Circle Squared
A Textual Analysis of the Book of Mormon
Chapter 2: "Putting It Mildly"
Chapter Summary:
King Benjamin addresses his people--He recounts the equity, fairness, and spirituality of his reign--He counsels them to serve their Heavenly King--Those who rebel against God will suffer anguish like unquenchable fire. About 124 B.C.
This chapter begins a lengthy speech by King Benjamin, which Mormons often laud as an indicator of the Book of Mormon's authenticity, as well as great moral teachings and poetry.
For many public addresses in the Book of Mormon no mention is given as to the recording process. Were they recorded by a scribe in real-time? Were they written down by the speaker shortly after? Were they handed down as oral tradition, to be recorded by Mormon years later (similar to the method used for much of the Bible)? This address, however, does offer such a recording process, but only out of necessity (more on this below).
The fact that we are not given this information for most speeches would not be so bothersome to me if the addresses were brief paraphrases, but the level of detail given in the Book of Mormon, offering word-for-word transcriptions of rather long-winded speeches, raises more than a skeptical eyebrow. It looks as though Joseph Smith was padding his book with inspirational content.
One of the proposed alternative sources of King Benjamin's speech, assuming the Book of Mormon is not as genuine as purported, is that Joseph once heard a similar speech given by a well-respected pastor in his area. This pastor, like Benjamin, knew his end was nigh and wanted to address his supporters one last time. He held a big-tent revival and he gave words of encouragement and sacrifice and service to others, all of which parallel Benjamin.
Apologists counter this proposed alternative source by pointing to certain aspects of the speech, about which, they hold, the uneducated Joseph could not have known; such as "chiasmus," a Jewish poetic device following a specific pattern of repetition (A, B, C, D, C, B, A), the center of which being the primary focus of the poem. But despite Mormon claims that chiasmus was unknown in Joseph's day, it was actually a fairly well-known literary device utilized by such writers as William Shakespeare, not to mention the Bible. Even if this was not the case, it is not as if it would be difficult to come up with the simple pattern of chiasmus independently.
Apologists also claim that Benjamin's address is a classic old-world parting speech, common for kings with some sense of their own impending mortality. Granting all of these criticisms--rather generously, I might add--they all fail to dismiss another possible source for Benjamin's speech: the parting words of an ancient Roman ruler, Numa. An in-depth look at the parallels between Benjamin and Numa is offered on Mormon Think.
Again, I would be willing to grant that the parallels between Benjamin's speech and Numa and the preacher from Joseph's youth are circumstantial. Fine. The take-away point here is not that critics have found a silver bullet with which they have definitively discredited the Book of Mormon. Rather, that the claim that Joseph could not have possibly written the book himself is unfounded.
These possible sources for Benjamin's speech show that it is at least possible for a natural explanation of the origins of the Book of Mormon to exist. In light of this, I ask, if you have two possible explanations for a phenomenon, one natural and one supernatural, why would you believe the supernatural explanation over the natural one? Natural explanations, however unlikely they may seem, are always more plausible than supernatural explanations.
When Benjamin's people are gathered to hear his final address, they hold a ceremony to sacrifice their "firstlings" to god. This sort of thing happens at various times in the Book of Mormon, usually accompanied with a description of the parallels to the sacrifice of Jesus. It is interesting that the Book of Mormon would emphasize such parallels to a future event in a fashion similar to Protestant teachings common in Joseph's day, rather than holding to the Jewish focus of vicarious redemption of sins through a scapegoat. This is just another example of Joseph's culture bleeding into his "ancient holy book."
As each family barbecued their freshly sin-filled young animals in their own family-sized tent facing the temple, Benjamin noticed a glaring logistical problem: there are too many people for him to be heard by all. Not wanting a word of his super important speech to be missed by anyone, Benjamin writes down his speech (surprise!) and has copies of it distributed to what appears to be the most literate of all ancient cultures.
Old Ben begins his speech with a preface which might be misconstrued as gloating if it were not for his famed humility:
"10 ...ye should [not] think that I of myself am more than a mortal man."
"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... that I should be a ruler and a king over this people..."
"12 ...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;"
Yup, Old Ben was a philanthropist and a self-sufficient ruler. I wonder if Joseph would he have followed Old Ben's example and forfeited his presidential stipend had he become president of the United States, as he tried to do at least once? Judging from his history of grubbing for money from anyone gullible enough to believe he could actually find buried treasure by peering at magic rocks in a hat--a claim not once substantiated with anything close real treasure--I think not.
Ben's revolutionary methods of government also include a system which limits the worst of human behaviors without the use of prisons:
"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--"
And how, you ask, did Benjamin accomplish this task, of which modern societies could only dream? Mormon doesn't bother to tell us; at least, not with any useful specifics. We are to believe that Benjamin did all of these spectacular political feats by simply teaching people about god. When has this method ever worked outside of the Book of Mormon? If such a claim could be verified, not only would every nation on earth exploit it to bring lasting peace, but it would offer a testable claim which could verify the supernatural, if only in part. Alas, as is typical of “too good to be true” religious charlatanry, no useful information is provided.
Reassuring us that he is not boastful, Old Ben offers one reason he did everything pro bono:
"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."
You see, it is all about securing a place in heaven. Doing good is not about empathy or perpetuating a social meme which could reciprocate good deeds back to you. No. Good is to be done for an intangible, posthumous reward beyond imagining. And religious people call this morality?
To some extent, I suppose, doing good for the wrong reasons is still better than doing evil. However, I prefer doing good for good reasons, since good reasoning pays off in other areas. This goes back to the idea that false beliefs held for poor reasons can be harmful even if the beliefs themselves seem harmless. The process by which beliefs are attained influences our reasoning faculties. Meaning, it is the faulty process of thought which is the most harmful.
This, of course, raises the question: what are good reasons for believing a proposition? I think demonstrable evidence and the scientific method is a good place to start. And when these methods are applied to morality, it is easy to see the net positive effect on society of prohibiting things like murder, theft, and perjury.
Old Ben admonishes his countrymen to follow his example of serving others (for eternal heavenly rewards), and tells them to thank god for setting up a system which inspired Old Ben to serve them (again, for eternal heavenly rewards):
"19 And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king, who has spent his days in your service, and yet has been in the service of God, do merit any thanks from you, O how you ought to thank your heavenly King!"
Honestly, I don't follow Ben's logic here. Why would praise of god immediately follow from praising an earthly king? Ben was the one who served the people--not god. And Ben only did it to serve god. Shouldn't this bother at least some of the people?
Ultimately this comes across as an indictment of secular morality. Many believers, including Mormons, believe that the most moral behavior is only possible through a belief in the right god. Mormons believe that, although good deeds are not exclusive to their church, one cannot be the best person one can be without a belief in Mormonism. How's that for pluralism?
After attributing all the good things he has done for his people to god, Ben offers a most scathing insult:
"21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another--I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants."
Did you catch that? Mankind is so depraved and worthy of damnation that no amount of good deeds can possibly make a person good. This is a central tenet of many religions: mankind is inherently evil. This is the sickness which these opportunistic religions claim to cure.
Having studied psychology and human behavior for some time now, I can tell you that the debate between mankind's nature being good or evil is still up in the air. Most experts admit that a person's morality is a product of both nature and nurture. This means that, although inherited genetic traits do have an impact on how "good" a person turns out, it is not set in stone and the way in which a person is raised has a huge impact as well. A person is not born completely good or evil. Mankind is a sliding scale of moral gray areas influenced by many factors, none of which are concrete. Try getting such a nuanced description of the nature of mankind from a holy book.
Having set up his fellow men to fail on the grandest scale, Benjamin reassures his presumably disheartened listeners with the promise that if they do their best, god will save them and let them prosper. Of course, this implies that should prosperity not come, it is the fault of the man, not god. Isn't it odd that a supreme being with unconditional love for us should make promises to us with so many conditions?
Several times now Benjamin has posited that mankind owes their lives and every breath they take to god's grace. And because of this, we are indebted to god. Interesting. Why would our very existence indebt us to our creator, as if we owe him something? What could an imperfect, impotent mortal being possibly owe to a perfect omnipotent immortal being? Wouldn't the omnipotence of god negate anything that could possibly be owed him? Such is the absurdity of omnipotence.
All of this degradation of mere mortals when compared to the all-powerful god is meant to level the playing field for mankind. Ben sees all people equally, albeit in a fallen state, and as such all men should be treated fairly by other people, again to ensure eternal rewards. I don't understand why so much emphasis is placed on empathy towards fellow men when Benjamin's belief originates from a place of securing real estate in heaven. This is the root of his belief in good deeds. Empathy doesn't matter when heaven and hell are involved.
Ben piles on more needless empathy by offering what appears to be a testable claim:
"24 ...he [god] doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you."
This sounds like a testable claim, but what Ben is most likely talking about is god allowing you to breathe, which, it seems, god does even if you don't follow his commandments. It could be that Ben means to say that god allows you to be prosperous if you follow his commandments (grammar is tricky, especially if you are a nineteenth century farm boy trying to mimic sixteenth century English). This lessens the claim that god blesses people immediately because it is readily apparent that this is not the case. Not to mention that, like allowing us to breathe based on good behavior, god seems to reward good men with prosperity as much as evil men. So, if this really is a testable claim, what does this say about its veracity?
Further beating a long-deceased horse, Benjamin--the old coot--tells all his fellow dirt-bags that they are less than dirt, despite being made of the stuff:
"25 And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth; but behold, it belongeth to him who created you."
This makes no logical sense. A house made of wood is, at least in terms of technological achievement, greater than a tree. A steel sword is greater than the individual alloys comprising it (see what I did there?). A cell-based life form is greater than individual proteins. A multi-cell organism is greater than a single cell. The sum is greater than its parts--especially in biology. So, in what way, dear Benji (can I call you "Benji?") is man not "even as much as the dust of the earth?" Seriously.
Having thoroughly undermined and debased himself, and by extension every person ever, Benji revisits the concept of washing himself of the sins of others by telling them they are worthless scum (literally worth less than scum). This completely asinine notion raises the question of why anyone should believe Benjamin at all. He offers his testimony against those who disbelieve or who rebel, but he offers no demonstrably effective method of determining whether he is telling the truth about man's depraved nature or if he is shilling superstitious bull crap.
Benjamin proceeds to speak to the people while physically trembling (remember, he wrote this down on pamphlets and distributed them to the people, so assuming he actually read it out loud to the crowd, he wrote this bit of dramatic descriptive language in advance), and he reiterates the completely modern Christian idea of eternal damnation:
"33 For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge."
See, guys? You totally know that Mormonism is true. You are just rebelling. So you totally deserve what's coming to you in hell when you are totally burned forever for rebelling against the easily offended omnipotent god of dust. Nothing insane about that.
Benji reiterates a few more times that if you manage to be damned by god you are totally at fault, because you know better, and because god is rad, and god is totally awesome for letting you breathe, you dirty-rotten dirt-bag:
"38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever."
"39 And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment."
Explain to me again how Mormons don't believe in a traditional hell.
Old Ben goes back to the concept that wicked people are miserable and righteous people prosper and are generally happier than wicked people:
"40 ...I pray that ye should awake to a remembrance of the awful situation of those that have fallen into transgression."
"41 ...I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual..."
Again, this testable claim is demonstrably false and is even contradicted by the excuse for unanswered prayers offered by many Mormons that god sometimes answers "no" or "maybe." Believers don't get what they pray for any more than they get preferential prosperity from god. Good things happen to good people with about the same frequency as less-good people, which also happens to be about the same as chance.