Dr Larsen disputes the notion that Nauvoo doctrines are not in the Book of Mormon. He says the Orthodox doctrine of theosis, or what LDS would call Exaltation is in the Book of Mormon. We’ll examine the stories of Ammon, Aaron, & Lamoni to discuss how theosis is in the Book of Mormon. Check out our conversation…
Don’t miss our other conversations with Val: https://gospeltangents.com/people/val-larsen/
Copyright © 2023
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission
Alma the Elder & Ammon
Val 00:37 Let’s go on to Alma the Elder, which is one of the examples of what would have been one of the first things that Joseph translates when he gets into the Book of Mosiah then, the story of Alma the Elder. It’s a little more subtle here, but it’s there. The equation of God and man is there. The first Alma begins his ministry as one of the priests of Noah. His beliefs are like those of the other priests. They didn’t include Christ. But having heard Abinadi preach, Alma learns about Christ and begins to teach others who will listen. In a narrative containing elements of Nephi’s vision, he takes his followers to a fountain of pure water, near a grove of trees, a place reminiscent of the fountain of living waters near the tree of life in Nephi’s vision. There in the pure, maternal waters of Mormon, Alma begins baptizing, which is also what happens right there in Nephi’s vision. The baptism of Christ immediately follows. That constellation of symbols is replicated here. So, as Lehi, Sariah, Sam and Nephi were enrolled in the Divine Council by partaking of the fruit in Lehi’s dream, Alma’s followers are enrolled through baptism. These converts covenant to bear one another’s burdens that they may be light, to mourn with those that mourn, comfort those that stand in need of comfort, our baptismal covenant we’re all familiar with. In order to have Christ’s spirit more abundantly with them, they will stand as a witness of God at all times, and in all things. And having done these, they are filled with the grace. So, that’s what they do.
Val 02:04 What’s striking is the fact that the text, later describes God as doing the same things, using nearly identical language. By showing that God makes and fulfills the same covenants that the people make, the text underscores the fact that those who are baptized in the waters of Mormon have joined the Divine Council, the divine community. We see the sameness in the human and divine covenants when the Lord, Himself, repeating the baptismal covenant language, fulfills the covenant obligations that the people took upon themselves. Alma’s people fall into the hands of Noah’s priests who oppress them by loading them with tasks and forbidding them to pray. And when the people silently pray for relief, the Lord, echoing their baptismal covenant, comforts them. He says, “Lift up your heads, and be of good comfort.” He bears their burdens, that they may be light. “I will ease the burdens put upon your shoulders, that you cannot feel them. And now the burdens which were laid upon them, his brethren, were made light.” Here, by using the language of our baptismal covenant, and by doing the things we covenant to do, the Lord signifies that the covenant we make is the same covenant He makes. He and all the Divine Council members are obligated to serve Alma and his people by the same covenant that obligates them to serve each other. Having made and kept the same covenants as the gods, Alma’s converts are enrolled in the So’od Elohim, the Divine Council, like Jacob wrestling with God face to face at Peniel, which means face of God. The people making the exact same covenant God makes marks the fact that God is fundamentally the same kind of being as we are. So, Jacob wrestling with God. That’s a corporeal being, and that’s that older theology. And here, these people, using the same language to make the same covenant God does and then being obligated in the same way, it suggests they’re part of a community. Now that one’s more subtle, less developed, than what we’ll go on to next. I want to turn now to the story of Ammon, Lamoni, Abish and Lamoni’s wife.
GT 04:11 Now before you go there…
Val 04:12 All right.
GT 04:14 All my life, until I met with Rosalynde Welch, I called her A-bish. [eh-bish]
Val 04:19 Yeah, so did I
GT 04:22 And she called her Ah-bish and I was like, what the heck? Do you not know how to say this lady’s name? So, explain to me why you’re now calling her Ah-bish, not A-bish?
Val 04:32 Well, I called her A-bish too and that’s the cultural tradition. But I’m going to explain in a minute here. The word AB is Hebrew for fathers. That comes into play if we pronounce it that way. I think it’s an example of Theophoric naming. Theophoric names are names that show God in the name, Abiel.
GT 04:58 Daniel.
Val 04:59 Yes. You have all these names that include God in the name and show the kinship of the people to God.
GT 05:06 Elijah, Elias.
Val 05:07 Yeah. So you can see that all fits nicely with this older theology where God and man are connected. That’s where you get all those names that are connecting God and man, not making them grammatically separate, as they are now in all the other theologies: God’s completely unlike man. But those names didn’t suggest that. By reading this as Ah-bish, it has the theological import. So, there’s a reason for making that change.
GT 05:36 Okay.
Val 05:37 So, in 2013, I published an Interpreter article entitled, “In His Footsteps, Ammon One and Ammon Two” that showed how the second Amon was portrayed as a Christ figure at the waters of Sebus. This framing becomes relevant in the follow-on narrative of Lamoni, Abish and the queen where we again see theosis. Let’s briefly review the Waters of Sebus story before turning to the more involved theosis narrative that immediately follows it. No episode in the Book of Mormon is more strange, and on its surface, incoherent than the account of Ammon’s fight at the Waters of Sebus and its aftermath. The most surprising facts connected with the narrative are these. First, the plundering of the king’s flocks is routine and predictable, yet he doesn’t send a force capable of protecting his property. Second, the servants of the King make no effort to fight the robbers, in spite of the fact that they’ll be executed if they failed to protect the flock. I mean, look you’re going to die one way. You may as well go down fighting these people that are trying to steal the flocks.
GT 06:40 Why does this make any sense? It doesn’t.
Val 06:42 Third, when they predictably fail, the king kills his own servants and thus weakens his forces. I mean, servants are the people that help him, assist him. You can see it as discipline, maybe. And fourth, the king refers to the marauders, the robbers, as my brethren, “my brethren.” And fifth, these robbers, these marauders and their families are unafraid to hang around the king’s palace in the immediate aftermath of the fight. This is an improbable constellation of facts. How are we to account for it? Are there any assumptions we can make about the text that will make these facts fit together sensibly? The answer must lie in the implicit dynamics of Lamanite politics in the Land of Ishmael, where this occurs.
Val 07:24 In the article, I draw heavily on Brant Gardner‘s interpretation, adding what is probably the lynchpin of the whole affair, the role of Lamoni’s father. In my reading, the backstory at Sebus is a conflict between Lamoni, the titular king in the Land of Ishmael and another group of nobles whom Lamoni calls “my brethren,” which is some mix of brothers and uncles or cousins. The contest between these two groups is deadly earnest, but neither can do violence to the other because they’re all loved and protected by Lamoni’s father, the great king of the land, who has a short temper. We see that in the Book of Mormon, and who responds ferociously, if anyone, including his own family, crosses him. He was about ready to kill Lamoni when he crossed him. Since they can’t directly attack each other without risking their lives by antagonizing their shared patron, Lamoni and his rivals seek to weaken their opponents by attacking their economic interests, and by ruining their reputation in the eyes of the great king.
Val 08:24 In this context that Lamoni’s servants face doom at the waters of Sebus. The herdsmen are slaves. Knowing the disposition of Lamoni’s father, they probably understand that they and all their family will die a painful death, if they do the slightest injury to any of the great king’s extended family. So, if these servants are so unlucky as to be attacked at the Waters of Sebus by the king’s noble relatives, they’re doomed. They can’t raise a hand to prevent Lamoni’s flocks from being scattered and plundered by his noble rivals. And if they fail to prevent the scattering and loss of the flocks, Lamoni will put them to death. But why will Lamoni execute them when they fail? Doesn’t he injure himself when he does that by reducing his political and military manpower in the Land of Ishmael? In an ordinary political situation, that would be the case. No king could afford to get trapped in a process that causes him to regularly decimate his own forces and thereby weaken his hand against his enemies. But in this case, Lamoni has only one relevant constituent, his father. As long as he has a mandate to govern from his father, he needn’t be concerned about what any other person, ordinary or noble, thinks of him, since no one dares challenge his father’s authority. Importantly, Lamoni’s father believes that kings should use aggressive violence to enforce his will. Lamoni retains his kingdom, only if his father is persuaded that Lamoni, too, is a man of violence, who will impose severe sanctions on those who fail him. Lamoni executes his servants, not because he’s angry with them, but as an act of political theater to appease his father, a fact that, of course, holds no consolation for the doomed servants.
Val 10:07 The sudden appearance of Ammon in the Land of Ishmael provides Lamoni with an opportunity to modify this unsatisfactory political equilibrium. Ammon is the son of a powerful neighboring king and thus provides another potential base for Lamoni’s political power. Having learned that Ammon is a Prince, Lamoni offers him to let him take one of his daughters to wife, a marriage that could ally King Mosiah with Lamoni in his struggle against his brethren. When Ammon declines and forecloses that option, but offers to become a servant, probably really a slave, Lamoni hatches another plan to injure his enemies. He sends Ammon to Sebus, where he knows the noble enemies would attack. When they attack, unlike the ordinary slaves, this noble outsider will have no compunction about defending himself. There’s a chance that Ammon may kill some of Lamoni’s enemies, which will be good for Lamoni and a near certainty that Lamoni’s enemies will kill the son of a powerful neighboring king, who may seek retribution against them, which would also be good for Lamoni. In fact, the events at Sebus unfold in a way Lamoni never could have anticipated. When the noble enemies attack and scatter the flock, Ammon kills many and drives off the rest. Having been saved by this godlike intervention, Ammon’s fellow servants are filled with a gratitude that primes them to be saved eternally. The servants, in turn, helped prepare Lamoni and his wife to receive God’s grace through the administrations of Ammon, whom Lamoni now believes to be a god. Having heard the gospel preached in power, Lamoni and all his household are filled with and overcome by the Spirit, as is Ammon. Crowds of commoners and nobles gather at the palace to view the apparent destruction of the king and his household. Among the nobles are some of the robbers, the marauders who had been at Sebus, a nearly infallible proof that this is a case of intra-noble political intrigue.
Val 12:01 The commoners who gather, their sympathies are with their fellow peons. So, they speculate that this evil has fallen upon Lamoni because he killed his slaves for failing to protect his flocks. Though the commoners are disparaging, the gathered nobles’ enemy, the robbers’ enemy, Lamoni–the class solidarity of these nobles is stronger than their enmity for their noble rival. They rebuke the commoners for suggesting that a nobleman might be punished for exercising the privilege of taking a slave’s life. And they’re enraged that Ammon, an apparent slave, has killed nobles. One of them tries unsuccessfully to kill Ammon. The social dynamics there as they gather is really interesting. Common people saying, he’s been killed, or they’re all laying there dead because Lamoni killed his servants. We think that’s bad. He shouldn’t have done that. But the robbers that are there, they’re saying, “Well, wait a minute. That’s not it. There’s nothing wrong with nobles killing slaves.” So, even though they don’t like Lamoni, and they’re fighting against him, their class solidarity is stronger than their enmity for Lamoni. Their main enmity would be for the slaves, the lower classes. If I’ve correctly interpreted the political dynamics in the Land of Ishmael, we can recognize in this narrative a profound allegory of the human condition and the plan of salvation including its key element, the atonement of Christ. Lamoni’s servants are caught on the horns of a horrible dilemma. They’re bound by two incompatible laws that, taken together, seal their doom. They must not fail to keep the commandment of their Lord to protect his flock, and they must not raise a hand against any noble relative of the great king. When the nobles scattered the flock, hopeless and helpless despair is the only available response for the servants, because their doom is sure. They’re dead. For their predecessors, that was the end of the story. But for these fortunate servants, the story is wonderfully changed. A godlike nobleman, the most powerful of all, one who can vanquish even the great king himself, as Ammon later does, has condescended to come among them and voluntarily share their slave status. When the crisis comes and they fall into despair, he rallies them. From him, they draw the courage and ability to keep their Lord’s commandments, placing their faith in Him and doing as he commands an essential element of their redemption. They gather the scattered flock and encircle them to prevent flight.
GT 14:30 Now, let me ask you a question there. So, are you saying these robbers are noblemen and if the slaves kill them, the slaves would get in trouble because they’re killing a nobleman?
Val 14:44 Yes.
GT 14:45 But can’t they go to the king and say, ‘well, they were robbing you.’
Val 14:49 Ok, because that’s why Lamoni’s father is the lynchpin of this analysis
GT 14:54 Okay.
Val 14:55 Lamoni is his son. What does the father do as soon as Lamoni ticks him off? He’s ready to kill him on the spot. Right? And he’s the overall king. Lamoni is a king under that overall king. And so are all these others that Lamoni is contending against? They’re all relatives of the great king. So, what would that great king think if Lamoni’s brother kills him? They’re all living there in court and they’re contending with each other for power. But, if Lamoni’s brother kills him, the father might come and kill the one that killed him. Right? Or any cousin or any of them. All of them are subordinate to the great king. And they can’t afford to tick him off.
GT 15:34 So they are all scheming against each other?
Val 15:35 Yes.
GT 15:36 I’m going to steal Lamoni’s flocks, because I want them.
GT 15:38 Right.
Val 15:38 Yes, I’m going to injure Lamoni and I can injure and kill his servants, no problem with that. But I can’t attack him directly, because his father, the overall King, how’s he going to respond when I killed his son? Or if Lamoni kills his cousin or his brother, or whatever, these others that are contending against him… But again, these robbers, robber doesn’t seem like the right word. Because they’re my brethren. They’re gathered at the palace. They’re defending the interests of the nobles. That doesn’t sound like ordinary robbers out in the countryside that came in. And why wouldn’t Lamoni’s servants have just fought to the death against regular robbers. They’re not doing that. And this explains why they’re not doing that, not just they would be killed.
GT 15:46 Because they’re killing princes, essentially.
Val 15:49 And what happens to their family after that, right? If you’re a slave and you kill the great king’s, one of his relatives? I mean your whole clan gets slaughtered at that moment. So, this is how they’re caught. I mean, they have to defend the flock or they’re in trouble. But if they defend the flock, they’re in even bigger trouble, right? So, they’re dead either way. But now, Ammon is among them. He’s not bound by the same dynamics.
GT 16:56 He doesn’t know who they are. He’s just like, they’re robbers. I’m going to kill them.
Val 17:00 Well, he probably knows who they are, but he’s not a slave. And actually, in my other article about this, the first article about Ammon one and Ammon two, I talk about how this Ammon is connected to the other Ammon. The other Ammon was a military guy. He was a military aide to King Mosiah. I argue there, that he was probably Ammon’s uncle and a military guy, and that that’s where Ammon got all of his military prowess. Of course, his military prowess is relevant here. But it’s mostly the blessing of God. One guy doesn’t defeat all these people. And they start thinking of him as a god which is an important part of the theosis theme running through here. That this confounding of who’s a God, who’s a man, in the language, is going to become pretty prominent running through this section, just as it does in the Nephi story. And so, even though he has military skills, I think that he got from his uncle and namesake, Ammon, the first Ammon, that’s not what’s in play here. This is divine powers that are in play here. It’s another kind of divine power. One land, you can just see the secular power, but the secular power is just a symbol here of Christ’s redeeming and saving power. That’s why this is a powerful allegory, and I think that’s why Mormon put it in. He, the suffering servant, goes forth to bear the brunt of the violence meant for these servants, these slaves, which they were powerless to resist. Against all human odds, this godlike nobleman defeats the forces arrayed against him and them. He reconciles the two laws, making it possible for his fellow servants to keep both laws. They have neither allowed the flock to be plundered, nor lifted the hand against the great king’s relatives. Led by the Savior, the servants returned to their Lord without blemish, their lives, preserved by the gracious intervention of godlike figure who condescended to be one with them. Their faith in this noble Savior redeems them, not just their bodies, but their souls, for he brings them back not just to their temporal lord, Lamoni, but to their eternal Lord, the Lord God.
Theosis & Ammon
Val 19:08 Mormon, apparently, recognized the symbolic potential of Ammon’s adventure at Sebus and featured it precisely because, read allegorically, it testifies so powerfully of Christ and of the gospel. Thus, Ammon comes into this subsequent narrative as a well-established Christ figure. This sets up the frame now as we go into the story of Lamoni, Lamoni’s wife Abish. Already at that Waters of Sebus story, Ammon’s been framed as a kind of divine figure. And Lamoni is going to explicitly start referring to him as being a god. He thinks of him as a god. So, if we turn now to the interconnected lives of Ammon, Lamoni, Abish, and Lamoni’s wife, we find that theosis and the interconnections of male and female divinity are important themes in this story. In this deeply symbolic narrative, we again see how the Divine Father, Mother and Son involve their human children in the project of making themselves and others divine. Here, the Father and the Son are symbolically present in the two male protagonists, Ammon and Lamoni. The Divine Mother and other women whose lives are closely bound up with the births and mission of Christ are, likewise, symbolically present in the two female protagonists, Abish and Lamoni’s wife. The story has a balance to it.
Val 20:37 There will be a male servant, Ammon and a female servant Abish. There will be a male sovereign, King Lamoni, and a female sovereign, Lamoni’s wife. And so, there’s going to be two different Christ figures, the male servant, Ammon, and the male sovereign, King Lamoni. There will be two different divine mother figures, the female servant, Abish, and the female sovereign, the Queen. Ammon and Lamoni’s role as Christ figures and the kinship between God and man are signified, in part, by a name that they share with God, Ahman. A-H-M-A-N, which according to the D & C (Doctrine & Covenants) means “God”. That is in D & C 78:20, D & C 95:17. Ammon’s name may also be a variant of Amun, A-M-U-N, the Egyptian name for their high god, basically, their equivalent of Elohim. They had tons of gods, but Amun was like their high god, at least in some of their framings.
GT 21:36 Their Zeus
Val 21:37 Yes, or their El, their Elohim. Lamoni’s name contains Ammon’s name and has the plausible Hebrew meaning “to my God or for my God.” The name has three parts: the L, then, Ahmon and then I. The L means to or for. It’s like a preposition in Hebrew. The terminal “I” means my, and Amon is in the middle. So, it’s, “to my Amon” or “for my Amon.” But, of course, Amon can mean to my God or for my God. The confounding of man and God is an important theme in this narrative, a theme that’s inherent in theophoric naming, so names that show God. Giving human names, human beings, divine names, or names that connect them to God. Since Theophoric names and wordplay on names is commonplace in the Old Testament, Mormon was equipped to recognize and build on the theophoric meaning of these names, and the more subtle, theophoric meaning of the name Abish. As we’ll see, Abish, obviously, seems to have had a remarkable vision of the divine Father. Her name Ab-ish, may suggest that like her ancestor, Jacob, who wrestled with God face to face, she encountered God in the form of a man, in Hebrew an Ish. Her name combines the Hebrew ABI, “my father,” with ish, “man,” and can be translated as, “my Father is a man.” Like the names of Ammon and Lamoni, her name reflects the confounding of God and man. That’s an important theme in this narrative.
GT 23:21 And I know I joked with you before, and I said, “Is there any other type of father than a man?” {both laughing} To us, that would be a little bit strange. My father is a man. Well, he better be a man.
Val 23:33 Yes. Well, actually, the answer to that is yes. You just asked me is there any kind of father other than a man? And within our theology, the answer is no. But what about the rest, everybody else? The theology of the Orthodox Christians, or the Jews, or the Muslims? Is that God [that] they describe, is he a man? Not really, no. I mean, the closest they get to it is the incarnation with Christ. But they don’t think of God as a corporeal being, as a man. So, the answer for them is no, God is not a man. And in this context, Abish, in my reading, has an encounter with God. And then her name, “My father is a man,” becomes significant in that it’s fitting with our LDS theology, but it wouldn’t [fit] with any other theology.
Val 24:43 Anyway, Ammon is framed by his name and his actions at Sebus as a divine figure. Like Ammon, Lamoni is going to be transformed from a wicked man, a murderer, into a Christ figure. It’s “murderer,” maybe, with quotation marks, in their culture. I don’t know whether that would have technically counted, killing all those servants, whether that technically counted as murder or not, or enforcement of the law. But certainly, from their families, it looked like murder.
GT 24:44 Stand your ground.
Val 24:45 Yeah. Then on multiple dimensions, Abish and the Queen will signify the Divine Mother and show how integrally Heavenly Mother is involved in the salvation of her children. So, this story will reiterate the connection between mother and son that we saw in our last interview, that was so apparent in the close, if we read closely and in-situ, in its Old-World setting, Nephi’s vision. So, just to review a point made in the first interview, one sign that theosis occurs is the confounding of men and gods. We saw that in Nephi’s vision. Lehi’s dream ends with Father Lehi, Mother Sariah, older brother, Sam, and Nephi standing next to the sacred tree. When Nephi’s vision opens, Father Lehi is replaced by El Elyon because Nephi comes into the presence of the Most High God, it says, The Father in Heaven. Mother Sariah is replaced by Mother in Heaven in her Tree of Life guise because the tree is there in heaven with Lehi, too. Older Brother Sam is replaced by Older Brother Yahweh, because Yahweh is also there with Nephi. The only one who stays the same is Nephi. The implication is that Nephi is also divinized or will be divinized. Every other, the Father, the Mother, the Older Brother, have all been transformed into divine beings. Nephi is also going to be transformed into a divine being, and we get language that mixes and confounds Nephi with Yahweh.
Val 26:47 Nephi says, “For I spake unto him,” so you’ve got the two of them, they’re sort of face to face. “I spake to him as a man speaketh.” So, both of them are men speaking to each other, “For I beheld that he was in the form of a man, yet, nevertheless, I knew it was the spirit of the Lord.” He’s a Divine Being but he’s also a man. “And he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.” Is Yahweh a man or a God? Is Nephi a man or a God? Both are both, man and God, or, eventually, will be both. In Nephi’s vision, both of them move as a God moves, instantaneously, from heaven to earth. One moment Nephi is there in heaven with the Father and the Mother and the Son. The next instant, he’s on the earth. Both see as God sees, the whole history unfolding before their eyes. So, when, that vision Nephi is having, that’s not, human beings don’t see that way, the whole of history unfolding, but the gods presumably see that that way. So, Nephi is having divine experiences in that situation. And that promise of his divinity is very much there. That same confounding of man and God will occur over and over again in the story of Ammon and Lamoni.
Val 28:02 Matthew Bowen has an article, it’s an interesting article, that suggests the word man, which runs through this thing, becomes a “leitwort.” That’s a German term for a word that’s meant to set a theme. That interacts with allusions to God suggesting that God, too, is a man. So, he’s coming at this material a little differently than I am. But he said in that same section, [it’s] saying, there’s a leitwort running through this: man, man, but God and man being confounded. And then I’m reading the narrative, partly in the context of that, but in context of some other things, too. So, Ammon started out bad, but he repented and renounced worldly power. He does it twice, first by declined to be the king of the Nephites, (Mosiah 29:3) when that was offered to him, then by declining to take one of Lamoni’s daughters to wife and become a noble among the Lamanites. Instead, he fully embraces the service ethos of the Divine Council, where greatness is measured by degree of service. So that’s the point of Christ washing the disciples feet. He’s the greatest of all, but he’s the servant of all. And same thing, right? When Christ does the atonement, no one ever gave greater service to anyone than Christ did. I mean, if we reflect upon it deeply enough, our eyes will start to fill with tears, at what he did. He’s the model and Ammon is becoming a servant of Lamoni in this context. In that role, he is emblematic of his true Master, not Lamoni, but Christ. So, in the wake of the episode at Sebus, where he saved doomed people caught between two laws, Ammon’s fellow servants described his exploits to the King Lamoni, who exclaims, “Surely this is more than a man. Behold, is not this the great spirit?” Having heard still more about Ammon, Lamoni adds, “Now I know that this is the great spirit and that He has come down at this time to preserve your lives. Now this is the great spirit of whom our fathers have spoken.”
Val 30:06 So Lamoni thinks Ammon is a God. And this is said repeatedly and not just by him. People start talking about Ammon being a God. The moral code of the Lamanites held that whatever they did was right. That’s a direct quote of their “whatsoever they did was right.” That’s what the noble’s thought, and that slaves lives had no particular value. That’s why, again, Lamoni could kill them, and it wasn’t murder in their eyes for him to kill them. So how God would count it or how we would count it, I don’t know. But under their laws, there was no murder involved in him killing those servants, or slaves. But Ammon’s action caused Lamoni to reject that view, and adopt the moral code of the Divine Council, in which all lives have intrinsic value, very much, including the lives of slaves, who were the least of these among the Lamanites. Thus, “Lamoni began to fear exceedingly with fear, lest he had done wrong in slaying his servants.” When he learns Ammon is still faithfully serving after returning from Sebus, Lamoni is still more astonished and says, “Surely there has not been any servant among all my servants that has been as faithful as this man.” He uses the word man there to describe him. “For he doth remember all my commandments to execute them. Now, I surely know that this is the Great Spirit.” So, you can see the Great Spirit and man are being confounded there. Is he God? Is he man? He’s both. It’s running through the text. In all this, Lamoni is confounding man and God. And that’s the important theme running through here. When Ammon comes to Lamoni, he demonstrates additional superhuman powers, “Lamoni marveled again, for he beheld that Ammon could discern his thoughts.” After witnessing this additional miracle, “Lamoni did open his mouth and said unto him, ‘Who art thou? Art thou the Great Spirit, who knows all things?'” Ammon replies, “I am not.” Lamoni says, “How knowest thou the thoughts of my heart?” And then he says, “I would guard thee with mine armies, but I know thou art more powerful than all they.” Ammon’s power is so great that he not only can read thoughts, but could, Lamoni believes, single-handedly defeat entire armies.
Val 30:10 This is like…
GT 31:05 Well, he just did that right?
Val 32:21 Oh, well, it wasn’t an entire army, but it was a bunch of people. But he knows, he saw that demonstration of power, but he thinks his power is divine to the extent that–I mean, how big of an army do you need to have to take on God? That’s the way Lamoni is thinking here. You know, it’s, I don’t care how big it is. I’d defend you, but it’s pointless. In the midst of all these observations about his superhuman powers, Ammon had said, “I am a man, and am thy servant.” But he’s clearly more than a mere man. Lamoni’s servants will soon see Ammon raise Lamoni from the dead, much as Christ raised Lazarus. Lamoni wasn’t actually dead, but that’s what the servants believed. That’s what they saw. These are not the acts of a mere man. Many others soon conclude, “Ammon is the Great Spirit.” But Lamoni now learns the actual source of Ammon’s power. He asks, “Aren’t thou sent from God?” Ammon replies, “I am a man.” So, he’s got this man thing going on, the man motif. I am a man. A man in the beginning was created after the image of God. So, there you’re getting that connection between man and– “I am called by his Holy Spirit, and a portion of that Spirit dwells in me, which gives me knowledge and also power according to my faith and desires, which are in God.” Ammon’s will is fully aligned with the will of God. As a consequence of that alignment, he now shares a portion of God’s power. The narrative notes that God is a social being who dwells in heaven with all His holy angels. It actually mentions that. So, God isn’t this solitary being. He’s a social being, as in the Abrahamic theology. Ammon, and all men are created in the image of God, look like God, are kin with God. When a man puts his faith in his Father God, and aligns his desires with those of God, as Ammon does, the Holy Ghost can possess him and help him do things that make him, from a human point of view, indistinguishable from a God
Val 34:17 Ammon is an especially pronounced case of the inherent Godhood becoming substantially expressed. So, this idea that we can become God is being made. It’s been put in front of us. It’s being illustrated in the Book of Mormon text, running through this section. Now, this is the interesting point, though. I’m going to talk about Ammon’s brothers right now. Because they sure weren’t having this kind of experience, [they had] something completely different. And, of course, his brothers Aaron, Omner, Himni and the other companions who are with them are no less members of the So’od Elohim, the Divine Council than Ammon is, though they have manifested no superhuman powers, apart from exceptional desire to save others spiritually and patience in suffering. They had been taken and cast into prison and bound with strong cords and kept in prison for many days. When Ammon came to rescue them, they were naked, and their skins were worn exceedingly because of being bound with strong cords. And they also had suffered hunger, thirst, and all kinds of afflictions.
Val 35:21 And it’s arguable that this suffering in the service of others is the most godlike behavior of all. While the healings and other miracles Christ performed helped signify that he was the Son of God, His suffering the sins of humanity was, by far, the most divine thing he did. When he washed the feet of the disciples, that got more to the heart of who he was, than performing miracles did. So, divinity is most revealed in service that council members give, not in superhuman powers. This probably explains why God preached the gospel to Lamoni’s father, who wrongly believed might made right. Remember, ‘whatsoever they did was right,’ that was their theology. [God] preach[ed] the gospel through Aaron, an emaciated man who bore in his hands and his feet marks of the bonds, rather than, as the king had requested, through Ammon, the man who had bested him in battle. This is actually a pretty notable point. Lamoni’s father knew Ammon and asked that he be taught the gospel by Ammon, who he deeply respected, because he had the thing the Lamanites most respected, military prowess.
Val 36:32 So, it’s noteworthy that God sent Aaron to teach the king. Why would God make the change? Well, Aaron was Mosiah’s oldest son and the rightful Nephite King. So, the change meant that the lawful king of the Nephites was teaching the lawful king of the Lamanites. But I don’t think that’s the most important reason. I think the most important reason is that the high king needed to understand that suffering and service, not military might, are the most salient attributes of his savior. He could learn it from Aaron, but he couldn’t learn it–because Aaron had the marks of abuse in hi. It’s like his wrists and all the suffering he had done. He was emaciated from days and days of suffering. So, this is like, the image of Christ, like the Catholics would have these images of the bloodied Christ. That’s what God is choosing to put in front of Lamoni’s father, rather than the powerful person who had defeated him in battle. And it is odd, because he had said, ‘Hey, Ammon, come and teach me.’ And Ammon, obviously, would have been effective. He would have believed what he said. But he wouldn’t have understood it as profoundly as when Aaron comes to him as this emaciated, weak person, again, with the bonds in his wrists and his feet where he had been bound. And that gives you the true Christ’s message in a more powerful way. The Book of Mormon is full of these small details like this, that if you reflect on them, they have profound theological meaning to them. That little switch–
GT 38:07 If you reflect on them, I don’t know that if I reflect on them I will get that.
{End of Part 2}
Copyright © 2023
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 23:46 — 21.8MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Email | | More
