Alma 56-63
CHRISTMAS BREAK DECEMBER 24 AND 31. CLASS WILL RESUME ON JANUARY 7
AMALICKIAH
- Descendant of Zoram
- Nephite traitor who through deception became the commander of the Lamanite army and their king
- Lower judges of the land and other Nephites were deceived by his flattery
- His rebellion led Moroni to rally faithful Nephites in defense of liberty and •religious freedom
- He incited the Lamanites’ anger against the Nephites
- He waged war against the Nephites and was able to take possession of many of •their cities
- Teancum, following a particularly difficult battle, crept by night into the camp of the Lamanites and put a javelin through his heart
“One can understand why Mormon wrote, ’We . . . can see the great wickedness one very wicked man can cause to take place among the children of men.’ Amalickiah’s life followed the pattern one would expect of Satan were he given a mortal probation. Like Lucifer, Amalickiah rebelled against the gospel plan in his thirst for glory and power, and he led others away from the truth. It was Amalickiah’s intent, as it was Lucifer’s, to destroy the liberty of men.They both sought to make war against the righteous, and in the end both rewarded their followers with sorrow, misery, and suffering. The life of Amalickiah exposes the pattern followed by many who are the enemies of Christ.”
Clyde Williams, Book of Mormon Reference Companion
https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/ why-did-teancum-slay-amalickiah-on-new-year’s-eve
“Notice that it is the first day of the first month — NewYear’s Day.Why does Mormon occupy any space on the plates with dates? And why should we care? In the ancient Near Eastern culture, which likely influenced Book of Mormon culture, New Year’s Day was the time when the king of the land would sally forth to demonstrate his vitality and liveliness to successfully rule as a king for another year.The rising forth of the king on this day was like a divine foreshadowing of a prosperous year.A dead king was a sure sign of a disastrous future.
Hence, no act could be more psychologically demoralizing to an opposing army than to find their king dead on NewYear’s Day.Teancum chose NewYear’s Eve to assassinate Amalickiah. He sought to win a massive psychological victory against the Lamanites by sending a message of disaster, despair and fear.
The seemingly small details in the text of the Book of Mormon matter. In narrative context, they signify the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.”
Taylor Halverson, https://www.deseret.com/2015/1/1/20555708/taylor-halverson-evidences-for-the-book-of-mormon-in- cover-of-darkness-and-the-turning-of-the-new-year
DESSENSION
“Moroni’s views concerning dissension and disunity can be best understood within his covenantal perspective. He coupled a love of freedom and liberty with the knowledge that these could only be secured by faithfulness and obedience to covenants. Dissidents, in his view, were covenant-breakers.Their lack of trust in God or concern for the community of the saints put the whole people in jeopardy.Their alliances with Nephite enemies only compounded the problem. Both Moroni and Mormon saw dissension as a root cause of Nephite problems.
One cannot blame Moroni for his sensitivity to dissension.Without exception, every enemy specifically identified by Mormon in Alma 43–63 is a body of Nephite dissenters or a group led by a Nephite dissenter.”
Thomas R.Valletta, https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-alma-testimony-word/14-captain-and-covenant-0
ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW
“If we assume that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and that Captain Moroni and Amalickiah were real people, then we really have to push back against Mormon’s simplistic account of their motives.As Mormon presents it, the contrast could not be clearer: Moroni wants only to preserve freedom and Amalickiah has no other objective than to destroy it. But human beings don’t work that way. Nobody ever does anything for just one reason. Life is messy that way.
Here is how the story might the story look from the perspective of Amalickiah’s supporters.This perspective is just as limited and just as one-dimensional as the one in the text, but it oversimplifies in a different direction, which may help us get closer to the messy and complicated truth.”
We have already seen that the major divide in the Nephite world is both religious and political.The Christians are essentially a permanent majority party.They control the chief judgeship, which has become a lifetime appointment passed down from father to son.To the majority, this looks like democracy, since it is ratified by “the voice of the people.” To the minority, it looks a lot like a monarchy, since their side always loses.
Amalickiah comes from the minority, non-Christian faction that also produced Nehor, Amilici, and Korihor—all of whose lives ended badly at the hands of the majority. For people on this side of the divide, the Reign of the Judges is fundamentally oppressive, as it aligns itself unapologetically with the established church and, while claiming to support religious freedom, has frequently enforced religious orthodoxy with the coercive power of the state. Amalickiah is a charismatic enough leader to make inroads with regional officials (46:4) and moderate Christians (46:7). He forges a coalition with a real chance of winning political power.
With this coalition behind him,Amalickiah agitates to change the system of government to something more sensitive to the beliefs of non-Christians. He initially gains some traction with the people, but then the military steps in to defend the government and the Church. Captain Moroni rallies the people around the flag, and both Church and State tell Christians that they cannot support Amalickiah without rejecting God. Moroni solidifies the Christian majority behind him and goes on the offensive. In the name of “freedom,” he executes anyone who will not swear allegiance to the political-religious status quo. Amazingly (not!) almost all of the Amalickiahites take the oath.
As I acknowledged earlier, this version of events is just as hostile to Captain Moroni as Mormon’s narrative is to Amalickiah. Both narratives reduce their opposition to a single set of clear and easy-to- understand motives—which is a pretty clear indication that neither one gets to what actually happened with the messy and inconsistent human beings involved in the story.
And, perhaps most importantly of all, the two narratives are built around two very different definitions of “freedom.” And they are two definitions that remain with us today.”
Michael Austin, Captain Moroni’s “Religious Freedom” Problem–and Ours #BOM2016, https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/08/20/captain- moronis-religious-freedom-problem-and-ours-bom-2016/
DISAGREE VS. DISSENT
“Not all disagreement leads to dissent. In fact, the clear expression of conflicting views, especially in council settings, frequently serves as preparation for revelation. For example, members of the Council of Fifty, a deliberative body organized by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, were under obligation both to disclose concerns when a proposal was put forward and to work toward unanimity in the process of reaching a decision. One reason groups sometimes failed to succeed, Joseph Smith taught the council members, was ‘because in their organization they never could agree to disagree long enough to separate the pure gold from the dross by the process of investigation.’"
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/dissent-in-the-church?lang=eng
“Disagreements and dissent differ because the latter one is from the latin dis and sentire, which literally means to feel apart from others. In contrast, disagreement means having a lack of consensus or having a different or contradicting opinion about a subject.
People who dissent are more likely to end up broken physically, emotionally, or spatially.”
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/comparison-of-disagreement-vs-dissent/
BEING FED SPIRITUALLY
“These are just morsels–a few samples of the different kinds of food that adults might require as they continue to grow.There is much more to say regarding how adults go about finding nourishment at each of these very unique stages, but you can start to see the progression at play. For so long, we’ve just assumed that adults uniformly need the same spiritual nutrition to grow and fulfill their potential.We know better now.
For some adults, belonging to the collective and focusing on strict obedience is their lifeblood. For others, excessive focus on the letter of the law leads to spiritual atrophy. Not that those adults stop being obedient to principles and deep spiritual truths, but there is a new need to source wisdom from within, to follow one’s inner authority, while still aligning with the wisdom that comes from our leaders.
Certainty and knowing without a doubt are other kinds of nutrition that can feed some members, helping them stabilize in their own autonomy, while that same certainty can feel like spiritual junk food to others. At certain stages of adult development, we start to develop intense cravings for ambiguity, uncertainty, even doubt.
The trouble we get into as a community is when one person insists that the nutrition they derive from one stage of development is adequate to nourish everybody everywhere. It is natural to believe that what feeds us will feed others, but the science tells us something very different.What nourishes us in one phase of growth can quickly become toxic at the next stage’s unfolding.”
“What we’ve been taught to eat our whole lives does not always square with our deeper nutritional needs.What we try to feed others does not always nourish them. In the words of Mary Oliver, we can trust our soft animal body to love what it loves.We can trust others as they find sustenance, too.When we do this, we find food in unexpected places, springing up from the unimaginable generosity of the Divine, and filling our storehouse so full that there is not room enough for the bounty.”
Thomas McConkie, https://mormonstages.com/blog/articles/feed-my-sheep/
No comments:
Post a Comment