[I wrote the following in application to the upcoming Mormon Theology Seminar. I faced tough competition and wasn't selected, but I hope to pursue these ideas in the future. I was limited to 750 words and had to be incredibly brief.]
Hugh Nibley and John Tvedtness described the colophon in
First Nephi 1:2-3.[1]
These colophons served as ancient seal of approval or copyright. Noel Reynolds
argued persuasively that Nephi’s record is the beginning of a political text
that justified Nephi’s rule over his brothers, and Nephite supremacy over the
Lamanites.[2]
Conversely, then, colophon like
statements from Nephite dissenters and opponents reveal counter and subversive
political narratives. The letter from the Gadianton Robber, Giddianhi, in Third
Nephi 3: 9-10 is particularly revealing.
His entire letter, in addition to having a colophon similar to Nephi’s, used
and subverted the Nephite foundational narrative to enhance the power of his
pre-invasion propaganda.
Nephi says that his words are true, and that
he makes them according to the “learning of his father, [consisting] of the
learning of the Jews and language of the Egyptians.” (1 Nephi 1: 3) Giddianhi
references his position as governor of his society, “which society and works
thereof I know to be good, and they are of an ancient date and have been handed
down to us.” (3 Nephi 3: 9) So both writers recognized their position in
society, testified of its truth or goodness, and referenced the heritage that
influenced their writings.
But a detailed comparison of the
two chapters reveals even deeper connections.
An often quoted modern phrase is based on the “tender mercies” found in
First Nephi 1:20. In contrast to the tender mercies of the Lord described by
Nephi, Giddianhi claimed that he wrote his letter and sealed it with his own
hand, “feeling for your welfare, because of the firmness in that which you
believe to be right, and your noble spirit in the field of battle.”(3 Nephi 3:5)
The leader Giddianhi claimed that the Nephite’s firm faith moved him to offer
mercy, and the Gadianton leader will grant them a reprieve, or deliver them
from their impending destruction. So it
is possible that Giddianhi recalled the Nephite’s foundational narrative with a
twist to enhance his claim to leadership. The robber offered his tender mercies
instead of God’s. Many ancient rulers cast themselves as God, part God, or the
only approved conduit for God’s power. So what seemed like fake empathy from a
slimy politician instead reads more like an exchange between Themistocles and
Xerxes during the second Persian Invasion.
The verses before the tender
mercies described the preaching of Lehi to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In
that preaching Lehi “plainly” warned of their destruction and described their
means of their escape. (First Nephi
1:18-19) In contrast, the Nephites were
offered a chance to know their secret works, and if accepted, Giddianhi offered
an oath that they wouldn’t be destroyed but accepted as brothers. (3 Nephi 3:
8) Again, this is a slight twist of the
Nephite belief system. As modern members repeatedly hear, the “strict heed” a
member gives to their oaths and covenants prevents their destruction. Thus,
entering into an oath with the robbers would prevent the Nephite destruction;
just as the inhabitants of Jerusalem could escape destruction from the
Babylonians by obeying God’s word given to Lehi. The chief Governor reinforced
the concept of deliverance through honoring covenants after Lachoneus rejected
Giddanhi’s offer and instead commanded the Nephites to pray, and prophesied to
them until they repented. (3 Nephi 3: 12, 16).
In conclusion, Giddanhi subverted
the Nephite political narrative from First Nephi 1 to enhance the pre-invasion
propaganda within his letter. He sounded
merciful in response to Nephite firmness in battle, by suggesting that he
instead of God was the source of tender mercies. He prophesied of their destruction
in 30 days, which recalled Lehi’s fulfilled prophecy Jerusalem’s destruction.
(Nephite prophets used this fulfilled prophecy to bolster their case on other occasions.
see Helaman 8:21.) Finally he argued the Nephite’s only escape was to accept
his oath and be initiated into his society. Subverting Nephi’s political
narrative 600 years later begins to show how Nephi’s colophon and remaining
writing established a ruling ideology. This subversion adds sophistication and
power to Giddianhi’s arguments, and suggests one reason why his threat remained
so potent and seductive.
You may read an expanded version of this argument in my Reassessing the Book of Mormon.
You may read an expanded version of this argument in my Reassessing the Book of Mormon.
*****
[1] Hugh
Nibley, Lehi in the Desert (Salt Lake
City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 17-9.
John A. Tvedtnes, "Colophons in
the Book of Mormon," in John Sorenson and Melvin Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Salt
Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 32-37.
[2]Noel
Reynolds, “Nephi’s Political Testament,” in John Sorenson and Melvin Thorne, eds.,
Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Salt
Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991).
