Though we like to call the Book of Mormon scripture, and I believe it is that, it is also a historical text as the Bible is. With that assumption, what does the Book of Mormon tell us. I have often found myself reading the text of the Book of Mormon like I would a primary source for historical research. This has actually increased my faith in the Book of Mormon; for a work of fiction would not carry those subtle, stray artifacts that make a document ring true.
Being the skeptical sort by nature, I have often struggled to understand and accept some aspects of our past and our story as Mormons. However, I believe so strongly in the Book of Mormon that I am drawn to accept even when I don't understand. I feel like Peter after Jesus gave his masterful discourse on the Bread of Heaven (see John 6). When Jesus expounded doctrines and made claims that many of His disciples found difficult to believe, they turned away from Him, but Peter, though he could not understand replied:
Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
So it is with me. I don't understand the former ban on Africans from the Priesthood, nor do I really comprehend polygamy or all the ordinances of the Temple, but the Book of Mormon and the Prophets of this Church have the words of eternal life and that keeps me here. So, in between my travel adventures, I hope to start posting some essays and explorations of the Book of Mormon as a historical text and what I have learned from reading it this way.
My first observation is not some grand truth, except about human nature, but it is a testament to the veracity of the Book of Mormon and a defense against charges that it cannot be historical because the history it presents is too simple.
The Book of Mormon has three main authors and a few minor authors (excluding the lengthy quotations from such persons as Isaiah, Alma, Captain Moroni, and so on): Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni son of Mormon. Jacob could be added to the list as well. In fact, my first evidence comes from Jacob.
In a class I took in college on the History of the Celts, we looked at the identity of these persons and groups and realized that tribal nomenclature is a tricky business. We use the name Celts, from the Greek Keltoi, to describe the peoples of Europe who inhabited vast swaths of land from the Danube to the coast of Ireland until the invasion of the Romans and later the Germanic tribes pushed their culture to near extinction leaving on pockets of Celtic language and traditions in Brittany, Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. The Romans called these same people Gauls. What they called themselves is actually somewhat of a mystery; assuming they had a sense of "Pan-Celtic" consciousness rather than just tribal identities. The same holds for the Germans, who to this day don't call themselves Germans, a name the Romans adopted from a tribe that lived along the Rhine River. Germans call themselves Deutschen, which is related to the words Teutonic, Dutch, and so forth and roughly translates as "people." Greeks, of course, are not Greeks, but Hellenes in their own language and Greece is not Greece, it is Hellas.
How does this touch the Book of Mormon? Many critics of the Book of Mormon have said that since we have no records aside from the Book of Mormon, mentioning peopled called the Nephites and the Lamanites, then the book must be a modern fabrication. However, this critique is built on the false assumption that the names Lamanites and Nephites were in widespread use. The Nephites were soundly destroyed and most of their records destroyed, according to Mormon and Moroni (see Mormon 6:6). It is highly unlikely that the Lamanites called themselves Lamanites as a people. In fact, Jacob drops this highly interesting hint in his book:
My first observation is not some grand truth, except about human nature, but it is a testament to the veracity of the Book of Mormon and a defense against charges that it cannot be historical because the history it presents is too simple.
The Book of Mormon has three main authors and a few minor authors (excluding the lengthy quotations from such persons as Isaiah, Alma, Captain Moroni, and so on): Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni son of Mormon. Jacob could be added to the list as well. In fact, my first evidence comes from Jacob.
In a class I took in college on the History of the Celts, we looked at the identity of these persons and groups and realized that tribal nomenclature is a tricky business. We use the name Celts, from the Greek Keltoi, to describe the peoples of Europe who inhabited vast swaths of land from the Danube to the coast of Ireland until the invasion of the Romans and later the Germanic tribes pushed their culture to near extinction leaving on pockets of Celtic language and traditions in Brittany, Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. The Romans called these same people Gauls. What they called themselves is actually somewhat of a mystery; assuming they had a sense of "Pan-Celtic" consciousness rather than just tribal identities. The same holds for the Germans, who to this day don't call themselves Germans, a name the Romans adopted from a tribe that lived along the Rhine River. Germans call themselves Deutschen, which is related to the words Teutonic, Dutch, and so forth and roughly translates as "people." Greeks, of course, are not Greeks, but Hellenes in their own language and Greece is not Greece, it is Hellas.
How does this touch the Book of Mormon? Many critics of the Book of Mormon have said that since we have no records aside from the Book of Mormon, mentioning peopled called the Nephites and the Lamanites, then the book must be a modern fabrication. However, this critique is built on the false assumption that the names Lamanites and Nephites were in widespread use. The Nephites were soundly destroyed and most of their records destroyed, according to Mormon and Moroni (see Mormon 6:6). It is highly unlikely that the Lamanites called themselves Lamanites as a people. In fact, Jacob drops this highly interesting hint in his book:
Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites. But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.Jacob 1:13-14
Mormon echoes this statement hundred of years later in 4 Nephi 1:36-37:
The key passage, highlighted above, shows that Jacob knew there were more complexities than Nephites and Lamanites, but frankly did not care to distinguish at that level of complexity because his purpose was a spiritual one and he did not care to get bogged down with politics.
These sorts of incidental references provide a strong sense of authenticity to the Book of Mormon account. The authors refer almost parenthetically to the world around them with which they are intimately familiar and hence feel no need to elaborate on such obvious givens. Furthermore, we know from these accounts that the Nephite/Lamanite duality is, in some sense, an artificial simplification of a far more complex world full of various tribes. Keep in mind, furthermore, that none of these names should be assumed to have been used by the groups to which they refer, just as one would not find an ancient Greek source referring to "Greeks." An Greek author would talk about Hellenes and a person reading Roman sources alone would not be able to find records of "Greeks" in the land that the Romans called Greece.
This parallel is not, of course, precise, because both Greeks and Romans were highly literate and thus the records speak repeatedly of each other, whereas the Nephites were literate, but most of the Lamanites were not. No records, aside from the Book of Mormon, exist to document the history of Central and South America prior to the Maya and the Aztecs, both of whom came hundreds of years after the demise of the Nephites. The Incas, interestingly, were not literate and left no records; neither did the Olmec, Toltec, Moqui, and many other groups whose names, it should be rememberd, are mostly exonyms, i.e. names applied by outsides. What these groups called themselves, as with the Lamanites, is unknown. The same is true for ancient ruins in Central and South America. For the most part, their names are unknown and the names applied by archaeologists are modern.
There are two things to be gleaned here. First, the writers of the Book of Mormon recognized they were using exonyms and we should not, therefore, be surprised that no other record uses them since these names were not used by anyone else. Secondly, the fact that the Book of Mormon mentions this detail and does so in a very cursory manner, contributes to the veracity of the Book of Mormon as a historical record.
And it came to pass that in this year there arose a people who were called the Nephites, and they were true believers in Christ; and among them there were those who were called by the Lamanites—Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites; Therefore the true believers in Christ, and the true worshipers of Christ, (among whom were the three disciples of Jesus who should tarry) were called Nephites, and Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites.
These sorts of incidental references provide a strong sense of authenticity to the Book of Mormon account. The authors refer almost parenthetically to the world around them with which they are intimately familiar and hence feel no need to elaborate on such obvious givens. Furthermore, we know from these accounts that the Nephite/Lamanite duality is, in some sense, an artificial simplification of a far more complex world full of various tribes. Keep in mind, furthermore, that none of these names should be assumed to have been used by the groups to which they refer, just as one would not find an ancient Greek source referring to "Greeks." An Greek author would talk about Hellenes and a person reading Roman sources alone would not be able to find records of "Greeks" in the land that the Romans called Greece.
This parallel is not, of course, precise, because both Greeks and Romans were highly literate and thus the records speak repeatedly of each other, whereas the Nephites were literate, but most of the Lamanites were not. No records, aside from the Book of Mormon, exist to document the history of Central and South America prior to the Maya and the Aztecs, both of whom came hundreds of years after the demise of the Nephites. The Incas, interestingly, were not literate and left no records; neither did the Olmec, Toltec, Moqui, and many other groups whose names, it should be rememberd, are mostly exonyms, i.e. names applied by outsides. What these groups called themselves, as with the Lamanites, is unknown. The same is true for ancient ruins in Central and South America. For the most part, their names are unknown and the names applied by archaeologists are modern.
There are two things to be gleaned here. First, the writers of the Book of Mormon recognized they were using exonyms and we should not, therefore, be surprised that no other record uses them since these names were not used by anyone else. Secondly, the fact that the Book of Mormon mentions this detail and does so in a very cursory manner, contributes to the veracity of the Book of Mormon as a historical record.
No comments:
Post a Comment