Abinadi as a soldier?

The Maxwell Institute has posted a series of blog posts about their summer study series. Nate Oman suggested that Abinadi could have been a soldier. The evidence is seen in several places, such as Mosiah 11:20 saying that he was among "them." But the closest antecedent was the victorious army in verse 19. There is more as well and you should go read the blog post, and I can't wait for the entire argument to appear. I think the argument is intriguing and has merit. I especially never thought something like the antecedent of a pronoun being that important. I always assumed that "among them" referred to the people. But if Abinadi was speaking among the people of course he was one of them. So there must be something more which Nate identifies.

I haven't had a chance to explore this more fully, but I thought my reading of Mosiah 15 as a Biblical type scene was pretty good too.  And of course, I'll continue to apply to these and hopefully attend one some day. (It kind of feels like destiny that I'll be accepted to the seminar that takes place in London.😉) I hope you enjoy the read.

[I work as a freelance author. If you found value in this piece please consider donating using one of the paypal buttons below.] 

2017 Mormon Theology Seminar

[This is a copy of my application to the 2017 Mormon Theology Seminar. This is always a good chance to explore different ideas.  I never did come up with a good title so I hope you don't mind jumping right in.] 

The powerful speech of Abinadi explained pivotal Messianic concepts and elucidated the God head in ways that recalled some of the early Christian ecumenical councils. The largest theme is the duality of Heaven and Earth represented in Mosiah 15:4: And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. The study of Abinadi’s words justifiably focuses on his amazing testimony of Christ and his bold stand for truth. But preaching doesn’t happen in a vacuum.  His talk about the nature of God and His judgements reveal repeating and important scenes in the Book of Mormon regarding the nature of prophets, and their possible conflict with both political power and the institutional church.

The king and prophet are respective representations of heaven and earth.  The prophets are key explainers of spiritual text which govern the kings, and kings are the divine conduit that governs temporal affairs. The prophet Micaiah in 1^st Kings 22 does a good job of illustrating the possible scene and interplay between king and prophet represented in Abinadi’s preaching. In the story the kings of Israel and Judah sat on their thrones and consulted 400 priests regarding future military action. The 400 priests give their approval for the joint attack. Yet one of the kings wasn’t satisfied with the answer.   He was reluctant to consult the prophet Micaiah because he always prophesied evil concerning the king but did so anyway. When pressed Micaiah gave them grim news concerning the judgements of God and used Christ like language when he compared their defeat to being a flock without a shepherd. 

Micaiah then testified of a vision that truly revealed the dual nature of the episode. As Cristiano Grottanelli explains the text, “On earth we see the thrones of the kings with the ranks of prophets and with the recalcitrant truth telling prophet. In heaven we see the throne of Yahweh with the ranks of spirits, and the lying spirit volunteer.”[1]The encounter ended when Micaiah is then slapped by one of the priests and cast into prison.  The story of Micaiah and Abinadi are fascinating accounts of a prophet being forced to oppose the king, testify of destruction, contradict the priests in the court, and then have a theophonic experience that mirrors the earthly scene. Abinadi is brought before a king, contradicts the priests, teaches of the duality between Heaven and Earth, testifies of Christ being born, Christ being brought before a king and killed, and then Abinadi’s experience ends with his death.  

The treatment of Abinadi is not only a possible type scene with the Bible and representation of duality; it also illustrates key themes in the Book of Mormon. Abinadi being brought before an angry king for his preaching recalls prophets such Alma in the city of Ammonihah (Alma 14:2), and Nephi upon his tower (Helaman 8:5-6) who faced the people’s wrath over the enunciation of political consequences of spiritual condemnation.  The other theme, also represented in the Bible, is the conflict between the priests who are part of the institutional church and the court of the king, and the prophets who are often charismatic and outside of the organized church.  This is most clearly seen in Samuel the Lamanite, who preached on the walls, was never heard again, and the people whom he converted had to seek out Nephi, the institutional leader of the church for baptism (Helaman 16:3-4). The prophet Micaiah also contradicted the larger number of priests who were special guests and interpreters for the king.  Abinadi explicitly threatened both the kings (secular) life and safety of kingdom while also undermining the position and prophecies of the priests. Much like the people in Jeremiah’s day, the priests opposing Abinadi contended that their kingdom is strong (12:14-15).

The spiritual teachings of Abinadi receive a good deal of attention. But his words about God being the Father of heaven and earth suggest a connection between the political history of the Nephites and the spiritual preaching of the prophets that is understudied.  Abinadi represents a possible type scene comparable to Micaiah’s experience in 1 Kings 22, and it also highlights the experience of many Nephite prophets in having their spiritual messages ruffle temporal feathers, and suggests a difference between free-lance prophets and institutional priests. 

---

[1] Cristiano Grottanelli, Kings and Prophets: Monarchic Power, Inspired Leadership & Sacred Tect in Biblical Narrative (New York, Oxford University Press, 1999), 175. 

Statement of Interest:

I’m particularly attracted to the seminar’s intense reading and focus on new lines of inquiry into the text and believe I could add a great deal to the seminar.  I have extensive academic experience with over a dozen academic publications and presentations. My most recent work includes a research grant that allowed me to study the early insurgency of Mao Zedong, and a contract with Westholme Press to produce a book on decisive battles in Chinese history.

Regarding the Book of Mormon, my methodological focus has reexamined assumptions about the narrative in the text. This has produced a manuscript length volume which discusses a revisionist history within the Book of Mormon currently under review for publication. Some of that research was previewed in a well-received presentation at the 2016 FAIR conference which examined the social and political factors that might have fueled the Gadianton insurgency.   Another focus has been to examine the relevance of the text in formulating foreign policy. Some of this research has been published in past monographs and contributions to collected volumes and conferences. My most recent piece represents ground breaking research into previously neglected verses that discuss preemptive war.  I look forward to bringing these skills to the 2017 seminar. Thank you.

[Thanks for reading! I work as a free lance writer so if you found value in this work please consider making a donation using the pay pal buttons below.]  

Mesoamerican Custom of Retreating to a Tower

A recent article suggests that a small group of defenders in Mesoamerica would flee to the temple to make a last stand. This story reminded me of Gideon and his attempt to kill King Noah. In Mosiah 19 we read:

3 And the lesser part [of King Noah's people] began to breathe out threatenings against the king, and there began to be a great contention among them.
4 And now there was a man among them whose name was Gideon, and he being a strong man and an enemy to the king, therefore he drew his sword, and swore in his wrath that he would slay the king.
5 And it came to pass that he fought with the king; and when the king saw that he was about to overpower him, he fled and ran and got upon the tower which was near the temple.
6 And Gideon pursued after him and was about to get upon the tower to slay the king, and the king cast his eyes round about towards the land of Shemlon, and behold, the army of the Lamanites were within the borders of the land.
7 And now the king cried out in the anguish of his soul, saying: Gideon, spare me, for the Lamanites are upon us, and they will destroy us; yea, they will destroy my people.
8 And now the king was not so much concerned about his people as he was about his own life; nevertheless, Gideon did spare his life.

Jerry Ainsworth describes what the term "tower" probably meant in The Book of Mormon here. So when facing defeat Noah flees to a Pyramid to make his last stand, just as Mayans do in the linked article. When Moroni defeats the King Men he also plants the Title of Liberty on their towers(Alma 51:17-21). This would make even more sense if he just defeated them at their tower. Plus, in unpublished research I have suggested that "pull down their pride" and "level them to the earth" refer to defacing stone symbols of their power. This also has a match in the article, as the victors would put their "graffiti" and symbols of their god on the newly conquered tower.

Now the timing of this article puts it at 150 A.D, however the location corresponds to one of the dominant theories for Book of Mormon geography. Also, this could update our knowledge of Mesoamerican warfare; as I have shown, principles of warfare can generally be applied both forwards and backwards in time. Thus the location and principles both match up well with warfare in the Book of Mormon. Thanks to http://americantestament.blogspot.com for the hat tip.

Yes they can!

A long time ago I posted about the ideology of war. The post basically describes some research done by Hugh Nibley concerning the rhetoric of war. This rhetoric was an an attempt by the "villains" in the Book of Mormon to present themselves as heroes.

The Lamanites only fought to regain their rights "stolen" by Nephi and his descendants. Korihor was only trying to free an oppressed populace. The Zoramites just wanted to live on their own until they were subjected to Nephite cultural Imperialism, that is, the preaching of Alma and the conversion of large segments of the Zoramite population. I have no doubt that if we had more of the words of King Noah he would say that his excessive building projects were designed as a show of strength against Lamanite aggression and were thus protecting his people. And the Gadianton robber, Giddianhi, simply wished to reclaim his rights which the Nephites had taken from him.

The point is that you rarely find somebody proudly proclaims they are overthrowing freedom, leading a murderous rebellion, or seeking wars of aggression. Even Hitler conquered territory claiming to correct the wrongs of the Versailles Treaty, seeking to bring freedom to Germans in other lands, or seeking a joining (Anschluss) with other Germans. Terrorists obfuscate their true nature and tactics by claiming the mantle of "freedom fighter". In short, dictators will find more subtle ways to cloak and or justify their actions:



We need to continually parse and examine the words that people use to justify their actions. We receive great training in the scriptures, since we already know who the "bad guys" are. And even Moroni [1] had to rally the people to the cause of righteousness. Real life is a bit more tricky, but we can and should apply the lessons we learn to modern situations.

For example, I will demonstrate how even singing about hope and change can have ominous connotations. I came across this video from 2008. It was without a doubt the creepiest thing I saw the entire election. And the "Pyongyang Remix" shows why. I don't think Obama is Hitler, but this video clearly shows how even lofty and inspiring rhetoric can really be used as a tool for political control by real or potential dictators.

The Bad Emperor

The great thing about being done with grad school is the fact that now I can actually slow down and enjoy all of my reading. Instead of doing 100 pages a day, I can now slow down and do about 20. My first re-reading is Medieval Chinese Warfare 300-900 by David Graff. In my readings I came across Graff's description of the "bad last Emperor". On page 62 Graff describes how Chinese historians, mainly civil bureaucrats, would depict the "bad last Emperor" that would forfeit the Mandate of Heaven. The biased historian described the ruler Shi Hu as:

a man of enormous sensual appetites, addicted to the pleasure of the harem...[and his] 'actions were harsh and cruel'...He put vast numbers of peasant labor conscripts to work on his palace complexes...imposing great hardships on the people...[he] dug up the tombs [of ancient rulers] to find treasures that had been buried with them...When he quarreled with the heir apparent, he had the young man, his consort, and his 26 children killed and buried together in a single coffin.

There are several general traits that are associated with a "bad Emperor:"

1. the person loves sensual appetites. 2. Builds multiple and implied unnecessary palaces. 3. By doing 1 and 2 he imposes a great burden on his people, through taxes and labor. 4. He kills any possible threat to his rule, often in cruel fashion. Graff argues that historians may have exaggerated his "sins" in order to justify the violent rise of a new dynasty. This leads to point 5. That a historian's account of a bad ruler will take special pains to highlight the sins of the ruler.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, a sinful ruler also forfeited his right to rule. Mormon acting as a historian would also take time to justify the Lords punishment of the individual and their loss of power. The case that jumped to my mind was that of King Noah. Mosiah Chapter 11 verse 2 starts the account:

2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.
3 And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed...
4 And all this did he take to support himself, and his wives and his concubines; and also his priests, and their wives and their concubines; thus he had changed the affairs of the kingdom...
8 And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper;
9 And he also built him a spacious palace, and a throne in the midst thereof...
12 And it came to pass that he built a tower near the temple...
13 And it came to pass that he caused many buildings to be built in the land Shilom; and he caused a great tower to be built on the hill north of the land Shilom...
14 And it came to pass that he placed his heart upon his riches, and he spent his time in riotous living with his wives and his concubines; and so did also his priests spend their time with harlots.
15 And it came to pass that he planted vineyards round about in the land; and he built wine-presses, and made wine in abundance; and therefore he became a wine-bibber, and also his people....

As we can see in Chapter 11 of Mosiah, King Noah is depicted by Mormon as a "bad Emperor." He uses stark language to describe the sins of King Noah. These sins match many of those that fit the "bad Emperor" Shi Hu in Chinese history- love of concubines, love of riches, grandiose building projects, and an insecure ruler who had any threat killed- and just as Shi Hu lost the divine sanction for his realm, so did Noah. Noah lived in "riotous" fashion, he had the threat to his ruler, the prophet Abinadi, burned at the stake, he chased out one of his priests that listened to him, he built many "spacious building" and a tower in a place of "resort."

In summary:

The account of Mosiah matches the literary conventions of other ancient historians who sought to insert a particular moral lesson into their account. There are differences in the particulars of each account, and this doesn't mean that Chinese historians influenced the Book of Mormon, but it means the salient points are incredibly similar and can help us understand the event better. This does not cast into serious question the historicity of the event (since Noah could still have been all those things) but the bias of Mormon in his description of Noah adds authenticity to his status as an ancient historian and to the Book of Mormon.