| |
|
Thursday, February 26, 2004
|
|
If there is a passage in Nephi's chronicle with an authentic, personal feel to it, Nephi's Psalm is probably it. In 2 Nephi 4:12, Nephi's father Lehi "died, and was buried." Not a word on funeral observances, a bit surprising. Then, after a falling out with his brothers, Nephi resolves to leave the group, taking with him those of the party who sympathized with him. The following verses represent his 'cri de coeur' at this difficult juncture, borrowing various biblical phrases, but touching, nonetheless (2 Nephi 4:17-35, selections with slight edits):
O wretched man that I am!
My heart sorroweth because of my flesh,
my soul grieveth because of my iniquities.
When I desire to rejoice,
my heart groaneth because of my sins,
Yet I know in whom I have trusted.
Awake, my soul! No longer droop in sin.
Rejoice, my heart! Give place no more for the enemy of my soul.
O Lord, wilt Thou encircle me around in the robe of Thy righteousness!
Wilt Thou make a way for mine escape before mine enemies!
Wilt Thou make my path straight before me!
O Lord, I have trusted in Thee, and I will trust in Thee forever.
I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh.
My voice shall forever ascend up to Thee,
my Rock and everlasting God.
10:41:18 PM 
|
|
|
|
Friday, February 20, 2004
|
|
The few verses in the Book of Mormon that provide details of plants, animals, and natural resources used or encountered by the Nephites are of considerable interest. One such verse follows immediately on arriving in what one assumes to be the New World: [W]e did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of man (1 Nephi 18:25).
Note these were "found," not introduced. And as "this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations" (2 Nephi 1:8), they weren't introduced by other visitors from the Old World. Recall as well that all of North America was covered by the waters of the Great Flood (Ether 13:2), so all animals would seemingly have to have been introduced post-Flood (following the text here, of course, not the accepted natural history of the Americas based on real-world evidence).
The term "forests" suggests North America, as do the terms "land of many waters" (Mosiah 8:8) and similar references (e.g., Mosiah 18). Two Nephite locations identified by Joseph Smith were the Hill Cumorah in New York and the grave of Zelph, "a white Lamanite," discovered in a mound near the Illinois River in the Midwest. The Zelph references have Joseph referring to Nephites spread from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains. So the text, confirmed by Joseph Smith, gives clear indications the setting of the Book of Mormon narrative is North America. Attempts to argue for a limited geography setting in some corner of Mesoamerica appear to be in direct conflict with Joseph Smith's beliefs, a difficulty not generally discussed by proponents of the limited geography model.
Given a North American setting, one might expect references to bison (or buffalo) or deer in the book, but no mention of either of these are found. On the other hand, the reference to "horse" in 1 Nephi 18:25 is puzzling, as the standard account has native North American horses dying out in the Pleistocene megafaunal extinction before 8000 BC and being reintroduced to the Americas only later by the Spaniards.
This just scratches the surface of an interesting topic by way of one verse, 1 Nephi 18:25. Interestingly, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism contains no articles on the botany, zoology, or natural history of the Americas according to the Book of Mormon -- incidental references in the articles on "Economy and Technology," "Archaeology," and "Geography" are as close as it gets. Good articles defending the mention of horses include Book of Mormon Anachronisms (explaining them) by Michael Ash at FAIR, and a short, unsigned article Horses in the Book of Mormon at FARMS. An interesting article showing what purports to be the Smithsonian's form letter given in response to inquiries on the Book of Mormon along with comments by BYU anthropologist John L. Sorenson is here.
8:27:52 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 09, 2004
|
|
As faithful Mormons plod dutifully through 2 Nephi this month in Sunday School (including a huge chunk of Isaiah quoted as 2 Nephi 11-25), let's take a different tack and briefly consider how one approaches the Book of Mormon as literature. FARMS lists several of its articles on the topic. I enjoyed a short piece by Sidney B. Sperry, from his Our Book of Mormon (Bookcraft, 1950). I like Sperry -- he was a gifted scholar who wrote clear expositions for general readers as well as scholars, but who did not exaggerate his claims or hype his jargon to hide the shortcomings of his argument. (Where have all the Sperries gone?) Sperry says great literature must have a great theme and be expressed beautifully. He also notes that the greater the scope of any literature—that is, the greater the number, variety, color, and complexity of the impulses it arouses in man—the better its quality. Okay, the Book of Mormon does tackle great themes and tries to generate some variety, but it employs a limited vocabulary and rarely invokes a beautiful expression that isn't borrowed from the Bible. Refreshingly, Sperry concedes this last point, but explains the book's awkward prose by reference to its status as "a translation literature" and Joseph's limitations as a translator. He concludes that though the Book of Mormon has little sustained literary beauty, it is a great literature because of the unusual religious and historical truths which it sets forth with profound spiritual fervor.
Personally, I'd make an argument (following Bloom) that great literature is built around great characters, intriguing and complex personalities that defy any simple reading. Homer, for example, offers Achilles, Agamemnon, Hector, and Odysseus. Shakespeare offers Hamlet, Macbeth, Iago, and King Lear. I don't find any of the characters in the Book of Mormon to be intriguing or complex: they are either good guys or bad guys, and that label is generally all you need to know to understand them. Laban, Laman, and Lemuel were bad guys, while Nephi, Jacob, Sam, and Joseph were good guys. Oh, and Nephi killed a man in cold blood, but he seemed strangely unaffected by that event. Well, I'm no literary critic; you can make your own judgment on the quality and depth of the book's characters.
Also online is a short but detailed Encyclopedia of Mormonism article "The Book of Mormon as Literature," by Rust and Parry (at All About Mormons -- click here, then scroll down to "Scriptural Writings," then Book of Mormon, then scroll down to "Book of Mormon Literature" (sic)). While noting the book's small working vocabulary of about 2,225 root words in English, the authors claim it exhibits a wide variety of literary forms, including intricate Hebraic poetry, memorable narratives, rhetorically effective sermons, diverse letters, allegory, figurative language, imagery, symbolic types, and wisdom literature. The article mentions chiasmus, but for once doesn't dwell on it. There's even a joke! The Book of Mormon no longer fits Mark Twain's definition of a classic essentially as a book everyone talks about but no one reads. The authors did not cite Twain's more direct comments on the Book of Mormon. Rust and Parry conclude that it is a spiritually and literarily powerful book that is direct yet complex, simple yet profound.
8:17:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
|
|
Nephi doesn't actually give it a name, just a description. He records that his father Lehi awoke one morning to find this astonishing brass ball outside his tent door, with "spindles" seen inside the ball to guide Lehi's wandering group through the wilderness (1 Nephi 16:10). This isn't the first divinely empowered item we encounter in the text -- Lehi prophesied that the brass plates "should never perish; neither should they be dimmed any more by time" (1 Nephi 5:19), and the Sword of Laban took on iconic significance almost immediately (see 2 Nephi 5:14, Jacob 1:10, Mosiah 1:16, D&C 17:1) -- but the round ball of 1 Nephi 16 is an entirely supernatural object.
Where did it come from? Did an angel deliver it outside the tent? Angels generally stop for conversation; in fact, that's generally the only thing they do. Who made this round ball of curious workmanship? Do angels have workshops on high where they make divine gadgets to deliver to holy men on Earth? I know of no scriptural parallels for this -- God sometimes directs men to make things (the stone tablets of Moses, the ark of Noah, or even the plates of Nephi) but they use terrestrial materials to construct these items. I am aware of no Mormon writers that comment on the singular and mysterious nature of the appearance of the round ball. It would be like if Noah awoke one morning to find a completed ark out in the meadow. The Book of Mormon account actually reads more like stumbling on buried treasure (conveniently not buried) than it reads like a case of angelic special delivery; angels are not mentioned or even hinted at in the text.
Personally, I find 19th-century parallels intriguing. The Nephite ball showed "a new writing, which was plain to be read, which did give us understanding concerning the ways of the Lord" (16:29), just like the seer stones or interpreters used by Joseph to dictate the Book of Mormon. See the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, article "Translation of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith" (David Whitmer indicated that words would appear to Joseph on something resembling a piece of parchment and that he would read the words off to his scribe) (citing Whitmer's An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887). Furthermore, the ball's spindles that pointed the way to go seem to resemble the wands used in water witching or dowsing more than some ancient cult of the arrow you might have read about elsewhere. And there's a direct link for this parallel, too: Oliver Cowdery. He was told in an early revelation that "you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod" (Book of Commandments VII:3; cf. D&C 8:7-8). So the supernatural features of the Liahona are represented in the pre-translation life experience of Joseph and Oliver, who worked together dictating and writing the text of 1 Nephi 16 (as well as the rest of the book).
For a more orthodox discussion of the Liahona (and a very good one), see Michael Ash's short article. He covers the Nibley arrow stuff and gives citations. I once dug up Nibley's article "The Arrow, the Hunter, and the State" from the 1951 volume of the Western Political Quarterly, down on the 2nd floor of the BYU library, his first arrow article. Ah, the follies of youth. It's all summarized nicely in the transcribed Nibley lectures published by FARMS. See Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Semester 1, p. 213-16 (FARMS, 1993). Okay, here's one sentence: Belomancy is the practice of divination by shooting, tossing, shaking, or otherwise manipulating rods, darts, pointers, or other sticks -- all originally derived from arrows (Teachings, p. 213). That's your word for the day: belomancy.
9:26:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
|
|
Chapter 10 of First Nephi is the first time we run across a group of Biblical quotations. It helps to classify such quotations into three groups:
- Acknowledged quotes, such as 1 Nephi 20-21 quoting Isaiah 48-49, acknowledged as such in 1 Nephi 19:23-24.
- Unacknowledged quotes, such as 1 Nephi 10:4 quoting Deuteronomy 18:15 but not indicating a quote from Moses or Deuteronomy, or 1 Nephi 10:8 quoting Isaiah 40:3 but not noting the source. This refers to whether the text acknowledges a quote, not to whether a quote contains a footnote reference identifying a parallel text elsewhere in the scriptures.
- Prophetic quotes (my term), where the Book of Mormon quotes a scriptural text not yet existing, such as 1 Nephi 10:8 ("there standeth one among you whom ye know not") quoting John 1:26; and 1 Nephi 10:8 ("he is mightier than I, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose") following Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:7, Luke 3:16, and John 1:27. Such a quote is prophetic, of course, because some type of prophetic vision is required, under orthodox theories of the Book of Mormon text, for a writer in the 6th century BC to quote passages written in the 1st century AD.
Chapter 10 of 1 Nephi has several other prophetic quotes. It quotes John 1:28 (in 10:9), John 1:29 (in 10:10), the metaphor of the olive tree in Romans 11:17-24 (in 10:12-14), and Hebrews 13:8 (in 10:18). I found little in my Encyclopedia of Mormonism Book of Mormon articles that comment on this issue directly. In the article "Translation of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith," by John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone, it states generally that little is known about the translation process itself. . . . Only Joseph knew the actual process, and he declined to describe it in public.
Elsewhere, there is a short article entitled The King James Bible and the Book of Mormon, by Michael R. Ash, online at FAIR. Kerry Shirts posted an old Hugh Nibley article on the general topic of the English language idiom and phrasing used in the Book of Mormon. Finally, readers particularly keen on the topic might consider the additional apologetic arguments referred to at the end of The Bible in the Book of Mormon, by Curt van den Huevel. He also classifies Bible quotes into three groups, which he labels acknowledged, unacknowledged, and anachronistic. I came across his article after writing the analysis above, while looking for online resources to add in this final paragraph.
12:02:57 AM
|
|
|
|
Friday, January 23, 2004
|
|
There are three texts, each purporting to give a separate episode of this dream or vision. (1) Lehi's account in 1 Nephi 8 ( Behold, I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a vision, 1 Nephi 8:2). (2) Nephi's account and commentary, scattered throughout 1 Nephi 11-15 ( I sat pondering in my heart [and] I was caught away . . . [to] an exceedingly high mountain, 1 Nephi 11:1). (3) Joseph Smith, Sr.'s dream of 1811, as recounted by Lucy Mack Smith in her memoir History of Joseph Smith (Bookcraft, 1958, is the edition I own). This book is an invaluable reference; a critical edition of the text (whose transmission is messy and is subject to some dispute) is now available as Lucy's Book (Signature Books, 2001). Some excerpts relating to five of Joseph Smith, Sr.'s visions are posted online at this link. The first account available to the modern era (and to Joseph Smith) appears to be Joseph Sr.'s dream in 1811. Here is my edited version of that account, as related by Lucy Mack Smith (as recorded in the Bookcraft 1958 edition, p. 48-50), with terms familiar to readers of the 1 Nephi 8 version and the 1 Nephi 11-15 commentary highlighted:
"I thought," said he, "I was travelling in an open, desolate field, which appeared to be very barren. . . . My guide, who was by my side, as before, said, 'This is the desolate world; but travel on.' Traveling a short distance further, I came to a narrow path. This path I entered, and, when I had traveled a llittle way in it, I beheld a beautiful stream of water, which ran from the east to the west. . . . I could see a rope, running along the bank of it, about as high as a man could reach, and beyond me was a low, but very pleasant valley, in which stood a tree such as I had never seen before. . . . Its beautiful branches spread themselves somewhat like an umbrella, and it bore a kind of fruit, in shape much like a chestnut bur, and as white as snow, or, if possible, whiter. . . . [T]he fruit . . . was of dazzling whiteness. I drew near and began to eat of it, and I found it delicious beyond description. . . . I went and brought my family, which consisted of a wife and seven children, and we all commenced eating and praising God for this blessing. . . . I beheld a spacious building standing opposite the valley which we were in, and in appeared to reach to the very heavens. It was full of doors and windows, and they were all filled with people, who were very finely dressed. When these people observed us in the low valley, under the tree, they pointed the finger of scorn at us, and treated us with all manner of disrespect and contempt. . . . [My guide] told me [the fruit] was the pure love of God, shed abroad in the hearts of all those who love him, and keep his commandments. . . . The more we ate, the more we seemed to desire, until we even got down upon our knees and scooped it up, eating it by double handfuls. . . . [My guide] replied [concerning the building], 'It is Babylon, it is Babylon, and it must fall.'"
Some have argued that Lucy Mack Smith's account of Joseph Sr.'s dream of 1811, recorded in 1845, reflects influence of the Book of Mormon accounts. At the same time, the recital of details unique to the 1811 account (rope, eating by handfuls, Babylon) suggests much of the account is independent of the Book of Mormon versions. In any case, Joseph Sr.'s dream of 1811 is of some importance for understanding the context in which Joseph translated the other accounts in 1829.
9:27:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 19, 2004
|
|
 Lehi and friend, on set
The LDS Sunday School curriculum for this year is the Book of Mormon. I will post short notes and commentary focusing on the scriptural text for the week, along with references to useful study aids. A particularly nice reference for the general reader is Studies in Scripture: The Book of Mormon, published by Deseret Book, which features bite-size essays by BYU religion faculty covering the entire Book of Mormon in sequential order. For example, the essay on 1 Nephi 1-7, "Answering the Lord's Call" by D. Kelly Ogden, gives some real nice geographical context and commentary in only 14 very readable pages.
So what about Lehi as a father? Even allowing that Laman and Lemuel were not model children, Lehi struggled. First, he played favorites, a real no-no for parents. When he was relating his version of the vision of the Tree of Life, he said, I have reason to rejoice in the Lord because of Nephi and also of Sam, but his comments to the older boys were Laman and Lemuel, I fear exceedingly because of you (1 Nephi 8:3-4). Telling a kid he's going to fail can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Second, he couldn't give a straight compliment to Laman or Lemuel. O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord! (2 Nephi 2:9). In other words, too bad you're not as firm and steadfast as this valley, Lemuel. He says this right after Lemuel, along with the rest of the family, abandoned all his earthly possessions to follow his father into the wilderness (the ubiquitous Book of Mormon term for anything outside the city line; it's used over 200 times). If he'd gotten something besides backhanded compliments maybe he'd have grumbled less; ditto for Laman.
Seems like Lehi often fell into the "yes, but" trap. Yes it's nice you followed me into the desert, but you're still not steadfast enough to get my approval. Yes it's nice you're going back to risk your life in fetching the brass plates from mean Uncle Laban, but can't you be happier about it? Yes it's nice you got the top score of 95 on your math test, but I can't believe you missed problem 7! Nothing is ever good enough for "yes, but" parents. As a soccer coach, I saw a parent yell at his kid who just scored a goal. You see, the kid kicked it into the right side of the goal when there was actually more net on the left side. In the Church, this approach to managing members goes under the logo "lengthen your stride." Yes, it's nice you contributed five thousand dollars and ten hours a week to the Church last year, but there's so much more you can do if you really put your shoulder to the wheel. Nothing is ever good enough for these people.
Third, Lehi failed to correct Nephi's self-flattery and hubris, which left him without an effective moral compass when he needed it most. From an early age, of course, Nephi was convinced he was better than his brothers. He is convinced he will be a ruler and a teacher over his brethren, whereas they will be cut off from God's presence and smitten with a sore curse (1 Nephi 2:20-24). Instead of toning down Nephi's rhetoric, Lehi encouraged it by making Nephi his favorite son. Later, like Lord Jim hanging over the railing before abandoning his ship, Nephi faced a defining moment and failed--he chose to murder the helpless Laban and leave his bloody, naked corpse in the street rather than follow the utterly simple injunction Thou shalt not kill. If God had wanted Laban dead He would have smitten him Himself, and Nephi would have stumbled upon a dead Laban rather than a drunken one. For the gripping account of this episode, a model example of rationalization and of the dangers of thinking every whisper in your ear is God talking to you, see 1 Nephi 4:7-20.
Concluding, let's not forget that Nephi showed himself an obedient son, inclined to follow his father's counsel regardless of the consequences, and that Laman and Lemuel (like many teenagers) were headed for a "rebellious phase." But Lehi's approach to parenting (as shown by the text) helped none of his sons overcome their flaws. It's not like this is armchair criticism--all parents face similar challenges and must learn by experience. But I disagree with the common practice of holding up Lehi as some kind of model parent or ideal father. We can learn from his mistakes by encouraging rather than berating spirited and even rebellious kids, and by reminding gifted kids or those "favored of the Lord" that they, too, are subject to moral requirements or commandments, just like everyone else.
9:17:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 05, 2004
|
|
If it feels good, believe it. That's the short form of the popular Mormon testimony model. I got a double dose of it today in Sunday School (Mormon adults attend an adult Sunday School class each week as part of their 3-hour block of weekly meetings). The text for study this year is the Book of Mormon; in today's introductory lesson, several participants waxed eloquent on the nice feelings the Book of Mormon brings them (while reading it, while praying, while singing hymns in church, whatever) and how that establishes the truth of the book for them.
Of course, members of other denominations get nice feelings too (while reading their Bible, while praying, while singing hymns in their congregations) but that can't possibly say anything about the truth of their beliefs or creed. And the possibility that a person might read the Book of Mormon and NOT get nice feelings is simply beyond reasonable consideration. The instructor in today's class did a nice little play-act ridiculing such an outcome by reading a Book of Mormon verse with an emotionless response. I'm sorry, this is not a model of inquiry, this is a mindset. And a firmly entrenched one, I might add. The longer form of the Mormon testimony model might go like this: "If it feels good, believe it, if it's what WE told you to believe. If anything else feels good, don't believe it. If what we told you to believe doesn't feel good, then there's something wrong with you."
Something wrong, you say with surprise? Would anyone possibly critique or reject another person's prayer experience? Yes, there's an ugly side to Moroni's Promise if you don't play along with the Mormon script. "[I]f ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of [the Book of Mormon] unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost" (Moroni 10:4). So obviously (to the convinced Mormon) a person who doesn't get nice Holy Ghosty feelings about the Book of Mormon (1) is insincere; or (2) is sincere but irresolute, lacking real intent; or (3) is sincere and determined but lacks faith in God. Plenty of outs here; if a seemingly sincere person fails to admit to nice feelings about the Book of Mormon, it's obviously not the prayer method or the Book of Mormon that is flawed, it's the person. There's something wrong with them and it's obvious what it is: they are insincere, they lack intent, they are unfaithful.
Surprisingly, this unwillingness to give any weight to contrary experience is not limited to others. A prayer confirmation of a choice of marriage partner, job opportunity, investment, or other significant life choice that subsequently turns out badly or even disastrously is not likely to lead the average Mormon to question their own prayer experience or the validity of the nice feelings model as a guide to truth. Faith in the Mormon prayer method seems impervious to contrary experience. As an explanatory device, it is just too useful and convenient to discard. Contrary facts or experience are ignored, denied, or explained away.
I'm not being unduly harsh here, just engaging in self-criticism. I hasten to point out that there are defensible reasons for believing in Mormonism and being an active member of the LDS Church, as there are for most other denominations. They are pragmatic, like the reasons we give for most things we do in life. One could say "I grew up a Mormon, I'm comfortable worshipping God here, and I see no reason to change." One could say "I get meaningful Christian fellowship from fellow Mormons and experience spiritual growth through my activity in the Church." One could say "I read lots of books on Mormon doctrine and history, including Mormon scriptures, and the Mormon system of belief is at least as defensible as the others I am familiar with."
That last statement is no hollow position, by the way. Creation Science makes fundy Christians look foolish. Five million Southern Christians defended the morality of slavery by appeal to the Bible all the way to the battlefield, just like modern Christians attack homosexuality by appeal to surprisingly similar Biblical injunctions. Jews feel they have an ethically pure religion and one rather unstained by sacramental ritual; right, until you read about wholesale animal slaughter in the temple or Samuel hacking Agog to death (shades of Nephi and Laban) or God giving Israelites the green light to ethnically cleanse aboriginal Canaanites who inconveniently occupied the promised land. I won't even discuss Islam. And don't think secularity is any moral high ground--consider the barbarity that secularity and the proscription of religion brought to the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution.
No, it's not at all unreasonable for an eyes-wide-open Mormon to prefer the devil they know to the other brands on the market. I just wish the Saints were less attached to word games and displays of affected certitude. Faith, hope, and charity are quite enough.
12:55:57 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2004 Dave's Mormon Inquiry Weblog.
Last update: 3/3/2004; 12:32:43 AM.
|
|
|
