.  Yes, that's about right.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Carborendum

[askandanswer]

So they were so angry that they had killed their own people that they decided to kill someone else. It doesn't make much sense.

Alma 25:1

now it came to pass that those Lamanites were more angry because they had slain their brethren; therefore they swore vengeance upon the Nephites

 

A great example of the wicked slaying the wicked.

It seems as if the only motives for this unprovoked attack was a desire for revenge and an expression of anger/hatred.

I guess this destruction could be interpreted as divine vengeance for how the people of Ammonihah had behaved towards Alma and AMulek and the people who believed on their message. If that is a correct interpretation it would raise questions about all the other times when divine justice has been delayed or invisible or absent.

Alma 25:2

2 But they took their armies and went over into the borders of the land of Zarahemla, and fell upon the people who were in the land of Ammonihah and destroyed them.

 

A similar event, in Alma 14:8 did not result in a the same reaction as recorded here.

Alma 25:8

Now this martyrdom caused that many of their brethren should be stirred up to anger; and there began to be contention in the wilderness; and the Lamanites began to hunt the seed of Amulon and his brethren and began to slay them; and they fled into the east wilderness.

 

If these Lamanites were the ones who had heard and began to believe on, and live consistent with, the teachings of Aaron and his brethren, this action of hunting and slaying the seed of Amulon and his brethren would have been directly contrary to those teachings.

Alma 25:8

and the Lamanites began to hunt the seed of Amulon and his brethren and began to slay them; and they fled into the east wilderness.

 

It took a long time, probably too long, for this prophecy to be fulfilled, considering how much trouble they caused. I'm not sure why the Lord suffered them to stay in power for as long as He did or what purpose was served by doing so.

We don't know when this was written, but the idea indicating that they were still being "hunted at this day" suggests that they were not very good at their hunting otherwise they would have finished the job sooner.

Alma 25:9

And behold they are hunted at this day by the Lamanites. Thus the words of Abinadi were brought to pass, which he said concerning the seed of the priests who caused that he should suffer death by fire.

 

So after hunting and killing Nephites in the land of the Nephites, they returned to join those people who had recently been taught and coverted by Nephite missionaries.

Alma 25:13

And it came to pass that when the Lamanites saw that they could not overpower the Nephites they returned again to their own land;

 

I wonder how similar this process was to the amalgamation of the Nephites and the Mulekites.

Alma 25:13

they returned again to their own land; and many of them came over to dwell in the land of Ishmael and the land of Nephi, and did join themselves to the people of God, who were the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi.

 

There's an awful lot that is not being said here. The missionary story of Aaron and his brethren took about 6 or 7 chapters, and this second round of Lamanite conversions gets a few verses.

Alma 25:14

14 And they did also bury their weapons of war, according as their brethren had, and they began to be a righteous people; and they did walk in the ways of the Lord, and did observe to keep his commandments and his statutes.

 

I think it would have been more useful if they had beat their swords into plowshears. They didn't renounce war or bloodshed, they just took steps that would delay their preparation and give them to time think should war ever become necessary.

Alma 25:14

14 And they did also bury their weapons of war, according

 

 

Finally, a group of people who understood the purpose of the Law of Moses and that it was not an end in itself, but merely a means of pointing them to, and preparing them for, something much greater. It seems as if this greater purpose was completely lost on the Jews in Jerusalem.

Alma 25:15

15 Yea, and they did keep the law of Moses; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of Moses as yet, for it was not all fulfilled. But notwithstanding the law of Moses, they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses was a type of his coming, and believing that they must keep those outward performances until the time that he should be revealed unto them

 

What modifications to the Law of Moses would have been necessary to make up for the absence of any descendants of Levi? And what was the relationship between the priests of the church, as appointed by Alma and others, and the priests required for officiating in Mosaic ordinances?

Alma 25:15

Yea, and they did keep the law of Moses; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of Moses as yet, for it was not all fulfilled.

 

[JohnsonJones]

11 hours ago, zil2 said:

Apparently this was not uncommon in the ancient middle east - at least, that's what @Traveler tells us.

If you consider Chiefs and Sub-Chiefs, it isn't uncommon elsewhere either.

In the Book of Mormon we have Kings, but we see that many of the tribes of North America had tribes and Chiefs of them when the colonists from Europe came. 

If we look at some of the Larger Tribes they would at times have a Grand Chief or a Chief of Chiefs that was over the entire tribe.  Over smaller groups you would also have Chiefs. 

This is not uncommon for other places in the world as well. 

[Jamie123]

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I can't tell if my joke went over your head or if ...

Maybe "drug mules" and "drug cartels"? Yep - right over my "innocent" head 😉 

Am I right?

Edited November 5, 2023 by Jamie123
Removed reference to "Donkey Cartel". It's a sadder story than I first imagined.

[Jamie123]

13 hours ago, Vort said:

Actually, I'm not sure that England was technically part of John's vassalage to Phillip II.

Yep, John held Enlgand independently (though at one point i believe he was a Papal vassal). But you're right, he was a vassal to Phillp in respect of his French territories. Though technically he was not a king of any of those - only duke or count.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

13 hours ago, Vort said:

and which I believe is why he was called "Lackland")

I always used to think that too - but I have read that the name (Sans Terre in French) came from the fact that his father Henry II did not initially give him any territories (as he did his two older sons).

13 hours ago, Vort said:

The point is, this sort of vassal kingship is not unique to the Book of Mormon, or even particularly rare in historical t

Maybe another example would be Zedekiah who was appointed king of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.  When he made an alliance with Egypt against Babylon, that was seen as an act of treason against his overlord - and we all know what the result was.

[Jamie123]

Chapter 24: The ANLs have made a commitment never to use lethal force again. The Amalekites and Amulonites and a lot of other people attack them without resistance and kill about 1000. When they realize what's happening most of the attackers repent ("coals if fire" I guess) and join the ANLs. The ANLs actually increase in number as a result. But how does any of this demonstrate that people who have lapsed into sin after knowing the truth become "more hardened" (verse 30)?

(Serious question. I'm not trying to pick fault

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Chapter 24: The ANLs have made a commitment never to use lethal force again. The Amalekites and Amulonites and a lot of other people attack them without resistance and kill about 1000. When they realize what's happening most of the attackers repent ("coals if fire" I guess) and join the ANLs. The ANLs actually increase in number as a result. But how does any of this demonstrate that people who have lapsed into sin after knowing the truth become "more hardened" (verse 30)?

(Serious question. I'm not trying to pick fault

That comment was directed as a commentary, not about the anti-Nephi-Lehies, but about the Amalekites and Amulonites, former Nephites who left the Nephites and who were responsible for most of the 1000+ killings among the anti-Nephi-Lehies. They had once believed and been covenant people, but at this time had become so hardened that they gladly slaughtered unarmed, defenseless men (maybe women and children, too) just for the pure enjoyment of exercising their hatred.

[Jamie123]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

That comment was directed as a commentary, not about the anti-Nephi-Lehies, but about the Amalekites and Amulonites, former Nephites who left the Nephites and who were responsible for most of the 1000+ killings among the anti-Nephi-Lehies. They had once believed and been covenant people, but at this time had become so hardened that they gladly slaughtered unarmed, defenseless men (maybe women and children, too) just for the pure enjoyment of exercising their hatred.

Yep - that makes sense. Thanks

[Vort]

22 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Yep - that makes sense. Thanks

You're very welcome.

This is one lesson the Book of Mormon drives home: When you make covenants with God, those covenants protect you as long as you take them seriously. But swearing an oath to God is a terrible thing, one that you must never do casually. Those who take their covenants casually are in danger of abandoning them altogether, and those who abandon their covenants are left literally in the power of the evil one, and will likely become hardened and impenitent.

You can repent from such a state, but it is a hard road, one that many or most in that position will refuse to take. (One reason why Zeezrom stands out so much as a character; one of few people in the Book of Mormon, along with Alma the younger, Alma's son Corianton, and a few others—Aminadab comes to mind—who abandoned their covenants but subsequently repented. It can happen, but it's not the norm.) So if you make a sacred covenant with God, the Book of Mormon strongly advises you to take it seriously and not to abandon it.

The general feel seems to be that if you are not going to take your divine covenants seriously and really strive to live by them, you are probably better off not entering into the covenants at all. This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Edited November 5, 2023 by Vort

[Jamie123]

On second thought, questions like this are best asked in prayer.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

8 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Maybe "drug mules" and "drug cartels"? Yep - right over my "innocent" head 😉 

Am I right?

and the cama -  "pause"

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Would having a testimony and not acting upon it be as bad as making a covenant and breaking it?

Many years ago, and LDS Elder told me he thought I had a testimony and was in denial of it. I considered this "nasty manipulation" and fear tactics. He and his companion wanted me to go to the Stake Conference, which was the following weekend, but I didn't go. I had nothing to do with the LDS for...hmmm...well this was 1993, and the next time I went inside an LDS Church was 1998. So I guess 5 years.

Responding first to your experience: I'm sorry to hear it. I can't judge, because I don't know you well enough and don't know the elder at all, but from your description it certainly does sound manipulative. I'm willing to believe the elder may only have been overly ambitious and trying to convince rather than manipulate; I have seen that people who grow up in certain family situations and internalize certain behavioral principles sometimes can seem manipulative and even conniving when their intent is honorable. But even if that is true, I hope he learned not to put things in such terms, which I fully agree seems like nasty manipulation.

As for the question: The easy answer is that, no, not acting upon a testimony is not as bad as forsaking a covenant. But upon reflection, the two things are intimately related, and you could argue that a testimony is a fruit of the Spirit and evidence of a sort of implicit covenant, and therefore that ignoring or acting against a spiritual testimony is an example of forsaking a covenant, though certainly less so than forsaking a formal covenant such as baptism or other temple covenants.

Not sure how useful it is to think of things in those terms. The purpose of such teachings is to illuminate, not to condemn. The condemnation, if appropriate, comes as a natural outgrowth of the teaching you're illuminating, and is not the central point. I am told that the word "gospel" means "good news", so any gospel preaching should be good news. As Hugh Nibley once said, angels invariably bring good news, even when it's phrased in such a way as to condemn (e.g. the angel telling Alma the younger to leave off his efforts to harm the Church, even if he of himself would be destroyed). If we are messengers of God's word, then by definition we are angels, and should therefore speak with the tongue of angels. Nephi had something to say about that.

[Jamie123]

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

and the cama -  "pause"

Spanish for bed?

[Carborendum]

21 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I know its irrelevant but I can't hear "potato" and "tomato" in the same sentence without it triggering the song.

Yep I think the second is more pleasing to the eye. I wouldn't quite know how to explain why though.

P.S. You're right. I can't write 'potatos' without itching to put an e in it. 

What language was Lisa speaking at the end?  I couldn't make it out.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

Would having a testimony and not acting upon it be as bad as making a covenant and breaking it?

This is my paranoia speaking. Many years ago, and LDS Elder told me he thought I had a testimony and was in denial of it. Having thought about it a bit, I considered this "nasty fear tactics". He and his companion had wanted me to go to the Stake Conference, which was the following weekend, but I didn't go. I had nothing to do with the LDS for...hmmm...well this was 1993, and the next time I went inside an LDS Church was 1998. So I guess 5 years.

By the way, my interaction with the missionaries in 1998 was entirely positive. They said that if I had joined in 1993 it probably wouldn't have ended well.

The Elder can think whatever he wants, but only you and God can know what you do / don't have a testimony of.

Personally, I don't think having a testimony and failing to act on it is as bad as making a covenant and failing to live up to it.  Certainly, if God gives one a witness through the Holy Ghost, then one is responsible for what they do with that witness, but a covenant is a whole other level - it's a binding agreement.  (@Vort said this better.)

Just in case we define terms differently, from my perspective, a testimony would mean a strong or sure belief born of experience and the witness of the Holy Ghost, but it's not as strong as conversion (by which I don't mean joining a religion, but having your heart changed by God through faith, which should follow testimony (which should inspire action)).  (How's that for a serious set of run-on sentences?)

If I had to rank them, conversion is stronger than testimony which is stronger than belief, with faith being the route between them - act in faith on belief and it becomes testimony, act in faith on testimony and it leads to conversion.  FWIW.

As to acting on belief or testimony vs. denying it, remember Amulek's words when he was preaching with Alma to the people of Ammonihah:

Quote

Alma 10:6 Nevertheless, I did harden my heart, for I was called many times and I would not hear; therefore I knew concerning these things, yet I would not know; therefore I went on rebelling against God, in the wickedness of my heart, even until the fourth day of this seventh month, which is in the tenth year of the reign of the judges.

I can't be the only person who has sometimes wished not to know the gospel or truth or commandments or whatever.  This is what repentance is for.  And despite Amulek's prior reluctance, he was able to change and become a blessing to Alma and others.  I try to remind myself of this verse after the most popular one in Christendom:

Quote

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

The time for condemnation hasn't come yet.  Now is the time for saving, so repent and keep trying.  No need to despair - that's Satan's tool.

[Jamie123]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

If we are messengers of God's word, then by definition we are angels, and should therefore speak with the tongue of angels. Nephi had something to say about that

I have known at least four people who have the gift of tongues (though one of them is now dead). I do not have it myself, nor do I particularly want it. Perhaps that's not a bad thing.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

11 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Spanish for bed?

Uhmmm.  Can't tell if you're now running it through the chain of malaprops exercise.

You said that was the name of the half-breed animal.   Then you said it was a Chameleon, bringing up a tune from Culture Club.

So...

J: It's called a cama.
Carb: You mean the punctuation mark?

J: No that's a kind of pause.
Carb: You mean the chameleon?

J: No, that's Karma.
Carb: Wait isn't that a...

 

[Jamie123]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Uhmmm.  Can't tell if you're now running it through the chain of malaprops exercise.

You said that was the name of the half-breed animal.   Then you said it was a Chameleon, bringing up a tune from Culture Club.

So...

J: It's called a cama.
Carb: You mean the punctuation mark?

J: No that's a kind of pause.
Carb: You mean the chameleon?

J: No, that's Karma.
Carb: Wait isn't that a...

 

Ahaaa...sorry! I'm just a bit of a thicko 😀

It's like the old joke: How do you make a [insert ethnicity you wish to slander]man laugh on Friday? Tell him a joke on Monday.