David and the Book of Mormon

I’ve been a student of religious studies since I was twelve years old. In fact, I had intended to get a degree in this field, but was unable to complete my formal education. I never lost my interest in the subject. Since I’m also a Mormon, I have a special interest in Mormonism. So, as a member of Academia.edu I frequently get reading suggestions on the topic of Mormonism.

This is how I came to read “Davidic References in the Book of Mormon as Evidence Against Its Historicity” by Kyle Robert Beshears.¹ There is really no way to sugarcoat this. It is a bad argument. It is a really bad argument. In fact, it is such an exceedingly bad argument that I wonder if a thesis like this would be accepted anywhere other than a place like SBTS.

I felt the thesis needed some kind of response. But I didn’t want to duplicate any other efforts, so I inquired if there were any existing responses to the thesis at the Mormon dialogue and discussion board. A fellow board member, Gary Jacobson, referred me to “Too Little or Too Much Like the Bible? A Novel Critique of the Book of Mormon Involving David and the Psalms” by Jeff Lindsay.²

I considered “Too Little or Too Much Like the Bible?” a fairly good response. My thoughts about the thesis tracked so well with Lindsay’s response that I wondered if should still write my own response. Ultimately, I decided that I can still contribute to the discussion. So, here we go.

In contrast to Lindsay, I am going to be tackling Beshears from an environmentalist perspective. That is to say that I agree with Beshears that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document. So what am I doing “defending Book of Mormon historicity?”

There are a couple reasons. First, as I discussed in my “Environmental Theory” essay, environmentalists, especially religious environmentalists like myself, have a special duty to show our approach to the Book of Mormon is basically positive. Among other things, this means that religious environmentalists should be at the forefront of calling out and disposing of bad arguments, even from those we are in nominal agreement with. This is why I wrote “How Not to Do Book of Mormon Studies” and that is partly why I am responding to Beshears now. In a sense, I feel like I have an even bigger dog in this fight than Lindsay.

Second, I am not defending Book of Mormon historicity as such. While historicists could use the arguments I am going to make, ultimately my conclusion is Beshears’ evidence is not evidence of anything. This is as much an experiment in Book of Mormon interpretation as it is a response to Beshears. Beshears is correct that there are relatively few direct references to David in the Book of Mormon. But rather than being evidence against historicity, the lack of references is an important part of the picture the Book of Mormon paints for itself. As an environmentalist, I would say it contributes to the Book’s verisimilitude. A historicist might rather say that this picture points to historicity. If so, I would not complain.

Lindsay (32) and I are in complete agreement that Beshears neologism mormonic (2 n.2) is too close to “demonic” or especially “moronic” to be seen as anything other than pejorative.³ Beshears uses the excuse that the term “does away with the cumbersome phrasing of ‘Book of Mormon’ to describe its people, narrative, events, theology.” But if “Book of Mormon” is too cumbersome to use every time, there are perfectly good abbreviations that can be used instead. Indeed, Beshears uses one himself: BofM. I’m going to stick with that abbreviation throughout this essay.

Lindsay (32) gives a brief discussion dealing with Beshears’ repeated accusation of plagiarism, to which I have nothing to add.

Lindsay also gives a devastating critique to Beshears’ methodology by, among other things, pointing out that most biblical references to David are clustered in books telling David’s story, and that many books in the Bible don’t mention him at all (37-41). While this is good work, I have an even more fundamental problem with Beshears’ argument. The real problem is that even if the methodology weren’t so flawed, the entire approach is not evidence of anything.

Consider the structure of Beshears’ argument:

1. If the Book of Mormon has numerous references to David, this would be evidence for its historicity.

2. If the Book of Mormon does not have numerous references to David, this would be evidence against its historicity.

3. The Book of Mormon does not have numerous references to David.

4. Therefore, the evidence points against historicity.

Premise 1 is wrong. To demonstrate this, let’s look at Beshears’ own example of how historicists use thematic similarities in the Bible to “corroborate the anticipated continuity between Old and New World Jewish cultures”: Noel B. Reynolds’ “The Israelite Background of Moses Typology in the Book of Mormon.”⁴ First, notice Reynolds never said that the Moses typology was evidence of BofM historicity. The closest he came was to say that if Joseph Smith did it based on what was understood in the 1820s, “he probably would have gotten it wrong” (5). Also note that saying “it would make sense to criticize the Book of Mormon” for not having the typology is an entirely different thing than saying that would be evidence against historicity. Beshears is already trying to prove too much.

If you are a storyteller, and you are going to tell a story about, well, an exodus, you’re not going to go wrong by modeling the story on the Exodus. Regardless of the state of biblical scholarship at the time, it can’t be denied that the material was available to Joseph Smith. If Reynolds said the Exodus typology pointed to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, it would be all too easy to simply respond Joseph Smith drew it from the Bible.

Likewise, even if the Book of Mormon bristled with Davidic references, and those references reflected everything Beshears said it should, it still would not be evidence of anything. Whatever use the Book of Mormon made of David, it still couldn’t be denied that the material was available to Joseph Smith. Therefore, it can’t in itself be used as evidence of historicity.

It should go without saying that if the presence of something is not evidence of anything, then the absence of that that thing is not evidence of anything either.

If we can’t say the lack of Davidic references don’t prove anything vis a vis BofM historicity, is there nothing that can be said about this? To use Reynolds’ term, could we justifiably criticize the Book of Mormon for not having them? I propose this is going to depend on two factors. First, is the Book of Mormon really lacking in references to David? If so, does the Book of Mormon have a reason to avoid mentioning David?

Beshears is correct the Book of Mormon only directly mentions David seven times. I confirmed this by doing a search on a PDF version. In contrast, my preliminary⁵ counts yielded twenty-three references to Joseph, forty-nine mentions of Jacob, and seventy-five references to Moses. Beshears counted twenty-seven references to Abraham (19). Mentions of David certainly do pale by comparison.

Direct mentions probably don’t fully do the job, however. We should also take into account allusions as well. For example, Ben McGuire makes a case that the killing of Laban (1 Ne. 3:31–4:19) has several deliberate allusions to the story of David and Goliath (1 Sam. 17).⁶ If this deliberate modeling does not count as a reference to David, then naming a land after him (Morm. 2:5) probably doesn’t either. There may well be more of these types of allusions to David, so this is a subject that could use further exploration. Even so, I don’t think we will find enough such allusions to say the Book of Mormon is under the long shadow of David, especially not in the way we could say this of Moses.

Should we count quotations or allusions to Psalms attributed to David as Davidic references? Beshears asserts there are no direct quotes from the Psalms⁷ and that possible allusions to them are problematic at best (41-44). So answering this question requires delving into at least one controversy.⁸ Even if we resolve the question of whether the Psalms are quoted or alluded to,⁹ that still would not necessarily mean they should count as Davidic references. Since the argument I’m going to make could account for such quotations or allusions (assuming they exist), I will set this question aside for now.

Especially when setting aside that question, I think it safe to say David is not emphasized in the Book of Mormon. That answers the first question. Now let’s turn to the second. Does the Book of Mormon have a reason to avoid mentioning David? I think it does.¹⁰

The Book of Mormon begins in “the first year of the reign of Zedekiah” (1 Ne. 1:4). Zedekiah was installed by King Nebuchadnezzar after a disastrous battle with Zedekiah’s nephew Jehoiachin. Besides installing Zedekiah, Nebuchadnezzar exiled at least ten thousand people to Babylon, leaving only “the poorest of the land” (2 Kgs. 24:10-20).¹¹ Among these captives was the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 1:2).

For Jerusalem, this was just the latest in a series of disasters. First, King Josiah was killed in battle with Pharaoh Neco (2 Kgs. 23:29). Then Neco subsequently dethroned Jehoahaz, imposed a heavy tribute on Jerusalem, and installed Jehoiakim to the throne (2 Kgs. 23:33-34). Jehoiakim. either by choice or by force, switched allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar, only to rebel with calamitous consequences to Jerusalem (2 Kngs. 24:1-7).

Since these disasters all occurred in a space of no more than twenty years, this is the environment the Book of Mormon portrays Nephi and his brothers growing up in. And it is in this environment that Lehi began prophesying.¹² However, unlike Jeremiah (26:16-24; 36:11-19; 37:16-21, 38:1-28), Lehi did not have any protection from institutional sources. Lehi was on his own against those who mocked him and “sought his life” (1 Ne. 1:19-20).

So on the eve of Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem, no one in his party had reason to hold the Davidic monarchy in high regard. For all their complaints and desire to return to Jerusalem, Laman and Lemuel never said a word about its leadership. There are some clues in the Bible that the sentiment was widespread. The final four kings of Judah are not compared to David (2 Kngs. 23:31-24:20). Jeremiah clearly rejected the monarchy of his day, instead promising the Lord would raise a “righteous Branch” after the coming exile (22:24-23:6). In the aftermath of Jerusalem’s destruction, Ezekiel affirms the Davidic covenant (34:24), but the role and power of the “prince” are greatly reduced in his vision of the restored Israel (45:7-46:18). The book of Nehemiah, set during the post-exilic Persian period, identified David only as “the man of God”(12:24); Solomon is identified as “king” while emphasizing his sin in taking foreign wives (13:26).

Let’s back up a little. Nephi was originally commanded to start making his record between thirty and forty years after he left Jerusalem (2 Ne. 5:28-34). Within a few leaves of this record, we are told he received a revelation telling him he would “be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren” (1 Ne. 2:22). This revelation was later confirmed to Laman and Lemuel by an angel (1 Ne. 3:29). Despite this, a recurring complaint made by the two brothers is that Nephi was taking it upon himself to be a ruler over them (e.g., 1 Ne. 16:37-38; 18:10). Nephi’s final break with his brothers was precipitated by yet another such jealous outbreak (2 Ne. 5:3-5).

As noted above, the story of the killing of Laban seems deliberately modeled after the story of David and Goliath. When the people desire that Nephi be made a king, he tries to demur but humbly says “I did for them that which was in my power”¹³ (2 Ne. 5:18). Nevertheless, he could not seem to resist the impulse to note this was in fulfillment of prophecy (2 Ne. 5:19). Whatever reluctance Nephi had about being king did not prevent him from anointing a successor “according to the reigns of the kings”(Jacob 1:9). As Beshears himself notes, three of the references to David occur in the extensive copying of Isaiah in 2 Nephi. We can agree with him that “had Isaiah not mentioned David in those three verses, one wonders if Nephi would have ever mentioned the king at all, and the near-absense of Davidic references outside of this section in the BofM inclines one to suppose he would not have” (37). Interestingly, one of those mentions, 2 Ne. 19:7 (Isa. 9:7), does affirm the Davidic covenant, but as Beshears notes, Nephi makes nothing of this (37). This someone trying to establish his legitimacy to the throne.

As Nephi (and probably Zoram and Sam) die, a new problem arises. Nearly everyone in the budding Nephite community was either born in the sojourn out of Jerusalem or in the promised land. No one had any memories of Jerusalem in the final years leading to its destruction. What they did have were the brass plates.

We do not have an exact picture the brass plates’ contents. We can only assemble this picture through what the Book of Mormon specifically tells us and what is quoted or clearly alluded to. One of the things it tells us is that the brass plates contained “a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah” (1 Ne. 5:12). This would appear to mean they had something like 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 2 Kings up to chapter twenty-four.¹⁴

Again, exactly what is in the version of these books is unknown. However, it does seem that the Book of Mormon pictures the Nephites having some version the Davidic Covenant as presented in 2 Samuel 7. This will bring us to the three clearest mentions of David other than the Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon.

2 Samuel 7 starts with David proposing to build a temple for the Lord (v. 2). The prophet Nathan originally approves (v. 3), but then has a dream where the Lord tells him it will be David’s son that will build the temple and specifically says of this son, “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me” (v. 13-14). Moreover, the Lord adds “Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever” (v. 16).

This seems particularly important for a couple reasons. First, it inextricably binds David and Solomon together. Second, it raises a note of illegitimacy to the Nephite kings.¹⁵

The Nephite community clearly regard David and Solomon as role models. It’s hard to think of them justifying their polygamous practices because of them otherwise. It is also hard to see any other place in the Bible that the Nephites would have had that so inextricably bind David and Solomon together. This would explain why the next few BofM Davidic references we are going to consider (Jacob 1:15, 2:23, 24) put them together.¹⁶

Note how Jacob sets the stage leading into the references to David and Solomon. First, he writes that Nephi anoints a new king before dying (Jacob 1:9). Next he comments that the people held Nephi I in such regard that subsequent kings (up to the fourth as of the time Jacob wrote) had Nephi as their regnal name (Jacob 1:10-11). So Jacob is writing well after the time he presents the sermon in Jacob 2-3. A dynasty has been established, which will last until the death of Mosiah₂ (Mosiah 29:38ff).

After relaying this information, Jacob discusses the circumstances of the sermon he gives in Jacob 2-3. He backs up to the “reign of the second king,” and discusses how he became concerned with “wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son” (Jacob 1:15). And when Jacob discusses David and Solomon, he lets loose:

For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. (Jacob 2:23-24)

Looking at the sermon’s placement in the Book of Mormon, Jacob seems to be trying to kill two birds with one stone. The first, of course, is to record the start of his campaign against Nephite polygamy. The second is to help establish the legitimacy of the Nephite kings by castigating David and Solomon.¹⁷

Fast forward a couple hundred years or so. Warned to leave the land of Nephi, Mosiah₁ leads his people through the wilderness until they discover the people of Zarahemla. The people of Zarahemla are described as leaving Jerusalem in the wake of Zedekiah’s final defeat (Omni 12-14). The leader of this party is later identified as Mulek, and specifically called “the son of Zedekiah” (Hel. 6:10). The people of Zarahemla and the people of Mosiah₁ come to an accommodation which results in Mosiah₁ becoming the king of both (Omni 19).

However, this presents another problem. Now the Nephites have legitimate heirs to the kingdom of the house of Israel among them.¹⁸ Furthermore, the text later notes that: 1) the Nephites are a minority in Zarahemla and 2) the combined population of Zarahemla was less than half that of the Lamanites (Mosiah 25:3). This puts the Nephite monarchy in the horns of a dilemma. Emphasize David too much, and Mulek’s descendants might start getting ideas. But they definitely need the people of Zarahemla, so outright badmouthing Mulek’s ancestor would not be wise. Better to avoid mentioning him at all. Might that explain how the small plates seem to have gotten lost (W of M 3)? 

Fast forward another couple generations. Mosiah₂ has come to a point in his reign where it time to appoint a successor. The problem was that none of his sons wanted the throne (Mosiah 29:3). Rather than anointing one of his brothers (Mosiah 1:2), hypothetical nephews, or even someone outside the family (Alma₂ would have been a popular candidate, as shown by Mosiah 29:42), Mosiah proposes a radical change in government.

Instead of continuing the monarchy, Mosiah proposes that instead of continuing the monarchy, the people themselves should choose judges. In making his argument, Mosiah attacks the very idea of monarchy. Acknowledging that if the people always had a “just man” ruling over them, monarchy would be an “expedient” form of government (Mosiah 29:11), Mosiah emphasizes that the consequences of having a wicked man on the throne are too great:

And if my son should turn again to his pride and vain things he would recall the things which he had said, and claim his right to the kingdom, which would cause him and also this people to commit much sin.

…

For behold, 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.

…

And behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood.

For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God;

And he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness. (Mosiah 29:8, 17-18, 21-23)

The people ratified Mosiah’s proposal, and the era of judges began. But within five years, Amlici had gathered enough of a following that he was able to force an election for his effort to be declared king. In what appears to be a fairly close vote,¹⁹ Amlici lost. Instead of accepting the voice of the people, Amlici started a civil war, which ultimately led to his death (Alma 2).

Less than twenty years after that, Amalickiah and his followers aspired to kingship in the wake of a dispute with the high priest Helaman₂. This time, there would be no election. Under the leadership of Moroni₁, the Nephites immediately took up arms against Amalickiah and his followers, forcing them to flee. Amalickiah himself made good his escape, but many of his followers were captured and forced to swear allegiance to the existing regime on pain of death (Alma 46).

They evidently did not keep this oath. Within a few years, they were attempting to change the government into a monarchy yet again. Again, this was put to the voice of the people. This time, the vote was so overwhelmingly against the king-men they were forced to keep their peace. However, in the face a Lamanite invasion, the king-men refused to be conscripted. Moroni₁ in turn diverted resources to root out a potential fifth column (Alma 51).

During the course of the war, it appears another group managed to force the chief judge, Pahoran, out of power and out of Zarahemla.²⁰ This group installed Pachus as king of Zarahemla. Again, Moroni₁ had to divert forces back to Zarahemla in order to deal with the problem (Alma 61-62).

The final attempt to establish a king over the Nephites was both a success and a failure. A complaint against lower judges was brought to the chief judge in Zarahemla. These judges were brought to Zarahemla to stand trial. However, their supporters formed a conspiracy overthrow the government and establish a king. They were successful in murdering the chief judge. This caused the entire government to collapse.

However, the conspirators were unable to take advantage. Instead of getting behind the conspiracy’s leader, the people simply divided into tribes. The leader was proclaimed king of his group, but realized he did not have enough power to unite the tribes under his leadership. As a result, his people migrated out of the land. However divided Nephite society had become, it was clear the last thing they wanted was a king (3 Ne. 6:25-7:14).

This review of the BofM’s plot suggests there are good reasons why it doesn’t mention David very often. The political situation described throughout the narrative militates against it. Lehi’s party had personal reasons not to be too enthusiastic about the Davidic monarchy. The Davidic covenant attached a note of illegitimacy to the entire Nephite monarchy from Nephi to Mosiah, such that Nephi had to justify his rulership and Jacob bolstered the monarchy by castigating David and Solomon. Later, Nephite society included legitimate Davidic heirs and the monarchy could not afford to give them ideas but also could not afford to badmouth David either. After transitioning to a more democratic form of government, Nephite society became plagued with demagogues seeking to become kings. This is not a society that is going to promote David—the paragon of Israelite kings.

This does not mean that Nephite society had no regard for David. They did name a “land” after him (Morm. 2:5), which suggests, contra Beshears, that the Book of Mormon does not merely fixate “on the ancient monarch’s practice of polygamy as a sinful abomination” (45). Even ignoring his status as king, David’s accomplishments were such that he was more than worthy of having a land named after him. In fact, we can’t even be certain from the text whether Jacob’s sermon circulated widely enough for this to be a major part of the way the Nephites thought of David.

This argument extends to the BofM’s utilization of the Psalms. One can admire David the psalmist while also retaining a hands-off attitude toward David the king. We moderns can acknowledge someone’s achievements and art even while recognizing they weren’t very good people.

Beshears believes the Book of Mormon can be criticized for not saying anything about David’s role as the messiah’s progenitor. But such a criticism would still be misplaced. As Beshears himself points out, the Book of Mormon presents an “uncanny level of propehtic insight that these [BofM] prophets practiced is breathtaking in comparison to the shadowy predictions of the biblical prophets. While the Old World Jews yearned for a vague, future Davidic messiah, the New World Jews eagerly awaited Jesus Christ by name and date” (22-23). This is reason enough not to expect Nephite prophecy and preaching would discuss David as Jesus’ ancestor.

Consider what it means to predict the Messiah will be the son of David. It gives the hearer something to look for to and/or a means of testing a particular person’s claim to be the Messiah. But the Nephites knew that Jesus’ entire mortal life would be lived in the Old World. That disqualifies everyone in the New World, including the descendants of Mulek, who are portrayed as sons of David. Emphasizing Jesus as the son of David would literally have no meaning to the Nephites.

To sum things up, Beshears’ basic argument is not sound. Davidic references would not show anything about BofM historicity, so lack of such references would not show anything either. Even a softer version of his argument, that it could be justifiably criticized for lacking those references, would not work very well either. Given the BofM’s dominant anti-monarchical theme, mentioning David too frequently and too approvingly would be contraindicated. In fact, doing so would actually be too jarring in its narrative. Instead of being a shortcoming, the lack of Davidic references contributes to its verisimilitude precisely because the lack of such references contributes to the development of one of the Book of Mormon’s major themes. 

NOTES

1(master’s thesis, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2016).

2Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 29 (2018): 31-64. Page references are to the PDF version available on the website.

3I frequently found myself eliding the second m and reading “moronic” time and again while reading the thesis.

4BYU Studies 44, no. 2 (2005): 5-23.

5I have to emphasize preliminary. Joseph and Jacob are both mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but the Book of Mormon also has other characters named Joseph and Jacob. I could have easily erred in counting or discounting references. Likewise, many mentions of Jacob and Moses occur in the formulaic forms of “God of … Jacob” and “law of Moses.” I counted them, but an argument could be made that I should not have.

6Ben McGuire, “Nephi and Goliath: A Case Study of Literary Allusion in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 18/1 (2009): 16–31.

7Notably, Lindsay does not dispute this. For the purpose of this essay, I’ll take this to mean Beshears is correct.

8Another source of controversy would be the fact Beshears obviously assumes Davidic authorship of the Psalms attributed to him. I do not.

9For the record I think they are. But whatever problem Beshears thinks using the King James Version wording has for BofM translation and/or historicity, it is not a problem for the Book of Mormon itself. If it made deliberate allusions to the Psalms, as pictured in the Book of Mormon the characters had access to them. That in itself would answer Beshears argument they did not.

10Compare Lindsay’s explanation in “Too Much or Too Little?” 56-63. I draw on some of the same facts as Lindsay, but I’m taking an entirely different approach.

11All biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version unless otherwise noted.

12We should not discount the possibility the Book of Mormon pictures Lehi having his own grudge against Josiah, whether or not we accept Lindsay’s argument he was “at odds with the Deuteronomists and their scribes” (58). Given Lehi’s probable age and the fact he was a Jospehite (1 Ne. 5:14), he may have been at least indirectly affected by Josiah’s invasion of Samaria (2 Kngs. 23:15-20).

13Compare 1 Sam. 10:20-24.

14Responding to an earlier version of this essay, Ben McGuire reminded me that these books were actually post-exilic and could not realistically be on the brass plates. I am aware of this, but I have other reasons for being tentative here. Even from an environmentalist perspective, it is difficult to ascertain what Joseph Smith imagined was in the brass plates. I personally think Smith had some kind of ur-text of our present books in mind without worrying overmuch about the exact contents.

15Alexander Campbell seemed to have sensed the problem: “He [Joseph Smith] has more of the Jews, living in the new world, than could have been numbered any where else, even in the days of John the Baptist; and has placed them under a new dynasty. The sceptre, with him, has departed from Judah, and a law-giver from among his descendants, hundreds of years before Shiloh came….” Campbell is alluding to Gen. 49:10. Alexander Campbell, Delusions. An Analysis of the Book of Mormon with an Examination of Its Internal and External Evidences, and a Refutation of Its Pretences to Divine Authority (Boston: Benjamin H. Greene, 1932), 12.

16Interestingly, Solomon himself is only mentioned six times in the Book of Mormon. The first two come in the same verse describing the first temple the Nephites built—the very temple Jacob will be preaching at (2 Ne. 5:16). The next three references are in the passage we now considering. The final reference (3 Ne. 13:29) is a quotation of Matthew 6:29.

17Compare/contrast BMC Team, “What Does the Book of Mormon Say About Polygamy?”

2 Sam. 12:8 specifically says God gave David at least some of his wives. This fact seems to have escaped Jacob’s notice, but exactly why this is so is unknown.

At the meta-narrative level, perhaps Joseph Smith didn’t know or recall this fact when writing the Book of Mormon. However, the Joseph Smith Translation passes over the verse without modification, so he may not have sensed a contradiction.

How this plays out in the Book of Mormon narrative is another matter. Perhaps the verse was not present on the brass plates. Or perhaps Jacob deliberately ignored it, but this opens the possibility of the Nephite polygamists throwing the verse back at him. Later, King Noah and his priests are portrayed as having multiple wives and concubines, but this is blamed on Noah’s own lust without reference to David and Solomon (Mosiah 11:2-4). So it would appear Jacob’s denunciation had some effect.

Ben McGuire suggested another possibility to me, that Lehi’s commandment of monogamy superseded the practices of the Old World. In this context, see Jacob 3:5, where the Lamanites are praised for keeping that commandment.

18It should be remembered that though 1 Kings 12 presents Jeroboam’s rebellion as authorized by God, Israel’s kings were never truly considered legitimate. Visions of the restored Davidic monarchy always portray its rulership of the reunited house of Israel.

19It is difficult to believe that both members and non-members of the church would be so alarmed by Amlici’s campaign (Alma 2:3) unless it had a real chance of succeeding. The church members’ alarm is explicitly identified as caused by Amilici’s “intent to destroy the church of God” (Alma 2:4). The cause of the non-members’ concern isn’t specifically identified. The fact Amlici was able to form his followers into an army suggests both he didn’t lose in a landslide and he thought he could win through force of arms. Compare the parallel story in Alma 51, where the king-men are reduced to simply refusing military service in the face of a Lamanite invasion.

20Pachus and his followers are pictured as a distinct group than the king-men of Alma 51. Alma 62:9 notes the “men of Pachus” being tried, “and also those king-men who had been taken and cast into prison” during Moroni₁’s purge.

Joseph Smith's Reply to David Hume: A Study in the Advantages of Heresy

This is a copy of a paper I wrote around twenty-five years ago. Like my Environmental Theory essay I had intended it as a prolegomena for future studies, but life got in the way. I'm leaving the text as I wrote it except for linking to appropriate sources and minor formatting. Readers should be aware that some links are to different editions of the work I cited. Some of the information is probably outdated and there are some things I would change if I were rewriting it today. 

 

Most religions eventually develop a set of propositions a follower must believe as a member of the faith community. This is a natural development. However, when such orthodoxy becomes too strict, it becomes harder to respond to new challenges. Instead, what may happen is the religion will develop into a fundamentalism, becoming increasingly marginalized and irrelevant. Often, it becomes necessary to break free from orthodox thinking to respond to new challenges. The answers of such so-called heretics often have resounding implications for the wider world and provide compelling visions for their followers. 

Joseph Smith provides us such a case. Freed early in his ministry from orthodox considerations, he offered the world a theology that was, and is, often viewed with outrage by mainstream Christianity.ⁱ Embedded in his theology is an ingenious response to Scottish skeptic David Hume’s attack on the teleological argument for the existence of God. If one were to attempt to find proof of God’s existence in the Bible, they would search in vain. Some passages seem to try to prove God’s existence (e.g., Isa. 40:12-20), but closer examination shows the author’s intent is to display the Lord’s superiority over idols. The biblical writers simply took His existence for granted. Trying to prove it would have been a foreign idea to them. Some psalmists wrote, “Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no god” (Ps. 10:4; 14:1; 53:1).ⁱⁱ However, these passages do not refer to philosophical atheism, but to those who deny God’s activity in the world.ⁱⁱⁱ

Eventually, philosophers developed arguments that supposedly proved God’s existence from reason. Christian theologians often borrowed these arguments to show the compatibility between faith and reason. They may have also believed certain biblical passages suggested these arguments. Two of these arguments are in part based on creation, and consequently they may be confused. Since Joseph Smith’s theology affects both arguments, briefly reviewing both will be necessary.

The main idea of the cosmological argument is that God must exist because the universe must have had a beginning. God is the only adequate explanation for the existence of the universe. Naturally, the cause of the universe must itself be distinct from the universe. The common form of the argument attempts to show that rational persons must inevitably trace a sequence of events to an ultimate source, or “first cause.” This first cause is what we call God.^iv Philosophers have perpetuated different ways of expressing this argument. St. Thomas Aquinas gave three forms of the argument in his Summa Theologica.^v

For mainstream Christians, the cosmological argument is especially compelling, as they view God in absolutist terms. God must be the reason everything exists. Likewise, God is utterly independent of the created universe. To say that there exist things to explain God detracts from His station as deity.^vi

The cosmological argument seems to have some support in the Bible, especially if we interpret Genesis 1:1 to mean the absolute beginning of space, time, and matter. However, biblical scholars generally agree that the Hebrew original does not support this idea.^vii In English, many of them would combine the first two verses of Genesis and render them similarly to the New Revised Standard Version:

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The teleological argument attempts to show that the universe exhibits signs of being designed by an intelligent creator. Therefore, people also call the teleological argument the argument from design.^viii Christian philosophers likely took some of their inspiration from the Bible in using this argument.

Assertions that “everything has been created for its own purpose” (Sir. 39:21)^ix abound in the Bible. Sirach goes on to list the purpose of certain objects as rewarding the righteous or punishing the wicked (Sir. 39:25-31). Other biblical writers list more practical purposes for created objects. God created the sun and the moon “to separate the day from the night, … [to] be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and … to give light upon the earth” (Gen. 1:14-15). Similarly, a psalmist displays God’s wisdom by showing how he created several things to give food and shelter for various animals and people (Ps. 104:14-20). Nature declares “the glory of God” in a silent language (Ps. 19:1-3), which leaves humanity no excuse for their behavior before God (Rom. 1:19-20).

David Hume made a devastating attack on this argument in his last work Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume was born on 26 April 1711 in Edinburgh, Scotland. He graduated from Edinburgh University in 1723. By 1751, he had already established worldwide recognition based on several books he published. It was during this year that he originally wrote Dialogues. He worked on revising the manuscript during his retirement in Edinburgh. Hume died in 1776. Dialogues was published posthumously in 1779.^x

Hume believed we cannot deduce the effect of an event without having previously experienced a similar event. He thought no one could ever establish causal links through abstract reasoning alone. Though a skeptic, he did not consider himself an atheist. Hume disagreed with both Christians and deists, who held that religion is man’s natural response to the proof of God’s existence, as seen in nature. He also believed “everything is surely governed by steady, inviolable laws.”^xi

Dialogues presents Hume’s arguments in a fictional exchange between characters named Cleanthes, Philo, and Demla. Cleanthes argued in favor of the teleological argument:

Look around the world: Contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines…. All these various machines … are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance….^xii

The similarities of the universe to a machine lead us to infer that the cause of the machine is an intelligence similar to human minds. This proves the existence of God and says something of his similarity to human nature. Theists do not need to prove the similarities between the universe and a work of art because it is self-evident. “The same matter, a like form.” “Whatever cavils may be urged, an orderly world … will still be received as an incontestable proof of design and intention.”^xiii

Demla and Philo both had objections, but Philo most closely represents Hume’s position.^xiv Though Hume had other objections to the teleological argument, this essay will concentrate on objections that go to the heart of orthodox thought.

Hume believed the strength of an argument by analogy lay in the similarity between the objects compared. If similar effects imply similar causes, then we should be prepared to accept the consequences. An object such as a watch or a house would tell us that there is an intelligent designer behind it, but what else would it tell us?^xv

Could we say that the designer has infinite power and knowledge? Of course not. We need only suppose that cause is proportional to effect. The universe, being finite, does not need an infinite designer.^xvi

Could we assume that the designer was perfect? If we examined most devices more closely, we would likely find many imperfections. The imperfections may be due to the quality of the material, the ability of the designer, or other limitations. This holds true with nature, as well. Therefore, God must also have limits.^xvii

Could we say that the person who designed a given device also built it? That is possible. However, people most often use blueprints or patterns provided by others when constructing any device. Any machine is likely the result of trial and error. Just as likely, it is based on a design that improved through the ages. All that is necessary to make any machine are blueprints and the parts. Perhaps God worked off a model himself. Regardless, this also suggests God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.^xviii

Perhaps God simply used his staff to create the universe. Many people have built houses and ships working together, each of whom had a hand in the process. We have no reason to believe God worked alone, either. Human objects are often the result of different people working together on a given project.^xix

Could we say the designer was a self-existent being – someone who has no antecedents? The natural assumption would be that he had parents, grandparents, and other ancestors, perhaps as far back as eternity. The same conclusion would therefore apply to God, as well. Also, it would be conceivable that God (or the gods) also reproduces.^xx

Could we say that the designer was a being of pure spirit completely independent of the physical world? That would hardly be conceivable. By way of analogy, God would have to have some sort of body. As Philo asked, “Why not become a perfect anthropomorphite?”^xxi

Finally, do we have any assurance that this universe is not “only the first rude essay of some infant deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance?” For that matter, God could be some decrepit old deity whose mind is degenerating.^xxii

Cleanthes rejects the notion that the universe is eternal.^xxiii However, he is unable to answer Philo’s questions about the absolute beginnings of the world:

How therefore shall we satisfy ourselves concerning the cause of that being … into which you trace the material? Have we not the same reason to trace that ideal world, or new intelligent principle? But if we stop and go no further; why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? How can we satisfy ourselves without going on ad infinitum? And after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression?^xxiv

In summary, Hume chastised those who would use an analogy to prove God’s existence without taking the analogy to its natural conclusions. The reason they are unwilling to follow through with the implications is because they would be forced to make conclusions that no theist is willing to make. Cleanthes would disavow all of Philo’s inferences, accepting them only as far as he was “obliged, at every turn, to have recourse to [the hypotheses of design].”^xxv

However, the problem is not that these theologians are unwilling to tease out the implications. The real problem is that more than a thousand years of orthodox thought has constrained them. Simply put, they cannot make those conclusions. Only a theologian free from the bonds of orthodox thought could answer Hume adequately.

Joseph Smith was such a person. Smith’s prophetic career began with what Latter-day Saints commonly call the First Vision. According to the canonical account, religious revivals in his area prompted Smith to think more deeply about religious matters. Subsequent fighting between competing churches vying for members agitated him (JS-H 5-10). Confused by these competing claims, Smith eventually decided to settle the matter by prayer, directly asking God which church he should join (JS-H 13-14).

God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Smith and answered his prayer (JS-H 17). They told him “must join none of them, for they were all wrong … and … all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” (JS-H 18-19). Though Smith’s more radical theological innovations would come later, God’s reply established the foundation for ignoring orthodox thought. The publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830 marks the beginning of Smith’s thoughts on the nature of God.^xxvi

The Book of Mormon, like the Bible, assumes the existence of God. Unlike the Bible, the Book of Mormon does give us a bona fide atheist in the character of Korihor (Alma 30:36-38). In a debate with the current leader of the Church, named Alma, Korihor challenges him to provide a sign proving God’s existence (Alma 30:43). In response, Alma replies, “All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a creator” (Alma 30:44). In this respect, Hullinger was not far off the mark when he said Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in part to prove the existence of God.^xxvii Since the Book of Mormon uses the teleological argument, it has been the primary appeal of Latter-day Saints in establishing God’s existence. As another Book of Mormon prophet stated, “if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation” (2 Ne. 11:7). Smith later appealed to astronomy and botany as signs of God’s decrees.^xxviii An official Church publication notes that “the system of nature is the manifestation of an order that argues a directing intelligence.”^xxix

Whether Smith had direct contact with Hume’s work or not, he was more willing to work out the implications of the teleological argument. Learning about the nature of God was one of his preoccupations. In one of his final sermons, he said, “The first principle of truth … is to know for a certainty the character of God, and that we may converse with Him the same as one man with another.”^xxx

The key point of Smith’s theology was expressed in the same sermon. According to Smith, God was “once a man like one of us and … dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh and like us.”^xxxi According to a revelation given to Smith, God still resides in time and space, on another planet (D&C 130:7). He identified the name of the star as Kolob (Abr. 3:2-3). Smith, in effect, flatly denies we need to have an ultimate first cause. We can go on endlessly if we please, but we need only be concerned with what we are doing right now.

Not long afterward, Smith added that God the Father himself had a father, a grandfather, and so on eternally. Every person that ever existed always had some antecedent, except in their original form as intelligences.^xxxii

Moreover, Smith did become “a perfect anthropomorphite.”^xxxiii In a series of instructions later canonized by the Church, Smith told his listeners “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as a man’s; the Son also.” Only the Holy Ghost “is a personage of spirit” – this was necessary to carry out His functions (D&C 130:22).^xxxiv

In contrast to Christian orthodoxy, God has restrictions in Mormon theology. For example, God organized the world using already existent material and following laws he must obey.^xxxv Smith rejected the Christian doctrine of creation from nothing. “The elements are eternal,” God told Smith (D&C 93:33). Talmage stated the idea succinctly: “from nothing, nothing can be derived.”^xxxvi

By elements, Smith meant not only matter. In a revelation God told him “intelligence … was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29). Smith is unclear whether spirit and intelligence are the same. What is clear is he thought “the mind of man – the intelligent part – is as immortal as, and is coequal with, God himself.”^xxxvii

At some point, God organized “the intelligences,” selecting “many of the noble and great ones” to be his “rulers” (Abr. 3:22-23). The rulers, called “Gods,” accompanied the Lord to our corner of space and helped Him create the world (Abr. 4:1). Any imperfections can be explained by the eternal nature of space/time and matter/energy. However, “God did all that could be done as the immanent, eternally active, and creating, and causing power in the universe under the limitations of any other eternal existences, … including consideration of the intractableness of the material with which the Creator had to work.”^xxxviii

It would also seem to follow that God had patterns available to him when creating our world. He already had experience with a world like ours, and could call upon the assistance of those who had gone before Him. These factors would help check any blatant mistakes. Additionally, “there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my [God’s] power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man” (Moses 1:35).

Having granted most of Hume’s points, one might ask whether such a view of God is viable. The thought of humans and deity being too closely alike “scandalizes” Hume. He preferred God to be utterly unfathomable.^xxxix Would the finite God Smith presents be worthy of worship?

Hume himself admits to advantages inherent in an anthropomorphic deity. For example, he notes that in common experience, no one has ever observed a disembodied intelligence. Mormon theologian B. H. Roberts believed that Smith’s theology solved the problem of evil.^xl Blake T. Ostler shows how a finite God is still worthy of worship. David Paulsen recently established that a material God resolved other vexing problems in Christian thought.^xli

Smith would have felt that the answer was self-evident. He would not have taught such a god otherwise. However, we should remember that he was a prophet, not a philosopher. Like the biblical authors, his function was to reveal God, not to reason about him.

Likely, the defenses mentioned above would seem alien to him. Smith might justify his ideas with the Bible, but this was more of a concession to those who “would cry treason” otherwise.^xlii Like all prophets, Smith was an authority unto himself – justified only by God’s revelation. If pressed into answering the question, Smith may have turned to the purpose of creation. According to Smith, God’s purpose is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

For Smith, this meant much more than an idyllic existence in Heaven singing praises to God. As mere intelligences, human beings are incomplete. “All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement and improvement. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge…. Because He was greater He saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest who were less in intelligence could have a privilege to advance like Himself and be exalted with Him….”^xliii One purpose of creation was to have a place to test whether men and women would do everything required of them by God (Abr. 3:24-25).

Part of the necessary knowledge is experience with good and evil. According to the Book of Mormon, “there must be an opposition in all things.” The Book of Mormon connects this idea to the very existence of God. Opposition also serves God’s “eternal purposes in the end of man.” Without it, existence would have no purpose (2 Ne. 2:11-15).

Picking up on the thought of Paul (e.g., Rom. 8:17), Smith preached that to be “heirs of God” and “joint-heirs with Jesus Christ” means “to inherit and enjoy the same glory, powers and exaltation until you ascend a throne of eternal power and arrive at the station of a God the same as those who have gone before.”^xliv When this happens, “then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them” (D&C 132:20).^xlv

Joseph Smith’s answer to David Hume was bold and outrageous. It also has important consequences in the broader world of philosophy and theology. Yet Smith’s theology was also a stepping stone to a greater vision of man’s possibilities. This vision simply would not have been possible if Smith were forced to stay within the box of orthodox thinking.

This essay is meant as a test case in exploring how heretics solve problems with which orthodox thinkers are less able to deal. We have likely ignored other heretics though their ideas are well worth exploring. Not only do they deserve better, so does the world.

Notes

i For the purposes of this essay, “mainstream Christianity” refers to the bodies of Christians normally divided into Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant branches. I avoid the term “orthodox Christianity” to prevent confusion with the Orthodox Churches. When I refer to “orthodox” or “mainstream” thought in this essay, I am referring to beliefs about God held in common between these strands of the Christian tradition.

ii All quotations of the Bible in this essay are from the New Revised Standard Version.

iii Arnold B. Rhodes, Psalms, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, vol. 9 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1960), 89.

iv Brian Davies, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 75-84.

v Part 1, Question 1, Article 3.

vi Blake T. Ostler, “The Concept of a Finite God as an Adequate Object of Worship,” in Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, ed. Gary James Bergera (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 77-78.

vii E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, The Anchor Bible, vol. 1 (Garden City:, NJ: Doubleday & Company, 1984), 12.

viii Davies, 84, 93.

ix Sirach, also called Ecclesiasticus, is one of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books. It is considered canonical by Catholics and the Orthodox, but listed with the Apocrypha in Protestant bibles. For a brief discussion, see Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 2^nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 3. A chart is available in Anderson, 4-5.

x Martin Bell, Introduction, in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, by David Hume (London: Penguin Press, 1990), 1-5.

xi David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. Martin Bell (London: Penguin Books, 1990), 84 (30); Bell, 5-7, 13.

xii Hume, 53.

xiii Hume, 53, 63-66.

xiv Bell, 16.

xv Hume, 75.

xvi Hume, 76.

xvii Hume, 76-77.

xviii Hume, 77.

xix Hume, 77.

xx Hume, 78-79.

xxi Hume, 78.

xxii Hume, 79.

xxiii Hume, 82.

xxiv Hume, 72.

xxv Hume, 57, 79.

xxvi On the development of Smith’s doctrine during his lifetime, see Thomas G. Alexander “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine,” Sunstone, June 1999, 15-19. Different accounts of the First Vision are extent and differ in detail. However, all the accounts agree that God told Smith all the churches in existence were wrong. Most Mormons believe Smith translated the works of the individual Book of Mormon authors. Others attribute authorship directly to Smith. Neither view affects the thesis of this essay.

xxvii Robert N. Hullinger, Mormon Answer to Skepticism, Why Joseph Smith Wrote the Book of Mormon (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1980), 5. However, Hullinger’s study was mainly directed at deism, mentioned briefly above. Hullinger admits that deists believed in God. The real controversy was between those who argued for “revealed religion” and those who argued for “natural religion.” See Hullinger, 20. Hullinger also concentrates mainly on the Book of Mormon, whereas this study surveys Smith’s theology as it developed in his ministry. [Hullinger’s revised edition of this work is titled Joseph Smith’s Response to Skepticism.]

xxviii The Essential Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995), 155.

xxix James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, 12^th ed. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1957), 34.

xxx Smith, 235.

xxxi Smith, 235.

xxxii Smith, 253.

xxxiii Hume, 79.

xxxiv Many passages in the Bible likely influenced Smith, even discounting the obvious “God created humankind in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27). For example, the Lord appeared to Abraham, accepting and eating a meal prepared by him (Gen. 18). Jacob wrestled with a “man” whom he identified as God (Gen. 32:24-30). The elders of Israel dined with God not long after leaving Egypt (Ex. 24:9-11). Other references are possible.

xxxv Smith studied Hebrew under Joshua Seixas in Kirtland, Ohio. He undoubtedly understood the Hebrew word translated “created” in Genesis 1:1 means “to organize,” rather than to create from nothing. On Smith’s Hebrew studies, see Kevin L. Barney, “Joseph Smith’s Emendation of Hebrew Genesis 1:1,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 30, no. 4 (1997): 109-119. See also the discussion on this verse above.

xxxvi Kent E. Robson, “Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience in Mormon Theology,” in Bergera, 69-70; Talmage, 34.

xxxvii Smith, 239.

xxxviii B. H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life, An Elementary Treatise on Theology: The Masterwork of B. H. Roberts, ed. Stan Larson (San Francisco: Smith Research Associates, 1994), 381.

xxxix Hume, 57.

xl Briefly stated, the problem of evil is the dilemma posed by the existence of evil. The argument states if God can prevent evil, but did not, then He is not morally good. On the other hand, if He cannot prevent evil, though morally good, then God is powerless.

xli Hume, 81; B. H. Roberts, 374-383; Ostler 77-82; David Paulsen, “Must God Be Incorporeal?” Faith and Philosophy 6 (1989): 76-87.

xlii Smith, 236.

xliii Smith, 240.

xliv Smith, 236.

xlv In 3 Ne. 28:10, Jesus tells his audience “ye shall be even as I am, and I am as the Father….” This may be the initial seed of Smith’s thought on people becoming gods. The first explicit mention of this possibility does not come until later (D&C 76:58). Alexander believes that the Church did not fully realize the implications of these passages until an even later time. See Alexander, 18.