© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
Thanks Newell. It is certainly the case that if most people modeled their sexual ethics on King Benjamin and few or none replicated the behaviors of King Noah, the world would be a much better, happier place, especially for women and children. But in fact, for men as well. Indulging the natural man doesn’t yield happiness. And the symbolism in the Benjamin/Noah contrast makes that very clear.
Another great article, Val. I particularly liked the type/antitype analysis between the two sets of kings, and the overwhelming message I take away from the analysis is, follow the prophets. Now that I see this in your paper, I wonder why I never saw it before. It is such an obvious takeaway from the Book of Mosiah.
I even appreciated the sexual contrast between King Noah on the one hand and King Benjamin on the other. There is a need for sex-positive discussions in the church, along the lines of Laura Brotherson’s book, _And They Were Not Ashamed_. I hope people don’t stumble over the sexual symbolism in your paper and see the great contrasting message between King Noah and King Benjamin. Granted, your take is AN interpretation of the data, not THE interpretation, but good interpretations are based on textual evidence, and you seemed to provide a lot of evidence, which strengthens your case. As so often before, my eyes were opened and I saw new things in your analysis.