Mosiah 2 - This isn't Kansas Toto... More evidence

As I started into Mosiah, I thought I’d write more about the great doctrinal themes it contains which show up in the LDS Temple rituals. But that isn’t how it seems to be this morning. Instead, I’m struck by the cultural differences on display in Mosiah chapter 2 from anything anyone in 1820 America would be familiar with.

I’m going to say right now as I begin this essay or series of essays, that Orson Scott Card covers the territory I’m going to write about in much greater detail than I will here. Check out his essay here. He is uniquely qualified to say what he does because he is a master story teller and a faithful member of the LDS church.

Why is he qualified to write about it? Because he knows what it takes to write a work of fiction. Critics of the Book of Mormon claim it is just that. Card knows how difficult it is to produce something like it and have it be well done. Read the essay. It’s well worth your time.

In the mean time, I marvel at the different culture on display in Mosiah. These people are not American Indians. Neither are they frontier settlers of 1820, but rather citizens of ancient Israel…with a twist. While Joseph Smith and the other alleged authors of the book knew of kings and kingdoms. We see a succession here which exists no where else in the Bible let alone in history. Well, there’s one place where it does occur, but Joseph knew nothing of it and that’s in the succession of kings in Meso-America. I’m a heartlander myself and it’s hard to admit that, but it’s true just the same.

In Joseph’s day kings filled the role until they died or were deposed. In Mosiah, the people accept what’s happened without any fuss. Imagine what would happen if John Adams said, “I’m going to retire and name my son as your new president.” How well would that go over?

Yet this is what happens in Mosiah and Joseph doesn’t say a thing about how extraordinarily un-American this is. Going back to Card, one theme he states is it’s human nature for an author to point out differences to his readers so they’ll appreciate his wit or understand what’s going on. Joseph never does it, although Mormon does, but that’s fodder for a different essay.

So there you have it, a compelling slice of cultural difference Joseph couldn’t imagine because it was outside his realm of experience. Occam’s razor says all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the truth. In this case, it’s easier to believe the Book of Mormon is a record of an ancient and different culture than any other explanation. The evidence and human nature won’t allow another.

Mosiah 1 - Compelling Proof for the Book of Mormon

I’m glad Joseph Smith hadn’t translated this chapter before the 116 page manuscript was lost. It contains an event no one in North America knew off in 1829. I’m speaking of Mosiah 2’s “coronation” ceremony. In other words, Benjamin’s benedictory address and a ritual act of succession wherein he hands the kingdom to his son, Mosiah.

In his book “An Approach to the Book of Mormon,” Hugh Nibley asserts this one passage is the most convincing set of evidence which had yet been brought forth to show the Book of Mormon’s authenticity as an ancient work. He said no one knew of or identified the pattern of this ceremony of succession until the 1920’s. How then could Joseph write about something with such unerring accuracy a century earlier? Dumb luck? I think not.

Nibley identifies the event as a “Grand Assembly” held, often at the beginning of a new year or a new age, in which a major change was announced to the people. He goes on to cite 36 elements in this narrative which are the typical attributes of such an event. I won’t list them all here. But you can find the material in Chapter 33 in that book. He said all of the traits in this passage which identify such a ceremony have been found in the Old World. None of them in the Book of Mormon exist only in it too.

In the end, despite the weight of evidence for its authenticity, archeological evidence will never prove it. At most, it will show the culture in which these events take place is plausible. Additionally, there will never be archeological proof of the truthfulness of the doctrines it contains. That comes only from God.

While a story can teach, a true story telling the same theme can inspire. Such is the role of the historicity and plausible archeological authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

1 Nephi 2 - A River of Water

We meet more of Nephi’s family in Chapter Two, particularly Laman, Lemuel, and Sam. They’re all older brothers to Nephi. We also encounter a tidbit of proof about the authenticity of the narrative.

Because I’m an aspiring writer and find this interesting, I’m covering this first. In most cases all authors write to their audiences from the context of their personal experience. In verse six, Nephi mentions a river of water. Sounds simple enough, but why not just say, “a river?” Why go to the trouble to explain it was a river in which water is flowing? Answer: raised in a desert with many dry river beds, wadis, a river that actually had flowing water was extraordinary. So, Nephi made mention of that distinction. From his experience, it was natural to say so.

Here’s the kicker. Raised in New England, rivers and creeks had water in them all year round. A dry river would have been extraordinary. If Joseph had been making it up, he would likely have just said, “a river.” Slim evidence you say?

Now, consider this...for years, decades even, critics used this as evidence against the Book of Mormon since they say there’s no geological evidence to corroborate his claim. Enter Google Earth. About 75 miles south of Jerusalem, there’s a fissure in the desert leading to the Red Sea, an impressive one which contains a dry river bed and palm trees. Geologists say there is evidence that 2500 years ago, the river probably flowed continuously, fed by runoff from distant mountains. There's even a shrine in there. I've seen pictures of the place, it's an impressive "valley". No maps in Joseph's day showed this. So, did he just guess correctly? If the critics are correct, he's made quite a few good ones. Just sayin'.

Here’s my abbreviated bit about Laman and Lemuel. Getting shaken by the spirit when Nephi spoke to them in Bountiful isn’t the first time this happened to these two. In verse 14 we read that Lehi speaking to them did it too. Some people just never learn.

3 Nephi 27-30 - The Three Disciples

We call them today, the “Three Nephites” but in the Book of Mormon they are never referred to by that appellation. Instead they are referred to as the “three disciples” or the “three who should tarry.” When you realize by the time the Savior visits, the people are actually starting to be homogenized having had several decades where Nephites and Lamanites travelled freely among each other.

Starting with the great siege, they even lived together. Yet, tribes being what they are, I’m certain the majority still lived in insular communities, but the church by then was certainly not a Nephite-only organization. It’s safe to speculate, based upon the wide spread wickedness of the Nephites before the Savior’s coming, the majority of the leaders could have been Lamanite.

While there’s nothing doctrinally significant in this, the thought still occurred to me as I read this, this morning that this could be the case. Yet the account of these three disciples is intriguing. From the record, it’s safe to assume, their existence will never be “proof” of its truthfulness. You’ll never see them paraded on the rostrum in General Conference where they are exhibited as evidence of the Book of Mormon. That’s the job of the Holy Ghost to bare that witness.

Rather they are to minister almost unseen for we read in 3 Nephi 28:30 they must pray to the father to reveal themselves to other men. They will go about their work and only when they think it necessary will they show themselves to someone. I wouldn’t mind having such a visit… I have so many questions to ask.

I digress. I’m closing in on sixty and it wasn’t until this summer that I remembered a particular Primary class back when I was a Webelo almost fifty years ago. A member, my next door neighbor actually, came and talked to our class and shared his experiences with them. He’d been promised in his patriarchal blessing that he’d get to see all three. By the time he spoke to us, he’d visited with two. He was forbidden to tell their names, although they told him who they were. Both visits were in public places: once in a store and another on a sidewalk in downtown Mesa. Yet, during the visits, there was no other person or even traffic on the street so it was as if they met in private.

So do they exist? You’ll have to decide for yourself. But for me… they most certainly do and who knows, maybe I’ll be fortunate enough to get a visit with one of them. It won't affect my testimony if I don't, but as I said, I have a lot of questions they are well qualified to answer.

3 Nephi 7 - Overthrow of the Nephite Government

Pop quiz: who destroyed the Nephite government three years before the sign of Jesus' death?

It's not the Gadiantons. At this time in the Nephite history, there weren't any as they'd all been executed or converted six years earlier. The correct answer is lawyers, lower judges and their friends destroyed the government.

Today's equivalents are politicians, senior government officials, the Judiciary (have to put the lawyers somewhere), and their cronies, family and friends. It should be no surprise then, to a student of the Book of Mormon, who is changing the government in radical ways that take away our rights, and liberties. I'll bet you're surprised. Not.

It's one of those not so subtle proofs showing the content of the Book of Mormon is far beyond something an 1829 farm boy, school teacher or minister could ever dream up. Its insights into our day are so prescient, the contents of this chapter ought to be alarming.

Someone once said history repeats itself and if you don't learn from the past, you'll get the full brunt of its lessons the hard way. Actually, history rhymes. But the themes and lessons are no less dangerous or painful to endure when they come. It's fortunate we have the warning of 3 Nephi 7 because it gives us time to prepare.

3 Nephi 2-3 Gidgidoni

In these two chapters we have the run up to what I call, "The Great Siege." In it the Nephites and righteous Lamanites gather into the center of their lands to outlast the Gadiantions. I'll talk about that in my next post, for now there are a few interesting tidbits I want to mention.

One that jumped out at me is Mormon's commentary on the Nephite Chief Captain, Gidgidoni. Did you know it's only recently that this name has been found by archeologists in the Old World? It's recently been seen inscribed on Neo-Assyrian cuneiform tablets. These were the people who carried the Northern Kingdom of Israel into captivity. The empire ceased to exist about 607 BCE. Do you think maybe refugees from its collapse may have ended up in the Southern Kingdom by or about the time Mulek and company left? And do you think, maybe, just maybe the name came to the New World that way?

It makes me wonder how Joseph Smith knew nearly two hundred years ago it was an authentic, time period appropriate name? Then again, the critics will tell you it was probably Sidney Rigdon who knew it, since he was after all a "much smarter person." Whatever... My point is: NO ONE in Upstate New York in 1829 knew of it. So was it just a lucky guess? I think not.

The other interesting thing about him is his resume, he was a prophet before he was made commander of the Nephite armies. What strikes me about this is it shows Alma the Elder and his progeny weren't the Nephites' only religious voices. While they were part of the Nephite aristocracy, they weren't all of it. I think it's interesting Mormon had to point this out to the reader. It indicates that in his day, that was not the case. It's another evidence that in the Nephite and Lamanite culture, there was an aristocracy wherein religious, political and military power were often combined in one person and that it was "normal" for them.

Not once, does Mormon ever comment on how odd that was according to our way of thinking. In fact, in an essay Orson Scott Card wrote about the challenges of writing a fictional "history" that claims to be authentic, Card observes most authors will point out the differences from what is normal to explain it to the reader to prove to the reader, "these people are different." Mormon did it with the comment about prophets being appointed military commanders when the people were righteous. To him, that was a significant enough difference from the norm that he needed to explain it. The BIG difference for us is the aristocratic nature of their society, yet on that sense, Mormon is silent. If Joseph had made it up, he would have commented on that, but you NEVER see anything about that in the book.

It's another subtle evidence the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, the abridged history of an ancient culture that existed here in the Americas.

NOTE: Sorry about the earlier mix up on the book's name. This should have been, and now is about 3 Nephi, not Helaman.