HOW boring can you get? aka This Is Why Danny Is In Charge Of All The Thoughts Having To Do With Lightbulbs Chez Challis. AWA Essay #2, page 830

The city council of town X proposes that since LED lights burn brighter and cost no more to purchase, switching to them gradually over time will help town X save money on electrical costs in the future. On its face this seems like a good plan, however additional questions could help evaluate the efficacy of the council's prediction.

The most prescient question to ask is whether or not LED lightbulbs actually use less electricity. If LED bulbs do use less energy, and their total cost of use, including the purchase and disposal price, is indeed less, than the total cost of use of incandescent bulbs, the council's prediction will be strengthened. The city council could consult scientific studies measuring LED bulb electrical use as compared to that of incandescent bulbs fairly easily.

However, there are other cogent logicistical questions to address as well, including about the specifics of which lightbulbs will be replaced with LED bulbs. Will the light fixtures in city X be compatible with LED lightbulbs, or will they need to be replaced as well? What are the specific wattage requirements of the new bulbs, and will they even fit inside of the old fixtures designed for incandescent bulbs? Are there LED bulbs designed for every fixture? If not, will the lack of uniformity in the lighting of public buildings be a concern to those that need to use those buildings? How many LED incompatible light fixtures would make it better for incandescent bulbs to be used? If some of the fixtures are incompatible, the council's prediction would be weakened because there would be less potential for savings in electrical costs.

The city council of town X should also consider how expensive electrical costs are to begin with. Are there significant savings to be had from reducing electrical costs, or are the costs already so low that any savings will end up producing a relatively minimal effect? The council should also consider the rate of change of electrical costs. If electrical costs are decreasing over time, the potential for savings will be less and the council's prediction will be weakened. If electrical costs are increasing exponentially over time and LED lights cost less to operate, the council's prediction that they will save money will be strenghtened.

The city council of town X should consider what the broader effects of switching to LED bulbs might have, and whether they will incur unforeseen costs in productivity, reducing the potential savings overall. For example, how will the quality of light of LED bulbs be different from that of incandescent bulbs? Is brightness the only factor at play, or do LED lights transmit a different quality (temperature, warmth) of light? Do the LED lights in question take longer to light up and off? If so, how will these qualities effect the efficiency and productivity of the people who will be working around them? Will they be able to see what they need to see in order to effectively complete their work? The council's prediction about saving money overall through this switch could be weakened if LED lights will have serious negative effects on the people who need to use them.

The city council should also consider the entire operation cost of LED bulbs rather than merely their cost to purchase. Is the cost of installation and disposal of LED lightbulbs different from incandescent bulbs? If these operational costs are greater than that of the status quo, the council's prediction will be weakened.

The council might also choose to consider the greater operational costs that extend beyond the community of town X; what are the production costs of LED bulbs and how do they differ between that of incandescent bulbs? Are there difficult to measure costs such environmental pollution/impact that might occur during both the production and disposal processes of LED bulbs? If these are real costs, though they might reduct the city's electrical expenses, perhaps the greater cost might be a factor in the council's final decision.

In conclusion, the assessment of the cost of LED bulbs being the same purchase price as incandescent bulbs is not a solid enough basis for the city council of town X to make the decision to make this switch because a variety of factors are at play that could effect the overall electrical costs. If the council wants to prove that LED lights would decrease costs, they should further investigate the electrical costs themselves, the overall cost and effects on workers to operate LED bulbs, as well as the basic scientific facts behind the electrical use of the bulbs.

Typos: logicistical, strenghtened, reduct

The CDC makes some biased conclusions: Argument Topic #1, page 830

I probably am not allowed to share the argument topics word for word, although ETS literally shares all of their essay argument topics freely. But this book I am using is not made by ETS, and I do not really want to type it out anyway, so here is the TLDR version:

The CDC found that workers who experience work-related accidents are those with unpaid sick leave, therefore they must be coming to work while sick. The directions were to, “write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to determine whether the researchers' hypothesis is reasonable. Be sure to explain what effects the answers to these questions would have on the validity of the hypothesis.

Although on its face, it might be tempting for the CDC to assume that it is reasonable that employees with unpaid sick leave feel pressured to work during time of illness for fear of lack of pay, a deeper exploration of the issue would lead researchers to base conclusions on data rather than merely relying on correlation to prove causation.

The CDC found that the highest-risk occupations, such as construction, showed that paid and unpaid leave was correlated between the highest discrepancy in work-related incidents. Researchers should investigate whether this correlation is due to an underlying cause having to do with the the workers' perception of their paid leave, or if it is merely a based on other factors which may even include random chance. Is there a difference between the paygrade of workers in the highest-risk occupations who had paid vs. unpaid leave? Are there demographic factors such as education, socio-economic background, age, gender, ability to speak/read English etc. at play which motivate the kinds of people who work for the highest-risk occupations for no paid leave? If so, researchers would certainly want to try to design an experiment that eliminates these additional factors which could potentially significantly interfere with the reasonability of their hypothesis. If all the people who tend to work in the highest-risk occupations tend to be novice-level L2 English speakers, is it not reasonable to believe that some of their work-related accidents have to do with a failure to understand basic safety directions rather than a pressure to come to work sick? These same kind of demographic questions should be extended across the various spheres of the US work environment, and not just in the highest-risk occupations.

Researchers should also examine more information about the kinds of work-related accidents that occur and their underying circumstances. Not all work-related accidents are the same or carry the same amount of gravity for employees. For example, it might simply be the case that some jobs, such as those that involve sitting at a desk, do not carry a high degree of risk. Do options exist in these jobs for unpaid leave? If they don't, then perhaps the data suggesting that jobs lacking paid leave are wraught with danger is simply data conflation, making the hypothesis invalid. Researchers should also try to determine whether the workers really were sick, lacked sleep, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or otherwise mentally impaired at the time when the accident occurred. The mental state of the workers at the time of the accident would effect whether or not the original hypothesis is true; if it turns out that it is determined, either by reports directly from employees or through health reports/administrative documentation, that the employees did not report a significant difference in mental state, this hypothesis would be basing its evidence off of correlation rather than causation, making it invalid and in need of additional testing.

What my essay lacks:

• typos: underlying, wrought, apparently reasonability is not a word?!, pay-grade is not a compound word – needs a hyphen, socioeconomic does NOT need a hyphen
• What are the ulterior motivations of the CDC (to prevent and control disease) and might they be a factor at play?
• Was the study large enough, was there a representative sample, is there enough detail in the data?
• I should have said “x would strengthen/weaken the hypothesis.”
• Argument did not have alternative explanations
• I did not necessarily to the greatest job strictly following the directions. Must practice this.
• I did not have a concluding paragraph because I ran out of time.
• I should have had shorter paragraphs. They are probably looking for a 5 paragraph essay, with a topic sentence, concluding sentence, and supporting sentences in between.

This was a hard essay to write because:

1. It was kind of boring.
2. It was hard for me to quickly find the flaw in the argument.
3. It was stressful to write this with a clock running!

But I did well because:

• I had very few grammar/spelling errors
• I found all the arguments suggested by the model essay
• I did follow the directions, though I could have done better
• My essay was logical

Solid B+, I think. Could do so much better than that. Very, very disappointing. Grrr.

Why did the priests ask about the meaning of this specific verse? Mosiah 12:21

Why did the priests ask about the meaning of this specific verse? Mosiah 12:21

Abinadi is taken before the wicked priests. He starts delivering them his prophetic message, which is essentially the broken record of the scriptures: repent, or be destroyed.

The priests aren't much pleased with this message. They tell King Noah, "Look, here's a blasphemic blasphemer blaspheming blasphemy. What'd you ever do that was evil? You're a great guy. Whatcha gonna do with him?"

King Noah puts him in jail and thinks about it for a while. But apparently he couldn't - or wouldn't - make a decision, because the priests say, "Bring him here, and we'll question him."

And then, of all the things they could have asked him, they bring up a prophesy of Isaiah (see Isaiah 52:7) and say, "What does this mean?"

Why?

Here are the reasons my daughter and husband came up with:

1. They thought it was an easy question and they knew the answer, so if he said something different than what they thought was the answer, they could trick him into saying the wrong thing and then they would have a justifiable cause to put him to death.

2. They thought it was an impossible to answer question. They didn't know the answer - they didn't even necessarily believe there was an answer, so whatever Abinadi said was bound to trap him and be justifiable as a cause to put him to death.

3. It was an authentic question, perhaps even posed by Alma.

So what does the prophesy talk about?

Isaiah 52:7 and a bit onward is one of those dual (triple? quadro?) prophesies that are Isaiah's specialty. It is about both the restoration of the gospel in the latter days and the second coming of Jesus Christ to the earth. The wicked priests of King Noah didn't understand these prophesies because they were myopically cherry-picking from the Mosaic Law. They clearly didn't understand the point of the Law of Moses, which is to be a preparatory law that witnesses of Jesus Christ.

Abinadi totally sounds like he is mocking them.

"You mean to say that you guys call yourselves priests, and you're asking me what these scriptures mean!? What the heck are you teaching the people?"

"We teach the Law of Moses."

"Then why don't you keep it yourselves?! The Law of Moses can be summed up in the Ten Commandments. Let me repeat them for you, since apparently you've forgotten what they are."

He repeats the Ten Commandments.

By the way, these commandments are definitely still in force today, and a general good model for civilized secular societies to live by, especially such shockers as "Thou shalt not kill." "Thou shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not bear false witness (aka lie)."

"Have you taught the people to keep these commandments? No. Do you keep them yourselves?

...No!"

"Take this man away...and KILL him!"

Answer:
The priests were trying to trick Abinadi into making some verbal misstep that would give them an excuse to kill him.

Does this kind of so-called trial bring any other similar examples from the scriptures to mind? Jesus Christ himself was falsely accused in a similar "trial" before the Sanhedrin. He was accused of blasphemy. He was beaten, made to wear a crown of thorns, had his side dashed by a spear, forced to carry his own cross, then nailed to the cross. The cross was on a public thoroughfare, between the crosses of two common thieves. His cross had mocking words tacked to the top of it, "This is Jesus, King of the Jews."

He allowed this to happen. The sacrifice of God himself was the only price sufficient enough to pay for the sin and pain of the world. Through this sacrifice he obtained the power to understand and individually save every human who ever has and ever will live. It is mind-blowing to think about.

When Abinadi was martyred for bearing his testimony of Jesus Christ, he joined the ranks of many other previous righteous men and women who stood by their faith and took upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ, though it meant certain death. It is critically important to me that I always be willing to do the same.

What does "a great evil" mean here? Mosiah 12:29

What does "a great evil" mean here? Mosiah 12:29

Remember that guy, Zeniff, who went to the land of Lehi-Nephi? He was fairly righteous-ish, but his son Noah was totally wicked. Noah and his wicked priests caused the people to commit some severe sin, including some perverse sexual sin.

The prophet Abinadi was sent to preach to King Noah. The first time, he was kicked out. The second time he came back in a disguise and was brought before King Noah and his priests. It brings to mind this famous Arnold Friberg painting.

This is exactly how I imagine it in my mind.

Probably because this painting was clearly the inspiration behind this childhood video that I grew up watching (here is just a small clip of it).

Abinadi was sent by God to tell King Noah and his wicked priests to repent, or else a "great evil" would befall them. The specific prophesy is from Mosiah 12:2 and onward.

Thus saith the Lord, it shall come to pass that this generation, because of their iniquities, shall be brought into bondage, and shall be smitten on the cheek; yea, and shall be driven by men, and shall be slain; and the vultures of the air, and the dogs, yea, and the wild beasts, shall devour their flesh.
3 And it shall come to pass that the life of king Noah shall be valued even as a garment in a hot furnace; for he shall know that I am the Lord.
4 And it shall come to pass that I will smite this my people with sore afflictions, yea, with famine and with pestilence; and I will cause that they shall howl all the day long.
5 Yea, and I will cause that they shall have burdens lashed upon their backs; and they shall be driven before like a dumb ass.
6 And it shall come to pass that I will send forth hail among them, and it shall smite them; and they shall also be smitten with the east wind; and insects shall pester their land also, and devour their grain.
7 And they shall be smitten with a great pestilence—and all this will I do because of their iniquities and abominations.
8 And it shall come to pass that except they repent I will utterly destroy them from off the face of the earth; yet they shall leave a record behind them, and I will preserve them for other nations which shall possess the land; yea, even this will I do that I may discover the abominations of this people to other nations.

Guess what. His prophesy totally came true and is a big part of the story of the book of Alma.

All the real prophesies in the Old Testament - even the really weird head-scratching ones involving red heifers - will come true someday. The Messiah, which is Jesus Christ, will someday come to earth again. Repeatedly in the scriptures the prophesies from the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New Testament, many hundreds of years later. For example, in Zechariah it is explicitly stated that the Messiah would be sold for 30 pieces of silver. That was the exact price that Matthew tells us Judas Iscariot was paid for his betrayal.

The scriptures are true.

Don't take my word for it; find out for yourself by studying them and asking God directly. He promised he would answer over and over and over and over and over and over, and he doesn't lie. The promise is that he will answer you in a way that you will understand and recognize if you ask sincerely. Why wouldn't it be worth a try?

What is the "fierce anger" of the Lord? How does this fit with God as a merciful being? Mosiah 12:1

What is the "fierce anger" of the Lord? How does this fit with God as a merciful being? Mosiah 12:1

I actually found a really interesting quote from Brigham Young which nicely answers this question. I will include it here with some additional commentary. Also, DBY stands for "Discourses of Brigham Young." I had to look that up.

In this probation, we have evil to contend with, and we must overcome it in ourselves, or we never shall overcome it anywhere else (DBY, 265).

 Evil is a part of life. You have to deal with inner evil if you ever aspire to deal with outer evil.

A righteous person will never be discouraged, but will constantly contend against his evil passions, and against evil in his family and neighborhood (DBY, 267).

The definition of a "good person" is someone who constantly tries to fight against evil, both without and within. Totally agree. 

Many men will say they have a violent temper, and try to excuse themselves for actions of which they are ashamed. I will say, there is not a man in this house who has a more indomitable and unyielding temper than myself.

Yeah, I bet Emma Smith would wholeheartedly have agreed with that (she did not get along very well with Brigham Young). 

But there is not a man in the world who cannot overcome his passion, if he will struggle earnestly to do so. If you find passion coming on you, go off to some place where you cannot be heard; let none of your family see you or hear you, while it is upon you, but struggle till it leaves you; and pray for strength to overcome.

Good, sound advice. I will try to follow it. I sometimes find myself really struggling with anger, and that's a practical piece of advice for how to deal with it. I appreciate that.

As I have said many times to the Elders, pray in your families; and if, when the time for prayer comes, you have not the spirit of prayer upon you, and your knees are unwilling to bow, say to them, “Knees, get down there”; make them bend, and remain there until you obtain the Spirit of the Lord. If the spirit yields to the body, it becomes corrupt; but if the body yields to the spirit it becomes pure and holy (DBY, 267).

There have been times when I have knelt in prayer on my kitchen floor because it was where I was, and I just really needed some help with whatever problem I was dealing with. Almost certainly it was some struggle dealing with childcare.

Do not get so angry that you cannot pray; do not allow yourselves to become so angry that you cannot feed an enemy—even your worst enemy, if an opportunity should present itself. 

That is really saying something, from Brigham Young, who literally was forced to leave home after home. A man who literally saw people tarred and feathered, raped and murdered, for practicing their religion. The worst "enemy" I've ever had in my life was a really lousy school administrator who halved my pay while doubling my course load. It isn't that apt of a comparison.

There is a wicked anger, and there is a righteous anger. The Lord does not suffer wicked anger to be in his heart; but there is anger in his bosom, and he will hold a controversy with the nations, and will sift them, and no power can stay his hand (DBY, 269).

This^. This is the description of God's "fierce anger" that I needed.

When my feelings are aroused to anger by the ill-doings of others, I hold them as I would hold a wild horse, and I gain the victory. Some think and say that it makes them feel better when they are mad, as they call it, to give vent to their madness in abusive and unbecoming language.

Like on social media? ;-) 

This, however, is a mistake. Instead of its making you feel better, it is making bad worse. When you think and say it makes you better you give credit to a falsehood. When the wrath and bitterness of the human heart are moulded into words and hurled with violence at one another, without any check or hindrance, the fire has no sooner expended itself than it is again re-kindled through some trifling course, until the course of nature is set on fire (DBY, 266).

Now I charge you again, and I charge myself not to get angry. Never let anger arise in your hearts. No, Brigham, never let anger arise in your heart, never, never! Although you may be called upon to chastise and to speak to the people sharply, do not let anger arise in you, no, never! (DBY, 265).

Great advice, and it feels so heartfelt and personal the way he has written it here.

Cease your anger, and sullenness of temper, and serve the Lord with cheerfulness, and singleness of heart. You need not expect salvation, except you can administer the same salvation to others, both in precept and example. If you expect compassion from me, administer the same to me. If you wish kind words and kind treatment from me, give me the same blessing you desire yourself; and that is the way you will be saved (DBY, 268–69).

A little bit of a 19th-century-ish way to say, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." 

If you give way to your angry feelings, it sets on fire the whole course of nature, … and you are then apt to set those on fire who are contending with you.

Here's a secret. Sometimes I feel really proud of how fiercely nasty my words and arguments can get when I'm angry. I'm always ashamed of it later. But in the moment, the power is very...alluring? I often have felt as though my "angry voice" is powerful, compelling, loud, and fierce. I guess part of me admires it. But the better part of me is disgusted by it, and wants to divest myself of it.

When you feel as though you would burst, tell the old boiler to burst, and just laugh at the temptation to speak evil. If you will continue to do that, you will soon be so masters of yourselves as to be able, if not to tame, to control your tongues—able to speak when you ought, and to be silent when you ought (DBY, 269).

Being "silent when you ought" is definitely challenging for me. But I've discovered that it is at least as powerful as a fiercely angry voice. At some point in my motherhood journey, I just got really tired of yelling at little children and realized that they listen a whole lot better if I am firm but quiet. They also are totally like mirrors and so if I want them to speak quietly, I had better model it.

Being silent on social media is a big challenge for me, personally.

We want the spirit, knowledge, power and principle within us to govern and control our tempers; there is no danger of having too much [anger] if we will only control [it] by the Spirit of the Almighty. Every intelligent being on the earth is tempered for glory, beauty, excellency and knowledge here, and for immortality and eternal lives in the worlds to come. But every being who attains to this must be sanctified before God and be completely under the control of his Spirit. If I am thus controlled by the Spirit of the Most High, I am a king. I am supreme so far as the control of self is concerned (DBY, 264–65).

I think that any of my friends, including those who don't believe in God, would likely agree that the principle of self mastery is an attainable, desirable quality for anybody to strive to have. It's not a particularly popular message in today's media, but logical people around the world understand that hedonism is not a path to success.

Self mastery is a learned skill. It takes a lot of practice. But it is learnable.

In my opinion, self mastery is desirable because it is a divine attribute. God has all knowledge and power, and he controls that power perfectly. When we control our emotions, bodies, and actions, we, like my little children who I mentioned above, become reflections of God.

Why did Abinadi come in a disguise? Mosiah 12:1

Why did Abinadi come in a disguise? Mosiah 12:1

Robert D. Hales said in his 2013 talk Stand Strong in Holy Places that Abinadi testified of Christ in the face of suspicion, scorn, and certain death.

Answer:
Maybe the disguise was simply a way for Abinadi to get his foot in the door, so to speak.

I still have questions about this, and not much hope of getting satisfying answers in the foreseeable future.

Who is Zeniff? Mosiah 9:1

Who is Zeniff? Mosiah 9:1

For more details, see this post.

Answer:
Reading between the lines, Zeniff seems to be both a descendant of the Nephites as well as a descendant of Zarahemla. He led a bunch of people away to the land of Lehi-Nephi, where eventually they were taxed so severely by the Lamanites it was like slavery.

Did King Limhi not understand what a seer/prophet is? Mosiah 8:15

Did King Limhi not understand what a seer/prophet is? Mosiah 8:15

King Limhi is talking to Ammon, the descendant of Zarahemla. King Limhi is really anxious because he had previously found a "land covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind...[and] twenty-four plates which are filled with engravings" (see Mosiah 8:8-9). King Limhi had assumed this to be the land of Zarahemla, but he was wrong. He was really anxious to know what the plates said about those people who had lived there. He asked Ammon if he knew a guy who could translate.

Ammon promises him that there is a person (King Mosiah, son of King Benjamin, son of King Mosiah) living in Zarahemla who could translate the plates by the power of God. He then explains to King Limhi the definition of a seer.

A seer includes these qualifications: (see Mosiah 8:13-18)

• has "the wherewith that he can look" <-- maybe it is a tool, maybe it just raw power?
• has the ability to translate all records of ancient date
• has a high gift of God
• has a device called "interpreters"
• is commanded to use the device 
• is a prophet
• is greater than a prophet
• possesses the power of God because God gives it to him
• can know of things that happened in the past
• can know of things that will happen in the future
• can reveal secret things
• can make hidden things come to light
• can make things known which are not known
• can make things known which could otherwise not be known
• has faith
• has power to work mighty miracles
• can be a great benefit to his fellow beings.

Answer:
It's possible that King Limhi had a knowledge of Jesus Christ but he did not have a perfect understanding of prophets and seers. It seems logical that King Limhi would not have had first-hand understanding of a seer because there does not seem to have been one in the land of Lehi-Nephi where he was living.

There is a seer alive on earth today. Through him we can know the will of God for us today. He reveals truth to the whole world, not just to members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Listen to what he has to say and judge for yourself.

King Limhi had a testimony of Jesus Christ. When did he get it? Mosiah 7:33

King Limhi had a testimony of Jesus Christ. When did he get it? Mosiah 7:33

Lehi and his family, including his son Nephi, were led by God out of Jerusalem around 600 BC.
   Nephi gave the plates to his brother Jacob.
      Jacob gave the plates to his son Enos.
          Enos gave the plates to his son Jarom
             Jarom gave the plates to his son Omni.
                 Omni gave the plates to his son Amaron.
                    Amaron gave the plates to his brother Chemish.
                          Chemish gave the plates to his son Abinadom.
                               Abinadom gave the plates to his son Amaleki.
                                  Amaleki wrote about Mosiah, who was led out of the land of Nephi by God.

Mosiah found a place called Zarahemla.

Zarahemla was the name of the leader there. He was descended from people who were also led by God out of Jerusalem "at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon." (see Omni 1:15) This was around 586 BC, so very similar to the time when Nephi was led from Jerusalem. Maybe ~8 generations?

Mosiah discovered that they had become widespread but their language had become corrupted and they had not brought with them the scriptures, which at that time would have been some kind of compilation of writings that we have in the Old Testament.

By the way, 8 generations ago is about as far back to most of my earliest immigrant ancestors from Europe. I can totally imagine this kind of linguistic corruption happening in this amount of time.

The people of Zarahemla and the people of Mosiah united together and Mosiah was made their king (see Omni 1:19). They meet this other guy named Coriantumr whose ancestors were led out of Babylon many, many, many generations earlier during the time of the tower of Babel. See who is Coriantumr?

King Mosiah had a son named Benjamin. Benjamin became king.

Some people in the land of Zarahemla wanted to go back to the land of Lehi-Nephi. One of them was named Zeniff, apparently (see Mosiah 9:1).

Amaleki (descendant of Lehi, see above) had a brother who eventually went with the people to look for the land of Lehi-Nephi. 

Amaleki did not have any children. He gave the plates to King Benjamin.

King Benjamin has a son named Mosiah who becomes king (see Mosiah 6:4).

King Mosiah sends sixteen strong men to go find the land of Lehi-Nephi. One of them was Ammon, "a strong and mighty man, and a descendant of Zarahemla." (Mosiah 7:3) This could be the namesake of my favorite person in the Book of Mormon, but it is not the same guy, I recently realized.

Ammon and his brothers Amaleki (a different one than the one who was a descendant of Jacob), Helem, and Hem went to the land of Nephi. They were taken prisoner by King Limhi's guards and would have been put to death, except King Limhi was really curious to know why they would come near to the walls of the city when he was with his guards outside the gate. (See Mosiah 7:10)

Ammon tells King Limhi that he is from Zarahemla and he is looking for Zeniff's descendants.

Basically, the generations could look like this:
Mosiah I         Zarahemla         Amaleki                 Zeniff
Benjamin        ?                                                       ? <--- probably Zeniff is in this generation, actually
Mosiah II        ?                                                       ?
                       Ammon, Ameliki, Helem, Hem       King Limhi

We don't know exactly how many generations were between Ammon/King Limhi and Zarahemla/Zeniff, but I guess it could have been as many as three jumps, as little as two. They wouldn't have called his son "a descendant", I guess. Unless he was like, a nephew or something? But I think descendant implies the direct line.

Basically, this is one generation removed from my latest immigrant ancestors. It would be like my grandpa going back to the Czech Republic to find and talk with his relatives there. It's not that far removed, but it is far enough that it is outside of living memory. Information would have been lost.

Answer:
Limhi himself says that he was, "taught in all the language of the Nephites" and he also refers to the land of Nephi "or the land of our fathers' first inheritance." (Mosiah 9:1) which makes it seem a bit to me like he was probably a descendant of BOTH the Nephites and the people of Zarahemla.

In either case, the reason Limhi knew about the land of Nephi, the language of the Nephites, and almost definitely also Jesus Christ had to do with the intentional record keeping of Nephi, his brother Jacob, and Jacob's descendants. This included the brass plates, or the "record of the Jews" which Nephi and his brothers took out of Jerusalem at great risk from Laban. Limhi was almost definitely taught about Jesus Christ when he was younger before he left the land of Zarahemla for the land of Lehi-Nephi.

Why I Don't Want to Live in Utah (if I can help it)

I was born in Texas.

I lived in the suburbs of Chicago from age 2-8.

I lived in the suburbs of Western Massachusetts from age 8-15, 16-17, and one semester when I was 20.

I lived in France when I was 15-16.

I lived in Utah from age 17-23, with the exceptions of that semester in MA and a total of 6 months in Jordan.

We lived in the suburbs of Houston, Texas from age 23-25? and now the suburbs of Des Moines from age 25-32.


The longest I've lived in one place has been Massachusetts, but not by a lot. In about a year, Iowa will be the place I've lived the longest.


I loved my years in Utah.

I love the state of Utah: I LOVE the mountains there, the incredible nature that is so close. I love the temperature there, the humidity (ahem, lack thereof!), and many things about the weather (except for the inversions that happen too often in the valley).

I love Utah history. I love my family's connection to Utah history as early latter-day saint pioneers. I love the historical sites and totally geek out whenever I get the chance to go to them. While living in Utah, I focused all of my family history efforts on learning about my rich latter-day saint heritage. It is fascinating. There is a TON to discover there in libraries, archives, historical sites, etc.

I love Familysearch. I love Ancestry. I love the Family History Library. These are all HQed in Utah.

I love my family. Most of my family lives in the Inter-mountain West, mostly in Utah County. Mostly in Provo/Orem.

I really love BYU. It's a fantastic school.

I really love being a latter-day saint. I love my faith. I love associating with others of my faith. I love talking about my faith and will be so happy to do so. My favorite, most interesting conversations have to do with spirituality. Spiritual and philosophical questions are deep and deeply interesting to me, even more so than questions about language and language learning (though there's a lot of overlap). I crave these conversations.

I love skiing. It's pure, exhilarating joy, speeding down a slope in the fresh powder. It doesn't matter if you're with someone or alone, it's just PURE fun!

So far, I've only said things that I really love about Utah. Why do I hope we will not live there?

My experience is that every place you could ever find yourself living has plenty of pros and cons, and it's really up to you to decide to be happy where you are.

I think some places would be easier than others for me to be happy. From my experience, I really think that Utah is not the ideal place for me to live. Here's why.

I didn't grow up where the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is big. There are aspects about living in a place where that is the prominent and predominant culture that are deeply weird to me in distasteful, off-putting ways.

I don't like the flavor of the political discourse in deeply red states. It grates on my nerves. Western Massachusetts is actually pretty conservative - as are most areas in the United States outside of cities - but I did most of my growing up within the bluest blue bubble in all of bluedom because of where I went to school. I'm used to, and even comfortable, with the idea of being the only latter-day saint in the room. Beyond that, I'm used to being the only Christian in the room. Even, the only person of faith at all in the room. I wasn't, of course, but it was *quite often* the way I felt and perceived things to be in that little blue bubble. Leaving the blue bubble and going to an alternative red bubble was both really exciting and really painful in some ways. It was really nice to be able to figure out what things defined me that were not my faith. It was really disappointing to find out that a lot of good, nice people have no idea what it's like to live on the outside of the red bubble.

But I've been feeling like that to some extent or another about everybody who surrounds me ever since spending a school year abroad in Europe. I am fairly used to the idea of being the stranger. I really enjoy learning about, observing, and interacting with "different from me." It fills me with joy to find the "but also the same as me." If this were something I knew how to systematically describe and catalogue, I'd be an ethnographer. But instead I focused on learning languages, the communication tools, as well as how to teach them to others.

Even at school, in my major, I had to be exceptional, different, weird. I think that is something inextricably connected to Kateness. I was studying Arabic but I eventually figured out I wanted to teach it. I became one of 11(?) teachers of K-12 Arabic in the entire state. It was really fun to be exceptional.

If I were to live in Utah in my current role as a devout latter-day saint stay at home mom with five young children and no outside employer, where would my special otherness come from? In Katy we turned heads when we entered a room because of the ridiculously close spacing of our children and the ratio of my age to the age of other people with my shared interests (genealogy, quilting, gardening). In Utah there would be many others with even more children and ridiculous baby bunching stats and even more passion for genealogy. Every year I grow older as the average age of people interested in genealogy grows younger. These things would not make me stand out, but blend in or find a nichey group.

I worry that I would feel rebellious.

I know this because I've both experienced it living in Utah as well as living in wards surrounded by Utah women in my friend groups. I enjoy playing devil's advocate. I enjoy asking irritating questions. I enjoy challenging assumptions. Most women don't react very well to that kind of communication. I think that I would struggle a lot with friend making in Utah. I already struggle with it here - it's easy to be friendly, it's easy to have conversations. It's really difficult to find people in real life with whom I can converse freely about my nerdy interests - but even more than that, with whom I can be a little bit contrarian, a little bit...edgy? A little tiny bit controversial. I think that I might end up offending the women around me in Utah by challenging the consensus views. This extends to unimportant things like views on "the Greatest Showman" to important things like where do guns belong, to crucial things like differentiating church doctrine from church culture and trying to do an effective job eliminating the sexist crud which really does exist in the latter. Kinda hard to do that when you're viewed as blasphemous for even suggesting that it could exist. I worry that I'd feel that way in Utah.

Or worse, I'd find the others who already feel that way, and to make myself special I would have to stand up for my deeply held values against women who should know better and share them with me. It can be depressing to learn about, observe, and interact with "same as me, yet still so utterly different." I like cross cultural connection, not intra-cultural division. I worry - perhaps unnecessarily - about feeling steeped in the latter if we lived in Utah.

I worry that it would be so easy for me to conflate church culture with church doctrine and that I might make a mistake and end up criticizing church doctrine, which is maybe one tiny baby step down from adultery in my personal value system. Honoring my personal core beliefs is extremely important to me. I can't stand the idea of being tempted to do otherwise.

I'd probably end up hanging out with people outside of my age group to try to avoid that, and I'd probably be just fine.

One final note about Utah: I am not a material girl unless the material in question is books. There is a lot of materialism and focus on physical appearance by stay at home moms ages 25-35 in Utah. This is an observation made by multiple women who have moved from Utah to Iowa, by the way. It is also my perception when I go visit there and hang out with my family. I love my family and don't tend to get this vibe from them directly, but it does come sometimes from how they talk about the people around them. I think I'd be able to deal with this ok because I'm on the outer edge of this 25-35 range; I care less and less about how I'm viewed by the collective and more and more about how specific people I care about view me. I am not going to dye my hair blonde, live in my gym clothes, and sell x trendy MLM product on Facebook. I'm not really into Instagramming my contouring and (non-existent) perfectly styled home. I don't want a dog. I don't want a pedicure. Etc.

I thought my growing up experience was great. I want a similar path for my children because it's known. I don't know how or who I'd be in Utah. Danny says, "Yeah, that sums up my own reasons for not wanting to move to Utah: fear of the unknown."

There's a high probability we will someday end up there. I would never write this kind of a post while living there, by the way. I long ago discovered that complaining about where you live is a path to nowhere (that I want to go, at least). This post is not about criticizing Utah or my weird church culture, it's about exploring shakily grounded worries about non-existent potentials, and what it is about me that I feel isn't an ideal match for Utah. If I actually lived there, I'd be focused on the positive things, and there are many abundant, positive reasons why Utah is a great place to live and raise kids, the majority of which I am sure I don't even know about at all.

Worship at the altar of Almighty ETS? Why, no thanks.

I'm preparing for the GRE. Part of the test is analytical writing. This part of the test is divided into two subsections called "analyze an issue" and "analyze an argument." In the former, you get to argue your opinion. In the latter, you get to dissect someone else's opinion. 

I think it's incredibly fun. 

Over the next few weeks (months? hmm), I will start practicing timing my responses and putting them here because...because the lure of potential readers is deep, strong motivation and I need to prepare for this test.

I'm totally confident in my ability to ace this part of the test, but I should still prepare for it. My math scores on several diagnostic tests, on the other hand, were pitiful. About 75% of my studying time will be spent on improving my math scores. 

My program really doesn't seem to care much about the math scores and if I took the test today I would do well with my verbal scores, however the subspecialization I want to study actually has a lot of math in it. It's applied. It's statistics. It's interesting. It's hard for me. I have to (re)learn it. 

The hardest part of the writing will be the timed aspect of it, without a doubt. I will want to practice so that I can have a strong sense of pacing. 

***

High Schools should eliminate their art and music programs to make room for more extensive studies in mathematics and English. Test scores in mathematics and English are of paramount interest to the colleges most students wish to attend, while art and music classes are mere electives of little use to students who do not intend to pursue careers in such creative fields.

Write a response that expresses the degree to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason or reasons that underlie the claim.
***


I completely disagree with the conclusions in this paragraph because the logic used to reach them is flawed and betrays a strangely myopic life perspective.

Firstly, it is an assumption that increasing math and English classes will have a proportional increase on test scores in math and English. This assumption is not informed on data. If the test scores were really the most important outcome of a High School education, one should study the effect of what x subject has on the students' test scores. Analyzing and comparing data about what happens to test scores when increasing math and English classes, increasing music and art classes, and simply doing nothing is the only way to know with a measure of certainty what the effect of a specific course selection will be on test scores.

Secondly, even in situations where most students intend to further their education after high school and will eventually participate in the workplace, one would do better to study the impact a course schedule would have on academic/career outcomes for students than to make assumptions that standardized test scores are the only factor at play. The truth is that both institutions of higher learning and future employers tend to look at multiple factors when making decisions about accepting future students or hiring candidates. In fact, in most work situations, the ability to get along with and communicate with other people will almost always supersede one's academic performance on a test; it doesn't matter how well you do at solving isolated, artificial problems if you can't apply those skills to a real world experience, which involves living with and communicating with other people. At the end of the day, both Academia and the world of business are motivated by their respective bottom lines; whether success is measured in papers published or dollars earned, either way these institutions are not as deeply invested in test scores of their members.

Thirdly, it is strangely myopic logic to assume that the only valid, measurable worth of a High School course is how it will effect a person's ability to secure higher education and a future career. By this logic, people who intend to devote their lives to bearing and raising children instead of working for an outside employer should not even attend High School, since they are neither intending on a future with higher education nor employment. This kind of primeval, typically sexist viewpoint is not consistent with the values and lifestyle of the United States in the 21st century. Aside from that, it's easy to see the benefit of courses on childcare, home economics, and accounting for people who choose to be full-time carers; consider also how beneficial a background in literacy and a general value of the English language would be to a person whose role is to teach a child how to speak, communicate, and read in English. None of the value of these courses for these people is measured in their ability to perform on a test, achieve further education, or become employed, yet we see they are valuable. Why wouldn't both art and music have equally intangible benefits? Why wouldn't those intangible benefits extend to all students, including even the most avaraciously ambitious career-ladder climbers and bookish researchers?

The only constant in life is change. What people believe, what goals they have for their future schooling and career, and the kind of people they aspire to be during their lives is not a known quantity in High School, yet the impact of a course selection during this crucial point in one's development can last a lifetime. Though a test may be important as a gateway into new opportunities, the value of art and music classes on a student's ability to reason, make connections, feel compassion, teach children, relate to the world, communicate, and be a positive influence on others and the world is valuable, if not as easily measurable. The most valuable High School experience will include opportunities for a multiplicity of subjects and modes of learning beyond just what will prepare a student for taking a test, getting into a school, or being employed.

Where does the Lord say these things about the east wind, chaff, etc.? Mosiah 7:29-31

Where does the Lord say these things about the east wind, chaff, etc.? Mosiah 7:29-31

King Limhi is explaining to Ammon about the terrible tax placed on them by the Lamanites. He tells Ammon about the prophet Abinadi, and he also bears his testimony that they got what was coming to them. "Look, who wonders that they're in bondage and have really crappy trials? Didn't the Lord say:

I will not succor my people in the day of their transgression; but I will hedge up their ways that they prosper not; and their doings shall be as a stumbling block before them.

If my people shall sow filthiness they shall reap the chaff thereof in the whirlwind; and the effect thereof is poison.

If my people shall sow filthiness they shall reap the east wind, which bringeth immediate destruction.

So, where did he say these things?

WordCruncher to the rescue! 

Hosea 2:6

Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths.

Isaiah 8:14

14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.

Isaiah 7:13

13 The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.

Hosea 13:3

3 Therefore they shall be as the morning cloud, and as the early dew that passeth away, as the chaff that is driven with the whirlwind out of the floor, and as the smoke out of the chimney.

Hosea 13:15

15 ¶ Though he be fruitful among his brethren, an east wind shall come, the wind of the Lord shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and his fountain shall be dried up: he shall spoil the treasure of all pleasant vessels.

Answer: It seems possible that King Limhi was quoting Hosea and Isaiah. He may have also been quoting other unknown Old Testament prophets whose writings were lost, or others like Ezekiel and Jeremiah. 

To me, this is the kind of uncanny detail that is a witness of the veracity of the Book of Mormon. How would Joseph Smith (or Sidney Rigdon, another purported author of the book; we believe the book was a translation by the power of God, not thought up by Joseph Smith) have had the presence of mind to have King Limhi quote only from Old Testament prophets, not New Testament prophets? Rigdon and Smith were steeply immersed in the King James Bible language. They knew it well. If they had authored this work, wouldn't their characters have been less likely to be consistent with the claims of being descendants of Jews who left Jerusalem around 600 BC? Not only does King Limhi quote only Old Testament prophets here, and not any New Testament ones, but only those who were contemporary or lived prior to 600 BC.

I don't base my faith on these kinds of details. That is not where the power of the Book of Mormon lies. The power rests entirely on the promise that if you read this book and pray to God to know whether or not it is true, you are promised to receive an answer for yourself. If the book is true, then that means God's church exists today on the earth, and that you have the opportunity to be part of it. If the book is not true, there are 15 million totally duped, happy, people who believe they are walking somewhere on the Covenant Path. You have nothing to lose by trying this experiment yourself except a bit of time and potentially a lot of pride. To the former: in my experience, all of the time I have spent in the scriptures has been well spent. To the latter: we can all stand to lose more of that. I challenge you to read this book and find out for yourself whether or not its central message - that Jesus is the Christ - is true. I testify that it is true.

What does it mean to be "wearied with their teasings"? Mosiah 7:1

What does it mean to be "wearied with their teasings"? Mosiah 7:1

I think that this phrase really jumped out to me the last time I read the Book of Mormon because it perfectly encapsulates the way that I feel when people, especially people I love, tease me too much.

Synonyms for weary include: make tired, annoy, depress, dishearten, bore, exhaust, irk, exasperate, fade, burden, cloy, debilitate, distress, disgust, sink, overwork, harass, enervate, fatigue, and sicken.

Here's a secret about me. I am pretty sensitive to teasing. Sometimes it makes me laugh, and sometimes I shrug it off. My husband teases me a lot. But his teasing is usually very gentle and tame. I also know to expect it. He does it for a reaction. It is a way of flirting, I guess. I know what to expect because I've lived with him for over a decade.

For example, I decided to buy a mint chocolate chip icecream last week. I haven't bought that kind for about nine years, because I know Danny doesn't like it. He always says that mint-anything tastes like toothpaste. I decided to buy that kind because I like it, plus a kind I knew he would like. I mentally prepared myself for the teasing that would come. When he makes his toothpaste comment, I am going to affirm that it is just fine for me to buy icecream that I like, too. That scene played out exactly as predicted.

Sometimes my mood is not predictable or under my direct control. Sometimes I reread a series of written texts that I've had and am really shocked, later, to think about how differently they read when I am in a totally different mood. I have to be very careful, very much on my guard, to make sure that I don't trust my emotions. They aren't trustworthy. They are fickle. They change. They aren't based on good data. They're probably based on some stupid combination of hormones that I can't control directly. I don't like it. But that's how it is.

My mom cannot stand teasing. Not even a little bit. She is not capable of understanding sarcasm. Rather, she has to be, since she lives in a world full of sarcasm, and her four children have pretty sharp wits (especially my younger sister Sarah, probably the wittiest person I know). But she doesn't really speak that language, and it doesn't suit her when she tries. She is much better at speaking genuine, heartfelt words. She loves to talk about what she's reading, and she's always reading something, which you should talk about with her if you get the chance.

I was raised in a house that had very little friendly teasing. Danny's house, on the other hand - that is how people expressed affection. It has been challenging sometimes for me to force myself to remember that it's just a way of saying, "I notice you."

Self-deprecation, self-teasing - even that can be cloying to my soul. I want to admire myself, not to feel so...wearied by my own feelings of inadequacy, even the ones that are kind of funny. I don't especially love the mental image of plastering spreadsheet wallpaper on my walls, even if it is kind of a funny mental image. I don't want to be pathetic. I want to be appreciated and loved.

But of course, teasing isn't a signal of being unappreciated or unloved. It just sometimes can feel that way because feelings are dumb.

Answer:
King Mosiah's people were constantly asking, teasing, annoying, badgering, pestering, provoking, aggravating etc. him about the people who went to live in the land of Lehi-Nephi, so he sent 16 strong men to try to find them, including my favorite person from the entire Book of Mormon, Ammon. But more on that in some other post.

Update: Danny and my daughter Jane tell me that there are actually two Ammons in the Book of Mormon, and that the one who is my favorite is not this one.

Does this mean that we should believe that God has all power that we both can and cannot imagine? Mosiah 4:9

Does this mean that we should believe that God has all power that we both can and cannot imagine? Mosiah 4:9

Because...I have a big imagination!

But the answer here is obviously yes. God has all wisdom. He is a God of truth. He knows everything.

Everything.

Neal A. Maxwell said this in his 2002 talk, Encircled in the Arms of His Love:

Ignoring the revelations about God’s astounding capacity is like playing aimlessly and contentedly with wooden blocks featuring the letters of the alphabet, without realizing Shakespearean sonnets were created using that same alphabet.

Another interesting talk to consider is Rosemary Wixom's 2015 talk called Returning to Faith. She shares the story of a young mother who struggled with her faith. It was a really fascinating story. Eventually what brought her back to her faith was a quote from Mother Theresa which said, “Please pray specially for me that I may not spoil His work and that Our Lord may show Himself—for there is such terrible darkness within me, as if everything was dead. It has been like this more or less from the time I started ‘the work.’ Ask Our Lord to give me courage.”

She thought that if Mother Theresa could live her religion without all the answers and without a feeling of clarity in all things, maybe she could, too. She turned her faith towards the Savior, Jesus Christ.

I testify to whoever's reading this blog that Jesus Christ is God. He knows everything. You can trust him. He knows you. He loves you. He wants you to be happy, and he wants you to repent and rely on his saving grace. He paid the price for your sins, and mine so that we can repent and return to live with our heavenly parents someday, joined together in eternal family units, capable of eternal progression, eternal learning, eternal growth.

Rely on him. Humble yourself. Pray for help. He's listening, and he will always answer your prayers.

Can little children sin? Mosiah 3:16

Can little children sin? Mosiah 3:16

Didn't King Benjamin *literally* just say that little children could not sin?

King Benjamin, a righteous Nephite King, is giving a big sermon to his people. It was written down and shared with the people who were not within the sound of his voice.

He explains that prophets have always been sent to prophesy of Jesus Christ's coming. King Benjamin testified that Jesus Christ's atonement is the way to receive remission of sins, and that people (like him and his people) who live before Christ's coming should rejoice and consider their state as though Jesus had already come. He explained that the Israelites were stubborn and prideful, and that was the reason why they were given the strict Mosaic law, yet through it all there were many signs, wonders, types, and shadows given by prophets to the Israelites about the coming of Jesus Christ. King Benjamin testified that the law of Moses doesn't matter at all without the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Then he explains an essential doctrine: If it were possible for little children to sin, they would not be able to be saved [under the Mosaic law]. However, the blood of Christ atones for their sins.

Dallin H. Oaks said in 2006 in a talk called All Men Everywhere:

We also read that “his blood atoneth for the sins of those … who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned” Similarly, “the blood of Christ atoneth for [little children.]” These teachings that the resurrecting and cleansing power of the Atonement is for all contradict the assertion that the grace of God saves only a chosen few. His grace is for all. These teachings of the Book of Mormon expand our vision and enlarge our understanding of the all-encompassing love of God and the universal effect of His Atonement for all men everywhere.

President Russel M. Nelson quoted this same verse in a 1987 talk called Life after Life. By the way, it's really moving for me personally to listen and watch him speak, some 31 years earlier. He is an articulate, intelligent, scholarly man of faith. His intelligence is something that I both admire and trust. In his talk, he affirms that life after life exists. This is a wonderful message for me to hear.

I thank God for his Son, Jesus Christ, for his mission in mortality, and for his ministry as the resurrected Lord. He brought about his own resurrection. Testimonies of thousands, from ancient and modern times, attest to the truth that the resurrected Jesus is the Savior of mankind. He brought about a universal resurrection: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”.

Whether children do or do not sin is not really ours to judge. It probably is something similar to "when does a person become a person?" I don't think we know the answer to that question definitively. That is why we should err on the side of extreme caution. We have been promised by a loving God that children under the age of eight are not responsible for their sins, that these are covered by Jesus Christ's blood that he shed during the atonement.

As a mother, I can tell you that there's a really wide spectrum of behavior of which children under the age of eight are capable. Not all of it is pleasant. I know without any doubt that infants like my son Joey are not capable of sin. Holding this precious child, I feel so close to my heavenly parents. Every day, for hours, I hold this baby close to my skin. He is my darling child. I love him so much, and I feel his love for me. He is a calm, happy, content baby. He is also enormous, and growing very fast!

I felt this same great, deep love for all of my children as babies, but it is somehow easier for me to recognize and appreciate now. I think perhaps it's because I have a better appreciation for how quickly this time is.

I would never have told my younger mother self to, "try to appreciate it more, you're going to miss it" - actually, today, a memory came up in my Facebook feed that I wrote on a day that was a "good" day, with kids aged 2, 4, 5, and 6. I remember that it was a good day because I only lost my temper once, because the kids were having an "apple juice spitting contest" while I was changing a blow-out diaper of the 2 year old. Spitting is not only gross, it's just asking to spread germs. Imagine the apple juice all over the kitchen floor, and the inglorious job of mopping that up, bathing all those little kids. That was a difficult time.

No, I really like where I am at in my parenting journey. I would not go back. But I do think I am somehow able to cherish the sweet moments with my baby just a little bit more, and that is a blessing from God. It is probably some kind of compensating blessing; I did not have the same kind of health problems after the births of my other four children that I am dealing with now. The migraines and panic attacks, jitters - I keep hoping they will go away or even out, but the truth is that they have been a real challenge to deal with. The only effective way of addressing these issues is either through preventative measures like eating well, exercise, and trying to get enough sleep, which don't really prevent but do somehow lessen the pain - and distraction with some very challenging, interesting, worthy mental projects like learning Czech, immersion into scripture study, and the start of my journey to pursue an advanced degree (!!!).

Answer:
If they do, they are completely covered by the Jesus Christ's atonement, meaning the child himself does not bear responsibility.

Who is Coriantumr? Omni 1:21

Who is Coriantumr? Omni 1:21

Okay, so the Book of Mormon is actually a history of multiple civilizations of people who came from the Middle East to the American continent.

The first group left around the time of the tower of Babel. For more than you ever thought possible to know about Assyria and Babylonia, see this. And actually, if you think that is too long to read, maybe...don't try going into Ancient Near East Studies. There will be wayyyyy more of that.



The Confusion of Tongues by Paul Gustave Doré

But basically, Babel was the capital of Babylon. Remember the story of Noah and the flood, that you should probably have heard before at some point unless you've been living under a rock? Well Noah had a son named Ham, and Ham has a son named Cush, and Cush had a son named Nimrod. And Nimrod was the king of Babel. See Genesis 10. Greek historian Herodetus wrote about Babylon.

The Tower of Babel is another great Bible Classic, for all you non-rock-dwellers. Basically, the story is that the people of Babel were really wicked and decided to build a tower to get to heaven. The Lord was apparently really displeased with them for trying to do this, because the consequence of trying to build this tower was that instead, they were scattered and "their language was confounded."

Of course, that totally interests me, as a language lover. Soooo many questions about this.

But that's not the point.

The point is, there was this family there who was righteous. They begged the Lord to spare them from having their language confounded. One of the members of the family was named Jared. The Lord led Jared, his family, and his friends and their families to the American continent. Read about it here.

Jared's descendants sometimes keep the commandments and sometimes they do not. Eventually, they are really wicked, and eventually Coriantumr is born and becomes both the military leader and king of the Jaredites (see Ether 12). He is really wicked, and frankly, a prideful jerk who cared more about winning a war than preserving his people. He literally saw the deaths of everybody he loved.

Then, this other civilization of Nephites in Zarahemla finds Coriantumr and he lives with them for 9 months until he dies. The Nephites were some of the descendants of Lehi, who was led from Jerusalem to the Americas by God about 600 years before Christ's birth.

Answer:
Coriantumr was the king of the Jaredites until they were all killed because of his own stupid pride.

Sometimes the names of people in the Book of Mormon are confusing. There are a lot of Cori-whos-its.

Will we someday do proxy temple work for the ancestors of the people of Zarahemla? Omni 1:18

Will we someday do proxy temple work for the ancestors of the people of Zarahemla? Omni 1:18

Answer:
This is a binary question. We either will or will not do temple work for these people. Their temple work, however, will be done somehow or another, just as it will be done for every single human soul who has ever or will ever be born.

Here's a little bit deeper stuff:

Here's an excellent, super interesting article about the House of Israel and how it relates to the restored church of Jesus Christ.

President Joseph Fielding Smith said:

“The members of the Church, most of us of the tribe of Ephraim, are of the remnant of Jacob. We know it to be the fact that the Lord called upon the descendants of Ephraim to commence his work in the earth in these last days. We know further that he has said that he set Ephraim, according to the promises of his birthright, at the head. Ephraim receives the ‘richer blessings,’ these blessings being those of presidency or direction. The keys are with Ephraim. It is Ephraim who is to be endowed with power to bless and give to the other tribes, including the Lamanites, their blessings. All the other tribes of Jacob, including the Lamanites, are to be crowned with glory in Zion by the hands of Ephraim. …

“That the remnants of Joseph, found among the descendants of Lehi, will have part in this great work is certainly consistent, and the great work of this restoration, the building of the temple and the City of Zion, or New Jerusalem, will fall to the lot of the descendants of Joseph, but it is Ephraim who will stand at the head and direct the work.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:250–51; italics in original removed.)

Joseph Smith was from the tribe of Ephraim. See 2 Nephi 3:8-15. I imagine that when he was translating the Book of Mormon, it would have made his eyes go really wide with surprise to read that. By the way, Joseph Smith was both a literal descendant of Joseph as well as a gentile.

I have other thoughts about this, but this will suffice for now.

Who was the prophet who was slain? Mosiah 7:26

Who was the prophet who was slain? Mosiah 7:26

Ammon finds the land of Lehi-Nephi which is ruled by King Limhi. Limhi tells Ammon their story. A prophet named Abinadi had testified to King Noah that Christ is the God and Father of all things, and prophesies of their imminent destruction. He calls them to repentance. King Noah is about to release Abinadi, but his wicked priests convince him to put Abinadi to death instead.

Abinadi is burned to death. See Mosiah 17:13.

Answer:
The "prophet who was slain" was Abinadi. We don't know much about where he came from or who he was, but he was a very righteous prophet who knew the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic law, and the writings of Isaiah. He was sent from God to warn the Nephites to repent. Some of his preaching is confusing to me when it comes to talking about the nature of God, the Godhead, and the trinity. His martyrdom is really sad but also inspiring. He was a righteous man of faith who paid the ultimate price for following God. Because of his words, Alma, one of the priests of Noah, was converted. Alma ended up organizing a church and hundreds, maybe even thousands, followed him and were baptized.

Abinadi almost certainly never knew of Alma's conversion. Like Abinadi, we may never know the power and influence we have over others to convince them to come to Christ. Our efforts may go completely unrecognized during our lifetime, yet they are still worthwhile and have potential to affect many. When we are baptized members of the Church of Jesus Christ, we covenant to take upon him his name. We should always, in all circumstances - in all we do, say, and are, strive to bear his name honorably.

What would the response have been to Sherem if he had said he did not believe the scriptures? Jacob 7:10

What would the response have been to Sherem if he had said he did not believe the scriptures? Jacob 7:10

Jacob doesn't write much about the Nephite civilization after they reach the American continent - but he does include one story from those early days about an anti-Christ named Sherem.

Sherem was an extremely intelligent man. He spoke really well. He wanted to shake Jacob's faith, and went to great efforts to do so. But Jacob had the power of the Holy Ghost with him and was able to "confound him in all his words" (Jacob 7:8).

The way he starts is be cutting to the chase: "Do you believe in the Christ who will come?"

Sherem says, "There is no Christ - never has been, never will be."

Jacob says, "Do you believe the scriptures?"

Sherem says, "Sure do."

I don't think most modern anti-Christs these days go around saying, "I sure do believe the scriptures are true." I was, therefore, wondering what the response would be if he had said, "Nope."

My husband had a great answer. Jacob, the brother of Nephi, most likely would have responded like Nephi did to his brothers back in 1 Nephi 15:8-9.

"Have you asked God?"

I imagine the conversation with a modern anti-Christ would go something like this, "Um, no. God won't answer me." By the way, that's exactly how Laman and Lemuel answered Nephi.

Nephi's response is to preach to them both his own testimony and the testimony of prophets whose words he knew and understood, namely Isaiah. Remember, Isaiah is about as contemporary to Nephi as Joseph Smith is to us today in 2018. He spoke many words to his brothers. He must have been extremely patient.

I guess that is one of the acceptable ways to respond to an anti-Christ today: bear testimony. Be patient. Engage on their terms - I mean, answer their questions. Try to compel them to be humble. Be an example in your belief. Invite them to pray. Invite them to come to Christ.

Can we figure out how old Enos was when he died? Enos 1:25

Can we figure out how old Enos was when he died? Enos 1:25

Lehi is the father of Jacob, who was born between 591-589 BC (see 1 Nephi 18).
           Jacob is the father of Enos.
                    Enos dies about 420 BC, or 179 years after Lehi left Jerusalem (see Enos 1).

So, how long are these generations?

According to 2 Nephi 4, Lehi dies around 588-570 BC.

Lehi's original departure into the wilderness starts in 600 BC. See 1 Nephi 1.


600 - Lehi leaves Jerusalem. He already has a pretty big family.

590 - around this time, Jacob (father of Enos) is born.

580

570

560

550

540

530

520 - Earliest easily plausible time for Enos to have been born; his father Jacob would have been about 70 years old. If he was born in this year, he would have been 100 years old when he died.

510

500 - Latest easily plausible time for Enos to have been born. If he was born in this year, Jacob would have been 90 years old when he fathered Enos, which seems very unlikely.

490

480

470

460

450

440

430

420 - Enos dies

Answer:
Basically, assuming normal human evolution and accurate record keeping (cough cough Methuselah and Adam and those other early Old Testament dudes who lived 600+ years (!?) come to mind) this means Enos had to have been at least 80 years old when he died, and that he was born to a man who was between the ages of 70-90.

This is interesting to me for a few reasons.

If you read Jacob 2, you can see that Jacob was keenly aware of and interested in God's plans having to do with plural marriage.

I'm obviously really, really interested in understanding plural marriage. I am a descendant of Latter-day Saint Pioneers. If plural marriage hadn't existed, I wouldn't be here. Neither would my husband.

Also, I hadn't really thought that much about Nephi and Jacob as being the pioneer settlers, the generation that would have most likely been interested in building a civilization, and thus in having as many children as possible. The experience of these first Nephites, about whom we know almost nothing, was probably similar to those of the early Latter-day Saint pioneers. Perhaps plural marriage was instituted temporarily "to raise up seed" (see Jacob 2:30) and then later people started to abuse it horribly, like they usually do with anything related to sexuality. Sigh.

The more I think about it, the more plausible that sounds. Almost without a doubt Enos's mother, Jacob's wife (I am going to assume they were married) was much, much younger than Jacob - so most likely not his first wife. Perhaps she was also a plural wife. I don't know.

Apparently it was not quite important enough to include in the scriptures, like almost everything relating to talking about plural marriage. I am totally positive that my second and third + wife ancestresses would have read Jacob 2 quite carefully and thought all of these things in great depth. How could they have not?

My own feelings about plural marriage summed up as briefly as I can make them:

This is a sufficiently weird and interesting topic. I have studied it. Ultimately, it wasn't until after I was married that I actually received a sure witness that this principle can sometimes be from God.

I'm grateful for my ancestors, both male and female, who practiced plural marriage. It was hard. Their sacrifices should not be forgotten. But most of the biggest ones are not stories that can be told, since sexuality is private.

Stories and first hand experiences of this brief time in church history ca 1840 (but really more 1855+)-1890 (but really it started to die more ~1875) are worth researching, and infinitely more worthwhile than reading literally anything else written about plural marriage after the fact. They are the only sources that satisfy me at all.

Not all plural wives had sex with their husband. Actually...

...actually I know a whole lot about this topic, as it is one of the most important (to me) topics to research, ever. But, sigh, there isn't space for it here.

I've had a lot of conversations about this with my parents and Danny's parents.

EVERYONE agrees: we are so grateful that we do not practice this principle right now.

It would be the most heart breakingly wretched commandment to practice, even worse than leaving behind my country to establish Zion in a mosquito-infested swamp and then later have to get my toes amputated from frostbite on a treck to a barren desert wasteland - real experiences of my real ancestors.

In high school, that was the only thing anybody knew about "Mormons." I was often asked, "So how many moms do you have?" That is beyond irritating. Even worse are the break-off cults who sometimes have corrupted versions of the name of my church who actually do practice plural marriage, and then make reality TV shows about it. I don't watch that crap.

Final note: being a mother of small children is hard. If it weren't for the ick factor, I would actually totally love to have a sister wife around to be a companion to me. One of four of my ancestors' plural marriage relationships was successful (the other three ended in divorce - Danny has something like 16 or so in his family, with far higher "success" rates), and the wives were dear friends to each other. I am descended from Christina Pehrrson, who was almost 15 years younger than Gunnell Marie Hansen. They were Swedish immigrants.

I love this family. I have researched them. Their pictures are on my wall. They were good people. I should probably stop this post now so I don't ramble on and on.