"We seldom get into trouble when we speak softly. It is only when we raise our voices that the sparks fly and tiny molehills become great mountains of contention."
Reynolds
argues that the relationships in language and themes between the Book
of Mormon and the Book of Moses can best be explained if at least
some of the material in the Book of Moses were known to Nephi and his
people, as if something similar to our Book of Moses were on the
brass plates that Nephi took to the New World.
Reynolds
argues that relationship between the two texts is not just one of
using a lot of the same terms and concepts in both, the way that
would be natural if they had a common author. Rather, the
relationship appears to be one-way: the Book of Mormon appears to
rely upon content in the Book of Moses and not the other way around.
Some
incidents and passages are strongly enriched when we add knowledge
from the Book of Moses, while there is no sign of the Book of Moses
depending on information in the Book of Mormon.
This
is noteworthy because the Book of Moses was received well after the
Book of Mormon. Book of Mormon translation was primarily done from
April to June of 1829, while the Book of Moses was given by
revelation between June and December of 1830.
I'll
discuss a few of the examples Reynolds finds, and then introduce a
couple of new ones, in addition to the previously discussed new issue
of the "strength of Moses" that seems to be part of the
interesting pattern Reynolds has found. One of these appears to
involve a Hebraic wordplay in Nephi's writings that I don't think has
been noted before. (This is my first time mentioning this, so I
welcome feedback on related work that should be cited.)
The Devil's in the Details?
Reynolds
introduces about 20 concepts or phrases in the Book of Moses that
could be sources for Book of Mormon material, though some of them can
also be found in the Bible. Reynolds fairly observes the cases of
possible biblical dependence, which only partially weakens the
argument for a fraction of the cases considered.
My
favorite example involves the description of Satan in the Book of
Moses. Reynolds explains how one sentence in the Book of Moses
appears to have been used in a variety of ways throughout the Book of
Mormon:
One
sentence from Moses seems to have spawned a whole family of formulaic
references in the Book of Mormon: “And he became Satan, yea,
even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive
and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his
will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice”
(Moses 4:4).
This
language is echoed precisely by both Lehi and Moroni, who, when
mentioning the devil, add the stock qualification: “who is the
father of all lies” (cf. 2 Nephi 2:18; Ether 8:25), while
Jacob says the same thing in similar terms (2 Nephi 9:9).
Incidentally,
the descriptive term devil, which is used frequently to refer
to Satan in both Moses and the Book of Mormon, does not occur at all
in the Old Testament. New Testament occurrences do not reflect this
context.
The
Book of Mormon sometimes separates and sometimes combines the
elements of this description of the devil from Moses and portrays
Satan as one deliberately engaged in “deceiving the
hearts of the people” and in “blinding their eyes”
that he might “lead them away” (3 Nephi 2:2).
Particularly
striking is the repeated statement that the devil will lead
those who do not hearken to the Lord’s voice “captive
at his will” (Moses 4:4).
In
Alma we find that those who harden their hearts will receive “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” (Alma 12:11).
Much
later, Alma invokes the same phrasing to warn his son Corianton of
the plight of the wicked who, “because of their own iniquity,”
are “led captive by the will of the devil” (Alma
40:13).
In
the passage discussed above, Lehi taught his son Jacob that men “are
free to choose liberty and eternal life, ... or to choose captivity
and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil;
for he seeketh that men might be miserable” (2 Nephi 2:27).
A
remarkable passage in the first part of the Book of Mormon pulls all
these book of Moses themes about Satan together — to describe
someone else. The implication is unmistakable when Laman
characterizes his brother Nephi as one who lies and who
deceives our eyes, thinking to lead us away for the
purpose of making himself “a king and a ruler over us,
that he may do with us according to his will and pleasure”
(1 Nephi 16:38).
Laman
insinuates that Nephi, who chastises his wayward brothers, is himself
like the devil. And resistance against him is not only righteous, but
required. This account has the added complexity that it is a speech
of Laman, who is quoted here in a record written by the very brother
he attacks.
If
we accept the possibility that this text is dependent on a passage in
the ancient book of Moses, we then recognize a major new dimension of
meaning, not only in Laman’s speech, but in Nephi’s
decision to preserve the speech, thus showing his descendants, and
any other readers familiar with the Moses text, the full nature of
the confrontation between the brothers, as well as the injustice of
the attacks he suffered.
The
full irony is revealed when we reflect on the facts reported in
Nephi’s record and realize that Laman’s false accusation
against Nephi is an accurate self-description.
I
love that last paragraph, where we learn that Laman's complaint about
Nephi becomes far more meaningful (and more ironic) when we realize
that he is referring to a specific and apparently well-known
scriptural depiction of Satan that is not found in the Old Testament,
but is found in the Book of Moses, as if that description were in the
brass plates. In this instance, the relationship between the Book of
Mormon and the Book of Moses is one way.
The
speech from Laman illustrates some of the reasons Reynolds gives for
the one-way nature of the relationship between the two books:
[I]t
is clearly Moses that provides the unity and coherence to a host of
scattered Book of Mormon references. It is the story of creation and
subsequent events that supplies meaning to Book of Mormon language
connecting (1) the transgression, fall, and death; (2) explaining the
origins of human agency; (3) describing the character and modus
operandi of Satan; (4) explaining the origins and character of secret
combinations and the works of darkness — to mention only a few
of the most obvious examples.
The
Book of Mormon is the derivative document. It shows a number of
different authors borrowing from a common source as suited their
particular needs — Lehi, Nephi, Benjamin, and Alma all used it
frequently, drawing on its context to give added meaning to their own
writings.
Perhaps
most significantly, we have at hand a control document against which
to check this hypothesis. A few years after receiving Moses, Joseph
Smith translated an Abrahamic text.
In
spite of the fact that this new document contained versions of some
of the same chapters of Genesis that are paralleled in the book of
Moses, and in spite of the fact that the Book of Mormon has a large
number of direct references to the Abraham, the person, detailed
textual comparison demonstrates that this second document does not
feature any of the phrases and concepts that have been reported above
linking Moses to the Book of Mormon textual tradition.
Nor
does the distinctive, non-Old Testament phraseology of the book of
Abraham show up in the Book of Mormon.
The
logic that would lead skeptics to conclude that these common concepts
and expressions provide evidence that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of
Mormon and the book of Moses runs aground on Abraham, as the
skeptical hypothesis would seem to require a similar pattern there.
But such a pattern is not even faintly detectable.
It
is also impressive that most of the influence from the book of Moses
in the Book of Mormon shows up early in the small plates and the
writings of the first generation of Book of Mormon prophets —
significantly, those who had custody and long-term, firsthand access
to the brass plates.
Many
of the later passages that use book of Moses terminology and concepts
tend to repeat earlier Nephite adaptations of the original materials.
One
passage in the Book of Mormon that is not mentioned by Reynolds uses
three of the parallels he identifies. One is the description of Satan
above. Another is the term "eternal life" in Moses 1:39.
Although this is found frequently in the New Testament and the Book
of Mormon, it is not used in the Old Testament. The third is the
combination of "temporal" and "spiritual" in the
Book of Moses, describing God's creation.
For
the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and
a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be
everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other — either to
the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the
deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness
of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also
into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the
captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.
Recall the key elements of Moses 4:4:
And
he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all
lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead
them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken
unto my voice (Moses 4:4, emphasis added).
The
devil and related concepts of deception, blindness, and being
delivered (led) into captivity are included here, as is "life
eternal" (not mentioned by Reynolds since the words are reversed
— he mentions that this phrase is first used in 2 Nephi, when
now we can consider it present in 1 Nephi also) and "temporally
and spiritually," all with connections to the Book of Moses.
Along
with the theme of the devil, one concept in the Book of Moses not
mentioned by Reynolds that I also see in the Book of Mormon is the
symbol of the chain. In Moses 7:26 and 7:56, Enoch sees Satan with a
great chain, and we see that people are held captive in "chains
of darkness" until the judgment day.
Chains
and the captivity of Satan are themes in the Book of Mormon, but I
was disappointed to not find "darkness" and "chains"
used together in the text. But then I noticed 2 Nephi 1, Lehi's
speech to his sons, where 2 Nephi 1:23 may be relevant:
[21]
And now that my soul might have joy in you, and that my heart might
leave this world with gladness because of you, that I might not be
brought down with grief and sorrow to the grave, arise from the dust,
my sons, and be men, and be determined in one mind and in one heart,
united in all things, that ye may not come down into captivity;
[22]
That ye may not be cursed with a sore cursing; and also, that ye may
not incur the displeasure of a just God upon you, unto the
destruction, yea, the eternal destruction of both soul and body.
[23]
Awake, my sons; put on the armor of righteousness. Shake off the
chains with which ye are bound, and come forth out of obscurity, and
arise from the dust.
[24]
Rebel no more against your brother, whose views have been glorious,
and who hath kept the commandments from the time that we left
Jerusalem; and who hath been an instrument in the hands of God, in
bringing us forth into the land of promise; for were it not for him,
we must have perished with hunger in the wilderness; nevertheless, ye
sought to take away his life; yea, and he hath suffered much sorrow
because of you.
In
verse 23, the Book of Moses link between chains and darkness is
provided, though not verbatim. In the
entry for obscurity in the 1828 dictionary of Noah Webster,
the first definition listed for obscurity is "Darkness;
want of light." Ah, another link in the chain, so to speak.
In
that verse, chains
are contrasted with the armor of righteousness. Obscurity and dust
are linked, and possibly contrasted with Nephi, "whose views
have been glorious" — vision and glory (light) are on
contrast with obscurity (darkness) and dust.
The
Hebrew word for dust, (H6083
in Strong's Concordance) is `aphar, which comes from H6080,
the primitive root ʻâphar,
"meaning either to be gray or perhaps rather to pulverize."
The gray aspect of this word would seem to go well with obscurity.
Obscurity
and dust are both mentioned in Isaiah 29, a part of Isaiah that Nephi
quotes heavily, so it is reasonable to assume that similar Hebrew
words were used in Nephi's statement.
Dust,
therefore, is likely from Strong's H6080, tied to H6083, which can
invoke the concept of grayness.
The
KJV word "obscurity" in Isaiah 28 is Strong's
H652: ʼôphel, o'fel (from H651,
ʼâphêl); meaning "dusk: — darkness, obscurity, privily,: while
ʼâphêl is "from an unused root meaning to set as the sun; dusky: —
very dark."
So
"obscurity" could be ôphel/ʼâphêl,
while "dust" is probably from ʻâphar. To me,
that looks like a potential wordplay that I don't think has been
noted. Is this legitimate? I'm not sure — Hebrew scholars, your
feedback is welcome.
But
to me, it adds to the parallelism and poetry of Lehi's words, in a
passage that appears to draw from Isaiah 52 and, perhaps, a touch of
the Book of Moses or related content on the brass plates.
I'd
also suggest that Lehi's speech, including its continuation in 2
Nephi 2, gains further meaning and power when we consider Job 19 as
an inspiration, especially the part about his rejection by his
family, followed by the proclamation about the Redeemer who in the
latter days will stand upon the earth.
That
phrase can also be interpreted as "rise from the dust."
More on that next time!
Reynolds
thesis about the relationship between two books of LDS scripture and
the its implications for the brass plates, if his argument proves to
have merit, could really shake up a lot of assumptions about the
origins of the Book of Moses and the origins of the Bible.
It
would be important information to consider to radically revise some
aspects of the Documentary Hypothesis, for example.
What
Reynolds is doing with the Book of Moses and passages in the Book of
Mormon is similar to what scholars have done for many decades to pick
upon sources and influences for biblical texts. This is something I'm
just beginning to explore, and will share more next week.
Jeff Lindsay has been defending the Church on the Internet since 1994, when he launched his
LDSFAQ website under JeffLindsay.com. He has also long been blogging about LDS matters on
the blog Mormanity (mormanity.blogspot.com). Jeff is a longtime resident of Appleton,
Wisconsin, who recently moved to Shanghai, China, with his wife, Kendra.
He works for an Asian corporation as head of intellectual property. Jeff and Kendra are the parents of 4 boys, 3 married and the the youngest on a mission.
He is a former innovation and IP consultant, a former professor, and former Corporate Patent
Strategist and Senior Research Fellow for a multinational corporation.
Jeff Lindsay, Cheryl Perkins and Mukund Karanjikar are authors of the book Conquering
Innovation Fatigue (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).
Jeff has a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University and is a registered US
patent agent. He has more than 100 granted US patents and is author of numerous publications.
Jeff's hobbies include photography, amateur magic, writing, and Mandarin Chinese.