Loyd EricsonRel 439

–

Approaches to the Book of MormonMarch 4, 2010Re-

reading Ammon’s Mission to the Lamanites

The story of Ammon’s mission to the Lamanites is usually read and retold by Mormons as a

simple and uncomplicated religious narrative. It is a story of one of the sons of the righteousNephite king Mosiah, who after his miraculous conversion to Christianity by an angel, sets out toshare the Christian gospel with the heathen and barbarous Lamanites. In the process, Ammonamazes the Lamanites with his god-given strength, converts a Lamanite king with his preaching, and

with his brothers’ help, eventually assists

in the conversion of thousands of the corrupt Lamanites torighteousness.Upon closer reading, however, there appears to be much more going on in the narrative thanonly the story of one or more righteous missionaries

’

success in converting thousands to the

Christian gospel. In Mormon’s narrative, Ammon and his brothers were not just religious

missionaries, but were also acting as state emissaries of the Nephites seeking to establish a working relationship with the Lamanite nations

—

a relationship that most thought was impossible due to arenewed surge of violence and suspicion at their borders, which was the results of the actions of some of their own. Furthermore, while abridging and retelling this story Mormon has carefully crafted the narrative to illustrate what he believes to be the preferred method of Christianconversion and peace-making between warring nations. The story of Ammon and his brothers, astold by Mormon, is ultimately the story of how, through good examples and service, they were ableto break through the xenophobic and bigoted stereotypes that both the Nephites and the Lamanitesheld of the other, unite their kingdoms, and convert thousands of unbelieving Lamanites toChristianity.

The hermeneutical approach in this paper makes a few initial assumptions. First, it is takenfor granted that the Book of Mormon is an account of real historical characters

—

acting as imperfecthumans with their own biases, virtues, and faults. Second, most of the narratives within are notfirsthand accounts, but are rather carefully constructed retellings of the events by the prophet-historian Mormon. Third, the accounts and sources which Mormon utilized to reconstruct hisnarratives were most likely not immediate dictations of the events, but were probably first or secondhand recollections of those events. Because of this, there is only a very limited perspective remaining on the actual events

as they occurred: Mormon’s retelling of one person or group’s own retelling of

the story. Like a detective with only minimal witnesses and partial evidence, the reader is forced tolook for clues that might point to neglected (or intentionally redacted) information, biases, misplacedassumptions, and reconstructed aspects of the narrative. It is with this methodology that the paperseeks to re-approach and uncover various aspects of

Ammon’s mission.

This is not intended to be

an exhaustive account of Ammon’

s story

—

perhaps no investigation could

—

but is rather intendedto illustrate certain aspects of the narrative that are usually left buried and unseen.

Zeniff

’s

invasion into Lamanite territory

While the animosity between the Nephites and Lamanites began with their feudal separationinto different kingdoms in the middle of the sixth-century B.C., the most recent and detailed of altercations prior to

Ammon’s mission

occurred four centuries later. This renewal of aggressionbegan with the invasion of the Zenif

f’s army into Lamanite territory to reclaim land that the

Nephites had once possessed.

The personal

account of Zeniff’s

invasion (located in Mosiah 9-10) is the only full firsthandrecord that Mormon included into his otherwise abridged narrative.

While personally recounting nearly four decades of his own history, Zeniff painted a story of how after reclaiming land in theLamanite kingdom, his people were preserved by God and protected from the wicked Lamanitesbecause of their own righteousness

—

a story that certainly would have appealed to Mormon, whoseoverall narrative repeated the mantra of how

those who ―

were faithful in keeping thecommandments of God . . . would prosper them in the land

‖ (Alma 48:15).

However, Zeniff’s account is

fraught with contradictions and suspect recollections. Forexample, Zeniff began his account by claiming that

he was initially ―

a spy among the Lamanites . . . ,that our army might come upon them and destroy them

—

but

when I saw that which was good among them

I was desirous th

at they should not be destroyed‖ (Mosia

h 1:9, emphasis mine).

Zeniff’s

reservations, however, quickly dissolved. After his invasion, in order to portray his people as theunfortunate victims, Zeniff instead writes that the Lamanites were

―

a lazy and an idolatrous people;therefore they were desirous to bring us into bondage, that they might glut themselves with thelabors of our hands; yea, that they might feast themselves upon the flocks of our fields

‖

(Mosiah9:12).

Furthermore, according to Zeniff’s o

wn account of the events, after marching in with an

army and inquiring of the Lamanite king Laman if they might ―possess the land in peace‖ (vs. 5),

Laman displaced the citizens of two land

s for Zeniff’s people to settle

. Rather than recognizing theseemingly obvious conclusion that Laman displaced his own people under the threat and fear of

Zeniff’s army, Zeniff instead claims that Laman did so because of ―

the cunning and the craftiness of king Laman, to bring my people into bondage, that he yielded up the land that we might possessit

‖—

a plan that Laman apparently took over twelve years to put into effect (vss. 10-12). In trying toportray his people as victims, Zeniff seems to

forget that it was he and his army who were ―over

zealous‖ and ―slow to remember the Lord our God‖ (vs. 3) as they set out as an armed force to

destroy and take land inhabited by the Lamanites.Despite a dozen years of peace where

Zeniff’s people were able to ―multiply and prosper inthe land‖ (vs 9), Zeniff maintains his claim that Laman’s offering of land was simply a trap toensnare his people. It isn’t until thirteen year

s into their occupation that this peace comes to an

abrupt ends. After ―a numerous host of Lamanites‖ attack some of Zeniff’s people near the

Lamanite border

and

take some of their ―flocks, and the corn of their fields‖ (vs. 14), Zeniff

determines that this was Laman finally implementing his thirteen-

year plan ―to bring them intobondage‖ (vs. 11). In response, Zeniff sends a heavily armed force to battle against

the Lamanites

―in the strength of the Lord‖ (vs. 17), killing over three thousand Lamanites (and losing over two

hundred of their own).

After this altercation, Zeniff’s people began amassing armies at their borders, preparing for

another battle. And after

his father death, King Laman’s son (also named Laman) also began to

The Small Plates of Nephi, composing 1 Nephi through Omni were included by Mormon in

addition

to his abridged work, and not a part of it. Zenif

f’s account, on the other hand, is interjected into his narrative in lieu of his own typical

work of abridgement.

See also 1 Ne. 2:20; 4:14; 2 Ne. 1:9; 1:20; 4:4; Jarom 1:9; Omni 1:6; Mosiah 1:7; 2:21; 2:31; Alma 9:13; 36:1; 36: 30;37:13; 38:1; 48:15; 48:25; Alma 50:20; and Hel. 3:20.

Zeniff records that these farmers were ―away on the south of the land of Shilom‖ (Mosiah 1:14). It is not clear if this

means that they were on the

south-end

of the land of Shilom, or if they had pushed and expanded beyond their southernborders. If the latter, t

hen the Lamanites’ attack could have been

a response to what they perceived to be an act of Nephite expansionism.

prepare an army for war.

Similarly, Zeniff’s own son Noah continued the animosity and violent

threats against the Lamanites.

This would continue through Noah’s own son Limhi, until this l

astdescendant of Zeniff, through battles, enslavement, and struggle, managed to help his people escapefrom the Lamanite kingdom to protection with in the Nephite kingdom.

Nephite and Lamanite inter-national relations.

Ammon’s mission to the Lamanites c

omes at the heels of the struggles and violence between

Zeniff’s people and the Lamanites. It is a recent part of both of their cultural memories. Ammon’s

best friend Alma, was the son of the prophet Alma

—a former priest of Noah who helped Limhi’s

people e

scape from the Lamanites. Ammon’s father was Mosiah, the Nephite king who gave Limhi’s

people protection.

Ammon, as a missionary with the elder Alma’s gospel message and princeemissary of his father’s kingdom, would be going to preach to the grandson of t

he Lamanite king

who was at war with Limhi’s people.

It is no wonder then that when Ammon and his brothers decided to go to the Lamanites with hopes to find reconciliation, the Nephites mocked them. As Ammon is said to report,they laughed us to scorn. For they said unto us: Do ye suppose that ye can bring theLamanites to the knowledge of the truth? Do ye suppose that ye can convince the Lamanitesof the incorrectness of the traditions of their fathers, as stiffnecked a people as they are; whose hearts delight in the shedding of blood; whose days have been spent in the grossestiniquity; whose ways have been the ways of a transgressor from the beginning? . . . Andmoreover they did say: Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and theiriniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us. (Alma 26:23-25)Even Mormon writes thatthey had undertaken to preach the word of God to a wild and a hardened and a ferociouspeople; a people who delighted in murdering the Nephites, and robbing and plundering them; and their hearts were set upon riches, or upon gold and silver, and precious stones; yetthey sought to obtain these things by murdering and plundering, that they might not laborfor them with their own hands. Thus they were a very indolent people, many of whom did worship idols, and the curse of God had fallen upon them because of the traditions of theirfathers. (Alma 17:14-15)On one end, the Nephites seemed to express some of the most racist and xenophobicfeelings imaginable against the Lamanites. On the other end, the Lamanites were still festering hard

feeling towards the Nephites ―

who are sons of a liar

‖ who ―

robbed our fathers; and [whose] children

It seems that the Lamanites may have carried the tradition of naming their kings after the first Laman, as did the

Nephites for a period of time. Jacob writes that the Nephites ―were desirous to retain in remembrance his [Nephi’s]

name. And whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth,according to

the reigns of the kings‖ (Jacob 1:11). Likewise, ―the name of the king of the Lamanites was Laman, being called after the name of his father; and therefore he was called king Laman‖ (Mosiah 24:3). If we assume that the

Lamanites had generations similar to

Zeniff’s people, the king Laman of Mosiah 24 would be the son of Laman the son

of Laman that first gave land to Zeniff.

There is not room in this paper to explore the further animosity between Limhi’s people and the Lamanites that

resulted from the kidna

pping of the Lamanite daughters by Noah’s priests, the resulting battle, and

the humiliation of the Lamanite king in Mosiah 20.