In an attempt to discredit the Book of Mormon, Brent Metcalfe wrote the following:
In the early part of Mormon's abridged history, prophecies about the coming of Jesus say nothing about his resurrection advent in the Americas (see Mosiah 3:5ff; 7:27; 15; Alma 4:13; 5:50; 6:8; 7:7ff). Benjamin, Abinadi, both Almas—all of whom know minute details of Jesus' life—never mention that a glorified Christ will appear to the Lehites (see Mosiah 3:lff; 15:1-16:15; 18:1-35; Alma 7:7-14). Not until Alma 16:20 is this clearly stated: "Many of the people did inquire concerning the place where the Son of God should come; and they were taught that he would appear unto them after his resurrection" (emphasis added). The people's uncertainty, which Alma himself shares (7:8), implies that nothing had been taught about a promise that Christ would visit America, a promise Nephi earlier described in detail. When, for the first time in Mormon's abridgment, priests teach the Nephites "that he would appear unto them after his resurrection"—absent any reference to Nephi's prodigious vision—"the people did hear with great joy and gladness," seemingly acknowledging the newness of the idea.
Ignorance of Nephi's prophecies, especially in a record-keeper and prophet of Alma's stature, is explained by Mosian priority. Silence about Nephi's prophecies in Mosiah and Alma 1-16 reflects the fact that Joseph Smith initially portrayed Book of Mormon characters as gradually understanding whether the mortal Jesus (Alma 7:8) or the risen Christ (16:20) would appear in the Americas. Nephi's unambiguous prophecies were dictated by Smith after the events they were intended to foretell—a textbook example of vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the event). (Brent Lee Metcalfe, "The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis" in Brent Lee Metcalfe, ed. New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993], 395-444, here, pp. 417-18)
While going through my old notes on file, I came across a response to this argument by Ben McGuire on the old ZLMB forum. As the response is excellent, I will reproduce it here:
I agree with Brent on the over-all issue of the priority of Mosiah, but not on this particular evidence. In addressing this issue, I want to bring up several substantial points raised by the narrative.
So, a little history might be in order (I am going to use the dates provided in the current LDS edition of the BoM for convenience). The beginning of the Book of Mosiah (which is where we are starting in terms of the material in question) is dated on internal grounds to around 130 BC. About 280 BC, Mosiah, father of Benjamin and grandfather of Mosiah encounters the people of Zarahemla (the Mulekites) and is made their king. Shortly into the text of Mosiah, there is entered an abridgement of the the Record of Zeniff (which comprises Mosiah 9-22 inclusive). The beginning of the Zeniff narrative is dated to around 200 BC or shortly thereafter.
Zeniff is a Nephite spy on the Lamanites. He determines that he wants to recover the land of the Nephite inheritance, and so takes a group of people and sets off to start a colony in the Lamanite area. None of those who go are keepers of the records. The small plates of Nephi presumably do not go with them. This group of Nephites comes under the control of "King Laman". Zeniff dies, and his "reign" as a vassal king to the Lamanites is passed on to his son Noah. Noah is a wicked man. His has wicked priests. Abinadi the prophet appears, and criticizes their wickedness. The (wicked) priests defend their actions through the Law of Moses. Also, Isaiah is quoted in the debates (I mention it for the purposes of establishing some notion of what texts they used). The small plates do not seem to be referenced. Abinadi specifically teaches (using the suffering servant texts of Isaiah) that Messiah - the Son of God - would come in the flesh to redeem his people. Abinadi is put to death - but not before making a significant influence on a man named Alma. In Mosiah 18:1, Alma begins to teach people "the words of Abinadi". Eventually, they are forced to leave their city (kingdom) and are captured by the Lamanites and forced into labor. Meanwhile, King Noah is succeeded by his son Limhi, After some time, an expedition from Zarahemla arrives and helps them escape the Lamanites and go to Zarahemla. Meanwhile, Alma's group eventually escapes the Lamanites and also arrives at Zarahemla. Both of these events occur around 120 BC. At this point, Alma meets Mosiah - and a religious reform begins (detailed in Mosiah 25). Alma forms a new church - and baptizes all those who are willing. They ordain priests and teachers. Then, in 91 BC, Mosiah dies, and the kingship is replaced by a system of judges. Shortly before his death, Mosiah provides the records to Alma, the son of Alma.
I provide this for a basis now for some assumptions. First, there doesn't seem to be any reason to accept that prior to 92 BC (and probably for a considerable period afterwards), there was any widespread degree of familiarity with the prophecies of Jesus Christ which Nephi records in his small plates. Certainly, without further justification, it seems a stretch to suggest that the absence of such references from Abinadi, who does not use Nephi's text in his defence of doctrine on the point of Christ (and additionally does not address the commandments of Lehi about polygamy), is evidence of a discrepancy in the text. Nor does it seem reasonable to assume that the anwer to this question was known by Alma, the priest to Noah any time before he encountered the records which Mosiah had.
I don't buy into the argument that this is a valid discrepancy. At the same time, there is an interesting discussion in Alma 45, as Alma prepares to turn over the records to his son Helaman, some 19 years after receiving them.
So, a little history might be in order (I am going to use the dates provided in the current LDS edition of the BoM for convenience). The beginning of the Book of Mosiah (which is where we are starting in terms of the material in question) is dated on internal grounds to around 130 BC. About 280 BC, Mosiah, father of Benjamin and grandfather of Mosiah encounters the people of Zarahemla (the Mulekites) and is made their king. Shortly into the text of Mosiah, there is entered an abridgement of the the Record of Zeniff (which comprises Mosiah 9-22 inclusive). The beginning of the Zeniff narrative is dated to around 200 BC or shortly thereafter.
Zeniff is a Nephite spy on the Lamanites. He determines that he wants to recover the land of the Nephite inheritance, and so takes a group of people and sets off to start a colony in the Lamanite area. None of those who go are keepers of the records. The small plates of Nephi presumably do not go with them. This group of Nephites comes under the control of "King Laman". Zeniff dies, and his "reign" as a vassal king to the Lamanites is passed on to his son Noah. Noah is a wicked man. His has wicked priests. Abinadi the prophet appears, and criticizes their wickedness. The (wicked) priests defend their actions through the Law of Moses. Also, Isaiah is quoted in the debates (I mention it for the purposes of establishing some notion of what texts they used). The small plates do not seem to be referenced. Abinadi specifically teaches (using the suffering servant texts of Isaiah) that Messiah - the Son of God - would come in the flesh to redeem his people. Abinadi is put to death - but not before making a significant influence on a man named Alma. In Mosiah 18:1, Alma begins to teach people "the words of Abinadi". Eventually, they are forced to leave their city (kingdom) and are captured by the Lamanites and forced into labor. Meanwhile, King Noah is succeeded by his son Limhi, After some time, an expedition from Zarahemla arrives and helps them escape the Lamanites and go to Zarahemla. Meanwhile, Alma's group eventually escapes the Lamanites and also arrives at Zarahemla. Both of these events occur around 120 BC. At this point, Alma meets Mosiah - and a religious reform begins (detailed in Mosiah 25). Alma forms a new church - and baptizes all those who are willing. They ordain priests and teachers. Then, in 91 BC, Mosiah dies, and the kingship is replaced by a system of judges. Shortly before his death, Mosiah provides the records to Alma, the son of Alma.
I provide this for a basis now for some assumptions. First, there doesn't seem to be any reason to accept that prior to 92 BC (and probably for a considerable period afterwards), there was any widespread degree of familiarity with the prophecies of Jesus Christ which Nephi records in his small plates. Certainly, without further justification, it seems a stretch to suggest that the absence of such references from Abinadi, who does not use Nephi's text in his defence of doctrine on the point of Christ (and additionally does not address the commandments of Lehi about polygamy), is evidence of a discrepancy in the text. Nor does it seem reasonable to assume that the anwer to this question was known by Alma, the priest to Noah any time before he encountered the records which Mosiah had.
I don't buy into the argument that this is a valid discrepancy. At the same time, there is an interesting discussion in Alma 45, as Alma prepares to turn over the records to his son Helaman, some 19 years after receiving them.
Quote:
But behold, I have somewhat to aprophesy unto thee; but what I prophesy unto thee ye shall not make known; yea, what I prophesy unto thee shall not be made known, even until the prophecy is fulfilled; therefore write the words which I shall say. And these are the words: Behold, I perceive that this very people, the Nephites, according to the spirit of revelation which is in me, in four hundred years from the time that Jesus Christ shall manifest himself unto them, shall dwindle in unbelief. Yea, and then shall they see wars and pestilences, yea, famines and bloodshed, even until the people of Nephi shall become extinct
A second issue here is a matter of eschatology. Nephi clearly indicates that after the visitation there would be a period of time before the destruction of his people, and then a period of time before the eschatalogical moment. But in Mosiah, and much of Alma, there is a perception that the eschatalogical moment is in fact the first appearance of the Messiah. This accounts for much of the language in 3 Nephi, where we have descriptions of earthquakes and darkness which are similar in tone and content to descriptions of the "signs of the times". The statement in Alma 45 suggests that the content of Alma's prophecy (and by extension Nephi's prophecy in 2 Nephi 26) was not widely known.
So, if the theology of the people (of the popular church) during the time period covered by Alma and Mosiah was really as influenced by Abinadi as the text suggests, it does in fact seem reasonable not only to state that there may have been some question as to how the Messiah would appear to the Nephites - and that this would be answered by an appeal to the older Nephite texts. Additionally, the passages referenced seem to be asking a more specific question than just about the appearance - the question is (at least as it relates to Mosiah 7) whether or not he would appear "at the time of his dwelling in his mortal tabernacle". In fact, it is quite reasonable to read Alma 7 as making the point that they already knew that Christ would come to visit them, but the timing of it relative to his mortal advent was unknown - "Behold, I do not say that he will come among us at the time of his dwelling in his mortal tabernacle; for behold, the Spirit hath not said unto me that this should be the case." Of course you could read it several ways depending on how exact you want "at the time of" to be. This could be read quite generally, or it could be read as meaning during his mortal ministry (which of course didn't happen), or shortly thereafter. But it is well within a normative reading of the text to suggest that this does not argue that a visitation is unknown - only the timing or the conditions of it.
To summarize, I think the argument is significantly overstated that we should be seeing references to the visitation in each of these passages in the Book of Mormon. It is seems to me that it is quite likely that the prophecies of Nephi were not widely circulated or well known - particularly if they are only found on the small plates (there is no way of course to verify this). It is also clear that the texts in Mosiah and Alma are much more dependant on the Isaiah texts than on anything we might get from Nephi. And, of course, Metcalfe's arguments on the priority of Mosiah are not hurt by challenging this point.
Ben
So, if the theology of the people (of the popular church) during the time period covered by Alma and Mosiah was really as influenced by Abinadi as the text suggests, it does in fact seem reasonable not only to state that there may have been some question as to how the Messiah would appear to the Nephites - and that this would be answered by an appeal to the older Nephite texts. Additionally, the passages referenced seem to be asking a more specific question than just about the appearance - the question is (at least as it relates to Mosiah 7) whether or not he would appear "at the time of his dwelling in his mortal tabernacle". In fact, it is quite reasonable to read Alma 7 as making the point that they already knew that Christ would come to visit them, but the timing of it relative to his mortal advent was unknown - "Behold, I do not say that he will come among us at the time of his dwelling in his mortal tabernacle; for behold, the Spirit hath not said unto me that this should be the case." Of course you could read it several ways depending on how exact you want "at the time of" to be. This could be read quite generally, or it could be read as meaning during his mortal ministry (which of course didn't happen), or shortly thereafter. But it is well within a normative reading of the text to suggest that this does not argue that a visitation is unknown - only the timing or the conditions of it.
To summarize, I think the argument is significantly overstated that we should be seeing references to the visitation in each of these passages in the Book of Mormon. It is seems to me that it is quite likely that the prophecies of Nephi were not widely circulated or well known - particularly if they are only found on the small plates (there is no way of course to verify this). It is also clear that the texts in Mosiah and Alma are much more dependant on the Isaiah texts than on anything we might get from Nephi. And, of course, Metcalfe's arguments on the priority of Mosiah are not hurt by challenging this point.
Ben
Matthew Roper, in his review of Metcalfe’s essay “A More Perfect Priority“ wrote the following which is also helpful:
Knowledge of Christ’s Birth Metcalfe argues that the Nephite prophets in the first translation sequence (Mosiah-3 Nephi 10) are ignorant of the earlier prophecies of Lehi and other prophets regarding the date of Christ’s birth. “Alma, Benjamin, and their audiences did not know what Lehi, Nephi, an angel, anonymous Old World prophets, and their sacred literature had known with certainty: that Jesus would be born 600 years after the Lehites departed for the Americas” (p. 416). Aside from the fact that this is largely an argument from silence, there are several reasons why I find this argument unpersuasive.
Metcalfe cites a passage from King Benjamin’s speech: “The time cometh, and is not far distant . . . [that the Lord] shall come down from heaven . . . and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay’ (Mosiah 3:5).” Metcalfe finds this comment “surprising since the scriptures Benjamin possessed presumably told him this would not occur for over 120 years” (p. 416). He assumes that if Benjamin had prophetic knowledge of the time of Christ’s birth he should have mentioned this fact in his speech. But why should he? We have only five chapters of Benjamin’s words, anyway. This is a very poor sample from which to determine the extent of Benjamin’s scriptural knowledge. Metcalfe continues, “Alma speaks of Jesus’ advent in similar terms: “the kingdom of heaven is soon at hand’ (Alma 5:28, 50; [a. 83 B.C.]); “the time is not far distant’ (7:7); “not many days hence’ (9:26; [a. 82 B.C.]); and “the day of salvation draweth nigh’ (13:21). . . . Mormon also shares this ambiguity, describing Alma’s contemporaries as “[h]olding forth things which must shortly come’ (16:19 [speaking of a period a. 78 B.C.])” (p. 416 n.25). While Metcalfe argues that these terms are inappropriate for the periods in question, each of them seems perfectly reasonable given the context in which they appear in the Book of Mormon narrative. Eighty-three years, 78 years and even 124 years are a relatively short period of time from the perspective of prophecy. For example, in the New Testament, Jesus tells John, “Behold, I come quickly” (Revelation 22:12), and the Revelator introduces his vision with the statement that it contains things “which must shortly come to pass” (Revelation 1:1); “which must be hereafter” (Revelation 4:1), whose “time is at hand” (Revelation 1:3). Similar passages in the Book of Mormon are equally ambiguous and simply do not require the narrow interpretation upon which Metcalfe seems to insist. How soon is “soon”? How distant is “not far distant” from the perspective of prophecy? Book of Mormon prophets use the word “soon” in a variety of ways. “Soon” can mean “days” (Alma 57:8), or about three years (Mosiah 1:9), but it can also be used to denote longer periods of time (Jacob 5:29, 37, 71). Alma considers an eschatological day of judgment to be “soon at hand” (Alma 5:28). Likewise, Zenos prophesies allegorically that “the time [of judgment] draweth near” (Jacob 5:29), “the end draweth nigh” (Jacob 5:47, 62), “nigh at hand” (Jacob 5:71), and “the season speedily cometh” (Jacob 5:71). There is also some ambiguity in the terms time and day in the Book of Mormon text. For instance, Alma prophesies to his son Helaman concerning the future destruction of the Nephites, saying, “And when that great day cometh, behold the time very soon cometh” (Alma 45:13). Obviously, Alma’s prophetic “day” does not have to refer to a regular day of twenty-four hours, but can also refer to a longer, more ambiguous time period.
The Time of Christ’s Coming Metcalfe argues that Alma appears ignorant of the 600-year prophecy since he hopes that the Lord’s coming might be in his day and says regarding that event, “we know not how soon” (Alma 13:25).2 But Alma is not speaking of Jesus’ birth–of which he already knows–but of Jesus’ coming among the Nephites in their own land. In fact, Alma says nothing about Christ’s birth in this passage, but speaks of the Lord’s “coming in his glory.” An interesting phrase. On the small plates, Nephi had foretold that, at some unspecified time “after Christ shall have risen from the dead,” he would show himself unto the Nephites, “and the words which he shall speak unto you shall be the law which ye shall do” (2 Nephi 26:1). Contrary to Metcalfe, Alma 13 is consistent with Nephi’s earlier prophecy on the small plates. Alma states that angels had already begun the work of preparing the Nephites to receive Christ’s teachings at the anticipated time of his visit among them.
For behold, angels are declaring it unto many at this time in our land; and this is for the purpose of preparing the hearts of the children of men to receive his word at the time of his coming in his glory[that is, among the Nephites]. And now we only wait to hear the joyful news declared unto us by the mouth of angels, of his coming [that is, among the Nephites in their own land]; for the time cometh, we know not how soon. Would to God that it might be in my day; but let it be sooner or later, in it I will rejoice. (Alma 13:24-25)
The prophecies on the small plates of Nephi would have told of the date of Christ’s birth, but would not have told the date of his death or exactly how long after the resurrection Christ would appear to the Nephites. It is clearly that great day which Alma longs to see. He and others were preparing the hearts of the people of their land to receive Christ’s word when he came among them, just as Nephi promised they would need to do. Christ would come among them, Alma says, “that the words of our fathers may be fulfilled, according to that which they have spoken concerning him, which was according to the spirit of prophecy which was in them” (Alma 13:24; cf. Alma 5:50-52). Obviously Alma is familiar with the prophecies which speak of his coming among the Nephites. Alma taught his son Corianton, somewhere around 73 B.C., that they were “called to declare these glad tidings unto this people, to prepare their minds . . . that they might prepare the minds of their children to hear the word at the time of his coming” among them (Alma 39:16). Alma wants to prepare the people in his land, so that they will prepare their children for Christ’s coming among them. So Alma appears to know that Christ will not come in his lifetime, but in the lifetime of at least some of the rising generation, information which, it is reasonable to assume, he learned from the records in his possession. So when Mormon states a few years earlier, “And many of the people did inquire concerning the place where the Son of God should come; and they were taught [why not by Alma who would already have known from the scriptures in his possession?] that he would appear unto them after his resurrection; and this the people did hear with joy and gladness” (Alma 16:20). Thus, it seems likely that this was not a new revelation, as Metcalfe asserts, but that the new converts learned this information from Alma, who was the keeper of the records on the small plates.
But Metcalfe does raise a significant point: Why would Benjamin and Alma not speak more specifically of the date of Christ’s birth and Lehi’s 600-year prophecy in their public discourses in the land of Zarahemla? The most likely explanation may be that this information was considered a mystery, reserved for the faithful.3 Nephite prophets often concealed certain scriptural information from the public at various times in their history, for diverse reasons (Alma 37:27-29; 45:9; 3 Nephi 28:25; Ether 4:1). I would suggest that Samuel’s prophecy was considered significant and unique because it was the first public disclosure of the date of Christ’s birth among the people of Zarahemla and not because the information was new. The largely negative reaction of the people (Helaman 16:6-23; 3 Nephi 1:4-10) is reason enough for the prophets to have concealed the information so long.
Notes for the Above
2. Perhaps Metcalfe (and others) take the 600-year prophecy with more precision than it may have been intended to convey. The statements of Lehi (1 Nephi 10:4) and Nephi (1 Nephi 19:8; 2 Nephi 25:19) might well mean precisely 600 years. However, a century is a good round number. I can intelligibly say that Heber J. Grant, died “a century” after Joseph Smith, even though the relevant dates are more precisely 1844 and 1945. And I probably have somewhat more leeway than that, especially when we are talking about six centuries. Did the prophecy mean exactly 600 years? How about 599? 605? Or even 590? 336? Alma2 was probably fairly young between 100 and 92 B.C. If he could have lived until, say, 32 B.C., he would be well within the range of reasonable interpretation for six centuries. But he would also be quite old. This might explain his somewhat wistful hope that Christ might come–though probably not in his own time. I would like to thank Daniel Peterson for sharing this observation. As I explain below, however, the scriptures cited by Metcalfe refer not to Christ’s birth, but rather to the time of his coming among the Nephites in the New World following his resurrection.
3. In his discourse to the people of Ammonihah, Alma explains to Zeezrom, “It is given unto many to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries” (Alma 12:9-11).