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.
Showing posts with label archeological proof. Show all posts
Showing posts with label archeological proof. Show all posts
Thursday, February 18, 2016
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)