![\"Ammon,](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2016\/06\/35666_all_027_07.jpg\")
<\/a>As today is Friday, a new article was published today in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship<\/em>. \u00a0It is\u00a0\u201cNameless to New Name: Namelessness in the Narrative of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, or the People of Ammon,\u201d<\/a> and it was written by Nathan J. Arp<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract:<\/strong> A narrator may choose to provide or withhold the name of a character for many reasons. This article hypothesizes that Mormon intentionally omitted the name of two key characters, a Lamanite king and queen. Both feature in his narration of the mission to the Lamanites and the miraculous conversion it inspires, as recounted in the book of Alma. While it is not possible to know exactly what information Mormon and other record keepers of the Book of Mormon had or preserved, it is at least plausible that Mormon might have intentionally omitted the name of these two Lamanites. Namelessness invites the reader to encounter and re-encounter the gospel in a story simultaneously historic and symbolic, at once particular and universal. The intentional absence of these names emphasizes, instead, the new name the converted Lamanites would take upon themselves and points the reader to the name of Jesus Christ.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cInterpreting Interpreter<\/em>: Two Unknown Names,\u201d<\/a> written by Kyler Rasmussen<\/a><\/p>\n This post is a summary of the article \u201cNameless to New Name: Namelessness in the Narrative of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, or the People of Ammon<\/a>\u201d by Nathan J. Arp in Volume 66 of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship<\/em>. All of the Interpreting Interpreter<\/em> articles may be seen at https:\/\/interpreterfoundation.org\/category\/summaries\/<\/a>. An introduction to the Interpreting Interpreter<\/em>series is available at https:\/interpreterfoundation.org\/interpreting-interpreter-on-abstracting-thought\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n A video introduction to this Interpreter article is now available on all of our social media channels, including on YouTube at https:\/\/youtube.com\/shorts\/BvKM62FKygo<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Takeaway:<\/strong> Arp argues that Mormon may have intentionally omitted the names of two important Book of Mormon figures in the narrative of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies\u2014the father and wife of King Lamoni\u2014changing the way readers encounter those characters and emphasizing the new identity that they would adopt as disciples of Christ.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n And (sadly, my delay in calling attention to this article will, no doubt, confuse and, thus, anger some), this reprint appeared yesterday<\/em>, after I had posted my blog entry for the day: \u201cSeek Ye Words of Wisdom<\/em>: \u201cHebrew Words Reflected in the Book of Mormon,\u201d\u201d<\/a> written by my late friend John A. Tvedtnes<\/a>.<\/p>\n Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article originally appeared in Seek Ye Words of Wisdom: Studies of the Book of Mormon, Bible, and Temple in Honor of Stephen D. Ricks<\/em>, edited by Donald W. Parry, Gaye Strathearn, and Shon D. Hopkin. For more information, go to https:\/\/interpreterfoundation.org\/books\/seek-ye-words-of-wisdom\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cFrom the words of Moroni in Mormon 9:33, it is clear that the Nephites were still acquainted with some form of the Hebrew language a thousand years after Lehi\u2019s family left Jerusalem. And though at least Mormon and Moroni employed a script they called \u201creformed Egyptian\u201d in place of the Hebrew alphabet, it is likely that they employed this script to transcribe Hebrew words rather than Egyptian words. Consequently, several scholars have discussed evidence that the Book of Mormon reveals a Hebrew background.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There continues to be much controversy \u2014 or, in certain circles, no remaining controversy but, rather, a settled and cynical consensus \u2014 about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints<\/a> and its finances. \u00a0This article, from the B. H. Roberts Foundation, is very clear and, I think, quite useful. \u00a0It has the considerable advantage, too, of being neither unfair nor hysterical: \u201cThe $100 Billion Fund\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Regarding another very controversial matter: \u00a0I raised the issue yesterday \u2014 because it had been raised by a joint presentation at the recent 2025 FAIR Conference by an attorney and a licensed professional therapist \u2014 of mandated reporting by clergy in cases of child sexual abuse. \u00a0(See \u201cOn Child Sexual Abuse and the Church\u2019s \u2018Help Line.'\u201d<\/a>) \u00a0 Quite predictably, I\u2019ve been severely criticized in certain quarters for the position that I implicitly took. \u00a0And, I think, with deliberate dishonesty, for positions that I emphatically have not<\/em> taken (e.g., that sex abusers \u201cdeserve\u201d protection by clergy), or that directly contradict the point that I made (which is certainly not that lower rates of reporting are good because they demonstrate lower rates of actual abuse). \u00a0So, being the proverbial fool who rushes in where angels fear to tread, I offer a few more links to relevant discussions:<\/p>\n \u201cUtah\u2019s Legislative Leap: From Reporting to Supporting Child Welfare: New Utah legislation follows best practices for child safety, merging legal protection with moral duty.\u201d (Public Square Magazine<\/em>, 2024)<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cMandatory Reporting Isn\u2019t the Solution: It\u2019s increasingly common to hear people point towards laws compelling reporting as the answer to our child abuse crisis. Yet the research doesn\u2019t back this up \u2013 highlighting a number of complications that need more attention.\u201d (Public Square Magazine<\/em>, 2022)<\/a>\u00a0 For background on the author of this article, see here<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cAre Publicized Abuse Cases Exceptional or Representative of Our Faith? Responses to key questions regarding the Associated Press report alleging attempts to cover up sexual abuse cases in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.\u201d (Public Square Magazine<\/em>, 2022)<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cShould a member of the clergy report sex abuse of the penitent? A look inside the priest-penitent privilege\u201d (Deseret News<\/em>, 2022)<\/a><\/p>\n Edited to add:<\/strong> \u00a0I hope that he doesn\u2019t mind, but I\u2019ve taken the liberty of copying the bulk of a comment from one of the readers here (who is retired from a career in public health and who goes by the moniker t. tangata neneva<\/em>) and pasting it here below:<\/p>\n Maybe this 2016 article by Palusci et al will help: \u201d Does changing mandated reporting laws improve child maltreatment reporting in large U.S. counties?<\/a> \u201d (link), Children and Youth Services Review 66:170-179.<\/p>\n What caught my attention<\/i>: \u201c\u2026 Universal reporting was associated with higher report rates<\/u> for physical and sexual abuse, and clergy reporting requirements were associated with more sexual abuse, medical neglect and psychological maltreatment confirmed reports. However<\/u>, while counties in states that changed their clergy reporting laws had higher increases in total reports, they had fewer confirmed physical and sexual abuse, neglect, and psychological maltreatment reports<\/u>. More pronounced changes were noted in a state that made more pronounced changes in its clergy reporting laws. Policymakers should consider whether changing requirements for mandated reporting meaningfully improves child maltreatment identification<\/u>.\u201d<\/p>\n Or this 2024 NPR Report: \u201d States find a downside to mandatory reporting laws meant to protect children<\/a> \u201d (link).<\/p>\n What caught my attention<\/i>: \u201cMore than 60 years ago, policymakers in Colorado embraced the idea \u2026 [and passed] the first mandatory reporting laws in the nation. \u2026 [Since then] mandatory reporting laws have expanded nationally \u2026 But now there are efforts in Colorado and other states \u2026 to roll back these laws, saying the result has been too many unfounded reports, and that they disproportionately harm families \u2026 studies do not demonstrate that mandatory reporting laws keep children safe, the Colorado task force reported in January, there is evidence of harm. \u2026\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It would seem, in other words, that the issues here don\u2019t easily resolve themselves into simple bumper-sticker slogans or simplistic morality plays in which those who call for universally-mandated reporting of child abuse wear white hats and those who have reservations about universally-mandated reporting \u2014 and, of course<\/em>, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints \u2014 wear black hats and stand for unambiguous evil.<\/p>\n<\/a>\n
<\/a>
(Wikimedia Commons public domain image)<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/blockquote>\n