Over the next few posts, I’m going to sketch out an argument that believing in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is a rational choice. To put it briefly: the Book of Mormon does not need to strain historical plausibility nearly as much as it might seem; treating the Book of Mormon as a document that existed in history offers insights on the text that a focus only on its 19th-century context would overlook; and the historicity of the Book of Mormon offers a compelling explanation for a number of things that are otherwise difficult to explain.
This series builds on ideas I’ve written about before, scattered over various posts going back a long time. Instead of repeating myself, here are the basic points, which I think are true statements about the Book of Mormon.
- Mormon existed and was the editor of the Book of Mormon, but his knowledge of even recent history was limited. He had access to a variety of records, but was forced to do a historian’s work under nearly impossible conditions.
- There are only around 150 total years of historical chronicle in the Book of Mormon, including a few decades from the time of Mormon, but most of the chronicle is from the book of Mosiah through approximately 3 Nephi 7.
- The dating of these two chronistic sections is uncertain. The dates we typically use for the Book of Mormon are related to events in sacred or narrative time, not the Julian calendar, and the internal dating is uncertain prior to the book of Mosiah and after 3 Nephi 7.
- The rest of the Book of Mormon – 1 Nephi through Enos, 3 Nephi 8-4 Nephi and the book of Ether – are other genres and primarily concerned with other purposes. I value them as revealed scripture, but how they correspond to mundane history is uncertain.
- But 1 Nephi through Enos did exist as a text during Nephite history. The current form of these books reflects how they were read and shaped by active reception over a century or more of use by living human beings.
The Nephite coalition
What the historical sections of the Book of Mormon describe is not a millennium- and continent-spanning clash of empires, but something much more plausible. As found in Mosiah-3 Nephi 7, the Nephites are a tribal confederation (itself a part of a larger cultural continuum) that existed for a little more than a century.
The Nephite confederation was assembled from four principal components. As the book of Mosiah opens, and towards the end of the reign of King Benjamin, the Nephites consist of:
- A larger group, the Mulekites, centered on Zarahemla.
- Another large group, Nephites in the narrower sense, who had left their original homeland among the Lamanites around 50 years previously. Though less numerous than the Mulekites, the Nephites were politically dominant.
- A much smaller group, the people of Limhi, who had more recently left their prior homeland among the Lamanites.
- An even smaller group, the people of Alma, loosely associated with the people of Limhi, and who had also recently left their prior homeland among the Lamanites. Despite a small population measuring in the hundreds, the people of Alma were a significant addition to the Nephites and achieved religious preeminence among them, giving some indication of the scale of Nephite culture.
Apart from the Mulekites, about whom we only have an origin story, these Nephite peoples seem to have arisen only recently. Their histories reach back only two generations at most. Mosiah, the first Nephite king and the father of Benjamin, was not crowned until after the Nephite migration to Zarahemla, and no previous political leaders are known. The peoples of Limhi and Alma also extend back only two generations, to Zeniff, a rough contemporary of Mosiah. Major features of Nephite religion extend back a single generation to Abinadi. The later Book of Mormon does not refer to any Nephite leaders or quote any prophets from the centuries immediately preceding Mosiah, Zeniff and Abinadi. Mormon cites Abinadi and Samuel the Lamanite seemingly as bookends of Nephite religious history.
During the Nephite tribal coalition’s existence, there were occasional additions from other Lamanite exiles, departures of Nephite dissenters back to the Lamanites, uncertain relationships with the neighboring Zoramites, and ongoing conflict with the Lamanites. After around a century – a very plausible life span for a tribal coalition – the Nephites collapsed into their constituent parts and new ethnic identities due to political and religious tensions that were never fully resolved. The cultural memory of the Nephites remained, and Mormon eventually inherited some of their records. But not much record-keeping seems to have been done after the collapse. Some people continued to see themselves as the cultural or religious heirs of the Nephites for some time, and then even these traces finally disappeared at the time of Mormon.
I find it quite plausible that something like this happened somewhere in the centuries prior to Joseph Smith. This is not an argument for believing in Book of Mormon historicity, just the observation that the general outline of Nephite history starts from a place of basic plausibility.
I can understand religious hesitation to treat a book of scripture as less than objective history, but I don’t think I’m suggesting anything unprecedented for the historical interpretation of premodern writing. Ancient historians had agendas and drew on both trustworthy chronicles and more speculative types of writing.
This approach has implications for how we read other parts of the Book of Mormon. In the next post, I’ll look at some of the ways that a historicist reading helps us understand some otherwise puzzling aspects of the Book of Mormon. Then in the third post, I’ll make a case that seeing history in the Book of Mormon is not only possible, but may also offer a more plausible explanation for a number of things than the ahistorical alternative.
* * *
The issue here is rational belief, where you think history and archeology are good and useful, and you also think the Book of Mormon is good and revealed scripture, although the two may seem to be in tension. If you accept the reality of the scriptural narrative purely on faith, that’s great – I see no reason to dissuade you. If you think the Book of Mormon is best understood as fiction, you might find some interesting ideas to think about here.
If you’re saying that I’m just minimizing cognitive dissonance, my answer is: Of course I am. We try to reduce cognitive dissonance in everything we do, in all our decisions and relationships and allegiances. There is no special ribbon at the Last Judgment for heightening the contradictions and forcing yourself to live a life of spiritual agony. And, really, it doesn’t take much to reduce the cognitive dissonance associated with Book of Mormon historicity. You just need to tap back on history a bit, and nudge the text a bit to the side, and push back on your expectations, and without getting any of them bent too far out of shape it’s possible to find a Nephite-shaped hole for everything to fit.
I’m primarily focusing on profane history rather than on supernatural occurrences or sermons and theological discourses. I’m grateful for the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but even in the best case, its theology reflects Joseph Smith’s American Christian rewriting of Mormon’s Christian rewriting of an unknown chain of reception and transmission, which seem like poor conditions for doing intellectual history, and I am in any case not an intellectual historian. Even a closely-controlled translation doesn’t mean that the original text was the source of control, and I expect that there are numerous examples of nineteenth century influence. There’s bound to be someone else better equipped than me to make a case for rational belief in Book of Mormon historicity based on its theology.
* * *
These posts are of course inspired by Stephen Fleming’s thoughts on Book of Mormon historicity. He and I are approaching historicity from slightly different angles, however. The question Stephen is addressing seems to be: Did 1000 years of history take place just as described? While my question is: Could real people living before the time of Joseph Smith have created a record like the Book of Mormon? Our different approaches give us areas of both overlap and disagreement. I’ve expressed my disagreements with a lot of Stephen’s points, but it’s important to understand that our disagreements are completely fine. We’re academics; disagreeing is what we do for fun. We’re both PhDs (albeit with oddly shaped academic careers), his degree more directly in Religious Studies, while I’m an interloper from language and literature (but an AHA president did like my book). We’ve read some of the same books and looked at some of the same sources and drawn different conclusions. Hopefully both Stephen’s posts and my own help us all think a little more clearly about what we believe and provide viable options for people to accept the Book of Mormon as scripture.
Thanks Jonathan. I’m really enjoying Stephen’s posts and look forward to reading your perspective from the other side of the historicity debate. Are you familiar with the Moroni-as-translator theory? The idea that Moroni (or another post-Nephite resurrected being) worked out an English translation of the record and transmitted this to Joseph Smith via supernatural means. This allows for ancient history but also accounts for KJV English, 19th century concerns, anachronisms, etc. I think Roger Terry articulates it best without commiting to it. Any thoughts on this theory?
Personally, I’m just not buying it any more. Yes, the Book of Mormon has value – and contains a number of great teachings and spirit/thought provoking ideas i.e. King Benjamin’s Address is one of my favorite.
However, for me, the B of M is a faith based allegory; a synthesis and conglomeration of a number of great spiritual thought leaders of Joseph Smith’s day. And, as time marches on, I see less and less evidence of B of M historicity….not more. Based upon fairly recent comments by President Nelson and Elder Bednar….to one degree or another….church leadership is perceiving the same thing.
Thanks, Jonathan. I look forward to more.
When I read the Book of Mormon it conveys to my mind the magnitude of two massive and great civilizations that spanned a very long time. I ask myself is it plausible that not one but two massive civilizations existed in the Americas of the which mainstream science can’t even see and understand it?
From a critical thinking standpoint I have come to the conclusions that yes, it is not only plausible but highly probable.
One can take a multitude of angles here but when you start laying down evidences things take an uncanny turn into plausible reality. But I do not hold my standard of intellect by the same limited secular intellect of mainstream scholars because their methodologies are flawed from the start.
I have come to understand and realize that the partial statement by Mark Twain “truth is stranger than fiction” is so true.
I think the greatest disappointment in BoM studies academically is reducing their geological footprint to some miniscule piece of land where civilizations spanning thousands of years with populations well into the millions could not have fit. Is that really where trained scholars go? Aye, the truth is stranger than fiction indeed!
Mormon was not only a great prophet and military leader of the last Nephite nation, he should be acknowledged as a great historian who compiled, from a myriad of sources of written records, the histories of a great civilization. In fact, he was, in my opinion, a master historian who had a unique understanding, unlike any of us, of not only the layout of the geography, he was a special witness of prophecy, but also had communications with the three nephites and thus could verify at least several hundred years of the records as truthful having conversed with the actual witnesses.
The Book of Mormon is unique, unlike the Bible, in that Mormon included enough details to not only describe the layout of the lands, but also the cultures, practices, and products they produced. And this besides the main story of salvation and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Hopefully we do not grind out the words and testimonies of the ancient prophets to fit the modern secular methodologies of academia and thus destroy the real truth and histories of antiquity.
Okay, let me say a little more. I’m working to understand the boundaries of your framework and have a few questions. I get the sense you are saying that the history prior to the book of Mosiah is uncertain. “The later Book of Mormon does not refer to any Nephite leaders or quote any prophets from the centuries immediately preceding Mosiah, Zeniff and Abinadi.”
But the Book of Mormon does account for this: the missing 116 pages. It says there WAS a record of what happened, but that Martin Harris lost the translation.
I”m also a little confused by what you say here. “But 1 Nephi through Enos did exist as a text during Nephite history. The current form of these books reflects how they were read and shaped by active reception over a century or more of use by living human beings.”
That’s not how the small plates present themselves. Mormon edits the large plates but just sticks the small plates in unedited. So I’d have a hard time getting your theory to mesh with what the Book of Mormon says. It does seem like 1 and 2 Nephi would have to be some kind of act of deception on Mormon’s or some other author part to get them to work with your theory. The books of Nephi claim to have been written by Nephi unedited. They’re first person.
This is interesting for sure. Just my own views, I suppose it limits some of the historical problems, but I’d just say that we’d still have the problem of having no civilization in the Americas matching the descriptions of in those “historical” parts: Mosiah to Mormon. So I still think that’s a problem, but won’t harp on it. I look forward to more posts.
Yeah, I went and took a look at Words of Mormon. Mormon claims in verse three “I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi.”
So Mormon reiterates there was a lost history on the 116 pages, and then claims that he simply FOUND the small plates. 6 “But behold, I shall take these [small] plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren.” Mormon makes a point that he edited the large plates (Nephi to Benjamin and Benjamin to Mormon) but NOT the small plates.
Now, a number of scholars argue that in historical records when people claim to find a lost record (like Josiah does with Deuteronomy) what actually happened is that they created the record and claimed to find it (a common theory for Deuteronomy). Mormon and the small plates?
Stephen, yes, the 116 pages were on my mind. Whatever was on them, the rest of the book doesn’t refer to any immediate predecessors to Mosiah/Abinadi/Zeniff. So maybe the 116 pages started describing history with Mosiah’s rivalry with the local Lamanites, the Nephite migration, and the discovery of Zarahemla?
You’re correct that I’m not putting much stock in how the small plates describe themselves. Would Mormon have been able to evaluate their claims? In my academic work, I deal with texts that not infrequently claim to have been discovered in highly unusual forms (marble tablets, ancient parchment, even a few gold plates) where it seems unlikely that the media existed as described, but the text clearly did. I don’t think any deceptive intent is necessary, again because of biases from my academic work, where I see texts diverging over time not through an intent to deceive (which would be possible and probably even happened in some cases), but through good-faith efforts to improve the text and plain old clumsiness at copying texts by hand.
Gomez, I wasn’t directly aware of the theory, although I may have heard an oblique reference at one point. In the framework of rational belief I’m using here, expanding the role of supernatural beings isn’t a move that I see as useful. (Which doesn’t mean it’s not useful for someone else, and someone else’s framework might be better than this one.) What would be more useful in this particular framework would be to posit Moroni (or a descendant) as a mortal who handed a translation to Joseph Smith (which would also get us nearly all the way to a fully naturalistic Book of Mormon – it’s Moroni’s visit that’s hardest to explain naturalistically – although a naturalistic Book of Mormon is not my goal here).
Oh, okay, that’s really interesting, Jonathan. So as you see it, Mormon found a record [the small plates] that he accepted but was in fact of dubious historical veracity?
The person of Nephi is interesting in all this. In Words of Mormon, Mormon says he abridged Nephi’s record large-plates record (v. 3) and at a later point in the Book of Mormon, Mormon claims to be a decedent of Nephi. Mormon’s claim that the small plates, “contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi.” Mormon had Nephi’s large-plates record and would have been able to compare them to the small plates. So Mormon would have had a point of reference for his sense that the small plates were authentic. Just musing.
Jonathan, just so I’m understanding you correctly (and maybe you’ll flesh this out in later posts), with your model are you suggesting Lehi, Nephi et al weren’t necessarily historical (or at least some of their stories weren’t, e.g. originating from Jerusalem, crossing an ocean)? That the small plates may have engaged in myth-making that a historical Mormon read literally? Sorry, I might be misunderstanding you.
I threw this out there several years ago and was totally ignored, but this seems like a good place to try again. To be clear, I am not committed to this scenario.
What if the translation of the large plates is what it purports to be, but the “small plates” (and Words of Mormon) are a 19th century product of Joseph Smith? We know that Joseph tackled the small plates after he had completed work on the large plates. I wonder if he didn’t make up the “small plates” story to avoid having the retranslate the 116 pages. He had a memory of what was in the 116 pages, but he also remembered the messages in the large plates and so ended up producing something that filled in the origin story, but with a layer of post-3rd Nephi theology on top of it.
Last Lemming, I’m going the other direction with the small plates, but this is the right place for no-commitment speculation!
Gomez, the next post goes into detail on what I think might be going on. In a nutshell, I think the small plates are a different genre than what we get starting in Mosiah, and their aims are different when it comes to history, and that they developed over time. So all the things you mention might be possible ways that lead to the current Book of Mormon. I don’t rule out the possibility of the small plates being sober factual history, but someone else will have to make that argument.
Stephen, remember that Mormon seems to be writing quite a bit later than all his records. How’s his paleography? Can he distinguish early documents from late copies? He’s a young man (by current historians’ standards) with a lot of other demands on his time, and we don’t know how much he had to work with even in terms of basic chronology. We can look at Mosiah onwards and get a sense of how much the later Nephites knew about Nephi, and it seems clear that they had some knowledge and access to the “small plate” texts. (I go into some of the details here.) But I do think there’s quite a bit of potential for the narrative of 1 Nephi to diverge from the account of an omniscient, perfectly objective observer (because that’s what ancient histories tend to do).
I won’t keep you waiting too long for the next installment. Hopefully there’s a convenient time for it this week.
Mormon (and Nephi) says he had a much more extensive record from Nephi on the large plates than the small plates. Mormon claims to have abridged Nephi’s longer record that Martin Harris lost. Setting aside paleography, one would assumed Mormon would be able to tell is the basic historical facts of 1 and 2 Nephi gelled with the longer record on the large plates.
That is to say, the logic of the book is that we had a large-plates record from Nephi confirmed the basic facts of 1 Nephi: Lehi’s family sailed to America and set up a civilization. If Nephi’s large plates said something completely different, I think it would be pretty easy for Mormon to notice. So the logic of the book would be that the 1 Nephi had the basic facts, or why would Mormon put it in, if it contradicted the basic facts of Nephi’s large-plates record?
(Again, that’s the logic of the book. I don’t believe it’s historical and believe that the small plates were a way to cover for the lost 116).
I think the debate over if the BOM is revelation can be more interesting for exploration than the more frequent retrenched debate over historicity (which can’t be fully ignored). Utility and an argument for the BOM as evidence of encountering the divine or allowing the reader to encounter the divine can make for a more inclusive discussion. Does the Book of Mormon stand as an evidence of God working through people beyond rational human means? Is the construction of the Book of Mormon more complex than first glance and at what point can that be ascribed to divinity? If your prior going into the book is Gods not real, does anything give a sceptic cause to reconsider?
The debate over horses or chariots or wine that goes with the historicity steers BOM discussion towards superficiality. I do think the intertexuality and narrative discussion in this post/comments is interesting, but what about the bigger question.
Thanks for this, Jonathan. Looking forward to future posts, as well as more from Stephen. My starting point for BOM historicity is the it is some version of a history of some people who lived somewhere at some time. But am grateful for the opportunity to examine this and add nuance to that approach.
I’ve never understood why someone would would accept the Book of Mormon as revelation from God or inspired by God but not accept it as historical . Why go to so much trouble or length to tell a story?
@Stephen Fleming – How much historical detail to compare with is really there in 1st and 2nd Nephi? The division between the secular history of the people (“reigns of the kings”) and the spiritual history is pretty stark – Nephi doesn’t mention any conflicts beyond his familial arguments with his brothers and presumably some clashes between the brothers and their immediate descendants. Once the voyage is over it’s mostly Isaiah and sermons – then there’s the Enos narrative (no historical grounding beyond his place as Jacob’s son which could be a literary invention), and the vague references to history in Jarom and Omni, and that’s it. If the larger narrative Mormon is working with has the right names (legendary ancestors of the Nephite group) and claims they came from across the sea, that jives with about all of the history that the small plates have to offer until the reign of King Benjamin.
I had never before considered it, but it is possible that a lot of the Book of Mormon is something like the Aeneid – Virgil’s Hellenophilic attempt to merge the traditional Roman lore of Romulus and Remus with the legacy of the legendary Trojans. Perhaps we should call it the Nephiad or the Mormoniad.
Interesting…I have questions, but I think most will be answered as you go. I like the general idea of “limited chronology” a lot.
I’d add that the Brass Plates also existed as a text during the Nephite period, unless you see Abinadi quoting Isaiah as a 19th century influence.
1 Nephi seems like the one book where we have a really solid grounding in time and place, written by an eyewitness to the events it describes, albeit several decades later and with no pretenses to writing an objective and unbiased history. I imagine why you see it differently will become clear as you go. But I don’t think taking it as historical is inconsistent with your limited chronology model. In the spirit of no-commitment speculation, I can imagine the Lehite colony being completely assimilated into the indigenous culture around them over the course of a generation or two, completely forgetting their Israelite heritage except for this one odd family that writes a few sentences on plates once a generation. That would make it really easy to mess up their chronology. Then Mosiah(1) opens a new dispensation, perhaps thought of as a restoration with the small plates at its center. Those in favor start calling themselves Nephites and label their opponents Lamanites, even though this would be roughly equivalent to us deciding to divide into Lancastrians and Yorkists today. But during that gap, there would be no Nephites or Lamanites to detect in the archeological record.
Part of taking the Book of Mormon seriously as history is recognizing that real history is messy and sometimes is not what it appears to be at first glance. A recent (and unambiguous) example is how the declassification of Ultra forced a reevaluation of the history of World War 2 and made all the histories written to that point, no matter how honest, skilled, and conscientious the historian, incomplete and deceptive. Mormon almost certainly made such mistakes–Moroni(2) was sure of it and it worried him a great deal.
Why go to so much trouble or length to tell a story?
Ask Tolstoy.
No, I’m not saying that Joseph Smith was another Tolstoy. To me, he clearly was not. But the question just struck me as so bizarre that I had to respond.
Stephen, I think that the small plates did support the events Mormon found recorded in Mosiah and onward, but in a different way. That’s the next post.
Thanks for the other comments too, which I’m generally in agreement with. RLD, this particular theory is agnostic about scriptural quotations, so I won’t have much to say about Isaiah. I’ll have more to say about 1 Nephi in the next post, but not about its Near Eastern historicity, which a lot of people can handle more capably than I can.
My attitude towards the BOM has changed over the years. I no longer accept it as an historical document of certain ancient civilizations as I once did for a number of reasons. It contains some rather interesting stories, with the major story being Christ’s appearance in the Americas post his resurrection. My attitude of belief and faith with regard to the BOM is very simple: I have no argument with those who accept it as genuine scripture recording the life and times of various civilizations, all of whom originated in the Middle East, but managed to make their way to the Americas. I have no argument with them, as religious faith and belief are personal. Neither do I have any argument for those of disbelief, That which is important to me is what I believe, not what others believe. I refuse to engage in argument, but am open to discussion.
I believe the validity of the Book of Mormon is made manifest in true believers who exercise faith. I’m reminded of the scriptures in Alma 12:9-11
“9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.”
I wonder, and have so for many years, that one of the litmus tests of the Book of Mormon is to see just who can or will “fully” accept Christ by believing the Book of Mormon and by faith nourish that word until, after their faith is made manifest it brings forth its mysteries even to the knowledge of it being what it purports to be. Disbelievers will never know and instead be led captive by the devil because they harden their heart against his words.
Certainly God can start a church without new scripture. So why start his latter day church with new scriptures? And why have the circumstances been such that it requires faith to believe and be led continuously?
The scriptures do say that the wicked are the ones who seek signs first whereas the righteous receive the signs after their faith.
Is the Book of Mormon the test to see who will exercise faith and follow Christ or reject the faith and be led away?
Hoosier, yes, but BEFORE the voyage there ARE a number of clear details in 1 Nephi: leaving Jerusalem during the reign of Zedekiah, traveling through the wilderness (gives directions), building a boat and sailing to America. 1 Nephi also gives the key figures that have “ites” named after them in 4th Nephi 1:36-38.
So that’s my point, Jonathan. Mormon said he had a more extensive history from Nephi, so either those basic facts lined up with Nephi’s more extensive record that were in the 116 pages, or Mormon accepted the 1 Nephi despite it contradicting the more extensive record. Logically it would make sense that the events in 1 Nephi fit with the more extensive record that Mormon abridged, but Harris lost.
Kibs,
I accept and try to exercise faith in the Christ who said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
I reject the version of Christ who said, “Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof.”
If accepting the second version is some kind of test, I feel at peace with my answer for this at judgement day.
Perhaps I didn’t state my point clearly.
The overarching theme of the “other plates”, wherever they are mentioned, is the wars and contentions of the people and the reigns of the kings. At one point (2 Nephi 4:14) Nephi notes that the “other plates” contain teachings of Lehi and Nephi from before Lehi’s death. We don’t know how much detail they have to offer relative to the small plates.
Kibs “The scriptures do say that the wicked are the ones who seek signs first whereas the righteous receive the signs after their faith.”
This logic has always struck me as a convenient way to impose institutional power. I’m fine with the second part of your statement insofar that “signs” as you call them are eventually produced. I’m not sure that faith remains faith when evidence is produced that challenges it and you choose to ignore it. Furthermore, “Faith” as understood Biblically has absolutely nothing to do with engaging with propositional claims. Faith is a relational term that places one in connection with another person, instead of a cognitive exercise.
Hoosier, I’m not sure how that’s related to my main point. 1 Nephi 1:17 Nephi says he abridges his father’s record and then tells the story of the family leaving Jerusalem etc. The text very clearly indicates that the larger record STARTS with a longer version of what Nephi summarizes. In other words, it’s hard to think that the large plates, AT THE BEGINNING, would have told a fundamentally different origin story than Nephi did: leave Jerusalem, in the wilderness, all the stuff, sail to the promised land.
Todd,
I have always found it i teresting that the Lord could very easily have shown the world the golden plates, shown the interpreters shown the world clear evidences of the geography, etc. But he went the other way entirely. Some think this is all just evidence of Joseph Smith and family’s fabrication and deception. They have not withstood the trial of faith, have not shown God that to approach him one must have faith. The very first principle of Christ’s gospel is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. There can be no salvation without faith.
I think this line of reasoning stands clear- where will man place his faith- In the flesh of man and his understanding or in God?
All the miraculous events of Lehi and Nephi were brought forth by faith. Nephi proved his worthiness by being faithful and not questioning God or his words. We live in a time now where the greatest threats to our faith are coming from those within who lose faith and drag others with them as they exit. Not only do they not enter into the kingdom of heaven, they prevent others from entering in also. Thus, who will God reveal his mysteries too? And, who will he take his words from? I think it all hinges on faith.
Kibs,
While we are musing, I find this interesting;
> I wonder, and have so for many years, that one of the litmus tests of the Book of Mormon is to see just who can or will “fully” accept
> Christ by believing the Book of Mormon and by faith nourish that word until, after their faith is made manifest it brings forth its
> mysteries even to the knowledge of it being what it purports to be.
What if the “litmus test” is grappling with the BoM so closely that one sees the issues with historicity? What of the end goal of studying the BoM is gaining a revelation of it’s faults?
Perhaps the real test is to accept its witness of the Savior in spite of its faults.
AIB,
No, faith is born and garnered in the face or mountain of doubt yet despite of it moving forward anyway.