Mesoamerica had no system of taxation as we understand it, so “tax” is surely Joseph Smith’s addition during the translation. However, the description of Riplakish’s activities is consistent with conscripted labor and debt-slavery.
Redaction: Riplakish fails to follow the example of his righteous father and turns toward the culture of the surrounding world, described by Moroni as having “many wives and concubines.” He is condemned for this behavior, in contrast to Orihah, who was clearly righteous (Ether 6:30) but who fathered a suspiciously large number of children if he had only one wife. (See commentary accompanying Ether 7:1–2.) Ether 14:2 provides another indication of polygamy without condemnation. (See commentary.) Benjamin McGuire, a graduate student in Old Testament studies, suggests that the language condemning Riplakish intentionally echoes Deuteronomy 17:17: “He [the King] must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.” While Deuteronomy is post-Jaredite, Moroni would have been familiar with some form of Deuteronomy, and his editing could have produced the allusion. I suggest that the Jaredites had a more accepting attitude toward polygamy than the Nephites and that Moroni imposed his later sensibilities on the Jaredite record.
Literature: Book of Mormon critic Brent Metcalfe notes a remarkable similarity between Riplakish and Noah. I do not accept his assertion that this parallel provides evidence that Joseph Smith wrote both stories, but I agree that both stories have some patterning in common:
One striking literary phenomenon in the Book of Mormon is the instance of narratives which mirror each other. As a case study we can distinguish twelve parallels between the stories of the Nephite king Noah and the Jaredite king Riplakish:
1. Zeniff and Shez were both righteous kings succeeded by their sons Noah and Riplakish (Mosiah 11:1, Ether 10:4).
2. Unlike their fathers, Noah “did not keep the commandments of God” and Riplakish “did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord” (Mosiah 11:2a, Ether 10:5a).
3. Noah and Riplakish each had “many wives and concubines” (Mosiah 11:2b, Ether 10:5b).
4. Noah compelled his subjects to “do that which was abominable… and they did commit whoredoms,” while Riplakish “did afflict the people with his whoredoms and abominations” (Mosiah 11:2c, Ether 10:7b).
5. By edict, Noah’s and Riplakish’s people were laden with oppressive taxes (Mosiah 11:3, Ether 10:5c).
6. Noah and Riplakish each erected “spacious buildings” with the money secured from taxation (Mosiah 11:[4–]8, Ether 10:5d).
7. Both kings built opulent thrones (Mosiah 11:9, Ether 10:6a).
8. Noah’s workers crafted “all manner of fine work,” while Riplakish’s prison workers produced “all manner of fine workmanship” (Mosiah 11:10, Ether 10:7a).
9. Under both rulers dissidents were incarcerated or killed (Mosiah 12:17, 17:11–20, 18:35; Ether 10:6b).
10. Due to internal revolt, Noah and Riplakish were executed (Mosiah 19:20, Ether 10:8a).
11. Noah’s priests and Riplakish’s descendants were exiled (Mosiah 19:21, 23; Ether 10:8b).
12. Following the subsequent political discord, Limhi (a son of Noah) and Morianton (a descendant/son of Riplakish) reigned over the kingdoms (Mosiah 19:26, Ether 10:9).
Some of these parallels are unique to these kings. Although the Book of Mormon refers generally to taxation (Mosiah 2:14, 7:15) and polygamy (Jacob 1:15, 2:23–35, 3:5–10; Mosiah 11:4b), Noah and Riplakish are the only monarchs identified as polygamists and taxers, and they alone construct “spacious buildings.” Ten of the twelve comparisons also follow the same sequence. The two narratives share common phrases such as “many wives and concubines,” “spacious buildings,” and “all manner of fine work{manship}.” And while the details of Noah’s life cover five chapters in Mosiah, Riplakish’s biography comprises six verses in Ether. Everything we know about the Jaredite ruler bears an analogue to the corrupt Nephite king.
Metcalfe’s description of the paralleled stories is accurate and instructive of a literary pattern that lies behind each. The question, however, is whose literary pattern? Metcalfe concludes that “these mirrorings suggest that one narrative may depend on the other, and that only one, or perhaps neither, represents a factual account of historical events.” This conclusion overstates the case and misses the import of such literary structures.
A more elaborate and cross-cultural example of literary patterning was popularized by Joseph Campbell in his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Campbell finds elements of a similar structure in the hero tales of a number of different cultures over widespread periods of time. British folklorist Lord Raglan similarly found a common hero pattern in various myths. These data strongly suggest patterning but not the single author that Metcalfe proposes for the Book of Mormon. The evidence for patterns in literary forms cannot be explained by a single author.
Metcalfe asserts: “It is as risky for apologists to stake claims of Book of Mormon historicity on evidence from literary studies as it is on evidence from theories of geography. In fact, emphasis on literary phenomena may be even more precarious, since careful attention to literary features underscores the complicated relation between language and reality. Even if one could plausibly argue for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon within this context, the historicity of every Book of Mormon person and event would be suspect.”
Metcalfe assumes that the patterning precludes a text based on historical events. That conclusion is hasty and not supported by data. As a useful analogy, folklorist Alan Dundes examines the hero myths in their implicit comparisons to the life of Jesus Christ according to Lord Raglan’s twenty-two points common to such hero tales. Dundes concludes: “It would appear that Jesus would rate a score of seventeen (which would rank him closer to Raglan’s ideal hero paradigm than Jason, Bellerophon, Pelops, Asclepios, Apollo, Zeus, Joseph, Elijah, and Siegfried).”
Dundes also comments on a 1965 study by Francis Lee Utley who applied Lord Raglan’s hero traits to Abraham Lincoln’s biography, finding all twenty-two of Raglan’s points. Such findings reduce the persuasiveness of Metcalfe’s argument that literary patterns do not reflect historical biography. Dundes specifically concludes that hero stories tend, in the telling, to produce a specific series of incidents that have come to be expected of such stories. (See commentary accompanying Alma 22:19.)
Riplakish and Noah might seem too distant to form valid parallels. However, both stories were reduced to the form in which we have them after A.D. 400, with Mormon editing Noah’s story and Moroni Riplakish’s. It is certainly no stretch to see father and son sharing the same (probably unconscious) understanding of how a certain type of ruler should be described. Metcalfe has the right pattern but the wrong cause. Folklore studies demonstrate the existence of such parallels in many settings by many different authors, including biography. Such patterning can coexist with indubitably historical events. Certainly an editorial hand has highlighted the parallels, but in both cases the editors have enhanced, not created, history.
Chronology: The average-reign chronology places Riplakish’s rule at 800–770 B.C., although verse 8 specifies that he reigned for forty-two years rather than the estimated thirty.
This time period is well within the Intermediate Olmec Period (900–600 B.C.) This is the time period of the greatest Olmec florescence. Riplakish’s wealth, labor conscriptions, and building projects fit with the archaeological picture. Riplakish’s evil was in adopting a pagan culture and in the heavy burden he imposed on his people to achieve his wealth and prestige.