Alma 2 All

Home > The Book of Mormon > Alma > Chapters 1-3 > Chapter 2a / Verses 2:1-19
Previous page: Verses 1:16-33                      Next page: Verses 2:20-38

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Amlici and the Amalekites?: Pronunciation of the name Amlici. The pronunciation of the name Amlici has major implications for the literary unity and power of the Book of Alma. If the name is pronounced Amliki with the accent on the first syllable rather than Amlisi, then Amlici may be seen as a founding father of the Amalekites, provided that the name of that people also has the accent on the first syllable. He becomes Amliki and they the Amlikites. Their otherwise unexplained appearance in Alma 21:2 is explained, and the series of battles recounted in the Book of Alma become part of one long twilight struggle in which freemen resist revanchist Mulekite kingmen. The kingmen seek to reestablish the Mulekite monarchy that ended when Zarahemla took the first Mosiah as his successor (Omni 1:19) rather than one of his own sons. The second Mosiah has now ended the Nephite monarchy, so those with "the blood of nobility" (Alma 51:21), King David's Mulekite descendants, want to reclaim royal power. In other words, those who accept the obligation mentioned in Alma 1:1 to abide by the laws of Mosiah and those who reject that obligation are now violently at odds (see Thesis statement for the book of Alma under the Discussion heading at Alma).

There are substantial grounds for thinking that Amlici and the Amalekites are connected. The preeminent Book of Mormon textual critic, Royal Skousen, notes the inconsistent spelling of Oliver Cowdery, particularly with respect to c and k and with respect to the name Amalekite. And J. Christopher Conkling draws together many pieces of evidence--including Skousen's work--that support this conclusion in ["Alma's Enemies: The Case of the Lamanites, Amlicites, and Mysterious Amalekites]," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 14 (1), pages 108 - 117.

• Alma 2:1-4: Amlici's abilities, character, and plans. As the comments on the execution of Nehor indicate (see exegesis for Chapter 1), Alma seems to have been an unpolished and perhaps an unskilled politician. Amlici, on the other hand, seems to have had considerable political skill. In verse 1 he is described as cunning. Cunning is what one calls intelligence when a foe possesses it. It is unethical intelligence. Verse 1 also attributes much wisdom of the world to Amlici. From a worldly point of view, he seems to have managed his affairs well. Verses 2 and 3 suggest that he was alarmingly successful in his political endeavors. We can probably reconstruct one of his political arguments from what is said in verse 1 by Mormon (who doesn't like Amlici and who is probably using writings of Amlici's principle foe, Alma, as his source). Mormon assures us that Nehor "was executed according to the law." Amlici presumably argued the opposite: that Nehor was unfairly executed by the head of a rival religion, i.e. that Alma had abused his authority as Chief Judge to advance his interests as High Priest of his church. Part of Amlici's success undoubtedly flows from resentment Nehor's followers would have felt when he was executed by Alma.

Amlici may have suggested that church and state could be better separated as Mosiah intended if he, Amlici, were the sovereign instead of Alma who was also the High Priest. But members of the Church have good reason to fear--as verses 3 and 4 indicate--that Amlici would use state power against them were he to become king. Amlici would frame his actions against the church and its leaders as tit for Alma's tat, as justice for the victim Nehor. Thus, in this period of imperfect separation of church and state, the church has a strong reason to fear the loss of political power for church members and the acquisition of power by their religious opponents. While it is likely that the Nehorites did think Alma was unjust in his execution of Nehor, verse 3 indicates that at least some of the neutral observers--people who were not members of Alma's church--were more alarmed by Amlici than by Alma. This suggests that Alma had built some reputation for judging impartially in conflicts between those who were and weren't members of his church.

The fear the people feel in verse 4 (which may have been matched to some degree by fear the Nehorites felt) shows the importance of separating the state from any particular religion. A state with an official religion cannot be relied upon to protect the right of minority religions to freedom of worship, an especially precious right.

• Alma 2:5: Respect for Alma. Verse 5 indicates that members of the church and others who respect Alma's abilities and integrity still constitute a majority.

• Alma 2:6: Cast in their voices. In modern usage it would seem more appropriate to write, "cast in their votes." In the Doctrine and Covenants the word vote is used in seven verses, so it was a familiar term to Joseph Smith; yet the word does not appear in the Book of Mormon.

• Alma 2:8: Poison politics. It is a bad sign when a political victory causes "much joy." It indicates that the people have become deeply polarized and that too much is riding on victory. It is much better for the stakes in politics to be smaller, i.e., for the consequences to be small if one party rather than the other assumes power. Small stakes mean that a society has achieve a substantial measure of agreement on the basic outlines of the social order. The great joy in the first half of 8 leads very naturally to the beginnings of rebellion in the second half of the verse, for that joy has its antithesis, bitter disappointment. The polity in Zarahemla is sick at this point as is any polity that is deeply riven by a bitter contest between utterly incompatible ideologies. The problem of "policy cycling" that drives this bitter conflict between Alma and Amlici is discussed in a Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article by Ryan Davis, ["For the Peace of the People: War and Democracy in the Book of Mormon"].

• Alma 2:10: Subjection. Amlici seeks power in order to "subject" others to his will. He wants to deal with Alma and members of his church as Alma appears to have dealt with Nehor in 1:15. So while the perception that Alma mistreated Nehor may not have been valid, it nevertheless exists and feeds the poison politics of Zarahemla.

• Alma 2:11: The implications of names. There is lot of emphasis on naming of peoples in Book of Mormon. Why are names important? What is the thrust of names these people adopt? Names create social cohesion. They are a way of erasing differences that individuals always have. People can become one under an abstract category, e.g., Amlicite or Nephite, in spite of their many actual differences. The name Amlicite emphasizes the centrality of the charismatic Amlici to his movement. It suggests devotion to monarchy, to sovereignty being invested in one person. The name Nephite emphasizes continuity with the established order, including the legitimacy both of Mosiah as Nephi’s successor and of the new social arrangement Mosiah made that empowers Alma. The people continue to be Nephites; becoming Amlicites is new. As noted in the exegesis on chapter 1, this appears to be a Mulekite rebellion. The name Mulekite is also significant. The root MLK signifies king in Hebrew, so Mulekite might be translated as Kingite. Thus, the Mulekite kingmen who are here rebelling are aptly named.

• Alma 2:12-14: Made in the image of one's enemy. Alma 1:30 indicates what the people of the church wanted to be, and were. Here they are remade in the image of the Amlicites, being organized for war with a hierarchy of military commanders. In ["Warfare in the Book of Mormon"] Nibley cites an apt quotation of Clausewitz that explains why one comes to mirror one's enemy:

“'If the enemy should choose the method of the great decision by arms, our own method must on that account be changed against our will to a similar one.’ What the enemy does, we must do. ‘If the enemy should choose the method’ he's going to use, ‘of the great decision by arms,’ we can't do anything but reply in the same way. We must on that account, against our own will, adopt a similar method.”

While it is sometimes--as here--a necessary evil, war is a win/win proposition for Satan because the righteous must take on the hierarchical social structure and heartless demeanor of the wicked when they engage in war.

• Alma 2:18-19: How armies lose in ancient battles. In ancient battles, losses mainly occurred in retreat. Why? If your side turns and runs, there is no hope if you alone turn to fight. So everyone runs. Pursuers have nothing to fear from those who flee, while those who flee have nothing to gain by resisting. Fast pursers can kill all slow fleers, with constant back up from slower pursuers if someone does try to resist. So one by one, those who flee can be picked off, only the most fleet of foot surviving. This dynamic is what leads to such great slaughter of the Amlicites in these verses. ["For the Peace of the People"] explains why, as in this instance, democratic societies tend to defeat their autocratic opponents. The basic reason is that citizens of a democracy have more to fight for, their lives and the lives of their families being better than those of an autocrat's subjects. The factors that weaken autocracies are on full display in the account of King Noah in the land of Nephi, he being a great wastrel of societal resources that could have been used to benefit his subjects and, thus, give them a greater stake in the survival of the regime or that could have been devoted to developing a more robust defense.

Why is the word "wastrel" used to describe King Noah...not that it is incorrect but why not use a more commonly used term such as idler, wasteful, good for nothing...i had never seen that word "wastrel" before in all of my reading..i had to look it up to understand its meaning, which is good, as i like expanding my vocabulary or should i say "intumesce" my vocabulary... :) you can e mail your response to canisrubaabcd@aol.com..thank you

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:1-3: Why is the power to be cunning attributed to Amilici's wisdom, rather than to Satan's powers of deception? Why are we told that the deceived Nephites are following Amlici rather than following Satan? Is this an indication that the righteous Nephite leaders feared the power of men like Amlici at some level and attributed a lot of it to their verbal prowess?

• Alma 2:10: Amlici commands his people to go to war so that he can subjugate his people. How does going to war do that? Do you know of contemporary examples of someone using a declaration of war to subjugate his people? What lesson is there in this for us?

• Alma 2:11: Why are the Nephites here equated with the "people of God" when previously the "people of God" referred to the members of the Church? Does this indicate that those who are no longer part of the Church do not consider themselves to be Nephites? Does this indicate that the Amlicites have separated themselves from the church and now wish to rule over those who do not belong to their faith? What is the relationship between religious and political leadership according to the Amlicites?

• Alma 2:16: Alma is described as both the chief judge and the governor. What is the difference between these titles? What is the difference between a governor and a king? Alma also seems to be the military leader of the people. What is the relationship between the political, religious, and military leadership at this time? How does that compare to the relationship between these types of leaders at other times in Nephite history?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Amlicites and Amalekites. Early handwritten manuscripts of the Book of Mormon and other evidence suggest that the Amlicites here are the same group later referred to as the Amalekites. See J. Christopher Conkling, Alma's Enemies: The Case of the Lamanites, Amlicites, and Mysterious Amalekites, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 14(1):108-17.

• Politics of this conflict. See Ryan Davis's article "For the Peace of the People: War and Democracy in the Book of Mormon" in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

• Nibley on "Warfare in the Book of Mormon", which cites Clausewitz.

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Verses 1:16-33                      Next page: Verses 2:20-38

Home > The Book of Mormon > Alma > Chapters 1-3 > Chapter 2a / Verses 2:1-19
Previous page: Verses 1:16-33                      Next page: Verses 2:20-38

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Amlici and the Amalekites?: Pronunciation of the name Amlici. The pronunciation of the name Amlici has major implications for the literary unity and power of the Book of Alma. If the name is pronounced Amliki with the accent on the first syllable rather than Amlisi, then Amlici may be seen as a founding father of the Amalekites, provided that the name of that people also has the accent on the first syllable. He becomes Amliki and they the Amlikites. Their otherwise unexplained appearance in Alma 21:2 is explained, and the series of battles recounted in the Book of Alma become part of one long twilight struggle in which freemen resist revanchist Mulekite kingmen. The kingmen seek to reestablish the Mulekite monarchy that ended when Zarahemla took the first Mosiah as his successor (Omni 1:19) rather than one of his own sons. The second Mosiah has now ended the Nephite monarchy, so those with "the blood of nobility" (Alma 51:21), King David's Mulekite descendants, want to reclaim royal power. In other words, those who accept the obligation mentioned in Alma 1:1 to abide by the laws of Mosiah and those who reject that obligation are now violently at odds (see Thesis statement for the book of Alma under the Discussion heading at Alma).

There are substantial grounds for thinking that Amlici and the Amalekites are connected. The preeminent Book of Mormon textual critic, Royal Skousen, notes the inconsistent spelling of Oliver Cowdery, particularly with respect to c and k and with respect to the name Amalekite. And J. Christopher Conkling draws together many pieces of evidence--including Skousen's work--that support this conclusion in ["Alma's Enemies: The Case of the Lamanites, Amlicites, and Mysterious Amalekites]," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 14 (1), pages 108 - 117.

• Alma 2:1-4: Amlici's abilities, character, and plans. As the comments on the execution of Nehor indicate (see exegesis for Chapter 1), Alma seems to have been an unpolished and perhaps an unskilled politician. Amlici, on the other hand, seems to have had considerable political skill. In verse 1 he is described as cunning. Cunning is what one calls intelligence when a foe possesses it. It is unethical intelligence. Verse 1 also attributes much wisdom of the world to Amlici. From a worldly point of view, he seems to have managed his affairs well. Verses 2 and 3 suggest that he was alarmingly successful in his political endeavors. We can probably reconstruct one of his political arguments from what is said in verse 1 by Mormon (who doesn't like Amlici and who is probably using writings of Amlici's principle foe, Alma, as his source). Mormon assures us that Nehor "was executed according to the law." Amlici presumably argued the opposite: that Nehor was unfairly executed by the head of a rival religion, i.e. that Alma had abused his authority as Chief Judge to advance his interests as High Priest of his church. Part of Amlici's success undoubtedly flows from resentment Nehor's followers would have felt when he was executed by Alma.

Amlici may have suggested that church and state could be better separated as Mosiah intended if he, Amlici, were the sovereign instead of Alma who was also the High Priest. But members of the Church have good reason to fear--as verses 3 and 4 indicate--that Amlici would use state power against them were he to become king. Amlici would frame his actions against the church and its leaders as tit for Alma's tat, as justice for the victim Nehor. Thus, in this period of imperfect separation of church and state, the church has a strong reason to fear the loss of political power for church members and the acquisition of power by their religious opponents. While it is likely that the Nehorites did think Alma was unjust in his execution of Nehor, verse 3 indicates that at least some of the neutral observers--people who were not members of Alma's church--were more alarmed by Amlici than by Alma. This suggests that Alma had built some reputation for judging impartially in conflicts between those who were and weren't members of his church.

The fear the people feel in verse 4 (which may have been matched to some degree by fear the Nehorites felt) shows the importance of separating the state from any particular religion. A state with an official religion cannot be relied upon to protect the right of minority religions to freedom of worship, an especially precious right.

• Alma 2:5: Respect for Alma. Verse 5 indicates that members of the church and others who respect Alma's abilities and integrity still constitute a majority.

• Alma 2:6: Cast in their voices. In modern usage it would seem more appropriate to write, "cast in their votes." In the Doctrine and Covenants the word vote is used in seven verses, so it was a familiar term to Joseph Smith; yet the word does not appear in the Book of Mormon.

• Alma 2:8: Poison politics. It is a bad sign when a political victory causes "much joy." It indicates that the people have become deeply polarized and that too much is riding on victory. It is much better for the stakes in politics to be smaller, i.e., for the consequences to be small if one party rather than the other assumes power. Small stakes mean that a society has achieve a substantial measure of agreement on the basic outlines of the social order. The great joy in the first half of 8 leads very naturally to the beginnings of rebellion in the second half of the verse, for that joy has its antithesis, bitter disappointment. The polity in Zarahemla is sick at this point as is any polity that is deeply riven by a bitter contest between utterly incompatible ideologies. The problem of "policy cycling" that drives this bitter conflict between Alma and Amlici is discussed in a Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article by Ryan Davis, ["For the Peace of the People: War and Democracy in the Book of Mormon"].

• Alma 2:10: Subjection. Amlici seeks power in order to "subject" others to his will. He wants to deal with Alma and members of his church as Alma appears to have dealt with Nehor in 1:15. So while the perception that Alma mistreated Nehor may not have been valid, it nevertheless exists and feeds the poison politics of Zarahemla.

• Alma 2:11: The implications of names. There is lot of emphasis on naming of peoples in Book of Mormon. Why are names important? What is the thrust of names these people adopt? Names create social cohesion. They are a way of erasing differences that individuals always have. People can become one under an abstract category, e.g., Amlicite or Nephite, in spite of their many actual differences. The name Amlicite emphasizes the centrality of the charismatic Amlici to his movement. It suggests devotion to monarchy, to sovereignty being invested in one person. The name Nephite emphasizes continuity with the established order, including the legitimacy both of Mosiah as Nephi’s successor and of the new social arrangement Mosiah made that empowers Alma. The people continue to be Nephites; becoming Amlicites is new. As noted in the exegesis on chapter 1, this appears to be a Mulekite rebellion. The name Mulekite is also significant. The root MLK signifies king in Hebrew, so Mulekite might be translated as Kingite. Thus, the Mulekite kingmen who are here rebelling are aptly named.

• Alma 2:12-14: Made in the image of one's enemy. Alma 1:30 indicates what the people of the church wanted to be, and were. Here they are remade in the image of the Amlicites, being organized for war with a hierarchy of military commanders. In ["Warfare in the Book of Mormon"] Nibley cites an apt quotation of Clausewitz that explains why one comes to mirror one's enemy:

“'If the enemy should choose the method of the great decision by arms, our own method must on that account be changed against our will to a similar one.’ What the enemy does, we must do. ‘If the enemy should choose the method’ he's going to use, ‘of the great decision by arms,’ we can't do anything but reply in the same way. We must on that account, against our own will, adopt a similar method.”

While it is sometimes--as here--a necessary evil, war is a win/win proposition for Satan because the righteous must take on the hierarchical social structure and heartless demeanor of the wicked when they engage in war.

• Alma 2:18-19: How armies lose in ancient battles. In ancient battles, losses mainly occurred in retreat. Why? If your side turns and runs, there is no hope if you alone turn to fight. So everyone runs. Pursuers have nothing to fear from those who flee, while those who flee have nothing to gain by resisting. Fast pursers can kill all slow fleers, with constant back up from slower pursuers if someone does try to resist. So one by one, those who flee can be picked off, only the most fleet of foot surviving. This dynamic is what leads to such great slaughter of the Amlicites in these verses. ["For the Peace of the People"] explains why, as in this instance, democratic societies tend to defeat their autocratic opponents. The basic reason is that citizens of a democracy have more to fight for, their lives and the lives of their families being better than those of an autocrat's subjects. The factors that weaken autocracies are on full display in the account of King Noah in the land of Nephi, he being a great wastrel of societal resources that could have been used to benefit his subjects and, thus, give them a greater stake in the survival of the regime or that could have been devoted to developing a more robust defense.

Why is the word "wastrel" used to describe King Noah...not that it is incorrect but why not use a more commonly used term such as idler, wasteful, good for nothing...i had never seen that word "wastrel" before in all of my reading..i had to look it up to understand its meaning, which is good, as i like expanding my vocabulary or should i say "intumesce" my vocabulary... :) you can e mail your response to canisrubaabcd@aol.com..thank you

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:1-3: Why is the power to be cunning attributed to Amilici's wisdom, rather than to Satan's powers of deception? Why are we told that the deceived Nephites are following Amlici rather than following Satan? Is this an indication that the righteous Nephite leaders feared the power of men like Amlici at some level and attributed a lot of it to their verbal prowess?

• Alma 2:10: Amlici commands his people to go to war so that he can subjugate his people. How does going to war do that? Do you know of contemporary examples of someone using a declaration of war to subjugate his people? What lesson is there in this for us?

• Alma 2:11: Why are the Nephites here equated with the "people of God" when previously the "people of God" referred to the members of the Church? Does this indicate that those who are no longer part of the Church do not consider themselves to be Nephites? Does this indicate that the Amlicites have separated themselves from the church and now wish to rule over those who do not belong to their faith? What is the relationship between religious and political leadership according to the Amlicites?

• Alma 2:16: Alma is described as both the chief judge and the governor. What is the difference between these titles? What is the difference between a governor and a king? Alma also seems to be the military leader of the people. What is the relationship between the political, religious, and military leadership at this time? How does that compare to the relationship between these types of leaders at other times in Nephite history?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Amlicites and Amalekites. Early handwritten manuscripts of the Book of Mormon and other evidence suggest that the Amlicites here are the same group later referred to as the Amalekites. See J. Christopher Conkling, Alma's Enemies: The Case of the Lamanites, Amlicites, and Mysterious Amalekites, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 14(1):108-17.

• Politics of this conflict. See Ryan Davis's article "For the Peace of the People: War and Democracy in the Book of Mormon" in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

• Nibley on "Warfare in the Book of Mormon", which cites Clausewitz.

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Verses 1:16-33                      Next page: Verses 2:20-38

Home > The Book of Mormon > Alma > Chapters 1-3 > Chapter 2a / Verses 2:1-19
Previous page: Verses 1:16-33                      Next page: Verses 2:20-38

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Amlici and the Amalekites?: Pronunciation of the name Amlici. The pronunciation of the name Amlici has major implications for the literary unity and power of the Book of Alma. If the name is pronounced Amliki with the accent on the first syllable rather than Amlisi, then Amlici may be seen as a founding father of the Amalekites, provided that the name of that people also has the accent on the first syllable. He becomes Amliki and they the Amlikites. Their otherwise unexplained appearance in Alma 21:2 is explained, and the series of battles recounted in the Book of Alma become part of one long twilight struggle in which freemen resist revanchist Mulekite kingmen. The kingmen seek to reestablish the Mulekite monarchy that ended when Zarahemla took the first Mosiah as his successor (Omni 1:19) rather than one of his own sons. The second Mosiah has now ended the Nephite monarchy, so those with "the blood of nobility" (Alma 51:21), King David's Mulekite descendants, want to reclaim royal power. In other words, those who accept the obligation mentioned in Alma 1:1 to abide by the laws of Mosiah and those who reject that obligation are now violently at odds (see Thesis statement for the book of Alma under the Discussion heading at Alma).

There are substantial grounds for thinking that Amlici and the Amalekites are connected. The preeminent Book of Mormon textual critic, Royal Skousen, notes the inconsistent spelling of Oliver Cowdery, particularly with respect to c and k and with respect to the name Amalekite. And J. Christopher Conkling draws together many pieces of evidence--including Skousen's work--that support this conclusion in ["Alma's Enemies: The Case of the Lamanites, Amlicites, and Mysterious Amalekites]," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 14 (1), pages 108 - 117.

• Alma 2:1-4: Amlici's abilities, character, and plans. As the comments on the execution of Nehor indicate (see exegesis for Chapter 1), Alma seems to have been an unpolished and perhaps an unskilled politician. Amlici, on the other hand, seems to have had considerable political skill. In verse 1 he is described as cunning. Cunning is what one calls intelligence when a foe possesses it. It is unethical intelligence. Verse 1 also attributes much wisdom of the world to Amlici. From a worldly point of view, he seems to have managed his affairs well. Verses 2 and 3 suggest that he was alarmingly successful in his political endeavors. We can probably reconstruct one of his political arguments from what is said in verse 1 by Mormon (who doesn't like Amlici and who is probably using writings of Amlici's principle foe, Alma, as his source). Mormon assures us that Nehor "was executed according to the law." Amlici presumably argued the opposite: that Nehor was unfairly executed by the head of a rival religion, i.e. that Alma had abused his authority as Chief Judge to advance his interests as High Priest of his church. Part of Amlici's success undoubtedly flows from resentment Nehor's followers would have felt when he was executed by Alma.

Amlici may have suggested that church and state could be better separated as Mosiah intended if he, Amlici, were the sovereign instead of Alma who was also the High Priest. But members of the Church have good reason to fear--as verses 3 and 4 indicate--that Amlici would use state power against them were he to become king. Amlici would frame his actions against the church and its leaders as tit for Alma's tat, as justice for the victim Nehor. Thus, in this period of imperfect separation of church and state, the church has a strong reason to fear the loss of political power for church members and the acquisition of power by their religious opponents. While it is likely that the Nehorites did think Alma was unjust in his execution of Nehor, verse 3 indicates that at least some of the neutral observers--people who were not members of Alma's church--were more alarmed by Amlici than by Alma. This suggests that Alma had built some reputation for judging impartially in conflicts between those who were and weren't members of his church.

The fear the people feel in verse 4 (which may have been matched to some degree by fear the Nehorites felt) shows the importance of separating the state from any particular religion. A state with an official religion cannot be relied upon to protect the right of minority religions to freedom of worship, an especially precious right.

• Alma 2:5: Respect for Alma. Verse 5 indicates that members of the church and others who respect Alma's abilities and integrity still constitute a majority.

• Alma 2:6: Cast in their voices. In modern usage it would seem more appropriate to write, "cast in their votes." In the Doctrine and Covenants the word vote is used in seven verses, so it was a familiar term to Joseph Smith; yet the word does not appear in the Book of Mormon.

• Alma 2:8: Poison politics. It is a bad sign when a political victory causes "much joy." It indicates that the people have become deeply polarized and that too much is riding on victory. It is much better for the stakes in politics to be smaller, i.e., for the consequences to be small if one party rather than the other assumes power. Small stakes mean that a society has achieve a substantial measure of agreement on the basic outlines of the social order. The great joy in the first half of 8 leads very naturally to the beginnings of rebellion in the second half of the verse, for that joy has its antithesis, bitter disappointment. The polity in Zarahemla is sick at this point as is any polity that is deeply riven by a bitter contest between utterly incompatible ideologies. The problem of "policy cycling" that drives this bitter conflict between Alma and Amlici is discussed in a Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article by Ryan Davis, ["For the Peace of the People: War and Democracy in the Book of Mormon"].

• Alma 2:10: Subjection. Amlici seeks power in order to "subject" others to his will. He wants to deal with Alma and members of his church as Alma appears to have dealt with Nehor in 1:15. So while the perception that Alma mistreated Nehor may not have been valid, it nevertheless exists and feeds the poison politics of Zarahemla.

• Alma 2:11: The implications of names. There is lot of emphasis on naming of peoples in Book of Mormon. Why are names important? What is the thrust of names these people adopt? Names create social cohesion. They are a way of erasing differences that individuals always have. People can become one under an abstract category, e.g., Amlicite or Nephite, in spite of their many actual differences. The name Amlicite emphasizes the centrality of the charismatic Amlici to his movement. It suggests devotion to monarchy, to sovereignty being invested in one person. The name Nephite emphasizes continuity with the established order, including the legitimacy both of Mosiah as Nephi’s successor and of the new social arrangement Mosiah made that empowers Alma. The people continue to be Nephites; becoming Amlicites is new. As noted in the exegesis on chapter 1, this appears to be a Mulekite rebellion. The name Mulekite is also significant. The root MLK signifies king in Hebrew, so Mulekite might be translated as Kingite. Thus, the Mulekite kingmen who are here rebelling are aptly named.

• Alma 2:12-14: Made in the image of one's enemy. Alma 1:30 indicates what the people of the church wanted to be, and were. Here they are remade in the image of the Amlicites, being organized for war with a hierarchy of military commanders. In ["Warfare in the Book of Mormon"] Nibley cites an apt quotation of Clausewitz that explains why one comes to mirror one's enemy:

“'If the enemy should choose the method of the great decision by arms, our own method must on that account be changed against our will to a similar one.’ What the enemy does, we must do. ‘If the enemy should choose the method’ he's going to use, ‘of the great decision by arms,’ we can't do anything but reply in the same way. We must on that account, against our own will, adopt a similar method.”

While it is sometimes--as here--a necessary evil, war is a win/win proposition for Satan because the righteous must take on the hierarchical social structure and heartless demeanor of the wicked when they engage in war.

• Alma 2:18-19: How armies lose in ancient battles. In ancient battles, losses mainly occurred in retreat. Why? If your side turns and runs, there is no hope if you alone turn to fight. So everyone runs. Pursuers have nothing to fear from those who flee, while those who flee have nothing to gain by resisting. Fast pursers can kill all slow fleers, with constant back up from slower pursuers if someone does try to resist. So one by one, those who flee can be picked off, only the most fleet of foot surviving. This dynamic is what leads to such great slaughter of the Amlicites in these verses. ["For the Peace of the People"] explains why, as in this instance, democratic societies tend to defeat their autocratic opponents. The basic reason is that citizens of a democracy have more to fight for, their lives and the lives of their families being better than those of an autocrat's subjects. The factors that weaken autocracies are on full display in the account of King Noah in the land of Nephi, he being a great wastrel of societal resources that could have been used to benefit his subjects and, thus, give them a greater stake in the survival of the regime or that could have been devoted to developing a more robust defense.

Why is the word "wastrel" used to describe King Noah...not that it is incorrect but why not use a more commonly used term such as idler, wasteful, good for nothing...i had never seen that word "wastrel" before in all of my reading..i had to look it up to understand its meaning, which is good, as i like expanding my vocabulary or should i say "intumesce" my vocabulary... :) you can e mail your response to canisrubaabcd@aol.com..thank you

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:1-3: Why is the power to be cunning attributed to Amilici's wisdom, rather than to Satan's powers of deception? Why are we told that the deceived Nephites are following Amlici rather than following Satan? Is this an indication that the righteous Nephite leaders feared the power of men like Amlici at some level and attributed a lot of it to their verbal prowess?

• Alma 2:10: Amlici commands his people to go to war so that he can subjugate his people. How does going to war do that? Do you know of contemporary examples of someone using a declaration of war to subjugate his people? What lesson is there in this for us?

• Alma 2:11: Why are the Nephites here equated with the "people of God" when previously the "people of God" referred to the members of the Church? Does this indicate that those who are no longer part of the Church do not consider themselves to be Nephites? Does this indicate that the Amlicites have separated themselves from the church and now wish to rule over those who do not belong to their faith? What is the relationship between religious and political leadership according to the Amlicites?

• Alma 2:16: Alma is described as both the chief judge and the governor. What is the difference between these titles? What is the difference between a governor and a king? Alma also seems to be the military leader of the people. What is the relationship between the political, religious, and military leadership at this time? How does that compare to the relationship between these types of leaders at other times in Nephite history?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Amlicites and Amalekites. Early handwritten manuscripts of the Book of Mormon and other evidence suggest that the Amlicites here are the same group later referred to as the Amalekites. See J. Christopher Conkling, Alma's Enemies: The Case of the Lamanites, Amlicites, and Mysterious Amalekites, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 14(1):108-17.

• Politics of this conflict. See Ryan Davis's article "For the Peace of the People: War and Democracy in the Book of Mormon" in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

• Nibley on "Warfare in the Book of Mormon", which cites Clausewitz.

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Verses 1:16-33                      Next page: Verses 2:20-38

Home > The Book of Mormon > Alma > Chapters 1-3 > Chapter 2a / Verses 2:1-19
Previous page: Verses 1:16-33                      Next page: Verses 2:20-38

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Amlici and the Amalekites?: Pronunciation of the name Amlici. The pronunciation of the name Amlici has major implications for the literary unity and power of the Book of Alma. If the name is pronounced Amliki with the accent on the first syllable rather than Amlisi, then Amlici may be seen as a founding father of the Amalekites, provided that the name of that people also has the accent on the first syllable. He becomes Amliki and they the Amlikites. Their otherwise unexplained appearance in Alma 21:2 is explained, and the series of battles recounted in the Book of Alma become part of one long twilight struggle in which freemen resist revanchist Mulekite kingmen. The kingmen seek to reestablish the Mulekite monarchy that ended when Zarahemla took the first Mosiah as his successor (Omni 1:19) rather than one of his own sons. The second Mosiah has now ended the Nephite monarchy, so those with "the blood of nobility" (Alma 51:21), King David's Mulekite descendants, want to reclaim royal power. In other words, those who accept the obligation mentioned in Alma 1:1 to abide by the laws of Mosiah and those who reject that obligation are now violently at odds (see Thesis statement for the book of Alma under the Discussion heading at Alma).

There are substantial grounds for thinking that Amlici and the Amalekites are connected. The preeminent Book of Mormon textual critic, Royal Skousen, notes the inconsistent spelling of Oliver Cowdery, particularly with respect to c and k and with respect to the name Amalekite. And J. Christopher Conkling draws together many pieces of evidence--including Skousen's work--that support this conclusion in ["Alma's Enemies: The Case of the Lamanites, Amlicites, and Mysterious Amalekites]," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 14 (1), pages 108 - 117.

• Alma 2:1-4: Amlici's abilities, character, and plans. As the comments on the execution of Nehor indicate (see exegesis for Chapter 1), Alma seems to have been an unpolished and perhaps an unskilled politician. Amlici, on the other hand, seems to have had considerable political skill. In verse 1 he is described as cunning. Cunning is what one calls intelligence when a foe possesses it. It is unethical intelligence. Verse 1 also attributes much wisdom of the world to Amlici. From a worldly point of view, he seems to have managed his affairs well. Verses 2 and 3 suggest that he was alarmingly successful in his political endeavors. We can probably reconstruct one of his political arguments from what is said in verse 1 by Mormon (who doesn't like Amlici and who is probably using writings of Amlici's principle foe, Alma, as his source). Mormon assures us that Nehor "was executed according to the law." Amlici presumably argued the opposite: that Nehor was unfairly executed by the head of a rival religion, i.e. that Alma had abused his authority as Chief Judge to advance his interests as High Priest of his church. Part of Amlici's success undoubtedly flows from resentment Nehor's followers would have felt when he was executed by Alma.

Amlici may have suggested that church and state could be better separated as Mosiah intended if he, Amlici, were the sovereign instead of Alma who was also the High Priest. But members of the Church have good reason to fear--as verses 3 and 4 indicate--that Amlici would use state power against them were he to become king. Amlici would frame his actions against the church and its leaders as tit for Alma's tat, as justice for the victim Nehor. Thus, in this period of imperfect separation of church and state, the church has a strong reason to fear the loss of political power for church members and the acquisition of power by their religious opponents. While it is likely that the Nehorites did think Alma was unjust in his execution of Nehor, verse 3 indicates that at least some of the neutral observers--people who were not members of Alma's church--were more alarmed by Amlici than by Alma. This suggests that Alma had built some reputation for judging impartially in conflicts between those who were and weren't members of his church.

The fear the people feel in verse 4 (which may have been matched to some degree by fear the Nehorites felt) shows the importance of separating the state from any particular religion. A state with an official religion cannot be relied upon to protect the right of minority religions to freedom of worship, an especially precious right.

• Alma 2:5: Respect for Alma. Verse 5 indicates that members of the church and others who respect Alma's abilities and integrity still constitute a majority.

• Alma 2:6: Cast in their voices. In modern usage it would seem more appropriate to write, "cast in their votes." In the Doctrine and Covenants the word vote is used in seven verses, so it was a familiar term to Joseph Smith; yet the word does not appear in the Book of Mormon.

• Alma 2:8: Poison politics. It is a bad sign when a political victory causes "much joy." It indicates that the people have become deeply polarized and that too much is riding on victory. It is much better for the stakes in politics to be smaller, i.e., for the consequences to be small if one party rather than the other assumes power. Small stakes mean that a society has achieve a substantial measure of agreement on the basic outlines of the social order. The great joy in the first half of 8 leads very naturally to the beginnings of rebellion in the second half of the verse, for that joy has its antithesis, bitter disappointment. The polity in Zarahemla is sick at this point as is any polity that is deeply riven by a bitter contest between utterly incompatible ideologies. The problem of "policy cycling" that drives this bitter conflict between Alma and Amlici is discussed in a Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article by Ryan Davis, ["For the Peace of the People: War and Democracy in the Book of Mormon"].

• Alma 2:10: Subjection. Amlici seeks power in order to "subject" others to his will. He wants to deal with Alma and members of his church as Alma appears to have dealt with Nehor in 1:15. So while the perception that Alma mistreated Nehor may not have been valid, it nevertheless exists and feeds the poison politics of Zarahemla.

• Alma 2:11: The implications of names. There is lot of emphasis on naming of peoples in Book of Mormon. Why are names important? What is the thrust of names these people adopt? Names create social cohesion. They are a way of erasing differences that individuals always have. People can become one under an abstract category, e.g., Amlicite or Nephite, in spite of their many actual differences. The name Amlicite emphasizes the centrality of the charismatic Amlici to his movement. It suggests devotion to monarchy, to sovereignty being invested in one person. The name Nephite emphasizes continuity with the established order, including the legitimacy both of Mosiah as Nephi’s successor and of the new social arrangement Mosiah made that empowers Alma. The people continue to be Nephites; becoming Amlicites is new. As noted in the exegesis on chapter 1, this appears to be a Mulekite rebellion. The name Mulekite is also significant. The root MLK signifies king in Hebrew, so Mulekite might be translated as Kingite. Thus, the Mulekite kingmen who are here rebelling are aptly named.

• Alma 2:12-14: Made in the image of one's enemy. Alma 1:30 indicates what the people of the church wanted to be, and were. Here they are remade in the image of the Amlicites, being organized for war with a hierarchy of military commanders. In ["Warfare in the Book of Mormon"] Nibley cites an apt quotation of Clausewitz that explains why one comes to mirror one's enemy:

“'If the enemy should choose the method of the great decision by arms, our own method must on that account be changed against our will to a similar one.’ What the enemy does, we must do. ‘If the enemy should choose the method’ he's going to use, ‘of the great decision by arms,’ we can't do anything but reply in the same way. We must on that account, against our own will, adopt a similar method.”

While it is sometimes--as here--a necessary evil, war is a win/win proposition for Satan because the righteous must take on the hierarchical social structure and heartless demeanor of the wicked when they engage in war.

• Alma 2:18-19: How armies lose in ancient battles. In ancient battles, losses mainly occurred in retreat. Why? If your side turns and runs, there is no hope if you alone turn to fight. So everyone runs. Pursuers have nothing to fear from those who flee, while those who flee have nothing to gain by resisting. Fast pursers can kill all slow fleers, with constant back up from slower pursuers if someone does try to resist. So one by one, those who flee can be picked off, only the most fleet of foot surviving. This dynamic is what leads to such great slaughter of the Amlicites in these verses. ["For the Peace of the People"] explains why, as in this instance, democratic societies tend to defeat their autocratic opponents. The basic reason is that citizens of a democracy have more to fight for, their lives and the lives of their families being better than those of an autocrat's subjects. The factors that weaken autocracies are on full display in the account of King Noah in the land of Nephi, he being a great wastrel of societal resources that could have been used to benefit his subjects and, thus, give them a greater stake in the survival of the regime or that could have been devoted to developing a more robust defense.

Why is the word "wastrel" used to describe King Noah...not that it is incorrect but why not use a more commonly used term such as idler, wasteful, good for nothing...i had never seen that word "wastrel" before in all of my reading..i had to look it up to understand its meaning, which is good, as i like expanding my vocabulary or should i say "intumesce" my vocabulary... :) you can e mail your response to canisrubaabcd@aol.com..thank you

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:1-3: Why is the power to be cunning attributed to Amilici's wisdom, rather than to Satan's powers of deception? Why are we told that the deceived Nephites are following Amlici rather than following Satan? Is this an indication that the righteous Nephite leaders feared the power of men like Amlici at some level and attributed a lot of it to their verbal prowess?

• Alma 2:10: Amlici commands his people to go to war so that he can subjugate his people. How does going to war do that? Do you know of contemporary examples of someone using a declaration of war to subjugate his people? What lesson is there in this for us?

• Alma 2:11: Why are the Nephites here equated with the "people of God" when previously the "people of God" referred to the members of the Church? Does this indicate that those who are no longer part of the Church do not consider themselves to be Nephites? Does this indicate that the Amlicites have separated themselves from the church and now wish to rule over those who do not belong to their faith? What is the relationship between religious and political leadership according to the Amlicites?

• Alma 2:16: Alma is described as both the chief judge and the governor. What is the difference between these titles? What is the difference between a governor and a king? Alma also seems to be the military leader of the people. What is the relationship between the political, religious, and military leadership at this time? How does that compare to the relationship between these types of leaders at other times in Nephite history?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Amlicites and Amalekites. Early handwritten manuscripts of the Book of Mormon and other evidence suggest that the Amlicites here are the same group later referred to as the Amalekites. See J. Christopher Conkling, Alma's Enemies: The Case of the Lamanites, Amlicites, and Mysterious Amalekites, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 14(1):108-17.

• Politics of this conflict. See Ryan Davis's article "For the Peace of the People: War and Democracy in the Book of Mormon" in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

• Nibley on "Warfare in the Book of Mormon", which cites Clausewitz.

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Verses 1:16-33                      Next page: Verses 2:20-38

Home > The Book of Mormon > Alma > Chapters 1-3 > Chapter 2b / Verses 2:20-38
Previous page: Verses 2:1-19                      Next page: Verses 3:1-27

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:20: Symbolic Justice in the Valley of Gideon. This verse demands a symbolic reading of a telling detail--the fact that the Nephites ended their pursuit of the Amlicites and enjoyed their apparent victory in the valley of Gideon. Ending there signifies justice. The underlying causus belli for this war was Nehor killing Gideon and Alma then executing Nehor. Nehor probably killed Gideon in this same valley, this being the place where Gideon and the people of Limhi settled. In his battle with Nehor, Gideon seemed to be the loser. But the fight between freemen and kingmen continues on a grander scale. And the freemen achieve victory in the very spot where the trouble began, the very spot where the good guy seemed to have lost. Thus, good tribumphs over evil. Gideon becomes a posthumous victor over Nehor, his opponent, when those who honor him drive from the field those who honor his enemy, Nehor.

• Alma 2:24: Cardinal directionality in the Book of Mormon. The reference to Minon as being above Zarahemla is a subtle detail supporting the authenticity of Book of Mormon. The land of Minon is probably located between the land of Nephi from which the Lamanties would be coming and the land of Zarahemla. Thus Minon is probably south of Zarahemla. So south is described as being up or above. Why? In the Bible, people go up to Jerusalem no matter what direction they are coming from. The Book of Mormon replicates that pattern, but instead of Jerusalem, it is the land of Nephi that is the reference point. Having lived there for 400 years, the Nephite people regard the land of Nephi as the homeland of their hearts even when there is no prospect of their ever inhabiting it again. This way of thinking and describing directions is onsistent with the way Nephites would think but not with the way an American like Joseph Smith would think. (See Mosiah 20:7, 28:1, 5, 29:3; Alma 17:8, 20:2, 24:20, 26:23, 29:14 for examples of "up to the land of Nephi").

It is also possible that to say "go up to" literally meant an ascent uphill. It is noted that the head of the Sidon river was south of the land of Zarahemla in the border wilderness near the land of Manti. (Alma 22:27) This the land of Zarahemla must necessarily be at a lower elevation than the head of Sidon if the river flows from their past the city of Zarahemla through the land of Zarahemla.

• Alma 2:24-25: Coordinated attack of Amlicites and Lamanites. The meeting and joining of the Amlicite and Lamanite armies is very unlikely to be by chance. At a minimum, the Lamanites have been informed that civil war has broken out in Nephite lands, making this an opportune time to attack. More likely, the Amlicites have previously arranged for the Lamanites to join them in their attack on the Nephite leaders in Zarahemla. We know that people (most likely disgruntled Mulekites) have been resisting the Nephite monarchy and dissenting over to the Lamanites for generations (Words of Mormon 1:12). We learn that the Amlicites (called Amalekites for reasons discussed in the exegesis of Alma 21:2) had joined with the Lamanites to build a city called Jerusalem in the land of Nephi. The inhabitants of that city are followers of Nehor and would have been upset by his execution. These Mulekite dissenters would have been effective mediators between Amlici and the Lamanite king. Given that this meeting was planned, the Nephites should count themselves fortunate (or more likely blessed) that the impatient Amlicites joined battle and were defeated before the arrival of their Lamanite allies. The army that now joins the Lamanites is much reduced by their defeat the day before.

It is also possible that the first battle was a diversionary tactic to draw the Nephite armies away from Zarahemlah leaving it open for conquest by the combined Amlicite/Lamanite force.

• Alma 27-28: Hyperbole and the glory of God. Verse 27 speaks hyperbolically of the immense size and power of the combined army of Lamanites and Amlicites. Describing the enemy in this way elevates in verse 28 our repect for the faith exhibited by the smaller force of Nephites and our admiration for the power and blessings of God before whom such an army is nothing. In other words, 27 makes 28 all the more miraculous.

These two verses represent a way of thinking at odds with the scientific mindset of our day. This is seeing with the eye of faith. The key implicit assumption is that what matters in any situation is for it be seen correctly in spiritual/moral terms. To see correctly, one must recognize that God’s hand is always operative and should be looked for. The objective, scientific eye sees only material reality, a small force and larger one that is certain to triumph because of its magnitude. In this case, the eye of faith anticipates what science can’t: the victory for the smaller force. The smaller force triumphs because they have faith that God will deliver them (which makes them braver). Their eye of faith is an unseen force multiplier that turns the battle. Unbelievers have lower confidence in victory and greater fear of death. They are also motivated by a worse and less compelling cause (See Alma 43:45 - 47).

• Alma 2:29: Alma one on one against Amlici. How did Alma come to face Amlici mano a mano? Their one-on-one encounter is somewhat mysterious because only a small part of the smaller Nephite force has crossed the river when the Lamanites attack. Alma was among first to cross, so he and a small group of Nephites face huge army of Amlicites/Lamanites. They seem to be easy pickings. And yet, the battle narrows to a hand to hand fight between Alma and Amlici.

• Conjecture 1: Amlici initiates the one-on-one contest. Amlici may want to preserve the Nephite forces he plans to lead after getting rid of Alma. If he were confident in own superior prowess, he might have chosen a personal contest between the two leaders in spite of his overwhelming advantage in numbers. The Nephite army might, thus, remain fully intact following his defeat of Alma. He as king cold then lead a now preserved and unified people.

• Conjecture 2: The good defensive position and superior armor of Alma and his personal guard may protect him from successful attack by ordinary soldiers. Perhaps only another similarly armored combatant would be in a position to dislodge a well clad Alma from some easily defended position. Brent Merrill raises this possibility in an essay, “Nephite Captains and Armies,” (see link below).

• Alma 2:32: More face to face combat by leaders. The fact that the king of the Lamanites, like Amlici, personally contends with Alma indicates that norms dictated direct conflict between rival leaders, though people of lower status were also permitted to join the battle if called upon by their leaders. From this battle, Alma probably developed a reputation for military prowess. These verses may explain why the Zoramite poor come en mass to the hill Onidah, the place of arms, to ask Alma what they should do. What Alma does here may suggest that the poor Zoramites hope that Alma might lead them in a military uprising against their betters. But just as Alma will now reject politics and direct leadership of the army following this episode and embrace only the High Priest role with its spiritual duties, so Alma will reject the implicit appeal to lead a revolution and instead seek to create a transformation of individual souls through the gospel.

• Alma 2:36: Effects of flight. Here again, as discussed above in the exegesis on verse 19, most of the battle losses occurred once line broke and the army began to flee.

• Alma 2:37-38: Animal symbolism and the enemy. Writers of Book of Mormon generally and unsurprisingly include only significant details. Space is limited and they have much to communicate. We should, thus, ask what larger meaning is suggested in discussing what happened to Lamanites in Hermounts? The scattered Lamanites end up in a place known for wild and ravenous beasts. This detail is probably meant mainly to illustrate the ignomineous death of those who wrongly attacked the Nephites. They were devoured by ravenous animals, a fate suitable for animals, not for human beings. In other words, the Lamanites are subtley framed as being subhuman or at least as justly experiencing a fate that suits an animal but not a human being. In placing the fleeing Lamanites among the wild and ravenous beasts, the detail may also hint that they are a kind of wild, ravenous beast. Emphasizing their fate among the beasts is probably meant to accomplish the same thing as heaping up the Lamanite bones. Both serve as warnings to anyone tempted to make another assault on Zarahemla.

Unanswered questions

This section is for questions along the lines of "I still don't understand ..." Please do not be shy. The point of these questions is to identify things that still need to be addressed on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:22: Why are we given the names of these four spies? Do we ever see their names again? How does this relate to other traditions of four brothers/spies/emissaries in the Book of Mormon (see commentary at Mosiah 7:6)?

• Alma 2:22: This is the only person named Manti mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Since Nephite places at this time were named after their first settlers (Alma 8:7), is there a connection between this soldier Manti and the Hill Manti where Nehor was killed or the southernmost Nephite Land of Manti?

• Alma 2:22: Seven years later, we read of a captian Zoram who leads an army "beyond the borders of Manti" (Alma 16:7). Is there a connection between this Zeram and that Zoram? Another seven years later, we read of a Zoram who leads the apostate Zoramites in the land of Antionum (Alma 31:1,3). Is there a connection between this Zoram and the previous one, and maybe Zeram?

• Alma 2:30: What is significant about Alma’s prayer? How does his intent differ from that of Amlici?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:29. A. Brent Merrill offers a partial explanation for why Alma and Amlici face off one-on-one here.

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Verses 2:1-19                      Next page: Verses 3:1-27

Home > The Book of Mormon > Alma > Chapters 1-3 > Chapter 2b / Verses 2:20-38
Previous page: Verses 2:1-19                      Next page: Verses 3:1-27

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:20: Symbolic Justice in the Valley of Gideon. This verse demands a symbolic reading of a telling detail--the fact that the Nephites ended their pursuit of the Amlicites and enjoyed their apparent victory in the valley of Gideon. Ending there signifies justice. The underlying causus belli for this war was Nehor killing Gideon and Alma then executing Nehor. Nehor probably killed Gideon in this same valley, this being the place where Gideon and the people of Limhi settled. In his battle with Nehor, Gideon seemed to be the loser. But the fight between freemen and kingmen continues on a grander scale. And the freemen achieve victory in the very spot where the trouble began, the very spot where the good guy seemed to have lost. Thus, good tribumphs over evil. Gideon becomes a posthumous victor over Nehor, his opponent, when those who honor him drive from the field those who honor his enemy, Nehor.

• Alma 2:24: Cardinal directionality in the Book of Mormon. The reference to Minon as being above Zarahemla is a subtle detail supporting the authenticity of Book of Mormon. The land of Minon is probably located between the land of Nephi from which the Lamanties would be coming and the land of Zarahemla. Thus Minon is probably south of Zarahemla. So south is described as being up or above. Why? In the Bible, people go up to Jerusalem no matter what direction they are coming from. The Book of Mormon replicates that pattern, but instead of Jerusalem, it is the land of Nephi that is the reference point. Having lived there for 400 years, the Nephite people regard the land of Nephi as the homeland of their hearts even when there is no prospect of their ever inhabiting it again. This way of thinking and describing directions is onsistent with the way Nephites would think but not with the way an American like Joseph Smith would think. (See Mosiah 20:7, 28:1, 5, 29:3; Alma 17:8, 20:2, 24:20, 26:23, 29:14 for examples of "up to the land of Nephi").

It is also possible that to say "go up to" literally meant an ascent uphill. It is noted that the head of the Sidon river was south of the land of Zarahemla in the border wilderness near the land of Manti. (Alma 22:27) This the land of Zarahemla must necessarily be at a lower elevation than the head of Sidon if the river flows from their past the city of Zarahemla through the land of Zarahemla.

• Alma 2:24-25: Coordinated attack of Amlicites and Lamanites. The meeting and joining of the Amlicite and Lamanite armies is very unlikely to be by chance. At a minimum, the Lamanites have been informed that civil war has broken out in Nephite lands, making this an opportune time to attack. More likely, the Amlicites have previously arranged for the Lamanites to join them in their attack on the Nephite leaders in Zarahemla. We know that people (most likely disgruntled Mulekites) have been resisting the Nephite monarchy and dissenting over to the Lamanites for generations (Words of Mormon 1:12). We learn that the Amlicites (called Amalekites for reasons discussed in the exegesis of Alma 21:2) had joined with the Lamanites to build a city called Jerusalem in the land of Nephi. The inhabitants of that city are followers of Nehor and would have been upset by his execution. These Mulekite dissenters would have been effective mediators between Amlici and the Lamanite king. Given that this meeting was planned, the Nephites should count themselves fortunate (or more likely blessed) that the impatient Amlicites joined battle and were defeated before the arrival of their Lamanite allies. The army that now joins the Lamanites is much reduced by their defeat the day before.

It is also possible that the first battle was a diversionary tactic to draw the Nephite armies away from Zarahemlah leaving it open for conquest by the combined Amlicite/Lamanite force.

• Alma 27-28: Hyperbole and the glory of God. Verse 27 speaks hyperbolically of the immense size and power of the combined army of Lamanites and Amlicites. Describing the enemy in this way elevates in verse 28 our repect for the faith exhibited by the smaller force of Nephites and our admiration for the power and blessings of God before whom such an army is nothing. In other words, 27 makes 28 all the more miraculous.

These two verses represent a way of thinking at odds with the scientific mindset of our day. This is seeing with the eye of faith. The key implicit assumption is that what matters in any situation is for it be seen correctly in spiritual/moral terms. To see correctly, one must recognize that God’s hand is always operative and should be looked for. The objective, scientific eye sees only material reality, a small force and larger one that is certain to triumph because of its magnitude. In this case, the eye of faith anticipates what science can’t: the victory for the smaller force. The smaller force triumphs because they have faith that God will deliver them (which makes them braver). Their eye of faith is an unseen force multiplier that turns the battle. Unbelievers have lower confidence in victory and greater fear of death. They are also motivated by a worse and less compelling cause (See Alma 43:45 - 47).

• Alma 2:29: Alma one on one against Amlici. How did Alma come to face Amlici mano a mano? Their one-on-one encounter is somewhat mysterious because only a small part of the smaller Nephite force has crossed the river when the Lamanites attack. Alma was among first to cross, so he and a small group of Nephites face huge army of Amlicites/Lamanites. They seem to be easy pickings. And yet, the battle narrows to a hand to hand fight between Alma and Amlici.

• Conjecture 1: Amlici initiates the one-on-one contest. Amlici may want to preserve the Nephite forces he plans to lead after getting rid of Alma. If he were confident in own superior prowess, he might have chosen a personal contest between the two leaders in spite of his overwhelming advantage in numbers. The Nephite army might, thus, remain fully intact following his defeat of Alma. He as king cold then lead a now preserved and unified people.

• Conjecture 2: The good defensive position and superior armor of Alma and his personal guard may protect him from successful attack by ordinary soldiers. Perhaps only another similarly armored combatant would be in a position to dislodge a well clad Alma from some easily defended position. Brent Merrill raises this possibility in an essay, “Nephite Captains and Armies,” (see link below).

• Alma 2:32: More face to face combat by leaders. The fact that the king of the Lamanites, like Amlici, personally contends with Alma indicates that norms dictated direct conflict between rival leaders, though people of lower status were also permitted to join the battle if called upon by their leaders. From this battle, Alma probably developed a reputation for military prowess. These verses may explain why the Zoramite poor come en mass to the hill Onidah, the place of arms, to ask Alma what they should do. What Alma does here may suggest that the poor Zoramites hope that Alma might lead them in a military uprising against their betters. But just as Alma will now reject politics and direct leadership of the army following this episode and embrace only the High Priest role with its spiritual duties, so Alma will reject the implicit appeal to lead a revolution and instead seek to create a transformation of individual souls through the gospel.

• Alma 2:36: Effects of flight. Here again, as discussed above in the exegesis on verse 19, most of the battle losses occurred once line broke and the army began to flee.

• Alma 2:37-38: Animal symbolism and the enemy. Writers of Book of Mormon generally and unsurprisingly include only significant details. Space is limited and they have much to communicate. We should, thus, ask what larger meaning is suggested in discussing what happened to Lamanites in Hermounts? The scattered Lamanites end up in a place known for wild and ravenous beasts. This detail is probably meant mainly to illustrate the ignomineous death of those who wrongly attacked the Nephites. They were devoured by ravenous animals, a fate suitable for animals, not for human beings. In other words, the Lamanites are subtley framed as being subhuman or at least as justly experiencing a fate that suits an animal but not a human being. In placing the fleeing Lamanites among the wild and ravenous beasts, the detail may also hint that they are a kind of wild, ravenous beast. Emphasizing their fate among the beasts is probably meant to accomplish the same thing as heaping up the Lamanite bones. Both serve as warnings to anyone tempted to make another assault on Zarahemla.

Unanswered questions

This section is for questions along the lines of "I still don't understand ..." Please do not be shy. The point of these questions is to identify things that still need to be addressed on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:22: Why are we given the names of these four spies? Do we ever see their names again? How does this relate to other traditions of four brothers/spies/emissaries in the Book of Mormon (see commentary at Mosiah 7:6)?

• Alma 2:22: This is the only person named Manti mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Since Nephite places at this time were named after their first settlers (Alma 8:7), is there a connection between this soldier Manti and the Hill Manti where Nehor was killed or the southernmost Nephite Land of Manti?

• Alma 2:22: Seven years later, we read of a captian Zoram who leads an army "beyond the borders of Manti" (Alma 16:7). Is there a connection between this Zeram and that Zoram? Another seven years later, we read of a Zoram who leads the apostate Zoramites in the land of Antionum (Alma 31:1,3). Is there a connection between this Zoram and the previous one, and maybe Zeram?

• Alma 2:30: What is significant about Alma’s prayer? How does his intent differ from that of Amlici?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:29. A. Brent Merrill offers a partial explanation for why Alma and Amlici face off one-on-one here.

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Verses 2:1-19                      Next page: Verses 3:1-27

Home > The Book of Mormon > Alma > Chapters 1-3 > Chapter 2b / Verses 2:20-38
Previous page: Verses 2:1-19                      Next page: Verses 3:1-27

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:20: Symbolic Justice in the Valley of Gideon. This verse demands a symbolic reading of a telling detail--the fact that the Nephites ended their pursuit of the Amlicites and enjoyed their apparent victory in the valley of Gideon. Ending there signifies justice. The underlying causus belli for this war was Nehor killing Gideon and Alma then executing Nehor. Nehor probably killed Gideon in this same valley, this being the place where Gideon and the people of Limhi settled. In his battle with Nehor, Gideon seemed to be the loser. But the fight between freemen and kingmen continues on a grander scale. And the freemen achieve victory in the very spot where the trouble began, the very spot where the good guy seemed to have lost. Thus, good tribumphs over evil. Gideon becomes a posthumous victor over Nehor, his opponent, when those who honor him drive from the field those who honor his enemy, Nehor.

• Alma 2:24: Cardinal directionality in the Book of Mormon. The reference to Minon as being above Zarahemla is a subtle detail supporting the authenticity of Book of Mormon. The land of Minon is probably located between the land of Nephi from which the Lamanties would be coming and the land of Zarahemla. Thus Minon is probably south of Zarahemla. So south is described as being up or above. Why? In the Bible, people go up to Jerusalem no matter what direction they are coming from. The Book of Mormon replicates that pattern, but instead of Jerusalem, it is the land of Nephi that is the reference point. Having lived there for 400 years, the Nephite people regard the land of Nephi as the homeland of their hearts even when there is no prospect of their ever inhabiting it again. This way of thinking and describing directions is onsistent with the way Nephites would think but not with the way an American like Joseph Smith would think. (See Mosiah 20:7, 28:1, 5, 29:3; Alma 17:8, 20:2, 24:20, 26:23, 29:14 for examples of "up to the land of Nephi").

It is also possible that to say "go up to" literally meant an ascent uphill. It is noted that the head of the Sidon river was south of the land of Zarahemla in the border wilderness near the land of Manti. (Alma 22:27) This the land of Zarahemla must necessarily be at a lower elevation than the head of Sidon if the river flows from their past the city of Zarahemla through the land of Zarahemla.

• Alma 2:24-25: Coordinated attack of Amlicites and Lamanites. The meeting and joining of the Amlicite and Lamanite armies is very unlikely to be by chance. At a minimum, the Lamanites have been informed that civil war has broken out in Nephite lands, making this an opportune time to attack. More likely, the Amlicites have previously arranged for the Lamanites to join them in their attack on the Nephite leaders in Zarahemla. We know that people (most likely disgruntled Mulekites) have been resisting the Nephite monarchy and dissenting over to the Lamanites for generations (Words of Mormon 1:12). We learn that the Amlicites (called Amalekites for reasons discussed in the exegesis of Alma 21:2) had joined with the Lamanites to build a city called Jerusalem in the land of Nephi. The inhabitants of that city are followers of Nehor and would have been upset by his execution. These Mulekite dissenters would have been effective mediators between Amlici and the Lamanite king. Given that this meeting was planned, the Nephites should count themselves fortunate (or more likely blessed) that the impatient Amlicites joined battle and were defeated before the arrival of their Lamanite allies. The army that now joins the Lamanites is much reduced by their defeat the day before.

It is also possible that the first battle was a diversionary tactic to draw the Nephite armies away from Zarahemlah leaving it open for conquest by the combined Amlicite/Lamanite force.

• Alma 27-28: Hyperbole and the glory of God. Verse 27 speaks hyperbolically of the immense size and power of the combined army of Lamanites and Amlicites. Describing the enemy in this way elevates in verse 28 our repect for the faith exhibited by the smaller force of Nephites and our admiration for the power and blessings of God before whom such an army is nothing. In other words, 27 makes 28 all the more miraculous.

These two verses represent a way of thinking at odds with the scientific mindset of our day. This is seeing with the eye of faith. The key implicit assumption is that what matters in any situation is for it be seen correctly in spiritual/moral terms. To see correctly, one must recognize that God’s hand is always operative and should be looked for. The objective, scientific eye sees only material reality, a small force and larger one that is certain to triumph because of its magnitude. In this case, the eye of faith anticipates what science can’t: the victory for the smaller force. The smaller force triumphs because they have faith that God will deliver them (which makes them braver). Their eye of faith is an unseen force multiplier that turns the battle. Unbelievers have lower confidence in victory and greater fear of death. They are also motivated by a worse and less compelling cause (See Alma 43:45 - 47).

• Alma 2:29: Alma one on one against Amlici. How did Alma come to face Amlici mano a mano? Their one-on-one encounter is somewhat mysterious because only a small part of the smaller Nephite force has crossed the river when the Lamanites attack. Alma was among first to cross, so he and a small group of Nephites face huge army of Amlicites/Lamanites. They seem to be easy pickings. And yet, the battle narrows to a hand to hand fight between Alma and Amlici.

• Conjecture 1: Amlici initiates the one-on-one contest. Amlici may want to preserve the Nephite forces he plans to lead after getting rid of Alma. If he were confident in own superior prowess, he might have chosen a personal contest between the two leaders in spite of his overwhelming advantage in numbers. The Nephite army might, thus, remain fully intact following his defeat of Alma. He as king cold then lead a now preserved and unified people.

• Conjecture 2: The good defensive position and superior armor of Alma and his personal guard may protect him from successful attack by ordinary soldiers. Perhaps only another similarly armored combatant would be in a position to dislodge a well clad Alma from some easily defended position. Brent Merrill raises this possibility in an essay, “Nephite Captains and Armies,” (see link below).

• Alma 2:32: More face to face combat by leaders. The fact that the king of the Lamanites, like Amlici, personally contends with Alma indicates that norms dictated direct conflict between rival leaders, though people of lower status were also permitted to join the battle if called upon by their leaders. From this battle, Alma probably developed a reputation for military prowess. These verses may explain why the Zoramite poor come en mass to the hill Onidah, the place of arms, to ask Alma what they should do. What Alma does here may suggest that the poor Zoramites hope that Alma might lead them in a military uprising against their betters. But just as Alma will now reject politics and direct leadership of the army following this episode and embrace only the High Priest role with its spiritual duties, so Alma will reject the implicit appeal to lead a revolution and instead seek to create a transformation of individual souls through the gospel.

• Alma 2:36: Effects of flight. Here again, as discussed above in the exegesis on verse 19, most of the battle losses occurred once line broke and the army began to flee.

• Alma 2:37-38: Animal symbolism and the enemy. Writers of Book of Mormon generally and unsurprisingly include only significant details. Space is limited and they have much to communicate. We should, thus, ask what larger meaning is suggested in discussing what happened to Lamanites in Hermounts? The scattered Lamanites end up in a place known for wild and ravenous beasts. This detail is probably meant mainly to illustrate the ignomineous death of those who wrongly attacked the Nephites. They were devoured by ravenous animals, a fate suitable for animals, not for human beings. In other words, the Lamanites are subtley framed as being subhuman or at least as justly experiencing a fate that suits an animal but not a human being. In placing the fleeing Lamanites among the wild and ravenous beasts, the detail may also hint that they are a kind of wild, ravenous beast. Emphasizing their fate among the beasts is probably meant to accomplish the same thing as heaping up the Lamanite bones. Both serve as warnings to anyone tempted to make another assault on Zarahemla.

Unanswered questions

This section is for questions along the lines of "I still don't understand ..." Please do not be shy. The point of these questions is to identify things that still need to be addressed on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:22: Why are we given the names of these four spies? Do we ever see their names again? How does this relate to other traditions of four brothers/spies/emissaries in the Book of Mormon (see commentary at Mosiah 7:6)?

• Alma 2:22: This is the only person named Manti mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Since Nephite places at this time were named after their first settlers (Alma 8:7), is there a connection between this soldier Manti and the Hill Manti where Nehor was killed or the southernmost Nephite Land of Manti?

• Alma 2:22: Seven years later, we read of a captian Zoram who leads an army "beyond the borders of Manti" (Alma 16:7). Is there a connection between this Zeram and that Zoram? Another seven years later, we read of a Zoram who leads the apostate Zoramites in the land of Antionum (Alma 31:1,3). Is there a connection between this Zoram and the previous one, and maybe Zeram?

• Alma 2:30: What is significant about Alma’s prayer? How does his intent differ from that of Amlici?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:29. A. Brent Merrill offers a partial explanation for why Alma and Amlici face off one-on-one here.

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Verses 2:1-19                      Next page: Verses 3:1-27

Home > The Book of Mormon > Alma > Chapters 1-3 > Chapter 2b / Verses 2:20-38
Previous page: Verses 2:1-19                      Next page: Verses 3:1-27

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:20: Symbolic Justice in the Valley of Gideon. This verse demands a symbolic reading of a telling detail--the fact that the Nephites ended their pursuit of the Amlicites and enjoyed their apparent victory in the valley of Gideon. Ending there signifies justice. The underlying causus belli for this war was Nehor killing Gideon and Alma then executing Nehor. Nehor probably killed Gideon in this same valley, this being the place where Gideon and the people of Limhi settled. In his battle with Nehor, Gideon seemed to be the loser. But the fight between freemen and kingmen continues on a grander scale. And the freemen achieve victory in the very spot where the trouble began, the very spot where the good guy seemed to have lost. Thus, good tribumphs over evil. Gideon becomes a posthumous victor over Nehor, his opponent, when those who honor him drive from the field those who honor his enemy, Nehor.

• Alma 2:24: Cardinal directionality in the Book of Mormon. The reference to Minon as being above Zarahemla is a subtle detail supporting the authenticity of Book of Mormon. The land of Minon is probably located between the land of Nephi from which the Lamanties would be coming and the land of Zarahemla. Thus Minon is probably south of Zarahemla. So south is described as being up or above. Why? In the Bible, people go up to Jerusalem no matter what direction they are coming from. The Book of Mormon replicates that pattern, but instead of Jerusalem, it is the land of Nephi that is the reference point. Having lived there for 400 years, the Nephite people regard the land of Nephi as the homeland of their hearts even when there is no prospect of their ever inhabiting it again. This way of thinking and describing directions is onsistent with the way Nephites would think but not with the way an American like Joseph Smith would think. (See Mosiah 20:7, 28:1, 5, 29:3; Alma 17:8, 20:2, 24:20, 26:23, 29:14 for examples of "up to the land of Nephi").

It is also possible that to say "go up to" literally meant an ascent uphill. It is noted that the head of the Sidon river was south of the land of Zarahemla in the border wilderness near the land of Manti. (Alma 22:27) This the land of Zarahemla must necessarily be at a lower elevation than the head of Sidon if the river flows from their past the city of Zarahemla through the land of Zarahemla.

• Alma 2:24-25: Coordinated attack of Amlicites and Lamanites. The meeting and joining of the Amlicite and Lamanite armies is very unlikely to be by chance. At a minimum, the Lamanites have been informed that civil war has broken out in Nephite lands, making this an opportune time to attack. More likely, the Amlicites have previously arranged for the Lamanites to join them in their attack on the Nephite leaders in Zarahemla. We know that people (most likely disgruntled Mulekites) have been resisting the Nephite monarchy and dissenting over to the Lamanites for generations (Words of Mormon 1:12). We learn that the Amlicites (called Amalekites for reasons discussed in the exegesis of Alma 21:2) had joined with the Lamanites to build a city called Jerusalem in the land of Nephi. The inhabitants of that city are followers of Nehor and would have been upset by his execution. These Mulekite dissenters would have been effective mediators between Amlici and the Lamanite king. Given that this meeting was planned, the Nephites should count themselves fortunate (or more likely blessed) that the impatient Amlicites joined battle and were defeated before the arrival of their Lamanite allies. The army that now joins the Lamanites is much reduced by their defeat the day before.

It is also possible that the first battle was a diversionary tactic to draw the Nephite armies away from Zarahemlah leaving it open for conquest by the combined Amlicite/Lamanite force.

• Alma 27-28: Hyperbole and the glory of God. Verse 27 speaks hyperbolically of the immense size and power of the combined army of Lamanites and Amlicites. Describing the enemy in this way elevates in verse 28 our repect for the faith exhibited by the smaller force of Nephites and our admiration for the power and blessings of God before whom such an army is nothing. In other words, 27 makes 28 all the more miraculous.

These two verses represent a way of thinking at odds with the scientific mindset of our day. This is seeing with the eye of faith. The key implicit assumption is that what matters in any situation is for it be seen correctly in spiritual/moral terms. To see correctly, one must recognize that God’s hand is always operative and should be looked for. The objective, scientific eye sees only material reality, a small force and larger one that is certain to triumph because of its magnitude. In this case, the eye of faith anticipates what science can’t: the victory for the smaller force. The smaller force triumphs because they have faith that God will deliver them (which makes them braver). Their eye of faith is an unseen force multiplier that turns the battle. Unbelievers have lower confidence in victory and greater fear of death. They are also motivated by a worse and less compelling cause (See Alma 43:45 - 47).

• Alma 2:29: Alma one on one against Amlici. How did Alma come to face Amlici mano a mano? Their one-on-one encounter is somewhat mysterious because only a small part of the smaller Nephite force has crossed the river when the Lamanites attack. Alma was among first to cross, so he and a small group of Nephites face huge army of Amlicites/Lamanites. They seem to be easy pickings. And yet, the battle narrows to a hand to hand fight between Alma and Amlici.

• Conjecture 1: Amlici initiates the one-on-one contest. Amlici may want to preserve the Nephite forces he plans to lead after getting rid of Alma. If he were confident in own superior prowess, he might have chosen a personal contest between the two leaders in spite of his overwhelming advantage in numbers. The Nephite army might, thus, remain fully intact following his defeat of Alma. He as king cold then lead a now preserved and unified people.

• Conjecture 2: The good defensive position and superior armor of Alma and his personal guard may protect him from successful attack by ordinary soldiers. Perhaps only another similarly armored combatant would be in a position to dislodge a well clad Alma from some easily defended position. Brent Merrill raises this possibility in an essay, “Nephite Captains and Armies,” (see link below).

• Alma 2:32: More face to face combat by leaders. The fact that the king of the Lamanites, like Amlici, personally contends with Alma indicates that norms dictated direct conflict between rival leaders, though people of lower status were also permitted to join the battle if called upon by their leaders. From this battle, Alma probably developed a reputation for military prowess. These verses may explain why the Zoramite poor come en mass to the hill Onidah, the place of arms, to ask Alma what they should do. What Alma does here may suggest that the poor Zoramites hope that Alma might lead them in a military uprising against their betters. But just as Alma will now reject politics and direct leadership of the army following this episode and embrace only the High Priest role with its spiritual duties, so Alma will reject the implicit appeal to lead a revolution and instead seek to create a transformation of individual souls through the gospel.

• Alma 2:36: Effects of flight. Here again, as discussed above in the exegesis on verse 19, most of the battle losses occurred once line broke and the army began to flee.

• Alma 2:37-38: Animal symbolism and the enemy. Writers of Book of Mormon generally and unsurprisingly include only significant details. Space is limited and they have much to communicate. We should, thus, ask what larger meaning is suggested in discussing what happened to Lamanites in Hermounts? The scattered Lamanites end up in a place known for wild and ravenous beasts. This detail is probably meant mainly to illustrate the ignomineous death of those who wrongly attacked the Nephites. They were devoured by ravenous animals, a fate suitable for animals, not for human beings. In other words, the Lamanites are subtley framed as being subhuman or at least as justly experiencing a fate that suits an animal but not a human being. In placing the fleeing Lamanites among the wild and ravenous beasts, the detail may also hint that they are a kind of wild, ravenous beast. Emphasizing their fate among the beasts is probably meant to accomplish the same thing as heaping up the Lamanite bones. Both serve as warnings to anyone tempted to make another assault on Zarahemla.

Unanswered questions

This section is for questions along the lines of "I still don't understand ..." Please do not be shy. The point of these questions is to identify things that still need to be addressed on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:22: Why are we given the names of these four spies? Do we ever see their names again? How does this relate to other traditions of four brothers/spies/emissaries in the Book of Mormon (see commentary at Mosiah 7:6)?

• Alma 2:22: This is the only person named Manti mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Since Nephite places at this time were named after their first settlers (Alma 8:7), is there a connection between this soldier Manti and the Hill Manti where Nehor was killed or the southernmost Nephite Land of Manti?

• Alma 2:22: Seven years later, we read of a captian Zoram who leads an army "beyond the borders of Manti" (Alma 16:7). Is there a connection between this Zeram and that Zoram? Another seven years later, we read of a Zoram who leads the apostate Zoramites in the land of Antionum (Alma 31:1,3). Is there a connection between this Zoram and the previous one, and maybe Zeram?

• Alma 2:30: What is significant about Alma’s prayer? How does his intent differ from that of Amlici?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Alma 2:29. A. Brent Merrill offers a partial explanation for why Alma and Amlici face off one-on-one here.

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Verses 2:1-19                      Next page: Verses 3:1-27