Read This, Not That!

Richard Bushman's discussion of the Book of Mormon in Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism was really good. Surprisingly, his discussion of the Book of Mormon in Rough Stone Rolling was as weak as the one in Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism was strong.

Now, however, there is something better. The best discussion of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is now Michael MacKay and Gerrit Dirkmaat's From Darkness unto Light published this year. If you are reading Rough Stone Rolling, skip the section on the Book of Mormon and read this instead. (Skip what Bushman says about the Book of Abraham too.)

If you think you know how the Book of Mormon was translated, you should read MacKay and Dirkmaat because you find out all kinds of things that you did not know.

Basic Rules for Book of Mormon Geography

As a scholar, I often am asked by individuals to give my opinion on various proposed Book of Mormon geographies. So I have looked at a number of proposed Book of Mormon geographies. For many people, Book of Mormon geography is a gospel hobby. For those who have this gospel hobby, any disagreement with their particular geography proposal is somehow a rejection of the gospel, Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith. It is not.

Various proposals about Book of Mormon geography are guesses. That's right, your favorite Book of Mormon geography (if you have one) is a guess. The question is whether it is a good guess or a bad guess. How do you know? I have a few rules of thumb that I use to check proposed Book of Mormon geographies:

1. It needs to actually match the Book of Mormon and all geographic references in the Book of Mormon. If it does not match the text of the Book of Mormon, it does not matter what else it does match; it cannot be right. So, if your geography fits perfectly except your narrow neck of land stretches from San Francisco to New York, that is not by any stretch of the imagination a narrow neck and it just doesn't work.


2. Statements by Joseph Smith and other Church leaders about Book of Mormon geography do not overrule the text itself. Joseph Smith was the translator of the text, not the author. If he were the author he would be the ultimate authority on Book of Mormon geography, diction, history, everything. If we take the Book of Mormon as historical, then the ancient authors were the experts and the modern translator may not necessarily be an expert on any particular detail of the text or set of details in the text. Church leaders may know more about the text than I do, so their statements should be taken seriously, but they are not more authoritative than the scriptural text itself. If the prophet gets revelation on the subject, he will identify it as revelation.


3. Careful readers of the text deserve more credence than careless readers of the text.


4. Individuals who are making or soliciting money from their proposed geography are suspect.
   

   "He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion. Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing. . . . But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish." (2 Nephi 26:29–31)

   Individuals who are trying to make money off their geography are in into Book of Mormon geography for the wrong reasons. They should not be trusted.


5. Individuals who chose a geography because of some sense of national pride or because of bigotry against some culture, nationality or ethnic group are not paying attention to the Book of Mormon.
   

   "Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God." (1 Nephi 17:35)

   The Book of Mormon provides numerous examples of individuals who invited those of other nationalities to partake of the gospel message. So if you are using the Book of Mormon as an excuse to puff up your prejudices against some ethnic group then you are missing the forest for the trees and you need to repent.

There are really only two reasons that I can think of why Book of Mormon geography matters:

1. The Book of Mormon is historical and actually took place, which means it took place someplace.


2. The geographic and cultural setting can potentially provide more insight into the text and make it more meaningful. 

If the geographic and cultural setting does not provide more insight into the text are we really all that much better off knowing exactly where things took place?

On Deliberate Obtuseness

Someone sent me the following link where an individual going under the name of jonathan3d (apparently Jonathan Neville) takes issue about something I published in 1998. At the time I stated:

Biographies like the book under review are deliberate, intentional acts; they do not occur by accident. Ferguson is largely unknown to the vast majority of Latter-day Saints; his impact on Book of Mormon studies is minimal. So, of all the lives that could be celebrated, why hold up that of a "double-acting sour-puss?"  . . .

With the deliberate inclusion of this material and the deliberate suppression of the fuller picture of Ferguson, [the author] demonstrates an interest in fashioning propaganda. With this book [the author] advocates (perhaps unintentionally) the view that Latter-day Saint doubters should mouth pieties in public and do as they please in private, and, most particularly, that they should covertly seek to undermine the faith of the weak and faltering. I am not convinced that this is unintentional, since [the author] (1) attempts to marshal as many reasons to create doubt as he can, (2) introduces controversies and arguments brought forth after Ferguson's death, and (3) consistently misrepresents the arguments of supporters of the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham. In an attempt to subvert the weak, weigh down the hands that hang down, and weaken the feeble knees, [the author] has carefully fashioned the hagiography of a hypocrite.

(John Gee, "The Hagiography of Doubting Thomas," FARMS Review of Books 10/2 (1998): 159-60. At the time of writing this entire issue is missing from the Maxwell Institute website http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/periodicals/jbms/ ).

I included a footnote to explain what I meant by Ferguson being largely unknown, noting that the Comprehensive Annotated Book of Mormon Bibliography "lists four books and four articles by Ferguson out of 6,338 items published before 1994." I was addressing the issue of why write a biography of Ferguson and emphasize his Book of Mormon work since Ferguson was not exactly a Book of Mormon heavy-weight.

Our pseudonymous author (Jonathan Neville(?)) wrenches one sentence out of context and complains:

Finally, Gee asserts Ferguson's impact has been minimal, a claim that is easily rebutted by a simple Internet search where the Ferguson case is frequently cited by former, inactive, and anti-Mormons. (I realize Gee referred to the "vast majority of Latter-day Saints," but the "vast majority" is hardly synonymous with "active." Many former/inactive LDS have followed the same trajectory as Ferguson but have not remained in the Church after concluding the archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica does not substantiate the Book of Mormon. It's an ongoing and unnecessary tragedy when there is such an abundance of evidence in North America that does substantiate the Book of Mormon.

When I wrote the passage jonathan3d complains about Google did not yet exist, so his complaint is misplaced.

jonathan3d seems to think that Ferguson is the acme of Mesoamericanist Book of Mormon scholars. He was not. Both jonathan3d and Ferguson seem to me to have naive understandings of the Book of Mormon and what it means to situate the Book of Momon in Mesoamerica. But really if jonathan 3d thinks that North America is a better fit than Mesoamerica or a hemispheric model, he should state his case rather than take statements out of context to take pot-shots at others. After all, he claims:

I'd rather focus on the information and the logic of the arguments than the personalities.

If that is where he would rather focus, he is welcome to do so and doing so would certainly be welcome.

On the Latest Anti-Mormon Attack on the Book of Mormon II

The Unparallels

In a previous post I noted some significant problems with one point of Paul Owen's latest attack on the Book of Mormon. The substance of Owen's argument is actually a series of nine parallels that he claims to find between 2 Esdras/4 Ezra 14 and 1 Nephi 13-14. Although he references his parallels, he does not actually quote them.

Sometimes it might be necessary for space constraints or because the passages are so well known to simply list the references but often failure to do so in a journal article or book is a sign that the parallels are not really that parallel.

I have had research notes on these parallels since mid-December last year but have puzzled with how to present them given the limited formatting possible on the internet. I think I have a solution (which will probably flop with those reading this on a smart phone). My comments will be flush with the left margin. Quotations of Paul Owen will be indented once. Quotations of the King James Version of 2 Esdras will be indented twice. Quotations of the Book of Mormon will be indented three times.

Here are Owen's ten points:

Paul Owen sets the following texts as parallel:

1

“1. The background of the theophanic epiphany to Ezra is the destruction of the Bible (the books of the Old Testament) and the necessity of its restoration (2 Esdras 14:21-22; cf. 1 Nephi 13:26, 28).” (Paul Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture: A Thematic Analysis of 1 Nephi 13-14," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (?!) 23 [2014]: 92)

“For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin. But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.” (‎4 Ezra 14:21-22)

“And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. . . . Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.” (1 Nephi 13:26–28)

Owen’s argument cannot possibly hold. The Book of Mormon explicitly states that the corruption of the scriptures would occur “after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Ezra lived about five centuries earlier.

Furthermore, in the case of 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras the law has been burned. In the Book of Mormon, “they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.” So in the Book of Mormon the scriptures are still in existence whereas in 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras the scriptures are no longer in existence.

Owen has not read the Book of Mormon very carefully. 

2

  “2. This destruction of scripture has caused God's people to lose their way (2 Esdras 14:22; cf. 1 Nephi 13:27, 29).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.” (‎4 Ezra 14:22)

“And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

. . .

And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.” (1 Nephi 13:27, 29)

In 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras Ezra offers to write the scriptures again so that they will exist “that men may find thy path.” According to Nephi, the scriptures still existed but they had been perverted so that “an exceedingly great many do stumble.” The whole question is whether a record of any kind survives. In 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras it has been burned and so does not survive in any form. In Nephi it survives but in a corrupted form.

3

  “3. The restoration of scripture will be accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit (2 Esdras 14:22, 40; cf. 1 Nephi 13:37, 39).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.” (‎4 Ezra 14:22)

“And I took it, and drank: and when I had drunk of it, my heart uttered understanding, and wisdom grew in my breast, for my spirit strengthened my memory:” (‎4 Ezra 14:40)

“And blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom of the Lamb; and whoso shall publish peace, yea, tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be. . . .

And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books, which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.” (1 Nephi 13:37, 39)

There are significant differences between these passages. Ezra asks God to “send the Holy Ghost into me.” In response God tells Ezra to drink a potion and “my spirit strengthened my memory.” Ezra’s own spirit, not the Holy Ghost, strengthened his memory to recite the books as he had memorized them. Nephi, on the other hand, notes that “the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost” will be among those “who shall seek to bring forth my Zion.” Nephi sees that his own record will go among the people and that “other books” would come “forth by the power of the Lamb.” For the Book of Mormon, Jesus (the Lamb) and the Holy Ghost are not the same thing.  

4

“4. The books that are revealed to and dictated by Ezra are first written down on "writing tablets" (2 Esdras 14:24 NRSV; "box trees" KJV). So also the Book of Mormon ( cf. 1 Nephi 13:23; Mosiah 1:3).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“But look thou prepare thee many box trees, and take with thee Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Ecanus, and Asiel, these five which are ready to write swiftly;” (‎4 Ezra 14:24)

“And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.” (1 Nephi 13:23)

“And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.” (Mosiah 1:3)

So, because the Book of Mormon mentions “plates of brass” Owen would see these as parallel to the writing tablets mentioned in the NRSV version 4 Ezra/2 Esdras. One can make a good case that plates of brass and writing tablets are two very different things (one being permanent and the other temporary). But in this case, Owen cannot really make that argument. The NRSV did not exist in Joseph Smith’s day and so Joseph Smith (or an associate) has somehow read about “box trees” and somehow transmuted them into brass plates. That is even more miraculous than being handed actual plates of gold and thinking of plates of brass. Owen’s argument does not even make any sense.

5

  “5. Ezra (the recipient of the revelation) is to dictate the contents of these books to chosen scribes (2 Esdras 14:24). So also Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon (cf. 2 Nephi 3:17; 27:9-10).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“But look thou prepare thee many box trees, and take with thee Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Ecanus, and Asiel, these five which are ready to write swiftly;” (‎4 Ezra 14:24)

“And the Lord hath said: I will raise up a Moses; and I will give power unto him in a rod; and I will give judgment unto him in writing. Yet I will not loose his tongue, that he shall speak much, for I will not make him mighty in speaking. But I will write unto him my law, by the finger of mine own hand; and I will make a spokesman for him.” (2 Nephi 3:17)

“But the book shall be delivered unto a man, and he shall deliver the words of the book, which are the words of those who have slumbered in the dust, and he shall deliver these words unto another;

But the words which are sealed he shall not deliver, neither shall he deliver the book. For the book shall be sealed by the power of God, and the revelation which was sealed shall be kept in the book until the own due time of the Lord, that they may come forth; for behold, they reveal all things from the foundation of the world unto the end thereof.” (2 Nephi 27:9–10)

Owen’s argument here does not work. While Ezra has a number of scribes to write for him, the passages cited from the Book of Mormon never mention scribes. In one of them Moses is provided with a spokesman because he could not speak well. The other has a book being given to a man but no scribe is mentioned. The two book of Mormon passages are connected with known biblical texts (Exodus and Isaiah). They did not develop out of apocryphal literature.

6

  “6. Only some of what is revealed to Ezra and written down is to be made public; the rest is reserved for the wise (2 Esdras 14:26, 45-46; cf. 1 Nephi 14:26, 28).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“And when thou hast done, some things shalt thou publish, and some things shalt thou shew secretly to the wise: to morrow this hour shalt thou begin to write.” (‎4 Ezra 14:26).

“In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books.

And it came to pass, when the forty days were filled, that the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it:

But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people:” (‎4 Ezra 14:44-46)

“And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. . . .

Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.” (1 Nephi 13:26–28)

Ezra writes two hundred four books of which one hundred thirty-four can be published and seventy of which must be kept secret. Ezra is to hold back almost a third and the Book of Mormon says that two-thirds was kept back. The ratios are backwards. But the passage that Owen cites as parallel does not argue that. Nephi sees that the great and abominable church has taken away parts of the gospel. Is Owen trying to argue that God is the great and abominable church?

7

  “7. In order for God's people to have all the wisdom they need, they must have access both to the public and the esoteric texts dictated by Ezra: "For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge" (2 Esdras 14:47; cf. 1 Nephi 13:40-41).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge.” (‎4 Ezra 14:47)

“And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.” (1 Nephi 13:40–41)

The antecedent to “them” in the Ezra passage is “the seventy last” scrolls that Ezra may only deliver to the wise. The “last records” that the Book of Mormon refers to are those that God will bring forth in the latter days. While the scrolls that Ezra keeps are only delivered to the wise, the “last records” of the Book of Mormon are given “to all kindreds, tongues, and people.” There could not be a more stark contrast. Owen has misread 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras because God’s people (or at least the common people) have no need to “have access both to the public and the esoteric texts dictated by Ezra.”

8 

“8. The scribes who wrote on the tablets "wrote what was dictated, using characters that they did not know" (2 Esdras 14:42 NRSV; "they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not" KJV). So also the Book of Mormon (cf. 1 Nephi 1:2; Mosiah 1:2; Mormon 9:32).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“The Highest gave understanding unto the five men, and they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not: and they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day, and at night they ate bread.” (‎4 Ezra 14:42)

“Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.” (1 Nephi 1:2)

“And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.” (Mosiah 1:2)

“And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.” (Mormon 9:32)

Once again, Owen’s argument depends more upon the anachronistic NRSV than the KJV. The Book of Mormon passages that Owen cites fail to parallel the desired text in 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras in the KJV. (Was Joseph Smith a time traveler?) The Book of Mormon passages all deal with the language of the text, which is not discussed in the 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras passage as Joseph Smith (or one of his associates) would have known it. One crucial difference is that while Ezra’s scribes might not have known the characters they were using, the Book of Mormon scribes had all learned them the hard way.  

9

“9. There is a repeated emphasis on the mouth of Ezra (2 Esdras 14:38,39, 41; cf. 1 Nephi 13:23,24, 38; 14:23).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“And the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, Esdras, open thy mouth, and drink that I give thee to drink. Then opened I my mouth, and, behold, he reached me a full cup, which was full as it were with water, but the colour of it was like fire.” (‎4 Ezra 14:38-39)

This is a silly argument. Owen teaches (or used to teach) Hebrew. He should recognize this Hebrew idiom (which is also used in other ancient languages).  

10

“10. What was previously revealed to Moses is now freshly disclosed to Ezra (2 Esdras 14:5-6, 21-22; cf. 1 Nephi 14:24-26, 29).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 93)

“And told him many wondrous things, and shewed him the secrets of the times, and the end; and commanded him, saying, These words shalt thou declare, and these shalt thou hide.” (‎4 Ezra 14:5-6)

“For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin. But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.” (‎4 Ezra 14:21-22)

“And behold, the things which this apostle of the Lamb shall write are many things which thou hast seen; and behold, the remainder shalt thou see. But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them.” (1 Nephi 14:24–25)

“And I bear record that I saw the things which my father saw, and the angel of the Lord did make them known unto me.” (1 Nephi 14:29)

Owen does not tell his reader that the antecedent to “him” in 4 Ezra 14:5 is Moses (back in 4 Ezra 14:3). The Book of Mormon refers not to Moses but to John. Nephi refers to an angel, but Ezra never does.

Owen argument works only if one assumes his conclusion, which makes it a circular argument.

Owen realizes that his argument on point four is a little weak:

It should be noted, however, that even if these two features on the list of parallels are removed entirely from consideration, the remaining eight points still constitute a striking cluster of shared characteristics that tend to support a literary dependence on the text of 2 Esdras on the part of the author of 1 Nephi (whoever he was). (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 96.)

In reality though, none of his parallels are very strong or support a literary dependence of 1 Nephi on 2 Esdras / 4 Ezra.

Something in the editorial process clearly failed here. A good editor or peer reviewer should have been able to tell the difference between scholarship and sleight-of-hand.

On the Latest Anti-Mormon Attack on the Book of Mormon I

Paul Owen is a fairly nice guy. I know him. He is, nonetheless, an anti-Mormon. He has written books explicitly attacking Mormonism in general and the Book of Mormon in particular. His latest article also attacks the Book of Mormon. He concludes that the Book of Mormon is a "fictional (though ancient) narrative" (Paul Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture: A Thematic Analysis of 1 Nephi 13-14," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (?!) 23 [2014]: 100):

What I am suggesting, in essence, is that the Book of Mormon could be taken as a genuinely restored ancient text with a fictional narrative that originated in the Old World

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 99)

Since the Book of Mormon claims to have come from the New World, Owens is arguing that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be.

Owen thinks that Joseph Smith took the narrative of the Book of Mormon (or at least 1 Nephi 13-14) from the apocryphal book of 2 Esdras. Owen does not explain that the 2 Esdras he discusses is not the 2 Esdras of the Septuagint but is the book that is also known as 4 Ezra. The earliest known version of it is not in Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek but in Latin.

Owen skirts the issue of whether his proposal that it is authentically ancient and still modern fiction is logically coherent, but setting that concern aside for the moment, let us look at one particular point of his argument.

Owen thinks that Joseph Smith took the idea of brass plates from 2 Esdras/4 Ezra:

The books that are revealed to and dictated by Ezra are first written down on "writing tablets" (2 Esdras 14:24 NRSV; "box trees" KJV). So also the Book of Mormon ( cf. 1 Nephi 13:23; Mosiah 1:3).

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92.)

Owen argues that "those curious references to Jews writing on "tablets" (2 Esdras 14:24) in obscure characters (2 Esdras 14:42)" are the origin of the idea of the Book of Mormon being written in strange characters on plates of gold or brass (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 95). Therefore,

Joseph Smith (or someone in his circle) could have read 2 Esdras in the King James Version of the Apocrypha and perhaps had access to commentary on its meaning through libraries and cultural knowledge.

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 94.)

Consequently, Owen maintains

that the gold plates that were shown to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni [were] not necessarily historical artifacts from the history of the America

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 97.)

Owen thinks that his speculations 

would allow the Book of Mormon to be taken as simultaneously modern and fictional, on the one hand, and miraculous and inclusive of authentic ancient material on the other. It would thus bring the manner of the production of the Book of Mormon more in line with the restoration of other ancient texts (e.g., the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses, Doctrine and Covenants 7).

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 98.)

So Owens makes the sweeping claim that like the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses, and part of the Doctrine and Covenants are fictional as well.

There are a couple of small problems with Owen's thesis. I will deal only with the problems with 2 Esdras/4 Ezra being the origin of the idea of the plates.

1
Owen gets the notion of "writing tablets" from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible which was first published in 1989. The King James Version of the passage, which would have been available to Joseph Smith reads:

But look thou prepare thee many box trees, and take with thee Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Ecanus, and Asiel, these five which are ready to write swiftly; (2 Esdras/4 Ezra 14:24, KJV).

Owen does not actually cite the passage because his reader would have found his argument confused by the actual evidence.

So Owen appears to be arguing that Joseph Smith got his basic scenario for the Book of Mormon by reading a translation that was published 155 years after he died like Owen did. This argument is anachronistic.

2
Owen attempts to obfuscate the issue by opining:

there can be no doubt that Joseph Smith's access to 2 Esdras provides a simple, straightforward explanation of the textual evidence-with the exception of one point. The references in the text of 2 Esdras to Jews writing on "tablets" in "obscure characters" are unclear in the King James translation available to Joseph Smith. While a bit mysterious, this could potentially be explained in several ways: (1) Smith (or someone in his circle) could have intuitively surmised (based on the context) the underlying meaning of the King James renderings "box trees" (2 Esdras 14:24) and "which they knew not" (14:42) in a way that happens to correspond to modern English translations. (2) Smith (or someone in his circle) could have had access to annotations on the Apocrypha through various sources (libraries, local ministers, bookstores) that clarified the meaning. (3) These particular parallels between 1 Nephi 13-14 and 2 Esdras 14 could be coincidental, parallels of which Smith and his associates actually had no awareness prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon.

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture,"96.)

Of course, Owen's argument has major historical problems:

a
Joseph Smith's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, described him as

a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life: he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.

( Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and his Progenitors for Many Generations (Lamoni, IA: The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1912, reprinted Independence, Missouri: Herald, 1969), 92 = Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, by His Mother, Lucy Mack Smith (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1901), 82.)

Joseph Smith had not read the Bible and was not inclined to read much anyway.

b
Joseph Smith's close associates, like David Whitmer, agreed with Lucy Mack Smith claiming that when Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon:

Smith was ignorant of the Bible.

(M. J. Hubble interview of David Whitmer, 13 November 1886, in Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin, 1991), 211.)

c
Multiple accounts of the First Vision indicate that Joseph Smith found James 1:5 simply by flipping through the Bible at random. In an 1843 interview, Joseph Smith said that:

There was a reformation among the different religious denominations in the neighborhood where I lived, and I became serious, and was desirous to know what Church to join. While thinking of this matter, I opened the Testament promiscuously on these words, in James, 'Ask of the Lord who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not.' I just determined I'd ask him.

("The Praries, Nauvoo, Joe Smith, the Temple, the Mormons, &c." The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette 58 [September 15, 1843]: 3, reprinted in Dean C. Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989], 1:444.)

Alexander Niebaur records Joseph Smith as telling him:

Joseph tolt us the first call he had a Revival meeting his mother & Br & Sist got Religion, he wanted to get Religion too wanted to feel & sho shout like the Rest but could feel nothing, opened his Bible f the first Passage that struck him was if any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberallity & upbraidat not went into the Wood to pray

(Alexander Neibaur Journal, 24 May 1844, in Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith, 1:641.)

d
Joseph Smith's own Bible was not purchased until 8 October 1829 when the Book of Mormon was being printed.

e
Joseph Smith seems to have first systematically read the Bible when he was doing his own translation. When he got to the apocrypha (such as 2 Esdras/4 Ezra) he received D&C 91 and consequently seems to have skipped the apocrypha altogether. He thus seems never to have read any of the apocrypha in his life.

So Joseph Smith never read the Bible before he translated the Book of Mormon, did not even own one, and was ignorant of it. He seems never to have read the apocrypha in his life. The idea that he got the idea for the Book of Mormon by reading an apocryphal book seems far-fetched.

3
If Joseph Smith were to get the idea for the plates by reading an apocryphal book, then why 2 Esdras/4 Ezra and not 1 Maccabees? After all, Jews writing on brass plates is explicitly mentioned there:

τοῦτο τὸ ἀντίγραφον τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἧς ἀντέγραψαν ἐπὶ δέλτοις χαλκαῖς

This is the copy of the letter which they copied on brass plates (1 Maccabees 8:22).

ἔγραψαν πρὸς αὐτὸν δέλτοις χαλκαῖς

And they wrote to him brass plates (1 Maccabees 14:18)

καὶ κατέγραψαν ἐν δέλτοις χαλκαῖς καὶ ἔθεντο ἐν στήλαις ἐν ὄρει σιων

And they wrote down in brass plates and placed them on stele on Mount Zion (1 Maccabees 14:26)

τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην εἶπον θέσθαι ἐν δέλτοις χαλκαῖς

And they said to put this writing on brass plates (1 Maccabees 14:48)

These passages would not necessarily have helped Joseph Smith because this is how they were translated in the King James Version:

And this is the copy of the epistle which the senate wrote back again in tables of brass, and sent to Jerusalem, that there they might have by them a memorial of peace and confederacy: (1 Maccabees 8:22 KJV)

They wrote unto him in tables of brass, to renew the friendship and league which they had made with Judas and Jonathan his brethren: (1 Maccabees 14:18 KJV)

So then they wrote it in tables of brass, which they set upon pillars in mount Sion: and this is the copy of the writing; The eighteenth day of the month Elul, in the hundred threescore and twelfth year, being the third year of Simon the high priest, (1 Maccabees 14:27 KJV)

So they commanded that this writing should be put in tables of brass, and that they should be set up within the compass of the sanctuary in a conspicuous place; (1 Maccabees 14:48 KJV)

While none of these passages match the language of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith probably never saw them in his life, they are much closer than imagining that Joseph Smith somehow got the idea for the Book of Mormon by reading about box trees.

Summation

Paul Owen's argument posits that Joseph Smith got the idea for the Book of Mormon by reading a book which historical sources deny that he read, in a translation published over a century and a half after he died.

There are a number of words one could use to describe Owen's argument, but scholarship is not one of them.

Born of Wealthy Parents?

Yesterday someone presented me with a novel reading of 1 Nephi 1:1. They told me that they were told that in Joseph Smith's day goodly meant wealthy. Therefore,

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father (1 Nephi 1:1)

would mean that Nephi was able to be educated because his father was rich. This is, of course, intriguing. We know that Lehi was wealthy (1 Nephi 3:22-25), but in pre-exilic Israel education was largely a family affair. Hiring tutors is better known in the later Greco-Roman world.

Unfortunately, the premise of the argument is flawed. According to the 1828 Webster's dictionary, goodly meant:

GOOD´LY, adj. ‎1. Being of a handsome form; beautiful; graceful; as, a goodly person; goodly raiment; goodly houses. – Shak.
‎2. Pleasant; agreeable; desirable; as, goodly days. – Shak.
‎3. Bulky; swelling; affectedly turgid. [Obs.] – Dryden.

The Oxford English Dictionary lists the following usage from Joseph Smith's day:

1. Of good appearance; good-looking, well-favoured or proportioned; comely, fair, handsome.
2. Notable or considerable in respect of size, quantity, or number (freq. with mixture of sense 1).
3. Of good quality, admirable, splendid, excellent. Also, well suited for some purpose, proper, convenient (often with implication of sense 1).

So, in Joseph Smith's day, goodly did not mean wealthy. Yes, Lehi was wealthy but Nephi does not seem to be addressing that issue in his first verse, at least not based on English usage.

Situating a Book in Context

Several years ago, I published a review of a work by an eminent scholar, who generally seems to be a decent individual and whose work I normally like. The book was a commentary on a text of a religion (Mithraism) that flourished a thousand years ago but has long since perished and no living adherents survive. The work was erudite and about as exhaustive a commentary as could be done on the particular text from the particular point of view favored by the author. I thought, however, and still think that the author had situated the text in the wrong context. As I demonstrated at length:

We have a text found in Egypt, coming from an Egyptian temple archive, dealing with an Egyptian subject, in an Egyptian fashion, in an Egyptian format, using Egyptian offering

lists, invoking Egyptian deities, employing Egyptian words, and calquing Egyptian grammar that poorly matches Mithraic material. Nothing in the text is necessarily Greek or Mithraic, but several of the subjects dealt with in the text are definitely not Greek or Mithraic; on the other hand, there is nothing in the text that is not Egyptian. The simplest explanation is that that the text is Egyptian, not Mithraic.

Of course the native Egyptian religions have gone the same way as Mithraism. The point was, in a sense, purely academic. I concluded from this that the particular

book demonstrates that it is possible to provide a highly learned and seemingly plausible commentary for a work while still setting that work in the wrong contextual framework. The result, while neither useless nor worthless, is ultimately irrelevant.

Context of a work matters. If you situate the so-called Mithras Liturgy as written by Greek stoic adherents of Mithraism, you will end up with a very different reading of the subject than you will if you suppose that it is written by Egyptian priests in Thebes. The context makes a huge difference. This is why biblical scholars fight over when to place the various books of the Bible (and they are all disputed) and why there are scholarly arguments about when and where to place the Book of Mormon in history. The context is basic and makes a huge difference, which is why one can never say that the issue can (or should) go away.

How Not to Do Literary Analysis

Ben McGuire has a clear debunking of an ill-attempted literary analysis over at Interpreter. It is well worth the read.

Kudos

Kudos to my friend and colleague, Matt Roper, whose work, originally published here and then corss-posted here, was cited by Elder D. Todd Christofferson at a devotional at BYU-Idaho last week.

Roper is a very good scholar of the Book of Mormon. I am not surprised that his scholarship is worth looking at but am pleased that someone else thinks so.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From Lord, Increase Our Faith (1994), 69:

In 1829, especially while translating at an average rate that would produce seven to ten printed pages a day, Joseph would not have fully or immediately comprehended all the powerful and enhancing verses that were passing through him. One example of these is Alma 7:11-12, which represents a powerful addition to our understanding of Jesus' suffering and of His atonement and how it is that His empathy for each of us is perfect and very personal. Jesus understands the full range of human suffering. These and other insights were beyond Joseph Smith in 1829.

Sacred and Secular Histories

The third chapter of John Sorenson's new book, Mormon's Codex provides a completely secular view of Nephite history. This is not the first time such a thing has been done. One can look at contributions by John Sorenson and John Welch in the book Warfare in the Book of Mormon and they do the same thing.

This is a remarkable thing as both Sorenson and Welch are believers, not secularists. Secularists do not write secular histories of Nephite civilization, only believers do. On one level this seems counter-intuitive; on another level, perfectly obvious.

It seems counter-intuitive because ancient histories in general are deeply religious. Thus secularists routinely write secular histories of ancient societies that strip away the religious element of ancient histories. Egyptologists routinely write about Egyptian history and discuss such things as Sesostris I raiding Nubia without saying that Osiris commanded it. Assyriologists also write about the conquests of the Sargonid kings without noting that they claimed to conquer by the command of Assur.

The Book of Mormon is different. One has to be a believer in the first place to consider it ancient history. Only when one considers it real history can one write a secular history of the civilization.

One does not have to be a believer to talk about Book of Mormon theology, in fact it is usually easier to talk about Book of Mormon theology when one is not a believer. Theology is a systematic ordering and attempt to derive knowledge of divine things by human reason alone. Believers tend to think that knowledge of divine things need to come by revelation. Originally, theology was lies told about God to manipulate simpletons for political ends. Believers do not engage in such actions but non-believers do.

So non-believers will find it easy to produce Book of Mormon theology, but only a believer will produce Book of Mormon history.

Sorenson on Geography

Not everyone agrees with John Sorenson on Book of Mormon geography. Some people would rather locate the Book of Mormon in the Mississippi valley, or in the Great Lakes area, or in Peru, or around the isthmus of Panama, or on the Baja Peninsula, or in Malaysia, or in any number of other places. Everyone should, however, agree with this point Sorenson makes on geography in his new book:

Heretofore the study of Book of Mormon geography has mainly consisted of making more or less random guesses as to one modern location or another where events portrayed in the Book of Mormon supposedly took place. For the most part such unsystematic studies have been undertaken after examining only some of the 600 references to geography found in the text. That is, a typical investigator peruses a map of the Americas, finds what he or she intuits to be a correlation, then proceeds to select from the Book of Mormon statements thought to support his correlation of choice. But a valid geography must do more than this. In order to have a realistic hope of establishing a real-world location for Book of Mormon events, one must reconcile everything the text say or implies about geography. (John L. Sorenson, Mormon's Codex [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013], 17.)

A Sorenson Quote

John Sorenson is not a polemicist. But he has carefully and systematically sifted through immense amounts of material. Therefore, his careful assessment carries some weight with those who know him. I was thus intrigued by the following quote from his new book:

Critics have their own justifications for denying the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but rarely are their doubts based on reliable facts. (John Sorenson, Mormon's Codex [2013], 6.)

Today's Maxwell Quote

From "But for a Small Moment" (1985), 65-66:

As one begins to appreciate further the Book of Mormon, both as a historical record and as a witnessing, religious volume, another parallel out of human history comes to mind. In the book, earnest prophets who witnessed social deterioration, including terrible slaughters, were moved upon to make a record of those things.

But behold, the land was filled with robbers and with Lamanites; and notwithstanding the great destruction which hung over my people, they did not repent of their evil doings; therefore there was blood and carnage spread throughout all the face of the land, both on the part of the Nephites and also on the part of the Lamanites; and it was one complete revolution throughout all the face of the land (Mormon 2:8).

‎And it came to pass that my sorrow did return unto me again, and I saw that the day of grace was passed with them, both temporally and spiritually; for I saw thousands of them hewn down in open rebellion against their God, and heaped up as dung upon the face of the land. And thus three hundred and forty and four years had passed away. (Mormon 2:15.)

For Mormon, seeing thousands of bodies "heaped up as dung upon the face of the land" must have produced profound emotions within him, not unlike those a British journalist experienced when he went to the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp at the end of World War II, the opening lines of whose dispatch were, "It is my duty to describe something beyond the imagination of mankind" (Time Magazine, April 29, 1985, p. 133, International Edition).

Today's Maxwell Quote

From That Ye May Believe (1992), 164:

Early members of the Church, with all their journeys, relocations, and persecutions, didn't have much leisure time in which to study the Book of Mormon in great detail. Nevertheless they received a firm testimony of its authenticity.

This fact is symbolized by a few surviving tombstones in southern Ohio and Indiana which speak for themselves. Displayed atop those tombstones are a stone Bible and Book of Mormon. Those early members left evidence that they knew, through the Restoration, we had been "added upon," and they were bold in so signifying and exulting.

Someday the boldness of the people of the Church may match the boldness of the doctrines of the Church. Right now, we are rather shy. We don't understand how remarkable as well as plentiful those doctrines are. They contain the answers to the most vexing and searching of all human questions.

Costly Apparel

The insightful Ramsay MacMullen in his book, The Second Church (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 107-108 talks about the struggle between the clergy and the laity in the early Christian Church:

Individual bishops forbade the adoption or advertising of martyrs unlicensed; new ones went on appearing. The authorities also showed their hostility to traditional forms of worship: you shouldn't dance, as only the heathen did; or you should do so, but only shuffling your feet a little; you shouldn't make it a party, or sing too loud, or throw happy glances about, and you certainly shouldn't have enough wine to affect your behavior. . . . If it was a dinner put on for religion, then--no interrupting, nor arguing or rude words, no reaching around the table, and always, modest portions. Leave a bit on the plate. A Christian also would be well advised to avoid memorial picnics for the dead--this, a real problem, given the universal importance of the rites and their deep roots in people's feelings and traditions. The proper manners were thus taught to you by your betters, whose manners at their own dinners were so different and whose clothes made you ashamed of your own.

Shades of 1 Nephi 13:8-9:

8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.

9 And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.

Leaders to Managers Revisited

One of Hugh Nibley’s most controversial articles was the commencement address he gave at Brigham Young University in August 1983 entitled “Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift.”[1] It was so controversial that when an abridged version of this address was published in BYU’s alumni magazine, one of the editors was sacked.

In this address, Nibley makes a number of observations about the differences between leaders and managers:

Leaders are movers and shakers, original, inventive, unpredictable, imaginative, full of surprises that discomfit the enemy in war and the main office in peace. For the managers are safe, conservative, predictable, conforming organization men and team players, dedicated to the establishment.[2]

In war 

we think of great generals from David and Alexander on down, sharing their beans or matzah with their men, calling them by their first names, marching along with them in the heat, sleeping on the ground, and being first over the wall.[3] 

The men who delighted their superiors, i.e. the managers, got the high commands, while the men who delighted the lower ranks, i.e. the leaders, got reprimands.[4]

‘If you love me,’ said the greatest of all leaders, ‘you will keep my commandments.’ ‘If you know what is good for you,’ says the manager, ‘you will keep my commandments and not make waves.’ That is why the rise of management always marks the decline, alas, of culture.”[5] 

(One wonders what Nibley might say to the massive increase in administration and bureaucracy in higher education since he gave his speech.)

Nibley draws a long comparison from the Book of Mormon between Moroni, the leader, and Amalickiah, whom Nibley depicts as a manager.[6] The comparison between the two sides makes a convenient rhetorical juxtaposition with clear good guys and bad guys on opposite sides of a war. But it is the least convincing portion of Nibley’s argument because the point seems stretched.

The more interesting comparison is between Moroni, the leader, and Pahoran, the manager. As Nibley observes of the general situation the manager, Pahoran, had the higher command, not the leader, Moroni. These two men were on the same side and a key interchange between them is preserved. Moroni was not in possession of all the facts (“we know not . . .” Alma 60:18), but neither was Pahoran (“I was somewhat worried concerning what we should do” Alma 61:19).

Moroni’s correspondence is clearly angry and moves almost immediately to an attack on Pahoran: “great has been your neglect towards us” (Alma 60:5). “Can you think to sit upon your thrones in a state of thoughtless stupor, while your enemies are spreading the work of death around you?” (Alma 60:7), and ends with a threat of mutiny: “I will come unto you speedily” (Alma 60:35). “I will stir up insurrection among you” (Alma 60:27). Moroni does this, in part because of a lack of information, and in part from the covenants he has made: “I, Moroni, am constrained, according to the covenant which I have made to keep the commandments of my God” (Alma 60:34).

This confrontation could have ended disastrously as the Nephites were in the midst of a war that was not going their way (Alma 59:5-8). If Pahoran had been a typical manager, he would have sacked Moroni immediately upon receipt of his mutinous letter. Instead, Pahoran musters his administrative skill to make amends: “Behold, I say unto you, Moroni, that I do not joy in your great afflictions, yea, it grieves my soul” (Alma 61:2). “In your epistle you have censured me, but it mattereth not; I am not angry” (Alma 61:9). Pahoran appeals to Moroni’s principles in his response (‘stand fast in the liberty with which God hath made us free’ seems to have been a patriotic slogan of the time; Mosiah 23:13; Alma 58:40; 61:21). Pahoran proposes a slightly altered strategy that unites Moroni and Pahoran against common enemies.

The end of the book of Alma shows that leaders and managers do not have to be on opposite sides of the conflict.  There does have to be humility, trust, forgiveness, and recognition of the real enemy. Only when the leader and the manager are willing to put aside their differences and work toward a common goal is there real success.

Unfortunately, most managers typically are not as humble or forgiving as Pahoran was. Then again, most are not in as dire predicaments as Pahoran was. Given the typical management response resembles that of Amalickiah, perhaps Nibley was right after all.

---

[1] Hugh Nibley, “Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift,” in Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints, CWHN 13 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994), 491-508.

[2] Nibley, “Leaders to Managers,” 496.

[3] Nibley, “Leaders to Managers,” 496.

[4] Nibley, “Leaders to Managers,” 496.

[5] Nibley, “Leaders to Managers,” 497.

[6] Nibley, “Leaders to Managers,” 499-502.

Great and Spacious Buildings

Professor Barry Kemp of Cambridge is an Egyptian archaeologist whose published views are usually thought provoking. In one of his books he wrote:

“’Great culture’, which in times becomes tourist culture, was not the spontaneous creation of the common man. It is no accident that we meet its manifestations in large religious buildings, in palaces, mansions, and castles. Great culture, which requires patronage and the direction of labour, originates in courts. The wealth, size, splendour, craft standards, and intellectual novelties are part of the instruments of the rule. When well established, a great tradition may have an influence which is felt throughout society. But to reach this stage it has to expand at the expense of other traditions. It has to colonize the minds of the nation.”[1]

Such a statement makes the thoughtful reader of the Book of Mormon wonder if great and spacious buildings (1 Nephi 8:26, 31, 33; 11:35-36; 12:18) really equate with great culture. Interestingly, this quote is at the beginning of a chapter in which Professor Kemp shows how many of the Egyptian temples did not start out as great and spacious buildings.

Ancient Egypt produced great and spacious buildings, beautiful artwork, and an intriguingly picturesque script. By contrast, ancient Israel produced utilitarian buildings, crude artwork, and a scratchy script. But ancient Israel also produced the Bible, a work whose literary history has far outlasted anything any ancient Egyptian ever wrote. The ancient Maya too produced great and spacious buildings, beautiful artwork, and an intriguingly picturesque script. The Nephites, on the other hand, may not have had much of these things but they produced the Book of Mormon.

The three mentions of a lavish building project from the Book of Mormon are undertaken by king Noah who “built many elegant and spacious buildings” (Mosiah 11:8-13) and Riplakish who “did build many spacious buildings” (Ether 10:5-6) and Morianton who was rich “both in buildings, and in gold and silver” (Ether 10:12). All of these kings are depicted as wicked. From a Book of Mormon point of view great and spacious buildings are not signs of righteousness.

---

[1] Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization (London: Routledge, 1989), 64.

Reading Yahya ibn Adi I

Abu Zakariyya Yahya ibn Adi ibn Hamid ibn Zakariyya al-Tikriti al-Mantiqi is an author who has not made the best seller list for a millennium. Born in A.D. 893, Yahya was an influential scribe and scholar in Baghdad in the mid-940s who attracted both Christian and Muslim disciples. A dual language edition of his work, The Reformation of Morals is available.[1] This is a remarkable work that deserves to be better known.

While today it is popular to claim that one cannot or should not change because one is born that way, Yahya ibn Adi argues that individuals can and should change their behavior to have better morals. Yahya’s comments compare interestingly with those of two Book of Mormon kings: Benjamin and Mosiah.

Yahya argues that “people are disposed to bad morals, inclined to yield to base desires.” [2] “There are some people who take no notice of the matter; but when they are put to notice, they perceive the foulness, and so sometimes their soul brings them to renunciation.”[3] King Benjamin was more emphatic: “the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.” (Mosiah 3:19‎).

Yahya also argues for the flip-side of something that King Mosiah argued. King Mosiah argued that: “how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction! Yea, remember king Noah, his wickedness and his abominations, and also the wickedness and abominations of his people. Behold what great destruction did come upon them; and also because of their iniquities they were brought into bondage.” (Mosiah 29:17–18‎). Yahya argues that “the advantage of kings of good conduct is immense. They will dissuade the wrongdoer from his wrong, they will hold back the angry man from his anger, they will punish the immoral man for his immorality, and they will restrain the tyrant to the point that he reverts to moderation in all his affairs.” [4]

 
Because we all need repentance and improvement, Yahya ibn Adi’s work, The Reformation of Morals, is as relevant now as it was a millennium ago.

---

[1] Yahya ibn Adi, The Reformation of Morals, ed. and trans. Sidney H. Griffith (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2002).

[2] Yahya ibn Adi, The Reformation of Morals, ed. and trans. Sidney H. Griffith (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2002), 11.

[3] Yahya ibn Adi, The Reformation of Morals, ed. and trans. Sidney H. Griffith (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2002), 11.

[4] Yahya ibn Adi, The Reformation of Morals, ed. and trans. Sidney H. Griffith (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2002), 11.