Friday, December 6, 2019

1 Nephi 2:8-15


Having set up camp, Lehi named the river Laman, after his eldest son.  When he did this, 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). 

Nephi gives us our first introduction to his two 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.”)  He tells us that 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. 

As has been mentioned, Lehi was a wealthy man.  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].”

Ken Haubrock compares Laman and Lemuel with the third son, Sam.

“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.”[1]

Why would Lehi name a river or valley?  Naming is a custom common among those in the Middle East.  Hugh Nibley explains this custom.

“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).”[2]

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). 

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).[3]

The time came when Lehi had 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). 

After this powerful experience, Nephi suddenly writes, “my father dwelt in a tent” (1 Nephi 2:15).  This statement almost seems out of place as well as an obvious statement.  Why would Nephi write this?  The tent played an important role in family life. 

It is most significant how Nephi speaks of his father’s tent; it is the official center of all administration and authority. First the dogged insistence of Nephi on telling us again and again that “my father dwelt in a tent” (1 Nephi 2:15; 9:1; 10:16; 16:6). So what? we ask, but to an Oriental that statement says everything. Since time immemorial the whole population of the Near East have been either tent-dwellers or house-dwellers, the people of the bait ash-sha’r or the bait at-tin, “houses of hair or houses of clay” ...  Not only has it been the custom for herdsmen and traders to spend part of the year in tents and part in houses, but “persons of distinction” in the East have always enjoyed spending part of the year in tents for the pure pleasure of a complete change.

It is clear from 1 Nephi 3:1; 4:38; 5:7; 7:5; 21—22; 15:1; and 16:10, that Lehi’s tent is the headquarters for all activities, all discussion and decisions.[4]


[1] Notes and Communications: Sam: A Just and Holy Man, Ken Haubrock, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute.
[2] Lehi and the Arabs, Hugh W. Nibley, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute.
[3] Last Call: An Apocalyptic Warning from the Book of Mormon, Hugh Nibley, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute.
[4] Man Versus Man, Hugh W. Nibley, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute.

No comments:

Post a Comment