Mormon 2

Mormon 2:1

1 And it came to pass in that same year there began to be a war again between the Nephites and the Lamanites. And notwithstanding I being young, was large in stature; therefore the people of Nephi appointed me that I should be their leader, or the leader of their armies.

Chronological: [in that same year]: Mormon does not name a year, but assumes that we understand that “in that same year” refers to the last noted event:

Mormon 1:18

18 And these Gadianton robbers, who were among the Lamanites, did infest the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof began to hide up their treasures in the earth; and they became slippery, because the Lord had cursed the land, that they could not hold them, nor retain them again.

Mormon 1:19

19 And it came to pass that there were sorceries, and witchcrafts, and magics; and the power of the evil one was wrought upon all the face of the land, even unto the fulfilling of all the words of Abinadi, and also Samuel the Lamanite.

This creates an interesting contrast between the war in which Mormon will now be engaged and the previous. It is possible that there is a distinction in the composition of the enemy, with the previous combatants being Lamanites, and only now a combination of Lamanites and Gadianton robbers. This fits into our hypothesis that the Gadianton robbers were Teotihuacán military castes that had merged into various Lamanite peoples and influenced them to differing religion and increased militarism.

Social: Mormon implies much, and tells us little. The essential information is that he becomes the leader of the armies of the Nephites at a young age. What he does not tell us is perhaps some of the more important socio-cultural information we could have for the Nephites in the post-Messianic-visit era. Since he does not tell us, we must try to fill in the blanks.

The first thing that we learn from Mormon’s statement is that there is a single leader for a single army. When we combine this piece of information with the understanding that there are Nephites in Bountiful and Zarahemla as two named lands, and presumably a larger territory, this tells us that there has been re-established a Nephite political unit that has a unified leadership to which the various cities look for defense. This leads us to suspect that the Nephites had reestablished the reign of judges, as it is unlikely that they would have allowed kings given their antipathy to kings and the social meanings that were imported with the Mesoamerican kingship conceptions.

The second probable understanding is that there were men trained in the military rather than simply conscripted from their farming duties. Were this not so, there would be no reason to look to a young man as a general. With a decentralized and non-professional military, each unit would have had a leader, and the symbolic overall leader would go to respect and age, not to a young man. The only reason for selecting a young man is skill, and that skill would not only come from a professional military training, but a system sufficiently formalized that the members of that profession were recognized. Only with a professional and recognized training for military men would a man of Mormon’s age be within the scope of vision of those selecting a leader for the army.

Knowing that Mormon was in a military training, and that he had learned to read and write, further supports the hypothesis presented that both he and his father had been part of the court retainers of the Nephite political leader, and that the leader must have been Ammaron. Assuming that the Nephites were following Mesoamerican social structures, those who were in the courts, but not in the line of inheritance, were those most likely to be scribes. Their prominent social position would also place them in a position of visibility and social worthiness to be a leader of an army. The only facet remaining is the particular reason for selecting Mormon, and that would be a demonstrated skill that was respected by those making the choice of the leader of the armies.

Mormon 2:2

2 Therefore it came to pass that in my sixteenth year I did go forth at the head of an army of the Nephites, against the Lamanites; therefore three hundred and twenty and six years had passed away.

Mormon 2:3

3 And it came to pass that in the three hundred and twenty and seventh year the Lamanites did come upon us with exceedingly great power, insomuch that they did frighten my armies; therefore they would not fight, and they began to retreat towards the north countries.

The statement that Mormon was sixteen in the year that he led the Nephite armies gives us a small picture of timing. In Mormon 1:15 Mormon is fifteen years old. It was during that year that he was visited by the Lord. After that statement, we have verses 16 and 17 that emphasize Mormon’s desire to preach, and inability to do so by command of the Lord. The events were apparently moving quickly so that Mormon would be more needed for his militaristic talents than for his spirituality.

Mormon takes command of the Nephite armies at age 16. He was not the commander of the earlier battle, and this suggests that while the Lamanites retreated, the losses on the Nephite side were severe enough that either their commander himself was killed, or sufficiently incapacitated that he had to be replaced. This latter is the more likely, as Mesoamerican canons of warfare would have the Lamanites securing victory if they defeated and killed the opposing commander. Whatever the circumstances, there is a change in the Nephite military between the first battle and this next one, a change that requires that they turn to a sixteen year old man to be their leader. While that is indeed young, we should remember that in that cultural area it would have been quite likely that it was an age of majority, with most men accepting adulthood by that age.

The result of this battle is disastrous. The Nephite army simply refuses to engage the enemy and flees. While this must have been a crushing personal event for a newly minted leader of the army, there may be other circumstances at play here. The first is that the Nephite army did not fail to engage the Lamanites in the previous battle only years prior (no more than five, likely less). What has changed in the meantime. In this verse Mormon explicitly tells us that they Lamanites are now come “with exceedingly great power.” This is an interesting statement because it is not the typical statement about the Lamanite armies, which is that they have great numbers. In this case, they might come in great numbers, but that is not what is indicated as the reason why the Nephites fled. Indeed, the Nephites were fighting a defensive war which should require fewer battle-troops to at least create a standoff.

In spite of all of these things, the Lamanites come with “exceeding great power.” It is tempting to connect this statement with Mormon’s indication that now the Gadiantons have joined the Lamanites. Continuing with our assumption that the Gadiantons of Mormon’s day are to be seen as a Teotihuacán militaristic influence, this statement that the opposing army now came in “exceeding great power” makes a little more sense. We do not really know if the Teotihuacanos had any particular military innovation that made them militarily dominant, but we do have evidence that they were militarily dominant. The entrance of the Teotihuacanos into the Maya area appears to correspond to a new designation for war which epigraphers have labeled “star wars” because of the star imagery used to depict them. At this time, the precise nature of a “star war” is not understood, but it is clear that they became devastating types of war, and became the prominent type of warfare after the Teotihuacán contact.

If Mormon’s Nephite army is now facing a Teotihuacán-trained and led army, they may have had some indication of this new type of warfare, and fled to regroup. If this were the case, it may not be the cowardly flight that it initially appears to be, but rather a strategic retreat to understand and better prepare for this new type of enemy, one that is described differently from any previous army that the Nephites have faced.

Chronology: Three hundred and twenty seven years would be 318 A.D.

Mormon 2:4

4 And it came to pass that we did come to the city of Angola, and we did take possession of the city, and make preparations to defend ourselves against the Lamanites. And it came to pass that we did fortify the city with our might; but notwithstanding all our fortifications the Lamanites did come upon us and did drive us out of the city.

When the Lamanites come to the city of Angola, they “did take possession of the city.” This is an interesting statement in that it expresses a relationship of power over the city rather than one of equality. Although there is nothing else to lead us in this supposition, the phraseology suggests that Angola is not properly a Nephite city, but simply one that is between the invading Lamanites and the larger body of the Nephite people. Thus it forms an appropriate line of defense. Appropriate or not, it is insufficient. The “exceeding great power” of the Lamanite forces drive them from this fortified city. This is not simply done, and does indeed suggest that there was something unusual in the attacking army.

Geographical: There are no indications outside of this mention for the location of Angola. Sorenson notes that it probably lies within the land of David, since that is the land from which they are driven after Angola (See the comments following verse six.) (John L. Sorenson, The Geography of the Book of Mormon. FARMS, 1990, p. 313).

Mormon 2:5

5 And they did also drive us forth out of the land of David.

Mormon 2:6

6 And we marched forth and came to the land of Joshua, which was in the borders west by the seashore.

Geographic: The line of march moves the Nephites towards the North on the west side of their land holdings. To be along the shore they had to have crossed through the mountain range separating the Sidon river valley from the coastal regions. This might be a land renamed after the destruction of Ammonihah, and would consist of that particular territory along the coastal lines. It is certainly to the west of Zarahemla (John L. Sorenson, The Geography of the Book of Mormon. FARMS, 1990, p. 313). Assuming this line of march, Mormon would be leading the pursuing army away from the more central valleys where the greater population lay.

Mormon 2:7

7 And it came to pass that we did gather in our people as fast as it were possible, that we might get them together in one body.

Mormon 2:8

8 But behold, the land was filled with robbers and with Lamanites; and notwithstanding the great destruction which hung over my people, they did not repent of their evil doings; therefore there was blood and carnage spread throughout all the face of the land, both on the part of the Nephites and also on the part of the Lamanites; and it was one complete revolution throughout all the face of the land.

Social: These verses give us a complicate but important picture of the nature of these final events. The first is that as the Nephite army rapidly retreats toward the north it attempts to gather people and have them move north as well. Mormon’s army travels together, almost by definition. This means that the pursuing army has a single focal point. In spite of this single location of the target, Mormon’s description of the general scene is widespread. Rather than describe a pursuing army, Mormon indicates that: “the land was filled with robbers and with Lamanites. The destruction is not localized to the army, but is also spread across the land. It would appear that the Lamanites and Gadiantons are pursuing some form of a scorched earth policy, eliminating or dominating settlements along the way rather than focus on the previously more “gentlemanly” form of war that engaged between armies only.

Mormon’s final statement is that there is “one complete revolution throughout all the land.” This statement followed Mormon’s assertion that the people “did not repent of their evil doings.” Those “evil doings” had been the acceptance of outside influences, including the outside religion. It is quite probable that this final revolution and the “not repenting of evil doings” are related. The people of the land had been gradually accepting more and more of the Lamanite ways. With this exceedingly powerful army coming through, and army representing the ways of life to which they were gravitating already, it is probable that most of the people of the land simply revolted from Nephite rule and accepted the newcomers.

Mormon 2:9

9 And now, the Lamanites had a king, and his name was Aaron; and he came against us with an army of forty and four thousand. And behold, I withstood him with forty and two thousand. And it came to pass that I beat him with my army that he fled before me. And behold, all this was done, and three hundred and thirty years had passed away.

As indicated in the essay on the use of numbers in the Book of Mormon, these are suspicious numbers and may not reflect real troop strengths. The difference is to neatly packaged in symbolic numbers to accept without question. In particular, the final contrast between 4000 and 2000 would not only mean inferior numbers, but perhaps even symbolically inferior forces, and 4 is the Mesoamerican number of perfection. Mormon would be using the numbers to indicate his relative disadvantage, one that was far greater than simply 2000 men.

In spite of whatever disadvantage Mormon might have had, he finally has his first victory over this invading army. This was only a battle, however, not the war. Mormon and his forces had retreated far north, and had given up large tracts of land. Although this is the beginning of hope, it is far from the conclusion.

Chronology: The three hundred and thirtieth year would be 322 A.D.

Mormon 2:10

10 And it came to pass that the Nephites began to repent of their iniquity, and began to cry even as had been prophesied by Samuel the prophet; for behold no man could keep that which was his own, for the thieves, and the robbers, and the murderers, and the magic art, and the witchcraft which was in the land.

Mormon 2:11

11 Thus there began to be a mourning and a lamentation in all the land because of these things, and more especially among the people of Nephi.

Mormon 2:12

12 And it came to pass that when I, Mormon, saw their lamentation and their mourning and their sorrow before the Lord, my heart did begin to rejoice within me, knowing the mercies and the long-suffering of the Lord, therefore supposing that he would be merciful unto them that they would again become a righteous people.

Literary: Mormon builds up a hope, and then dramatically crushes it in the following verse. The hope is built in his readers because we have been accustomed to Mormon’s writing in which desperation leads to repentance and to a return to the Lord. The return to the Lord has been accompanied by a return to victory. Mormon is well aware that he has written this pattern, and he uses our expectations to allow us to feel some of the despair that he felt. First he builds up our hope with the words that indicate a sorrow to repentance, knowing that our expectations will be hopeful. He even describes his own process through that hope in that he had joy for the sorrows of the people for he assumed that it would lead them to repentance. These three verses are the buildup of the expectation. We know how this story is supposed to end, and we expect that ending.

Mormon 2:13

13 But behold this my joy was vain, for their sorrowing was not unto repentance, because of the goodness of God; but it was rather the sorrowing of the damned, because the Lord would not always suffer them to take happiness in sin.

Literary: Now comes the crushing second half of the buildup. We knew how the story ought to end, but it doesn’t. Rather than to repentance, their sorrow simply leads to sorrow and anger.

Mormon 2:14

14 And they did not come unto Jesus with broken hearts and contrite spirits, but they did curse God, and wish to die. Nevertheless they would struggle with the sword for their lives.

There are at least two responses to adversity. One is to turn to God. The other is to “curse God, and wish to die.” Of course Mormon had hoped for the former. He witnessed the latter. What doe sit mean to want to “curse God, and die?” There are two parts of the expression that describe what happens in the person who suffers adversity. The first is that they have come upon a reversal of their expectations. Bruce Hafen describes this process for the House of Israel:

“Throughout much of Old Testament history, Jehovah was thought to be a jealous God whose protection depended upon the obedience of his people. If the people were faithful, they felt assured of his protection against any adverse force. Therefore, when trouble came it was natural to assume that the cause was personal unrighteousness, either for an individual or for Israel as a nation.” (Bruce C. Hafen, The Broken Heart: Applying the Atonement to Life's Experiences [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1989], 57.)

The expectation of many is that believing in and following God is a guarantee of shelter from the storms of life. This is an extension of the ancient practice of sacrifices to pagan gods, where the sacrifice was an exchange for services to be rendered in the future. For the pagan, the offering was to ensure some good outcome. If the god did not perform, then they promised that they would withhold further sacrifices to the god. This bartering with the gods feeds our underlying attempts to see ourselves in a similar privileged position because of our attempts to follow God. If we assume that because we pay tithing and attend Sacrament meetings that we will be spared adversity, then when adversity comes we see in it the betrayal of the bargain we made with God. Of course this isn’t the relationship we have with God, and it certainly isn’t an accurate description of the overarching principle of Agency. Nevertheless, there are those who profess to believe in agency, but are still angry with God when he does not fulfill his end of our “bargain.”

This was the state of the ancient Nephites. Somehow they made the leap from sacrifice as commitment to sacrifice as bargain, and they sold their souls for that bargain. When all was well, it worked perfectly, and even proved their case. If they were prosperous, it was because they had performed as God has wanted them to perform. When it failed, there was no depth to their performances, and rather than Godly sorrow to repentance, the same conditions generated anger. That anger is what causes them to “curse God.” Of course they would curse God if they expected that He had failed in his part of a bargain.

The second condition is to “wish to die.” This is the very negation of the plan of life. What God promises is life everlasting. This particular wishing to die is not simply a desire for cessation of moral function. It is a negation of the plan of the Redeemer. To want to die is the opposite of wanting to live. In the gospel terms, living is eternal; death is the antithesis. By electing the antithesis, they are doing more than cursing God, they are denying that there is a God, and denying His entire purpose.

Reference: the phrase “curse God, and wish to die,” borrows its underlying form and vocabulary from Job:

Job 2:9

9 ¶ Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

In both cases, we see this as a possible response to adversity. In the case of Job, it was recommended to him as a natural response. It is Job’s conquering of that natural desire that is his spiritual strength, and the highlighted characteristic of the story. In Mormon’s usage, the phrase fits into the context of a common response to adversity. Unfortunately, there is no positive countering response. The ultimate message of Job is positive. Mormon’s description is painfully negative.

Mormon 2:15

15 And it came to pass that my sorrow did return unto me again, and I saw that the day of grace was passed with them, both temporally and spiritually; for I saw thousands of them hewn down in open rebellion against their God, and heaped up as dung upon the face of the land. And thus three hundred and forty and four years had passed away.

Textual: By the time Mormon wrote these passages he had already read the small plates of Nephi that he appended to his record (Words of Mormon 1:3). Since he had read them, it is tempting to see his vision of his own people as having been colored by a passage for the first Nephi:

2 Nephi 26:11

11 For the Spirit of the Lord will not always strive with man. And when the Spirit ceaseth to strive with man then cometh speedy destruction, and this grieveth my soul.

Nephi indicates that there will come a time when the opportunities for repentance are passed, that the Spirit itself will no longer strive to redeem mankind. Significantly, Nephi ties this loss of the Spirit to speedy destruction. Mormon saw the loss of the Spirit in the people, and notes that “the day of grace was passed with them, both temporally and spiritually.” In other words, they were in that condition described by Nephi where the Spirit would cease to strive with man. Mormon understood, painfully understood, that he was now witnessing their “speedy destruction.”

For Mormon this is a physical and immediate destruction as well as a spiritual and future destruction of their soul. These compatriots were dying from their combat. After that death their souls would also lose the battle with Satan, and become his – at least in this metaphor.

Is it true that the Spirit will cease to strive with man? This would appear to violate the longsuffering of the Lord. The key to this is that it is not the Spirit who voluntarily withdraws, but that the hearts of men become so hardened that he is no longer able to penetrate to that soft part of the heart that might hear. With no access to the tenderness of true repentance, the Spirit withdraws because we no longer admit him, not because he tires of the attempt.

Mormon 2:16

16 And it came to pass that in the three hundred and forty and fifth year the Nephites did begin to flee before the Lamanites; and they were pursued until they came even to the land of Jashon, before it was possible to stop them in their retreat.

[before it was possible to stop them in their retreat.] There are two ways to read this statement. One is that “them” refers to the Nephites, and it that the Nephites were in such panicked retreat that they could not be stopped until they came to Jashon. This reading would fit if we accept the cowardly definition of the Nephite military at this point.

The second reading is that “them” is the Lamanites, and that the fleeing Nephite army was unable to find a way to deter the Lamanite invasion until the battlefield arrived at Jashon. This is the more likely reading, as the Nephites did stop at Jershon, and were able to form a sufficient defensive line that the Lamanite threat was blunted to the point that Mormon could take the time to go to the land Antum where the plates had been deposited (next verse and Mormon 1:3). If the Nephite army had been in complete panicked flight, one of the most likely scenarios would have massive dissertions where the army would fission into pieces and flee in different directions. If the army were attempting to avoid engagement, desertion is a more likely scenario. This does not happen. They stay together and become at least temporarily effective at Jershon. The relative probabilities of turning a discispline retreating force, and an undisciplined fleeing force to make an effective stand tells us that this is not the panicked flight it might appear to be.

Geographical: There is no specific geographical information available for Jashon other than to indicate that it is along the northward flight path. The presence of a city in that location does indicate that it is a populated area as opposed to some type of wilderness. ((John L. Sorenson, The Geography of the Book of Mormon. FARMS, 1990, p. 313-4). This entire geographic sequence does not fit into previously known names and lands. This might be because of the renaming of locations, but it is also quite likely that this land experiences the general population explosion at the beginning of the Classic period in Mesoamerica. Since Mormon gives us little of the intervening time periods, new settlements surely arose during that time. We are probably seeing the result of the last three hundred years’ growth in the area.

Chronological: The three hundred and forty fifth year would be 335 A.D. At this time Mormon is probably twenty four chonologically, even though he is in the twenty fifth year from the year of his birth. The reason for the presumption is that he was told to obtain the plates when he was twenty four, and it was likely that, as Joseph Smith would be later, Mormon was anxious to receive them and would not unnecessarily delay. Of course the fact that they were in active flight from the invading Lamanites and Gadiantons played a role in dictating available time as well.

Mormon 2:17

17 And now, the city of Jashon was near the land where Ammaron had deposited the records unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed. And behold I had gone according to the word of Ammaron, and taken the plates of Nephi, and did make a record according to the words of Ammaron.

Mormon 2:18

18 And upon the plates of Nephi I did make a full account of all the wickedness and abominations; but upon these plates I did forbear to make a full account of their wickedness and abominations, for behold, a continual scene of wickedness and abominations has been before mine eyes ever since I have been sufficient to behold the ways of man.

Mormon fulfills his promise to Ammaron and retrieves the Nephite records. He does not tell us what he retrieved, but it is useful to examine the scope of the records to which Mormon had access. Our best clue as to the extent of the records comes when Mormon is describing the small plates of Nephi:

Words of Mormon 1:3

3 And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi.

There were sufficient records in the collection of plates that the set comprising the small plates of Nephi were not obvious. They were found only after searching. This suggests that there were large numbers of plates. It also suggests that the records were not bound into a single entity, but were rather bound multiply. It is most probable that each of the books that is given a separate name was bound as a separate unit. There are two reasons for this supposition. The first is that there had to be multiple bound sets, or else the single bound set of the small plates of Nephi could not have been unobvious in the collection. The second reason for the supposition is simply a matter of size and convenience. Had there been a single record of all of the records, it would become unmanageably large and heavy. Therefore we are safe in assuming multiple sets of records, each bound in similar ways. This assumption again follows for the “invisibility” of the small plates of Nephi. They did not stand out in form against the other records.

The materials to which Mormon had access therefore probably looked something like this:

Separate bound volumes for the books of Lehi, Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Nephi, Nephi son of Nephi.

Separate bound volumes for the record of Zeniff and the implied records of Ammon and most likely others of the missionary brothers where the source is not clearly stated.

The book of Nephi (the elder) is a special case because Mormon tells us that it is a shorter version than the one on the official plates of Nephi. Therefore, we learn that individual prophets might make records. Combined with the certainty of the unstated record of Ammon and Aaron, we may readily expect that there were many shorter accounts from different people. It would be these shorter accounts that increased the volume of source material Mormon had available to him. However, it is also improbable that these shorter records of individuals were on gold plates, as that is a technology that appears to have required state resources, if the ending of the book of Omni is an indication (see the commentary following Omni 1:30 as well as the Provenance of Mormons sources at the beginning of 1 Nephi).

After retrieving the plates, Mormon sets about his task. That original task was to be the same type of scribe that Ammaron had been. Mormon wrote in the plates of Nephi. What he wrote there is not this current book of Mormon. He makes this clear when he indicates:

“And behold I had gone according to the word of Ammaron, and taken the plates of Nephi, and did make a record according to the words of Ammaron. And upon the plates of Nephi I did make a full account of all the wickedness and abominations; but upon these plates I did forbear to make a full account of their wickedness and abominations…”

Mormon contrasts the full account on the plates of Nephi with the abbreviated account on “these plates.” “These plates” are those of his abridgment, the record we know as the Book of Mormon. Mormon therefore wrote history once, and then at some later point writes history again, but for a different audience. His first writing would certainly be for the same contemporary audience as the rest of the plates. “These plates” have an audience in the future.

Mormon 2:19

19 And wo is me because of their wickedness; for my heart has been filled with sorrow because of their wickedness, all my days; nevertheless, I know that I shall be lifted up at the last day.

Literary: Mormon includes his personal reaction to the abominations of his people. This is not a required part of the narrative, but an expression of a man who cares for his people and is witnessing the ending of his world. When he gives this lament, it is in the form of a short antithetical parallel:

1 And wo is me because of their wickedness

2 for my heart has been filled with sorrow because of their wickedness, all my days;

3 nevertheless,

4 I know that I shall be lifted up at the last day.

The contrast is between line 2’s “they/wickedness” and line 4’s “I/lifted up.” Mormon is creating the ultimate contrast between a people who have departed from the way of the Lord and those few (of whom he is one) who continue to follow the Lord. While the ultimate mortal fate will be shared, the eternal fate will not.

Mormon 2:20

20 And it came to pass that in this year the people of Nephi again were hunted and driven. And it came to pass that we were driven forth until we had come northward to the land which was called Shem.

Mormon’s statement here gives us a little more information on the nature of the Nephite’s successful stand at Jashon. It would appear that it was successful as much because the Lamanites ceased pressing the attack as that the Nephites were bold in their defense. As soon as the Lamanites and Gadiantons appear to desire to take the initiative, the result is the same as before, and the Nephites are fleeing farther to the north.

Geographical: As with the other cities on this line of retreat, there is little that allows us to tie them in to the earlier distribution of cities. (John L. Sorenson, The Geography of the Book of Mormon. FARMS, 1990, p. 314-5).

Mormon 2:21

21 And it came to pass that we did fortify the city of Shem, and we did gather in our people as much as it were possible, that perhaps we might save them from destruction.

The respite at Jashon is short-lived. They are driven from that position in the very same year. This suggests that they were able to take a few months off, and then the warfare begins again. It is tempting to see this break as governed by the seasons rather than militaristic concerns. If they are driven at the ending of the year, it is probable that warfare ceased because both sides took time to harvest crops. The pursuing Lamanite/Gadianton army required food as well as the Nephites. The Lamanite/Gadianton army had no reason to need to press the attack, for they could apparently move at will. Therefore, stopping for harvest and reprovisioning makes complete sense, particularly given the seasonal pattern of warfare. Sorenson notes:

“Our information on the timing of warfare in this area has not been examined comprehensively by scholars. What is known is consistent, for example, with the fact that in Yucatan, wars were usually fought between October and the end of January (or February in other Mesoamerican regions). In that period, travel was rarely restricted due to bad weather; it was still relatively cool, and food was available either by supply from the logistical base or by taxing the subjugated.

The schedule varied slightly depending on local topography and climate. The corn crop, fundamental in the diet everywhere in Mesoamerica, is typically planted in April or May, just before the rains begin and after the fields have been cleared and the rubbish burned. It can be harvested about the time when the clouds and rain taper off (the wettest months are July and September for most regions) and the temperature rises because of greater sunshine. Harvest is from October to December, again depending on locality and on crop variety. The crucial time for agricultural labor under this regime is, and was anciently, March through May. At other times, being away was inconvenient but not critical. Probably the segment of time freest from field work for the typical cultivator/warrior was November through February, which, of course, coincides with the war season. Under emergency conditions, naturally, some military action could go on, though hampered, throughout most of the year. (John L. Sorenson. “Seasonality of Warfare in the Book of Mormon and in Mesoamerica.” Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin, eds., Warfare in the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990], 456.)

Mormon 2:22

22 And it came to pass in the three hundred and forty and sixth year they began to come upon us again.

The Lamanite/Gadianton army forced the Nephites from Jashon, and apparently allowed them to stop in Shem. This is implied by the “began to come upon us again,” which indicates a renewal of attack. Since the attack could not be renewed unless it had stopped, it would appear that we may have an indication of another season cessation of warfare. In this case, it would be on account of the rainy season when warfare was difficult. The Lamanite/Gadianton army had no incentive to press through difficult physical conditions if they could so easily remove the Nephites at will. Therefore, it is plausible that this is the cessation for the rainy season.

Chronological: The three hundred and forty sixth year would be 336 A.D.

Mormon 2:23

23 And it came to pass that I did speak unto my people, and did urge them with great energy, that they would stand boldly before the Lamanites and fight for their wives, and their children, and their houses, and their homes.

Mormon 2:24

24 And my words did arouse them somewhat to vigor, insomuch that they did not flee from before the Lamanites, but did stand with boldness against them.

At Shem Mormon attempts to alter the Nephite tactics. He encourages them to stand and fight, rather than flee. This must have been some form of alteration in the intent to remain in the fortified city, as they had also fortified Jashon and abandoned it. The Nephites had now lost significant territory, and the option of retreat was diminishing. Mormon is encouraging a more firm stand, and more valor in defense of their position.

Mormon 2:25

25 And it came to pass that we did contend with an army of thirty thousand against an army of fifty thousand. And it came to pass that we did stand before them with such firmness that they did flee from before us.

The difference between the two contending armies is an even 20,000. While it is quite likely that the attacking army had the superior troop strength, the fact of the difference being expressed in this type of a number suggests symbolic differences rather than counts. This also follows from the difficulty of obtaining any kind of accurate count of one’s enemy.

It is interesting to note that Mormon is fighting with depleted forces, while the Lamanite/Gadiantons are fighting with replenished forces. That last troop-strength numbers we have came in the land of Joshua at the beginning of this sequence. At that time, Mormon gave his own troop strength at forty two thousand and the enemy’s as forty four thousand (see Mormon 2:6-9). Even though those are also likely military units, it is clear that there is a difference in the trend in numbers. The Lamanite/Gadianton robbers are getting larger, and the Nephite troop numbers are smaller. The reduction in numbers tells us again that the Nephites have been engaging the Lamanite/Gadiantons during this flight, accounting for the loss of numbers. During that same time it is certain that the Lamanite/Gadiantons also lost men to death and injury. However, they are receiving reinforcements either form their homeland, or from those who had rebelled in the land (Mormon 2:8).

Mormon 2:26

26 And it came to pass that when they had fled we did pursue them with our armies, and did meet them again, and did beat them; nevertheless the strength of the Lord was not with us; yea, we were left to ourselves, that the Spirit of the Lord did not abide in us; therefore we had become weak like unto our brethren.

Mormon 2:27

27 And my heart did sorrow because of this the great calamity of my people, because of their wickedness and their abominations. But behold, we did go forth against the Lamanites and the robbers of Gadianton, until we had again taken possession of the lands of our inheritance.

Mormon is able to rally his army to victories, and finally place the Lamanite/Gadiantons on the defensive. Mormon does not tell us how this happened, but does indicate that he does not thing that it was because of the Lord, for he says “nevertheless the strength of the Lord was not with us.” This suggests that there were less than miraculous reasons for the reversal of fortune. If we attempt to reconstruct what those conditions might have been, we begin with the defeat of the Lamanite/Gadianton army at Shem. At attacking army is usually at a disadvantage because it is relatively unprotected while it is assaulting a protected location. Therefore, their defeat tells us that not only were they unsuccessful, but they had suffered heavy casualties. This diminished force is the one that is retreating and is being pursued by Mormon. It is also possible that in spite of the previous harvest, their supply lines had become over-extended. In any case, it is now the Lamanite/Gadianton army that retreats. Mormon says that the Nephites took “possession of the lands of our inheritance,” which might indicate that they had retaken Zarahemla. However, this is not stated, and the nature of the treaty suggests that they were not able to move that far south.

Mormon 2:28

28 And the three hundred and forty and ninth year had passed away. And in the three hundred and fiftieth year we made a treaty with the Lamanites and the robbers of Gadianton, in which we did get the lands of our inheritance divided.

Mormon 2:29

29 And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward.

Even though the Nephite army had been able to recover some of their lands, they could not have recovered all of them. The Lamanite/Gadiantons were also not in complete disarray, as the result is a treaty, not the expulsion of the Lamanite/Gadiantons. This political treaty indicates that the military situation was indecisive, and that rather than continue to lose population through war, both sides accepted a settlement. That the Lamanite/Gadiantons had a powerful hand in this treaty is indicated by the statement “the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward… and we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward.” Had the Nephites been militarily successful, such a division would not have been necessary. This does not appear to have been the traditional “southward” holdings of the Lamanites, but an expansion of their territory into the southward portion of the previous Nephite lands. The Nephites control of land area has been diminished, and they are even more concentrated in the lands northward.

Chronological: The three hundred and fiftieth year would be 340 A.D.

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