Why Did Alma The Younger Seek To Destroy The Church?

This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.

Ancient Child Hostages Who Wrote Mosiah?Alma’s Point Of View Alma’s vs. Amulon’s Leadership Change Of Heart Arminius Christ Is Savior

One burning question I’ve had over the years has been why Alma the Younger rebelled against his father and sought to destroy the church of God. He was “wicked and an idolatrous,” but what specifically motivated him to fight against the church? It never says and we can only guess.

The simplest theory is that he hated the church because of his wicked character. Today, isn’t this reason enough for plenty of apostates to fight against the church? It’s one thing to leave the church, and it is another the travel around trying to destroy it. Why do some Ex-Mormons do this? Nothing terrible really happened in their lives–many of them–they are just rotten people. But it’s not every day that an angel violently slams apostates to the ground or that they devote the rest of their lives to missionary work. The nature of Alma’s apostasy allowed for a complete shift toward faith, and this would suggest that some life event of circumstance had made him resentful. The angel’s visit answered his concern and convinced him to see things differently.

Another theory is that Alma the Younger resented his father being away so much establishing the church. It must have taken a lot of time for his father to “establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla” and “ordain priests and teachers over every church.” This is a difficultly children of Bishops and Stake Presidents tell me they have felt. They feel neglected and look for some other source to teach them as a father ought to teach them, but these other sources poison them. This theory is possible, but to me it doesn’t really fit what I read in the text. Alma the Younger became well acquainted with the sons of Mosiah in a short amount of time, and considering how closely Alma Sr. worked with Mosiah to reform the government and establish churches, it sounds like Alma the Younger was with him most of the time. The sons of Mosiah carried Alma immediately to his father when they found him comatose, and this would seem unlikely if they were greatly estranged. Also, they were immigrants in a strange land with their own culture, and immigrants tend to be close to their families even if the father is away much of the time.

Consider that Alma the Younger was likely born and raised in the land of Helam under bondage to the Lamanites. The difficulty of this early experience and the life change of entering Zarahemla probably had something to do with it. Consider the timeline:

145-121 BC Lamanites conquer the people of Alma.
120 BC Alma’s people depart to Zarahemla.
100-92 BC Alma the Younger struck dumb by an angel.
73 BC Alma’s children go on missions. Alma presumably translated like Moses.

There was at least 20 years between Alma’s departure from Helam until Alma the Younger’s experience with the angel. The puts him in his twenties if he had left Helam as a young child. Fitting timing, as the text describes him as a “man” at this point. We don’t know when Alma had children, but if the youngest of his children started his mission at age 20, they would have been born around 95 BC, and Alma would have been 27 years old–a fitting age. I like to think they were adults when Alma was translated from off the earth in 73 BC.

The book of Mosiah mentions that the generation Alma fell in with in opposing the church were little children at the time of King Benjamin’s address and didn’t comprehend his spiritual messages, which happened in 124 BC. That’s four years before the departure of Alma’s people from Helam, so if Alma the younger was ten when they left Helam, that would make him six when King Benjamin gave his address–indeed, too young to comprehend it.

As I pondered what may have happened in Helam to affect Alma the Younger so deeply, I struck upon a crazy theory. There is nothing that explicitly says what happened–and this is admittedly far-fetched–but what if he was a child hostage?

Ancient Practice Of Child Hostages

The ancient practice of taking children of tribal leaders hostage to ensure that tribe’s subservience to a conquering nation was observed throughout the ancient world, including in ancient America. Hostages were often “children of vanquished rulers that were used as pawns” in political arrangements. Thutmose III of Egypt, the pharaoh from whom Moses and the Hebrews fled, conquered Syria and then “took their children as hostages back to Egypt to guarantee their good behavior.” The children received indoctrination in a school known as a “kap” in hopes that they would inspire the whole native tribe to swear fealty to Egypt. Jehoiachin was held political hostage to Babylon. Romans often accepted children hostages as payment for their “mercy” of keeping foreign tribes under their empire instead of wiping the tribe out, and considered it part of yearly tribute. Roman writer Lactantius recorded how the Sassanians requested Roman emperor Valerian to negotiate terms of peace in person, and when he arrived they took him hostage and brutally killed him. Sometimes it didn’t end well. In 219 B.C., the Achaean league of nations settled upon an alliance with the Greek city of Messene with the willful taking of “children of the Messenian ambassadors to the League be hostages in Sparta” as an arrangement between “creditors and debtors” to “quell the internal dissension” against the Achaeans. Recently, scientists have discovered that child hostages were “incorporated into the family” of of leaders in conquering nations, “and raised as warriors.” The leaders raised the foreign children “as their own.”

Record of any activity in ancient America is naturally scarce. There is the classic example of Pocahontas who mediated as hostage between Native Americans and European settlers. Among the tribes, hostages were not generally returned to their original families, however. Aztecs took hostages for human sacrifice, while other Native tribes used them to make smaller tribes subservient, exactly as the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Greeks did: “Once conquest occurred, then came pacification. The Inca military came up with an ingenious method wherein recently conquered peoples were uprooted and relocated closer to the centers of power at Cuzco, and more loyal subjects took possession of the lands of the conquered ‘Non-Incas.’ Moreover, the ruling class in the conquered region remained in power, but their children were brought to Cuzco to be educated. These children also served as hostages to thwart, it was hoped, possible uprisings.” (Kim Richardson in ‘Conflict in the Early Americas: An Encyclopedia of the Spanish Empire’s…’ edited by Rebecca M. Seama)

Such may have been the case with Alma’s people, after they fled from Noah and were enslaved by the Lamanites. Indeed, this perfectly describes the situation of Alma’s people. They had been tricked into settling the land of Nephi which was close to the Lamanite center of power, which made them easily controllable. The Lamanites appointed loyal subjects to possess the land, and they allowed Alma to remain leader of the people. But did they also take his child to be educated, indoctrinated, as a Lamanite in order to thwart any chance of uprising? Alma the Younger does not talk about any of his experiences before his miraculous conversion story, but careful textual analysis suggests he may have been involved with the Lamanites through the Amulonites.

Who Wrote The Book Of Mosiah?

The Book of Mosiah in the Book of Mormon is curious because it follows several different story-lines and does not provide an obvious author. Scholars have tackled the question of authorship by considering why it was written. The consistency of message, messages which have little to do with Moroni’s stated purpose for the Book of Mormon, suggests that it isn’t something Moroni scrapped together. An excellent paper by Gary L. Sturgess in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies provides some answers. He notices that the text centers around three sacred ceremonies:

King Benjamin’s New Year rite address
Mosiah reading the accounts of Zeniff and Alma upon their assimilation
Mosiah’s reading of the plates of Ether

Each assembly elicited a ceremonial response in the people, where at one point that shouted a lengthy paragraph in perfect unison, as if they previously had some idea of how to properly respond. They entered into covenants with God and took upon themselves the name of the Lord. This worked to unify the people as one culture despite originating from separate tribes, and kicked off a religious reformation. Gary L. Sturgess concludes that two major themes tell us the purpose of the book: the question of kingship and deliverance through the hand of the Messiah. Revelation of the redemptive and authoritative nature of Jesus Christ is used to explain to the people why they are to no longer have a king. Their new structure of government came with a higher purpose as a nation, which included an obligation to the Lamanites to unite this entire branch of Israel under Christ.

“Nothing in the book of Mosiah would suggest that it was intended for Mormon’s latter-day readers,” Sturgess points out. “The most likely occasion for the writing of such a book was in the aftermath of Mosiah’s death when Alma the Younger needed to undermine the Amlicite bid to reestablish the monarchy.” Alma the Younger would have put the book together to unify the Nephites–with some later editing by Moroni. “As for compiling the book. the candidate most likely to be involved seems to be Alma the Younger.”

To me, the flow and consistent style of the book of Mosiah, and how it effortlessly transitions into the book of Alma, suggests same authors, and Alma is clearly authored by Alma the Younger. Look for little clues as you read along. For example, does the book of Mosiah’s description of the waters of Mormon sound like someone who was there recording everything as it happened or a second-hand author describing what he heard from people who experienced it? “And now it came to pass that all this was done in Mormon, yea, by the waters of Mormon, in the forest that was near the waters of Mormon; yea, the place of Mormon, the waters of Mormon, the forest of Mormon, how beautiful are they to the eyes of them who there came to the knowledge of their Redeemer; yea, and how blessed are they, for they shall sing to his praise forever.” (Mosiah 18:30)

It speaks of the people in third person “they,” and yet lyrically describes the place and event with a tone of passion. To me it sounds like how Alma the Younger felt about the waters of Mormon based on the descriptions of his father and brethren. Likewise, we can look for clues in the text to see Alma the Younger’s perspective toward his father, Amulon, and the Lamanites to answer the question of why he rebelled against his father and sought to destroy the church of God.

Young Alma’s Point Of View

When the Lamanites invaded the land of Helam, Alma personally “went forth” and confronted the army, indicating himself as leader. Under his leadership, they immediately “delivered themselves up into their hands,” and the Lamanites assumed control of the land. They made Amulon, the wicked priest of Noah who had a personal vendetta against Alma, governor over them. Now, this is a perfect example of when child hostages would be taken. The people were going to do whatever Alma said–Amulon knew that–and what better way to influence Alma than holding his son hostage? His son could be indoctrinated to Amulon’s favor, further increasing Amulon’s control, and the arrangement would satisfy whatever personal bitterness he felt toward Alma.

More Description Of Amulon Than Alma – The text’s description of the people’s “bondage” sounds like the experience of a child hostage. We can’t be sure that this indicates young Alma’s point of view, as it could be the result of Moroni or some other later author editing the text. But it is curious that there is more description of Amulon than of Alma. Amulon and his lackeys are foremost described as “teachers over his people, yea, even over the people who were in the land of Shemlon, and in the land of Shilom, and in the land of Amulon.” Educators? Is that how a slave would describe his oppressor? It seems like the foremost description would be of his tyrannical rule. And how did Alma know which lands Amulon had influence over? As a child hostage in training, young Alma would be close alongside Amulon and observe his activities–perhaps even as his apprentice–and this would prepare young Alma for his future role as teacher and administrator in Zarahemla. Indeed, Alma the Younger’s role as chief judge sounds similar to Amulon’s role as “teacher,” except that it was non-religious education. Amulon and his followers taught “the language of Nephi among all the people of the Lamanites,” we read. “And they were a people friendly one with another; nevertheless they knew not God; neither did the brethren of Amulon teach them anything concerning the Lord their God, neither the law of Moses; nor did they teach them the words of Abinadi; But they taught them that they should keep their record, and that they might write one to another. And thus the Lamanites began to increase in riches, and began to trade one with another and wax great, and began to be a cunning and a wise people, as to the wisdom of the world, yea, a very cunning people, delighting in all manner of wickedness and plunder, except it were among their own brethren.” (Mosiah 24:5-7)

How would Alma the Younger know this unless he was there to observe the teaching in these other lands? Amulon taught written communication and revolutionized trade among the Lamanites, and a culture of corporate plunder. It kind of sounds like the business climate in America today, actually. Young Alma would have had a front row seat to the education and that would have made him a prime candidate for chief judge later in life.

Third Person Grammar With Alma’s People – The text consistently speaks in third-person when referring to Alma’s people up until the point they flee to Zarahemla. Also, the entire narrative of Amulon’s rule over Alma’s people is told from Amulon’s point of view. This would make sense if Alma the Younger who wrote this narrative was hostage and living with Amulon at this time. The text says: “Amulon began to exercise authority over Alma and his brethren and began to persecute him.” If he were alive and living with his father Alma, we would expect him to say it differently: “Alma began to be persecuted and subservient to Amulon.” We would expect it to be told from the point of view of Alma’s side. Also, notice the subtle switch from plural to singular subject–from “Alma and his brethren” to “him.” Authority was exercised over “them”, but persecution was applied specifically to Alma Sr. Alma the Younger would be especially sensitive to pain inflicted on his biological father over anyone else, and clearly something was done to Alma Sr. that was not inflicted on the rest of the people at Helam. The taking of his son as hostage and indoctrination would certainly qualify as persecution.

This is further hinted in the next part of this sentence: “and cause that his children should persecute their children.” Why does the text add this bit about the children? It is clearly written from the perspective of a child in Helam, and yet someone on the side of Amulon not Alma. Otherwise it would read “and Alma’s children were persecuted by Amulon’s children.” Perhaps young Alma was treated like an adopted son to Amulon, and perhaps to add insult to injury Amulon taught him to persecute his own kindred.

The narrative goes on to expound on Amulon’s thought process and reasoning: “For Amulon knew Alma, that he had been one of the king’s priests, and that it was he that believed the words of Abinadi and was driven out before the king, and therefore he was wroth with him; for he was subject to king Laman, yet he exercised authority over them, and put tasks upon them, and put task-masters over them.” (Mosiah 24:9)

This is the point where all of Alma’s people became literal slaves rather than a tributary state; but how did Alma the Younger know the specific reason for this happening unless he were close to Amulon and witness to the process behind it? So we know Amulon’s reasoning. Yet we are not actually told why Alma’s people “began to cry mightily to God”–we just assume it’s because of the tasks–or even what they said in these prayers. Just a very brief observation that they prayed. But then Amulon’s actions in response are described in detail: “And Amulon commanded them that they should stop their cries; and he put guards over them to watch them, that whosoever should be found calling upon God should be put to death.” (Mosiah 24:11)

Next, the Lord’s revelation to Alma in response to the prayers is written as a word-for-word prophetic message directly from the Lord. We know that Alma Sr. kept a record because it was later read to the people in Zarahemla; this must have been from that record. “I know of the covenant which ye have made unto me…” Etc.

The period of time is likely when Alma the Younger reunited with his father Alma. The point of view switches from Amulon back to Alma Sr. and his people. Later, when recounting the deliverance of Alma’s people from Amulon in his sermon to the people, Alma the Younger used the same third-person grammar when referring to them, but it switched to “us” as soon as they were about to flee to Zarahemla: “And behold, I say unto you, they were delivered out of the hands of the people of king Noah, by the mercy and power of God. And behold, after that, they were brought into bondage by the hands of the Lamanites in the wilderness; yea, I say unto you, they were in captivity, and again the Lord did deliver them out of bondage by the power of his word; and we were brought into this land, and here we began to establish the church of God throughout this land also.” (Mosiah 24:11)

Only when he gets to the point where they travel to Zarahemla does “they” become “we.” In the account of this journey in the Book of Mosiah, the text notes that as they left “all their children that could speak lifted their voices in the praises of their God.” Why include this detail? Again, it is written from a child’s point of view. They praised “their” God–not Amulon’s or the Lamanites’ God. It suggests that Alma was old enough to talk, pray, and worship. This means he was at least a few years old by the time they fled from Amulon, yet he did not consider himself part of that group until after they fled. How did Alma get his son back? Was it from a large payment or by physically taking him? Either way, young Alma’s situation as hostage was apparently the reason why they didn’t depart in the first place. So the hostage tactic succeeded. The Lord’s second revelation to Alma Sr. praised them for their “patience” since the first revelation, apparently because they couldn’t flee out of bondage until Alma’s son was returned. The moment he returned, they departed.

Alma Sr.’s Leadership Vs. Amulon’s Leadership

Now consider how this led to Alma the Younger rebelling against his father and the church. Being taught by Amulon to persecute Alma’s people–especially in matters of faith and worship–would not easily be overcome through counseling. Keep in mind that Amulon was leader of Noah’s priests and very effective at leadership. He was able to convince the Lamanite king not just to forgive him for abducting Lamanite women and forcing them into marriage, but he also convinced them to make him ruler over an entire region of his kingdom. He convinced him to revise their entire economy and educate everyone in the kingdom whatever he wanted. Amulon would certainly have no problem indoctrinating young Alma into hating and persecuting Christians. Alma Sr. could undo a lot of indoctrination but that apparently stuck.

After all, didn’t Alma Sr. go down without a fight when the Lamanites invaded Helam? He immediately surrendered to his enemies and even given up his own son to be their hostage. That could have easily led to resentment in Alma the Younger and lack of confidence for his father. Consider what the text says about this initial invasion–written after Alma the Younger got over the resentment. It sounds like an important lesson he eventually learned, his life lesson: “Nevertheless the Lord seeth fit to chasten his people; yea, he trieth their patience and their faith. Nevertheless—whosoever putteth his trust in him the same shall be lifted up at the last day. Yea, and thus it was with this people. For behold, I will show unto you that they were brought into bondage, and none could deliver them but the Lord their God, yea, even the God of Abraham and Isaac and of Jacob. And it came to pass that he did deliver them, and he did show forth his mighty power unto them, and great were their rejoicings.” (Mosiah 23:21-24)

In this same chapter, the description of Alma Sr.’s position of leadership is in marked contrast with Amulon’s. While Amulon made himself king and named his people Amulonites, Alma refused to be king. Amulon gloried in his power while Alma gloried only in being a humble instrument of the Lord. Amulon enslaved while Alma freed. Amulon was a teacher and minister who was not of God, and Alma allowed only men of God to be teachers. Alma appointed “just” men through consecration to leadership, while Amulon appointed wicked men who loved to plunder. Alma recognized that power corrupts and said the reason Noah’s priests were wicked people was because they had been corrupted by power (“remember the iniquity of king Noah and his priests; and I myself was caught in a snare, and did many things which were abominable”). Amulon on the other hand sought only for power and represented the empty lust for power, like a lost wraith. Alma Sr. had personally known Amulon and worked with him, but it sounds like Alma the Younger felt this kind of empathy as well.

When Alma joined his father and entered Zarahemla, how was this change for him? Very jarring, no doubt.The text notes “And it came to pass that those who awere the children of Amulon and his brethren, who had taken to wife the bdaughters of the Lamanites, were displeased with the conduct of their fathers, and they would no longer be called by the names of their fathers, therefore they took upon themselves the name of Nephi, that they might be called the children of Nephi and be numbered among those who were called Nephites.” (Mosiah 25:12)

Well, it seems obvious that they would do this. Why else would they go along with Limhi and join the people of Zarahemla? Yet Alma writes a lengthy paragraph about it. It would quite memorable for Alma the Younger to meet the priests’ biological children if he himself had been considered an adopted child, and their attitude about switching names would have greatly helped him in his transition to identifying as a Nephite and as Alma’s son. Al ma the Younger would have realized with great shock what Amulon had done enslaving and persecuting them and what he had made young Alma do to his own kindred. Alma Sr.’s counsel to his people would have struck Alma the Younger more than anyone: “And now I say unto you, ye have been oppressed by king Noah, and have been in bondage to him and his priests, and have been brought into iniquity by them; therefore ye were bound with the bands of iniquity. And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you.” (Mosiah 23:12-13)

Maybe this was something Alma told his son personally to comfort him.

But then, more massive change came as Mosiah had Alma organize the entire kingdom into local churches with local priests and teachers. Interestingly, this mirrors what Amulon had done with the Lamanites and seems to deliver a similar cultural boom. The Lamanite king had Amulon appoint local teachers thoughout the kingdom to educate them on language, culture, and trade, and the purpose seemed to be primarily an economic one. Alma Sr. no doubt observed this and applied it to a religious structure of education, resulting in a religious revival. Alma the Younger apparently did not like the direction his father took it. As a close apprentice under Amulon he would have been in the perfect place to criticize every move. Indeed, Alma St. was not nearly as effective as Amulon, as many people immediately apostatized. He knew how to lead a small civilization but not educate a large kingdom. This may have been Alma the Younger’s criticism anyone, and it may or may not have been valid.

The influx of many immigrants into the Mulekite land no doubt had a lot to do with the turmoil as well. As far as the natives of Zarahemla were concerned, a bunch of foreigners showed up one day and decided everyone needed to worship at local church buildings. Well, it wasn’t that severe, considering they had only broken off a few generations back and worshiped the same God. But was their religious ideas really the same? A lot changed since Zeniff. Abinadi emphasized the Messiah and His atonement over following the law of Moses, and Alma further emphasized baptism, priesthood, and communal living. How did the Mulekites feel about this? Especially considering the descended from king Zedekiah in Israel, himself a Dueteronomist? This is an interesting and important question I would like to see further explored. A lot of things didn’t seem to be issues until this point in Nephite history. Suddenly, Alma shows up and changes everything. Mosiah even relinquished his throne in favor of a new representative form of government.

Alma The Younger’s Change Of Heart

In recounting the events in Helam, Alma said that in delivering Alma and his followers who were in “bondage by the hands of the Lamanites in the wilderness,” God “changed their hearts, yeah he awakened them out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God.” Does this really describe Alma’s people? Not when they fled away from Amulon. They were already righteous followers of Christ at that point. The moment of their conversion was when Alma had preached to them and had baptized them in the waters of Mormon. But here, at the moment they fled from Lamanite bondage, who was it that experienced a change of heart? Alma the Younger. It is interesting that the text of Mosiah describes Amulon and his henchmen as experiencing a “deep sleep” when Alma’s people led. “And in the morning the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites, yea, and all their task-masters were in a profound sleep. And Alma and his people departed into the wilderness; and when they had traveled all day they pitched their tents in a valley, and they called the valley Alma.” (Mosiah 24:19-20)

Awake From Deep Sleep – Alma the Younger experienced this “deep sleep” as well because he identified with Amulon, and then he was taken away and re-united with his father and away from Amulon’s influence. He “awoke unto God,” and even his name as “Alma” the younger reflects this just as the name of the valley they were in became named “Alma.” And then, we read, their children “lifted their voices unto God,” which included young Alma. Alma’s re-uniting with his father was like re-uniting with his Father in Heaven.

This moment of deliverance was a major theme in Alma’s preaching. He repeatedly implored the people to remember the Lord’s role in delivering them from Amulon and the Lamanites. When recounting what the angel had said to him when he struck him dumb, Alma the Younger said: “I would that ye should do as I have done, in remembering the captivity of our fathers; for they were in bondage, and none could deliver them except it was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and he surely did deliver them in their afflictions.” (Alma 36:2)

Was this one of the issues that caused him to rebel and which the angel cleared up for him? Perhaps Alma hadn’t considered the Lamanites’ deep sleep that had let them escape a result of the Lord’s intervention? Maybe he just thought they were sleepy and Alma’s people were lucky to get away. But the angel changed Alma the Younger’s mind.

Born Again – Along with deliverance is the repeated them of being born of God. Alma the Younger in his preaching says when Alma’s people had been delivered from Noah they were spiritually “born of God.” It recalls what Alma the Younger told everybody immediately after waking up from his comatose state: ” “And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters; And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. I say unto you, unless this be the case, they must be cast off; and this I know, because I was like to be cast off. Nevertheless, after wading through much tribulation, repenting nigh unto death, the Lord in mercy hath seen fit to snatch me out of an everlasting burning, and I am born of God. My soul hath been redeemed from the gall of bitterness and bonds of iniquity. I was in the darkest abyss; but now I behold the marvelous light of God. My soul was cracked with eternal torment; but I am snatched, and my soul is pained no more.” (Mosiah 27:25-29)

He would have been cast off but instead he was snatched and became a son of God… Like how he was snatched by his father Alma from Amulon? From his perspective he was born again and gained his true father Alma. The angelic visitation was a spiritual recurrence of that physical change. In the midst of being racked with torment, Alma said he longed to “also be born of God” (v. 24) as Lehi his forefather had been. If he had been cast off, he would have been a “child of the devil” and it would have resulted in “death” (v. 41-42). Much like Amulon’s children were soon killed by the Lamanites. That’s what would have happened to Alma if his father hadn’t snatched him away. His father saved him from spiritual and physical death.

‘Mosia’ As Moses – This theme of deliverance from a hero father figure is, in fact, implicit in the book’s name “Mosiah.” In ancient Hebrew, ‘Mosia’ is the word for deliverer. ‘Mosia’ was a Adelivering figure for the entire righteous community of God.

Alma the Younger repeatedly compared his experience to Moses and the children of Israel passing through the Red Sea (see Alma 29:12-13, 36:28, 33:19). Well, Moses was in a way a child hostage as well, wasn’t he? Separated from his parents at birth, he was taken by the Egyptian king’s family, educated, and raised like one of the Egyptians. As Alma had been. Exodus does not say that Moses was physically taken away from his family by Pharaoh, but Pharaoh cause the circumstances that made Moses’ mother give him up. Was Moses indoctrinated in an Egyptian kan–school for child hostages? It’s hard to believe that the Moses was ignorant of his true Hebrew origins like the movies portray. This would explain why Pharaoh didn’t kill Moses immediately upon discovering that he was Hebrew. He wanted to use Moses to make the Hebrews subservient to Egypt and unite the Hebrews under Egypt. Unfortunately for him, it backfired spectacularly.

For a long time Moses took part in persecuting his true kindred, the people of God, as Alma did. But God delivered him and the people to a new land, with Moses as ‘Mosia’ (and Jehovah as the true ‘Mosia’). We are told Alma presumably transfigured like Moses when he got old and time to die. Alma and the sons of Mosiah became ‘Mosia’, sons of God–the means of saving many Nephite and Lamanite souls.

Why did he omit talk of being a child hostage? Isn’t this an important detail to include in the story of one’s life? The book of Mosiah itself was probably written to secure Alma’s authority as chief judge, as we’ve seen. It’s the same reason Moses did not talk about anything he did in those 80 years as an Egyptian prince. It would have undermined his place as leader. Alma was trying to implement an educational system similar to what Amulon had done, and everybody was probably already suspicious if he had been Amulon’s child hostage. How could they be sure he wasn’t still a Lamanite at heart? A Manchurian candidate? Better just to leave that minor detail out.

A Father’s Persistence – The feeling I get–and this is all just a far-fetched theory, after all–is that Alma the Younger saw his father setting up synagogues of learning and appointing priesthood leaders as teachers throughout the kingdom, and it reminded him of what Amulon had done, and he freaked out about it. Maybe he thought his father was becoming a corrupt apostate like his former colleague Amulon had become. He may have already lacked confidence in his father for mildly giving up to the Lamanite army. Maybe he thought he could do a better job. But what changed his mind and gave him complete confidence in his father, confidence in himself, and in God, was that his father never gave up on him. His father snatched him from the confines of Amulon, and everyone endured a long period of slavery and pain for the chance for him to do it. His father and the entire kingdom prayed and fasted near to death for him. This remarkable display of love from his father and the entire community led Alma the Younger to remember his father’s words about Christ the Savior (v. 36), and to understand that Christ never gave up on him either.

When Alma the Younger when on to preach to Ammonihah, they responded “Who art thou?” Interesting question. Obviously, they knew who he was because he had been chief judge of the kingdom and wiped out their apostate leader Nehor. But maybe they were questioning his origins and loyalties. Alma rebuked their associating him with Lamanites by appealing to their forefathers. “Behold, O ye wicked and perverse ageneration, how have ye forgotten the btradition of your fathers; yea, how soon ye have forgotten the commandments of God.” (Alma 9:9)

Alma the Younger made it clear that the Lamanites were “cut off from the presence of the Lord” (v. 14) in God and he was not associated with them. He was the son of Alma, not the Lamanites. He was careful to start his sermons by declaring himself “consecrated by my father, Alma” which gave him “authority.” (Alma 5:3) But he pushed back on them by delcaring that Amoonihah’s judgement would be worse than for the Lamanites (v. 15), because they were willfully rebelling against the light while the Lamanites were born into their situation. Probably another reason Alma would have been reticent about his childhood hostage experience was that he didn’t want to live as a victim or be defined by it. He took ownership of his rebellion and didn’t want to blame anyone else. Perhaps hell would have been more tolerable for him than for the followers of Nehor, considering, but the way to pull out of that situation is to take responsibility for yourself. He knew who he was.

This child hostage theory helps explain what Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah were doing to destroy the church of God and why it required them to travel. The sons of Mosiah were understandably uneasy about such a radical change to the kingdom–a guy shows up from Helam one day and decides he’s going to teach everybody his religious ideas–and when Alma’s own son who had been raised among the Lamanites cautioned that Alma was repeating the behavior of Amulon, his corrupt former colleague, this certainly would have confirmed their worst fears. When Alma the Younger described the degenerate and fierce nature of the Lamanites, it would have made them more fearful of their longtime enemies. Perhaps they went around traveling to newly established churches to alter the structure, to make it less independent of the government–which they certainly could have done as princes of the kingdom–and to make it less religious indoctrination. Perhaps they feared that such widespread religious education would make the people fanatical and superstitious, as atheist Humanists seem to think today. If Alma the Younger had a closehand view of how Amulon had set up his “teachers,” he would certainly feel qualified to do it in Zarahemla.

But they were stopped by the angle and quickly realized they were sorely mistaken. It seems like quite a dramatic shift of character for them to be rebellious one moment and then brave and faithful the next if they weren’t men of strong character beforehand. To go from perdition to a promise of eternal life is quite a shift! Maybe they were just misdirected and doing what they thought was right. They realized the liberal new structure of church and state was good and that the Lamanites were not to be feared. The Lamanites were to be ministered to, and that’s the task they took upon themselves to do.

This theory explains how they felt so confident going to a strange hostile land: Alma the Younger told them all about it and prepared them. Ammon knew the customs and royal policies. He even knew his way to the royal stables. Perhaps he had been there before in an official royal visit with Alma the Younger, or perhaps he only received detailed descriptions from Alma. This would also explain why King Lamoni was so abrupt in offering him his daughter to marriage.

It also explains why Moroni went to Alma the Younger for advice on Lamanite battle strategies (Alma 43:23). Moroni considered that the prophet Alma could “inquire of the Lord” for insight. But why didn’t anyone else do this? There were plenty of times the Nephites were in a pinch and the prophet could have been consulted. Why only Alma the Younger? It could be Moroni knew Alma had knowledge of Lamanite strategies due to his childhood hostage education.

Arminius

The most famous historical example of a child hostage is the German barbarian Arminius. And his story sounds remarkably like Alma’s, if this theory is correct. Torn from his chieftan parents at a very young age and given to the conquering Romans to be educated as a Roman soldier, Arminius identified with the Romans and fought as a Roman general. But something happened when he returned to Germany that made him switch alliances back to his barbarian clan. He became leader of the barbarians and traveled around uniting Germany as one, until he was betrayed by a German who did not accept him as leader. Alma likewise was rejected by some cities under Zarahemla control who resisted Alma’s radical ways, and they sought his life. In Arminius’s case it was a woman that supposedly changed his mind and rejoin his kindred. I have to wonder what role a woman played in Alma the Younger’s life as well.

Moses experienced the same test of leadership as Arminius and Alma. How could people be sure his true motive for rebelling against Egypt? Was it to bring freedom or to gain personal power? This was the question with Arminius and Alma. Did Alma do it to win the judgment seat a gain power? He was voted chief judge very soon afterwards, after all. Modern historians recognize how self-serving Arminiu’s switch of alliance seemed. His betrayal of Rome would “at one stroke bring Arminius enormous personal prestige, and power among the Germanic tribes so that he can rule them as their king.” This brings us back to the purpose of the book of Mosiah: to look for deliverance from a Messiah rather than a king. The book made a strong case that Alma was not seeking for power but for the people’s freedom–not just for the Nephites but for the Lamanites as well.

“Arminius may not have been a radiant moral hero, but he was a military genius, a man torn between two cultures,” historians conclude. The results seem to speak for themselves as to his motive. Germany entirely transformed under him and the innovation brought from his Roman education. Huge change for the kingdom likewise came in Alma’s time, and a great deal of it likely came from him. Did the people see that as evidence for his motives? It seemed like the Nephites and Lamanites fought a lot more from here on out (or maybe that’s just because we don’t have specific records of earlier wars). But they certainly experienced a lot more crossing over between the two cultures, with the Anti-Nephi-Lehites, Amlicites, and Samuel the Lamanite as examples. Instead of fearing the Lamanites and avoiding them at all costs, it seems like integration started to happen, and it all started with Alma Sr.’s decision to abjure to the Lamanite army and Alma the Younger’s eventual realization that this was the correct decision, despite all the personal pain it gave him in his childhood.

Christ Is The Savior

Remember the captivity of your fathers! Remember that it was faith in God, not strength of arms, that delivered them. Well, this idea was put to the test when Ammon’s converts knelt in prayer passively as the wicked Lamanites slew them in great wanton slaughter. Did God stop them from getting killed? No. In another case, Alma the Younger watched as apostate Nephties threw his recent converts in Ammonihah in a fire to painfully die because they believed in God. The most horrible thing any missionary could witness. Amulek suggested they stretch their hands forth and use priesthood power to save them. They would once again be ‘mosia.’ But Alma finally understood. The only important thing is spiritual salvation and being reborn as a creature of Christ. These martyred saints would receive paradise, so there was no need to save them from temporal death. “And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the apower of God which is in us, and save them from the flames. But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in aglory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the bjudgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the cblood of the dinnocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.” (Alma 14:10-11)

He understood that being a priesthood leader was not about being a hero. As Isaiah 43:11 says: “I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior.” The only ‘mosia’ is Christ. Along with that, the murderous Nephites were condemning themselves to the lowest hell, and that is the other side of God’s justice which we must allow for. People must be free to commit wickedness and consign themselves to eternal misery. There is both a positive and negative side to deliverence, as the Book of Mosiah earlier explained (Mosiah 2:31 vs. Mosiah 11:23-25), and both must happen. Alma considered himself a muderer (Alma 36:14) for leading people away in his rebellious stage, and if there was hope for him there surely was hope for the Ammonihahites. He did not need to be the saving hero, and he did not need to fight to extinguish evil, as Christ the true hero achieves these things. His father had been correct to stand down in the face of the Lamanites.

Today, we watch superhero movies and assume the wrong attitude toward doing righteousness. We want to feel like heros and go around picking people up. “Oh that I were an angel!” We want to stride up to the pulpit in fast and testimony meeting, give a stirring testimony that leaves not a dry seat in the house, and stop any evildoers in their tracks. But disciples of Christ must realize that they do not do the saving. They are merely instruments in the hands of the Lord, and it is God’s wisdom and God’s view that is required to save people. Our emotional reactions and moral outrages to things, carefully trained by media corporations, is often used against us–even faithful members of the church–to our undoing. Like everyone else we are terrified of death and fear that it is the end, and that’s why we avoid death at all costs, while spiritual salvation should be the only thing that matters.