- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I recently heard a podcast with Brant Gardner, author of The Gift and the Spirit: Translating the Book of Mormon. It is one of the best apologetic arguments I have yet heard, and I use the term apologetic in the positive sense, as in early Christian apologetics. I highly recommend those on staylds to listen to it. It is some real food for thought. One of the most powerful arguments he brings up (in my mind) is what are called “internal evidences” for the Book of Mormon’s divine nature, that it was a translation not a figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination. Gardner brought up the case of King Benjamin. He references Mosiah 2:9-14, to wit, that King Benjamin is discussing what kind of king he has NOT been and that in doing so he refers to concerns we would expect of a New World king rather than an Old World one. Whereas, he says, that Nephi, when writing, demonstrates Old World concerns. His point, as I understand it, is that this demonstrates a complexity that would be hard to come by if Joseph were just spinning a wonder tale. The complexity comes in that it makes sense that Nephi, fresh from the Old World, would talk of Old World concerns, whereas Benjamin, having lived for a time in the New World, speaks of conditions derived from that experience.
I thought this was fairly good evidence that I have never seen referenced before. But when I read Mosiah 2:9-14 I did not feel the same. It is just that I can’t really see where KB is referencing New World things rather than things one might expect someone writing in the early 19th century might say about kingly power.
Has anyone else looked into these things?
It is, perhaps, worth noting too that BH Roberts made a strong case in his “A Book of Mormon Study” that the Book of Mormon is in fact a wonder tale, or at least can be read as one. Too many things to mention here, but I think the larger point he makes is that while the book appears to us to be too complex for any mere mortal to write (especially if one accepts the orthodox explanation for the time frame in which it was written), when looked at more closely it is the product of a non-modern mind (for instance, before Biblical historicism arose), one still steeped enough in folklore and magic and superstition, to spin such a tale but one that is really kind of childish from our standpoint (none of this is to claim that we are necessarily smarter than those of Smith’s time, just that we think differently).
Any thoughts?
Curt
Honestly, I think one of its strengths is that it really can be read and viewed in different ways. I think 1 Nephi and Ether, especially, are quite amazing from the standpoint of historical analysis of differing cultures – and I really mean amazing. Sure, that could be imagination . . . or inspiration – or “divine transmission” – or translation of an actual record, defined loosely as a visionary process as described in our records – or – or – or . . .
I think the internal evidence points to the “extra-ordinary” of some kind. What kind is up to individual readers – but the worst, laziest, least convincing apologetic attacks I’ve read are the ones who dismiss it as simple, mundane, etc. I just can’t see it in those terms, especially as things continue to jump out at me that I’ve missed in previous readings.
Hmmmm? I’m not buying it. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I actually read a few hundred page book that was a compilation of essays by BYU professors presenting different evidences that King Benjamin’s speech was authentic in being inline with similar kingly speeches given in the Old Testament. There were some interesting parallels. I think the biggest problem I had with it is I didn’t buy that King Benjamin would really have access to that information. Nephi wasn’t a king and the Book of Mormon specifically states that he purposely avoided teaching his children much about the ways of the Jews.
So for the Nephi culture to supposedly have these amazing parallels with Jewish culture hundreds of years later isn’t very compelling – it just doesn’t make sense that they would have this kind of information passed down to them (and archeology suggests the same.)
On the other hand people like Joseph Smith / Ethan Smith / Rigdon / Spaulding had access to the Old Testament texts (as did King Benjamin if you believe he could read Hebrew) that could be used as source material to figure this stuff out.
So I don’t find these parallels to be particularly compelling since the text of the Book of Mormon strongly indicates that Jewish culture was not passed down much.
Quote:the text of the Book of Mormon strongly indicates that Jewish culture was not passed down much
Actually, it doesn’t, imo.
The whole thing starts with a statement that everything is based on the language of the Egyptians and the learning of the Jews; the Law of Moses is mentioned as the foundation of the religious system – even AFTER the visions of Jesus’ life, ministry, death, resurrection, etc; God is described as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Isaiah is quoted extensively; “the captivity of our fathers” is the rallying cry throughout the entire thing (minus the Book of Ether); the records that were brought with them are quoted quite often; etc.
I can accept differing views of the BofM, but I don’t see a rejection of Jewish culture in it – except for at the very beginning and after the visit of Jesus.
Again, going back to the actual thesis of the work cited,
the argument is that Nephi tried to distance himself and his people from the traditions of the Jews, not being Jewish himself (and succeeded during his lifetime and that of his immediate successors in relation to the festivals, kingship and stuff like that) but that those who later became kings referred back to the only model they had – that of the Old Testament times described in their records (significantly after the merger with the people of Mulek who were of Jewish descent and perhaps as part of the compromise to become the leaders of that newly formed group). No matter how someone sees the process of its recording, I think that’s a very compelling reading of the text itself.
Quote:the argument is that Nephi tried to distance himself and his people from the traditions of the Jews, not being Jewish himself (and succeeded during his lifetime and that of his immediate successors in relation to the festivals, kingship and stuff like that) but that those who later became kings referred back to the only model they had – that of the Old Testament times described in their records (significantly after the merger with the people of Mulek who were of Jewish descent and perhaps as part of the compromise to become the leaders of that newly formed group).
Actually, isn’t the argument that when King Benjamin referred back to the only model he had that model was New World? At least, that is Brant Gardner’s argument. Iow, he (KB) had lost the Hebrew model by then so he could only refer to New World phenomena. That’s where the complexity comes in. If SMith just created it he probably wouldn’t have thought deeply enough to do that but would have referred instead to Old Testament times.
I tend to agree with Ray that there was an effort to hang onto the Mosaic tradition. What I will concede is that we know that effort was largely unsuccessful. First there was the segregation between Lamanites and Nephites in which the former seem to have rejected large portions of the Mosaic law. Then you have Nephites who simply stop practicing the Mosaic law for one reason or another and end up forgetting the entire Messianic aspect of the covenant relationship. You have splinter groups that are lost and rediscovered who have forgotten the law and the gospel in their estrangement from the main body of the Nephites. And of course, there are those pesky Mulekites. And the whole tale ends with the “people of the book” in utter apostasy.
In my mind, any Nephite civilization (literal or metaphorical) must look more like Samaria, the latter claiming descent from Joseph also.
Of course, I see Lehi’s vision as a reworking of the Garden of Eve story and Jacob 5-7 as a midrash drawn from Isaiah 5.
And others have pointed out the gathering of King Benjamin’s people in tents facing the temple as possibly being Sukkot. More recently a friend pointed out that the approximated date of 124 BC, if accurate, seems to put the speech in a jubilee year adding clarification to Benjamin’s otherwise seemingly out of place calls to return to one’s neighbor those things that are borrowed. (Mosiah 4:28)
Whether I am reading too much into the text or the text has more depth than we yet know, I have gleaned some profound insights that have been life changing and that I couldn’t have discovered in Biblical and extraBiblical texts alone. This in itself substantiates the purpose of the text, however the book came into being.
MnG
PS Curt, would you link the podcast or tell us where to find it? Thanks!
curt, that might be. I need to read it again to see. I might have been conflating two different arguments I’ve read, since I’ve read lots and lots of arguments from lots and lots of people. Once the book moves past 2 Nephi, we have such a sliver account from such a narrow focus (Mormon and Moroni as generals seeing the destruction of their people and crafting a record to explain why) that filling in the possible details is almost purely an exercise in speculation and informed historical extrapolation. What amazes me are the flashes of possibility that have struck me over the years.
The first was when I was very young, comparatively, when I realized that the only thing that made sense to me about the population numbers was that the Lamanites also merged with another group (like the Nephites merging with the people of Mulek) – and that merging with an indigenous group would explain the skin-color-based differentiating statements of the Nephites perfectly. I was under 10 years old when that hit me.
A later example was when I realized that Alma the Younger’s anger and opposition to the church of his father made perfect sense if he was one of the “rising generation” who had not heard King Benjamin’s sermon, didn’t understand it and, therefore, was excommunicated by his father. The verses that talk about that issue point to that conclusion, imo – and it was one of those light bulb moments when I saw that connection.
Those are the sort of things that I believe strongly Joseph didn’t understand in the slightest – and they are things that would have had to be carefully crafted to have been intentional. There literally are hundreds of similar things in the book – so I personally choose to look at them as “internal evidence” that, at the very least, the book was inspired in a very real way. It’s why, despite everything else, I still choose consciously and intentionally to accept it as an actual religious history – knowing all the issues with that conclusion very well.
If that was the podcast interview on Mormon Stories, then yes, I have listened to it an enjoyed it. I was actually thinking about posting a discussion about this. While the external evidence for the Book of Mormon raises some questions, the internal consistency has always been something that has really impressed me. When I was on my mission I was stuck in the office for a transfer and a half with no real responsibilities, and so I took the time to do some really in depth studies. One of them was taking a paperback copy of the Book of Mormon, reading it from cover to cover and marking any passages that said anything about the geography, and then using those to map out the relative locations of everything. It would be one thing to have all the cities mapped out and set out in a single passage, but that is never done in the Book of Mormon. Everything is in bits and pieces – it will mention cities, rivers, and other geographical landmarks in passing. Most of the information I pulled from the war chapters where it will mention them marching south to this city, or crossing the wilderness by the seashore near this city, etc. Distances are rarely given, and when they are it is in general terms, like “a days walk”, etc. Some cities are only mentioned once or twice. I guess what I’m getting at is I scrutinized the heck of this, and never ran across any contradictions in the geography. If you were making up a book of that length, and dictating it to a scribe without having worked everything out on paper first, getting those kinds of details straight is pretty impressive. Another one that caught my attention, is when they talk about someone “going up” to a city, it consistently indicates traveling South, and when they say “going down” it indicates traveling North. To North Americans, this sounds very strange, because we usually thing of North as being up and South as being down. A random tidbit I remember from high school geography, is that Egyptians did the same: Lower Egypt was actually the northern half while Upper Egypt was the southern half. Their sense of direction was relative to the flow of the Nile. Geography is just one example, but there are lot of little details like that. Like an obscure reference in Omni to a man named Coriantumr that lived with the people of Zarahemla for ‘nine moons’. He is mentioned only in that single verse until you get to Ether and discover he was one of the last surviving Jaredites. I’m fully aware of all the external problems with the Book of Mormon, but the level of internal complexity and consistency is still perplexing for me. It is not a simple fiction novel.
The podcast was on Mormon Stories. It is fairly new, from Dec 2011. Brant Gardner is the speaker and John Dehlin the interviewer. I wasn’t sure how much promotion was allowed on here so I didn’t initially say where it came from. Again, it is pretty strong apologetics. I remain as perplexed as the next person about the book but Gardner’s arguments need to be taken into account, imo. Quote:But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews; but behold, I, of myself, have dwelt at Jerusalem, wherefore I know concerning the regions round about; and I have made mention unto my children concerning the judgments of God, which hath come to pass among the Jews, unto my children, according to all that which Isaiah hath spoken, and I do not write them.
To try to say that the king 300 years later still has all of this detailed information about Jewish kings and their approach and that they are still following it is a pretty big stretch.
Also although they indicate that they made an attempt to somehow live the law of Moses mingled with a belief in Christ a whole lot of the practices they talk about are Christian – e.g. baptism.
I see almost no mention in the Book of Mormon about any specifics of living the law of Moses – except Lehi sacrificing at a altar (which is arguable against Jewish practices, he not being of the tribe of Levi) and a fairly obscure references to a temple that was similar to Solomon’s.
In reading 300-400 pages of various essays attempting to show evidence that the speech of King Benjamin was a huge deal and I just didn’t find it very compelling. It felt like Nibley’s approach where they look at what King Benjamin said and then scour the Bible and/or in Jewish tradition looking for any parallel they can discover no matter how obscure and make a big deal about them. In a nutshell it’s the logical fallacy that correlation means causation.
We were looking at the last chapters of Mosiah and the first chapters of Alma today in SS, and it struck me for the first time that Mosiah doesn’t appear to have been responding to some theoretical governing issue when he insisted on changing to a judges model. His sons had refused the kingdom, so, if a monarchy model was to continue it would have had to have been done through some other lineage. Who would that have been? We don’t know explicitly, but it’s interesting that something happened
immediatelyupon his death: A man came forward (again, immediately, in the very first year of the changed governmental structure) and proposed that the people start paying their leaders to lead them. His name was Nehor, and it appears he had a ready following. He lost his temper and killed Gideon – and was killed as a result. Immediately, in the very next year, Amlici started a movement to return to the rule of kings – and he was identified as “of the order of Nehor” – and it appears he had a ready following. Iow, it appears that there were people positioning to be king once Mosiah’s sons refused the throne – people who 1) wanted to be paid leaders and 2) were volatile and willing to enforce their leadership at the point of the sword.
I know fully that the following is speculation, but it hit me that Mosiah probably was prompted to move away from the monarchy model because he knew who probably would become the next king after his death – that it would be Nehor (or Amlici), and that Nehor and/or Amlici would be another King Noah. It looks like he was trying to take preventative measures to keep that from happening, especially if the new king (Nehor) and his chief leaders (the Amlicites) really did turn out to be wicked, Aaron returned from his mission, saw the wickedness, got angry and insisted on taking over the throne of his father at that point.
I know that might be obvious to others, but I’ve always read Mosiah’s political statements as based on his “backward looking” reading of the record from the people of Zeniff/Noah/Lamoni and his translation of the Jaredite record – as general, theoretical statements based on what he learned from “others”. I had never related it directly to the immediate future he saw for his people being led by wicked people he knew personally and a desperate, failed attempt to circumvent what he saw in that immediate future under those leaders.
Ray – going along with your idea is that the Mulekites and Nephites and recently merged. So there is a lot of supposition that a lot of the political turmoil in this time was the result of these to cultures not meshing perfectly cleanly. Perhaps part of the reason for all the civil wars was those mentioned “of high birth” were decedents of Mulekite leaders. So Mosiah being aware of this political concern plays well into your theory. bc_pg wrote:Quote:But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews; but behold, I, of myself, have dwelt at Jerusalem, wherefore I know concerning the regions round about; and I have made mention unto my children concerning the judgments of God, which hath come to pass among the Jews, unto my children, according to all that which Isaiah hath spoken, and I do not write them.
To try to say that the king 300 years later still has all of this detailed information about Jewish kings and their approach and that they are still following it is a pretty big stretch.
Not at all in ancient cultures. While we now live in an “eternal present”, thanks to fast moving media, our ancestors lived in a more stable environment. In some cultures, it is still possible to hear people talk about characters hundreds, or even thousands of years in the past. In New Zealand, the Maori (natives) used to remember the Moa, even though it had disappeared hundreds of years before the Europeans arrived – purely by the oral tradition. In Australia, natives have stories of creatures that died thousands of years ago. In remote parts of the Scottish Highlands, into the early modern period, some genealogists could repeat their ancestry going back about twenty generations, from memory.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.