Adventures in Mormonism

The “debate” cited in this New York Times article is triggered by a stone tablet — apparently predating Christianity — that talks of a Messiah rising from the dead after three days:

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

Of course, that’s not going to faze Latter-day Saints much, since we believe that Jewish prophets were fortelling the Messiah’s death and resurrection (after three days) several centuries before Christ’s birth. Worth reading the whole article.  ..bruce..

P. S. Sorry for the lack of posting; it should be picking up a bit more this week.

For those who did not read my previous posting (”New light on Book of Mormon origins!“) closely enough, let me state plainly: it was a satire. It was, however, satire with a point, and (IMHO) a very sharp one at that. (Sadly, I predict that this information may show up — as a serious argument — on some anti-Mormon websites, as has happened elsewhere on the net with other satirical efforts.)

That post came about because I happen to be re-reading Arrian’s The Campaigns of Alexander at the same time that my wife and I — in our nightly joint reading of the Book of Mormon — are working our way through the ‘war’ chapters in Alma (Alma 45-63). In fact, the pattern for the past few weeks has been that I come to bed, read a chapter out of Alma out loud to my wife, and then (as she turns over to go to sleep) I read quietly out of Arrian for a while before going to sleep myself. Night after night, I was struck at the points of similarities between the two accounts — not the overall narrative, obviously, but much of the details and incidental points.

And while my previous post is written satirically, make no mistake: all of the similarities I list between Arrian’s Anabasis Alexandri and the Book of Mormon are real, and there’s quite a few more, to boot (which I will continue to add to the original post).

For me, the question is: how could a 19th Century farm boy with little education — and with no access whatsoever to the century-plus of movies and TV shows that we take for granted — so accurately describe various aspects of pre-Christian era warfare as they would appear and be chronicled in an ancient historical document? It really is quite striking how much Arrian’s account of Alexander’s campaigns sounds like Mormon’s account of Moroni’s and Helaman’s campaigns.

I have read both the Spaulding manuscript and Views of the Hebrews, and have seen the attempts (profoundly unconvincing, in my opinion) to draw parallels between them and the Book of Mormon. Jeff Lindsay just wrote about an even more laughable attempt to draw general (categorical, not detailed) parallels between the Book of Mormon and works of fiction, such as The Lord of the Rings. The Book of Mormon reads like none of these.

I have also seen the rather contorted efforts to show that Joseph Smith somehow could get access in upstate New York to various obscure, rare, or even not-yet-extant works (atlases, translated documents, etc.), often available only in Europe at the time of the Book of Mormon’s translation, in order to put passing references (e.g., “Nahom”) into the Book of Mormon. I don’t remember whether it was Wilfred Griggs or Kent Brown who — in reference to such efforts — joked about wanting to write an article, “Joseph Smith in the British Museum: The Lost Years”, so I gave both of them credit in my footnote.

And, of course, there are the efforts to explain the Book of Mormon as somehow being a natural production of Joseph Smith’s background, 19th Century Northeast America. Others have done a far better and more scholarly refutation of such claims than I can; my point is that, again, Mormon sounds far more like Arrian than like anything coming out of the early 1800s in upstate New York.

I appreciate the dilemma of those seeking a purely naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon, but it’s a dilemma of their own choosing. It reminds me very much of pre-Corpernican efforts to account for movements of the planets — with the unnegotiable foundational premise that the whole universe revolved around the Earth. This model ended up going through tremendous contortions, epicycles upon epicycles, but with this difference: the pre-Corpernican epicycles actually predicted planetary motion with great accuracy. In my opinion, the various naturalistic ‘models’ of the Book of Mormon fall apart once you move outside of their careful set of special pleadings. The simplest, most consistent, and most effective explanation of the Book of Mormon is the one Joseph Smith — and the book itself — gives.

So, no, I don’t think Joseph Smith somehow got hold of Rooke’s 1812 translation of Anabasis Alexandri and drew upon it in writing the Book of Mormon. I think that Joseph Smith translated a genuine ancient document, and that the Book of Mormon and Anabasis Alexandri sound a lot alike because they share a common focus, milieu and era. ..bruce..

[UPDATED 06/10/08: I fear that a lot of people coming in here are missing the point that, while all the parallels below are quite real, the post itself is satirical; I do not really believe that Joseph Smith relied upon Arrian's work in bringing forth the Book of Mormon. See the 'Humor' tag above? Sigh.]

After careful study and research, I have determined the actual source literature that Joseph Smith drew upon in fabricating the Book of Mormon: Anabasis Alexandri (”The Campaigns of Alexander”) by Arrian, written in Greek in the early 2nd century AD. The parallels are uncanny and abound on virtually every page. And since there was an English translation (by J. Rooke) published in England in either 1812 or 1814, it’s clear that Smith would have had access to this document.¹

Here are some of the striking similarities that I have found (and I reserve the right to keep adding to and editing this list):

Both volumes describe (inter alia) events in the Middle East and Asia centuries before Christ.

Both volumes focus heavily on a series of battles stretching out over years between two major civilizations that have long-standing conflicts with one another. These battles involve large armies, each under the direction of a major political/military leader. These armies directly clash with each other in a series of major battles; some of the battles take place at or across a major river.

Both volumes are written several hundred years after the campaigns in question and are based on contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous records of the campaigns themselves.

Both volumes describe an army led by a young, brilliant, brave military commander in his 20s who inspires his men, who wins virtually all of his battles, usually with much fewer losses than the other side, who is himself upon occasion wounded, and who dies at a relatively young age.

Both volumes are written by authors who have a very high opinion of said military commander.

Both volumes contain the complete text of letters exchanged between two major military/political leaders currently at war with one another. These letters deal specifically with exchange of prisoners and with each side calling upon the other to come to terms.

Both volumes deal with a complex set of city-states with changing allegiances. The two major armies (or forces detached from them) also attack, lay siege to, and capture cities controlled or loyal to the other side.

Both volumes describe intricate army maneuvers, including forced marches, night marches, ambushes, dividing up of forces, attacks from multiple sides, brief and extended sieges, and so on.

Both volumes describe armies waiting for and receiving (or not receiving) supplies and reinforcements.

Both volumes describe battles with casualties numbering over 200,000.

Both volumes describe cities and camps that are defended by digging trenches, piling up earth, and setting up a palisade (breastwork).

Both volumes describe attacks upon bandit-like peoples in mountain fortifications.

Both volumes describe one ruler offering his daughter in marriage to the ruler of a hostile civilization.

Both volumes describe the murder of a civilization’s ruler by a usurper who assumes his kingship, as well as other plots to kill or overthrow a ruler.

Both volumes describe the act of proskynesis (stretching one’s self full length upon the ground before a superior being).

Both volumes deal with religious issues and themes, including signs (some of which are astronomical) and prophecies (some of which are fulfilled).

Both volumes describe the chief capital city discussed in the volume as being destroyed by fire.

Both volumes describe key religious ceremonies being performed near a body of water in a wilderness.

Both volumes describe incidents of troops getting drunk, with unfortunate results.

Both volumes describe one civilization adopting more and more trappings of the other civilization, not always to its benefit.

Both volumes describe new cities being founded, and often being named after the leader who founded them.

Both volumes describe a variety of temples and specific forms of worship at those temples. Both volumes also describe animal sacrifice as part of a religious ceremony.

Both volumes describe a variety of types of governments, including hereditary kingships, non-hereditary kingships, democracies (of a sort), and others.

Both volumes mention horses, elephants, swords, spears, bows, arrows, javelins, chariots, and armor.

Both volumes describe long-distance travel via ships, as well as long treks overland.

Both volumes describe events taking place in a variety of geographical settings, including oceans, coastlines, mountains, deserts, valleys, hills, rivers, lakes, and jungles.

Some identical proper names (people and places) occur in both volumes, such as “Ammon”, “Babylon”, and “Egypt”.

Clearly, this is too much to attribute to coincidence! In fact, I believe a careful comparison of Anabasis Alexandri and the Book of Mormon will reveal far more similarities, big and small, than can be found between the Book of Mormon and, say, View of the Hebrews or the Spaulding manuscript.

Likewise, I would posit that there are far more similarities, page after page, between Anabasis Alexandri and the Book of Mormon than between the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s own early 19th Century American milieu.

So, clearly, Smith must have drawn upon Anabasis Alexandri in creating the Book of Mormon, rather than the usual sources cited by those seeking a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon. QED. ..bruce..

================================

[1] Griggs, C. Wilfred and Brown, S. Kent. “Joseph Smith in the British Museum: The Lost Years”, publication pending.

First off, let me be perfectly clear: I’m not claiming anthropological evidence of anything. But it was still a bit funny/startling to run across this news article about a possibly uncontacted tribe found in Brazil:

Skin painted bright red, heads partially shaved, arrows drawn back in the longbows and aimed square at the aircraft buzzing overhead. The gesture is unmistakable: Stay Away.

Behind the two men stands another figure, possibly a woman, her stance also seemingly defiant. Her skin painted dark, nearly black.

And here’s one of the accompanying photos:

Of course, what this called to mind were passages such as this in the Book of Mormon:

And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.

Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.

And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. (Alma 3:4-6)

Explanations of the Lamanite ‘curse’ tend to fall into one of three categories: a divine change of melatonin; a natural darkening due to more time outdoors plus wearing less clothing; or a cultural exaggeration (cf. Nibley et alis). Maybe the Lamanites just painted themselves.

In any case, it was startling to see a very recent photograph that looked so much like something straight out of the Book of Mormon.  ..bruce..

I posted the following editorial cartoon over at one of my other blogs:

While some will I’m sure object to the quote in the cartoon above, I will argue that the quote itself is reflected in much of the Book of Mormon, as well as in LDS history, though not always in the way one would think.

FIrst, the easy part. The message that “death is not the worst of evils” pervades the Book of Mormon. A long series of prophets, starting with Lehi, risk their lives in order to deliver God’s word; some, such as Abinadi, die unpleasant deaths as a result. Likewise, believers risk — and in some cases lose — their lives for their beliefs. The women and children converted by Alma₂ and Amulek in Ammonihah are thrown alive into a pit of fire; Alma₂ notes that “the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory.” (Alma 14:8-14). The people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi allows themselves to be killed rather than take up weapons or renounce their faith; “and we know that they are blessed, for they have gone to dwell with their God. . . . Therefore, we have no reason to doubt but they were saved.” (Alma 24:20-26). The Book of Mormon also notes the tragedy of those who die unprepared to meet God (Alma 48:23), and several of the prophetic discourses in the Book of Mormon (notably Jacob and Alma₂ ) stress the importance of being prepared to meet God (via death) at all times.

Likewise, LDS history and doctrine — particularly up through the end of the 19th century — strongly emphasizes that what matters is not death but our state at death: “And it shall come to pass that those that die in me shall not taste of death, for it shall be sweet unto them; and they that die not in me, wo unto them, for their death is bitter.” (D&C 42:46-47) We honor our pioneers, particularly those who died during persecutions and the long trek out to the Salt Lake Valley, and we seek to express our own willingness for such sacrifice when we sing

And should we die before our journey’s through,
Happy day! All is well!
We then are free from toil and sorrow, too;
With the just we shall dwell!

– “Come, Come Ye Saints” by William Clayton

Second, I would argue that the sentiment “Live free or die” is reflected through much of the Book of Mormon as well, as well as in LDS history, though with perhaps at times with a different meaning than usually suggested by that phrase.

The classic interpretation in and of itself is quite clear in the Book of Mormon. The attempt by Amalickiah to reinstate a kingship by force (with support of the lower judges — so much for ‘democracy‘) over the Nephites leads Moroni₁ to raise his famous title of liberty (cf. Alma 46). Amalickiah flees over to the land of Nephi, where his coup in turn against the Lamanite king is successful, and he stirs up the Lamanite nation against the Nephites, leading to this observation by Mormon (who also brings up the ‘unprepared for death’ theme again):

But, as I have said, in the latter end of the nineteenth year, yea, notwithstanding their peace amongst themselves, they were compelled reluctantly to contend with their brethren, the Lamanites. Yea, and in fine, their wars never did cease for the space of many years with the Lamanites, notwithstanding their much reluctance. Now, they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all—they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God.

Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, yea, and had dissented from their church, and had left them and had gone to destroy them by joining the Lamanites. Yea, they could not bear that their brethren should rejoice over the blood of the Nephites, so long as there were any who should keep the commandments of God, for the promise of the Lord was, if they should keep his commandments they should prosper in the land. (Alma 48:21-25)

Still, this same book of Alma tells of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who were perhaps the most righteous people in all of Book of Mormon history — who willingly died rather than take up their swords against their fellow Lamanites. This they did rather than violate their covenant with God that they would never take up weapons of war again, because of their previous “sins and many murders”, swearing that “rather than shed the blood of their brethren they would give up their own lives” and that they “would suffer unto death rather than commit sin.” (Alma 24:6-19).

Likewise, with rare (and usually unproductive) exceptions, the Latter-day Saints chose to move along — from New York to Ohio to Missouri to Illinois to the Rocky Mountains, with resultant hardship and death — so that they might live free to practice their religion. While the Doctrine & Covenants does contain the “Lord’s law of battle” — which justifies battle only after three efforts at peaceful settlement have been rejected (cf. D&C 98:34-38) — the few instances of armed resistance by Latter-day Saints usually just made things worse.

Still, it is the children of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi — those who become Helaman’s two thousand “stripling warriors” — who turn out to be the most effective fighters in all the Book of Mormon. And their motivation? Here’s what Helaman₁ writes to Moroni₁ about leading them into battle for the first time:

Therefore what say ye, my sons, will ye go against them to battle?

And now I say unto you, my beloved brother Moroni, that never had I seen so great courage, nay, not amongst all the Nephites.

For as I had ever called them my sons (for they were all of them very young) even so they said unto me: Father, behold our God is with us, and he will not suffer that we should fall; then let us go forth; we would not slay our brethren if they would let us alone; therefore let us go, lest they should overpower the army of Antipus.

Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives; yea, they had been taught by their mothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them. And they rehearsed unto me the words of their mothers, saying: We do not doubt our mothers knew it. (Alma 56:44-48)

Still, the Book of Mormon’s major theme hearkens more back to the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi: spiritual freedom (even if it leads to death) is better than life (if it leads to spiritual death). “Live free or die” gets a new meaning in the light of passages such as these:

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. (2 Nephi 2:27)

“Live free or die” is literally the choice before us, while “Death is not the worst of evils” is a reminder of what really matters in our mortal — and eternal — lives. There are causes worth dying for, and there are outcomes to our choices that are worse than death. Both things worth keeping in mind.  ..bruce..