Category Archives: Main

Deep religion and deep logic

Belief systems, LDS Doctrine, Main, World Religions

Orson Scott Card has an outstanding column over at Mormon Times on what he calls “deep religion“:

I had unknowingly tapped into their religion at a level so deep that they didn’t even understand why my comments made them so upset. Yet they didn’t think it was their religion — they thought Plato was just a philosopher, and that their religion was founded on scripture.

What I learned at that point was that people aren’t always aware of their real religion, the deep beliefs that they hold with such intense faith that it doesn’t occur to them that other people might not share them.

Be sure to read the whole column; it’s both excellent and relevant.

Back in 1971, as a freshman at BYU in the Honors Program, I was (thankfully) required to take — in place of the usual ‘freshman English’ class — a five-credit class on ‘Composition and Reasoning’. We met 3 days a week with an English professor, studying composition and writing, and 2 days a week with a Philosophy professor, studying logic, reasoning, and philosophy. Our major papers were graded by both professors — that is, they were graded not just on how well we wrote, but whether our logic was sound. One of the most important lessons I learned in that class was the importance of going back to fundamental premises — and how often, in regular human discourse, those fundamental premises are unvoiced, unexamined, and often simply unconscious, as per Card’s observations in his column.

This insight was of great use for me in subsequent years in the intense discussions (read: flame wars) that took place on the pre-Web internet/online communities (USENET news groups, bulletin board systems, and on-line services such as BIX). I found that by pushing the topic back to fundamental premises, I could usually uncover the real sources of disagreement. Of course, I also found that a lot of people didn’t like to go back to their fundamental premises, usually because (a) they had never thought about them and didn’t want to start thinking about them now, and/or (b) they began to realize that their fundamental premises were not logically consistent with each other and/or with some of their more conscious beliefs.

Likewise, through the decades of raising our 9+ children (the ‘+’ being our ‘semi-adopted’ daughter, the daughter of a close friend who lived with us for a full school year while in high school), my wife Sandra and I naturally had many, many discussions about religion with them. Some of our children, as they grew older, drifted (or ran) away from the Church and the Gospel, usually saying that they had no need for ‘religion’. My rejoinder was that whether they were LDS or not, whether they were Christian or not — heck, whether they were atheist or not — they all still had ‘religion’ of some kind, viz., their answers (or lack thereof) to the ‘terrible questions’:

  • Who (and what) am I?
  • Where did I come from?
  • Why am I here?
  • What happens after death?

I told them that whether they accepted the Gospel and/or the Church, their lives would be better off and more cohesive if they consciously answered those questions for themselves and then lived accordingly.

Even today, I find that much of what passes for political, religious, and even scientific discourse suffers from the same problem: lack of discussion of the fundamental underlying premises (which may well be what led Card to write this particular column). Without such discussion, the discourse usually becomes futile, unproductive, and often quite nasty. Yet I often find that people don’t want to go through the effort (and sometimes pain) of determining their fundamental premises and/or reconciling their espoused and conscious opinions with those premises.

I have long thought that logic and reasoning should be a required class no later than middle school and should be repeated in high school and college. We worry (and rightly so) in our educational system about literacy and numeracy, and even about computer skills, but fail to realize that the ability to construct — and take apart — a logical argument, as well as to recognize the variety of logical fallacies, is every bit as important, particularly in today’s world. (And as a side note, the training I received in logic and reasoning in that Honors class was of tremendous value when I switched my major to computer science later on in college.)

Logic and reasoning are also, in my opinion, important in religion. Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing inherently illogical about religion or religious belief itself; all belief, all knowledge, all logic and reasoning goes back to fundamental and axiomatic premises (such as the ‘terrible questions’ above). Indeed, many attacks on religion themselves come from unexamined, unvoiced, and/or undefended premises (“One just doesn’t get gold plates from an angel” — “Why not?”) or from a foundational premise that can only lead to a reduced set of conclusions (e.g., Fawn Brodie and Dan Vogel both having as an a priori assumption that Joseph Smith could not have been a genuine prophet).

This, of course, doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of sloppy and/or illogical thinking within religion and religious belief, including within the Church. But my own training in logic and reasoning has only served to strengthen my testimony over the years and, I believe, has left me far less susceptible to the “Oh, I just learned something unpleasant about [name major Church figure, doctrine, program or local leader here] and now I’m leaving the Church” syndrome. Beyond that, in my examination of other religions, I have found LDS doctrine and thought to be more logically consistent and cohesive, and that it just makes far more sense.

The anchor of my personal testimony comprises the fundamental spiritual experiences, occasionally profound but usually mild and quiet, that have filled my life starting at the time of my conversion over 40 years ago. But the chain that holds me to that anchor is forged from the steel of logic and reasoning — and a strong and firm chain it is. ..bruce..

Rough stone polished

LDS History, Main

While out walking this morning, D&C 128 came up on my iPod Shuffle. I have always loved this section, even as a teenage convert, because Joseph Smith’s voice and character seemed to come through so clearly. The section itself — a letter dictated by Joseph Smith (and transcribed by William Clayton) on September 6, 1842, while hiding out from attempts to arrest him and extradite him to Missouri1 — is a wonderful blend of (to draw upon Nibley) mantic (revelatory), sophic (logical), and yes, even rhetoric (“Courage, brethren! And on, on to the victory!”). But even in his rhetorical — and one might argue ecstatic — flight at the end of the section, he still brings it back to where it started: records and recorders (cf. v. 2-4 with the end of v. 24). And then, the flight done and the circle closed, he signs off with a very mild and calm

Brethren, I have many things to say to you on the subject; but shall now close for the present, and continue the subject another time. I am, as ever, your humble servant and never deviating friend, Joseph Smith. (D&C 128:25)

What struck me today, listening to this section, was the contrast with Joseph’s earliest autographical writings. Here’s a portion of his 1832 ‘History’ that Joseph wrote himself (as opposed to dictating to Frederick G. Williams) some 10 years before dictating D&C 128; I’ve modernized (or corrected) spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, as well as making some decisions regarding clauses and sentence breaks, so as just focus on the composition itself (and to account for whatever ‘polish’ William Clayton may have given his transcription of D&C 128):

I was born in the town of Sharon in the State of Vermont North America on the twenty-third day of December DC 1805 of goodly parents who spared no pains in instructing me in the Christian religion. At the age of about ten years, my father Joseph Smith Sr. moved to Palmyra, Ontario County, in the State of New York and being in indigent circumstances were obliged to labor hard for the support of a large family having nine children; and as it required the exertions of all that were able to render any assistance for the support of the family, therefore we were deprived of the benefit of an education; suffice it to say I was merely instructed in reading, writing and the ground rules of arithmetic, which constituted my whole literary acquirements. At about the age of twelve years, my mind became seriously impressed with regard to the all-important concerns for the welfare of my immortal soul, which led me to searching the scriptures, believing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God; thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations led me to marvel exceedingly; for I discovered that they did not adorn their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository. This was a grief to my soul. Thus from age twelve years to fifteen, I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind: the contentions and divisions, the wickedness and abominations, and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind. My mind became exceedingly distressed, for I became convinced of my sins and by searching the scriptures, I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord, but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith, and there was no society or denomination that build upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament, and I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world, for I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday, today, and forever, that he was no respecter to persons, for he was God.2

Joseph by this point had already received quite a bit of polishing — he had dictated the entire Book of Mormon, plus close to half of the revelations that would eventually end up in the Doctrine and Covenants. Yet even so, I see a difference between Joseph’s style here and that found in D&C 128 some 10 years later. Joseph’s writing in his 1832 ‘History’ tends to plod along, winding through long, long sentences. D&C 128 has a lighter, clearer style, and there is a sense of structure and purpose, and even of joy — that Joseph knows where he’s going with all this, that he’s excited about it, and that each new strand he brings up gets woven into the overall tapestry. Even when he goes off on that ecstatic flight at the end, he does so for a purpose and — as noted above — he brings it back to his original topic and weaves it into the tapestry as well (cf. Jeff Bennion’s excellent post over at Mormon Mentality on Joseph Smith not being a “mystic”).

FWIW; YMMV. ..bruce..

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

1. The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Lyndon W. Cook, Seventy’s Missionary Bookstore, 1981, pp. 284-285.

2. Adapted from The Papers of Joseph Smith: Volume I: Autobiographical and Historical Writings, Dean C. Jessee (ed.), Deseret Book, 1989, pp. 3-6.

 

Church/state tension in Jacob 1-3?

Book of Mormon, Main

Listening to the book of Jacob on my iPod while driving around today, I picked up on something that I hadn’t noticed or considered before. There is, I think, a hint of tension between Jacob and the new Nephite king, particularly through the first few chapters of Jacob. The first thing that caught my ear was this passage:

And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son. Yea, and they also began to search much gold and silver, and began to be lifted up somewhat in pride. Wherefore I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having first obtained mine errand from the Lord. (Jacob 1:15-17)

Now, Jacob has just spent several verses talking about the death of Nephi and the choosing of a subsequent king (to be called “second Nephi” or, as we might say it, “Nephi the Second”). So he doesn’t need to re-inform us that we’re now “under the reign of the second king” — but he does so anyway. And that phrase sounds as though Jacob could mean it in a causative sense — that it is because of the reign of the “second king” that the Nephites “began to grow hard in their hearts” and so on.

Note also that Jacob doesn’t say “second Nephi”, “King Nephi”, or anything like that; after giving a glowing send-off for his brother (Jacob 1:9-14), Jacob simply calls the new king “the second king” and gives us no information about his background, lineage, or character. This is underscored by Jacob subsequently stating that his own ecclesiastical authority — and that of his brother Joseph — came “by the hand of Nephi” (Jacob 1:18), emphasizing Nephi’s holiness and standing before God — and implying that it is Jacob and Joseph who are carrying on Nephi’s tradition, rather than “the second king”.

When Jacob describes the Nephite trend towards polygamy, he specifically cites the example of two fallen Israelite kings: David and Solomon. He doesn’t cite any of the polygamous prophets (including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel), or any other Old Testament practitioners of polygamy. This makes me wonder if Jacob 1:15 actually describes what the second king is doing, with the people of Nephi simply following suit. In that case, consider the following hypothetical rewrite of verse 15:

…the second king…began to grow hard in [his] heart, and indulge [himself] somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son. Yea, and [he] also began to search much gold and silver, and began to be lifted up somewhat in pride. (Compare with this description of King Noah some 400 years later.)

So, if this was the case, why didn’t Jacob just write this? One answer is that Jacob may not have considered it safe to do so, though it’s unclear what access the king and his advisors would have to the small plates. (Still, see Jacob 3:13-14, which I comment on below.) Another possible answer is that Jacob did not feel it his place or right to challenge or criticize the king directly, since the king in Israelite terms was considered the Lord’s anointed; again, this could be a reason why Jacob may have specifically cited his own ordination, but was still circumspect in what he said (or, at least, what he wrote).

A third (and not necessarily exclusive) answer is that the second king was most likely a son of Nephi; it could also have been Jacob’s older brother Sam (less likely, given what Sam’s age would be at that time), a son of Sam, a son of Jacob himself (other than Enos — who appears very late in Jacob’s life) or even a son of Joseph. It’s hard to believe that the kingship would pass out of the Lehi lineage altogether immediately after Nephi’s death, so Jacob was almost certainly closely related to the king, whoever he was. As such, Jacob may have been hesitant to challenge or criticized his close family directly, especially given the disastrous and painful split among his own older brothers which was even then a source of on-going conflict and war.

If this is correct — that is, if the problems that Jacob cites had their origin with the second king — then Jacob’s sermon in chapters 2 and 3 becomes very interesting, since Jacob in that case almost certainly directed his sermon at the king as much as at the people. When read or listened to in that context, the sermon has what could be interpreted as some very pointed remarks for the new king:

  • Avoid pride and remember that God “can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust.” (2:15)
  • Share your wealth and seek the kingdom of God first (2:17-18)
  • Use your position and wealth “for the intent to do good” (2:19)
  • “One being is as precious in [God’s] sight as the other. And all flesh is of the dust” (2:21)
  • David and Solomon did that which “was abominable before [God]” (2:24)
  • God led Lehi and his family out of Jerusalem to raise up “a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph” (2:25; emphasis mine)
  • “These commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore you have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.”” (2:34; emphasis mine)

He then spends much of the rest of his sermon talking about how much better the Lamanites are in their treatment of their wives and children, and how much better it will be for the Lamanites at the last day than for the (wicked) Nephites; again, a reminder that blessings are not guaranteed by lineage or position. He then concludes his sermon (or, at least, his transcription of it) with

O my brethren [think: “king” or possibly just “brother”], hearken unto my words; arouse the faculties of your souls; shake yourselves that ye may awake from the slumber of death; and loose yourselves from the pains of hell that ye may not become angels to the devil, to be cast into that lake of fire and brimstone which is the second death. (Jacob 3:11; compare with Lehi’s admonition to Laman and Lemuel)

And then he closes this section (chapters 2 and 3 were a single chapter in the original Book of Mormon manuscript) with a passage that sounds as if he’s unsure he’ll be writing any more (which underscores the thought that he might be at risk):

And a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, which now began to be numerous, cannot be written upon these plates; but many of their proceedings are written upon the larger plates, and their wars, and their contentions, and the reigns of their kings. These plates are called the plates of Jacob, and they were made by the hand of Nephi. And I make an end of speaking these words. (Jacob 3:13-14)

As I said, these are only hints of a serious church/state tension after the death of Nephi. But they form a useful context for reading the first three chapters of Jacob, and they give several of the passages new meaning and depth, particularly in the context of Jacob calling the king — who is almost certainly a very close family member — to repentance. ..bruce..

A few thoughts on “Anti-Nephi-Lehi”

Book of Mormon, Main

[Updated 03/26/08 — made some additions and changes]

Bruce Nielson had a post over at Mormon Matters earlier this month on the use of the name “Anti-Nephi-Lehi” in the Book of Mormon and what it could mean. I posted a few comments in response, but wanted to pull them together here with a few other things I’ve run across just in the last day or so to lay out my own arguments a bit more concisely and coherently.

The name first shows up in Alma 23:16-17. It is a name that the Lamanites who have converted to the ‘church of God’ take upon themselves as a replacement for the name ‘Lamanites’:

And now it came to pass that the king and those who were converted were desirous that they might have a name, that thereby they might be distinguished from their brethren; therefore the king consulted with Aaron and many of their priests, concerning the name that they should take upon them, that they might be distinguished. And it came to pass that they called their names Anti-Nephi-Lehies; and they were called by this name and were no more called Lamanites.

When the king of over all the Lamanites (who remains unnamed in the record) confers his kingdom upon his son (also unnamed; this is the brother of King Lamoni), that son’s name changes to “Anti-Nephi-Lehi”; it’s unclear if he chose that name or if his father conferred it upon him:

Now the king conferred the kingdom upon his son, and he called his name Anti-Nephi-Lehi. (Alma 24:3)

Of course, these names tend to be a bit confusing to us as English speakers, since we interpret “anti” as meaning “in opposition of” — and, indeed, the Book of Mormon has a word or phrase that is translated into English as “antichrist” and is used to describe Korihor. So for us it makes no apparent sense to have a righteous people somehow describe themselves as being “in opposition to” Nephi and Lehi. Indeed, the entire point of Bruce Nielsen’s post was to give an explanation of just how that phrase might be interpreted.

Royal Skousen devotes three and a half pages of discussion on this name in Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part Four, Alma 21-55 (FARMS, 2007), pp. 2092-2095. The last part of his discussion considers three possibilities:

  • Does “anti” have the Greek meaning of “anti”, viz., meaning “against” or “in opposition to”?
  • Should this have actually been “ante”, meaning as per Latin, “before” or “preceding”?
  • Or is “anti” simply an untranslated Nephite/Lamanite morpheme?

Skousen concludes that it is the third, citing a long string of Nephite and Lamanite proper names that also use Anti:

Instead, Anti appears to be a proper noun in the Nephite-Lamanite language. Consider how many uses there are in the text of the morpheme Anti in Nephite and Lamanite proper nouns: Ani-Anti, Antiomno, Antionah, Antionum, Antiparah, Antipas, and Antipus; perhaps the Nephite monetary unit antion could also be added to this list. (p. 2095)

I would also suggest that the name “Manti” could be added to that list.

There are three other things that add support to Skousen’s conclusion (which I agree with), but which he does not specifically cite.

First, a very minor point: there are no hyphens in either the original Book of Mormon manuscript or the printer’s manuscript prepared from the original manuscript by Oliver Cowdery. In both cases, the name as given in Alma 23:17 is “AntiNephiLehies”. I only mention this because some of the discussion over at Mormon Matters dealt with the significance of the hyphenation.

Second, and more significant, all of the individuals whose names start with Anti* are rulers or leaders of some kind:

  • Antiomno — Lamanite king over the land of Middoni
  • Antionah — a ‘chief ruler’ of the city of Ammonihah
  • Antionum — a military leader among the Nephite (one of Mormon2‘s leaders of 10,000)
  • Antipus — a Nephite leader over the city of Judea and ‘that part of the land’; also leads a Nephite army
  • AntiNephiLehi — king over all the Lamanites (for a while, at least)

Manti, on the other hand, does show up as a non-ruler name (Alma 2:22). All other uses of *Anti* names (including Manti, Antionum and Antipas) are place names, with the exception of antion (a measure of gold) and, of course, AntiNephiLehies for the converts themselves.

Finally, and I believe most compelling, all of the *anti* names listed above — with a single exception — appear exclusively in the book of Alma. To wit:

Even the one *anti* name that appears (once) outside of the book of Alma — Antionum — appears first in the Book of Alma as a place name, then (like Mormon itself) appears as the name of a military leader in the last days of the Nephite civilization.

Note further that the book of Alma itself covers less than 40 years (90 BC to 52 BC), only a small fraction of the entire Nephite history. Yet all of the *anti* names appear in the Book of Mormon record only during that 40 years (again, except for the late and solitary reappearance of Antionum some 400 years later).

In short, within the Book of Mormon, *anti* was used only within a very brief (<40 years) period of time — with the late exception of Antionum, the borrowing of a place name from that 40-year period — and Anti* is only used at the start of a personal name when that person is a civil and/or military leader. I believe this provides very strong evidence that, as Skousen concluded, Anti* is a Nephite/Lamanite morpheme — and one that appears to have something to do with leadership, at least when used as a proper name.

One potential, if minor, complication with the “Anti*= ruler” hypothesis is that the collective name AntiNephiLehies shows up in the Book of Mormon text a few verses (and some implied duration of time) before the son of the Lamanite king is given the name AntiNephiLehi. However, I would argue that the same text hints that the old king — Lamoni’s father — may have taken upon himself the name AntiNephiLehi and did so before the Lamanite converts under his rule took upon themselves the collective name AntiNephiLehies. I base this on Alma 24:1-3:

And it came to pass that the Amalekites and the Amulonites and the Lamanites who were in the land of Amulon, and also in the land of Helam, and who were in the land of Jerusalem, and in fine, in all the land round about, who had not been converted and had not taken upon them the name of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, were stirred up by the Amalekites and by the Amulonites to anger against their brethren. And their hatred became exceedingly sore against them, even insomuch that they began to rebel against their king, insomuch that they would not that he should be their king; therefore, they took up arms against the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi.

Now the king conferred the kingdom upon his son, and he called his name Anti-Nephi-Lehi. (emphasis added)

It’s dangerous to put too much weight upon the chronological sequence of three verses, particularly since the text itself represents Mormon2‘s abridgment of the record of Alma2. But I would suggest that the Lamanite converts had actually followed well-established Nephite/Lamanite tradition of taking upon themselves the name of their founding leader (cf. Alma 2:9-11; Alma 21:2-3; etc.); that the father of King Lamoni had taken the name AntiNephiLehi upon himself (in consultation with Aaron et al.), and that the converts then naturally chose to call themselves AntiNephiLehies or the people of AntiNephiLehi in response to that. When the old king stepped down from the throne, his son took upon himself (or was given by his father) that same name.

OK, now for a really speculative interpretation. The first appearance of *anti* in the entire Book of Mormon is found in the very first chapter of Alma:

And it came to pass that they took him; and his name was Nehor; and they carried him upon the top of the hill Manti, and there he was caused, or rather did acknowledge, between the heavens and the earth, that what he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death. (Alma 1:15)

Manti is specifically identified here as a hill (though the name is later used — in typical Nephite/Lamanite fashion — for both a city and the land around it). Furthermore, it is a hill that appears to have some strong ritualistic or symbolic meaning, since it is used for Nehor’s confession and execution “between the heavens and the earth”. It may well be that anti in the Nephite/Lamanite language has a meaning somewhat parallel with arche in Greek, that is, the senses of beginning, first, highest, ruler, or even heavenly. This meaning could predate (and help explain) the place name Manti for this particular hill (“between the heavens and the earth”), or the meaning could derive from the name of the hill Manti itself.

Note that Antipas is likewise a “mount“. There is no direct indication of the terrain around the other Anti* place names.

Anyway, as I said, a few thoughts. ..bruce..

“All are alike unto God”

Book of Mormon, LDS Doctrine, LDS Society, Main

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)

Many, many years ago, on a visit to Utah, I attended church with an acquaintance of mine. This man was a professor at BYU and had a PhD from Harvard, of which he was quite proud. After the high priest group meeting was over, he turned to me and said, “You know, during the lesson I was looking around the room with interest. On the one hand, here were men with advanced degrees and significant accomplishments: scholars, professors, successful businessmen. On the other hand, you have men who are third- and fourth-generation farmers. I marvel that the same Gospel can encompass us all.” My response was simply, “Well, maybe from where the Lord sits, there isn’t any real difference.”

My acquaintance was not amused. As I said, he was quite proud of his Ivy League degree and did not care to be lumped in with farmers.

I have reflected on that exchange many times in the quarter-century since it happened. I think we all succumb to my acquaintance’s temptation from time to time and in different ways. The condescension of men is something quite different from the condescension of God; ours is made in self-justification, self-praise and self-satisfaction. Whether it is our intellect, our education, our orthodoxy (or heterodoxy), our skepticism (or our faithfulness), or even our sacrifice and suffering, we find reasons why we’re somehow better, wiser, more thoughtful or more authentic than those around us (or, at least, those of whom we don’t approve). And we are all of us wrong. From where God sits, there is no real difference between us; the gap between His attributes and ours, between His perfection and our sinfulness, is so vast so as to render our differences insignificant in the face of our need to simply repent and rely utterly upon Him.

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:9-14)

I believe we are not only guilty of chauvinism regarding our personal characteristics, our accomplishments, or our self-selected social/intellectual group, we are guilty of temporal and cultural chauvinism as well. We often assume, consciously or not, that God is more, well, nuanced with us in these ‘latter days’ than with, say, the Israelites in 7th century BC Judah because we are more sophisticated and educated. In fact, we often limit what we believe God could have told such people simply because of the historical setting; for example, God could not have really told Nephi details about the birth and life of Jesus Christ and so it must be a late addition to the Book of Mormon. (Unspoken but lurking beneath such assertions is the assumption, “Well, God hasn’t told me anything in such detail, so how could He have done so with Nephi or anyone else for that matter?”) Again, from where God sits, there is no measurable difference in our cultures, philosophies, and levels of education — the fact that we have iPhones, the internet, The Ensign and Dialogue, and that the Israelites did not, is meaningless in the context of the infinite gap between us and God.

Mormons – People who believe: … 3. That the only difference between them and God is a few years of training.
— Orson Scott Card, Saintspeak (1984).

God knows personally and watches over all His children on the “worlds without number” that He has created and continues to create; He perceives this entire universe in real time. We, on the other hand, struggle to balance our checkbooks and remember our own kids’ names or what we were doing 3 months ago. And yet we presume to judge and criticize one another, and to justify ourselves, over what are in an eternal and Godly perspective trivial differences. We are like toddlers arguing over who has more or larger freckles while a global war rages around us and threatens us all.

This day, Easter, we celebrate the true condescension of God, that infinite and eternal atonement that bridges that infinite gap, resurrects us from the dead, and brings us back into the presence of God. It is a gift beyond all comprehension and deserving, and our reaction to it should be less like the Pharisee and more like the publican. We are all sinners and unprofitable servants — we are all truly “alike unto God” — and yet Christ atoned for us anyway. Today, of all days, we should remember and ponder upon that. ..bruce..

A few thoughts on Alma 17 (and 18)

Book of Mormon, Main

The books of Mosiah and Alma have some of the most complex and fascinating narratives in the Book of Mormon. Little nuggets and insights crop up every time I read it. Here are a few, both old and recent, from reading Alma 17-18 a few days ago.

And as Ammon entered the land of Ishmael, the Lamanites took him, and bound him, as was their custom to bind all the Nephites who fell into their hands, and carry them before the king; and thus it was left to the pleasure of the king to slay them, or to retain them in captivity, or to cast them into prison, or to cast them out of his land, according to his will and pleasure.

And thus Ammon was carried before the king who was over the land of Ishmael; and his name was Lamoni; and he was a descendant of Ishamael.

And the king inquired of Ammon if it were his desire to dwell in the land among the Lamanites, or among his people.

And Ammon said unto him: Yea, I desire to dwell among this people for a time; yea, and perhaps until the day I die.

And it came to pass that king Lamoni was much pleased with Ammon, and caused that his bands should be loosed; and he would that Ammon should take one of his daughters to wife. (Alma 17:20-24)

For many years, this passage always bothered me a little. It seemed like a bit of an abrupt change to go from Ammon facing possible death to being offered the king’s daughter in marriage. It was also curious that king Lamoni asked Ammon if he planned to dwell among the Lamanites.

Then about 20 years ago, while teaching the Book of Mormon in Gospel Doctrine class, it struck me. Lamoni knew full well who Ammon was, namely a son of King Mosiah2 and in line for the combined Nephite/Mulekite throne. What’s more, Ammon appears to be the oldest son — see Mosiah 27:34 — and thus first in line for succession.

[Note that the plebiscite that selects Aaron as Mosiah2‘s successor (Mosiah 29:2) comes after all four sons have publicly apologized and sought to make amends for their actions (Mosiah 27:35) and after they privately announced to their father their intent to to preach to the Lamanites and have abdicated the throne (Mosiah 28:1-10). It may well be that Ammon, as the (apparent) oldest of Mosiah2‘s sons, may have been held more responsible by the general population, hence their preference for Aaron. It may also be that Ammon’s abdication was already known publicly — else why the plebiscite at all? — and this was Mosiah2‘s last effort at getting at least one of his sons to accept the throne.]

Given the steady stream of defections from the Nephites to the Lamanites, Lamoni probably knew about the wild antics of Alma2, Ammon and the other sons of Mosiah2; he also probably had heard of Mosiah2‘s dissolution of the Nephite monarchy. He may have concluded that one was related to the other (which to a certain extent it was — see Mosiah 29:9, 13-24) and that Ammon was actually in exile, either voluntary or forced (which, again, to a certain extent he was), hence the question as to whether it was Ammon’s “desire to dwell in the land among the Lamanites”.

It also makes the offer of marriage clear: Lamoni is looking for a dynastic link with the Nephite monarchy. If Ammon marries his daughter, then if Ammon comes out of exile (as Lamoni supposes) and somehow regains the Nephite throne, Lamoni will have accomplished by marriage what the Lamanites have been trying to do for centuries by force, namely unite the two kingdoms into one. Even if Ammon himself doesn’t come out of exile, Lamoni could end up with a grandson with a valid claim to the Nephite/Mulekite throne, legitimizing an effort (political and/or military) to put that grandson on that throne.

However, Ammon declines the offer — and by so doing, signs his own death warrant (again, as Lamoni supposes). Without those family bonds to tie Ammon to him, Lamoni probably considers Ammon too much of a loose cannon to have wandering around his court indefinitely. Lamoni likely sees only four (not necessarily exclusive) outcomes, all undesirable:

  1. Ammon returns to Zarahemla with lots of inside information about the Lamanites, giving him an advantage in future conflicts;
  2. Ammon uses the land of Ishmael as a base for a coup against the Nephites to regain the throne, bringing the wrath of the Nephites down upon Lamoni’s kingdom;
  3. Ammon finds a way to usurp Lamoni’s own kingship.
  4. Ammon moves to one of the other Lamanite kingdoms and ends up marrying and/or in power there.

However, if Lamoni kills Ammon outright and without provocation, he is still likely to bring down Mosiah2‘s wrath upon him, exile or not. Since Ammon has offered his service to Lamoni, Lamoni puts Ammon in a position — taking the king’s flocks to the waters of Sebus — where Ammon is likely to be killed by the raiders there, or if he survives, can be (in Lamoni’s eyes) be justifiably put to death as Lamoni has already done with previous groups of servants who failed to protect the flocks.

Ammon, as we all know, survives the situation, and in a spectacular way. Lamoni now is faced with two facts: (1) Ammon appears to be supernaturally gifted in battle and indeed may be a god (the “Great Spirit”) himself; and (2) Ammon almost certainly knows that Lamoni set him up to be killed one way or the other. Hence, Lamoni is terrified of having Ammon come back into his presence and cannot bring himself to speak first when Ammon does so. When Ammon does finally get Lamoni to speak, Lamoni gives Ammon an unconditional offer of “whatsoever thou desirest of me”. Ammon “being wise, yet harmless” merely asks Lamoni to “hearken unto my words”.

And thus begins the preaching of the gospel among the Lamanites. ..bruce..

Pre-Columbian shipping between South America and Mexico?

Book of Mormon, Main

A group at MIT has been building scale models of balsa wood rafts to test the feasibility of Pre-Columbian shipping having occurred between Chile and Mexico:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.–Oceangoing sailing rafts plied the waters of the equatorial Pacific long before Europeans arrived in the Americas, and carried tradegoods for thousands of miles all the way from modern-day Chile to western Mexico, according to new findings by MIT researchers in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering.

Details of how the ancient trading system worked more than 1,000 years ago were reconstructed largely through the efforts of former MIT undergraduate student Leslie Dewan, working with Professor of Archeology and Ancient Technology Dorothy Hosler, of the Center for Materials Research in Archaeology and Ethnology (CMRAE). The findings are being reported in the Spring 2008 issue of the Journal of Anthropological Research.

The new work supports earlier evidence documented by Hosler that the two great centers of pre-European civilization in the Americas-the Andes region and Mesoamerica-had been in contact with each other and had longstanding trading relationships. That conclusion was based on an analysis of very similar metalworking technology used in the two regions for items such as silver and copper tiaras, bands, bells and tweezers, as well as evidence of trade in highly prized spondylus-shell beads.

The proposed time frame is post-Book of Mormon (~1000 AD), but I thought it might be of interest anyway.  Here’s the abstract of the actual journal article:

Abstract: By approximately 100 BC Ecuadorian traders had established maritime commercial routes extending from Chile to Colombia. Historical sources indicate that they transported their merchandise in large, ocean-going sailing rafts made of balsa logs. By about AD 700 the data show that Ecuadorian metalworking technology had reached the west coast of Mexico but remained absent in the region between Guerrero and lower Central America. Archaeologists have argued that this technology was most plausibly transmitted via balsa raft exchange routes. This article uses mathematical simulation of balsa rafts’ mechanical and material characteristics to determine whether these rafts were suitable vessels for long- distance travel. Our analysis shows that these rafts were fully functional sailing vessels that could have navigated between Ecuador and Mexico. This conclusion greatly strengthens the argument that Ecuadorian metallurgical technology and aspects of the metallurgical technologies of adjacent South American regions were transmitted from South America to western Mexico via maritime trade routes.

For what it’s worth.  ..bruce..

Some quotes on Native American ancestry

Book of Mormon, LDS History, Main, Science

Meridian Magazine has an excellent set of quotes dating back to the 1920s — including from Church publications and General Authorities speaking in General Conference — cautioning members (e.g.)

against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek, and their companions, and that their languages and dialects, their social organizations, religious conceptions and practices, traditions, etc., are all traceable to those Hebrew sources. [from a Book of Mormon study guide, 1927]

These quotes, in turn, are taken from the FAIR Wiki article on the same topic (which, unlike the Meridian article, has detailed citations).

This issue remains important, because I still see a few commenters in the Bloggernacle claiming that the limited geographical model of the Book of Mormon, as well as the recognition that not all Native Americans descend from Lehites and Jaredites, are “late” (i.e., recent) responses to mainstream archeological and genetic (DNA) research of the past few decades.  That’s just not true. Limited geographical models started before 1920, with Willard Young (son of Brigham Young) proposing a Mesoamerica-only geography of the Book of Mormon, complete with the Hill Cumorah in Guatemala) sometime before 1920, while Louis Edward Hills (of the RLDS Church) proposed a Central Amercia/Mexico-only model (with Cumorah in central Mexico) in 1917.

Likewise, the Meridian article and the FAIR Wiki article from which it draws make it clear that Church materials and leaders were anything but unanimous in claiming Native Americans all descended from Book of Mormon peoples. I’ve previously cited from Hugh Nibley’s writings in the Improvement Era (the Church’s official magazine and precursor to the Ensign) back in the early 1950s, but these new quotes go back a generation earlier. ..bruce..