“Inequity,” not “Iniquity”: Visiting ASU Professor Speaks on Equity and the Book of Mormon

According to Dr. Pagán’s reading of the Book of Mormon, every time the ancient Book of Mormon prophets are talking about iniquity, they are really saying something about inequity. And not an inequity that can be understood as an imbalance in the scales of justice directly resulting from one’s iniquitous act, but inequity as we see it defined in today’s political climate and in our modern cultural pursuit of the all-important “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

Last Thursday on October 12, BYU’s History department—housed in the College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences—hosted a lecture in the Harold B. Lee Library entitled “On the Question of Equity and Inclusion: What the Book of Mormon Has to Say.” The lecture was a part of the Fernando R. Gomez Latino Lecture Series

Dr. Eduardo Obregón Pagán was the visiting lecturer from the history department of Arizona State University, where he serves as the Bob Stump Endowed Professor of History. A native of Phoenix, Arizona, he is also a Latter-day Saint, a historian, and a Latino.

Dr. Pagán’s presentation was centered on his findings and the conclusions he has come to in reading and interpreting the Book of Mormon through the lens of equity and inclusion. He said, “What I want to share with you is my deep reading of the Book of Mormon and one of the key messages that I believe is embedded in that text.”

He began by pointing out how—according to his count—the word “iniquity” is used about one-hundred-eleven times in the Book of Mormon and that it is used far more than related words such as “abomination” and “wickedness.”

He continued, “I am a believer that no words are by accident in our sacred scripture. All of them are quite intentional.” He then said, “In the modern world, we Americans tend to see terms like “abomination,” “wickedness,” [and] “iniquity” as all synonyms of sin. I want to suggest to you that they are actually addressing different kinds of wrong behavior.”

Dr. Pagán next addressed the definitions of the word “iniquity.” He referenced the Oxford English Dictionary and read off his PowerPoint slide, “The quality of being unrighteous, or more often unrighteous action or conduct. Sometimes, especially in early use, wrongful or injurious action towards another; infliction of wrong [or] injury; in modern use, generally connoting gross injustice or public wrong.”

He went on to also mention the Latin root of the word “iniquity,” stating, “In fact, the term ‘iniquity’ comes from the Latin term ‘inīquus’ which means ‘unequal’ or ‘unjust.’ So when you see that term, and as you study the Book of Mormon, I want you to think [about] what ways [it is] referring to unjust behavior or unjust action.”

Throughout the rest of his presentation, he equated the word “iniquity” with the word “inequity.”

According to Dr. Pagán’s reading of the Book of Mormon, every time the ancient Book of Mormon prophets are talking about iniquity, they are really saying something about inequity. And not an inequity that can be understood as an imbalance in the scales of justice directly resulting from one’s iniquitous act, but inequity as we see it defined in today’s political climate and in our modern cultural pursuit of the all-important “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

Two Key Moments

Dr. Pagán then turned to speak of the demographic composition of the Nephite civilization. He addressed what he sees as two key moments found in the Book of Mormon with regard to the changes in the demographics of the Nephite nation. Dr Pagán explained, “The first will be at its founding and the second will be with the resettlement of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies.”

What he referred to as the “formation of the Nephite nation” was the moment when the people of Mosiah discovered the people of Mulek. Dr Pagán explained, “When these two people came together—the Nephites and the Mulekites —they were about as opposite as they could be, according to what we read in the Book of Mormon. And they had a difficult time in finding union, finding ways of connecting with one another. There’s evidence they lived in separate parts.”

The second “moment” he highlighted in the presentation was the resettlement of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. After addressing the background history of the Anti-Nephi-Lehi converts, Dr. Pagán explained:

“At this moment where the Anti-Nephi-Lehies are to be settled in the land of Zarahemla, the chief judge seeks a referendum of sorts. He wants to know what the people think about allowing them to live among the nation of the Nephites. And so there is a general plan that is offered, and basically the Anti-Nephi-Lehies are given ‘the land of Jershon, . . . east by the sea, . . . south of the land Bountiful. . . . And . . . we will set our armies between the land Jershon and the land Nephi, that we may protect our brethren in the land Jershon; . . . on account of their many murders and their awful wickedness.’” (He said with emphasis added)

He then further explained: “I find that latter part really interesting. You have to remember that the sons of Mosiah are vouching for their converts. These are people that have renounced their former ways of life. They have changed. They want to live among us. And the response was, ‘Ok, let them live over there, because we haven’t forgotten yet their murderous ways and their wicked ways. They’re gonna live over there.’”

Dr Pagán added, “The Anti-Nephi-Lehies are required to support the Nephite military as well. Just think about American history. We have reservations in American history. All reservations to my knowledge have military encampments. Why? Because of their murderous and wicked ways from an American perspective. So for a lot of American Indians, they didn’t look upon the military that was stationed there as people that were protecting them. They looked upon the military as people that were guarding them.”

But Dr. Pagán’s reading of Alma 27:23 is not quite accurate. Here is Alma 27:23 in its entirety:

“And behold, we will set our armies between the land Jershon and the land Nephi, that we may protect our brethren in the land Jershon; and this we do for our brethren, on account of their fear to take up arms against their brethren lest they should commit sin; and this their great fear came because of their sore repentance which they had, on account of their many murders and their awful wickedness.”

As you can see, Dr. Pagán’s interpretation ignores much of the verse and takes the last phrase out of context. This is a dangerous practice in any scholarly study, but to read the scriptures out of context and to wrest specific phrases to create a different narrative is an extremely dangerous practice.

He then started speaking of “power and privilege” in the Nephite nation:

“Now here is one other layer I want to share with you. . . . It was the notion of restricted governance and the systems of power and privilege that existed in the Nephite nation.”

“What I find interesting is that if you were a native Zarahemlan, your nation is controlled by a minority population, a foreign population. They speak a different language, have a different religion, different culture, different economy… So their language, their identity, their religion, all of it had been imposed upon them. And I wonder if this was an underlying cause of resentment. When we see the history then of rising factions, revolts, challenges to power and authority, they all have the appearance—to me at least—as rebellions against inequity and domination as well.”

Concluding, he said, “We know what happened to the Nephite nation. We know that they had struggles in trying to cohere as a people and as a nation. And because of their factions and their infightings and their revolts, they lost. They lost the war. Everything collapsed. And I want to suggest to you this is one of the driving reasons why.”

Dr. Pagán began reading from Helaman 4:11-12, but skipped down to verse 23, saying, “And because of their inequity—remember their inequality—the judgments of God did stare at them in the face.”

Again, here he switched the word “iniquity” for the word “inequity.” Helaman 4:23 actually says, “And because of their iniquity the church had begun to dwindle; and they began to disbelieve in the spirit of prophecy and in the spirit of revelation; and the judgments of God did stare them in the face.”

Dr Pagán continued: “So to this question of why did the Nephite nation fail? This is one of the messages that I find in the Book of Mormon: it’s that the practice of concentrating wealth and privilege and limiting leadership and undermining national unity . . . [T]he structural inequalities between the wealthy and the powerful and the dispossessed brings resentment, rebellion, and defections.”

“Why does [Mormon] remind us so many times about the dangers of inequality, of inequity, of injustice? Well, I think you know why. If you look around at what’s happening in the world today, there are lots of modern corollaries.”

“This question about what Mormon has to say on the question of equity and inclusion, I believe that is one of the central messages of the Book of Mormon. When we fail to take care of one another, when we fail to bear one another’s burdens, when we fail to mourn with each other, to show empathy, to try and help, we will lose as a people [and] as a nation. We will suffer. And I hear the voice of Mormon pleading to us: don’t make the same mistake. This work of inclusion, this work of belonging is central to our covenants as Latter-day Saints.”

Dr. Pagán then concluded his speech: “I’m grateful that BYU has embarked on this great effort to work on belonging in this institution, to find ways of inculcating that in the curriculum and all that we do. It is the right thing to do. And it is my plea that we follow Mormon’s warning, and we follow the Savior’s admonition as well, that we reach out and we listen and we care for one another.”

The First and the Second Commandments

Overall, Dr. Pagán seems to fully embrace the second great commandment but completely loses sight of the first great commandment, which is to love God. When a civilization chooses to keep the first great commandment to love God, they prosper because the people are choosing not to be iniquitous and all commandments including that of loving others are adhered to as the first is obeyed.

First, the word “iniquity” cannot possibly be equated with the word “inequity.” I find this completely inaccurate.

As for his statistics, according to my searches on Scripture Citation Index—a website set up by BYU faculty members Stephen W. Liddle and Richard C. Galbraith—the word “iniquity” appears in the Book of Mormon one-hundred and twenty-nine times. The word “inequity” appears zero times.

Dr. Pagán repeatedly emphasized that the Book of Mormon was truly written and abridged for our time, “this point in history when these ideas of equity and inclusion are being contested.” He sees the Book of Mormon as Mormon’s plea for us in the latter days to not allow the same “inequities” that the Nephites did.

According to Dr. Pagán, it was the inequities, injustices, unfairnesses, and restriction of privileges in the Nephite civilization that ultimately led to their demise. In his reading, God destroyed the Nephites because of the “festering injustices” and inequities” widely spread over their civilization.

Overall, Dr. Pagán seems to fully embrace the second great commandment but completely loses sight of the first great commandment, which is to love God. When a civilization chooses to keep the first great commandment to love God, they prosper because the people are choosing not to be iniquitous and all commandments including that of loving others are adhered to as the first is obeyed. This is what we read in the Psalms, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalms 33:12). The Nephite civilization was destroyed because they forgot their God; all other civilizational problems stemmed from that.

We must remember and obey the first great commandment first. In a talk given at the General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1967, Elder Ezra Taft Benson declared, “The world largely ignores the first and great commandment—to love God—but talks a lot about loving their brother. They worship at the altar of man. Would Nephi have slain Laban if he had put the love of neighbor above the love of God? Would Abraham have taken Isaac up for a sacrifice if he had put the second commandment first?”

“[O]nly those who know and love God can best love and serve his children, for only God fully understands his children and knows what is best for their welfare. Therefore, one needs to be in tune with God to best help his children. . . . Therefore, if you desire to help your fellowmen the most, then you must put the first commandment first.”

Elder Benson continues, “When we fail to put the love of God first, we are easily deceived by crafty men, who profess a great love of humanity, while advocating programs that are not of the Lord.”

Our first priority should be our God, and we should align our will with His will. If God were to have a mission statement, it would be Moses 1:39: “This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” The Book of Mormon is meant to bring people to Christ and invite them to repent and be redeemed through His atonement. Through God’s servant, the prophet Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon was brought forth in these latter days for that end. It was not for the end of calling us to remedy the perceived “inequities” of our day, as Dr. Pagán falsely concludes.

Sadly, Dr. Pagán’s understanding of the Book of Mormon is skewed because his vision is warped with the modern politics of diversity, equity, and inclusion. He comes across as more of a critical race theorist than a Latter-day Saint historian, and the lecture was nothing more than the “philosophies of men mingled with scripture.” The talk could just as easily have been entitled “The Book of Mormon as Interpreted by Eduardo Pagán Using the Modern Lens of DEI.”

Unfortunately, there were many students who attended this “DEI in the Book of Mormon” event – every seat was filled. Students also stood or sat on the floor and lined the sides, the back, and the doorways of the auditorium. By my count, there were around two hundred and fifty students and faculty gathered in this library auditorium to listen.

On this occasion, Dr. Eduardo Pagán was invited to impart his foreign and nonsensical understanding of a book of scripture that many of us have read numerous times. It is unfortunate that this should be the case. The students of BYU and the parents who sent us here expect better. We come to BYU with the expectation that this place of learning will be grounded in academic truths as well as gospel truths. As such, we should not be inviting speakers who project ideological agendas onto the scriptures.

For the hundreds of students who convene to listen, the lectures within the colleges of Brigham Young University should serve as a source of inspiration for students and a forum to promote and learn more about beautiful truths. Lectures put on by the College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences should draw students out to listen to faithful and insightful scholars who speak about what is the good, the true, and the beautiful.

Written by: Eliza Andersen

Editor at the Cougar Chronicle

The opinions in this article are those of the author.

The Cougar Chronicle is an independent student-run newspaper and is not affiliated with Brigham Young University or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.