Mosiah 29, Alma 1-4

APRIL/MAY READING

April 16—Alma 5-7
April 23—Alam 8-12
April 30—Alma 13-16
May 7—Alma 17-22 (final class)

 KING MOSIAH AND THE JUDGESHIP

“The immediate situation that prompted Mosiah II to institute a system of judges to govern the Nephites was the departure of his four sons.The people asked that Aaron be appointed king, but he and his brothers had gone to the land of Nephi to preach to the Lamanites and had renounced their claims to the monarchy.
Mosiah had other reasons for abolishing the monarchy. One of these was the iniquity that resulted from King Noah’s reign over the Nephites who lived in the land of Nephi and who had recently emigrated to the land of Zarahemla, where Mosiah reigned. But most of the reasons Mosiah gave his people had no precedents in Nephite history. Rather, they appear to have been prompted by Mosiah’s knowledge of the Jaredite history that he had recently translated.”

John A.Tvedtnes, https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1275&index=2

“Why might Mormon have wanted his readers to know this? Recognition of these factors adds rhetorical weight to Mosiah’s warning, one that Mormon himself saw eventually go into fulfillment:And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land. (Mosiah 29:27)
Seeing the historical grounding of this cautionary counsel makes Mosiah’s warning all the more potent as a forewarning to readers in the latter days.This was no idle threat, nor was it merely hyperbole in a war of competing ideologies. It was based on the outcome of real historical events Mosiah had become familiar with while translating the Jaredite record. As such, it stands as a witness and warning to modern readers, underscoring the importance of collectively making righteous choices as a society.”

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/what-do-the-jaredites-have-to-do-with-the-reign-of-the-judges

 NEHOR

“In spite of his bold defense, Nehor was convicted. Priestcraft was specifically defined in Nephite writings as preaching for self-aggrandizement and to get gain (2 Nephi 26:29), something Nehor had clearly done. Priestcraft, however, was not against the law, strictly speaking; it was tolerated openly during the reign of judges (e.g., v. 16), although it was condemned as immoral and evil. Since God was the one who had forbidden priestcraft in a prophetic text that made no mention of any human penalty (2 Nephi 26:29–30), and since the public law of Mosiah guaranteed freedom of belief and an “equal chance,” it seems clear enough that divine justice was all that could touch a person who was guilty of priestcraft alone.
But Nehor was found guilty of more than simple priestcraft. In the final analysis, Nehor was executed not for murder, and not for priestcraft, but for a composite offense of endeavoring to enforce priestcraft by the sword.Alma’s judicial brilliance is evident in the way he fashioned this ruling.A simple charge of murder was problematic (if not precluded) under Numbers 35, and as far as we know, no human punishment was prescribed for priestcraft alone in any specific text. By innovatively combining these two offenses, however,Alma was able to convict Nehor of killing for the culpable purpose of enforcing priestcraft.Whereas proof of a culpable homicide under ancient Israelite law required the showing of an evil motive of hatred or premeditation,Alma found evidence of a conscious and presumptuous motive in Nehor’s use of a sword to enforce his economic interests as a religious leader, which intended outcome Alma subsumed under the evil of priestcraft.”

Exodus 21:12–14, Numbers 35:1–34, and Deuteronomy 21:1–9, made it a mandatory duty of the “congregation” or the “elders” to slay the killer. If the judges did not prevent or punish the shedding of “innocent blood,” the guilt of blood attached to all their people.Alma reflected his awareness of this public duty in his concern that Gideon’s blood would come upon himself and all his people if Nehor were not executed.
Another factor at work here was the newly promulgated law of Mosiah. In homicide cases after Mosiah’s reign, Nephite law clearly continued to require “the life of him who hath murdered” (Alma 34:12; see 1:18; 30:10). Convicted of a culpable slaying, Nehor was thus “condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king” (1:14).
Alma went on, however, to state that the newly adopted law of Mosiah “has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law” (Alma 1:14). One may wonder why Alma appended this additional justification for the sentence he imposed.Alma’s reminder may have been designed to quell the protests from Nehor’s followers that surely were to follow.Alma’s resort to popular authority may also have served to reinforce the power of the newly arranged system of judges to impose the death penalty. It seems that Alma was the first to claim for the new judges under the law of Mosiah the power not only to judge but also to execute; he justified doing so on the ground that since the people themselves had no option open to them but to execute the murderer (Alma 1:18; 30:10), the judge, empowered by the voice of the people, could and should carry out or supervise the execution himself. Here again,Alma’s conduct conforms with biblical law.”

Jack W.Welch, https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2238&index=8


 ALMA’S ENEMIES
“Recent textual studies indicate that the matter of the Nephites’ enemies may not be as black and white as [we sometimes believe.] This is certainly true during the public career of Alma the Younger (circa 91–73 BC), when the Nephite missionaries to the Lamanites came into contact with the mysterious Amalekites (see Alma 21–43).As we will see, these Amalekites were in fact the same group as the Amlicites, whom Alma encountered earlier in his career (see Alma 2–3).This observation is based on evidence in the text of two kinds: spelling variations in the original handwritten manuscripts of Oliver Cowdery and hints in the traditional text that many readers have not noticed.These findings shed new light on the structure of Alma’s writings and lead us to the more crucial question, Is reading the text in terms of generally good Nephites versus usually bad Lamanites too simplistic for what the record actually says?”

“In 2002 Royal Skousen explained that the apostate groups in the book of Alma currently spelled Amlicites and Amalekites are most likely the same group of dissenters, founded by Amlici, and that the names should be spelled identically. Skousen noticed that these types of errors in the original and printer’s manuscripts were due to the inconsistencies of Oliver Cowdery’s spelling style.
Skousen’s careful analysis of the original, dictated manuscript shows how such errors might have crept in. Often when a name was first introduced, Joseph Smith would apparently pause to spell it out.Thus we find words crossed out in the original manuscript with corrected spellings above. Joseph apparently did not respell the name when spoken later, for we find Cowdery spelling certain names in many different ways, despite their original correction.After Cowdery prepared the manuscript, the printer was told to refer to the original spelling of names for all subsequent instances of names. In the case of Amlicites/Amalekites, there was no mention of either group by name between Alma 3:20 and 21:2.Thus when the printer came across the name again in what is now Alma 21:2, he likely supposed this was a new group and, rather than referring back to the spelling in what is now Alma 3:20, followed the spelling Amalekite rather than Amlicite.The Amalekite spelling may have seemed logical because there were biblical Amalekites (see Numbers 13:29) and there were earlier men in the Book of Mormon named Amaleki (see Omni 1:12; Mosiah 7:6).
It is clear that the spelling was rather loose and that many of the common letters, especially the c and the k, were interchanged freely.The fact that the words currently spelled Amalekites were often spelled with a c alone or with a ck adds additional support to the internal evidence previously noted. Using the earliest records we have (Cowdery’s handwritten manuscripts), there is little support that the Amlicites and Amalekites were two separate groups.”

“Alma knew that his teachings that the sources of evil are often internal was not always easy to hear. Indeed, he ended his ministry by delivering the flip side of the oft-quoted “Inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land” (Alma 36:30), with an equal but opposite “Thus saith the Lord God—Cursed shall be the land, yea, this land” (Alma 45:16). Alma’s entire nation, if not repentant, would become extinct (see Alma 45:11, 14).This was a prophecy so horrific that he commanded Helaman not to repeat it at the time (see Alma 45:9). Then, after blessing his sons, the earth, and the church,Alma departed out of the land for good (see Alma 45:8, 15–18).This is a decidedly different tone than the more positive side of Alma so often emphasized.While his testimony of the Savior is crucial, we should not overlook this other way that he organized his writings. By getting a clearer picture of how Alma began and ended his testament with the influence of Nehor and the Amlicite-led dissenters of Nephite origin, we gain deeper insight into Alma’s understanding of individual and societal evil. Alma places his greatest emphasis on internal evil.The battle is most often fought within ourselves.”

J. Christoher Conking, https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1399&index=12

 THE NEXT MORMONS

“Millennials focus on prayer and the scriptures may reveal a hunger for depth. Through their religious practices, they seem to be hunting for a spirituality that is deep, authentic and demanding.They exhibit high rates of scriptural devotions, prayer, and relational grassroots interactions with other church members; we’ve seen elsewhere that they also have a strong belief and a particular emphasis on missionary service. However, they have a far less focus on religious behaviors they may see as superficial or less important, like avoiding tattoos, coffee, or mature entertainment.There is a sharp divide between their theoretical and actual church attendance.They are committed tithe-payers, but appear to accept “net” tithe paying more readily than older Mormons.What is particularly interesting is that their understanding of what it means to be “active” in the church may well be changing from the ways that older Mormons have traditionally understood that term; Millennials are not tying their identities as “active” Mormons as strictly to practices like attending church meetings or keeping the Word of Wisdom.”

Jana Riess,The Next Mormons: How Millennials are Changing the LDS Church