One of the nastiest parts of the Book of Mormon is in Alma 14, when women and children are purposefully thrown into a fire. There are many instances where preaching is rejected, and sometimes a prophet is killed or thrown in prison. But Alma2’s trip to Ammonihah results in not only Alma2 and Amulek being thrown in prison and put on death row, but in a huge bonfire with women, children, and scriptures thrown in it. Much more intense, much more different.

Why did Mormon include this story when he could’ve just included the sermons? It doesn’t exactly seem uplifting. I’d posit that he included it to illustrate at least one point, but that point is not spelled out as much of his commentary is. And that’s the tricky thing about Mormon: he’s very blunt and to the point, and it’s easy to mistake that for full disclosure. Considering that Mormon has to present a slim abridgement of the Nephites from vast stores of records, that seems like a mistaken assumption. He is both blunt and subtle, and it’s part of his genius as a writer.

The reason the people of Ammonihah hated Alma2 was because they were of the order of Nehor, a fact Mormon doesn’t reveal this until late in the tale, after Alma2 and Amulek have been thrown into prison (Alma 14:16). So in order to understand the people of Ammonihah and why they would commit such atrocities, we have to look at the story of Nehor and his execution in Alma 1.

Mormon deflects by opening the chapter with an explanation that the people must abide by their own laws, and that Alma was brought a man to be judged. This immediately tells us that the person he is going to talk about is bad. He also notes the man was “noted for his much strength” (verse 2), a fact Mormon uses to make a case against Nehor.

Mormon then tells us of Nehor’s religious beliefs, all of which run counter to what was taught by the good kings from before. What he does not note, at least not until we’re done judging him, is that Nehor hasn’t technically done anything illegal with his religious beliefs. But this isn’t why Nehor tests Alma2, as Alma2 himself was one of the first to rebel under the new split. This makes his rebellion in Mosiah 27 doubly ironic: it is only because of such rebellions in Mosiah 26 that his father is given charge over the church. The reason that Alma2’s duties are even split in the first place is because of people that rebelled even as he did. Having a chief judge instead of a king is a separate issue. It is possible to have a chief judge whose responsibilities include both the church and the state, but Mosiah had already separated them before suggesting judges in the first place.

This issue matters a great deal in the case of Nehor, whose judgment had the hallmarks of a a high court decision, because it set a precedent. Alma sits judging someone who used to be someone like himself. But Alma’s beliefs were not given as much detail in Mosiah 27, only 3 chapters previously. Mormon has thus purposely glossed over Alma’s apostate teachings while going into great detail with Nehor’s.

Of course, Nehor did do something very bad that Alma did not: he killed someone. But there are still unresolved questions. First, why Nehor killed Gideon is only vaguely described. All Mormon says is that Gideon “admonished him with the words of God” (verse 7). Mormon then reminds us of who Gideon is in verse 8: “Now the name of the man was Gideon; and it was he who was an instrument in the hands of God in delivering the people of Limhi out of bondage.”

This comment is interesting because Mormon casually inserts it to remind us that this is the same Gideon from King Noah’s time–after all, Alma and Mosiah’s names have been repeated at least twice, what if it were Gideon’s son? But he doesn’t just say who he was, he talks about his reputation in the community. It would be like if, in a court case, a lawyer happened to mention that the defendant was a soldier who “saved twenty civilian lives”. That a man is a soldier might be relevant, but that he had saved twenty civilian lives wouldn’t be. This note by Mormon is something that is meant to persuade the reader, but under many of today’s legal systems, it is irrelevant.

When Nehor smites him, it says “Gideon being stricken with many years, therefore he was not able to withstand his blows, therefore he was slain by the sword.” What does he mean by “withstand his blows?” Is “sword” here a different kind of weapon? It certainly doesn’t sound like Gideon was unarmed, as if he were old and unarmed, “being unable to withstand blows” would be a matter of being unarmed, no matter the age. But the age is what is mentioned. And we do not know what words Gideon actually said, and Gideon was a man we know who had previously “[been] a strong man and an enemy to the king, therefore he drew his sword, and swore in his wrath that he would slay the king.” Mosiah 20:17-22 shows Gideon is capable of being a peacemaker, but if so, why not give him a quote?

At this point Gideon, who had witnessed the kingships of Noah, Limhi, Mosiah, before Alma2 was made chief judge, was old, making him one who is more likely to be say things considered inappropriate to those of a younger generation. For “admonishing words of God” to make Nehor strike a man with his sword must’ve been quite strong and forceful. They may have gone over the limits of what is socially appropriate for the day, or even by the true church’s standards. If Gideon also had his own sword, perhaps there was a dueling custom of sorts that Nehor should have known better than to engage in. Gideon may have used words that sounded like they intended violence but didn’t, or he may have implied he’d make sure Nehor was jailed, when technically, “the law could have no power on any man for his belief.” Nehor could have been upset at what he perceived would be injustice in public opinion.

How Nehor is arrested and tried is worthy of note and is very easy to miss. Nehor is apprehended by “members of the church” in verse 10, though Nehor was on his way to his own church and he met Gideon. Did Gideon and other members confront him, scaring him? Was Nehor afraid of what might happen to him when he didn’t have his supporters around him? Why did no one stop Nehor? What gives members of the church the right to apprehend him? Even if they do have that right, which isn’t impossible 2,100 years ago, they are still a biased party, and Nehor’s people doubtless would have been distressed by this fact, which was public enough that Mormon knew it hundreds of years later.

Nehor then pleads for himself with boldness, and again, we don’t hear Nehor’s excuses and arguments, though we get to hear Korhihor’s in Alma 30 and Sherem’s in Jacob 7. Alma’s response to him sounds biased. The first thing he says is “Behold, this is the first time that priestcraft has been introduced among this people.” Is that legally relevant? And didn’t Alma himself basically do such when he rebelled himself? But he doesn’t stop there. “And behold, thou art not only guilty of priestcraft, but hast endeavored to enforce it by the sword; and were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction.” Clearly Alma is upset about Nehor’s teachings. Only after this does he say “thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man” and later “this people must abide by the law”, the more objective and completely sufficient statements, the only ones needed for Nehor to be guilty of his death sentence.

Even the execution leaves us with questions. Again, unlike with Korihor and Sherem, we don’t hear Nehor’s confession either. Mormon might have slipped when he says Nehor was “caused, or rather did acknowledge…that what he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God.” Unlike Sherem, who confessed miraculously at the request of Jacob’s prayer, and Korihor, who died while begging amongst apostates due to be being struck dumb, again by a miracle, Nehor suffered an “ignominious” death. “Ignominious” means publicly humiliating. In the other two examples, God meted out justice. The principle that “it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished” (Mormon 4:4) doesn’t even require a belief in God. But here, Alma did so. And while it was for killing someone, we don’t have the details to judge for ourselves. Mormon does that for us.

Shortly after the trial, Mormon points out “the law could have no power on any man for his belief”, though Nehor’s beliefs clearly swayed Alma2’s treatment of Nehor. Church members started getting into fistfights with Nehor’s followers (verse 22), with many people leaving the church (verse 24). Even though Nehor was basically guilty, the gaps mean the case wasn’t quite as simple as Mormon describes it. Cases in court can be very complex and controversial, with the rulings and sentences galvanizing people into opposing opinions. It’s not hard to see how a decision complicated by a judge from an opposing religion, the same religion of the man who provoked the murderer over the same subject of religion, could do the same.

The story of Nehor turns out to be filled with holes. Mormon doesn’t give us all the details but it’s clear that there was controversy.

What Nehor actually taught is relevant also. Like Korihor, his beliefs lead to nihilism, bitterness, and loneliness. By saying everyone is saved (Alma 1:4), that means that no one is not saved, and technically that action and belief do not matter. And when nothing ends up mattering, people can be bitter. For the people of Nehor to have their leader who taught them this falsely comforting doctrine die for his beliefs (regardless of whether that is a fair assessment, that is probably how they felt about it) made Nehor a martyr that gave them bitterness rather than hope.

So it is not simply because they were not followers of Christ that the people of Ammonihah were nasty, or even because they had incorrect and nihilistic beliefs. When they greet Alma2, it is personal:

And now we know that because we are not of thy church we know that thou hast no power over us; and thou hast delivered up the judgment-seat unto Nephihah; therefore thou art not the chief judge over us (Alma 8:12).

This is why they said that and then “…spit upon him, and caused that he should be cast out of their city.”