Alma 20

#Alma Chapter 20

1 And it came to pass that when they had established a church in that land, that king Lamoni desired that Ammon should go with him to the land of Nephi, that he might show him unto his father.

verse 1 Recall that king Lamoni reigned in the land of Ishmael. Lamoni’s father who was king over all the land reigned in the “land of Nephi.” The term “land of Nephi” has two possible meanings. It refers to the general land south of the land of Zarahemla in which the Lamanites lived. It was made up the smaller lands of Ishmael, Shilom, Shemlon, Middoni, Mormon, Nephi, and others. The term “land of Nephi” also refers to the more specific land around the city of Nephi. Lamoni is here proposing that Ammon accompany him to the smaller land of Nephi from where his father reigned over all the general land of Nephi.

2 And the voice of the Lord came to Ammon, saying: Thou shalt not go up to the land of Nephi, for behold, the king will seek thy life; but thou shalt go to the land of Middoni; for behold, thy brother Aaron, and also Muloki and Ammah are in prison.

verse 2 Muloki and Ammah are presumably two of the “small number” that accompanied the sons of Mosiah on their mission (Mosiah 28:1). We will later learn that perhaps they were the only two who accompanied the sons of Mosiah (Alma 23:1).

For commentary on the derivation of the name Muloki, see the supplemental article, Names in the Book of Mormon.

“Thou shalt not go up to the land of Nephi” As already mentioned, the Lamanite king over all the land, Lamoni’s father, lived in the land and city of Nephi. See the commentary for Jacob 28:2 and for Alma 17:19 as to the plausible identity of this city and the identity of the former Nephite / Zeniffite city of Lehi-Nephi.

3 Now it came to pass that when Ammon had heard this, he said unto Lamoni: Behold, my brother and brethren are in prison at Middoni, and I go that I may deliver them.

4 Now Lamoni said unto Ammon: I know, in the strength of the Lord thou canst do all things. But behold, I will go with thee to the land of Middoni; for the king of the land of Middoni, whose name is Antiomno, is a friend unto me; therefore I go to the land of Middoni, that I may flatter the king of the land, and he will cast thy brethren out of prison. Now Lamoni said unto him: Who told thee that thy brethren were in prison?

5 And Ammon said unto him: No one hath told me, save it be God; and he said unto me—Go and deliver thy brethren, for they are in prison in the land of Middoni.

6 Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots.

verse 6 “make ready his horses and his chariots” If you wish to review the discussion of the “wheel” in the Book of Mormon, see the commentary for Alma 18:9.

7 And he said unto Ammon: Come, I will go with thee down to the land of Middoni, and there I will plead with the king that he will cast thy brethren out of prison.

8 And it came to pass that as Ammon and Lamoni were journeying thither, they met the father of Lamoni, who was king over all the land.

verse 8 “king over all the land” In the Lamanite political system, there was a “king over all the land” (Alma 18:9; 20:8) who “appointed kings over all … lands” under his rule (Mosiah 24:2).

As political scientist Noel B. Reynolds noticed, the Lamanite government was “a very different system” than that of the Nephites. Among the Lamanites, the “tributary kings [were] appointed by the superior monarch, not by a prophet.” Brother Reynolds commented that this was “more like the system that appears to have prevailed in ancient Mesoamerica” (Noel B. Reynolds, “Nephite Kingship Reconsidered,” in Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, ed. Davis Bitton, Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998, 164). In fact, both Mesoamerica and the ancient Near East had systems of kings similar to that described among the Lamanites.

In the ancient Near East, this suzerain (a sovereign or a state exercising political control over a dependent state)–vassal relationship was typical when larger empires conquered smaller states (Raymond Westbrook, “Patronage in the Ancient Near East,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 48, no. 2, 2005: 210– 233). as happened to Israel and Judah (2 Kings 17:3; Lamentations 1:1). According to ancient Near Eastern legal scholar Raymond Westbrook, “Vassalage can entail many different degrees of political control, from province to sphere of influence” (Ibid., 223). This resulted in networks of subordinate kings (vassals) who had pledged allegiance to a “great king,” or suzerain.

Familial language is commonly used to describe the nature of these relationships—the suzerain is “father” to the subordinate king, who is described as his “son” (F. Charles Fensham, “Father and Son Terminology for Treaty and Covenant,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. by Hans Goedicke, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971, 121–135; J. David Schloen, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001, 255–262). The relationship usually involved tribute payments to the suzerain. During the reigns of David and Solomon, for instance, Israel had vassals which “were expected to pay tribute to the Israelite king” and “even the simple failure to pay the yearly tribute, would be regarded … [as] a direct challenge to the imperial claims” of the God of Israel (Roberts, Bible and the Ancient Near East, 328–329).

The Lamanite political hierarchy, in the words of John L. Sorenson, also “rings a Mesoamerican bell” (John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985, 230). In describing the political system of the Classic period (ca. AD 250–900), Mayanists Simon Martin and Nikolai Grube argued that the evidence “points to a pervasive and enduring system of ‘overkingship’ that shaped almost every facet of the Classic landscape” (Simon Martin and Nikolai Grube, Chronical of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya, 2nd edition, London, Eng.: Thames and Hudson, 2008, 19).

Political ties binding overkings with subordinate kings were at once very personal, yet highly tenuous (Martin and Grube, Chronical of the Maya Kings and Queens, 20). Professor Sergio Quezada explained, “Multiple factors may have led one Maya to accept another’s lordship . . .. Such factors included protection, kinship, convenience, war, or the simple quest for recognition of a title” (Sergio Quezada, Maya Lords and Lordship: The Formation of Colonial Society in Yucatán, 1350–1600, trans. Terry Rugeley, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014, 9). Vassal rulers were expected to make tribute payments to their overlords (Martin and Grube, Chronical of the Maya Kings and Queens, 21), and overkings did not hesitate to appoint rulers when local dynasties were uncooperative (Schele and David Freidel, A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya, New York, NY: William Morrow, 1990, 157–158. Also, see the discussion in Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 230–231; Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols., Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007, 3:405–406).

In 2013, John L. Sorenson concluded, “At least for a century or more for the Mesoamerican Late Pre-Classic period (ca. 100 BC–AD 50) the Book of Mormon record portrays its peoples in a political situation that sounds very much like” that of major Mesoamerican centers at the time (John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book, Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2013, 365). The Lamanites’ hierarchy of kings, as one scholar concluded, “fit[s] very comfortably into a Mesoamerican context” (Brant A. Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History, Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2015, 302).

This context, along with the ancient Near Eastern background, illuminates the account of the confrontation between Lamoni and his father (Alma 20:8–16). Although typically understood as just a familial quarrel (See, for example, D. Kelly Ogden and

Andrew C. Skinner, Verse by Verse: The Book of Mormon, 2 vols., Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2011, 1:427, which describes the even strictly in familial terms: “Lamoni’s father … became so furious at his son for being with a Nephite that he tried to kill him.”), the ancient reality is that it was a political dispute (Gardner, Second Witness, 4:315). Brother Brant Gardner wrote: “Lamoni’s father is not making only a paternal or personal request but issuing a political order as Lamoni’s overlord.” Given that the terms of kinship such as “father” and “son” could be used to represent the relationship of suzerain to vassal, it is possible that Lamoni and his “father” the overking were not actually family at all. Mesoamerican examples where the family of the high king are appointed as subordinate kings, however, certainly make it possible that a real fatherson relationship existed between Lamoni and the unnamed overking. It is likely that the “great feast” Lamoni was supposed to attend was an occasion for him to pay tribute. Failure to attend was seen as both a breach of etiquette and a sign of rebellion (See Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers, 301–302; Gardner, Second Witness, 4:313–314). When the “king over all the land” saw that Lamoni was traveling with the prince of an enemy state, on his way to use his political clout to liberate others of Nephite nobility in captivity, his suspicions were intensified (Alma 20:10–13). In Brant Gardner’s Second Witness, 4:312, Brother Gardner wrote: “By calling Antiomno of Middoni ‘a friend,’ Lamoni is not just speaking of an associate who has cordial feelings toward him. They are both kings, and ‘friend’ here means ally. City-states in Mesoamerica were frequently at war with other cities. Alliances were forged and broken. Allied kings, however, paid each other frequent inter-city visits with strong political overtones. Thus, Lamoni is indicating that Antiomno is an ally of whom he has some expectations, just as Antiomno would also have expectations of him. Such formal state visits, during the Maya Classic period, would be recorded in stone. The ‘flattery’ Lamoni proposes is not just a friendly conversation but a delicate political negotiation aimed at persuading a fellow king to reverse his decision.” Lamoni’s father insisted that Lamoni prove his loyalty by slaying the enemy prince (verse 14). Lamoni’s refusal was nothing short of treason, in the high king’s mind, leaving him with no other choice but to exact capital punishment (verse 16). In Gardner’s, Second Witness, 4:315, Gardner wrote: “Lamoni’s father is not making only a paternal or personal request but issuing a political order as Lamoni’s overlord. He is forcing Lamoni to choose an allegiance—either to his overlord and father, or to this Nephite. Refusal would be rebellion against his father and all of his father’s allies. He would declare antagonism toward former allies and renounce political, kinship, and economic connections without having replaced them. In an ancient society, such a move could be literally fatal.”

Further indication of the political nature of the altercation can be seen when Ammon arose to defend Lamoni (Alma 20:17). In the king’s eyes, Ammon was no doubt fulfilling the role of Lamoni’s new suzerain. Upon his defeat, the king made several political concessions. He was prepared to relinquish half his kingdom to his new conqueror (verse 23), but all Ammon required was that he release his political control over Lamoni (v. 24–26). The king also granted the release of Ammon’s brethren (verse 27).

The king likely expected that if he lived, he would be Ammon’s prisoner, and be subject to torture and public humiliation. Yet, the “old king was escaping with not only his life but his political power intact—a complete reversal of his expectations after defeat.” This turned a highly volatile political moment into an opportunity for the Lord to use Ammon and Lamoni as “tools of positive change” (Ogden and Skinner, Verse by Verse: The Book of Mormon, 427).

Ammon’s refusal to seek power and take advantage of the situation, and instead show loyalty, love, and mercy softened the high king’s heart. He was “greatly astonished” (Alma 20:27) and had a strong desire to learn what could make a man pass up such great political power. When the opportunity came, he too was willing to give up all the political power he had attained to “receive [the] great joy” that comes from the gospel of Jesus Christ (Alma 22:15).

9 And behold, the father of Lamoni said unto him: Why did ye not come to the feast on that great day when I made a feast unto my sons, and unto my people?

verse 9 “Why did ye not come to the feast on that great day when I made a feast unto my sons, and unto my people” You will recall that at the time of the episode at the waters of Sebus, king Lamoni was preparing to go to his father’s feast in the land of Nephi (Alma 18:9).

10 And he also said: Whither art thou going with this Nephite, who is one of the children of a liar?

verse 10 “this Nephite, who is one of the children of a liar” See the commentary for verse 13.

11 And it came to pass that Lamoni rehearsed unto him whither he was going, for he feared to offend him.

12 And he also told him all the cause of his tarrying in his own kingdom, that he did not go unto his father to the feast which he had prepared.

verse 12 All of the events surrounding the conversion of king Lamoni and his household occurred as Lamoni was preparing to go to his father’s feast and prevented Lamoni from attending the feast.

13 And now when Lamoni had rehearsed unto him all these things, behold, to his astonishment, his father was angry with him, and said: Lamoni, thou art going to deliver these Nephites, who are sons of a liar. Behold, he robbed our fathers; and now his children are also come amongst us that they may, by their cunning and their lyings, deceive us, that they again may rob us of our property.

verse 13 Why did the father of Lamoni harbor such explicit negative feelings for the Nephites? We have discussed previously the concept of “the traditions of their fathers” in the commentary for Jacob 3:3-9. For the reader’s convenience, we will repeat that discussion here.

It is probably a mistake to think of the Lamanites as a benighted, hardened, indolent, and by nature a ferocious people. Certainly, many among them were basically good, loving, gentle, and morally upright. Why then do we tend to form a contrary opinion about them as we read the Book of Mormon? Why do we intuitively regard them as an evil and loathsome people who are almost without redeeming qualities? What is the quality of this people that makes us think so negatively about them?

To understand the answer to these questions, it is vital to understand the socalled founding myth of the Lamanites. The Lamanites had deeply rooted in their culture a tradition of hatred of the Nephites. This profound legacy of hatred began at the time of Laman, Lemuel, Lehi, and Nephi, and was passed along from father to son. From the Lamanites’ point of view, this basic founding myth probably was told something like this: Our Father Lehi and our younger brother Nephi stole from us everything we ever wanted. We wanted to remain at home in Jerusalem, among our friends, and enjoy our cherished possessions. We didn’t want to leave and embark on the rather ill-defined mission that our father Lehi had decided upon. Lehi and Nephi were oppressive and uncaring. They would not listen to us. They forced us to go with them. They virtually robbed us of our homes, and told us lies about some far-away supposedly “promised” Land. They would not allow us to decide for ourselves. They unjustly robbed us of the right to govern ourselves. When we arrived at the great ocean, they commanded us to help build a boat. We did not want to help because we were frightened to try to cross the great water. Again, we were forced, not only to help with the building but also to embark on this seemingly hopeless journey. Once on the boat, we tried to forget our fears by organizing a little lighthearted revelry. Nephi thought that this would offend the Lord and would not allow it! Again, he tried to rule over us. We believed that Nephi was leading us to some wilderness where he might dominate us and subject us to his will and pleasure. Just as Nephi tried to take away our freedoms and govern us against our will, so will all Nephites do the same to us. The only way we can stop them from doing this is to use force against them—to smite and kill them. It is our only hope for happiness!

This Lamanite tradition of hatred for the Nephites is often referred to in the Book of Mormon as “the tradition of their fathers” or “the iniquity of their fathers.” It dominated the relations between the two peoples throughout the Book of Mormon story. Lamanite children were doubtless indoctrinated with it from an early uncritical age. It was firmly imbedded in their very bones, and it dominated their feelings and thoughts about the

Nephite peoples. It virtually represented the national identity of the Lamanites, and with it the Lamanite leaders could stir their people up to anger (see Alma 43:7). It fueled the virtually continuous wars the Lamanites made against the Nephites. As the Nephites experienced the expression of this tradition of hatred, they generally came to perceive the Lamanites as ferocious and hard. The Lamanites acted as if they felt nothing but hatred for the Nephites.

For an interesting exposition of this tradition of hatred uttered by a Lamanite king, read the letter written to Captain Moroni by Ammoron in 63 BC (Alma 54:15-24). Indeed, understanding the genesis of this heritage of hatred may even give us a measure of sympathy and understanding for the Lamanite peoples.

Perhaps king Lamoni was not a very apt pupil when all this indoctrinating was going on. Perhaps he had not learned to hate the Nephites quite as much as some other Lamanites did. Otherwise how would we explain his ready acceptance of Ammon, and why would he have been astonished that his father was angry with him for taking up with a Nephite?

14 Now the father of Lamoni commanded him that he should slay Ammon with the sword. And he also commanded him that he should not go to the land of Middoni, but that he should return with him to the land of Ishmael.

15 But Lamoni said unto him: I will not slay Ammon, neither will I return to the land of Ishmael, but I go to the land of Middoni that I may release the brethren of Ammon, for I know that they are just men and holy prophets of the true God. 16 Now when his father had heard these words, he was angry with him, and he drew his sword that he might smite him to the earth.

17 But Ammon stood forth and said unto him: Behold, thou shalt not slay thy son; nevertheless, it were better that he should fall than thee, for behold, he has repented of his sins; but if thou shouldst fall at this time, in thine anger, thy soul could not be saved.

verse 17 “if thou shouldst fall at this time, in thine anger, thy soul could not be saved” Is murder, the malicious and intentional shedding of innocent blood an unpardonable sin for which there is no forgiveness? Certainly, there is no complete forgiveness and exaltation possible for the murderer (1 John 5:16-17; D&C 42:79). It is, however, possible for the murderer to eventually repent and receive the forgiveness which allows them to inherit the telestial degree of glory (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 520). Murder is not the unpardonable son or the sin against the Holy Ghost; rather it is said to be the unforgivable sin. Only that individual who has received the “fulness of the priesthood”—who has had his calling and election made sure—is capable of committing the unpardonable sin. This latter individual is guilty of the unpardonable sin if he receives the “fulness of the priesthood” then turns altogether from the church and wars against it. For a more complete discussion of these sins, see Three Most Abominable Sins, volume 3, chapter 18 of Ye Shall Know of the Doctrine.

18 And again, it is expedient that thou shouldst forbear; for if thou shouldst slay thy son, he being an innocent man, his blood would cry from the ground to the Lord his God, for vengeance to come upon thee; and perhaps thou wouldst lose thy soul.

verse 18 To “forbear” means to stop what you are doing. This is not to be confused with a “forebear” which is an ancestor.

“his blood would cry from the ground to the Lord his God” The very act of his murder would demand that justice be meted out to his murderer.

19 Now when Ammon had said these words unto him, he answered him, saying: I know that if I should slay my son, that I should shed innocent blood; for it is thou that hast sought to destroy him.

verse 19 The king says, in effect: “I do not intend to slay my son. I realize that he is innocent. It is you, Ammon, who is guilty of trying to destroy my son.”

20 And he stretched forth his hand to slay Ammon. But Ammon withstood his blows, and also smote his arm that he could not use it.

21 Now when the king saw that Ammon could slay him, he began to plead with Ammon that he would spare his life.

22 But Ammon raised his sword, and said unto him: Behold, I will smite thee except thou wilt grant unto me that my brethren may be cast out of prison.

23 Now the king, fearing he should lose his life, said: If thou wilt spare me I will grant unto thee whatsoever thou wilt ask, even to half of the kingdom.

24 Now when Ammon saw that he had wrought upon the old king according to his desire, he said unto him: If thou wilt grant that my brethren may be cast out of prison, and also that Lamoni may retain his kingdom, and that ye be not displeased with him, but grant that he may do according to his own desires in whatsoever thing he thinketh, then will I spare thee; otherwise I will smite thee to the earth.

25 Now when Ammon had said these words, the king began to rejoice because of his life.

26 And when he saw that Ammon had no desire to destroy him, and when he also saw the great love he had for his son Lamoni, he was astonished exceedingly, and said: Because this is all that thou hast desired, that I would release thy brethren, and suffer that my son Lamoni should retain his kingdom, behold, I will grant unto you that my son may retain his kingdom from this time and forever; and I will govern him no more—

27 And I will also grant unto thee that thy brethren may be cast out of prison, and thou and thy brethren may come unto me, in my kingdom; for I shall greatly desire to see thee. For the king was greatly astonished at the words which he had spoken, and also at the words which had been spoken by his son Lamoni, therefore he was desirous to learn them.

verse 27 “For the king was greatly astonished at the words which he had spoken” The king was undoubtedly moved and intrigued not only by Ammon’s obvious concern and affection for Lamoni and for his lack of personal greed (verse 24), but also by Ammon’s accusing him of being a sinner in dire need of repentance (verses 17-18).

“and also at the words which had been spoken by his son Lamoni” Lamoni had had an opportunity to explain some gospel principles and bear his testimony when he explained the reasons for not attending his father’s feast.

These events have resulted in a gospel principle that has come to be called the “Middoni Principle” (C. Robert Line, Religious Educator, volume 1, number 1, 2000, 47- 52, Published by BYU Religious Studies).

The essence of this principle is that the Lord and a man may share a common spiritual goal, but the Lord may have a different (and always superior) way of achieving that goal than does the man. Hence, the man must be willing to completely trust in the Lord and do his bidding, even though the man may not perceive just how the Lord’s approach to achieving the goal will work. Allow me to summarize these events.

After much service and preaching among the people of King Lamoni, Ammon finally reaped the harvest of souls he had longed for. Among this harvest was the conversion of King Lamoni himself. As was the case in Lehi’s dream, Lamoni, after having tasted the precious “fruit” of the gospel, desired now to share that fruit (1 Nephi 8:12; see also Alma 36:24) with his family: “And it came to pass that when they had established a church in that land, that king Lamoni desired that Ammon should go with him to the land of Nephi, that he might show him unto his father” (Alma 20:1).

Lamoni’s father was the chief of all the kings in the land (Alma 20:8). So, here we the common goal. Both the Lord and Ammon desired that Lamoni’s father hear and be converted to the gospel. Ammon desired to go the land of Nephi, but the Lord had other ideas. When Ammon inquired of the Lord to receive approval for his traveling to the land of Nephi, his request was denied: “And the voice of the Lord came to Ammon, saying: Thou shalt not go up to the land of Nephi, for behold the king [the chief king] will seek thy life; but thou shalt go to the land of Middoni; for behold, thy brother Aaron, and also Muloki and Ammah are in prison” (Alma 20:2).

Ammon told Lamoni the details of this revelation, whereupon Lamoni gave his wholehearted support and even volunteered his personal services to Ammon in order to free his brethren from captivity.

At this point the story takes a strange turn. While on their journey to Middoni, Ammon and Lamoni encounter the chief king. Just as the voice of the Lord had warned, the chief king sought to take Ammon’s life. His attempt, however, was unsuccessful. At first glance one wonders why the voice of the Lord would tell Ammon to go to Middoni and not visit Lamoni’s father in Nephi, if they end up encountering him anyhow. The Lord knew that Ammon and Lamoni would meet the chief king. In light of what happened, maybe the issue with the Lord was not “what is the best way to protect Ammon?” but rather, “What is the best way to bring about the conversion of the chief king?” God does intervene to save and protect, but he can never force the conversion of the soul (Helaman 14:30-31; 2 Nephi 10:23-24; see also Hymns #240).

God does, however, take a hand in shaping the circumstances and events surrounding the conversion of the soul. It might well be that being away from the confines of his home, and all the security that comes with it, was precisely what King Lamoni’s father needed in order for a change of heart to take place. Perhaps the initial trek toward Middoni and the subsequent meeting out in the wilderness was a more effective way for God to show the chief king “the great love [that Ammon] had for his son Lamoni.” Furthermore, once Ammon withstood the king and the king had to listen, he “was greatly astonished at the words which [Ammon] had spoken, and also at the words which had been spoken by his son Lamoni, therefore he was desirous to learn them” (Alma 20:26-27). Sometimes the only way the Lord enters into our hearts is when he takes us out of our element—out of our “comfort zone.”

King Lamoni’s desire to share the gospel with his father was a righteous desire that was fulfilled in a peculiar manner. We all have moments in life when we want spiritually “to go to Nephi,” as it were, for whatever righteous reason we might have. The real test comes when the Lord tells us “to go to Middoni” instead. When this happens, it is imperative that we not only do what the Lord says, but that we realize that by so doing it is quite likely that our original desired outcome just might be fulfilled, albeit in a better way. This is the Middoni principle. Isaiah wrote, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 55:8).

As President Wilford Woodruff said, “We should begin to understand that God’s ways are infinitely superior to our ways, and that His counsels, though they may seem to call for sacrifice, are always the best and the safest for us to adopt and carry out.”

What we desire in righteousness is often what the Lord desires, although His method in achieving that desired outcome is often different from what we would expect.

Another example of the Middoni principle in Missouri in 1834. Various Saints in Kirtland and surrounding areas joined in the march of Zion’s Camp in order to give relief to Saints in Zion and to help restore their property. The command of the Lord fueled their cause: “Behold, I say unto you, the redemption of Zion must needs come by power” (D&C 103:15). In the aftermath of several months of arduous and painful events, some would conclude that Zion’s Camp was a failure. Those in Zions Camp were not even allowed to enter Missouri.

So, was Zion’s Camp a failure? To those who understand “the Middoni principle” it was not. As President Wilford Woodruff later explained: “We gained an experience that we never could have gained in any other way. We had the privilege of beholding the face of the prophet, and we had the privilege of travelling [sic] a thousand miles with him, and seeing the workings of the Spirit of God with him, and the revelations of Jesus Christ unto him and the fulfilment of those revelations. And he gathered some two hundred Elders from throughout the nation in that early day and sent us . . . into the world to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Had I not gone up with Zion’s Camp I should not have been here to-day, and I presume that would have been the case with many others. . . By going there, we were thrust into the vineyard to preach the gospel, and the Lord accepted our labors” (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., Liverpool: F. D. Richards & Sons, 1851-86, 13:158). Elder Orson F. Whitney understood this principle as well. Concerning the redemption of Zion by power he stated: “The redemption of Zion is more than the purchase or recovery of lands, the building of cities, or even the founding of nations. It is the conquest of the heart, the subjugation of the soul, the sanctifying of the flesh, the purifying and ennobling of the passions” (The Life of Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1973, 65).

Interestingly, a revelation regarding the land in Zion states: “In time ye shall possess the goodly land” (D&C103:20). It is apparent that the Lord’s plan for the redemption of Zion is different than what was expected by some of the Saints.

Similarly, many Jews at the time of Christ failed to recognize the promised Messiah, not because of lack of expectation, but due to their incorrect understanding of what type of Messiah would come. The Jews expected a political leader to free them from Roman oppression, not a suffering servant to free them from sin. When we lean on our own understanding and forget to trust in the Lord we are inherently insisting that our wisdom is above the Lord’s. Elder Neal A. Maxwell wrote: “When we are unduly impatient with circumstances, we may be suggesting that we know what is best—better than does God. Or, at least, we are asserting that our timetable is better than His. Either way, we are questioning the reality of God’s omniscience as if, as some seem to believe, God were on some sort of post-doctoral fellowship, trying to complete His understanding and, therefore, needing to use us as consultants” (Neal A. Maxwell, Nowithstanding My Weakness, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981, 59-60).

“The Middoni principle” entails more than mere obedience. It involves “intelligent” obedience, coupled with the knowledge that although the Lord may often want what we want, his method for realizing those wants is not always identical with our methods. Not only are his methods often different from ours, they are inevitably superior

28 And it came to pass that Ammon and Lamoni proceeded on their journey towards the land of Middoni. And Lamoni found favor in the eyes of the king of the land; therefore the brethren of Ammon were brought forth out of prison.

29 And when Ammon did meet them he was exceedingly sorrowful, for behold 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; nevertheless they were patient in all their sufferings.

verse 29 From our comfortable armchairs, as we read the scriptures, we sometimes misconstrue, misinterpret, and misunderstand the persecutions heaped upon the Lord’s servants and, indeed, even upon the Lord himself. In a subtle way we tend to glamorize these persecutions, assuming and picturing in our mind’s eye that the Lord and his servants somehow maintained their dignity in their time of suffering. These, we imagine, were noble sufferings in the way they were dealt out and in the way they were endured. The real truth is that these afflictions were demeaning and insulting and degrading. During the Savior’s mortal sojourn, many took the opportunity to embarrass and humiliate him. The Roman soldiers, the chief priests, the scribes, the Pharisees, the common people, and even one of the thieves who was crucified beside him jeered at him, spat on him, hit him, and spoke blasphemously against him and profanely to him (Matthew 27:29-31, 39-44; Luke 22:63-65; 23:35-39).

“they were patient in all their sufferings” Aaron, Muloki, and Ammah had been faithful and steady and longsuffering in their trials. They did not allow their sufferings to embitter them.

30 And, as it happened, it was their lot to have fallen into the hands of a more hardened and a more stiffnecked people; therefore they would not hearken unto their words, and they had cast them out, and had smitten them, and had driven them from house to house, and from place to place, even until they had arrived in the land of Middoni; and there they were taken and cast into prison, and bound with strong cords, and kept in prison for many days, and were delivered by Lamoni and Ammon.

verse 30 “it was their lot to have fallen into the hands of a more hardened and a more stiffnecked people” They had fallen into the hands of the Amalekites and the Amulonites (see Alma 21:1-4).

The Amulonites were the devotees of the late Amulon, one of the priests of king Noah and a Nephite dissenter (see Mosiah 23:31-32). They were thus of mixed parentage. They had Nephite fathers (the priests of Noah) and Lamanite mothers (the Lamanite maidens whom these priests kidnapped and took to wife). Because of their superior education, they became leaders among the Lamanites. We have discussed previously the observation that Nephite dissenters tended to be more hard hearted and refractory to the truth than were the Lamanites (Alma 24:30).

The text is silent concerning the origin of the Amalekites. We have encountered two “Amaleki’s” thus far in our study of the Book of Mormon. One was the prophetcustodian of the plates at the time of King Benjamin (Omni 1:12, 23; Words of Mormon 1:3, 10). The other Amaleki was one of the men who traveled from Zarahemla with Ammon to rescue the people of king Limhi (Mosiah 7:6). It is unlikely the Amalekites descended from either of these Nephites. We have learned, through the efforts of modern scholars, that the Amalekites are the same as the Amlicites (see an important discussion of the Amalekites in the commentary for Alma 21:2). Both the Amalekites and the Amulonites were of the order of the Nehors (Alma 21:4; 24:28-29). For a discussion of the order of the Nehors, see the commentary for Alma 8:8.

Camille Fronk has concluded in her article “Show Forth Good Examples in Me” (Studies in Scripture, Volume Seven, 1 Nephi to Alma 29, 328-29), that Ammon may well be seen as a type of Christ. She points out that the temptations placed before Ammon were similar to those which would later be placed before Christ by Satan. Ammon was offered gifts which would satisfy his carnal appetites—Lamoni’s daughter and a life of ease (Alma 17:24). In an analogous way, so will Satan tempt the fasting Christ to turn stones into bread (Matthew 4:2-4). The Lamanites mistakenly thought that Ammon was a God. He could have taken advantage of their ignorance and become their ruler (Alma 18:21). Christ was tempted to show his power and gain instant popularity and worldly glory (Matthew 4:5-7). Ammon was offered worldly riches by the king over all the Lamanites (Alma 20:23). So did Satan offer Christ the wealth of all the earth if Christ would but worship him (Matthew 4:8-10). Obviously both Ammon’s and Christ’s eyes were fixed on a larger mission.