Shulem wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 19, 2021 4:14 pm
D&C 107:46 wrote:Mahalaleel was four hundred and ninety-six years and seven days old when he was ordained by the hand of Adam, who also blessed him.
Now we learn that Mahalaleel, next in the line of succession, at the hand of Adam, was ordained at the age of 496 years
“and 7 days”!
With 496 years gone by we are also informed that there were an additional 7 days in which poor Mahalaleel had to wait. This is the second time Smith provides a fractional number to the ordination age, the first being 34 years and an even “4 months”
for Enos. So, what’s up with the 7 days for Mahalaleel? Why didn’t the other patriarchs have months
applied to their ordination dates? The omission would seem to imply that the other patriarchs were ordained on their birthdays except for Mahalaleel & Enos who broke ranks with the birthday ordination rite. Or, could it mean something else? I think it means something else whereby Smith was mixing things up and attempting to keep the story interesting. The use of “seven days”
wasn’t necessary to inform readers that Mahalaleel was finally ordained. 496 years had gone by and that in and of itself is more than enough information. The additional seven days
in the narrative raises a red flag!
This is Smith’s subtle attempt to create a dramatic effect or add a little zest to the punchline but more especially to make it seem biblical in numerical nature. Smith’s narrative makes no effort to explain why nearly 500 years had passed and why this patriarch was being ordained out of order considering that three of his patriarchal predecessors were his descendants.
The “seven days”
was used by Smith to make his story seem biblical and give it flair and mystery. But it’s all part of Smith’s big lie in which he was making the whole thing up from start to finish. The revelation of the Doctrine and Covenants is the result of an active and creative mind at work pretending to channel God’s word for the whole world. Smith was well aware that “seven days”
was a common theme in the bible used in many special circumstances and a varity of religious services. The Law of Moses used seven days
for unleavened bread, purification rites, feasts, and consecration rituals. All of this of course was long after Mahalaleel’s lifetime and was on the other side of the Flood. But Smith knew that using the number 7 would make his revelation look special.
Here is a small sampling of other applications when “seven days”
was used in the bible that Smith would have been familiar with:
- For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth
- (Joseph) made a mourning for his father seven days
- And seven days were fulfilled, after that the Lord had smitten the river
- And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days
- By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days
Now with all that said, what are the odds that Smith would choose the number 7 rather than 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9? The odds are 1 in 9 that Smith would pick lucky 7. Then the odds must be taken into consideration that Smith could have chosen any number from 10-364 rather than just the single digit of 7.
Yes, I think Smith was purposely attempting to make his story look biblical and give it a subtle sense of credibility that the subconscious mind would appreciate. Smith was fooling his readers and followers by employing subtle tricks to his trade.
For those who are interested in further exploring how Smith used biblical numbers to spice up his Book of Mormon, I highly recommend Solomon's 1,005 Songs = Alma's 1,005 martyred Lamanites
located in the Terrestrial Forum of this board. (Caution, the Terrestrial Board is not as polite and can sometimes be offensive to critical readers on both sides of the argument)