- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is a spin-off from another thread where we were talking about the Book of Mormon. Old Timer indicated he felt Nephi was the annoying little brother who was self-righteous, favored, and a thorn in the side of his older brothers. The older brothers weren’t visionaries and therefore, maybe couldn’t be expected to share in the visions of Nephi or their father, Lehi. Feel free to correct what I said here if this doesn’t accurately reflect what you meant/said OT. That is how I understood it though. I was talking to my TBM, ex-Bishop Mormon friend about this interpretation. He seemed to think this interpretation was a justification for Laman and Lemuel’s treatment of Nephi. My friend actually censured Laman and Lemuel saying a) they weren’t righteous people b) they tried to kill Nephi — not appropriate even given Nephi’s annoying behavior c) they tied him up and smote him with a rod d) they even saw an Angel telling them to change their ways, and they still didn’t listen to Nephi and e) after they untied Nephi God stopped the storms when they traversed the ocean. My friend implied that these latter two facts indicated Nephi was acting as he should have from God’s perspective. He also had little sympathy for Laman and Lemuel.
Just wondering what your thoughts are on this counterpoint OT, or anyone else who wants to participate.
It is the orthodox interpretation, and I understand it. I can’t argue with it; it might be a combination of both (annoying, favored, spoiled younger brother and mad, resentful older brothers). As far as the angel story, it easily could be the visionary brother seeing and hearing something the non-visionary brothers actually didn’t experience. (or it might be a hallucination – or an accurate report – or inspired fiction – or . . .)
I love that the book includes the concept of “likening things unto ourselves” – since that means both of us can be inspired and even “right” (which will sound like a justification to your friend).
Glad you are open to other interpretations. I want to ask you one other question. You said you interpet the story of Abraham and Isaac as Abraham failing the test. His father tried to do the same thing to Abraham, and Abraham, when tested, was about to do the same thing.
I think that’s an interesting interpretation, but then why did God, as a result of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, grant Abraham all the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant?SilentDawning wrote:
Glad you are open to other interpretations.I want to ask you one other question. You said you interpet the story of Abraham and Isaac as Abraham failing the test. His father tried to do the same thing to Abraham, and Abraham, when tested, was about to do the same thing.
I think that’s an interesting interpretation, but then why did God, as a result of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, grant Abraham all the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant?
A) We are told by a set of Abraham’s descendants that is what God said. That is as much stock as I put into that statement.
Said descendants have a reason to justify conquering Israel and casting people out. “Divine Fortune” is the classic “look” for conquest-driven people.C) Flair. It makes a great story of loyalty to God in place of loyalty to family.
D) Indirect Peer Pressure. “Abraham did it and was blessed – so you can do it too”.
I’ll quote myself from thisQuote:A person at church may describe someone as a “ministering angel” and I might look at that same person and describe them as an 11 year old deacon.
Lots of words to say that perhaps a stranger (human) ran up and stood between Nephi and his brothers and Nephi called him an “angel of the Lord” because the stranger saved him from being beat to death. If Laman and Lemuel told their version of the story they might say that it was just some random guy.
Yeah, considering the text it’s a stretch, but here’s the thing… personally I think Nephi is an unreliable narrator. He’s cartoonishly perfect and his brothers are cartoonishly evil. Life just isn’t like that. Life isn’t black and white, not even visions.
I don’t think many would try to justify the actions of Laman and Lemuel or hold them up to be the true heroes of the story. I think people are just saying that Nephi is not the model of perfect behavior that he’s held up to be.
I was thinking about this just now… Why didn’t Laman and Lemuel leave while Nephi and co. were building the boat?
Nephi’s account is that they weren’t helping build the boat…
They weren’t hanging around waiting for the inheritance… that “ship” had sailed when they got exiled from Jerusalem.
Maybe they hung around in case they needed to “rescue” their father from “their crazy visionary” brother? Or to appease more “faithful” wives?
Maybe there was a little more food where they were (it wouldn’t be amazing otherwise a ton of other people would already be there).
Stories need conflict. There must be a good guy and who does the good guy triumph over if not the bad guy. Nephi is good and Laman and Lemuel are bad. Nephi is younger and seems outnumbered. He is the underdog. Nephi is a little too one dimensional in his goodness and Laman and Lemuel likewise in their badness (They persist in being bad and directly and violently opposing Nephi even after witnessing many miracles).
Later Nephi’s descendants are good and Laman’s descendants are bad. Nephites are vastly outnumbered. They are the underdog. They fight righteous battles and are victorious. It is like the 300 Spartans in their victory over the Persian hordes in The Battle of Thermopylae.
Nephi’s descendants were also white and more civilized. The Lamanites were darker skinned for some reason. After wiping out the Nephites, the Lamanites seem to devolve into many smaller migratory tribes that speak different languages from each other and subsist off the land.
Everyone always forgets the true hero of the beginning of the Book of Mormon – Sam. We always talk about how Laman and Lemuel were beating up Nephi with a rod, but they were beating up Sam too: Quote:Wherefore Laman and Lemuel did speak many hard words unto
us, their younger brothers, and they did smite useven with a rod. But what does the angel say when he shows up?
Quote:Why do ye smite your younger
brotherwith a rod? Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen himto be a ruler over you, and this because of your iniquities? I used to imagine that after the angel left, Laman and Lemuel looked at each other and said, “Hey, he never said to stop beating up
Sam….” and then continued on. Poor guy. Sam, as the oldest righteous brother, also should have had the right of first inheritance. But instead he just gets to have his posterity bundled in with Nephi’s.
On my mission I created a whole series of half-joking stories about the hypothetical Book of Sam (lost as part of the 116 pages). I imagined that when Nephi broke his bow, Sam actually still had a working one but Nephi wanted to make his own to show off. And while Nephi was shocking Laman and Lemuel to get them to help build the boat, Sam was the one patiently laboring away in the background who actually built the thing while they were busy fighting. Sam was always the humble guy doing what needed to be done but not making it all about himself, while Nephi was preoccupied with being a hero.
Arrakeen wrote:
Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen him to be a ruler over you,
That never really happened did it? Laman and Lemuel tied him up on the ship and then ventured out on their own once they reached the promised land. Nephi never did rule over them because they refused to accept it.Roy wrote:
Arrakeen wrote:
Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen him to be a ruler over you,
That never really happened did it? Laman and Lemuel tied him up on the ship and then ventured out on their own once they reached the promised land. Nephi never did rule over them because they refused to accept it.
Nephi does some of his own apologetics on that one in 2 Nephi 5:
Quote:And behold, the words of the Lord had been fulfilled unto my brethren, which he spake concerning them, that I should be their ruler and their teacher. Wherefore, I had been their ruler and their teacher, according to the commandments of the Lord, until the time they sought to take away my life.
So he was their ruler for a very brief time, but they didn’t like it and tried to kill him so he ran away, but
technicallyhe was their ruler for a least a little, so the prophecy was technicallyfulfilled. My understanding of the 116 pages is that they were the story told from Lehi’s point of view. That might be interesting to see the differences in the story, even if only from a slightly different perspective. Lehi may shed some light on why Nephi felt (or was) entitled or favored while Laman and Lemuel were not. Even better though would be to hear the story from Laman’s and/or Lemuel’s point of view. I would guess they would paint a very different and not-so-heroic picture of their brother. And let us not forget in the end it was the Lamanites that won. :wtf: To me, the BoM is kinda racist in saying that the Lamanites’ skin was darkened to stop mixing with the Nephites and destroying the tradition of the Nephite’s fathers. Almost a reflection of the racism that existed during the time of Joseph Smith and that made it into our own doctrine of blacks and the priesthood eventually. Imagine if JS was translating the BoM in our day — do you think he would have included the racist parts of the BoM? Racism is historically accurate, even now but especially for that time. It would be expected in the Book of Mormon, just like it exists in the Bible, especially given the population difference between the Lamanites and the Nephites (even after joining with the Mulekites). I see those population stats as meaning the Lamanites had to have joined with a larger, darker-skinned, indigenous population – which makes the racism understandable from a historic viewpoint (skin color as a visible mark of the enemy). Racism in the BofM is neither surprising nor a proof of modern writing. It doesn’t prove it is a literal historical record, but it also isn’t an anachronism that can be used legitimately as a denial of historicity. The interesting thing is the clear statement early on that God does not discriminate based on race or sex – which makes the BofM a cautionary tale of what happens when people can’t live “the full Gospel” (and is directly relevant to modern Mormon, American, and world history.
I think the most racist parts of the Book of Mormon, notwithstanding the statement about God not discriminating, are the parts which refer to the favor shown to the “white and delightsome” people. Dark skin is consistently portrayed as evil while white (and delightsome) skin is consistently portrayed as good. I don’t know if it would be the same if it were written today, but I doubt it would. Archie Bunker (and George Jefferson) wouldn’t be made today. I agree, DJ – if it was written as historical fiction by someone aware of those issues. I think it is important, however, no matter how someone sees it, to recognize it fits historical records and is not “just” a sign or proof of a modern origin. (I see it as potentially “inspired fiction”, but this issue doesn’t prove it isn’t a historical record.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.