And behold, I also thank my God, that by
opening this correspondence we have been convinced of our sins, and of the many
murders which we have committed. And I also thank my God, yea, my great God,
that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also
that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have
committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his
Son. And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do, (as
we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many
murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our
hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he
would take away our stain. (Alma 24:9-11)
Commenting on this text and its Mesoamerican background, Brant Gardner
noted:
The story of the
Anti-Nephi-Lehies’ not taking up arms is enigmatic. Mormon has selected the
story and specifies its “and thus we see” moral (v. 19). But Mormon’s moral is different
from what the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi identify as the purpose of the
remarkable pacifist stand.
The story is clearly
here because of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies’ resolute stand against taking up arms,
even for self-defense; but that position contradicts all other stories of Book
of Mormon conflict. These people are praised for their firm principles, but
their example is never used as a model for Nephite behavior. The only others
who adopt this model are other Lamanites of this same generation. Even their
children will not perpetuate their parents’ covenant.
An anomaly in the
story if the king’s assertion that the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi must repent or
“murders.” Murder is, by definition, an unsanctioned and intended death
inflicted on another person. An accidental death is not murder, even if we were
the particular instrument of the accident. War casualties are justified by all
societies and are not considered murder. Furthermore, the entire people apparently
accept guilt for these “murders,” even women and children. It is inconceivable that
every single man, woman, and child of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies had personally
committed a murder. Nevertheless, their self-condemnation for these “murders”
is so great that they would rather give up their lives than fight to protect
themselves. He Book of Mormon story produces more questions than answers.
However, Mesoamerican
culture suggests a situation that may help illuminate this story. If we assume,
as seems logical, that these former Lamanites had adopted the Preclassic
Maya-like religion, which would have fit the time and the place, then they
presumably also espoused the values of the Mesoamerican cult of war. Unlike
European warfare, which was typically a struggle for territory, Mesoamerican
warfare is a conflict between the gods. David Drew, a historian notes: “The aim
of [Maya] warfare, in part, was to capture prominent individuals from an enemy
state, put them to torture and finally to sacrifice them, normally by beheading”
(David Drew, The Lost Chronicles of the
Maya Kings [Berkley: University of California Press, 1999], 171).
For the Maya , blood
was the conduit for ch’ulel, or the “inner
soul or spirit” (David Freidel, Londa Schele, and Joy Parker, Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the
Shaman’s Path [New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993], 201-2).
Sacrificial bloodletting became both nourishment/worship for the gods and the
substitute sacrifice that renews creation (Roberta H. Markman and Peter T.
Markman, The Flayed God: The Mesoamerican
Mythological Tradition, Sacred Texts and Images from Pre-Colombian Mexico and
Central America [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992], 179). According
to the anthropologist Dennis Tedlock, this principle of creation through sacrifice
appears to have great antiquity in the Mesoamerican region: “Puz, all the way from its Mixe-Zoque
(and possibly Olmec) sources down to modern Quiche, refers literally to the
cutting of flesh with a knife, and it is the primary term for sacrifice. If it
is read as a synecdoche in the present passage [of the Popol Vuh], it means that the creation was accomplished (in part)
through sacrifice” (Dennis Tedlock, “Creation in the Popol Vuh: A Hermeneutical
Approach,” in Symbol and Meaning beyond
the Closed Community, edited by Gary Gossen [Albany: Institute for
Mesoamerican Studies, State of University of New York at Albany, 1986], 79). The sacrificial
blood could and did not come from the kind and his queen but was augmented by
the blood of captives taken in war Classic Maya inscriptions glorify the
personal conquests of the kings and the humiliation and sacrifice of their
captives. The Bonampak mural commonly known as “the arraignment” is a graphic
depiction of the torturous bloodletting inflicted upon captives (Linda Schele
and Mary Ellen Miller, The Blood of
Kings: Dynast and Ritual in Maya Art [New York: George Braziller, 1986],
217).
I argue that the
Anti-Nephi-Lehies had grown up with a religion that glorified warfare,
bloodshed as a religious act, torture, and human sacrifice. Men, women, and
children all espoused this worldview, whether or not they participated in the
actual warfare or death of captives (Ruben G. Mendoza, PhD., and director of
the Institute for Archaeological Science, Technology and Visualization,
California State University at Monterey Bay, notes: “The women of Yaxchilan and
Bonampak were clearly implicated in blood sacrifice as were the men; and this
pattern holds archaeologically, ethnohistorically, and ethnographically
throughout the Americas.” Email to the Aztlan mailing list, April 17, 2005,
file copy in my possession). In this context, Lamoni’s brother’s declares that
they must make a supreme effort “to get God to take . . . away” their sins,
especially “the many murders which we have committed . . . for it was all that
we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain”
(v. 11).
Imagine how far these
people had traveled in their spiritual journey. They came from a worldview that
told them that it was essential to shed blood of sacrificial victims for the
world to exist. They must now forsake that concept and believe that the only
sacrifice needed would be that of the future Atoning Messiah. Their worldview
had glorified warfare and human sacrifice. Now their worldview condemned both
practices. No wonder they considered themselves “the most lost of all mankind.”
The riddle of the Anti-Nephit-Lehies’
pacifism is answered by their background. They resolve never to touch arms
again, no because self-defense is wrong or inherently evil, but because, like
alcoholics, they must be constantly vigilant against their disease. They are
choosing to stay as far as possible from the feelings aroused by and supporting
the cult of war and sacrifice. Rather than risk a return to their former taste
for sacrificial blood, they choose to avoid even the very first step along that
path—a radical step to protect their newly gained cleanliness from the “stain”
of that former life. (Brant A. Gardner, Second
Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Volume 4: Alma
[Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 353-55)
