Having set up camp, Lehi named the river Laman, after his
eldest son. He told Laman, “O that thou mightest be like unto this river,
continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!” (1 Nephi
2:9). He then named the valley Lemuel,
after his second son. He did this,
telling Lemuel, “O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and
steadfast [IE like Ezion-geber, the Hebrew roots of which denote firmness and
strength, or might of a man], and immovable in keeping the commandments of the
Lord!” (1 Nephi 2:10).
In verse 9 we read a form of near eastern poetry. Speaking
to Laman, Lehi hopes he will be like the river, “running into the fountain of
all righteousness!” In English, rivers don’t flow into fountains; in English
they flow out of them. Speaking of a river running into a fountain is an
example of Near Eastern poetry.[1]
This is our introduction to Nephi’s older brothers, Laman
and Lemuel. (In the remainder of his
writings, with one exception, he will always refer to his two brothers
together, always as “Laman and Lemuel.”).
Laman and Lemuel were stiffnecked (arrogant, stubborn; rebellious);
they would murmur (a private expression of dissatisfaction) against their
father because he was a visionary man.
“I have thought about the accounts of several individuals in
the scriptures. Take, for example, Laman and Lemuel. Like Nephi, they were ‘born
of goodly parents’ and taught ‘in all the learning of [their] father.’ Yet they
murmured because their father was a visionary man. From their point of view,
his decisions defied logic, for they knew not the things of God, and therefore
they would not believe.”[2]
They came from a wealthy family. Laman and Lemuel enjoyed
that lifestyle. They were very
dissatisfied with having left all their wealth and comfortable lifestyle behind
and went off into the wilderness because of the “foolish imaginations of
[Lehi].”
Why were Laman and Lemuel Lehi’s problem children? First, as
we will see, they don’t understand nature & dealings of God. They also
don’t believe Jerusalem will be destroyed.[3]
There were possible reasons why they refused to believe
Jerusalem would be destroyed. They knew the history of Jerusalem.
·
Between 721 BC – 701 BC, Jerusalem was having problems
with the Assyrians. In 701 BC, Isaiah prophesied Jerusalem would not be
captured by the Assyrians. It wasn’t.
·
In 604 BC, Nebuchadnezzar came through the area
and did not bother with Jerusalem.
·
In 597 BC, Zedekiah, a Babylonian puppet, was on
the throne.
Jerusalem had never been captured by an invading army. They apparently
assumed nothing had changed and Jerusalem would not be destroyed, despite the
warning of Jeremiah and other prophets, including Lehi. They may well have
believed Isaiah’s promise carried over to their time. They were convinced God
would protect Jerusalem as it was His chosen city for His chosen people. They
accepted the words of a dead prophet while rejecting the words of the living
prophet.[4]
Laman and Lemuel offer a lesson for today. It’s easy to
listen to past prophets. They have been shown to be inspired men of God. With a
living prophet, we don’t immediately see his words fulfilled. For some, it’s
easy to reject his words and listen to the words of those who history has
proven their words to be inspired.
We must always remember to listen to the words of the living
prophet. He has been called, set apart, and sustained to be God’s spokesman
during our day. We will never go wrong listening to and following the words and
teachings of the living prophet.
“Though the journey had barely begun in 1 Nephi 2:8–10,
already we find Lehi cautioning Laman and Lemuel because of their ‘stiffneckedness’
(1 Nephi 2:11). Yet no mention is made of a word of warning to Sam; it appears
that Sam has made righteous decisions early in life. This is further confirmed
in 1 Nephi 2:16–17, where we read of Nephi’s cry ‘unto the Lord; and behold he
did visit me.’ Significantly, Nephi first shares this experience with his
brother Sam. From this one can deduce a special relationship of trust between
these two brothers.”[5]
Why would Lehi name a river or valley? Naming is a custom common among those in the
Middle East. “Lehi’s intimacy with desert practices becomes apparent right at
the outset of his journey, not only in the skillful way he managed things but
also in the quaint and peculiar practices he observed, such as those applying
to the naming of places in the desert…
“By what right do these people rename streams and valleys to
suit themselves? By the immemorial custom of the desert, to be sure. Among the
laws ‘which no Bedouin would dream of transgressing,’ the first, according to
Jennings-Bramley, is that ‘any water you may discover, either in your own or in
the territory of another tribe, is named after you…’
“One and the same place may have several names, and
the wady (valley) running close to the same, or the mountain
connected with it, will naturally be called differently by different clans,”
according to Canaan…
“This confusing custom of renaming everything on the spot
seems to go back to the earliest times, and ‘probably, as often as not, the
Israelites named for themselves their own camps, or unconsciously confounded a
native name in their carelessness.’ Yet in spite of its undoubted
antiquity, only the most recent explorers have commented on this strange
practice, which seems to have escaped the notice of travelers until explorers
in our own times started to make official maps.
“Even more whimsical and senseless to a westerner must
appear the behavior of Lehi in naming a river after one son and its valley
after another. But the Arabs don’t think that way, for Thomas reports from the
south country that ‘as is commonly the case in these mountains, the water bears
a different name from the wadi [valley].’ Likewise the Book of Mormon follows
the Arabic system of designating Lehi’s camp not by the name of the river by
which it stood (for rivers may easily dry up), but rather by the name of the
valley (1 Nephi 10:16; 16:6).
“The problem with Laman and Lemuel is they did not
understand the ways of the Lord and how he dealt with man. They also rejected the idea that Jerusalem
could be destroyed. They continued their
murmurings to the point where Nephi would describe them as ‘like unto the Jews
who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father’ (1 Nephi 2:13).” [6]
Hugh Nibley describes rising tensions in the family. “In the
desert, trouble within the family, which began in the city, only gets worse. Laman
and Lemuel side with the people at Jerusalem: ‘We perish if we leave Jerusalem,’
they said. ‘You perish if you stay,’ said Nephi, because there isn’t going to
be any Jerusalem. How does he know? ‘I have seen a vision’ (2 Nephi 1:4). That
is just what is wrong, say Laman and Lemuel. Here they are being led by the ‘foolish
imaginations’ of ‘a visionary man’-apiqqeah, one who sees things
that others do not-to give up ‘the land of their inheritance, and their gold,
and their silver, and their precious things,’ and for what? ‘To perish in the
wilderness’ (1 Nephi 2:11). Jerusalem offered Laman and Lemuel wealth, social
position, the security of a great city with strong alliances (1 Nephi 2:13).[7]
Finally, Lehi had enough of Laman and Lemuel’s whining. Being filled with the Spirit, he confronted
them and confounded them. Their “frames did shake before him.” They no longer dared to complain and did what
Lehi commanded them (for a time).
[1] Discussions on the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 1-3, KBYU.
[3] Discussions on the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 1-3, KBYU,
Dr. Clyde Williams.
[4] Discussions on the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 1-3, KBYU,
Dr. Paul Hoskisson.
[5] Notes and
Communications: Sam: A Just and Holy Man, Ken Haubrock, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute.
[7] Last Call: An
Apocalyptic Warning from the Book of Mormon, Hugh Nibley, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute.
No comments:
Post a Comment