Source: https://whatimthinkingabout.wordpress.com/tag/lamanites/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:27:14+00:00

Document:
Last Friday’s study group was on Jacob 6:9. I could record a hundred little insights, but mostly I want to focus on what we learned about the book of Jacob and how it relates to the Lamanites.
Beyond this, I suggested that perhaps all of Jacob’s writings could be aimed at softening the blow to the Lamanites so that they would read and accept this book. Joe is often pointing out how Jacob, in chapters 2-3, is criticizing the Nephites for how they are treating the Lamanites. Jacob explains that the Nephites are not keeping certain commandments that the Lamanites are keeping; the Nephites don’t treat their families well and that will have future consequences; the Lamanites behavior was taught them by their parents and they aren’t responsible for much of their tradition, etc. So what if we read all of that as Jacob’s attempt to invite the Lamanites into this book where their people will so often be described in a negative light? What if Jacob is trying to reach out to them through his contribution to this book? What if he wants them to know that the Nephites were often wrong in how they viewed their people? But, none the less, there was a curse brought on by their first parents that did affect them, and necessitated a book being written and brought to them?
This round through Alma 17-22, I thought a lot about how each interaction that Aaron and Ammon have with the Lamanites could be being affected by the fact that Ammon and Aaron are princes who have given up their position. Or, maybe they were seen as being dethroned? Maybe they were seen as impostors? (not the real princes). When King Lamoni offers his daughter as a wife for Ammon, it could very well be because he is a prince. It could be setting up alliances between the Nephites and Lamanites. It could be that he thinks Ammon has defected to the Lamanites for real, but a prince would still make a good match for his daughter. It could be that he thinks he’s defected and that he’s a wise, impressive guy, and he wants to have someone like that in his family and ready to take up his place someday. All of these are possibilities if King Lamoni recognizes him as the son of King Mosiah (and I can’t tell how likely that would be or not).
The father of King Lamoni is less impressed with Ammon. Does his distrust and outrage go beyond the simple fact that Ammon is a Nephite and therefore “is one of the children of a liar”? If the father of King Lamoni recognizes Ammon as a prince, why else might he be upset? Does he suspect that this prince is here to trick his son out of his land?
Later, when Ammon is in the position to slay the father of Lamoni, he pleads “If thou wilt spare me I will grant unto thee whatsoever thou wilt ask, even to half of the kingdom.” Does he think that this is really why Ammon is here?
What an interesting thread woven into this story!
There will be a whole ton, and they’ll be somewhat randomly ordered, but they will be tagged so I can find them again!
Goal is to focus on Christ, not focus on faith.
Faith is in those very things around you but you see them differently, or you use them differently, or God uses them to teach you, etc.
Things = Christ’s body that he showed the Nephites?
faith is assumed, trust you can do things when faith is exercised. Not seeking faith, using faith.
But Alma does see faith increasing. But then again, it’s a gift, and not what you were seeking after.
word “history” only used 5 times in the Book of Mormon, and all are in small plates.
even when he separates them into two separate books it’s still hard to keep them a part!
Secular is supposedly neutral, but really, based on our discussions, we could say that secular = history+religion-religion?
Does a division of sacred and secular open up a space for us to do work of covenant, so we can seal it all back together in a better way?
BYU has a vision that Elder Holland talks about, where our spiritual life should make us better scholars, and our scholarship should make us grow in our spiritual life.
Maybe priesthood assignment itself is a circle of power for men? Given a huge task and told to figure it out!
King Follett discourse is an example of the appeal to low/common Church mixed with High Church.
paragraph 12 has a hugely amazing doctrine, but the sentence structure treats it like it’s equal to the other things in the sentence!
Plain container fill it with radical ideas?
v. 15 The servants are praying because “the fear of the Lord had come upon them also.” Is this fear spiritual or physical? Have they understood enough of what has happened to be praying for mercy, like the King did? Or is this a different sort of fear? Are they afraid for their physical lives, since they had seen that Ammon could not be killed, and yet now they see him falling because of the power of God?
v. 15-16 We assumed that the people watching sheep were all men, but here it says all the servants fell except one woman. Does that imply that the group of servants watching sheep included women? children?
v. 15-16 Another possibility is that all the servants were gathered, both those who were with Ammon and others who happened to be in the palace that day.
One clue that Abish and other women are connected to the sheep-watching servants is that they are both called “Lamanitish.” We searched and couldn’t find that word elsewhere. (We noted that Lamanite and Nephite are rarely used as adjectives at all.) Where did this word come from?
Perhaps inventing an adjective. But why here? Why not used again?
On original plates? Mormon is borrowing the term for this story?
Are they only kind-of Lamanites?
They are in the Land of Ishmael. Is Mormon pointing out that they aren’t literally Lamanites? But elsewhere Ishmaelites are grouped together with Lamanites for simplicity, so why would that change here? Could it be that true-Lamanites have more power and they are trying to set themselves up as true Lamanites (through proving loyalty, through certain customs) to join the power structure?
Are they children of marriages of one Lamanite and one not-Lamanite? An Ishmaelite or a Lemuelite marrying a Lamanite?
Are they actually from neighboring tribes? (Not Lehi’s children at all?) Are they from other tribes but have chosen to live with the Lamanites? Are they from other tribes but have been captured or forced to live with the Lamanites and that’s why they are servants?
Are they children of a marriage between a Lamanite and a person from another tribe?
Are they the spouse of in a marriage of a Lamanite and non-Lamanite? A “Lamanite-in-law” as it were?
Could they be Nephite dissenters who have chosen to live with the Lamanites? They are Lamanitish because of how they have chosen to live rather than because of mixed lineage?
Are they children of Nephites who dissented at some point? Perhaps several generations back? Is this part of why they are servants? They are the lesser race in this culture?
Are they perhaps children of a Nephite and a Lamanite?
v. 16 Depending on which one of the above readings of “Lamanitish” we pick, it changes the story of Abish. She was Lamanitish. What did that imply about her social status in the palace? In the community? About her relationship to the Queen?
v. 16 What does it tell us about her vision? She has a “remarkable” vision of her father. (We discussed the ambiguity here: is it a vision he had or a vision she had about him?) Is he/she having visions because they are actually Nephites?
v. 17 This vision has converted her, but it also seems to prompt her to go about taking the “opportunity” to show others God’s power. Someone suggested that her vision (or her father’s vision) included the promise of the Lamanites and Nephites being reconciled, or at least of the Lamanites being converted. Perhaps she was waiting for this opportunity for a long time.
v. 29 But her cry is similar to the King’s cry before he passes out. Both of them are concerned about their people. A father/mother, Adam/Eve, Lehi/Sariah kind of pair.
v. 30 it’s of course interesting that servant raises Queen, and Queen raises King. Again, this story undoes all sorts of hierarchies, or at least ones that we have, or that perhaps the Nephites had, and we expect that the Lamanites had too.
I have been reading 2 Nephi 27 this week. I noticed something in verse 5 that I hadn’t caught before: so, God pours on the people deep sleep, “for” they have closed their eyes and rejected the prophets.
I think there’s a lot to think about there. Isaiah is told to preach in such a way that the people won’t understand and repent. But, I think that comes after decisions that the people have made. They have look beyond the mark, wanted things they couldn’t understand, etc. God tried plainness and they closed their eyes. So, if they’re going to sleep, God’s going to make them sleep deeply.
Is that actually a merciful thing? If they are only half-sleeping, knowing what’s going on but keeping their eyes closed, then they are knowingly rejecting what’s in front of them. But, if they are sound asleep, then they would be less responsible for understanding what is going on around them. Is this deeper sleep, or Isaiah’s preaching, a way of saving them from further condemnation?
I think of the Lamanites in this way, too. Laman and Lemuel could see what they were rejecting; they closed their eyes and pretended to be asleep. But their children didn’t have that same sort of chance. They were taught to ignore. It was sad and horrible that so many generations passed by without contact with God, but, it did mean that all those generations were not held responsible for what they didn’t know. It was as if a deep sleep passed on Laman and Lemuel’s kids, so that they were not responsible for the closed eyes of their parents.
At least, that is how I am inclined to read those situations.

References: v. 

v. 

v. 

v. 

v. 

v. 

v. 

v.