Murdered Brother and a Fraud

[_cosmo junction]

I recently came across something disturbing to me, and wanted to know if any of you had ever wondered about what was being said in this particular passage of the Book of Mormon:


Alma 54:16 I am Ammoron, the king of the Lamanites; I am the brother of Amalickiah whom ye have murdered. Behold, I will avenge his blood upon you, yea, and I will come upon you with my armies for I fear not your threatenings.

Alma 54:22 And if it so be that there is a devil and a hell, behold will he not send you there to dwell with my brother whom ye have murdered, whom ye have hinted that he hath gone to such a place? But behold these things matter not.

Alma 55:1 Now it came to pass that when Moroni had received this epistle he was more angry, because he knew that Ammoron had a perfect knowledge of his fraud; yea, he knew that Ammoron knew that it was not a just cause that had caused him to wage a war against the people of Nephi.

2 And he said: Behold, I will not exchange prisoners with Ammoron save he will withdraw his purpose, as I have stated in my epistle; for I will not grant unto him that he shall have any more power than what he hath got.


However, the brother of Amalickiah was murdered not by Moroni, but by Teancum.


Alma 51:33 And it came to pass that when the night had come, Teancum and his servant stole forth and went out by night, and went into the camp of Amalickiah; and behold, sleep had overpowered them because of their much fatigue, which was caused by the labors and heat of the day.

34 And it came to pass that Teancum stole privily into the tent of the king, and put a javelin to his heart; and he did cause the death of the king immediately that he did not awake his servants.


What fraud is Moroni concerned about?

I think the response from Moroni is interesting in light of what is said in the D&C here:


D&C 5:4 And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.


In the original Book of Commandments 4:2, the gift was limited to translation, and he shall pretend to no other gift. Incidentally, there are numerous other mentions of murdered brothers in the Book of Mormon - each in itself is not surprising, or even that interesting, when considered in light of the "secret combinations" and mention of "Cain" in the Book of Ether - but taken as a whole, there may be an alternate explanation as to what is happening here.

Has anyone ever pursued this line of thinking in the Book of Mormon? If so, what conclusions did you draw?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The fraud was the alleged cause of the war.

[_cosmo junction]

As a sort of follow-on the the first post, there is a specific discrepancy in the Book of Mormon that may shed some light on things. It stands alone as what I see as a major error in the book, but when added to other peculiarities, I see a pattern emerging.

I'm interested in all of your thoughts.

In the Book of Ether, we're told that the writings given to the brother of Jared are not to be "seen and heard" until the "Lord glorifies his name in the flesh" when "Christ should show himself to the people."

Ether 3:21 And it came to pass that the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt not suffer these things which ye have seen and heard to go forth unto the world, until the time cometh that I shall glorify my name in the flesh; wherefore, ye shall treasure up the things which ye have seen and heard, and show it to no man.

22 And behold, when ye shall come unto me, ye shall write them and shall seal them up, that no one can interpret them; for ye shall write them in a language that they cannot be read.

Ether 4:1 And the Lord commanded the brother of Jared to go down out of the mount from the presence of the Lord, and write the things which he had seen; and they were forbidden to come unto the children of men until after that he should be lifted up upon the cross; and for this cause did king Mosiah keep them, that they should not come unto the world until after Christ should show himself unto his people.

However, Moroni tells us that he "takes his account" and makes his abridgment from the plates which were "found by the people of Limhi":

Ether 1:2 And I take mine account from the twenty and four plates which were found by the people of Limhi, which is called the Book of Ether.

This is a chronological problem, the book is off by about 120 years or so, because when you look back to "people of Limhi" that Moroni took his account from, we find them in Mosiah 8 and Mosiah 21 - we're told of "Ammon" of the "plates" and "king Mosiah" translates them, about 120 years before Christ came, in violation of the admonition in Ether.

This problem stands alone, but I think there is more to it than first meets the eye.

The question I have is "why did Mosiah translate the plates early?" Could this be related to the name change from "Benjamin" to "Mosiah?" in Mosiah 21:28?

Has anyone ever wondered why it read Benjamin in the first place? Was that a simple error, or is there more?

Just curious to see if anyone else has considered these things.

[_karl61]

I recently came across something disturbing to me, and wanted to know if any of you had ever wondered about what was being said in this particular passage of the Book of Mormon:


Alma 54:16 I am Ammoron, the king of the Lamanites; I am the brother of Amalickiah whom ye have murdered. Behold, I will avenge his blood upon you, yea, and I will come upon you with my armies for I fear not your threatenings.

Alma 54:22 And if it so be that there is a devil and a hell, behold will he not send you there to dwell with my brother whom ye have murdered, whom ye have hinted that he hath gone to such a place? But behold these things matter not.

Alma 55:1 Now it came to pass that when Moroni had received this epistle he was more angry, because he knew that Ammoron had a perfect knowledge of his fraud; yea, he knew that Ammoron knew that it was not a just cause that had caused him to wage a war against the people of Nephi.

2 And he said: Behold, I will not exchange prisoners with Ammoron save he will withdraw his purpose, as I have stated in my epistle; for I will not grant unto him that he shall have any more power than what he hath got.


However, the brother of Amalickiah was murdered not by Moroni, but by Teancum.


Alma 51:33 And it came to pass that when the night had come, Teancum and his servant stole forth and went out by night, and went into the camp of Amalickiah; and behold, sleep had overpowered them because of their much fatigue, which was caused by the labors and heat of the day.

34 And it came to pass that Teancum stole privily into the tent of the king, and put a javelin to his heart; and he did cause the death of the king immediately that he did not awake his servants.


What fraud is Moroni concerned about?

I think the response from Moroni is interesting in light of what is said in the D&C here:


D&C 5:4 And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.


In the original Book of Commandments 4:2, the gift was limited to translation, and he shall pretend to no other gift. Incidentally, there are numerous other mentions of murdered brothers in the Book of Mormon - each in itself is not surprising, or even that interesting, when considered in light of the "secret combinations" and mention of "Cain" in the Book of Ether - but taken as a whole, there may be an alternate explanation as to what is happening here.

Has anyone ever pursued this line of thinking in the Book of Mormon? If so, what conclusions did you draw?

The thing that leaped at me and I don't know if it's projection on my part or Joseph Smiths but - "I am Ammoron, the king of the Lamanite" is so funny because it says I am a moron king of the Lamanites ( and I might ad - that if you believe any of this you are a moron too)

[_cosmo junction]

I don't know if it's projection on my part or Joseph Smiths

Frankly this strikes to the heart of my questions. I have the same difficulty in deciding which is which.

[_Trevor]

Maybe this has something to do with the death of Alvin, or the murder of Oliver Harper? Just throwing out wild guesses here.

[_cosmo junction]

Maybe this has something to do with the death of Alvin, or the murder of Oliver Harper? Just throwing out wild guesses here.

Maybe, maybe.

Are there other clues?

Take a look at this statement:

Alma 54:22 And if it so be that there is a devil and a hell, behold will he not send you there to dwell with my brother whom ye have murdered, whom ye have hinted that he hath gone to such a place? But behold these things matter not.

Historically speaking, these words provide faint echos of the words at Alvin's funeral.

The fraud was the alleged cause of the war.

Alleged, yes. But again, according to the story, Ammoron felt justified in his aggression because his brother had been killed, correct?

The thing is, he got the name of the murderer wrong. He says "ye" killed my brother when addressing Moroni, but it was someone else, yes? It was Teancum.

An alternate reading of this verse:

Alma 55:1 Now it came to pass that when Moroni had received this epistle he was more angry, because he knew that Ammoron had a perfect knowledge of his fraud; yea, he knew that Ammoron knew that it was not a just cause that had caused him to wage a war against the people of Nephi.

Particularly the words "a perfect knowledge of his fraud," could be that Moroni knew that Ammoron had a perfect knowledge of his - Moroni's - fraud. The question then becomes what fraud could Moroni have been involved in?

What I'm looking for are Moroni's counter-points to Ammoron's reasons for going to war, provided here:

Alma 54:16 I am Ammoron, the king of the Lamanites; I am the brother of Amalickiah whom ye have murdered. Behold, I will avenge his blood upon you, yea, and I will come upon you with my armies for I fear not your threatenings.

17 For behold, your fathers did wrong their brethren, insomuch that they did rob them of their right to the government when it rightly belonged unto them.

Moroni simply accuses Ammoron of fraud without addressing his points, not denying the cause of death of Ammoron's brother, Amalickiah.

Since he does not do this, I am looking for an alternate purpose of Moroni, an alternate understanding of his words.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The Lamanites thought they had the right of rulership through lineage, the Nephites believed they had the right to rule through the blessing of God as given by Lehi in the beg. of 2 Nephi. The quarrel was over power; each side viewed the other side as lying. Moroni believed the Lamanite "king" knew better, though.

Additionally, if you play the Book of Mormon backwards it says "Paul is dead, Paul is dead...."

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Look, no shoes!

[_moksha]

The Lamanites had Ammoron for their King? I guess some things never change - except we now have a President.