Alma 24:1

1  And it came to pass that the Amalekites and the Amulonites and the Lamanites who were in the land of Amulon, and also in the land of Helam, and who were in the land of Jerusalem, and in fine, in all the land round about, who had not been converted and had not taken upon them the name of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, were stirred up by the Amalekites and by the Amulonites to anger against their brethren.

 

In Mosiah 23:39 we learn that Amulon had been made king of the land of Helam, which is the city founded by Alma the Elder and his people after they had fled Lehi-Nephi. It is therefore not surprising at all that we still find Amulonites in Helam. We have similarly seen them in Jerusalem. To these two cities we have the original settlement of Amulon. All of these locations have continued from their founding to this point in time, and all have retained a strong Amulonite presence, though they also contain many who are designated Lamanites. All of the occupants of these cities are stirred up in their hatred by the Amulonites. Where the sons of Mosiah had success in other cities, in those cities and lands dominated by the descendants of the priests of Noah they not only have no success, they meet with fierce enmity. There is no enemy like the one who was once a brother

 

Alma 24:2

2  And their hatred became exceedingly sore against them, even insomuch that they began to rebel against their king, insomuch that they would not that he should be their king; therefore, they took up arms against the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi.

 

Cultural: The nature of political alliances in Mesoamerica made them forever fragile. Even under the widespread and powerful Aztec empire there were frequent rebellions by a single city-state, or more seriously, by a new confederation of city-states (Ross Hassig. Aztec Warfare. University of Oklahoma Press, 1988, pp. 22-26). These rebellions were put down only by extreme military force. Here we have the very same situation. Three city-states have elected to rebel against the over king to whom they have been allied. As with all other such rebellions of separation, it will succeed unless it is quashed through military might. As we will see, that will not happen in this case.

 

Alma 24:3

3  Now the king conferred the kingdom upon his son, and he called his name Anti-Nephi-Lehi.

 

The father of Lamoni confers the kingdom upon a son and renames his son. It is not unusual in many cultures for a king to take a regnal name upon assuming the throne, and indeed this very practice can be documented for the Classic Maya based on the evidence of the glyphic texts. (Simon Martin and Nikolai Grube. Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. Thames & Hudson, 2000, pp. 81, 91).

 

What is mildly interesting in this case is that the king adopts the name of the people rather than the people and land adopting the name of the king, as had been the case in the past. Name changes for peoples in the Book of Mormon tend to occur when there is a new dynasty head in a new location.

 

In this case we have a combination of events coming together. There is the clear attempt at a designation of a new people because of the name of Anti-Nephi-Lehi. It would appear that the designation of the regnal name as the same name as will be adopted by the people is intended to create a further separation from the old and an establishment of the new. Nevertheless, there is no real indication that the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi have yet removed themselves from their previous cities. In fact, it appears that they have not. Thus we have a situation where there is a mass conversion in multiple cities that we must assume did not affect every member of the city. In spite of the lack of complete conversion, we have the creation of a new polity that must attempt to incorporate all, whether converted or not.

 

What we appear to have, in the context of the Mesoamerican locale in which these events are suggested, is a conversion of ruling clans. The clans likely have some intermarriage relationships, for we know that Nephi and Ishmael were ruled by father and son. It is probable that such clan relationships may have existed in at least some of the other cities. The conversion of the ruling clan would establish the alteration of the ruling structure for the entire city, but still allow for the dissention of other clans. Thus we can have the rather complete change of governance that we see, and still have the apparently smaller body that eventually arrives in the land of Zarahemla.

 

Alma 24:4

4  And the king died in that selfsame year that the Lamanites began to make preparations for war against the people of God.

 

Cultural: The death of Lamoni’s father at this time makes his hand to hand combat with Ammon even more fascinating. We do not know the amount of time that has passed between the two events, but it would be hard to see more than a few years. This may suggest an illness rather than old age as the cause of death of the king.

 

It is very interesting to notice that this verse has so thoroughly changed the definition of Lamanite in Mormon’s mind. Just a few verses ago,  “Lamanite” included Lamoni’s father who was king of the Lamanites, and all of the cities that both did and did not accept the gospel. Once they are converted and change their name, they are no longer Lamanite. In that instant, it appears, they changed in Mormon’s eyes from Lamanite to something other – Anti-Nephi-Lehies. The smaller number of “Lamanites” who are led by Amulonites and Amalekites, both of whom used to be Nephites, have now become the definition of “Lamanite” for Mormon in these passages. This simply further corroborates the flexibility and dynamic application of the term Lamanite.

 

Alma 24:5

5  Now when Ammon and his brethren and all those who had come up with him saw the preparations of the Lamanites to destroy their brethren, they came forth to the land of Midian, and there Ammon met all his brethren; and from thence they came to the land of Ishmael that they might hold a council with Lamoni and also with his brother Anti-Nephi-Lehi, what they should do to defend themselves against the Lamanites.

 

Textual: Mormon begins a series of statements here that suggest that he is abbreviated too heavily for our modern tastes. The first important note to make is that he appears to be shifting in his main source from the account of Aaron back to Ammon’s record. Ammon is listed as the principal in this verse, and we may expect that this information therefore comes from his record.

 

It also appears that either the source material was deficient, or that Mormon is being less that careful with his sources, as it is difficult to be clear about the movements of peoples through the places and events of the next several verses. Because of the lack of clarity, we shall have to attempt a logical reconstruction based on the material he does supply us.

 

Historical: We find Ammon and his brethren “and all those who had come up with him…” seeing the preparations for war by the Lamanites. They come to Midian where Ammon meets “all his brethren,” and then they travel to Ishmael, where a council is held that includes Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who is now the over-king, and ruler of the city and land of Nephi. What comes next in the relating of the history is the most important part of the narration, but we need to understand this passage in order to understand the coming event.

 

First we have Ammon, his brethren, “and all those who had come up with him.” This suggests that Ammon and his brethren are leading a group of people. Since Ammon and his brethren have been preaching in different cities, it would be reasonable to assume that they have gathered the believers out of the various cities, and are bringing them, en masse, to a new location. The hypothesis that these missionaries were bringing the converted people with them would appear to be born out in the verses that begin to speak of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies as a single group. For instance, in the very next verse Mormon tells us that they all refused to take up arms. The speech of the king appears to be directed to the entire body of the converts, and verse 17 suggests that all of the people are gathered together. Thus this supposition would appear to be on firm ground.

 

When the large group comes to Midian, they meet some other undefined body of people who have similarly gathered at Midian. This might include some of the missionaries, but might only be converted people from some of the cities. This is the only Book of Mormon mention of Midian, so we cannot give any real indication of where it lay.

 

Part of the geographical problem of Midian  is the rest of the events described in this chapter where Mormon is less than clear. We have two important facts. The first is that “they” went from Midian to Ishmael for a council. We also learn in verse 20 that the massacre occurs in the land of Nephi, not the land of Ishmael. This provides the geographical issue that Mormon has confused.

 

What we must do, according to the text, is have a large body of people meet in Midian, some people, if not all, going to Ishmael, including the king of Nephi, and then we must have everyone show up in Nephi. The logistics of these moves are not described, so what follows is a reasonable reconstruction of what might have happened.

 

First, we know that many of the cities where conversions took place were to the South and West of Nephi. The locations that were the strongholds of the Amulonites and Amalekites were to the North and West of Nephi, and north of Ishmael. It appears reasonable, then, that Midian was a convenient collection place that lay between the more outlying cities of Shemlon and Shilom and Nephi. When the newly named people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi followed their missionaries out of the cities, they met at Midian from various locations, and at Midian became a single body.

 

At Midian, the group would have split into two different bodies. The larger body of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies went up to Nephi, where they remained until the invasion by the Lamanites. This would be a logical point of refuge both because it was the location of their king, and as the central city of a larger collective, it may have had the better fortifications or army.

 

Rather than see the entire group as the “they” that left Midian for Ishmael, I would suggest that “they” consisted of Ammon and his brethren. They went to Ishmael for a war council, and that purpose would be hampered with the larger numbers of people who were emigrating. The reason for the meeting in Ishmael rather than Nephi may have to do with the closer proximity of Ishmael to the strongholds of the Amulonites and Amalekites. Thus the council of war might be held in a location that was closer to the essential knowledge needed of the status of the enemy. At the end of the council of war, all of the believers would have retreated from Ishmael and Middoni to gather at the larger city of Nephi.

 

Alma 24:6

6  Now there was not one soul among all the people who had been converted unto the Lord that would take up arms against their brethren; nay, they would not even make any preparations for war; yea, and also their king commanded them that they should not.

 

This verse is Mormon’s introduction to the essential story of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi. This story is important not only for their own story, but it becomes critical to understanding the later event of the stripling warriors, who are the children of these people. Mormon has been writing his condensed history, and will not break for an inserted oration.

 

Alma 24:7

7  Now, these are the words which he said unto the people concerning the matter: I thank my God, my beloved people, that our great God has in goodness sent these our brethren, the Nephites, unto us to preach unto us, and to convince us of the traditions of our wicked fathers.

 

This is an interesting statement in that most people would be quite understanding of the traditions of their fathers, and would rarely indicate that they were wicked. In this case, however, we will see some specific points on which this allegation of wickedness has been raised.

 

Textual: The referent for the speaker in this case is a little lost in the cast of characters. Verse 6 tells us that it is “the king.” Of course Lamoni is a king, and is mentioned. However, it is most likely that “the king” would refer to the over-king, or Anti-Nephi-Lehi.

 

Alma 24:8

8  And behold, I thank my great God that he has given us a portion of his Spirit to soften our hearts, that we have opened a correspondence with these brethren, the Nephites.

 

This verse should be seen in contrast to the vehement hatred of the father of Lamoni that was manifest when he met Alma on the road (Alma 20:13). This is a people who had been steeped in a tradition of hatred and mistrust of all Nephites. The softening of the Spirit not only had to convert them to God, it had to accept that conversion at the hands of a people that they were raised to believe were liars. This was an essential change in the entire picture of the world that these former Lamanites had held. Not only had their understanding of the physics of the world changed (for religion served that function for the ancients) but they also had their entire concept of political and social reality altered. These were a people who had undergone a wrenching transformation, and it is not surprising that one of the first things noted in this discourse is that great shift from seeing Nephites as the mortal enemy to seeing them as deliverer’s of the word of God.

 

Alma 24:9

9  And behold, I also thank my God, that by opening this correspondence we have been convinced of our sins, and of the many murders which we have committed.

Alma 24:10

10  And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son.

Alma 24:11

11  And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do, (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain—

 

Cultural: The story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis’ relationship to taking up arms is enigmatic. Mormon has selected the story, and includes it in his text. When he does so, he specifies the ‘moral” we are to take from the story (at the end of this chapter). What is most interesting is that the moral that Mormon takes from this story is different from what the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi tell us is the purpose of their remarkable pacifist stand. To further complicate the story itself, Ammon will later attribute yet another purpose, and therefore moral, to the story.

 

The story is clearly here because of the remarkable pacifist stance that these people will take, but that stance contradicts all other stories of conflict in the Book of Mormon. While this people are lauded for this act, it is never used as a model for Nephite behavior. The only others who will ever adopt this model are other Lamanites of this same generation. The children of this people will not follow in their parents covenant not to raise arms.

 

There are other anomalies in the story that are difficult to understand. At the top of the list is the assertion that the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi must repent of murders. The very idea that these people are accepting a universal guilt for murder is suspicious. Murder is, by definition, an unsanctioned and intended death inflicted on another person. We do not commit murder when one dies by accident, even if we were the particular instrument of the accident. We do not commit murder in war, as casualties in war are declared justified in any society. To top off our problem with the idea of murder we have the clear fact that the entire people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi appear to accept guilt for these “murders,” even women and children. It is inconceivable that every single man, woman, and child of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis had personally committed a murder. Nevertheless, their self-condemnation for these “murders” is so great that rather than any possible stain of those “murders” they would rather give up their lives. As we have the story in the Book of Mormon, there are more questions than answers. However, in the Mesoamerican cultural milieu, there is a condition that provides a background against which we can make sense of the story.

 

To give perspective to this enigma, we need to remember that these are people who had been part of the Lamanite lifestyle. That lifestyle retained a tradition of hatred towards the Nephites, but they had lost their concept of God, as we saw in the story of Aaron before the father of Lamoni. If we assume that the Lamanites became participants in the most widespread culture of the area, that which we see in the pre-Classic Maya, then we can begin to understand something of the religion and ideology behind this remarkable decision to lay down arms and not take them up again.

 

To understand the Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s, we must understand the nature of warfare among the Maya. It is the cult of war that supplies the necessary context for this story. Mesoamerican warfare is not European warfare. The ends, methods, purposes, and results are very different. Where European warfare is typically a struggle for territory, Mesoamerican warfare is a conflict between the gods, with the outcome directly linked to their concept of the universe. The motivations of Classic Maya warfare are so distinct from the European territorial struggles that one author notes:

 

“The aim of warfare, in part, was to capture prominent individuals from an enemy state, put them to torture and finally to sacrifice them, normally by beheading…” (David Drew. The Lost Chronicles of the Maya Kings. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1999, p. 171).

 

For the Maya, blood was the conduit for ch’ulel, or the “inner soul or spirit.” (David Freidel, Linda Schele, Joy Parker. Maya Cosmos. William Morrow and Company, 1993, p. 201-2). The sacrificial letting of blood becomes both the food for the Gods, and the substitute sacrifice that renews creation. This principle of creation through sacrifice appears to have great antiquity in the Mesoamerican region:

 

“Puz, all the way from its Mixe-Zoque (and possibly Olmec) sources down to modern Quiche, refers literally to the cutting of flesh with a knife, and it is the primary term for sacrifice. If it is read as a synecdoche in the present passage [of the Popol Vuh], it means that the creation was accomplished (in part) through sacrifice…” (Dennis Tedlock. “Creation in the Popol Vuh: A Hermeneutical Approach.” Symbol and Meaning Beyond the Closed Community. Albany, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, The University at Albany, State University of New York, 1986, p. 79).

 

The sacrificial blood could and did come from the king and his queen themselves. However, it was augmented by the blood of the captives taken in war. Warfare and the taking of captives were intimately connected with the religious concepts of sacrificial blood. The Classic Maya inscriptions glorify the personal conquests of the kings and the humiliation and sacrifice of their captives. The Bonampak mural commonly known as “the arraignment” is a graphic depiction of the torturous bloodletting inflicted upon captives. (Linda Schele, Mary Ellen Miller. The Blood of Kings. New York. George Braziller, Inc. 1986, p. 217).

 

It is in this context of a religion that combines the concepts of war with that of human sacrifice and torture that we may see a backdrop that makes sense of the declaration of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis. These were people who had grown up with a worldview that saw the waging of war for the capture of sacrificial victims as essential to continued existence. Men, women, and children all participated in this worldview, whether or not they participated in the actual warfare. Whether or not they actually captured anyone, whether or not they actually tortured or killed the captives, they actively participated through their belief in, and support of, that religious practice.

 

In this context, let us return to verse 11:

 

11  And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do, (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain—

 

Outside of our Mesoamerican context, this verse is difficult to understand. Why would it have been so hard to accept the gospel? What made it such that “it has been all that we could do…?” With the context of the Mesoamerican religion, we can answer this question. These people were required to renounce an entire view of the world. For them it would have been as large a change as some unusual modern event that required us to forsake science entirely in favor of medieval alchemy. It was a change that rocked the very fundamental assumptions they made about such simple concepts as why the sun rose every day. While there is not the clear sun worship that we find among the later Aztecs, the Aztecs sacrificed their war victims to fuel the movement of the sun, believing that to cease to do so would cause the sun to stop in its course.

 

Imagine how far these people had to come! They came from a worldview that told them that it was essential to capture sacrificial victims and shed their blood for the world to exist. They must now forsake that entire concept and believe that the only sacrifice needed would be that of the Atoning Messiah who was to come. They came from a worldview that glorified warfare and human sacrifice, and adopted a worldview that condemned that very practice, that suffered warfare as a defensive necessity. No wonder they considered themselves “the most lost of all mankind..!”

 

It is this cult of war that answers the problem of the Anti-Nephi-Lehi pacifism. Their decision not to pick up arms was not taken because of the inherent evil of self-defense, but as alcoholics must be constantly vigilant against their disease, these people chose to stay far from the feelings surrounding the cult of war. Rather than risk a return to their former taste for sacrificial blood, they chose to avoid even the very first step along that path. Their decision to lay down their arms was not a statement against the value of self -defense, but a defensive measure required to protect their newfound cleanliness from the excesses of that former life.

 

Alma 24:12

12  Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren.

 

The Anti-Nephi-Lehies have undergone a tremendous change, one that their king exclaims that was all that they could do. Having gone through an apparently difficult repentance process, they felt keenly the contrast between their current clean status before God and their previous life. They were unwilling to return to the previous state of sin, having tasted the power of repentance.

 

Alma 24:13

13  Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords again they can no more be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins.

 

Anti-Nephi-Lehi proclaims that should they take up arms again, they would no longer be abele to be atoned by Christ. Once again we again we have a text that would be problematic in a different context. There is no doctrine that would suggest that the atonement does not apply to those who defend themselves. There is, however, doctrine which tells us that the atonement cannot cleanse of from murder (DC 42:18). Anti-Nephi-Lehi has persisted in classifying their former sin as “murder.” Nevertheless, it was forgiven once, why not a second time? The difference is in the knowledge of the people. As part of their prior life, their actions were considered normal, and were even expected. Their new perception through their newly forgiven sight now places those actions in a completely different category. Now they know that they should not kill in hatred, or for a religious zeal. In their converted state, what was previously forgivable becomes unforgivable.

 

Vocabulary: In this context, “retain” is used in the sense of holding back. They are not “retaining” their swords in the sense of maintaining possession, but rather they were restraining them from use.

 

Alma 24:14

14  And the great God has had mercy on us, and made these things known unto us that we might not perish; yea, and he has made these things known unto us beforehand, because he loveth our souls as well as he loveth our children; therefore, in his mercy he doth visit us by his angels, that the plan of salvation might be made known unto us as well as unto future generations.

 

The general sense of this verse is simple. Anti-Nephi-Lehi is grateful for the gospel that they have been given. The closer reading is more difficult, and doesn’t have a clear explanation. He notes that: “he has made these things known unto us beforehand…” Before what? The only clue we get is that we are told that God loves the parents as much as the children. What difference is there between parents and children, and why should we assume anything other than that God would love both?

 

While it is not completely clear, it appears that a reasonable explanation for this verse is that “these things” that were made known were not the tenets of the gospel, but rather the awareness of the spiritual danger to the parents of taking up arms again. The children had no such stain nor danger, Indeed, these children will become the stripling warriors that Helaman leads into battle. The “beforehand” refers to the knowledge of this danger prior to the situation that might require force of arms, the coming attack.

 

Alma 24:15

15  Oh, how merciful is our God!  And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us hide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us clean thereby.

Alma 24:16

16  And now, my brethren, if our brethren seek to destroy us, behold, we will hide away our swords, yea, even we will bury them deep in the earth, that they may be kept bright, as a testimony that we have never used them, at the last day; and if our brethren destroy us, behold, we shall go to our God and shall be saved.

 

Anti-Nephi-Lehi suggests that they hide away their weapons. The given reason is that they would be cached as a witness of their covenant. It is possible that this was seen as a devotional burying, a practice well known in the archaeology of Mesoamerica. There is another more practical reason, and that is that the removal of the weapons further removed the temptation to use them.

 

Alma 24:17

17  And now it came to pass that when the king had made an end of these sayings, and all the people were assembled together, they took their swords, and all the weapons which were used for the shedding of man's blood, and they did bury them up deep in the earth.

 

The burial of the weapons certainly put them beyond easy reach, and the function of reinforcing their resolve was accomplished by such a burial. However, Anti-Nephi-Lehi makes it clear that his reasons for burying the weapons are primarily religious, and any pragmatic reinforcement of their resolve is left entirely unsaid. When he explains the reason for burying the weapons, it is specifically “that they might be kept bright, as a testimony that we have never used them…”

 

Beginning with the oldest high culture in Mesoamerica, there is a tradition of burying important religious relics. At La Venta the Olmec created a massive mosaic picture made of hundreds of serpentine blocks, and then buried it. Other offering caches included polished jade celts, concave mirrors of magnetite or other iron ores, and other items sacred to the Olmec (Richard A. Diehl and Michael D. Coe. “Olmec Archaeology.” The Olmec World. Ritual and Rulership. The Art Museum, Princeton University, 1996, pp. 18-19).

 

The excavations at Copan found several offering caches, comprising ceramic censers, jadeite pieces, a flint knife, a shell, and sting-ray spines (William L. Fash. Scribes, Warriors and Kings. Thames and Hudson, 1991, p. 147). All of these items have great religious meaning among the Maya. An excellent discussion of Maya ceremonial caches may be found in Maya Cosmos (David Freidel, Linda Schele, Joy Parker. Maya Cosmos. William Morrow and Company, 1993, pp. 240-256).

 

With such a long history of making offerings in the earth, it would not be surprising if this action were a continuation of that tradition. Even though it was of pagan origin, the religious feeling that burying an offering was an appropriate action would have been strong with the Anti-Nephi-Lehis. Modern Christians feel quite comfortable with Christmas trees and Easter bunnies, in spite of the ultimately pagan origins of those symbols. So too the Anti-Nephi-Lehies could have been quite comfortable with a porting an acceptable religious practice to their new faith.

 

Daniel Ludlow has suggested:

 

“The converted Lamanites (Anti-Nephi-Lehies) refused to take up their arms against their brethren because, as they stated, "it has been all that we could do, (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins." (Alma 24:6, 11.) As part of a covenant with God that they would give up their own lives rather than shed the blood of anyone else in time of war, they "took their swords, and all the weapons which were used for the shedding of man's blood, and they did bury them up deep in the earth." (Alma 24:17.) It is entirely possible that this interesting incident could have served as the source of the "bury-the-hatchet" tradition of showing peace, which was a common practice among some of the tribes of American Indians when Columbus and other white men came to their lands.” Daniel Ludlow. A Companion To Your Study Of The Book Of Mormon. Deseret Book, p. 210).

 

There is certainly a parallel between the burying of the weapons, but the burial is the only thing that is parallel. The more modern action was a symbol of peace, entered into by two warring peoples. That has no parallel with the Anti-Lehi-Nephies. The explicit imagery that Anti-Nephi-Lehi invokes is very different. The quantity of weapons buried would have been very different. The distances in both time and space are so great as to further suggest that this is only the most superficial of connections. It is much more probable that the event was related to the pervasive Mesoamerican caching devotion than to such an act so far separated in time, space, and meaning.

 

Alma 24:18

18  And this they did, it being in their view a testimony to God, and also to men, that they never would use weapons again for the shedding of man's blood; and this they did, vouching and covenanting with God, that rather than shed the blood of their brethren they would give up their own lives; and rather than take away from a brother they would give unto him; and rather than spend their days in idleness they would labor abundantly with their hands.

 

Textual: Mormon now concludes this part of the story by providing his own summary and moral. He is reasonably accurate to Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s speech in his summary, but his conclusion betrays the same anti-Lamanite prejudices we have seen from Mormon. Anti-Nephi-Lehi never mentions anything about abandoning idleness. Indeed, it is quite likely that the over-king of such a large political hegemony was anything but idle. Nevertheless, Mormon’s conclusion trots out the long-standing accusation of idleness that becomes one of the caricatures of the Lamanite culture among the Nephites.

 

Alma 24:19

19  And thus we see that, when these Lamanites were brought to believe and to know the truth, they were firm, and would suffer even unto death rather than commit sin; and thus we see that they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war, for peace.

 

Textual/translation: Mormon will have a larger moral to this story at the end of this chapter. In this stage of the relation, he gives the “moral – so far.”  He notes that their conversion was so complete that they would rather suffer death than undo that conversion. It is certain that Mormon admired the courage of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, as do almost all modern readers.

 

At the end of this verse we have a corrected error. Daniel Ludlow has suggested that this is an indication of the difficulty of writing on the plates, where it was difficult, if not impossible, to erase (Ludow, p. 210). It is certain that we are seeing a correction or an error. In this particular case, the “weapons of peace” is a very problematic phrase, and clearly not indicative of the intended meaning. The cause of the error is easy to understand. Some of the elements of the intended phrase are present and “recut” into the erroneous phrase. English speakers are familiar with such recutting on a word basis, where “another whole… “ becomes “a whole nother…”. An entire comedy routing was created around “Cinderfella and her three sisty uglers.”

 

While the general process of creating the error is understandable, the real question is where it occurred. Our Book of Mormon has two sources, the plate text and Joseph’s translation. This error could have occurred in either of the two sources. If Mormon made the error, then he was thinking ahead of his writing, and committed himself in metal before he was accurate to his intended meaning. Joseph could have made the error through the process of dictation. If it occurred at Joseph’s level, he would have seen the coming meaning, and recut the phrase on the fly, correcting it immediately after.

 

While it is impossible to prove the ultimate source of the error, it has more of the characteristics of an oral error than a written one. The only reason to suggest that the error occurs on the level of Mormon’s plate text is the presumption of a tight control translation method. This commentary does not subscribe to that concept for reasons that have been discussed, and continue to appear in the text.

 

What does appear to be discernable in Mormon’s text is a probable draft which is behind his final draft. He never mentions a draft, but there are times when he refers to future events, giving the impression that they might already have been written. Certainly the entire scope of his text was conceived before it was committed to metal. For very pragmatic reasons, it would be logical for Mormon to write on a perishable material prior to inscribing the plates. If this were his methodology, the opportunities for the type of error in this verse are limited. It is not a copyists error because the elements that have been recut are too far distant from the point of the copying.

 

Oral discourse, on the other hand, is full of such mid course corrections. Since the translation was dictated, it is very easy to see Joseph “reading ahead” and making an oral error in the dictation, which was then corrected immediately.

 

Alma 24:20

20  And it came to pass that their brethren, the Lamanites, made preparations for war, and came up to the land of Nephi for the purpose of  destroying the king, and to place another in his stead, and also of destroying the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi out of the land.

 

Cultural: While this verse is Mormon’s summary, it nevertheless provides a very perceptive clarification of the nature of the Lamanite attack against the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. It is very easy to see this conflict in terms of religion and prejudicial zealotry. Though there may have been some of that present, the reason for the attack was not to persecute a religion, but to “destroy.. the king.” With the conversion of the over-king, the coalition of the various city-states has dissolved, and the resulting political situation is one of disorder. Into such locations of ambiguous power, ambitious men may exert their own power, and attempt to change the political situation even further.

 

The attack is centered on the land of Nephi, not on Middoni or Ishmael, because Nephi is the seat of the over-king. The political coup is an attempt to supplant the king with a new one, and recapture some of the old coalition. Of course the story plays better if the Lamanites have a vendetta against the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, and that is the aspect of the story that Mormon is most anxious to tell, so he couches his story in those terms. This will be best understood when we examine Mormon’s concluding moral for this story.

 

Alma 24:21

21  Now when the people saw that they were coming against them they went out to meet them, and prostrated themselves before them to the earth, and began to call on the name of the Lord; and thus they were in this attitude when the Lamanites began to fall upon them, and began to slay them with the sword.

 

This verse tells a very terse tale, and one that is perhaps hard to imagine. An armed force is met by a body of unarmed people. They fall upon them and begin killing them. Why is it that they would commit such a wanton slaughter? First, we must remember that the function of warfare was different for Mesoamericans. The process of combat was just as important as the outcome. Thus the combat itself was emphasized, and the capture of prisoners an important outcome. When faced with unarmed opponents, actions that might have been designed to wound and capture against an armed opponent would easily have been deadly. Secondly, it is quite likely that the Lamanite army worked themselves into an excited state, and that the adrenaline rush of the battle would have begun the slaughter before the conditions completely registered. Indeed, this is what the text appears to tell us, that there were those who began the slaughter, an then came to an understanding that this was a very different sort of combat – a type in which there was no honor to be had. It was then that those assailants ceased their attack.

 

Variant: The Original manuscript, Printer’s manuscript, and the 1830 edition all begin verse 21 with “And it came to pass that when…” (Book of Mormon Critical Text. FARMS, 1967, p. 667).

 

Alma 24:22

22  And thus without meeting any resistance, they did slay a thousand and five of them; and we know that they are blessed, for they have gone to dwell with their God.

 

See the analysis of numbers in the Book of Mormon for more information on this “count” of a thousand and five. In this case we have a number that consists of two “units,” one thousand and another unit of five. The “thousand” unit was discussed in the section on counts. In Mesoamerica there were either four or five directions depending on the emphasis. Four was an important number, but so was five, and the fifth “direction” was the center. Thus five is a very complete and comprehensive number. It is possible that the presence of this particular number here is a suggestion that there was no accurate count, but that we are seeing a symbolic number in this verse. It is most probable that Mormon’s original source was the location of the number, and that Mormon is simply copying the information from his source.

 

Alma 24:23

23  Now when the Lamanites saw that their brethren would not flee from the sword, neither would they turn aside to the right hand or to the left, but that they would lie down and perish, and praised God even in the very act of perishing under the sword—

Alma 24:24

24  Now when the Lamanites saw this they did forbear from slaying them; and there were many whose hearts had swollen in them for those of their brethren who had fallen under the sword, for they repented of the things which they had done.

 

Some of the attacking Lamanites become cognizant of the slaughter. There is no glory in such a battle, and warriors raised on the concept of the glory of combat would see this as repugnant, even if they have no other moral ground for halting the killing.

 

Textual: The connection between verse 23 and 24 is somewhat awkward. It would appear that verse 23 is heading is a particular direction, and that verse 24 somewhat pulls back and clarifies. This is not the type of mistake we saw above. In this case, the construction could also be intentional. Thus we are unable to make any indication of whether this particular construction reflects Mormon or Joseph. A case could be made for either. In the absence of any other evidence, it is perhaps best to make the assignment to Mormon.

 

Alma 24:25

25  And it came to pass that they threw down their weapons of war, and they would not take them again, for they were stung for the murders which they had committed; and they came down even as their brethren, relying upon the mercies of those whose arms were lifted to slay them.

 

Mormon uses this scene as a description of a spontaneous conversion of Lamanites to the gospel. It makes a good story, but may not have happened in this way. For a true conversion, these Lamanites would have had to have heard the gospel, but decided against it at the time. They would also have to know that the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi had embraced that gospel, and that the actions of those people was related to their new belief rather than any other possible explanation. All of these things would be difficult to have combined in the minds of the converted Lamanites. Since we are getting this story of conversion from Mormon some four hundred years later, and Mormon is clearly writing this as a moral story, he may be forgiven if he perhaps improves the story with this spontaneous conversion. The certain historical information would be that certain of the Lamanites threw down their weapons and ceased to kill. What went on in their minds would be unlikely to have been reported in the original source, and is much more likely to have been Mormon’s interpretation of that action.

 

Alma 24:26

26  And it came to pass that the people of God were joined that day by more than the number who had been slain; and those who had been slain were righteous people, therefore we have no reason to doubt but what they were saved.

 

Of course this statement could be perfectly accurate, but it has the feel of a moral. The statement that there were more converts than those that died has the feel of an extrapolated moral. The righteous sacrifice of the people resulted in an even greater conversion. In the context of the moral structuring of this story, this particular detail has the feel of contrived example rather than actual history. It could have been very true. It could also be an artifact of Mormon’s editorial process.

 

Seeing Mormon as an active editor who is reworking his material for a particular purpose should not diminish his efforts in our eyes. Mormon is an editor in the ancient mold, not a historian in modern sensibilities. While the modern historian might value the ability to suggest “what really happened,” (while still being subjective in how that was constructed), the ancient author was driven more by his purpose that his data. The gospels in the New Testament are excellent examples of where the editorial purpose of the writer flavored the way “facts” were presented, including times when the “facts” were perhaps less than factual. For instance, the Matthean genealogy is clearly manipulated to fit into three groups of fourteen generations (Alan Hugh M’Neile. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. London, Macmillan & Co LTD, 1961, p. 5). Mormon is simply a historian in the ancient mold, where the purpose of the story is more important that the absolute accuracy of some of the facts. The purpose of the facts was to enhance the story.

 

Alma 24:27

27  And there was not a wicked man slain among them; but there were more than a thousand brought to the knowledge of the truth; thus we see that the Lord worketh in many ways to the salvation of his people.

 

Textual: Mormon is explicit that he is presenting a moral to the story here. When he says “thus we see…” he is telling us that we should pay attention to the main point. In this case, his point is that “the Lord worketh in many ways to the salvation of his people.” This conclusion comes after the indication of the larger number of people converting to the gospel than those who died. Regardless of the historical issue of sources and numbers, it is clear that Mormon sees a particular moral in this story, and includes it specifically for this reason.

 

Literary:  There is enough of a contrasting structure here to suggest that at one time it was stronger than it currently appears. The first two phrases are meant to be a contrasting pair:

 

…not a wicked man slain

 

…but…

 

…more than a thousand brought to the knowledge of the truth.

 

There is a contrast between the concept of slain and “brought to a knowledge of the truth.” The contrast could be better understood when we understand that a knowledge of the truth leads to eternal life.

 

The negative construction “not a wicked man slain” begs to be paired with “a righteous man given life.” Although the construction is weak in English, it is possible that the plate text was a tighter parallel that was not completely translated.

 

Alma 24:28

28  Now the greatest number of those of the Lamanites who slew so many of their brethren were Amalekites and Amulonites, the greatest number of whom were after the order of the Nehors.

Alma 24:29

29  Now, among those who joined the people of the Lord, there were none who were Amalekites or Amulonites, or who were of the order of Nehor, but they were actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel.

Alma 24:30

30  And thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things.

 

This is the final moral of the story. It comes in two short verses, but relies upon earlier explanations in the text. The Amalekites and Amulonites were apostate Nephites. There were also those who were specifically of the order of Nehor, which was also an apostate Nephite religion. Mormon makes sure that we understand that none of the converts came from these apostate groups. He presents this information to be able to use that information as the foundation for his conclusion in verse 30. Mormon’s reading of the evidence suggested to him that those who have consciously turned against the gospel are more adamantly against it than those who had never accepted it. Of course Mormon is correct in this analysis, a sad truth born out in the early history of the church in this dispensation.

 

Textual: There is no chapter break in the 1830 edition.