Book of Mormon Stories—Gadianton Wealth Redistribution Epistle

After the signs of the birth of Christ prophesied by Samuel the Lamanite were fulfilled, many of the Nephites repented of their sins, were baptized, and there was peace throughout the land.

Thirteen years later [A.D. 13] there began to be wars and contentions in the land because the Gadianton robbers had become so numerous (3 Nephi 2:11).  This group of outlaws [modern-day terrorists], named for their leader, were experts in murder, robbery and plunder “who had entered into a covenant that no one should know” [reveal] their secret combinations and works (Helaman 2:3-4). 

For the safety of both the Lamanite converts and the Nephites they were forced to unite together [and all were called Nephites] and take up arms against the Gadiantons. They did this for the safety of their lives and their families, to maintain their rights, and the privileges of their church and worship, their freedom and their liberty (3 Nephi 2:12).  War between the robbers and the people of Nephi continued with the Nephites driving the robbers back out of their lands into the mountains and their secret places (2:17).  However, in the sixteenth year from the coming of Christ [A.D. 16] the righteous leader of the Nephites, Lachoneus, the governor of the land, received an epistle from the leader of the Gadiantons (3 Nephi 3:1).

In this letter, (1) the Gadianton leader, Giddianhi, at first flattered Lachoneus by praising him “for the firmness of your people, in maintaining that which ye suppose to be your right and liberty;...as if ye were supported by the hand of god, in the defence of your liberty and your property and your country, or that which ye do call so”—[In other words, what you call yours is really ours] (3 Nephi 3:2).  Next, (2) Giddianhi calls Lachoneus foolish and vain to think that he can stand against “so many brave men” who are anxious for his word to go down and destroy the Nephites because of  “the many wrongs which ye have done unto them” (3:3-4).  Now, (3) this thief and murderer writes his desire “that ye would yield up unto this my people your cities, your lands, and your possessions,” rather than be destroyed by the sword.  And, (4) then “unite with us, become acquainted with our secret works, and become our brethren that ye may be like unto us—not our slaves, but our brethren and partners of all our substance” (3:6-7).

This is an interesting situation. Lachoneus was astonished at the boldness of Giddianhi and the threats of their “avenging the wrongs of those that had received no wrong, save it were they had wronged themselves” [by joining with the wicked band] (3:11).  It is also interesting to note that the Gadianton robbers lived in the mountains; they produced no food or goods other than meat from wild beasts or game.  Their only other source of sustenance was from robbing, plundering and killing, yet they demanded the Nephites give up everything they built, worked for and possessed so the robbers could redistribute it to all as their “brothers and partners” (3 Nephi 4:5).

The great commander of the Nephite armies was a man of revelation and prophecy named Gidgiddoni (3:18-19).  When the people pleaded with him to let them go to the mountains and the wilderness and destroy the Gadianton robbers in their own lands, he said to them, “If we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us unto their hands.”  Then, he  told them his plan: “We will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will...wait till they shall come against us;...as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands” (3 Nephi 3:21).  And, for a year they prepared by gathering all their horses, chariots, cattle, flocks, herds, grain and all their substance into the appointed place.  They built fortifications all around them and placed guards to watch day and night.  They made weapons of war of every kind and armor and shields to protect them. “And, a great many thousand people who were called Nephites [gathered] themselves together in this land.”  They repented of all their sins and prayed continually to the Lord their God that he would deliver them when their enemies came against them to battle (3:14-26).

When the robbers came down from the mountains and found the Nephite cities deserted and desolate with nothing left for them to plunder for food, Giddianhi commanded his armies that they go up to battle against the Nephites.  As the battle commenced, it was the greatest slaughter “among all the people of Lehi since he left Jerusalem” (3 Nephi 4:1-11).  But, the Nephites prevailed and pursued the robbers and killed all they found.  Even Giddianhi was overtaken and slain. Eventually, all the Gadianton robbers were surrounded by the Nephites and could not retreat to the wilderness (4:12-30).  All those who surrendered were cast into prison.  There “the word of God was preached to them.”  If they repented of their sins and entered into a covenant of peace [would murder no more], they were set free.  Those who refused were “condemned and punished according to the law” (3 Nephi 5:1-6).

Thus, the wicked, secret, and abominable combinations of the Gadianton robbers finally came to an end.  And, the hearts of the Nephites swelled with joy and many tears were shed “because of the great goodness of God in delivering them out of the hands of their enemies” (3 Nephi 4:33).

Book of Mormon Stories—Samuel the Lamanite Prophet

About 6 B.C., on the American Continent, Samuel the Lamanite prophet preached to the Nephites of the birth of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem.

 

Both the Lamanites and the Nephites were descendents of Lehi who, with his family and others, left Jerusalem about 600 B.C. when the Lord warned them that their city was shortly to be destroyed.  After wandering in the wilderness for eight years, Lehi’s son, Nephi, was directed to build a ship for a voyage to “a choice land.”  After many months on the ocean, they arrived in a land somewhere in the Western Hemisphere.  Nephi was a righteous man but his brothers Laman and Lemuel and their families and followers became a wicked and rebellious people.  Nephi was told by the Lord to take the records they brought with them from Jerusalem, and those written by Lehi and Nephi in the new world, and separate themselves from the wicked Lamanites, and go far away from them into the wilderness, which they did. 

Now, after almost 600 years and many wars between the two nations, the Nephites had become “ripe in iniquity” and the Lamanites had been converted to the Church and were living the commandments of God (Helaman 13:1). 

Samuel was a righteous Lamanite.  He was called to preach to the Nephites in the land of Zarahemela, the seat of their government.  And, for many days he preached repentance to the people, but they wouldn’t listen and they threw him out of their city (Helaman12:2).  As he was about to return to his own land, the voice of the Lord came to him telling him to return again and prophesy whatever was in his heart, but he was barred from the city.  Determined to fill the Lord’s commandment, he jumped upon the high wall and began to cry in a loud voice:

“Behold, I, Samuel, a Lamanite, do speak the words of the Lord which he doth put into my heart;…the sword of justice [punishment of the Lord] hangeth over this people” (Helaman 13:5). 

He told them that within 400 years all of their people would be destroyed and nothing would save them except repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, who would shortly come into the world, and be slain for his people.  He said, “An angel of the Lord hath declared it unto me, and he did bring glad tidings to my soul” (13:6-7).  And he told them the Lord would smite them with the sword [wars], famine and pestilence (13:9).  “Ye are cursed because of your riches…because ye have set your hearts upon them, and have not hearkened unto the words of him who gave them unto you” (13:20-21).  And Samuel declared unto them, saying, “O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you?…Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?” (13:29) and he prophesied of many more things that couldn’t be written (Helaman 14:1).

Because the Lord desires to save these wicked Nephites, he commands Samuel by an angel to prophesy of the signs accompanying his birth.  Samuel said: “Behold, I give unto you a sign; for five years more cometh, and behold, then cometh the Son of God to redeem all those who shall believe on his name....Therefore, there shall be one day and a night and a day, as if it were one day and there were no night...and it shall be the night before he is born” (14:3-4).  “And behold, there shall a new star arise, such an one as ye never have beheld; and this also shall be a sign unto you” (14:5).  And the Lord told him to “cry unto this people, repent and prepare the way of the Lord” [prepare to let him into their hearts] (14:9). 

Samuel gives them another sign, “a sign of his [the Lord’s] death. (14:14).  There will be no light from the sun, the moon or the stars upon the face of the earth for three days and there will be thunderings and lightnings for many hours. The earth will shake and tremble with mountains laid low and valleys made into mountains.  Cities will become desolate and graves of the saints will be opened and they will appear unto many (14:20-27).

 

He explains that Christ must die “to bring about the resurrection of the dead [temporal death] that thereby [through repentance and the atonement] men may be brought [back] into the presence of the Lord” [spiritual death]—this because of the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord when he and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden for eating of the forbidden fruit. (14:15-18).

Finally, Samuel tells them if they believe, they can be saved but those who will not believe, “bring upon themselves their own condemnation.”  He reminds them that they are free to choose; “ye are permitted to act for yourselves....He hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and he hath given unto you that ye might choose life or death; and ye can do good and be restored unto that which is good; or ye can do evil, and have that which is evil restored unto you” (14:30-31).

Many of those who heard the words of Samuel believed on his word and went to find Nephi the third, a prophet of the Lord, confessing their sins and desiring to be baptized.  Those who refused to hear and believe grew angry and threw stones and shot arrows at him upon the wall.  However, the Lord was with Samuel so that the stones and arrows could not hit him.  This caused many more to be converted and they were also baptized by Nephi.  But more did not believe.  As they tried to capture him, Samuel escaped from the wall and went back to preach to his own people and was never heard of again among the Nephites (Helaman 16:1-8).

Samuel has prophesied that “for five years more” the signs of the birth of Jesus Christ would be given.  But the majority of the people became “more hardened in iniquity” and argued that there was no such being as a Christ which “is a wicked tradition” to keep them in ignorance.  And they discounted the many signs, wonders and miracles that had already been given to the people (16:13-21).  Some began to say “the time was past for the words to be fulfilled, which were spoken by Samuel, the Lamanite.”  But the righteous saints watched for the sign of a day and night and day in which there was no darkness that their faith “had not been in vain” (3 Nephi 1:4-8).  Now the unbelievers set apart a day that all those who believed in Samuel’s prophecy would be put to death “except the sign should come to pass.”  As the day drew near, Nephi prayed mightily to the Lord on behalf of his people, (3 Nephi 1:9-12) and the voice of the Lord came to him saying:

“Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world” (3 Nephi 1:13).

And that night there was no darkness and a new star appeared in the sky.  Now the people knew that the prophecy was about to be fulfilled and the Lord would be born the next day.   “And the more part of the people did believe, and were converted unto the Lord....And thus the people began again to have peace in the land” (3 Nephi 1:19, 21-23).

Movie Review--The Words

Interesting and thought provoking but not a classic

This movie gave me a headache, although I mostly enjoyed it at the time.  On reflection, however, I didn’t understand it all that well.  How can that be?

First, it’s three stories in one with three flashbacks (a little hard to follow). 

Second, it’s written in the modern genre of letting the audience fill in the blanks.

Third, the characters aren’t developed to the point where we know or care about them (maybe except for Rory’s teary, blood-shot blue eyes).

It begins with a mature man, Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid), before a large audience reading from his latest book titled “The Words.” 

Flashback to a young Rory Jansen (Bradley Cooper) receiving an award for writing his successful first novel “The Window Tears.”  Flashback to a couple of young lovers just out of college, Rory and Dora (Zoe Saldana) moving a mattress on to the floor of their loft where they can live happily after—Rory writing and Dora loving him—except it takes two years to finish his book.  The book is good, but not publishable according to those who publish books, partly because he is a new, unknown author.

Rory is forced to get a job with a publisher delivering interoffice mail.  He and Dora get married and go on a honeymoon to Paris (just a little trite).  While there they visit the former abode of Ernest Hemingway and explore a shop that sells artifacts from the period.  Rory finds an old and worn (but interesting) leather briefcase and Dora buys it for him.  Later at home, Rory still unable to write discovers an old manuscript hidden behind a flap in the briefcase.  This is the catalyst for the rest of the movie.

After the book is published, “an Old Man” (Jeremy Irons) sits next to Rory on a park bench and tells him his story.  Another flashback to just after WWII when a young American soldier falls in love with a French girl (Ben Barnes and Nora Arnezeder) in Paris and they eventually marry.  Their story is compelling but not all that different from what many others experience in their own lives (in my opinion).  However, the choices made by the couple are regrettable which is also true of the moral choice made by Rory. 

Clay Hammond (Quaid) is the puzzle of this movie although there are many clues to his identity.  He adds little to the plot especially when a “young, spoiled, American” girl, Daniella, (Olivia Wilde) is thrown into the mix.  Her purpose is one of the “blanks” that is nebulous to say the least.  Her only importance appears to be when she asks Clay if he wants “fiction or (real) life.”  I suppose that is about Truth.

If you want to be entertained on a long afternoon in a movie theater, expecting nothing and happy for something that is both interesting and thought provoking, this movie is for you.  If not, stick to the classics. 

Book Review--A Sunless Sea by Anne Perry

A Sunless Sea—Imagery at it’s best

Anne Perry masterfully links the name of this book, A Sunless Sea, with the poem Kubla Kahn written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1797 as she did with The Sins of the Wolf and Dante’s Inferno.  Coleridge was a known opium user in England when the drug was totally unregulated which is also the main focus of this book. 

As opium addiction is described by the author, the image of a sunless sea is a place where there is no light—only darkness, no hope—only despair, and no life—only death. 

The book opens with Monk, commander of the Thames River Police at Wapping Station, and Orme, his right-hand man, rowing together in a boat on the river about 20 feet from the Limehouse Pier, when they hear a blood-curdling scream coming from someone standing on the pier.  As they dock the boat and run up the stairs, the person points to what looks like “a heap of rubbage” but is soon found to be the body of a woman who has been murdered and disemboweled.  As Monk and Orme begin their investigation to determine who the woman was, they assume maybe she was a prostitute who put herself in harms way.  As they search a neighborhood “about a quarter of a mile from the river” they soon discover her name is Zenia Gadney. 

All who knew of Zenia say she lived a quiet life with no visitors except for one man who came only once a month but hadn’t been around for two months.  No one seems to know who he is.  Monk deduces that the man probably comes by hansom cab which turns out to be the case.  With a little detective work, he learns the man is Dr. Joel Lambourn.  When he visits the Lambourn home, the beautiful Dinah, his wife, tells Monk her husband is two-months dead, ruled a suicide by the police, but she doesn’t believe it.  She also says she knew about her husband and Zenia for many years. 

The mystery deepens when Monk discovers that Dr. Lambourn had written a report for the government on the dangerous unregulated use of opium as a reference for passage of a proposed Pharmacy Act regulating its use.  The report was rejected and destroyed by those he gave it to, including his brother-in-law, Barclay Herne, whose wife was the sister of Dr. Lambourn.  The police determined that Dr. Lambourn's despair and embarrassment at the rejection of his work led him to commit suicide.

But, who killed Zenia and what was her connection to Dr. Lambourn?  Monk has found the only person with knowledge, access and motive is Dinah Lambourn who is shortly arrested for the murder.  She asks Monk if he will request that Oliver Rathbone represent her, which Oliver agrees to even though he has no evidence that she didn’t do it.  The courtroom drama plays an important part in this story.  The judge, the prosecutor, and the witnesses all pull the reader toward the anticipated conclusion.

 Britain finally passed the Opium Act in1878. 

Book Review--Dark Assassin by Anne Perry

Dark Assassin is indeed too “Dark”

Dark Assassin is the eighth of Anne Perry’s William Monk series books I have read.  I am also posting my review of “The Sunless Sea”—my number nine.

Anne Perry is a wonderful writer.  I am amazed at her depth of knowledge, her large vocabulary, her writing ability and her prolific writing history.  Her books are always worthwhile and a good read.

(Here comes the however) however, as I grow older and see more of the dark and sinister things of our world, the less I enjoy reading about them even if it is in Victorian times.  This book was too “dark” for me.  While I enjoyed most of the details of the story above the ground, the descriptions of the vast, filthy, rat-filled, pitch dark, damp, and dangerous underground sewer tunnels where people live, grub, struggle, are maimed, and die, is not enjoyable to me. 

At this time, William Monk is a newly-appointed Thames River senior officer policeman.  While patrolling on the river with his crew, he witnesses a young couple on the Waterloo Bridge who appear to be arguing when they fall into the water and drown.   They are quickly found and identified as Mary Havilland and Toby Argyll.   

As Monk tries to determine whether it was a suicide or an accident he discovers Mary’s father was thought to have committed suicide just two months earlier and that Toby Argyll is her ex-fiancé.  Mary’s father was an engineer working for Alan Argyll, Toby’s wealthy older brother who was drilling tunnels underground with big machines for London’s new sewer system.  The mystery unfolds as Monk and his old adversary, Superintendent Runcorn, work together to uncover what actually happened to Mary’s father and why, and what the Argyll’s had to do with it.  Also, what really happened on the Waterloo Bridge.

As always, the courtroom scenes with Oliver Rathborn are brilliant.  Ms. Perry knows how to develop the dialog and descriptions of non-verbal facial and bodily movements skillfully—making you feel as if you are actually there; (another however), I have learned after eight Monk books that Perry’s endings are often a let down.  Like other authors, they seem to have become somewhat the same—fade away into ______? (you fill in the blank).

Nevertheless, I will give this book five stars because all of Perry’s books are good.  I just didn’t enjoy the darkness of this particular subject.

Book Review--Raquela, A Woman of Israel

Raquela, A Woman of Israel
by Ruth Gruber

Of the 39 book reviews of this book on Amazon, 38 give Raquela 5 stars—one is 4 stars.

This is, first of all, a true story.  When Ruth Gruber, a foreign correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune set out in Israel to find one woman whose life “would define what it means to be a woman of Israel” (Gruber, Raquela, Forward), she found many candidates.  When she heard of a ninth-generation Jerusalemite, whose family settled in Jerusalem in 1650 from Spain, who was a nurse and midwife who had delivered babies in the camps at Athlit and Cyprus for the Jewish illegal immigrants who flocked to their promised land after World War II, she knew she had found her subject.

The book begins in Jerusalem in 1929 when Raquela (the Sephardic, [meaning Spanish,] version of Rachel) was five years old.  Her family lived in Bet Hakerem three miles from the center of Jerusalem, described as a “neighborhood [that] was founded in 1922 as one of six garden cities developed in Jerusalem during the days of the British Mandate for Palestine” (wikipedia.com).  The Arabs from the village of Colonia rose up and murdered the people of Motza, a nearby Jewish village, then looted and burned their houses. The book explains that this was the second riot since the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, which stated, “His Majesty’s Government (the British) views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”  And, while the British police did nothing, the Arab terrorists went to Hebron, where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their wives Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah were buried, and murdered all the prominent Jewish families.  When the British police finally came, they rounded up the rest of the Jews of Hebron (not the Arabs) and locked them up in the police station “for their own protection.” These people were never allowed to return to their homes which were ransacked by the Arabs.

From this time forward, there was no peace in Palestine.  The book takes us through the time when Raquela was twelve years old and she and her mother were on a bus traveling downtown to go shopping for her Bat Mitzvah. The bus was attacked by Arabs with guns and a hand grenade that miraculously exploded before it could be thrown in the bus.  On January 31, 1943 Raquela enrolled in the Hadassah (Hebrew name for Queen Esther, see Jeremiah 8:22) Henrietta Szold School of Nursing where she studied nursing and midwifery under her mentor, the renowned obstetrician Dr. Aron Brezezinski.  Raquela Levy graduated as a nurse/midwife on February 7, 1946 and was selected “the outstanding student” in her class.

Politically, because of The White Paper of 1939 issued by the British government under Neville Chamberlain, Palestine was partitioned into an independent Arab state and a Jewish state “in proportion to their population numbers in 1939”—which meant Palestine was virtually controlled by the greater number of Arabs.  Jewish immigration was limited to 75,000 over a five-year period from1940 to 1944—then all immigration would depend on the permission of the Arab majority.  During this time the Holy Land “became a police state.”  The British brought in “one hundred thousand soldiers …to keep order.”  Jerusalem was a mass of barriers and “rusted coils of barbed wire” where tanks and armored cars patrolled the streets.

The stamina, courage, industry, and determination of the Jewish people is obvious in this book.  If you are one of those who knows little of the history of Israel, you will be enlightened, but also entertained with the story of the remarkable life Raquela.  The facts of how Israel became an independent nation with all the hardships and wars for independence are the rest of the story.  Gruber weaves the heroic deeds of a woman of Israel into the compelling narrative of birth—not only of babies born in horrible conditions in British refugee camps—but also the inevitable and difficult birth of the State of Israel. 

Movie Review--2016: Obama's America

This movie has been reviewed hundreds, maybe even thousands, of times and published on the Internet.  Bloggers of some of these reviews call the writer/ director, Dinesh D’Souza, John Sullivan, and producer Gerald Molen liars, racists, and bigots and compare the movie to the propaganda put out by the Nazis before and during WWII.  Patricia Russell from West Hollywood, CA states in a comment on a review, “since this ‘movie’ was paid for and distributed by Mormons, I just consider the source” and she cites wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Molen as her source.  After looking at the cited article on Wikipedia, I found no such reference to anything Mormon.  It’s a shame that so many reviewers are unable to critique the movie without being vicious, degrading, and insulting. 

This movie is actually about the facts that are Obama.  These are the facts that were seldom or never told during the 2008 election due to the euphoria by the media that surrounded the first “black” presidential candidate. It is a story about the miracle of an unknown man who became President with only two years experience in the Illinois state house, and two years as a U.S. Senator.  It’s the story of how President Obama became the person he is without any excuse or hesitation in achieving his goals.  The movie lets you be the judge of where he wants to take us as a nation by 2016 should he be re-elected.

Dinesh D’Souza is an immigrant from India, a conservative, a former staff member for President Reagan, the author of a book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” on which this movie is based, and currently the president of King’s College in New York.  He methodically uncovers the history of Barack’s childhood, his relationship with his mother and the influence of his absent Kenyan father.  Much of Obama’s young life was spent in Indonesia with his mother and step-father, Lolo Soetoro.  Later he was sent back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents.  Many excerpts of his child and young adulthood are taken from Obama’s first autobiography, “Dreams from My Father.”

Some of those who had the most influence on Obama D’Souza calls “Obama’s Founding Fathers.”  Among them are Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist, who became his mentor; Bill Ayers, former Weather Underground unrepentant terrorist; academic Edward Said, an anti-Israel activist; a Harvard Communist professor and Brazilian, Roberto Unger; and finally Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s religious Black Liberation Theology pastor and friend for 20 years.  All these men helped to define Obama’s anti-colonial worldview of America as a power that could (should) be neutralized.  All the incidents pertinent to this assessment of Obama are carefully enumerated, expounded, and documented on the screen. 

According to Matthew May, in his review, “Dinesh D’Souza asks viewers whether we will pursue the American dream or Barack Obama’s dream. That dream, as D’Souza argues, is the defeat [emphasis added] of oppressive colonialism that manifested itself in the rise of the United States as the dominant world power at the expense of the third world.” (American Thinker blog, August 26, 2012.) 

Finally, go to this movie!  It is enlightening and is not a vendetta against Obama.  It merely states those things about him that no one bothered to find out earlier.  It could have changed history then and maybe it will now.

Personal note: I realize that anyone who disagrees with Obama is subject to being called a racist.  I’m tired of that.  I was raised in Wyoming.  We had one black student in our class who was (as far as I know) accepted and treated the same as anyone else.  I never heard a harsh word said about him.  I lived in Texas for five years and never saw any instance of racism around anyone even though the area I lived in had lots of people of diverse ethnicity.  Calling a person a racist is easy but hard to defend.  So, let’s stop it and agree that to disagree with someone of another race is OK and does not mean they are racist.