My favorite Book is and has been the Book of Mormon. The stories and adventures in it are incredible and inspiring. And while the stories are the parts that are easiest to understand and retell, it's the sermons that are recorded that are supposed to be the most valuable parts, but other than snippets, and isolated verses, most LDS people who quote from the Book of Mormon have a hard time giving context for the long speeches that someone went through the trouble of recording into writing, and then re-recording them onto metal plates to last through the centuries.
I would sit there and wonder, when Alma and Amulek are getting cross-examined by the lawyers in the city of Ammonihah, do they bring up the Resurrection as evidence of their criminality? And why does Alma respond by talking about the Tree of Life and the Fall of Adam?
Why were Anti-Christs such a problem to the prophets and so successful among the Nephites?
Why was Isaiah so important to the prophets of the Book of Mormon?
Why is it that when prophets are persecuted (like Lehi before he left Jerusalem) is the persecution blamed on their preaching of Christ? I mean, sure, some people don't want religion shoved down their throat, but this was a religious people! Why would they be so offended when a member of their own community preaches about a Messiah? Isn't blaming the persecution on the preaching of Christ, just a bit dramatic, and self-victimizing?
Turns out, it's not. I've been wrong, not the people of the Book of Mormon. I've been reading the book, my whole life, from the context that knowledge of Jesus Christ was a given, an accepted fact of life, as if the Nephites were a "Christian" people. They were not. The PROPHETS who wrote the books in the Book of Mormon were Christians, but for the most part, the people were not, they were "Jewish" or, they lived a very misunderstood, but widely accepted version of the Law of Moses. Very similar to what was believed and accepted by the Jews of 600 BC.
The Law of Moses is a theocratical government of sorts. There's rules about civil law and civil life and rules about religious ceremony and they are intermingled to a large degree. Many of the things we like to criticize about the Law of Moses are misunderstandings on our part. It doesn't preach an "Eye for an Eye" as a religious doctrine, but as a civil one. If someone steals $20 from me, they should pay me $20 back, not $20 PLUS emotional damages. If my neighbor accidentally kills my cow, I should get his cow, not his-cow-plus-damages. Religiously, it preaches forgiveness, and letting go of anger and hatred. There are a great many other things we like to criticize about the Law of Moses compared to our current society and how terrible it would have been to live under, but given the historical context it was given in, it was REVOLUTIONARY and bold in the rights and protections it gave to women and children and criminals and, really, everyone.
Religiously, the Law of Moses gave its people a huge set of ceremonies and practices to be used in the worship of Jehovah. Central to these were the idea of remission of sins, forgiveness of misdeeds, debts, and transgressions, and of the need for a Mediator to bring people back into the presence of God and make everything right between us. The trouble was, and is, these symbolic ceremonies weren't terribly explicit in that they were Prophetic and Symbolic, not just Ritualistic and Superstitious. Moses preached of a Prophet to come (Jesus Christ) but wasn't terribly clear on many details of that Prophet's true mission, at least, not in any of the writings we have from him (but our copies of his writings aren't as old as Moses, they're from hundreds of years later and who knows what may have been intentionally taken out or altered by then).
So the people who lived under the Law of Moses, DIDN'T -for the most part- believe in Christ. Christians today love to look backwards and glory in the symbolic representations of the Savior throughout the law, but hindsight is 20-20. Under the law, preaching of a Savior was treated by most people as a form of Heresy, an unauthorized addition to the law. "God come down and live with us??" "We -as a PEOPLE/SPECIES, not just individually- are fallen and need redemption from Death?", "You're saying we have to rely on a Savior and that all these sacrificial ceremonies and huge efforts we're putting into living our religion won't save us and won't do a thing to help us?"
Yes, sort of. And that's why anyone who preached Jesus among the Jews at the time of Jeremiah, or among the Nephites were misunderstood. When Abinadi is arrested for preaching against the wickedness of King Noah, what do the priests ask him about? His understanding of the Law of Moses. And what is his response? He asks about their understanding of the Law of Moses, and then preaches what the Law of Moses is REALLY about.
The Anti-Christs, what is their beef? They are trying to preach a literal or strict interpretation of the Law of Moses. And Jacob and Alma have to explain the scriptures and what the scriptures REALLY mean. The lawyers in Ammonihah, why are they upset that Alma and Amulek are preaching about the Resurrection? Because it wasn't a real explicit part of the Law of Moses! Remember the Sadducees in the New Testament? They were a group of Jews with their own interpretation of the Law of Moses (much like we have Methodists and Baptists and Presbyterians with their interpretations of the New Testament) and a huge differentiating factor for them was that they refused to acknowledge the doctrine of the Resurrection.
The Zoramites? What had happened to them? They had become elitists, much like the Israelites had, in thinking they were a special people because of their interpretation of the Law of Moses. A major problem among the Israelites (and among the early LDS) was their idea that because they had the "correct" knowledge of God, they were elevated and more important than their neighbors and would look down their noses on those around them. This doesn't win friends.
So, while we recognize the Book of Mormon is a very Christian book, it doesn't make complete sense until we understand who wrote it and to whom. While all groups of the world from all cultures can benefit from it's clear teachings of the Savior, it was written in the context of proving to a people, very similar to the Jews of 600 BC that the Law of Moses and the Old Testament, is very much a Testament of the coming, and more importantly the Need for Savior, a Jehovah Messiah, or Jesus Christ.
And one last thing, why would a 21-year-old farmer with only a basic-life-skills-education like Joseph Smith write a book from that context, when all he knew, everything he had been taught at church, all the turmoil and Great Awakening going on around him in his formative years, was arguing and debating over interpretations of the New Testament, automatically assuming and taking for granted the need for a Savior as a "duh, that's a given"?
