Alma 3

1 And it came to pass that the Nephites who were not slain by the weapons of war, after having buried those who had been slain—now the number of the slain were not numbered, because of the greatness of their number—after they had finished burying their dead they all returned to their lands, and to their houses, and their wives, and their children.

Social: This verse provides an important datum concerning the nature of the Nephite army. After their battle, they “all returned to their lands, and to their houses, and their wives, and their children.” They did not return to “the fort,” or “their base.” They went home. It appears that even at this stage in Nephite society there is no standing army. This absence of an official standing army continued to be the practice in Mesoamerica up to the time of the arrival of the Spaniards. Even the feared Mexica (commonly known as Aztec) war machine was composed primarily of commoners who were called up as needed. (Hassig, Ross. Aztec Warfare. University of Oklahoma Press, 1988, pp. 53-54)

This lack of a standing army has multiple important implications for the nature of Nephite society. The first, and most obvious, is that the ability of the Nephites to respond to military threats required the ability to predict with sufficient advanced the time of arrival of an enemy army. Thus we find in the Book of Mormon frequent mention of scouts or lookouts.

Second, the lack of a standing army highlights the inability of Nephite political leaders to enforce their will on the people. The book of Mormon never mentions a police force, and the “voice of the people” operates as the means of enforcing decisions, not force of arms. When there are dissenters, the dissent is allowed (or the dissenters physically remove themselves) without any attempt at physical control over the dissenters. In many ways, the contention cycles so apparent in Nephite society in their sojourn in Zarahemla are allowed by the lack of a means of enforcing a single mode of thought on the people. From a sociological standpoint, the lack of a standing army and a cycle of dissent are two factors that fit together. Had there been an indication of a standing army in the text, the extremely short cycles of political instability would be anomalous.

The last facet of this popular army that is important to recognize is that the necessities of food production tend to make this a seasonal activity:

“In civilizations at such a level of technological development, armies were formed of nonprofessional militia. For example, Alma 44:23 says, "The armies of the Nephites . . . returned and came to their houses and their lands." The demand for manpower to carry on agriculture provided the most stringent limit on maintaining armies. The husbandry of those times simply could not provide sufficient reliable surplus to feed many soldiers who were not themselves involved in the seasonal work. When an army did have to be kept in battle readiness, an added burden fell on the men who were still cultivating; thus the pacifist people of Ammon were obliged to exchange the products of their labor, "a large portion of their substance to support our armies," in exchange for protection by Nephite soldiers (Alma 43:13). But unavoidably, most of those serving in the army had to meet farming's demands during part of the year.

Another seasonal consideration was the weather. Anywhere in the tropics, rain characterizes approximately half the year—the same season when the crops are growing—with resulting muddy trails and swollen streams to cross. In all likelihood, the only time when Alma and his forces could have waded across the river Sidon, fighting as they went (see Alma 2:27), would have been in the drier part of the year. Furthermore, had armies been fighting during the rains, they would have suffered significantly while traveling, camping, or fighting, for that time can be uncomfortably cool and unhealthy. Typically the Lamanites traveled virtually naked to reach the Nephites (see Enos 1:20; Alma 3:5; 43:20, 37). They would not have done so had protecting themselves against rain and cold been a concern. On the contrary, heat-caused fatigue was mentioned as a problem in the lowlands (see Alma 51:33; cf. 62:35). So the scripture confirms logic and observations about the timing of warfare in tropical lands—the rainy season ruled out major campaigns, which took place in the dry season instead.

Of course, there could be exceptions. Regions varied in climate; certain places and times would have permitted at least limited fighting other than at the normal dry time, although we must assume that planned major campaigns had to follow the general rule. Sorenson, John L. “Seasonality of Warfare in the Book of Mormon and in Mesoamerica.” In: Warfare in the Book of Mormon. FARMS, 1990, pp 447-8)

Alma 3:2

2 Now many women and children had been slain with the sword, and also many of their flocks and their herds; and also many of their fields of grain were destroyed, for they were trodden down by the hosts of men.

The timing of the Lamanite attack appears to have been at the end of the growing season, when the crops were still in the field. Thus the armies trampling through the fields have destroyed the grain. We see the effects of this in Alma 4:2 where a the Nephites suffer from the loss of their flocks and herds and grain.

The analysis just above presented information that warfare was seasonal, and that the ability to provision troops was important to being able to continue warfare. In this case, however, we have a large invading Lamanite army at a time just before the harvest instead of after. Why does this attack appear to violate the timing Sorenson has proposed?

It is quite possible that it does not entirely go against the evidence Sorenson has presented. What it would require is that the Lamanites have provisions, but that the Nephite crops were still in the field. In the proposed location for Book of Mormon events, Zarahemla would be at a higher altitude, and probably a slightly cooler climate that the invading Lamanites. This difference in altitude and temperature could create a slight difference in the growing seasons between the lands of the Lamanites and the Nephites. The Lamanites could have been home to gather in the crops, and then left immediately to strike against the Nephites. The differential in time would find the Nephite crops still in the field.

It is also quite probable that the Lamanites did not expect a prolonged action. If Sorenson is correct that the Amlicites were in collusion with the Lamanites, then there would be an expectation of a quick victory, and therefore a lesser need for carried provisions. Rather than bringing a lot of food with them, the Lamanites would have expected to eat from the captured bounty of the Nephites.

Alma 3:3

3 And now as many of the Lamanites and the Amlicites who had been slain upon the bank of the river Sidon were cast into the waters of Sidon; and behold their bones are in the depths of the sea, and they are many.

Social: There is a contrast between the Nephite treatment of their own dead and their treatment of the dead of their enemies. In verse 1 we read that the Nephites buried their own dead. Here the dead fo the Lamanites and Amlicites are thrown into the river. This distinction in the treatment of the corpses tells us some important information about the Nephites. First, it clearly indicates that the preferred treatment of the dead is to be buried. Thus when they take care of their own dead they provide for them the culturally “proper” care. While there is little more that we can suppose from this information, we can state that societies do develop proper ways to deal with the dead, and these will typically have an impact on the beliefs about the afterlife of the body’s spirit.

The contrast to this behavior is highlighted by the treatment of the Lamanite and Amlicite dead. Rather than the burial which is certainly the Nephite “proper” mode of disposal, these bodies are simply thrown in the river to be carried downstream. This is not an accidental act, but a conscious denial of respect to the bodies of the dead enemies. In societies where modes of burial are attached to beliefs about the afterlife of the spirit, the denial of the proper treatment of the dead effects not only the corpse, but the soul of the departed. When the Nephites unceremoniously dump the bodies of their enemies in the river, they are enacting a disrespect for their enemies, and perhaps a more serious denial of afterlife to the enemy dead.

When stated in these harsh terms, it would appear to be a very “un-Christian” thing to do to one’s enemies. However, in the context of an ancient culture, this is a very natural reaction to the difference between those who belong to one’s society and the enemies from without. It is precisely because this action is somewhat unexpected from a people held out to be “Christians” that we can see in this action a reasonable echo of an ancient people and ancient practices.

Alma 3:4

4 And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.

Alma 3:5

5 Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.

While Mormon will provide a religious moral to the “marking” of the Amlicites (see verses 8-9) it is quite probable that the more immediate and conscious reason for the marking of the Amlicites was that they be distinguished from the Nephites. In this type of ancient war there would be no polite usage of uniforms to distinguish the sides of the battle. While the clothing and manner of the Lamanites could be expected to be different from the Nephites, the Amlicites were Nephites not long before this incident. They would be expected to be similar physically and to have a similar mode of clothing and weaponry. In a war that virtually requires close combat, it is essential that combatants be able to know the difference between friend and foe. The Lamanites would be “marked” by their shorn heads, and the Amlicites had to find some way to identify themselves to their allies so they would not be included in what the Amlicites had hoped would be a slaughter of Nephites.

As has been noted earlier, the shorn heads of the Lamanites might indicate a desire to fight to the death rather than allow themselves to be captured. Mesoamerican scenes of capture use the grasping of the hair as a sign of capture. (Schele, Linda and Mary Ellen Miller. The Blood of Kings. George Braziller, Inc, 1986, p. 212) Thus if there is no hair, there is symbolically no capture.

The description of the military dress of the Lamanites is fascinating. There are two important descriptions of the “dress.” The first is that they were naked. The second is that they weren’t! They were naked except for the skins they wore and their armor (verse 5).

The description of the nakedness of the Lamanites in spite of the clothing described suggests that we are dealing with more than a simple description of Lamanite battle dress. While there is an element of description, there is also an element of formula. We first meet this formulaic description of the Lamanites in the cultural statement of Enos:

20 And I bear record that the people of Nephi did seek diligently to restore the Lamanites unto the true faith in God. But our labors were vain; their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us. (Enos 1:20)

As analyzed during the commentary on Enos, this catalog bears the mark of a “we are good/they are bad” cultural description. Even at that early time in Nephite history, the Lamanites had been categorized, and comparisons between Nephites and Lamanites would have the Lamanites appear in an unfavorable light. This was in spite of the times when the text clearly indicates a fairly important and sophisticated Lamanite culture. Indeed, in the coming sections of the Book of Mormon when the Lamanites are considered righteous, they appear to have remarkably jumped from barbarianism to full civilization.

The real answer, of course, lies in the common cultural phenomenon of belittling those who are not part of one’s own culture. While a modern and enlightened population might see this as less than Christian, it is nevertheless a known aspect of most all cultures. Even in a modern United States where there is a great deal of cultural pluralism, the echoes of such xenophobic statements and ideas are not far from us, and frequently appear in cultural and racial clashes.

The Nephites were certainly not immune to this trait of humanity, and their perceptions of the inferiority of the Lamanites colored their descriptions of them. In the current case, the reality of Lamanite dress appears to mix with a pejorative description which creates a formula for the description of the Lamanites throughout the long history of the Book of Mormon. The essential Nephite description of their enemy appears to require a description of their attire, with an emphasis on their nakedness, the shaved heads, a description of skin around the loins, perhaps a breastplate, and then a catalog of weaponry. While each of the elements do not need to be stated, they tend to appear together.

In Mosiah 10:8 we find:

8 And it came to pass that they came up upon the north of the land of Shilom, with their numerous hosts, men armed with bows, and with arrows, and with swords, and with cimeters, and with stones, and with slings; and they had their heads shaved that they were naked; and they were girded with a leathern girdle about their loins. (Mosiah 10:8)

The basic elements of the description are here. It begins with the catalog of weapons, then notes the shaved heads and the “leathern girdle.” Interestingly, the idea of nakedness does appear in this verse, but it almost appears to be related to the heads, as it is noted that “their heads [were] shaved that they were naked.” This is the only verse that ties the “nakedness” to the shaved pate. It would appear that this is either a unusual application of the formula, or perhaps a mistranslation.

A description of fighting in Alma assures us that there is a legitimate descriptive function to the “naked” descriptor:

18 But behold, their naked skins and their bare heads were exposed to the sharp swords of the Nephites; yea, behold they were pierced and smitten, yea, and did fall exceedingly fast before the swords of the Nephites; and they began to be swept down, even as the soldier of Moroni had prophesied. (Alma 44:18)

The lack of some covering over “their naked skins and their bare heads” made them susceptible to the blows of Nephite weapons. This should be seen in contrast to a Nephite innovation of some other type of more comprehensive armoring. In Alma 43 we have the more explicit contrast between the Nephite coverings and the Lamanite nakedness:

19 And when the armies of the Lamanites saw that the people of Nephi, or that Moroni, had prepared his people with breastplates and with arm-shields, yea, and also shields to defend their heads, and also they were dressed with thick clothing—

20 Now the army of Zerahemnah was not prepared with any such thing; they had only their swords and their cimeters, their bows and their arrows, their stones and their slings; and they were naked, save it were a skin which was girded about their loins; yea, all were naked, save it were the Zoramites and the Amalekites;

21 But they were not armed with breastplates, nor shields—therefore, they were exceedingly afraid of the armies of the Nephites because of their armor, notwithstanding their number being so much greater than the Nephites. (Alma 43:19-21)

These verses provide a little more information about the comparative battle gear of the Lamanites and the Nephites. The Nephites have “thick clothing.” This provides some protection. It would appear that this might account for the difference between the clothing and the nakedness, as the Zoramites and Amalekites are specifically described as not naked. The differences between Nephite and Lamanite dress are not absolute, but rather one of degrees. The Lamanites are “naked” even though they are wearing skins around their loins and breastplates. Their “nakedness” is not so much in the lack of covering, but in the cultural perception that theirs is an inappropriate lack of covering compared to the Nephites.

A simple example of the cultural definition of nakedness can be seen in native cultures in warm lands where women’s apparel dictates some type of skirt, but does not require a covering of the breasts. These women are not “naked” in that they are appropriately covered for their culture. However, as seen from the perspective of a culture with different expectations, it would not be unusual for a description of such native women to include the word “naked.” This appears to be the way in which the Lamanite nakedness should be seen. They are naked compared to the Nephites, but they are clearly not completely nude.

Variation: The Printer’s manuscript is missing the word “the” before “skin.” It reads “…save it were skin which was girted about their loins…” The presence of the article “the” in the printed copies may be a “correction” by the typesetter. In Mesoamerican battle dress, the wearing of an animal skin is well known, and it is possible that the original might reflect a slightly different meaning, pointing to the skin(s) worn, rather than a particular type (the skin) which might sound like simply leather. (see Book of Mormon Critical Text. FARMS 1987, 2:531 for data on the change).

Alma 3:6

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

Alma 3:6-10 is a conceptual unit that shows a dramatic affinity to 2 Nephi 5:20-23. We shall examine the parallels closely.

2 Ne. 5:20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

While the language is not absolutely identical, the set of themes is clearly suggestive that the text in Alma has a dependence upon 2 Nephi. Alma 3:6 introduces the main elements of the cursing of the Lamanites. They have a dark skin, and that cursing comes because of their rebellion against Nephi. The 2 Nephi 5 text begins with this very idea that the rebellion against Nephi is the root cause for the eventual cursing of the Lamanites. 2 Nephi 5:20-21 explains that there is more than a spatial separation between the Lamanites and the Nephites – there is a perceptual barrier.

Alma 3:7

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

Alma 3:8

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

Alma 3:7-8 expands upon 2 Nephi 5:21-22 which similarly indicates that the reason for the skin of blackness (the 2 Nephi 5 term) or the “dark” skin (the Alma 3:6 term) is to create a barrier between the Nephites and the Lamanites to prevent intermarriage.

Alma adds the information that the reason for the prevention of the intermarriage was to preserve the Nephites (v.8). This preservation comes by keeping the Nephites from believing in the “incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.” Zeniff gives us the best picture of these “incorrect traditions” in Mosiah 10:12-18. In that recounting, Zeniff reiterates the struggle between the brothers, and couches the outcome in the perspective of Laman and Lemuel, who felt slighted at the loss of their rightful rule of the family.

In spite of this consistency in relating the natured of the incorrect traditions, how is that these stories would so influence the Nephites that they would cease to be Nephites. How would a Nephite renounce their very foundational myth for the foundational myth of their enemies (using “myth” anthropologically here in the sense of the story that gives meaning to the origin of the people)?

The real answer is that while everything might boil down to a simplistic story of differences between the original brothers, the reality of the five hundred plus years of their existence in the New World has moved them beyond a simple argument of right of rule. The danger that the Book of Mormon prophets preach against is not the problem of origins, but the attractiveness of culture. The adoption of what have become defined as Lamanite lifestyles would clearly lead to the destruction of Nephite ideals. Indeed, as has been discussed the complex involving kings, social stratification, and fine clothing is precisely the type of danger that could destroy the more egalitarian nature of Nephite culture.

Alma 3:9

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

Alma 3:10

10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him.

These verses are the echo of 2 Nephi 5:23. The point of the verses is to indicate that the cursing is inclusive and continuous. This prohibition against intermarriage with the Lamanites continues from Nephi’s time through to Alma’s time. The prohibition continues to protect the Nephites from the false traditions.

Textual: The important question from the standpoint of the construction of the text is the nature of the dependence of these clearly parallel passages. To understand the possible connections of the sections, we need to understand the nature of the passages in Alma 3:6-10 (and on through 12). This text comes from Mormon. In the middle of Mormon’s description of the Amlicites Mormon takes a detour into Lamanite cursing. His reason for doing this is to associate the Amlicites with the Lamanite curse. He begins this train of thought in Alma 3:3, interjects the information on the cursing, and then returns to his point in Alma 3:13-14.

Since this is Mormon’s interjection, it is possible that he could be dependent directly upon 2 Nephi 5 since Mormon discovered those records and clearly read them (Words of Mormon1:1-5). It is unclear, however, if Mormon found those records before or after Alma was written, and the text in Words of Mormon has Mormon “finishing” his record with the small plate text (Words of Mormon 1:5).

The nature of the dependency is clarified for us in verses 14-17 below where Mormon cites his source directly. Mormon indicates that there is a specific prophecy of Nephi with which he is familiar, and he cites that prophecy to support his statement. The specifics of that prophecy do not match well enough with the text in 2 Nephi 5 to indicate that it was derived from that source. What we have are two independent records of Nephi’s prophetic statement concerning his brethren. There appears to be an “official” version that Mormon cites in verses 14-17, and the version is 2 Nephi 5 would be a less official version. Nephi does not couch that one in the precise form of a “word of the Lord” statement, but rather relates the word of the Lord. The literary structure of the two texts indicates a separate purpose, and therefore a separate transmission of the source.

What is important for our cultural understanding of the Nephites, however, is not that they kept a formal literary statement of the cultural division between themselves and the Lamanites, but that it was so engrained in the fabric of their culture that it persisted is a fairly tight form through nearly a thousand years of their history. This suggests that in addition to the textual transmission, there was a strong oral tradition as well. This “myth” of the cursing of the Lamanites was clearly retold to multiple generations, and creates the foundation of the tense relationships between the Nephites and the Lamanites.

Alma 3:11

11 And it came to pass that whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites, but believed those records which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and also in the tradition of their fathers, which were correct, who believed in the commandments of God and kept them, were called the Nephites, or the people of Nephi, from that time forth—

This verse is conceptually similar to Jacob’s discussion of who was a Nephite and who was a Lamanite:

Jacob 1:13-14 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites. 14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

In both cases, we have a separation of the label from the lineal descendents. Even in Jacob, the people who are Nephites are those friendly to Nephi – and those who follow the reigns of the kings who were named Nephi.

Mormon tells us that the same type of designation served throughout the Book of Mormon. Those who believed in the records and the traditions of the Nephites were called Nephites. While Mormon gives a religious definition as well (“who believed in the commandments of God and kept them”) but we must continually remember that religion and politics were all rolled into the same concepts in the ancient world.

We should note also the dichotomous relationship between the categories of Nephite and Lamanite. For Jacob, those who opposed the Nephites were Lamanites. In Mormon’s statement, those who weren’t Lamanites were Nephites. Both prophets give only two categories, Nephite and Lamanite. Neither men, however, link those labels to lineage, as we might otherwise expect. These are designations that are broader than a kin group. They define a poltico-religious body.

Alma 3:12

12 And it is they who have kept the records which are true of their people, and also of the people of the Lamanites.

Both verses 11 and 12 emphasize the records. There are a couple of possible reasons for Mormon’s emphasis on the records. First, he is working with those records, and they form the foundation of his writing (our current text of the Book of Mormon). Mormon would have had to have read the large collection of records, and referred to them often during his writing (particularly for the sections where he appears to copy from them directly, such as the quoted speeches). Mormon’s sensibilities to the records of the Nephites would therefore be quite high. It is probably in this context that he adds that the records are true. This is a testimony he adds which highlights the truth of the record he is writing.

In addition to Mormon’s relationship to the records, the very fact of the records appears to be something that sets the Nephites apart from the Lamanites, and in more than just the writing. The records become the proof of right-of-rule, a marker of Nephite rulers. They also become the keepers of the heritage, keepers of language, and most importantly the keepers of their religion, which also means politics and science (see Mosiah 1:3-3-4).

Alma 3:13

13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.

Textual: This insertion by Mormon indicates that he has taken a detour from what he originally planned to talk about. Nevertheless, it is hard to understand precisely what the detour was, because Mormon returns to the subject of the detour. What was Mormon’s original intent?

If we were to remove verses 4-19 we would have a reasonably consistent narrative of the events moving directly from verse 3 to verse 20. It would appear that the insertion was triggered by verse 4’s introduction of the mark of the Amlicites. In verses 4-12 Mormon explains the mark, and discusses the cursing of the Lamanites from a Nephite perspective. Now in verse 13 he indicates that he has take a detour and must return to the story of the Amlicites. Apparently he considers the discussion of the Lamanites to be the side-step, for he immediately returns to the story of the Amlicite marking and how that fulfilled commandments.

From this information we can reconstruct Mormon’s intent. In his narrative, Mormon pauses to make a specific moral point. He wants to show that the Amlicites are both wicked in their rebellion from the Nephites, and that they are fulfilling a curse by marking their foreheads. This general practice is using history to frame moral stories is frequently used in Mormon’s editorial style. The aside from which Mormon must return in his narrative is the excursion into the discussion of the Lamanites themselves. While a description of the Lamanite cursing is certainly related to what Mormon wants to say, he does indicate that it is only tangential. His purpose is to show that the Amlicites fulfill prophecy, and are therefore still a tool of God even though they have rebelled against God.

Alma 3:14

14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.

Textual: This is clearly a quotation from Mormon’s source. Since we do not have this particular statement in our copy of Nephi’s writings, we may be certain that the citation is from the large plate tradition rather than the small plates. We cannot be certain whether or not Mormon included this prophecy when he wrote the Book of Lehi (which would have contained Nephi’s writings and prophecies) but it is likely. Given Mormon’s interest in the passage here, an interest sufficient that he repeats the general information twice in succession, it is reasonable to assume that he would have included this information when he abridged the Book of Lehi.

Alma 3:15

15 And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also.

Alma 3:16

16 And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.

Alma 3:17

17 And again, I say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth and forever; and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and to his seed.

Textual: These three verses continue the prophecy of Nephi that Mormon is applying to the marking of the Amlicites. In repeating these lines Mormon makes an interesting insertion. At the beginning of each of these lines Mormon adds the words “and again.” What he is doing is emphasizing that this is a citation rather than his own words. The speaker of the citation is the Lord, and Mormon is both highlighting the specifics of the declaration and separating his voice from the voice of the Lord. Structurally, he ends the citation by the concluding “and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and to his seed.”

We may assume that the written script on the plates followed general practices of ancient texts, and lacked the niceties of quotation marks, paragraphs, and indentations. In such a text, the verbal markers are more important than the written markers. It is also quite likely that the intent of writing was not necessarily reading, but reading aloud. In cases where the text was read aloud, structural markers such as these make it easier to follow the difference between citation and author’s narrative.

Alma 3:18

18 Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.

Alma 3:19

19 Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.

Mormon concludes this unit by providing the moral of this particular story. The elements of Mormon’s lesson are that the Amlicites were unaware that they were fulfilling prophecy, and that they brought the condemnation on themselves.

That one does not know when they are fulfilling prophecy is an important point for understanding the nature of God’s dealings with men. Many prophecies appear to require some special circumstances, but when the fulfillment is seen in retrospect, the conditions were quite natural to bring about the fulfillment. Many of Isaiah’s messianic prophecies fit this mold, where in looking forward the fulfillment is not easily seen. Nevertheless, looking backwards from the life of Christ, the points of correspondence are clear. The Lord continues to work miracles, but many of them are couched in contexts that make them appear quite natural. In this way the option of faith is preserved, and those miraculous occurrences do not force belief.

That one brings condemnation upon himself is another important lesson. While there are punishments for disobeying God, most of them are better seen as consequences rather than active punishments. Surely a curse might be claimed as an active punishment from God, but Mormon indicates that the Amlicites volunteered for it. So it is with most of the punishments of God. God does not so much meet them out as we rush to embrace them in the guise of something else we think we are after.

Alma 3:20

20 Now it came to pass that not many days after the battle which was fought in the land of Zarahemla, by the Lamanites and the Amlicites, that there was another army of the Lamanites came in upon the people of Nephi, in the same place where the first army met the Amlicites.

Mormon doesn’t tell us too much about this particular army, other than it is another Lamanite army. That leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Is this a coordinated effort from a single Lamanite commander, or is this a second army from a completely different Lamanite political unit? We simply don’t have enough information to tell us, though it is a question that is of historical interest. The arguments for the two possibilities are as follows:

The presence of a second army at the same location suggests that they are coming from the same place, and that there were two divisions (however they might be termed militarily – division, battalion, etc.) that arrive at different times.

The presence of a second army at the same location simply indicates that this is the typical entrance point to Zarahemla from the ancient land of Nephi. Mesoamerican cities were typically independent, and it is quite possible that the two armies are from different cities, and therefore with different commanders and purposes. The timing of their arrival would be coincidental, but ultimately based upon whatever impetus to battle there was in the ancient land of Nephi at that time.

There is not enough evidence to choose between these alternatives.

Textual: We no return to the events. This particular event is rather spectacular because it suggests that this particular invasion of Zarahemla was rather massive, with two different armies appearing within days. Had Mormon written his text during the heated events being described, this second appearance would have received a much greater emphasis than it does here. Rather than Mormon’s explanation of the cursing of the Amlicites and Lamanites, we would have had a greater discourse on the tremendous military pressures being placed on a people who had to meet such large armies so quickly in succession.

We don’t get that for two reasons. The first is that Mormon is not writing at that time and so can distance himself from the events. The second is that it really is not Mormon’s purpose to describe wars. Rather, Mormon is detailing the events that are leading to the coming of Christ. At this point we are only 87 years from the birth of Christ, and Mormon still has a lot of explaining to do to get from the relatively righteous Nephites to those who are persecuting the believers just before Christ’s birth. These events are part of an explanation of the spiritual war, not the physical one. For that reason we get the spiritual aside of the cursing of the Lamanites and the Amlicites. It is those spiritual witnesses of these wars that are most important to Mormon.

Alma 3:21

21 And it came to pass that there was an army sent to drive them out of their land.

Alma 3:22

22 Now Alma himself being afflicted with a wound did not go up to battle at this time against the Lamanites;

Alma 3:23

23 But he sent up a numerous army against them; and they went up and slew many of the Lamanites, and drove the remainder of them out of the borders of their land.

We must remember that in verse 1 of Alma 3 we have the army returning to their homes. Secondly, we have the Lamanite army discovered early, where the discovery of the first army appears almost accidental in the description. These events suggest that the people of Zarahemla, while they had returned to their homes, had remained on high alert, with spies watching the main pass into their land. This early warning supplied enough time to reorganize the army and to meet the Lamanites in the land – not the city of Zarahemla.

In this engagement, Alma does not personally lead the troops as he had previously, due to a wound from the first battle. This further strengthens the assumptions that the leader of the people should lead them in battle, as it was important to note.

Textual: Notice that this description of the battle is much more abbreviated than the last one. It is unlikely that the battle was quite so quick or easy as Mormon makes it appear here. Once again, this is because Mormon’s real interest in these battles is not the wars, but the social and religious events that were swirling around them, and which erupted into wars. The theme is not war, but the general dissolution of the righteous society which will lead to the type of culture that will persecute the believers in just a few short years.

Alma 3:24

24 And then they returned again and began to establish peace in the land, being troubled no more for a time with their enemies.

Alma 3:25

25 Now all these things were done, yea, all these wars and contentions were commenced and ended in the fifth year of the reign of the judges.

Mormon uses the terms “wars and contentions.” In Mormon’s usage these two often are placed together, which may lead us to believe that they both describe the same conditions. They do not. For Mormon, wars are against an external foe, and contentions are against an internal foe. Thus we have war because of the Lamanites, but contentions due to the Amlicites. Notice that the introduction of the Amlicite problem in Alma 2:1 “And it came to pass in the commencement of the fifth year of their reign there began to be a contention among the people; for a certain man, being called Amlici. . .”

Mormon is consistent in making a distinction between wars and contentions, and when we see “contentions” we must understand that we are dealing with internal strife and divisions, not external problems with the Lamanites.

Textual: Mormon’s summary conclusion is simply that peace returns, and they have a time where they will not have trouble from their enemies. We have the typical ending statement that these things end in a particular year, in this case the fifth year of the reign of the judges, which correlates to AD 87 in the correlation used in this commentary. While this is typically a closing statement, and indeed is the concluding statement of this chapter in verse 27.

This suggests that Mormon had intended to close his account with this year-statement, but then adds the editorial insertion that we have as verses 26 and 27. When he finishes with that moral conclusion, he returns to the intended conclusion.

Alma 3:26

26 And in one year were thousands and tens of thousands of souls sent to the eternal world, that they might reap their rewards according to their works, whether they were good or whether they were bad, to reap eternal happiness or eternal misery, according to the spirit which they listed to obey, whether it be a good spirit or a bad one.

Verses 26 and 27 highlight Mormon’s real intent in describing wars. While he does indicate that there were many who died, his intent is not to describe the casualties of physical war, but the more serious casualties of spiritual war. These wars are not simply battles for territory or tribute, but to Mormon a war for the souls of men. Thus when he describes the dead, he describes them in spiritual terms.

The two categories that he lists are those who listen to a good spirit and those who listen to a bad spirit. Each of those two types receives an eternal reward that is likewise listed only in the two extremes; eternal happiness or eternal misery. While this surely applies to each individual, Mormon is using this categorization collectively, and it may be more directed to the Amlicites than the Lamanites. Mormon has told this story because of the Amlicites, as witnessed by his editorial aside which moralizes on the events of the war. That moralizing insertion emphasized the apostasy of the Amlicites and their acceptance of the Lamanite cursing. For Mormon, these Nephites have become Lamanites. These who were with them are now opposed to them, and opposed spiritually, not just politically.

With that perspective, Mormon classes those who have died into the two spiritual categories. There are those who have listened to a good spirit, the Nephites; and those who have listed to a bad spirit, the Amlicites (and including the Lamanites).

Alma 3:27

27 For every man receiveth wages of him whom he listeth to obey, and this according to the words of the spirit of prophecy; therefore let it be according to the truth. And thus endeth the fifth year of the reign of the judges.

The phrase “listeth to obey” suggests that Mormon is familiar with, and perhaps referencing, the great sermon of King Benjamin:

Mosiah 2:32-33 But, O my people, beware lest there shall arise contentions among you, and ye list to obey the evil spirit, which was spoken of by my father Mosiah.

33 For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge.

There is an interesting overlap in the language and contexts of Benjamin’s statement and Mormon’s apparent restructuring of that statement. In both cases there is an emphasis on the volition of the person – the one who “listeth [listens] to obey.” In both there is a description of the eternal wage one will receive for the spirit to which one listens. The main difference is that Benjamin emphasizes only the negative half of the choice, and Mormon presents both the negative and positive options. Nevertheless, it would seem that Mormon is repeating the same message. The ultimate spiritual happiness or misery of man is based upon our own choices.

This is Mormon’s logical conclusion to the story of the Amlicites, who have become cursed, and did so voluntarily. Mormon’s story of the Amlicites emphasizes that they were originally Nephite, and therefore not subject to the curse of the Lamanites (not the implicit eternal misery of those who oppose God – as known by the way of life of the Nephties). The cursing of the Amlicites came because they made a choice, and they received the reward of that spirit that they “listeth to obey.”

What did they listen to? From a historical viewpoint, what can we say was evidence that the Amlicites “listened” to a spirit that drew them away? Once again we have the conflict that has been part and parcel of the Nephite experience. The Nephite way of life continues to be in conflict with the cultural influences surrounding them. The Amlicite “contention” was that they “listened” to those outside influences. They wanted to adopt the king-culture, which has become the Book of Mormon shorthand for the way of life that is opposed to the way of God.

Textual: The first sentence of this verse is the conclusion of the statement in verse 26. The final verse simply pastes on the conclusion that Mormon began to write in verse 25. This is the end of a chapter in the 1830 edition.