top of page

Chapter 2: "Some People's Children"

 

Chapter Summary:

Redemption comes through the Holy Messiah--Freedom of choice (agency) is essential to existence and progression--Adam fell that men might be--Men are free to choose liberty and eternal life. About 588–570 B.C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having bestowed his final conditional blessing/curse upon his four older sons, Lehi now directs his magical spells on his two younger sons. I don't recall any verses referring to Lehi having daughters. If he does, it sure seems rude to exclude them from these parting incantations. Then again, being free from such long lasting, nearly impossible to avoid consequences may be a blessing in itself.

 

Lehi starts with an apology of sorts to his second youngest son, Joseph: "in thy childhood thou hast suffered afflictions and much sorrow, because of the rudeness of thy brethren."

 

Passive aggressive much?

 

It's bad enough that Lehi bolted in the night with his family because his dreams predicted the destruction of Jerusalem (confirmation of the event came through the same process). Now he is passing blame for natural hardships of living in the Arab desert for several years to his disobedient children.

 

At least he didn't take advice from the brass plates (i.e. The Old Testament) to stone his unruly kids. After all, without Laman and Lemuel the Book of Mormon narrative explaining how the Native Americans are disavowed Jews would not have worked. There would have only been righteous Jewish descendants of Nephi, which would mean Joseph Smith would have had to come up with some other explanation for the mass apostasy the Native Americans had with Judaism.

 

Does it seem silly to anyone else that god would allow the fate and salvation of a civilization millions strong to rest on the outcome of a sibling rivalry?

 

Lehi goes on to explain to his eight year old son various complex theological issues, such as eternal punishment, intercession, atonement and salvation, and opposition in all things (no pain = no joy), as well as some attributes of the coming messiah, with as much specificity and the colloquial language of a nineteenth century preacher. Funny that. Again, this is directed to Lehi's son, Joseph, who was born in the desert en route to America and is no more than eight years old. Parting words or not, know your audience!

 

Mormons, of course, rationalize this as Lehi talking not just to his young son, but also to us, the dear readers of the distant future. How convenient. Too bad we still have no reason to take any of Lehi's supposed words seriously.

 

Verse 12 goes on about the necessity of opposition in all things: "[without opposition in all things] there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God."

 

Citations are needed for god's power, mercy and justice. Hell, I'll settle for a citation for the existence of god.

 

It is common in the Book of Mormon, and in Joseph Smith's writings in general (look up Joseph's "Lectures on Faith" to see what I mean), to include lists of bald assertions concerning the nature of god. This is similar to speculations about the favorite foods of Mexico's fabled chupacabra before demonstrating its existence. Listing philosophical assertions as though they are self-evident is no way to win over a thinking mind. Then again, perhaps thinking minds are not Lehi's target audience.

 

More to the point, however, is the common sentiment held by believers that life is without an inherent eternal purpose barring the existence of god. I don't see how this is a bad thing, much less an evident thing.

 

I find life to have plenty of joy and significance for me and those around me without the imposed importance placed on my life by an immortal being. Does a hamburger not have a purpose simply because it is not eternal? Believe me, it was significant to me as I ate it. Immortality does not equate to purpose.

 

How does the existence of god grant purpose to my life? God is supposed to have created me with the ability to choose for myself my eternal outcome: "And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life... or to choose captivity and death."

 

Granted, god also chose my particular circumstances which would influence my choice in a way which god knew the outcome of my actions before he created me, thereby effectively assuming all responsibility for my actions. But setting this theological nugget aside, like so many believers do, religious people assure me that god intended for me to choose my own purpose: liberty or captivity.

 

Verse 13 adds another long string of philosophical assertions, this time in an attempt to explain how we know logically that god exists: "And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

 

So, because there is law, there is a god?

 

Lehi means to create a dichotomy between two possibilities and the reader is to decide which outcome is more favorable: if good things exists, then god exists; if there is no god, then there can be no order and anarchy will ensue. This appeal to consequences, fallacious as it may be, does not actually prove anything.

 

It is a tired tactic of believers to suggest a terrible and bleak outcome if god does not exists. But even if I were to grant Lehi his long list of loosely strung together absolutes, all it would do is show that god should exist or that it would be better if god exists. You cannot get an "is" from an "ought". If I provide a logically sound argument that the only way for me to get to work on time is via teleportation, does this prove that teleportation is real? Surely not.

 

The Book of Mormon addresses atheism a few times, all of which I recall equate atheism with nihilism an anarchy. This seems to stem from the argument presented here that without purpose imposed upon one's life by a supreme divine dictator then life is meaningless and not worthwhile. With this kind of vilification of atheism, it is no wonder that so many who leave religion struggle with issues of self-worth, morality, direction in life, and in some cases, a reason to go on living. They have been brought up under the belief that without god, life is worthless.

 

To me this is a survival technique which religions have used for centuries: without our god/religion, "X" bad thing will happen to you. It almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for those conditioned for it and without a proper education of healthy alternatives to combat it, many people fall victim and either return to their religion, or slip into despair. It is a shame, really, that so many people who would otherwise make a choice more consistent with reality are afraid to take the step lest some terrible thing implanted in their minds by their religion should occur. This is the power of childhood indoctrination.

 

Lehi goes on to explain the story of Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden, etc. and how it all applies to the principle explained earlier that opposition in all things is necessary. This point has been covered and I don't need to address it no matter how much Lehi wants to beat a dead horse.

 

Lehi explains that had Adam not transgressed before god then everything would have remained in its same state forever, having no end and they would not have had children. God counted on--and needed--Adam to disobey god in order for the plan god devised to take effect. So why was Adam, and by extension all mankind, punished for this disobedience? Why would god tell Adam not to do the one thing god needed Adam to do? Reverse psychology? And why would god punish Adam's descendants? What did we do? Keep in mind this was all done in accordance to god's plan. Some plan.

 

Lehi continues: "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."

 

This verse was cited often in my childhood, and some time ago I reread it with new eyes. "Adam fell that men might be" means that had Adam not disobeyed god, men would not exist. "Men are that they might have joy" means that the purpose of man is to experience joy in this life, which would not have been possible had Adam not sinned. Men have joy because Adam sinned. Men have joy through sin. Bam!

 

Don't get too excited though. It is still unsubstantiated nonsense. After all, how could god hold Adam accountable for eating the fruit if Adam did not have knowledge of good or evil until after he ate the fruit? And Satan, the father of all lies according to the Book of Mormon, told Adam and Eve the truth about the fruit!

 

None of the story makes sense when taken literally, but, as indicated here by Lehi, the story of Adam and Eve is literally true. Mormons can tap dance around this all they want, but the Book of Mormon is pretty clear: Adam and Eve are literally the parents of all mankind and their story, as messy and incoherent as it is, is literally true.

 

Lehi ends his blessing for his eight year old son with a final admonition: choose liberty and eternal life in heaven with god, or else. It sounds like an easy choice, especially for an eight year old boy living in ancient uninhabited America, but how is one to know that this "either-or" option is legitimate? Why, by listening to the voices inside one's head!

 

[next] [previous] [top]

bottom of page