Interesting Book of Mormon parallels

[JarMan]

I started another thread in which I discuss parallels between the Book of Mormon and 16th Century European culture and events. But I clumsily sabotaged my own thread from the start with a provocative title that would seem to imply I thought the Book of Mormon a fraud. To be clear, I believe in a historical Book of Mormon and favor a mesoamerican setting. However, I believe there are several significant parallels between Book of Mormon teachings, peoples, and practices on one hand, and reformation thought and life in 16th Century Europe on the other hand. Why those parallels exist is really not my focus of the thread. Whether you're a believer, a skeptic, or something else you can decide on your own why the parallels are there and what they mean. Or you can simply dismiss what I present as parallelomania (or the result of a frenzied mind).

I got significant discussion in the other thread about the topic of burning heretics in the Book of Mormon and its parallels to 16th Century Europe. The next topic I brought up was regarding the Book of Mormon change from kings to judges and how that could be understood in a 16th Century European context. That didn't get any traction. I have several other points I'd like to discuss including what I believe to be clear evidence of William Tyndale's writings in the Book of Mosiah and elsewhere in the Book of Mormon (no, I am not referring to any of the King James Bible passages).

I'll re-present the kings-to-judges parallel from my last thread:

Reformers of 16th Century Europe often disagreed with each other on doctrinal issues, but they all seemed to share a single sentiment. And that was that the church's power should be lessened or de-centralized so that individual kingdoms could administer their own version of the state religion. This idea was partially realized in the 1555 Augsburg Settlement where the German princes gained the right to choose the state religion (either Protestantism or Catholicism). In the 1530's Henry VIII had effected a separation from Rome - forming the Church of England - because of his disagreement with the pope about whether he could divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. I should note that the reformers and local rulers were not seeking secular governments at all.They were seeking the ability of the local ruler to choose the nature of the state religion they were to sponsor.

In the Book of Mormon Mosiah was aware of King Noah's abuses of power. He wanted to insure against another King Noah coming to power over all of the Nephites so he implemented a system of judges. As many have previously noted, the system of judges seems to have been almost the same as having a king: familial succession, consolidation of executive, judicial and executive power, military command, etc. Others have pointed to "the voice of the people" to intimate that the system of judges was a reflection of American republicanism. In my view, the intent of the change in form of government was so that the local people, through their judges, could decide which state religion would be sponsored. And, in fact, we see that during the reign of the judges different Nephite lands had different chief judges sponsoring different religions (or forms of religion). The land of Zarahemla was mostly able to retain righteous judges (meaning those that supported the "true" religion), but they had serious conflicts with other Nephite lands who chose religions that were viewed as apostate. In other words, they were mired in religious wars not unlike the many European polities of the 16th Century.

I don't believe Joseph Smith would have conceived of the idea that "good" governments should have a state-sponsored religion. But I think that message is one of the fundamental principles in the Book of Mormon.

Edited October 13, 2017 by JarMan

[Robert F. Smith]

46 minutes ago, JarMan said:

..................................................

I don't believe Joseph Smith would have conceived of the idea that "good" governments should have a state-sponsored religion. But I think that message is one of the fundamental principles in the Book of Mormon.

You make some excellent points, JarMan, and it certainly must bedevil Dan Vogel no end that he now has to go back at least two centuries to find any possible valid parallels to the Book of Mormon.  A number of scholars have pointed out that the early 19th century just doesn't fit the Book of Mormon (unless as a rebellion against it).  Grant Hardy and Richard Bushman, for example, listed some disjunctures with 19th century sources: 

1.  Even though “Joseph Smith’s own life at the time of the translation included influential women such as his mother and his wife of less than a year, those seeking the origins of the book in his personal history have to somehow explain the absence of any accounts of courtship, romance, or maternal interaction.”  Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), 288 n. 3.

2.  Despite claims that the early 19th century is Joseph’s source for the Book of Mormon, Richard Bushman took a hard look at this typical, oft-repeated claim and found it wanting.  Bushman terms the Book of Mormon “almost postmodern in its self-conscious attention to the production of the text” (87), thus, by implication, lending itself well to analysis via the Documentary Hypothesis.  Instead of the vast numbers of parallels claimed by anti-Mormons, Bushman shows how out-of-synch the BofM is with then contemporary thought: “the American story does not control the narrative” (101); the BofM “does not plant seeds of democracy in the primeval history of the nation” (102), etc.  Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (Knopf, 2005), 87-105.

3.  Note Bushman's observation that the Book of Mormon "patriotically [honors] America by giving it a biblical history. And yet on closer reading, the Book of Mormon contests the amalgam of Enlightenment, republican, Protestant, capitalist, and nationalist values that constituted American culture. . . . Against increasing wealth and inequality, the Book of Mormon advocates the cause of the poor. Against the subjection of the Indians, it promises the continent to the native people. Against republican government, it proposes righteous rule by judges and kings under God’s law. Against a closed-canon Bible and non-miraculous religion, the Book of Mormon stands for ongoing revelation, miracles, and revelation to all nations. Against skepticism, it promotes belief; against nationalism, a universal Israel. It foresees disaster for the nation if the love of riches, resistance to revelation, and Gentile civilization prevail over righteousness, revelation, and Israel . . . the Book of Mormon can be read as a ‘document of profound social protest’ against the dominant culture of Joseph Smith’s time" (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 104-105).

[JarMan]

As I mentioned before, I think there is clear evidence of William Tyndale's writings in the Book of Mosiah. Tyndale wrote, "The Obedience of a Christian Man & How Christian Rulers Ought to Govern" in 1528. Its instructions for Christian Rulers stands in stark contrast to Machiavelli's "The Prince" written about a dozen years earlier. It is known that Henry VIII read this work and thought that all kings should read it. In the Book of Mormon nobody demonstrates Tyndale's principles of a Christian Ruler better than King Benjamin. The following is an extended excerpt from Tyndale with portions of King Benjamin's speech on service (Mosiah 2:11-17) interspersed.

Tyndale: I declared how they which God hath made governors in the world ought to rule, if they be Christian. They ought to remember that they are heads and arms, to defend the body, to minister peace, health, and wealth, and even to save the body; and that they have received their offices of God, to minister and to do service unto their brethren; king, subject, master, servant, are names in the world; but not in Christ. In Christ we are all one, and even brethren. No man is his own, but we are all Christ's servant, bought with Christ's blood. Therefore ought no man to seek himself or his own profit; but Christ and his will. In Christ no man ruleth as a king his subjects, or a master his servants; but serveth as one hand doth to another, and as the hand do unto the feet, and the feet to the hands, as thou seest 1 Co. xii. We also serve not as servants unto master; but as they which are bought with Christ's blood serve Christ himself.

King Benjamin: 11 But I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been chosen by this people, and consecrated by my father, and was suffered by the hand of the Lord that I should be a ruler and a king over this people; and have been kept and preserved by his matchless power, to serve you with all the might, mind and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me. 12 I say unto you that as I have been suffered to spend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you;

Tyndale: We be here all servant unto Christ. For whatsoever we do one to another in Christ's name, that do we unto Christ, and the reward of that shall we receive of Christ.

King Benjamin: 17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.

Tyndale: The king counteth his commons Christ himself, and therefore doth them service willingly;

King Benjamin: 16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.

Tyndale: seeking no more of them than is sufficient to maintain peace and unity, and to defend the realm.

King Benjamin: 14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.

Tyndale: And even in like manner as God maketh the king head over his realm, even so giveth he him commandment to execute the laws upon all men indifferently. For the law is God’s and not the king’s. The king is but a servant, to execute the law of God, and not to rule after his own imagination.

King Benjamin: 13 Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you—

There are more Tyndalisms in the Book of Mormon I'd like to discuss, as well.

[Nevo]

20 hours ago, JarMan said:

I don't believe Joseph Smith would have conceived of the idea that "good" governments should have a state-sponsored religion. But I think that message is one of the fundamental principles in the Book of Mormon.

Why do you suppose Joseph Smith wouldn't have conceived that "'good' governments should have a state-sponsored religion"? His ideal government was a theocracy (or "theodemocracy," if you prefer). 

[JarMan]

20 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Why do you suppose Joseph Smith wouldn't have conceived that "'good' governments should have a state-sponsored religion"? His ideal government was a theocracy (or "theodemocracy," if you prefer). 

I am assuming that in 1829 he would have been so steeped in the post-Revolutionary culture of religious freedom and religious pluralism that state-sponsored religion wouldn't be on his radar. Perhaps the Book of Mormon caused him to rethink his fundamental assumptions about church and state. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some of the religious thinking he was exposed to at that time idealized an ancient OT-style relationship between god and rulers. I wouldn't think that likely but I'm open to contrary information.

[Nevo]

40 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I am assuming that in 1829 he would have been so steeped in the post-Revolutionary culture of religious freedom and religious pluralism that state-sponsored religion wouldn't be on his radar. Perhaps the Book of Mormon caused him to rethink his fundamental assumptions about church and state. 

Perhaps, but my sense is that he found religious pluralism a bad thing even in his teens. His 1838 history recalls the "great uneasiness" he felt at the religious divisions that surrounded him, particularly those within his own family. In his 1835 letter to his brother William, he said he "brought salvation to my fathers house, as an instrument in the hand of God, when they were in a miserable situation"—when they were victims of religious pluralism essentially.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Nevo

[JarMan]

8 hours ago, Nevo said:

Perhaps, but my sense is that he found religious pluralism a bad thing even in his teens. His 1838 history recalls the "great uneasiness" he felt at the religious divisions that surrounded him, particularly those within his own family. In his 1835 letter to his brother William, he said he "brought salvation to my fathers house, as an instrument in the hand of God, when they were in a miserable situation"—when they were victims of religious pluralism essentially.

Joseph said he suffered ""bitter persecution and reviling" because of his account of the first vision. A state religion would have added legal consequences to boot. Consider how King Benjamin dealt with religious dissenters: "And after there had been false prophets, and false preachers and teachers among the people, and all these having been punished according to their crimes…" King Benjamin would have considered Joseph a criminal and punished him. Yet he is lionized as being a righteous ruler: "king Benjamin was a holy man, and he did reign over his people in righteousness…" This seems incompatible with Joseph's likely worldview. 

[JarMan]

More indications that King Benjamin was Tyndale's prototypical king:

Tyndale: Let kings defend their subjects from the wrongs of other nations, but do not pick quarrels for every trifle.

Tyndale: Let kings assume their duty for their subjects, and what is necessary to the defense of the realm.

Mormon:  And it came to pass also that the armies of the Lamanites came down out of the land of Nephi, to battle against his people. But behold, king Benjamin gathered together his armies, and he did stand against them; and he did fight with the strength of his own arm, with the sword of Laban. 14 And in the strength of the Lord they did contend against their enemies, until they had slain many thousands of the Lamanites. And it came to pass that they did contend against the Lamanites until they had driven them out of all the lands of their inheritance.

Tyndale: Let them rule their realms themselves, with the help of laymen that are sage, wise, learned, and expert. 

Mormon: king Benjamin, with the assistance of the holy prophets who were among his people--
17 For behold, king Benjamin was a holy man, and he did reign over his people in righteousness; and there were many holy men in the land, and they did speak the word of God with power and with authority; and they did use much sharpness because of the stiffneckedness of the people--
18 Wherefore, with the help of these, king Benjamin, by laboring with all the might of his body and the faculty of his whole soul, and also the prophets, did once more establish peace in the land.

Edited October 14, 2017 by JarMan

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

More indications that King Benjamin was Tyndale's prototypical king:

Tyndale: Let kings defend their subjects from the wrongs of other nations, but do not pick quarrels for every trifle.

Tyndale: Let kings assume their duty for their subjects, and what is necessary to the defense of the realm.

Mormon:  And it came to pass also that the armies of the Lamanites came down out of the land of Nephi, to battle against his people. But behold, king Benjamin gathered together his armies, and he did stand against them; and he did fight with the strength of his own arm, with the sword of Laban. 14 And in the strength of the Lord they did contend against their enemies, until they had slain many thousands of the Lamanites. And it came to pass that they did contend against the Lamanites until they had driven them out of all the lands of their inheritance.

Is this a joke?  

Edited October 14, 2017 by cdowis

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Is this a joke?  

I notice you didn't criticize the previous post where the most important stuff is. Is that because you saw the impressive parallels, too?

Edited October 14, 2017 by JarMan

[cdowis]

24 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I notice you didn't criticize the previous post where the most important stuff is. Is that because you saw the impressive parallels, too?

I try to be very subtle and measured in my comments, but there are times when this is not possible.  The Nephites desperately fighting for survival  from destruction and enslavement is a reference to Tyndale?

Edited October 14, 2017 by cdowis

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

I try to be very subtle and measured in my comments, but there are times when this is not possible.  The Nephites desperately fighting for survival  from destruction and enslavement is a reference to Tyndale?

I'd be interested in a measured response to the main correlations I've shown between Tyndale's passage (quoted earlier) in "The Obedience of a Christian Man and How Christian Rulers Ought to Governed" and the portion of King Benjamin's speech I've identified (Mosiah 2:11-17).