Adventures in Mormonism

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)

Many, many years ago, on a visit to Utah, I attended church with an acquaintance of mine. This man was a professor at BYU and had a PhD from Harvard, of which he was quite proud. After the high priest group meeting was over, he turned to me and said, “You know, during the lesson I was looking around the room with interest. On the one hand, here were men with advanced degrees and significant accomplishments: scholars, professors, successful businessmen. On the other hand, you have men who are third- and fourth-generation farmers. I marvel that the same Gospel can encompass us all.” My response was simply, “Well, maybe from where the Lord sits, there isn’t any real difference.”

My acquaintance was not amused. As I said, he was quite proud of his Ivy League degree and did not care to be lumped in with farmers.

I have reflected on that exchange many times in the quarter-century since it happened. I think we all succumb to my acquaintance’s temptation from time to time and in different ways. The condescension of men is something quite different from the condescension of God; ours is made in self-justification, self-praise and self-satisfaction. Whether it is our intellect, our education, our orthodoxy (or heterodoxy), our skepticism (or our faithfulness), or even our sacrifice and suffering, we find reasons why we’re somehow better, wiser, more thoughtful or more authentic than those around us (or, at least, those of whom we don’t approve). And we are all of us wrong. From where God sits, there is no real difference between us; the gap between His attributes and ours, between His perfection and our sinfulness, is so vast so as to render our differences insignificant in the face of our need to simply repent and rely utterly upon Him.

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:9-14)

I believe we are not only guilty of chauvinism regarding our personal characteristics, our accomplishments, or our self-selected social/intellectual group, we are guilty of temporal and cultural chauvinism as well. We often assume, consciously or not, that God is more, well, nuanced with us in these ‘latter days’ than with, say, the Israelites in 7th century BC Judah because we are more sophisticated and educated. In fact, we often limit what we believe God could have told such people simply because of the historical setting; for example, God could not have really told Nephi details about the birth and life of Jesus Christ and so it must be a late addition to the Book of Mormon. (Unspoken but lurking beneath such assertions is the assumption, “Well, God hasn’t told me anything in such detail, so how could He have done so with Nephi or anyone else for that matter?”) Again, from where God sits, there is no measurable difference in our cultures, philosophies, and levels of education — the fact that we have iPhones, the internet, The Ensign and Dialogue, and that the Israelites did not, is meaningless in the context of the infinite gap between us and God.

Mormons – People who believe: … 3. That the only difference between them and God is a few years of training.
— Orson Scott Card, Saintspeak (1984).

God knows personally and watches over all His children on the “worlds without number” that He has created and continues to create; He perceives this entire universe in real time. We, on the other hand, struggle to balance our checkbooks and remember our own kids’ names or what we were doing 3 months ago. And yet we presume to judge and criticize one another, and to justify ourselves, over what are in an eternal and Godly perspective trivial differences. We are like toddlers arguing over who has more or larger freckles while a global war rages around us and threatens us all.

This day, Easter, we celebrate the true condescension of God, that infinite and eternal atonement that bridges that infinite gap, resurrects us from the dead, and brings us back into the presence of God. It is a gift beyond all comprehension and deserving, and our reaction to it should be less like the Pharisee and more like the publican. We are all sinners and unprofitable servants — we are all truly “alike unto God” — and yet Christ atoned for us anyway. Today, of all days, we should remember and ponder upon that. ..bruce..

The books of Mosiah and Alma have some of the most complex and fascinating narratives in the Book of Mormon. Little nuggets and insights crop up every time I read it. Here are a few, both old and recent, from reading Alma 17-18 a few days ago.

And as Ammon entered the land of Ishmael, the Lamanites took him, and bound him, as was their custom to bind all the Nephites who fell into their hands, and carry them before the king; and thus it was left to the pleasure of the king to slay them, or to retain them in captivity, or to cast them into prison, or to cast them out of his land, according to his will and pleasure.

And thus Ammon was carried before the king who was over the land of Ishmael; and his name was Lamoni; and he was a descendant of Ishamael.

And the king inquired of Ammon if it were his desire to dwell in the land among the Lamanites, or among his people.

And Ammon said unto him: Yea, I desire to dwell among this people for a time; yea, and perhaps until the day I die.

And it came to pass that king Lamoni was much pleased with Ammon, and caused that his bands should be loosed; and he would that Ammon should take one of his daughters to wife. (Alma 17:20-24)

For many years, this passage always bothered me a little. It seemed like a bit of an abrupt change to go from Ammon facing possible death to being offered the king’s daughter in marriage. It was also curious that king Lamoni asked Ammon if he planned to dwell among the Lamanites.

Then about 20 years ago, while teaching the Book of Mormon in Gospel Doctrine class, it struck me. Lamoni knew full well who Ammon was, namely a son of King Mosiah₂ and in line for the combined Nephite/Mulekite throne. What’s more, Ammon appears to be the oldest son — see Mosiah 27:34 — and thus first in line for succession.

[Note that the plebiscite that selects Aaron as Mosiah₂'s successor (Mosiah 29:2) comes after all four sons have publicly apologized and sought to make amends for their actions (Mosiah 27:35) and after they privately announced to their father their intent to to preach to the Lamanites and have abdicated the throne (Mosiah 28:1-10). It may well be that Ammon, as the (apparent) oldest of Mosiah₂'s sons, may have been held more responsible by the general population, hence their preference for Aaron. It may also be that Ammon's abdication was already known publicly -- else why the plebiscite at all? -- and this was Mosiah₂'s last effort at getting at least one of his sons to accept the throne.]

Given the steady stream of defections from the Nephites to the Lamanites, Lamoni probably knew about the wild antics of Alma₂, Ammon and the other sons of Mosiah₂; he also probably had heard of Mosiah₂’s dissolution of the Nephite monarchy. He may have concluded that one was related to the other (which to a certain extent it was — see Mosiah 29:9, 13-24) and that Ammon was actually in exile, either voluntary or forced (which, again, to a certain extent he was), hence the question as to whether it was Ammon’s “desire to dwell in the land among the Lamanites”.

It also makes the offer of marriage clear: Lamoni is looking for a dynastic link with the Nephite monarchy. If Ammon marries his daughter, then if Ammon comes out of exile (as Lamoni supposes) and somehow regains the Nephite throne, Lamoni will have accomplished by marriage what the Lamanites have been trying to do for centuries by force, namely unite the two kingdoms into one. Even if Ammon himself doesn’t come out of exile, Lamoni could end up with a grandson with a valid claim to the Nephite/Mulekite throne, legitimizing an effort (political and/or military) to put that grandson on that throne.

However, Ammon declines the offer — and by so doing, signs his own death warrant (again, as Lamoni supposes). Without those family bonds to tie Ammon to him, Lamoni probably considers Ammon too much of a loose cannon to have wandering around his court indefinitely. Lamoni likely sees only four (not necessarily exclusive) outcomes, all undesirable:

1. Ammon returns to Zarahemla with lots of inside information about the Lamanites, giving him an advantage in future conflicts;
2. Ammon uses the land of Ishmael as a base for a coup against the Nephites to regain the throne, bringing the wrath of the Nephites down upon Lamoni’s kingdom;
3. Ammon finds a way to usurp Lamoni’s own kingship.
4. Ammon moves to one of the other Lamanite kingdoms and ends up marrying and/or in power there.

However, if Lamoni kills Ammon outright and without provocation, he is still likely to bring down Mosiah₂’s wrath upon him, exile or not. Since Ammon has offered his service to Lamoni, Lamoni puts Ammon in a position — taking the king’s flocks to the waters of Sebus — where Ammon is likely to be killed by the raiders there, or if he survives, can be (in Lamoni’s eyes) be justifiably put to death as Lamoni has already done with previous groups of servants who failed to protect the flocks.

Ammon, as we all know, survives the situation, and in a spectacular way. Lamoni now is faced with two facts: (1) Ammon appears to be supernaturally gifted in battle and indeed may be a god (the “Great Spirit”) himself; and (2) Ammon almost certainly knows that Lamoni set him up to be killed one way or the other. Hence, Lamoni is terrified of having Ammon come back into his presence and cannot bring himself to speak first when Ammon does so. When Ammon does finally get Lamoni to speak, Lamoni gives Ammon an unconditional offer of “whatsoever thou desirest of me”. Ammon “being wise, yet harmless” merely asks Lamoni to “hearken unto my words”.

And thus begins the preaching of the gospel among the Lamanites. ..bruce..

This website purports to rate the reading level of a given blog. Here’s its rating for this blog:

I’d like to think it’s because of the thoughtful and intellectual nature of the posts here. But it probably just shows that I’m pedantic. (If you think that’s bad, check out my business website.)  ..bruce..

A group at MIT has been building scale models of balsa wood rafts to test the feasibility of Pre-Columbian shipping having occurred between Chile and Mexico:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.–Oceangoing sailing rafts plied the waters of the equatorial Pacific long before Europeans arrived in the Americas, and carried tradegoods for thousands of miles all the way from modern-day Chile to western Mexico, according to new findings by MIT researchers in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering.

Details of how the ancient trading system worked more than 1,000 years ago were reconstructed largely through the efforts of former MIT undergraduate student Leslie Dewan, working with Professor of Archeology and Ancient Technology Dorothy Hosler, of the Center for Materials Research in Archaeology and Ethnology (CMRAE). The findings are being reported in the Spring 2008 issue of the Journal of Anthropological Research.

The new work supports earlier evidence documented by Hosler that the two great centers of pre-European civilization in the Americas-the Andes region and Mesoamerica-had been in contact with each other and had longstanding trading relationships. That conclusion was based on an analysis of very similar metalworking technology used in the two regions for items such as silver and copper tiaras, bands, bells and tweezers, as well as evidence of trade in highly prized spondylus-shell beads.

The proposed time frame is post-Book of Mormon (~1000 AD), but I thought it might be of interest anyway.  Here’s the abstract of the actual journal article:

Abstract: By approximately 100 BC Ecuadorian traders had established maritime commercial routes extending from Chile to Colombia. Historical sources indicate that they transported their merchandise in large, ocean-going sailing rafts made of balsa logs. By about AD 700 the data show that Ecuadorian metalworking technology had reached the west coast of Mexico but remained absent in the region between Guerrero and lower Central America. Archaeologists have argued that this technology was most plausibly transmitted via balsa raft exchange routes. This article uses mathematical simulation of balsa rafts’ mechanical and material characteristics to determine whether these rafts were suitable vessels for long- distance travel. Our analysis shows that these rafts were fully functional sailing vessels that could have navigated between Ecuador and Mexico. This conclusion greatly strengthens the argument that Ecuadorian metallurgical technology and aspects of the metallurgical technologies of adjacent South American regions were transmitted from South America to western Mexico via maritime trade routes.

For what it’s worth.  ..bruce..

Meridian Magazine has an excellent set of quotes dating back to the 1920s — including from Church publications and General Authorities speaking in General Conference — cautioning members (e.g.)

against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek, and their companions, and that their languages and dialects, their social organizations, religious conceptions and practices, traditions, etc., are all traceable to those Hebrew sources. [from a Book of Mormon study guide, 1927]

These quotes, in turn, are taken from the FAIR Wiki article on the same topic (which, unlike the Meridian article, has detailed citations).

This issue remains important, because I still see a few commenters in the Bloggernacle claiming that the limited geographical model of the Book of Mormon, as well as the recognition that not all Native Americans descend from Lehites and Jaredites, are “late” (i.e., recent) responses to mainstream archeological and genetic (DNA) research of the past few decades.  That’s just not true. Limited geographical models started before 1920, with Willard Young (son of Brigham Young) proposing a Mesoamerica-only geography of the Book of Mormon, complete with the Hill Cumorah in Guatemala) sometime before 1920, while Louis Edward Hills (of the RLDS Church) proposed a Central Amercia/Mexico-only model (with Cumorah in central Mexico) in 1917.

Likewise, the Meridian article and the FAIR Wiki article from which it draws make it clear that Church materials and leaders were anything but unanimous in claiming Native Americans all descended from Book of Mormon peoples. I’ve previously cited from Hugh Nibley’s writings in the Improvement Era (the Church’s official magazine and precursor to the Ensign) back in the early 1950s, but these new quotes go back a generation earlier. ..bruce..