These two chapters bring us to the end of not only the Book of Mosiah, but to the end of an order, the end of the Nephite kings. Sobered by the account of the People of Limhi and by the wickedness of his own sons, Mosiah feared for the people if kings continued to rule. Not only that, he’d let his sons go on a mission to the Lamanites, so no one remained to take the kingdom from him. What to do?
With all these forces acting on him, he comes up with, for him I think, a radical idea: no more kings. When you keep in mind the Lord works with us where we’re at, this step away from rule by kings, was a big one. Even though by our standards, it's not that much of a change. Never the less, Mosiah introduces a democratic component to their society. I think it’s why Mormon made mention of it. It was closer to our day than any other form of government he could write about.
On the surface, it may seem similar, but beyond the elections to choose leaders, there’s little in common. Their first chief judge, Alma the Younger is not only the political leader, he’s also the religious leader. The people voted him into office! Can you imagine that happening today? Or even in 1830? This is a different culture.
As Mosiah argues for this move towards a democratic process, he makes an observation, prophetic in nature even which I feel holds true today. He said it is common for the voice of the people, expressed in their votes, to choose what is right. In other words, the opinion and desires of the majority of a righteous people will be the right thing to do. When this voice of the people choose what is not right, then that society is ripening in iniquity and will soon receive the judgements of God if they don’t repent and change.
We read about this in the Book of Mormon and yet it is playing out in real time before us today. The voice of the American people is preparing to make an awful choice for their political leader. Think of it. The democrats offer a flaming socialist and a brazen lying, hypocrite for their standard bearers. The republicans are not much better. They prefer a swaggering, lying, rich bully over the one candidate who offers any hope of redeeming America. Yet most regard him as a nut case who is out of touch with reality though all he is talking about are conservative constitutional principles.
Mosiah got it exactly right. We're in trouble.
Showing posts with label Mosiah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mosiah. Show all posts
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Thursday, February 18, 2016
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
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.
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.
Friday, February 12, 2016
Jarom to the Words of Mormon - The end of the record
I hope some day to read what was in the lost 116 pages about this time. The record fast forwards through time covering five generations of writers and several hundred years. And yes, I realize there are six writers during this period, two of them are brothers, so for me they count as one generation. During this period the Nephites fall into apostasy. One writer confesses he is a wicked man. Another says he knows of no new prophecy among the people. It’s interesting to me that they also quit mentioning how much time has passed. The last that’s mentioned is by Amaron, Jarom’s grandson, when 320 years had passed.
The narrative resumes, a couple generations later, when Amaleki closes it out with the story of the Nephites fleeing from the Land of Nephi. Amaleki’s story is a poignant one. On the one hand, he has no children. At the same time, he mentions a brother who leaves with Zeniff to go back to the Land of Nephi. He had no one to give the plates to so he makes the choice to give them to King Benjamin. Benjamin is a prophet-warrior-king over the amalgamated nation of Nephites and Mulekites.
Perhaps it’s just because of the brevity of the record, but it’s here we read for the first time of dissensions away from the Nephites to the Lamanites. Reading between the lines, you realize joining the two people was difficult. It required a lot of effort by the king or government leaders to keep it going. This thread of discord runs throughout the rest of their history until Christ appears.
Just a reminder: this is the last part of the record Joseph Smith translated. When they sent the book to be printed, he put this account in front of the rest. The day dreamer in me thinks that had the 116 pages not been lost, it would’ve been at the end of the record, after Moroni. Like an appendix in a modern book. We start next in the Book of Mosiah. You’ll note, it doesn’t begin like any succeeding book with an introduction by Mormon: that was part of the 116 pages.
We don’t even know if it was originally named Mosiah by Mormon. Given the seminal event of Mosiah I fleeing into the wilderness it could be named after him. It may have been named Benjamin for the work he did in uniting the two people. It may even have been part of the Book of Lehi. Whatever the case, I’m certain Mormon did not name it after Benjamin’s son Mosiah II.
The narrative resumes, a couple generations later, when Amaleki closes it out with the story of the Nephites fleeing from the Land of Nephi. Amaleki’s story is a poignant one. On the one hand, he has no children. At the same time, he mentions a brother who leaves with Zeniff to go back to the Land of Nephi. He had no one to give the plates to so he makes the choice to give them to King Benjamin. Benjamin is a prophet-warrior-king over the amalgamated nation of Nephites and Mulekites.
Perhaps it’s just because of the brevity of the record, but it’s here we read for the first time of dissensions away from the Nephites to the Lamanites. Reading between the lines, you realize joining the two people was difficult. It required a lot of effort by the king or government leaders to keep it going. This thread of discord runs throughout the rest of their history until Christ appears.
Just a reminder: this is the last part of the record Joseph Smith translated. When they sent the book to be printed, he put this account in front of the rest. The day dreamer in me thinks that had the 116 pages not been lost, it would’ve been at the end of the record, after Moroni. Like an appendix in a modern book. We start next in the Book of Mosiah. You’ll note, it doesn’t begin like any succeeding book with an introduction by Mormon: that was part of the 116 pages.
We don’t even know if it was originally named Mosiah by Mormon. Given the seminal event of Mosiah I fleeing into the wilderness it could be named after him. It may have been named Benjamin for the work he did in uniting the two people. It may even have been part of the Book of Lehi. Whatever the case, I’m certain Mormon did not name it after Benjamin’s son Mosiah II.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)