Listening to the book of Jacob on my iPod while driving around today, I picked up on something that I hadn’t noticed or considered before. There is, I think, a hint of tension between Jacob and the new Nephite king, particularly through the first few chapters of Jacob. The first thing that caught my ear was this passage:

And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son. Yea, and they also began to search much gold and silver, and began to be lifted up somewhat in pride. Wherefore I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having first obtained mine errand from the Lord. (Jacob 1:15-17)

Now, Jacob has just spent several verses talking about the death of Nephi and the choosing of a subsequent king (to be called “second Nephi” or, as we might say it, “Nephi the Second”). So he doesn’t need to re-inform us that we’re now “under the reign of the second king” — but he does so anyway. And that phrase sounds as though Jacob could mean it in a causative sense — that it is because of the reign of the “second king” that the Nephites “began to grow hard in their hearts” and so on.

Note also that Jacob doesn’t say “second Nephi”, “King Nephi”, or anything like that; after giving a glowing send-off for his brother (Jacob 1:9-14), Jacob simply calls the new king “the second king” and gives us no information about his background, lineage, or character. This is underscored by Jacob subsequently stating that his own ecclesiastical authority — and that of his brother Joseph — came “by the hand of Nephi” (Jacob 1:18), emphasizing Nephi’s holiness and standing before God — and implying that it is Jacob and Joseph who are carrying on Nephi’s tradition, rather than “the second king”.

When Jacob describes the Nephite trend towards polygamy, he specifically cites the example of two fallen Israelite kings: David and Solomon. He doesn’t cite any of the polygamous prophets (including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel), or any other Old Testament practitioners of polygamy. This makes me wonder if Jacob 1:15 actually describes what the second king is doing, with the people of Nephi simply following suit. In that case, consider the following hypothetical rewrite of verse 15:

…the second king…began to grow hard in [his] heart, and indulge [himself] somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son. Yea, and [he] also began to search much gold and silver, and began to be lifted up somewhat in pride. (Compare with this description of King Noah some 400 years later.)

So, if this was the case, why didn’t Jacob just write this? One answer is that Jacob may not have considered it safe to do so, though it’s unclear what access the king and his advisors would have to the small plates. (Still, see Jacob 3:13-14, which I comment on below.) Another possible answer is that Jacob did not feel it his place or right to challenge or criticize the king directly, since the king in Israelite terms was considered the Lord’s anointed; again, this could be a reason why Jacob may have specifically cited his own ordination, but was still circumspect in what he said (or, at least, what he wrote).

A third (and not necessarily exclusive) answer is that the second king was most likely a son of Nephi; it could also have been Jacob’s older brother Sam (less likely, given what Sam’s age would be at that time), a son of Sam, a son of Jacob himself (other than Enos — who appears very late in Jacob’s life) or even a son of Joseph. It’s hard to believe that the kingship would pass out of the Lehi lineage altogether immediately after Nephi’s death, so Jacob was almost certainly closely related to the king, whoever he was. As such, Jacob may have been hesitant to challenge or criticized his close family directly, especially given the disastrous and painful split among his own older brothers which was even then a source of on-going conflict and war.

If this is correct — that is, if the problems that Jacob cites had their origin with the second king — then Jacob’s sermon in chapters 2 and 3 becomes very interesting, since Jacob in that case almost certainly directed his sermon at the king as much as at the people. When read or listened to in that context, the sermon has what could be interpreted as some very pointed remarks for the new king:

• Avoid pride and remember that God “can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust.” (2:15)
• Share your wealth and seek the kingdom of God first (2:17-18)
• Use your position and wealth “for the intent to do good” (2:19)
• “One being is as precious in [God’s] sight as the other. And all flesh is of the dust” (2:21)
• David and Solomon did that which “was abominable before [God]” (2:24)
• God led Lehi and his family out of Jerusalem to raise up “a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph” (2:25; emphasis mine)
• “These commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore you have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.”” (2:34; emphasis mine)

He then spends much of the rest of his sermon talking about how much better the Lamanites are in their treatment of their wives and children, and how much better it will be for the Lamanites at the last day than for the (wicked) Nephites; again, a reminder that blessings are not guaranteed by lineage or position. He then concludes his sermon (or, at least, his transcription of it) with

O my brethren [think: “king” or possibly just “brother”], hearken unto my words; arouse the faculties of your souls; shake yourselves that ye may awake from the slumber of death; and loose yourselves from the pains of hell that ye may not become angels to the devil, to be cast into that lake of fire and brimstone which is the second death. (Jacob 3:11; compare with Lehi’s admonition to Laman and Lemuel)

And then he closes this section (chapters 2 and 3 were a single chapter in the original Book of Mormon manuscript) with a passage that sounds as if he’s unsure he’ll be writing any more (which underscores the thought that he might be at risk):

And a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, which now began to be numerous, cannot be written upon these plates; but many of their proceedings are written upon the larger plates, and their wars, and their contentions, and the reigns of their kings. These plates are called the plates of Jacob, and they were made by the hand of Nephi. And I make an end of speaking these words. (Jacob 3:13-14)

As I said, these are only hints of a serious church/state tension after the death of Nephi. But they form a useful context for reading the first three chapters of Jacob, and they give several of the passages new meaning and depth, particularly in the context of Jacob calling the king — who is almost certainly a very close family member — to repentance. ..bruce..

[Updated 03/26/08 — made some additions and changes]

Bruce Nielson had a post over at Mormon Matters earlier this month on the use of the name “Anti-Nephi-Lehi” in the Book of Mormon and what it could mean. I posted a few comments in response, but wanted to pull them together here with a few other things I’ve run across just in the last day or so to lay out my own arguments a bit more concisely and coherently.

The name first shows up in Alma 23:16-17. It is a name that the Lamanites who have converted to the ‘church of God’ take upon themselves as a replacement for the name ‘Lamanites’:

And now it came to pass that the king and those who were converted were desirous that they might have a name, that thereby they might be distinguished from their brethren; therefore the king consulted with Aaron and many of their priests, concerning the name that they should take upon them, that they might be distinguished. And it came to pass that they called their names Anti-Nephi-Lehies; and they were called by this name and were no more called Lamanites.

When the king of over all the Lamanites (who remains unnamed in the record) confers his kingdom upon his son (also unnamed; this is the brother of King Lamoni), that son’s name changes to “Anti-Nephi-Lehi”; it’s unclear if he chose that name or if his father conferred it upon him:

Now the king conferred the kingdom upon his son, and he called his name Anti-Nephi-Lehi. (Alma 24:3)

Of course, these names tend to be a bit confusing to us as English speakers, since we interpret “anti” as meaning “in opposition of” — and, indeed, the Book of Mormon has a word or phrase that is translated into English as “antichrist” and is used to describe Korihor. So for us it makes no apparent sense to have a righteous people somehow describe themselves as being “in opposition to” Nephi and Lehi. Indeed, the entire point of Bruce Nielsen’s post was to give an explanation of just how that phrase might be interpreted.

Royal Skousen devotes three and a half pages of discussion on this name in Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part Four, Alma 21-55 (FARMS, 2007), pp. 2092-2095. The last part of his discussion considers three possibilities:

• Does “anti” have the Greek meaning of “anti”, viz., meaning “against” or “in opposition to”?
• Should this have actually been “ante”, meaning as per Latin, “before” or “preceding”?
• Or is “anti” simply an untranslated Nephite/Lamanite morpheme?

Skousen concludes that it is the third, citing a long string of Nephite and Lamanite proper names that also use Anti:

Instead, Anti appears to be a proper noun in the Nephite-Lamanite language. Consider how many uses there are in the text of the morpheme Anti in Nephite and Lamanite proper nouns: Ani-Anti, Antiomno, Antionah, Antionum, Antiparah, Antipas, and Antipus; perhaps the Nephite monetary unit antion could also be added to this list. (p. 2095)

I would also suggest that the name “Manti” could be added to that list.

There are three other things that add support to Skousen’s conclusion (which I agree with), but which he does not specifically cite.

First, a very minor point: there are no hyphens in either the original Book of Mormon manuscript or the printer’s manuscript prepared from the original manuscript by Oliver Cowdery. In both cases, the name as given in Alma 23:17 is “AntiNephiLehies”. I only mention this because some of the discussion over at Mormon Matters dealt with the significance of the hyphenation.

Second, and more significant, all of the individuals whose names start with Anti* are rulers or leaders of some kind:

• Antiomno — Lamanite king over the land of Middoni
• Antionah — a ‘chief ruler’ of the city of Ammonihah
• Antionum — a military leader among the Nephite (one of Mormon₂‘s leaders of 10,000)
• Antipus — a Nephite leader over the city of Judea and ‘that part of the land’; also leads a Nephite army
• AntiNephiLehi — king over all the Lamanites (for a while, at least)

Manti, on the other hand, does show up as a non-ruler name (Alma 2:22). All other uses of *Anti* names (including Manti, Antionum and Antipas) are place names, with the exception of antion (a measure of gold) and, of course, AntiNephiLehies for the converts themselves.

Finally, and I believe most compelling, all of the *anti* names listed above — with a single exception — appear exclusively in the book of Alma. To wit:

• Ani-Anti (Alma 21:11)
• Antiomno (Alma 20:4)
• Antionah (Alma 12:20)
• Antionum (Alma 31:3; Alma 43: 5, 15, 22; Mormon 6:14)
• Antiparah (Alma 56: 14, 31, 33-34; Alma 57: 1-4)
• Antipas (Alma 47: 7, 9-10)
• Antipus (Alma 56: 9-10, 15, 18, 30, 33, 37-38, 43, 46, 49-51, 53-54, 57)
• antion (Alma 11: 19)
• Manti (many references, but all in Alma)
• Anti-Nephi-Lehies (Alma 23:17)
• Anti-Nephi-Lehi (Alma 24: 1-3, 5, 20; 25: 1, 13; 27: 2, 21, 25; 43: 11)

Even the one *anti* name that appears (once) outside of the book of Alma — Antionum — appears first in the Book of Alma as a place name, then (like Mormon itself) appears as the name of a military leader in the last days of the Nephite civilization.

Note further that the book of Alma itself covers less than 40 years (90 BC to 52 BC), only a small fraction of the entire Nephite history. Yet all of the *anti* names appear in the Book of Mormon record only during that 40 years (again, except for the late and solitary reappearance of Antionum some 400 years later).

In short, within the Book of Mormon, *anti* was used only within a very brief (<40 years) period of time — with the late exception of Antionum, the borrowing of a place name from that 40-year period — and Anti* is only used at the start of a personal name when that person is a civil and/or military leader. I believe this provides very strong evidence that, as Skousen concluded, Anti* is a Nephite/Lamanite morpheme — and one that appears to have something to do with leadership, at least when used as a proper name.

One potential, if minor, complication with the “Anti*= ruler” hypothesis is that the collective name AntiNephiLehies shows up in the Book of Mormon text a few verses (and some implied duration of time) before the son of the Lamanite king is given the name AntiNephiLehi. However, I would argue that the same text hints that the old king — Lamoni’s father — may have taken upon himself the name AntiNephiLehi and did so before the Lamanite converts under his rule took upon themselves the collective name AntiNephiLehies. I base this on Alma 24:1-3:

And it came to pass that the Amalekites and the Amulonites and the Lamanites who were in the land of Amulon, and also in the land of Helam, and who were in the land of Jerusalem, and in fine, in all the land round about, who had not been converted and had not taken upon them the name of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, were stirred up by the Amalekites and by the Amulonites to anger against their brethren. And their hatred became exceedingly sore against them, even insomuch that they began to rebel against their king, insomuch that they would not that he should be their king; therefore, they took up arms against the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi.

Now the king conferred the kingdom upon his son, and he called his name Anti-Nephi-Lehi. (emphasis added)

It’s dangerous to put too much weight upon the chronological sequence of three verses, particularly since the text itself represents Mormon₂‘s abridgment of the record of Alma₂. But I would suggest that the Lamanite converts had actually followed well-established Nephite/Lamanite tradition of taking upon themselves the name of their founding leader (cf. Alma 2:9-11; Alma 21:2-3; etc.); that the father of King Lamoni had taken the name AntiNephiLehi upon himself (in consultation with Aaron et al.), and that the converts then naturally chose to call themselves AntiNephiLehies or the people of AntiNephiLehi in response to that. When the old king stepped down from the throne, his son took upon himself (or was given by his father) that same name.

OK, now for a really speculative interpretation. The first appearance of *anti* in the entire Book of Mormon is found in the very first chapter of Alma:

And it came to pass that they took him; and his name was Nehor; and they carried him upon the top of the hill Manti, and there he was caused, or rather did acknowledge, between the heavens and the earth, that what he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death. (Alma 1:15)

Manti is specifically identified here as a hill (though the name is later used — in typical Nephite/Lamanite fashion — for both a city and the land around it). Furthermore, it is a hill that appears to have some strong ritualistic or symbolic meaning, since it is used for Nehor’s confession and execution “between the heavens and the earth”. It may well be that anti in the Nephite/Lamanite language has a meaning somewhat parallel with arche in Greek, that is, the senses of beginning, first, highest, ruler, or even heavenly. This meaning could predate (and help explain) the place name Manti for this particular hill (“between the heavens and the earth”), or the meaning could derive from the name of the hill Manti itself.

Note that Antipas is likewise a “mount“. There is no direct indication of the terrain around the other Anti* place names.

Anyway, as I said, a few thoughts. ..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..

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..

[UPDATED 03/16/08 — made some corrections and significant additions]

In my earlier posting on “churches of anticipation”, I pointed out some parallels between Alma₁ and John the Baptist, noting in particular that while Nephi₁ spoke of baptism and his brother Jacob preached it to the Nephites, there is no record after that point in the Book of Mormon of baptism actually being practiced until Alma₁ reintroduces it.

Today, while preparing a program for a convert baptism in our ward this afternoon, I re-read Alma₁‘s famous introduction of baptism in Mosiah 18. We tend to read it in light of an established church and the covenants we make when we join. Alma₁, however, was talking to a group of Nephites who lived under the Mosiac law (however poorly they might have been following it; cf. Abinadi’s rebuke to Noah and his priests) but who had become convinced of the relatively imminent birth of the Messiah back in a ‘homeland’ half a world away and half a millennium removed.

Read what Alma₁ has to say while keeping in mind that these people apparently did not practice baptism but instead (if anything) lived under the law of Moses:

And it came to pass that [Alma] said unto them:

Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus they were called)
and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God,
and to be called his people,
and are willing to bear one another’s burdens that they may be light;
yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn;
yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort,
and to stand as witness of God at all times and in all things,
and in all place that ye may be in,
even until death,
that ye may be redeemed of God,
and be numbered with those of the first resurrection,
that ye may have eternal life —

Now, I say unto you,
if this be the desire of your hearts,
what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord,
as a witness before him
that ye have entered into a covenant with him,
that ye will serve him and keep his commandments,
that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

And now when the people had heard these words,
they clapped their hands for joy,
and exclaimed:

This is the desire of our hearts. (Mosiah 18:8-11)

In all of scriptural history, we only have six (6) places where baptism is specifically introduced and practiced:

• at the time of Adam (see Moses 6:64-68), though it’s unclear how extensively it was practiced (due to apostasy) until the time of Enoch;
• at the time of Enoch (see Moses 7:10-12);
• by Nephi and Jacob in the New World, around 560 BC, though there is no record of any follow-up after that point;
• by Alma₁ in the New World, around 121 BC;
• by John the Baptist, in the Old World, around roughly 30 AD;
• and in our own day, with the appearance of John the Baptist to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in May 1829 (D&C 13; JS:H 1:68-72).

In fact, throughout most of scriptural history, lack of baptism as we understand it appears to be the norm. While under Mosaic law total immersion for ritual cleansing was used for Gentiles converting to Judaism, as well as for Jewish women and men suffering from certain ritual uncleanness, there was no indication that it was used as a covenant-making act, particularly among those born Jewish.

In the last three instances above (Alma₁, John, Joseph), baptism appears to be introduced — or adapted — specifically in preparation of the advent of the Savior, either during His mortal ministry or for his Second Coming. Furthermore, I think that Enoch’s call by the Lord to preach repentance and baptism is in anticipation of the great winnowing that will result in (a) the establishment and translation of the city of Enoch, (b) the on-going translation of those who accepted the Gospel after the city of Enoch was taken from the earth (cf. Moses 7:27), and (c) the purging of the wicked from the earth (the Flood).

In fact, one could argue that baptism is specifically introduced and stressed by the Lord in advance of great destruction, to wit:

• in Enoch’s time, in advance of the Flood;
• in the time of Alma₁ and Alma₂ (and going forward from there), in advance of the destruction that came upon the Nephites and Lamanites at the time of Christ’s crucifixion;
• in John the Baptist’s time, in advance of the destruction that came upon the Jews (~70 AD);
• in Joseph Smith’s time, in advance of the destruction preceding the Second Coming.

The churches of anticipation, then, could also be considered to be anticipation of judgment and destruction in this life, not just in the life to come. This is reflected in the messages preached by each of them:

Enoch: “And the Lord said unto me: Go to this people, and say unto them — Repent, lest I come out and smite them with a curse, and they die.” (Moses 7:10)

Alma₂: “Behold, now I say unto you that he commandeth you to repent; and except ye repent, ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. But behold, this is not all — he has commanded you to repent, or he will utterly destroy you from off the face of the earth; yea, he will visit you in his anger, and in his fierce anger he will not turn away.” (Alma 9:12)

John the Baptist: “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matthew 3:7)

Joseph Smith: “Yea, verily, to seal them up unto the day when the wrath of God shall be poured out upon the wicked without measure — unto the day when the Lord shall come to recompense unto every man according to the measure which he has measured unto his fellow man.” (D&C 1:9-10)

One last question. The Savior Himself was very clear on the universal application and requirement of baptism (cf. John 3:5, Mark 16:16), and that is echoed in the experiences of Adam, Nephi (2 Ne 31:, Paul (1 Cor 15:29) and Joseph Smith (D&C 39:20, 68:8-9, and sections 127 & 128). We have built over 100 temples — and we’re likely to build hundreds more — in order to apply retroactively what throughout history has only been practiced in some very limited circumstances and some very limited portions of the world.

My question is: why? Any thoughts? ..bruce..

[Author’s note: Hugh Nibley first used the phrase “churches of anticipation” with regards to Alma et alis back in the 1950s. I had forgotten that until recently re-reading his writings on the Book of Mormon. 01/31/2012]

There is a curious religious transition that occurs among the Nephites about a century before the birth of Christ. Up until then, the Nephites appear to have been following the law of Moses, in spite of a clear and unprecedented Christology introduced by Lehi₁, Nephi₁ and Jacob in the 5th century BC and re-emphasized by King Benjamin around 124 BC just before he abdicated in favor of his son Mosiah₂. And even though Nephi₁ clearly indicated the need for baptism in following the Savior’s (future) example, there is no record of baptism being practiced for roughly half a millennium afterwards. Instead, the Nephite civilization during that time appears to be a continual kingship with prophets calling the people to repentance.

Those two traditions appear to merge with King Mosiah₁, “being warned of the lord”, leading a Nephite exodus from the land of Nephi to the land of Zarahemla. Mosiah₁ continues as a prophet/king, interpreting the Jaredite (stone) engravings “by the gift and power of God.” His son, King Benjamin, clearly continues as a prophet/king; as noted above, he has a significant vision of the coming Messiah and puts his people under covenant to take upon themselves the name of Christ — though still with no mention of baptism. Mosiah₂ appears to continue that prophet/king tradition, though there is less indication of any revelation or prophecy on his part (however, see Mosiah 21:28).

Continue reading Churches of anticipation: Alma and John →