Joseph F. Smith had a classical understanding of time, and that is important

In 1918 Joseph F. Smith had a revelation on the Savior's visit to the spirit world and the redemption of the dead. Leading up to this revelation he had many questions weighing on his mind brought on by recent family deaths and his own reckoning with mortality.

While explaining his thinking leading up to the revelation Joseph F. Smith said,

25 I marveled, for I understood that the Savior spent about three years in his ministry among the Jews.... 27 But his ministry among those who were dead was limited to the brief time intervening between the crucifixion and his resurrection; 28 And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison... and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time. (D&C 138:25-28)

Part of what made Joseph F. Smith ask his questions in the first place was the fact that he could not see anyway for the Savior to have sufficient time to preach to so many people who had already died. Without realizing it Joseph F. Smith had certain implicit metaphysical assumptions that determined what kinds of questions he would ask and what kinds of answers he would look for. Joseph F. Smith operated with a certain subconscious understanding of time that created a paradox that necessitated an answer.

If Joseph F. Smith had lived much later in our day and had asked the same question, "How could the Savior do more in three days than he had done in three years on Earth?" he would have different options available to answer this question regarding time. But for him, this question presented an unresolvable paradox. If members of the Church did not have the benefit of Joseph F. Smith's revelation and asked the same question today, a number of people would probably invoke the principles of relativity and relative time.

Possible answers could have included things like, "The flow of time is different in the spirit world.", or "Time is only something relevant to mortality, so the Savior was not bound by time constraints in the spirit world." Any of these answers would have lessened the urgency of resolving the three day time constraint on the Savior, and could have possibly lead Joseph F. Smith to consider his questions differently, or even a different set of questions.

Because of the proliferation of Einstein's theories of relativity we have a very different fundamental understanding of time than people previously had. Generally we do not even realize the immense difference in how we collectively understand time compared to even 100 years ago. The idea that time can flow at different rates, or that time is relative to the observer, has so permeated our society that major Hollywood movies can use the idea as a crucial plot point and we do not even consider how strange a concept it is for time to flow differently or fail to grasp the relative nature of time. Even the concept of time travel is a relatively modern concept that we do not realize entirely depends on certain crucial ontological concepts of time that have only entered our collective consciousness in the past 100 years.

For Joseph F. Smith his subconscious concept of time worked very differently from ours. He was not acculturated to a relative or even a dimensional understanding of time. For him time was the same for everyone, everywhere including the spirit world, and, even though it was subconscious and unintentional, how he understood time was central to the paradox that he faced. If he had a different subconscious concept of time then his approach to the question of how did the Savior accomplish in three days what he did not manage to do in three years would have turned out differently. Perhaps he would not have pondered the question in the same way, or he would have gone looking in different directions for different answers to resolve the issues that weighed on his mind.

My point is, when Joseph F. Smith was faced with certain questions, the ones that were the most paradoxical for him and presented the greatest challenge, were the ones that were only present because of how he subconsciously viewed time. The implicit cultural assumptions he unintentionally held placed boundaries on the kinds of questions he would ask, and the kinds of answers he sought. His ontology (his fundamental understanding of the nature of existence) informed the structure of the questions and paradoxes he faced.

In this case the unstated, and unintentional, prepositions of Joseph F. Smith lead him to a question that could be answered by revelation. In fact, his assumptions about the nature of time made his questioning possible. If he had a different understanding of time then he may not have been forced to reckon with his uncertainty in the same way. So his subconscious assumptions on the nature of time were beneficial and greatly simplified the issue he was considering. But it does not always turn out that way.

Quite often we are faced with paradoxes or questions we cannot find an answer for. Frequently the paradox only exists because of the subconscious, unintentional choices we have made in understanding the world. Many times I see people of faith asking some form of the question, "How does XYZ work if ABC?" or, "How can XYZ be true when ABC is true?" For them these are paradoxical questions for which there is no solution. But quite often the paradox only exists because of unstated assumptions they have made without even realizing it. Many such questions, such as the relationship between science and religion, are entirely dependent on subconscious assumptions we have made regarding the nature of science, scripture, authority, and revelation (not to mention epistemology, language, metaphysics, and God himself).

Sometimes the answer to someone's question simply requires the right information with an acceptable explanation. But other times the paradox lies entirely in unstated assumptions the person has made. These are the most difficult to address, because recognizing our own unstated assumptions about reality, and identifying them as the source of our confusion, is perhaps one of the most difficult human tasks in existence. It is easier to change someone's behavior than it is to make them realize that the intractable paradoxes that seemingly have no resolution are the result of unintentional assumptions they have made about the nature of reality itself. And the most difficult of these already difficult conflicts are the ones that are most closely bound to someone's identity.

In summary, I have used the example of Joseph F. Smith and the questions he faced about the spirit world to point out certain assumptions he had about the nature of time that may be very different from our assumptions today. Using this, I introduced the idea that the assumptions we unintentionally and subconsciously make can, in part, determine the types of questions we ask, and what we might consider to be an intractable paradox. Some questions can be answered through discovering new information, but other more paradoxical questions can only be resolved by considering what underlying assumptions we have unintentionally made about reality. Addressing these more paradoxical questions is a difficult endeavor that takes patience, experience, and practice. But by first recognizing that these unstated assumptions exist we can be more aware of assumptions that make some questions seemingly unanswerable, and ultimately give us a path towards resolving these paradoxes. Sometimes finding the answer to a question requires realizing that we are asking the wrong question.

A New Christian Symbol

Last night President Russell M. Nelson announced a new symbol for the Church of Jesus Christ to use. The new symbol has a depiction of Jesus under an arch symbolically representing the tomb. He is standing upon a corner stone with the name of the Church on it. If we take the simplest form of this symbol there are many other meanings that we can give it. Like many symbols of religions through out the world it is very simple, but can contain intense meanings.

Here are possible interpretations of this symbol:

• It is the door of the empty tomb after the resurrection of Jesus.
• It is an open door to the Church, inviting others to enter.
• It is gateway leading us into the path of Eternal Life. The gateway is baptism, which is symbolic of the grave and of resurrection.
• It is the windows of heaven.
• It is a doorway to a new life.
• It is an open door of fellowship and friendship. Our door is always open.
• The stone is the corner stone representing Christ.
• The stone is the Rock upon which we should build.
• It is the foundation of the Church and the Gospel.
• It is the welcome mat to our homes.
• It contains the steps to the doorway to heaven.

It's a very simple symbol but can have many meanings.

How can salt lose its flavor?

Answer: It can't. And that's the point.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus tells his disciples,

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot." -- Matthew 5:13

Whenever this verse is discussed in Sunday School someone invariable asks the question, "How does salt lose its flavor?" Then the inevitable answer comes, "This happens when it is mixed with or contaminated by other elements." And then a discussion follows where the participants discuss the need to "keep ourselves pure" from outside influences so that we can be the "salt of the earth", uncontaminated by the world.

By thinking in it this way we are unconsciously tying it to the purity doctrine. In this sense the purpose of being the salt of the earth is to keep the salt uncontaminated by anything and everything. We don't want to dilute it, so we can't mix it with anything.

But if you stop and think about the verse and its context, that is the exact opposite of its meaning. This is an example of looking beyond the mark.

By asking the question, "How does salt lose its flavor?" we are unconsciously projecting our modern worldview onto the Bible. We are making an assumption about how to approach and interpret that verse that subtlety leads us in a wrong direction. To understand this we must know that the question "How does salt lose its flavor?" is a modern question, and was not on the minds of Christians throughout the ages.

In an ancient setting salt was salt. To those listening to Jesus they understood salt as a thing they put on and in their food. They did not think of it as a chemical element that can be mixed with other similar chemicals to change its overall composition. This understanding is a result of our modern worldview.

To people in ancient days, if a white crystalline powder tasted salty, then it was salt. If it didn't, it wasn't. That didn't mean it was mixed with impurities. The question of how the chemical salt (NaCl) could no longer taste salty was a mystery that popped up in Biblical commentaries in the 1800's. There are tales of travelers who went to Palestine and literally went around licking rocks to try and figure out how salt could lose it flavor.

Unfortunately they were being mislead by imposing a modern understanding onto the Bible.

A better way of understanding this verse is like this:

Jesus, "My followers, I want you to be like salt, but for everyone on earth. As you know salt is very important. We use it in our food all the time. What does bread taste like if you don't put salt in it? It tastes terrible and is not good to eat! What does soup or stew or meat taste like without salt? It's very bland! Do you want to eat it? No? I didn't think so!"

"So I want you to be like that! Necessary for everything, and the thing that gives flavor to the people of the earth. I want you to give everyone a reason to enjoy life and not be so bland! Just remember, that is what salt is good for!"

"If salt didn't taste salty what would we use it for? Would we use it for food? No! Would we use it for building? No! Would we use it for jewelry? No! Would we use it for anything? No! We would just throw it out like dirt!"

"I want you to be the salt of the earth. And if salt wasn't salty, there nothing else that can be used to give the earth back the flavor of salt! Without you life would be bland! Give life flavor!"

Unfortunately all that understanding just doesn't fit into a pithy little saying. But with this we get a better sense of what Jesus meant. He didn't want his followers to be untouched by the world. He didn't want them to separate themselves from everything, completely unmixed with the world. He wanted his followers to bring their goodness into the world and make life flavorful!

Hiding the pure salt in a jar so that it never is contaminated makes the salt useless! It is like a lighting a lamp and putting it under a basket! Connecting this verse to the purity doctrine is the exact opposite of its intended purpose.

Seasons of the Church

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.
                          -- Ecclesiastes 3:1

In the April 2018 General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ there were some changes announced to programs that had been in place for many years. These changes were warmly welcomed by many members, with a few expressing anxiety about practical implementations. In all of the changes a few scattered voices opined, "Finally we can do away with that burdensome old program!"

I have seen a few changes to Church policy over the years. During my mission we made the shift away from memorized discussions to using prepared lessons. As soon as the change was announced the American missionaries universally tossed aside the discussion booklets and said, "Hallelujah!" But some Latino missionaries took longer to change. They were accustomed to the previous method, some of them had joined the Church because of those discussions, so they were reluctant to give them up.

When the change was made in both cases it was immediately apparent that the new method worked better. We had better talks with people about the Church, and being able to really care for members instead of checking to make sure home teaching is done by the end of the month really makes a difference.

So what about the old ways? Were they for nothing? Were they the wrong thing to do?

Obviously not. At the time they were the new method. They made things easier. They improved on the old way of doing things. At one point members looked at the new method and said, "Finally we can do away with that burdensome old program!"

There is a temptation to say that if they are the wrong thing to do now, they were the wrong thing to do in the first place. I think that is a mistaken way of seeing it. The Church, the world, and society has changed in small and subtle ways, and will continue to change.

As we go into a new season of the Church there will be changes to how we do things. Policies may change. Even some things that may seem more than policy will be implemented differently in the Church. Eventually changes will be made to priesthood quorums. Right now Aaronic Priesthood quorums are tied to age. At some point they may not. The missionary program may change. How we conduct church services may change. They hymnbook is changing already.

Those changes will come and when they do, it does not mean what we did before, or what we are doing now is wrong, or counterproductive. It is just a different season of the Church. To everything, live in the season of the Church and neither condemn nor wish for what was before.

A Fundamental Disconnect in What is Important

I spend a lot of time reading a variety of views on the Church and Mormonism in general. Every so often some online community of saints or former saints who are critical of the Church whip themselves into a moral panic. They talk about all the problems with the Church and bring out a laundry list of things that must be talked about or things that every Church member should know. Whenever I spend too much time listening to the tinkling cymbals and sounding brass I listen to what the Church leaders are actually concerned about and what they are talking about I notice a fundamental disconnect between what the Church critics think is important and what Church leaders think is important.

I was reminded of this when a visiting General Authority spoke in my ward a few months ago, and again last General Conference, and again today.

Brigham Young and the Aliens on the Sun

The title for this post is something you would expect from a cheap pulp science fiction novel rather than a serious discussion about religion. But it was a topic that I was reminded of recently. While by no means is this a common criticism against Brigham Young, or the Church in general, but it is something that is occasionally brought up in mocking comments online.

Usually these comments take the form, "Brigham Young believed people lived on the sun! That's ridiculous! It's proof he was an idiot/fool/ignorant and we can't trust anything he said."

Did Brigham Young actually believe that people lived on the sun? And if he did what are we to think of that based on our current understanding of the universe?

So did Brigham Young believe that people lived on the sun? On July 24th, 1869 Brigham Young was speaking at a Church conference and as part of his un-prepared remarks he made the following statement:

"So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain."

That seem to make the case very straight forward. It's unambiguous. He said he believes it. We know from modern science that people do not live on the sun. Brigham Young was mistaken. Case closed.

Well that was a short blog post.

Except, as my favorite comedy troupe once said, context is everything.

If we are to consider the context we must first look at the general scientific context in which Brigham Young made that statement, and second consider the context within the rest of his discourse. Both contexts are very illuminating.

So what was the scientific context at the time? If you went to an "expert" or and "authority" during the mid 1800's and asked them if the sun, moon, and all the planets were inhabited what answer would you get?

The idea that the planets of the solar system are inhabited, referred to as the "plurality of worlds", is an idea that suddenly gained wide spread attention among astronomers and philosophers in the early 1700's. It had been discussed before then but it was only considered a theological question before then. But with the spread of Newtonian ideas, questions about the exact nature of other worlds suddenly became very important.

Previously the realm of the sun, moon, and stars was considered to be entirely distinct form that of the earth. The laws of nature were different "up there". The stuff that made up the heavens was just different from the stuff that made up the sphere of the earth. But the Newtonian revolution introduced the idea that the same laws that governed the earth also governed the heavens. That radically altered the way people perceived the sun, moon, planets, and stars.

New and improved telescopes helped us understand that the planets were spheres just like the earth. This precipitated the idea that not only were the sun, moon, and planets governed by the same laws, but in many ways they were just like the earth. This meant that they had oceans, seas, continents, plants, animals, intelligent beings, just like the earth.

These ideas were speculative and did not appear in any major textbook on astronomy of the time, but they were discussed and mentioned among scholars and other well read men, much in the same way the idea of wormholes and parallel universes are viewed today. They are not strictly scientific, and they do not appear in major textbooks on astronomy. But while some scholars think they do not exist, others speculate that they are possible, and they do pop up in popular literature and news.

While the concept of plurality of worlds (i.e. the sun, moon, and planets inhabited by intelligent beings) was never a major point of scientific inquiry it did show up in the writings of some influential individuals.

On April 25, 1756 John Adams wrote in his diary,

"Astronomers tell us, with good Reason, that not only all the Planets and Satellites in our Solar System, but all the unnumbered Worlds that revolve round the fixt Starrs are inhabited, as well as this Globe of Earth."

In the late 1700's the idea of the plurality of worlds was considered to be so well established by reason that Thomas Paine writing in The Age of Reason used the idea to criticize Christianity saying,

"to believe that God created a plurality of worlds, at least as numerous as what we call stars, renders the Christian system of faith at once little and ridiculous, and scatters it in the mind like feathers in the air."

By the early 1800's famous astronomer William Herschel wrote:

"The sun, viewed in this light appears to be nothing else than a very eminent, large, and lucid planet, evidently the first, or in strictness of speaking, the only primary one of our system.... Its similarity to the other globes of the solar system with regard to its solidity, its atmosphere, and its diversified surface; the rotation upon its axis, and the fall of heavy bodies, leads us on to suppose that it is most probably also inhabited, like the rest of the planets, by beings whose organs are adapted to the peculiar circumstances of that vast globe. Whatever fanciful poets might say, in making the sun the abode of blessed spirits, or angry moralists devise, in pointing it out as a fit place for the punishment of the wicked, it does not appear that they had any other foundation for their assertions than mere opinion and vague surmise; but now I think myself authorized, upon astronomical principles, to propose the sun as an inhabitable world, and am persuaded that the foregoing observations, with the conclusions I have drawn from them, are fully sufficient to answer every objection that may be made against it." (Emphasis in original.)

Here we see an interesting argument from Herschel. He states that because the sun behaves just like the other planets, it must be inhabited just like the other planets. This argument, he believes, is so obvious that it is "fully sufficient to answer every objection that may be made against it." This is a good example of a logical conclusion stemming from the Newtonian revolution.

A central assumption of the new wave of science was that the same things we observe on earth can be observed in the heavens. Because the sun had many of the same characteristics as the earth it was natural to assume that the sun was inhabited just like the earth.

This idea was taken a step further in 1837 by a popularizer of science named Thomas Dick who used the population density of England to estimate the population of the Earth, the moon, the planets along with all of their moons including Saturn's rings, along with the sun. His calculations assumed that all the sun, planets and moons, including Saturn's rings, had continents and oceans. Again this was based on the assumption that because the heavens were like the earth, all things we observe on earth were in the heavens.

But how could these learned men think this? Didn't they know that the sun was a giant ball of hot gas and quite impossible of supporting life? Didn't they know that the moon had no atmosphere?

It is easy for us to look back with hundreds of years of scientific observations and incredible advancements in telescope technology and say, "Obviously...." But back then it was not so obvious. It had only been a few hundred years since astronomers realized that there were mountains on the moon. And the discovery of mountains on the moon confirmed the growing assumption that the heavens were just like the Earth. Hence the "seas" (Mare) on the moon. It was not until the end of the 1800's that telescopes were advanced enough to cast serious doubt about the existence of oceans and even atmosphere on the moon.

But what about the sun? Why would astronomers think that the sun could be inhabited?

While astronomers certainly worked out that any life on the sun would be subject to intense bright light, this was right when the modern study of spectroscopy was just beginning. Absorption lines were first discovered in 1814, but it was not until 1859 that these absorption lines were first associated with specific chemical elements. That is, it wasn't until 1859 that scientists could even discuss, scientifically, the composition of the sun. It was at the same time, and mostly by the same scientists, that we began to understand the concept of black body radiation. This allowed us to measure the temperature of the sun, and is to this day the exact same method we use to measure the temperature of all stars.

The Newtonian idea that the heavens were just like the Earth had only been confirmed up until then. And while this added even more evidence to the list of reasons why the heavens were just like the Earth, it was the beginning of the end for that assumption. Unfortunately for Herschel, his argument was not the final word, and his reasoning could not "answer every objection that may be made against it."

Over the next 100 years we made many more discoveries that greatly undermined the idea of the plurality of worlds. The first to go was the idea that the sun and moon were inhabited and then later the dream of men from Jupiter and Saturn. The Martians and Venusians were the last to go. But before they did they inspired a generation of science fiction writers.

While we look back on science fiction from the very late 1800's and the 1900's as quaint, simplistic, and "Obviously they got it wrong." We forget that they were not writing fantasy. They were writing science in a fictional setting. They were dealing with the possible, and not with the imaginary.

In 1952 the scientist and author Isaac Asimov began a series of books about a character named David Starr who had many adventures all over the solar system. In the books he travels to Mars and meets Martians, and travels to the oceans of Venus. Later when the books were collected into an anthology in the 1970's Asimov wrote an introduction in which he apologized for getting the science wrong. It was only after our probes to Mars, Venus, and the other planets that the idea of (current) life on the other planets of the solar system died out as a matter of science.

That these old conceptions of life on the moon, the planets and the sun were wrong is only obvious now, and as such are frequently put on the same shelf as fantasy. But they were once a matter of science.

While these ideas never rose to the level of "settled science" they were a matter of discussion and debate, and at the end of the 1800's they captured the imagination of a generation of authors. But with more knowledge a great portion of the speculation passed from science into fantasy.

So how does this affect our view of the past? What about those who thought that the sun, moon, and planets were inhabited just like the Earth? Does this misconception invalidate everything else they said and did?

Does Uranus some how cease to exist and do telescopes cease to function because William Herschel thought the sun was inhabited? Is all past and future work of the Royal Astronomical Society invalidated because their first president once had an idea that he thought was sound, and later was shown to be implausible? Are the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution invalid because John Adams thought the moon was inhabited? Is Washington DC somehow not the capital of the US because John Adams heard the arguments of the astronomers of his day and was convinced by them? Just because someone though something was common sense, and it later turned out not to be so, does that upend all things that we know?

A similar set of questions can be asked about Brigham Young. Was he somehow ignorant to accept the statements of astronomers of his day? Does the fact that he did not know everything somehow invalidate his work to lead the Church? Does God cease to exist because a prophet was free to exercise his own mind in trying to understand the universe? Do we expect God to remove the agency of His servants just to spare the bruised egos of a few doubting critics 150 years after the fact?

In our approach to what we know and what we do not, and how we grow in our knowledge and understanding, we must remain humble. There were certain things, the Constitution, the science of astronomy, that were not invalidated because someone connected to them once thought something that later proved to be wrong, nor are the organizations they helped found called into question because they operated on incomplete knowledge.

This realization, that men of science can be mistaken, is especially relevant because it was precisely the point of Brigham Young's talk back in 1869 when he mentioned the men in the sun. If you read it and consider the context you will find very little to criticize and perhaps more to think about.

Cheating at Connect the Dots: Failing to see the whole picture of Mormonism

Recently I was reading an article by a historian of Mormon history and it got me thinking about playing connect the dots. You see, playing connect the dots is easy... if you ignore most the dots. Consider the image below. It contains a number of different color dots. The question is, can you see the star in the dots?

How about now? Can you see the star? All I have done is emphasize a few important dots, and now all I have to do is connect the dots.

With the dots now connected the star is easy to see. Sure the dots aren't perfectly aligned with the star but that's only because I didn't take the time fully flesh out the star. With a little more work the misalignment could be fixed and the minor discrepancies could be smoothed over. Only those who are extremely nitpicky will complain about the misalignment, and that only distracts from my point that there is a red star in there.

So why am I talking about a manufactured star and connecting the dots? As historians approach history, by definition, they do not have all the facts, nor were they impartial observers of the totality of events. It is the job of a historian to take as much information as possible and attempt to build a coherent image of the past, or at least a single person or event, based on as much information as possible. Historian effectively play an extremely complicated game of connect the dots.

Their work is very similar to mine, I cannot go directly and observe stars and galaxies close up, nor can I see how they behave over millions and billions of years, so I am reduced to playing a very complicated game of connect the dots.

But in these games there are certain rules. It is easy to connect the dots of history into just about any natural progression of events after the fact. But in doing so we have to be careful not to ignore those things that undermine the point we are trying to make.

For example, I could use the Declaration of Independence, Shays' Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, and the modern Tea Party to make the case that the founding principle of the United States is rebellion and distrust of government. I could probably write a fairly convincing argument, backed up with quotes from Thomas Jefferson, centered on the idea that to be American is to rebel.

But in order to make this argument I would have to ignore many other important founding principles of American society, such as representative democracy, constitutional government, separation of powers, personal liberties, and English common law. A similar argument regarding many other aspects of American society showing a coherent progression of history culminating in the latest manifestation of that defining characteristic. In fact most modern political positions attempt to do just that by tying current debates to what are assumed to be foundational principles.

Whenever we do this we run the risk of taking a few minor points of history and trying to superimpose a particular overall shape or interpretation to it. This is even more tempting when a few of the points are not just minor, but seemingly dominate the historical map (just like in the second image above). If I were to make the case that rebellion runs deep in American society I could make that argument quite persuasively using well known events such as the Revolutionary War, but to say that the United States is founded on rebellion ignores the fact that the United States was not organized from rebellion, but under a constitution formed out of democratic compromise. And it ignores the fact that the vast majority of American history did not involve rebellion, but democratic debate and the application of constitutional law.

So when I recently read an article by Grant Shreve entitled How Mormons Have Made Religion Out of Doubt, I thought about how he was connecting the dots. In his article Shreve makes the case that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded on the idea of an evolving scriptural canon." While this is certainly true because it is a large and important point in LDS thought, he connects this central idea to other contemporary and historical events in such a way that he is effectively playing connect the dots by blatantly ignoring other large and just as important parts of LDS thought.

Shreve uses the story of James Colin Brewster to try to show that "If the church seems to have lost its way, a new revelation may be just around the bend." and that "The legacy of James Colin Brewster and numerous other Mormon dissidents lives on in the Remnant, a diffuse international movement of disaffected Mormons." This Remnant organization that Shreve sees as a natural product of LDS though, "answers the doubts many Mormons harbor by offering more revelations and additional scriptures."

Thus Shreve takes the idea of an open canon and makes the case that these historical and contemporary dissident movements are simply a natural extension of LDS thought. But in making this argument Shreve ignores other important points just as integral to LDS thought. Points such as priesthood authority and keys, and church hierarchy. He does briefly acknowledge these things, but they are not mentioned as foundational and fundamental to LDS thought.

While Shreve uses the concept of the open canon to make his point he completely ignores the actual content of that new canon. Just as someone might argue that the United States was founded on rebellion, they would have to ignore the fact that the United States is actually founded on constitutional democracy. They would have to ignore the bulk of US history and law.

The concepts of priesthood authority and church hierarchy are acknowledged by Shreve, but he views these not as foundational but later additions where Joseph Smith sought to "consolidated revelatory power in himself and a select cadre of elites." Furthermore, the structure of the church is only described in negative terms such as "elaborate", "complex" and made of "byzantine bureaucracies" which "disrupted the mystical and communal experiences of Mormonism’s salad days."

Thus the point that Shreve is trying to make is that the impulse to have new mystical revelations is the natural state of Mormonism, with new prophets popping up "if the church seems to have lost its way" to provide new books of revelation. Thus, based on this reasoning, the Remnant movement is truly following the principle started by Joseph Smith, and the elaborate, complex and byzantine bureaucracies of the modern LDS church only serve to stifle the true expression of Mormonism.

Unfortunately this game of connecting the dots blatantly ignores much of the rest of the content of Mormonism. The "consolidation of revelatory power" was not a late development imposed by Joseph Smith, but rather was an early and foundational principle. If we ignore this fact, we fail to see the whole picture of Mormonism.

Frank Cannon and the Three Principles of the Church

This is an excerpt from the book Under the Prophet in Utah by former US Senator from Utah, Frank J. Cannon (with extensive help from co-author Harvey J. O'Higgins), the son of LDS apostle George Q. Cannon. This book was written in 1911 many years after Frank Cannon had left the church and after several years as the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune where he wrote extensively against the church and its policies. What is interesting is the first hand accounts of some of the crucial deliberations among church leaders about the decision to discontinue the practice of polygamy. This excerpt contains a conversation between Frank and his father George, who at the time was a councilor to President Wilford Woodruff. It gives an account of what President Cannon thought was the important work of the church and how it would prove the salvation of the country.

Keep in mind the time that this was written. There are certain words, such as socialism and communism, that carry significant weight now because of significant historical events in the 20th century. This happened before any of that. Also keep in mind that Frank Cannon was a strong proponent of a certain brand of political thought that has no direct equivalent in our current political discourse, though it shares certain words and emphasis with some parts of our current politics.

The closest analogue we have today is libertarianism, which, to reduce it to something woefully simplistic, is to always take position against government in order to preserve personal liberties. Frank Cannon's approach was to always take a position in favor of government in order to preserve personal liberties. This necessitated removing all outside influence from government, whether from corporations, banks, businesses, unions, or churches. It is a position almost entirely missing from current political discourse, and one that can easily be misunderstood.

By 1911 the political party that Frank Cannon had been associated with was disbanded. The party was founded on the ideas of social liberalism and anti-Mormonism (keep in mind that those terms are currently loaded with additional ideas that were not present in 1911). It is in this context that the book was written specifically to attempt to disrupt the political influence of the church in Utah. It was a very different time, very different circumstances, and a very different recent history, though we can see similarities to our situation today.

********************************

[George Q. Cannon] talked a few minutes, affectionately, about family matters, and then—straightening his shoulders to the burden of more gravity—he said: "I have sent for you, my son, to see if you cannot find some way to help us in our difficulties. I have made it a matter of prayer, and I have been led to urge you to activity. You have never performed a Mission for the Church, and I have sometimes wondered if you cared anything about your religion. You have never obeyed the celestial covenant, and you have kept yourself aloof from the duties of the priesthood, but it may have been a providential overruling. I have talked with some of the brethren, and we feel that if relief does not soon appear, our community will be scattered and the great work crushed. The Lord can rescue us, but we must put forth our own efforts. Can you see any light?"

I replied that I had already been in Washington twice, on my own initiative, conferring with some of his Congressional friends. "I am still," I said, "of the opinion I expressed to you and President Taylor four years ago. Plural marriage must be abandoned or our friends in Washington will not defend us." Four years before, when I had offered that opinion, President Taylor had cried out: "No! Plural marriage is the will of God! It's apostasy to question it!" And I paused now with the expectation that my father would say something of this sort. But, as I was afterwards to observe, it was part of his diplomacy, in conference, to pass the obvious opportunity of replying, and to remain silent when he was expected to speak, so that he might not be in the position of following the lead of his opponent's argument, but rather, by waiting his own time, be able to direct the conversation to his own purposes. He listened to me, silently, his eyes fixed on my face.

"Senator Vest of Missouri," I went on, "has always been a strong opponent of what he considered unconstitutional legislation against us, but he tells me he'll no longer oppose proscription if we continue in an attitude of defiance. He says you're putting yourselves beyond assistance, by organized rebellion against the administration of the statutes.' And I continued with instances of others among his friends who had spoken to the same purpose.

When I had done, he took what I had said with a gesture that at once accepted and for the moment dismissed it; and he proceeded to a larger consideration of the situation, in words which I cannot pretend to recall, but to an effect which I wish to outline—because it not only accounts for the preservation of the Mormon people from all their dangers, but contains a reason why the world might have wished to see them preserved.

The Mormons at this time had never written a line on social reform—except as the so-called "revelations" established a new social order—but they had practiced whole volumes. Their community was founded on the three principles of co-operation, contribution, and arbitration. By co-operation of effort they had realized that dream of the Socialists, "equality of opportunity"—not equality of individual capacity, which the accidents of nature prevent, but an equal opportunity for each individual to develop himself to the last reach of his power. By contribution—by requiring each man to give one-tenth of his income to a common fund—they had attained the desired end of modern civilization, the abolition of poverty, and had adjusted the straps of the community burden to the strength of the individual to bear it. By arbitration, they had effected the settlement of every dispute of every kind without litigation; for their High Councils decided all sorts of personal or neighborhood disputes without expense of money to the disputants. The "storehouse of the Lord" had been kept open to fill every need of the poor among "God's people," and opportunities for self-help had been created out of the common fund, so that neither unwilling idleness nor privation might mar the growth of the community or the progress of the individual. But Joseph Smith had gone further. Daring to believe himself the earthly representative of Omnipotence, whose duty it was to see that all had the rights to which he thought them entitled, and assuming that a woman's chief right was that of wifehood and maternity, he had instituted the practice of plural marriage, as a "Prophet of God," on the authority of a direct revelation from the Almighty. It was upon this rock that the whole enterprise, the whole experiment in religious communism, now threatened to split. Not that polygamy was so large an incident in the life of the community—for only a small proportion of the Mormons were living in plural marriage. And not that this practice was the cardinal sin of Mormonism—for among intelligent men, then as now, the great objection to the Church was its assumption of a divine authority to hold the "temporal power," to dictate in politics, to command action and to acquit of responsibility. But polygamy was the offence against civilization which the opponents of Mormonism could always cite in order to direct against the Church the concentrated antagonism of the governments of the Western world. And my father, in authorizing me to proceed to Washington as a sort of ambassador of the Church, evidently wished to impress upon me the larger importance of the value of the social experiment which the Mormons had, to this time, so successfully advanced.

"It would be a cruel waste of human effort," he said, "if, after having attained comfort in these valleys—established our schools of art and science—developed our country and founded our industries—we should now be destroyed as a community, and the value of our experience lost to the world. We have a right to survive. We have a duty to survive. It would be to the profit of the nation that we should survive."

But in order to survive, it was necessary to obtain some immediate mitigation of the enforcement of the laws against us. The manner in which they were being enforced was making compromise impossible, and the men who administered them stood in the way of getting a favorable hearing from the powers of government that alone could authorize a compromise. It was necessary to break this circle; and my father went over the names of the men in Washington who might help us. I could marvel at his understanding of these men and their motives, but we came to no plan of action until I spoke of what had been with me a sort of forlorn hope that I might appeal to President Cleveland himself.

My father said thoughtfully: "What influence could you, a Republican, have with him? It's true that your youth may make an appeal—and the fact that you're pleading for your relatives, while not yourself a polygamist. But he would immediately ask us to abandon plural marriage, and that is established by a revelation from God which we cannot disregard. Even if the Prophet directed us, as a revelation from God, to abandon polygamy, still the nation would have further cause for quarrel because of the Church's temporal rule. No. I can make no promise. I can authorize no pledge. It must be for the Prophet of God to say what is the will of the Lord. You must see President Woodruff, and after he has asked for the will of the Lord I shall be content with his instruction."

Now, I do not wish to say—though I did then believe it—that the First Councillor of the Mormon Church was prepared to have the doctrine of plural marriage abandoned in order to have the people saved. It is impossible to predicate the thoughts of a man so diplomatic, so astute, and at the same time so deeply religious and so credulous of all the miracles of faith. He did believe in Divine guidance. He was sincere in his submission to the "revelations" of the Prophet. But, in the complexity of the mind of man, even such a faith may be complicated with the strategies of foresight, and the priest who bows devoutly to the oracle may yet, even unconsciously, direct the oracle to the utterance of his desire. And if my father was—as I suspected—considering a recession from plural marriage, he had as justification the basic "revelation," given through "Joseph the Prophet," commanding that the people should hold themselves in subjection to the government under which they lived, "until He shall come Whose right it is to rule."

Why did Nephi pray?

In response to my post on Laman and Lemuel my mother asked, "Why did Nephi pray?" In my previous post I explained that, based on the culture of the time, Laman and Lemuel may not have considered it proper to pray to ask God to know something. It would have been more in keeping with their culture to seek out a seer, or someone with an item used for divination. Without a seer to answer their questions the only valid way of understanding prophecy would be to figure it out through reason. When reason was inadequate they had no way of gaining further insight into revelation from God.

When we approach the story we usually take note of Laman and Lemuel's failure to pray and identify with Nephi's apparent natural understanding about the role of prayer in revelation. But when we consider Nephi's reaction to his father's vision we have to keep in mind that not only are we reading it through our cultural lens, but also we are reading the version of the story that Nephi wrote many years later. By the time he wrote his story Nephi may have been much more comfortable with praying to receive knowledge through revelation, but it may not have been that way at the time.

We can deduce that there was one particular scripture that impacted how Nephi viewed revelation and prayer because he quoted it to Laman and Lemuel. In 1 Nephi 15:11 Nephi says,

"Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said?—If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you."

This verse was evidently on the brass plates, but is not found in our Old Testament. We do not know when Nephi first encountered this verse, but it may have only been read by Lehi and his family just a few days before. In retelling this story many years later, Nephi carefully incorporates this verse into his exchange with his brothers (see how verse 10 sets up how verse 11 applies to the situation). But at the time Nephi may have only recently learned of that verse, and much like Joseph Smith with James 1:5, took it seriously. The same verse may not have had the same impact, or even been noticed by Laman and Lemuel.

But in 1 Nephi 11:20-21, Nephi mentions that his brothers were humbled and began to ask sincere questions. They must have found that verse convincing, but that would also mean that they were not familiar with it, so Nephi must have also just learned that verse when they acquired the brass plates.

So why did Nephi pray? He did it because he read the scriptures and found out that he could. It is "obvious" to us now, and it was obvious to Nephi later in life, but at the time it was a new thing.

Laman and Lemuel Did Not Think of Themselves as Apostate

In Sunday School lessons in the Church when we discuss Laman and Lemuel we tend to portray them as faithless, scheming, disobedient reprobates who still mummer and complain even after they are shown miracles and angels. Many seem to have a cartoon image of Laman as the stereotypical cartoon villain, complete with evil goatee, and Lemuel as his whiny, dimwitted sidekick.

This simple portrayal seems so obvious, because how else could someone see an angel, experience miracles, hear the word of the Lord, and still not believe? Obviously they had to be faithless schemers or why else would they reject the plain truths as taught by Nephi? They don't even bother to pray, and if they can't even do something as simple and fundamental as that, then obviously they don't have faith and care nothing for religion and eternal truths. Right? Are they really just the faithless, wayward sons of a good man and a prophet? 

Previously I have written about the complex social and religious environment that produced what we now know as the Old Testament. The time of Lehi was an interesting period in history. There was major political upheaval, a previous king of Judah had pushed through some major religious reforms, new histories were being compiled, and differing strands of religious thought were vying for supremacy.

If we read Jeremiah in the Bible we can get a sense that there was disagreement between groups of priests about political matters. There seems to be one group who were very much in support of the king and another that supported Jeremiah. While we may look back and say, "Obviously they should have supported Jeremiah." For those living at the time it may not have been so clear since those opposed to Jeremiah included the High Priest. But even this "picking sides" was not so straight forward since even those who opposed Jeremiah held him in high regard. When the king learned that Jeremiah was in prison he arranged for him to be rescued.

We learn from Nephi that his father Lehi supported Jeremiah, while Laman and Lemuel probably supported the monarchists and the High Priest. One of the harshest criticisms that Lehi leveled against his sons was that they were planning to do to him what the Elders had done to Jeremiah. This was not a criticism that Laman and Lemuel took lightly, but in fact took very seriously. By reading Nephi's account we can easily get the impression that Laman and Lemuel never listened to their father. But if we read carefully we can see that they listened to his prophecies and followed his commands. They did after all go get the brass plates, and they did attempt to buy them with all that they had. They did hold reverence for the word of God.

While some have tried to explain Laman and Lemuel's obedience to their father as some manifestation of the high regard that their culture gave to obedience to parents, that seems like a gross over simplification of the culture at the time, and still does not explain why they chose to follow Nephi at many points.

When we consider the interaction between Laman, Lemuel, and Nephi we unknowingly impose our modern biases on the story. To illustrate this let us consider perhaps the most over used but entirely misinterpreted interaction between Nephi and his brothers.

In 1 Nephi 8 we have recorded Lehi's famous vision of the tree of life. Immediately after this experience Nephi "desired to know the things that [his] father had seen" and thus sought and received the revelatory experience recorded in 1 Nephi 11-14. Upon returning to the camp where his family was staying Nephi found Laman and Lemuel debating the vision of their father. Prompted by Nephi's questions Laman and Lemuel responded, "Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the olive tree, and also concerning the Gentiles."

This response prompted Nephi to ask the question that forms the basis of so many seminary, institute, Sunday School lessons, Sacrament meeting talks and question prompts in church manuals.

"And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?"
"And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us."

To us, Nephi's question is so blindingly obvious, and Laman and Lemuel's response so typical of non-believers that it may not occur to us that Laman and Lemuel could very well have a rational reason for not praying to know the interpretation. In our culture we are accustomed to the concept of praying. For us the most fundamental way we interact with the divine is to pray. It is so ingrained in our culture that we do not realize that in a different culture it may not be so obvious.

In our culture it is natural for us to ask, "Have ye inquired of the Lord?" We would think it very odd to go looking for someone who could use divination to answer our questions. In our culture the practice of using peep stones, divination in cups, and seemingly magical items is not considered socially acceptable or valid for divine communication. But in the culture at the time of Lehi not only was divination acceptable, but firmly entrenched as the preeminent method of divine communication.

In 1 Samuel 23 there is the story of David on the run from King Saul. Wanting to know the King's plans, David consulted with the priest Abiathar. In order to get an answer, David asked Abiathar to bring the ephod (part of the high priest's clothing associated with the Urim and Thummim) so that they could receive revelation from the Lord. There are other instances where questions directed to the Lord could not be answered without the use of the Urim and Thummim.

At the time of Lehi praying to ask the Lord questions was not ingrained in the culture. If someone wanted to ask the Lord a question they would have to find someone with a sacred object to be used for divination. Thus for Laman and Lemuel, if they wanted to know the interpretation of Lehi's vision, an obvious course of action would not be to pray and ask, but to find someone with a Urim and Thummim, or similar item, that could divine the answer.

When Nephi begins to explain the vision Laman and Lemuel are not passively listening, but actively asking questions. In fact they ask better questions than you would find in most Sunday School lessons about Lehi's vision. These are not the actions of non-believers who failed to ask questions. They did apply themselves and attempt to understand the vision, but because of their culture it did not occur to them that they could pray and ask the Lord for answers. They were keeping firmly within their religious tradition and thought that these were answers that could only be answered by a seer with some sacred object for divination.

It is particularly telling that after this experience, but before they traveled into the desert Lehi was given the Liahona, which was a sacred object that could communicate the word of the Lord. It was like the ephod for David, or the Urim and Thummim for the priests. It validated Lehi's position as a seer in the eyes of Laman and Lemuel. As a seer that had an object that could he could look into and see sacred communications, Lehi and his visions were established as divine. Hence Laman and Lemuel could follow him into the desert.

Also years later when they were in danger of starving in the desert Laman and Lemuel murmured against Lehi, partly because he had failed to use the Liahona. They eventually followed Nephi because he could use the Liahona, the sacred object that provided divine communication.

Sometimes there are things that are "obvious" to us and we wonder how anyone could be so dimwitted not to see the obvious. But it is important to remember that people like to think they have a good reason for doing what they do. For Laman and Lemuel praying to know the interpretation of a vision was according to their culture "weird". Using a sacred object to divine the answer was just as normal and obvious to them as praying is to us.

Approaching Higher Criticism from a Faithful Perspective, Part 3

So far I have written posts addressing the Documentary Hypothesis (DH), and a series of posts (Part I, Part II) discussing how to approach biblical criticism from a faithful perspective. In this final part of the series I will discuss how ideas such as the DH and biblical criticism can give us insight into LDS scriptures.

In the DH there are four primary sources, and at least one major editor known as the redactor, for the text of the first five books of the Bible. The idea is that the four sources were written in different geographical, social and political contexts, and thus tended to approach stories such as the flood, or creation, or Moses and Aaron in different ways. At some later date all four sources were edited and compiled into a single work to create a single coherent document that is now included in the Bible.

These editorial changes were completed sometime before the 2nd century BC because we know from the Dead Sea scrolls that the text of the first five books of the Bible have not changed significantly since then. There are minor variations, but nothing on the scale implied by the DH. This gives a hard final date of about 150 BC for the compiling of the Torah. Discussions about when the four sources were written and when the redactor did his work refer to dates as being either early or late. Generally a late date for a source is some time after the end of the Babylonian exile in about 500 BC up until the earliest date of the Dead Sea scrolls in 150 BC. If a Biblical scholar says that a source has a late date they are generally saying that it was written sometime between 500 and 150 BC*. An early date for a source generally refers to it being written sometime between 900-600 BC*.

[*This is the only asterisk I will put in. I have read a few scholars who are willing to argue about what it means to have an early or late date for a source. Some will say an early date is 600-500 BC and a late date is 200-100 BC. Some also break it down into early middle and late. For the most part I will avoid all those discussions and stick with 900-600 BC as early dates and 500-150 BC with late dates.]

There are a few major possible timelines for the timing of when the four sources (J, E, P, and D) were written and when the redactor (R) did his work. Some of these timelines require more than one redactor since some sources (J and E) were combined before all four were combined by the final redactor. Here are a few possible timelines (TL) for when the sources were written and redacted.

	Moses	Early	Late
TL1	JEPDR
TL2	JEP	DR
TL3		JEPDR
TL4		JEPD	R
TL5		JEP	DR
TL6			JEPDR

There are obviously a range of possibilities and what I have included in the table does not even begin to encompass them (for example, my own preferred timeline is not on the table). Generally Biblical scholarship centers on timelines 4-6, which assumes that none of what we now call the five books of Moses were actually written by Moses. Traditionalists, most believers, and biblical literalists insist on timelines 1 and 2 (or some slight variation of those timelines), which assumes that most of the first five books were written by Moses at a very early date. There are of course other possibilities, for example, P and portions of J and E written by Moses, and then redacted at an early date, with D written some time before 600 BC with the final redactor doing his work after 500 BC. I should also point out that even with timelines 3 and 4 that means even though J, E and P were written at an early date, the could have been based on on even earlier unknown sources.

So how is this related to an LDS understanding of scripture? As I mentioned in Part II, some of these possible timelines, namely the ones preferred by many Biblical scholars, present problems for a historical Book of Mormon, because if the first five books of Moses had not been written by 600 BC then Lehi and his family could not possibly have carried those books with them when they left Jerusalem. That would mean all references to the brass plates would be an anachronism. This has lead some members to view the Book of Mormon as not literally historical in order to reconcile their faith with the consensus of modern Biblical scholarship. But there are assumptions with a late date for all sources that I do not think matches with what we know from archaeology. I think the weight of evidence points towards an early date (at least!) for all four sources and a late, post-exile date for the redactor.

If the harmonization happened after the exile and the redactor was Ezra as proposed by Richard Elliott Friedman, then the obvious question is, "What was on the brass plates?" We know there were writings of prophets not even mentioned in the Bible, but it would also mean that what we now know as the five books of Moses was radically different than what Lehi and his family read on the brass plates. There may be important differences, and there may be major stories or prophecies left out.

For example, in Nephi 1 and 2 Lehi mentions and quotes from some of the writing of Joseph of Egypt that do not appear in the Bible. Also we know that both Lehi was descended from Manasseh, and Laban who was keeping the brass plates was related to Lehi, which means the brass plates most likely contained the version of the writings of Moses and the story of creation, the patriarchs and the history of Israel that was preserved by the Northern Kingdom. This may explain why the redactor, who was from the tribe of Judah, did not include the writings of prophets found on the brass plates mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Either the redactor, who did his work after the exile, did not have those writings because they were working from sources primarily from the Kingdom of Judah, or they chose not to include those writings due to political, theological or historical bias.

Understanding the basics of the Documentary Hypothesis can help us the rich historical context that saw the beginning of the Book of Mormon.

Another interesting point is that many of the ideas that we now associate with Judaism, such as an extreme adherence to monotheism, a firm belief that the temple can only be in Jerusalem and that it is heretical to build one outside of Jerusalem, along with many traditions surrounding Sukkot, Passover, Yom Kippur, and Rosh Hashanah, were not cemented into Jewish tradition until after the exile. This means that many of the things that we might associate with being Jewish or following the Law of Moses may not have been particularly important, influential or even in existence when Lehi and his family were living in Jerusalem. Thus many of the customs that we associate with the Law of Moses may not have been taken with Lehi and his family to the New World.

For those who have studied the Old Testament we know that the covenant that God made with King David was important and prominent in the history of the Kingdom of Judah. But the Davidic covenant would not have been something written or talked about in the Kingdom of Israel, because the descendants of King David only ruled in the Southern Kingdom. Thus Lehi whose family came from the Northern Kingdom, and who took with him the brass plates, which were most likely contained mainly records from the Northern Kingdom (with a few exceptions), would not have preserved the idea of the Davidic covenant. Because of this we find no mention of the Davidic covenant in the Book of Mormon (except for a passing reference in a Isaiah chapter quoted in its entirety), while we do find plenty of mentions of the Abrahamic covenant, and the covenant that God made with Moses. The only time King David is mentioned, is by Jacob to point out that both David and Solomon committed wickedness, abominations, and whoredoms. Not really the high praise for David normally found in the Old Testament.

By knowing that Lehi and his family may have been pulling from a different set of scriptures from the ones we have now goes a long way in explaining some of the differences.

Also many critics of the Book of Mormon are quick to point out that no self respecting Jew would think of building a temple outside of Jerusalem. But Nephi, who built a temple in the New World, never called himself a Jew, and may not have been Jewish. Also the idea that only Jerusalem could have a temple (and only one Temple) was an idea still very much in debate at the time Lehi left Jerusalem. It was King Josiah that had instituted many of the "one temple" reforms that we now associate with being part of Judaism, but that idea may not have been cemented until the work of the redactor after the exile.

Before the exile there were many different understandings about what was allowed under the Law of Moses. There may have been a few different traditions and sets of scriptures with the writings of various prophets either included or not depending on who was keeping them. What survived and ultimately became the basis for the Old Testament represents only one of those sets, which was further harmonized by someone (Ezra) who was not known for being particularly willing to have opposing views (imagine if there was some great catastrophe and Bruce R. McConkie was in charge of putting together the standard works, and a history of the church, with commentary).

By realizing that there was a complex social, political, and religious milieu surrounding the formation of the Bible can help us appreciate the complex social, political, and religious milieu surrounding the formation of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon may appear very internally consistent, but that is due to the fact that the Book of Mormon only had one redactor. We know that Mormon drew from many different records because he mentions them, but he makes the book into one complete narration with very few loose ends. It is very well constructed. But given what we know about the formation of the Bible, we can surmise that if someone else acted as the redactor to the Book of Mormon then it may be a very different book. Even Nephi 1 and 2, Jacob, Enos, Jarom and Omni are all very different stylistically from the rest of the book, and that is because those are the only parts that Mormon did not edit.

There is a much richer history just beneath the edited surface of the Book of Mormon. By applying the principles of higher criticism we can begin to unpack the rich history of the Nephites and Lamanites. But as we do this we must proceed with caution because we should learn from the mistakes of modern Biblical scholarship. While the consensus of scholars who engage in textual criticism is converging on a late date for the writing of the Bible, actual archaeological evidence is pointing ever more towards an earlier date, and the disparity is only growing.

As long as we stay away from the extremes we should be OK.

As we learn about the origin of the Bible through higher criticism we can apply the same principles to understand the context from which the Book of Mormon emerged. We can even apply the same concepts to the Doctrine and Covenants and understand the revelations in context.

We must remember that the scriptures were written at a certain time and place, in a certain context with the understanding of the authors. If we are willing to have charity and humility then we can have the depths of those complex environments exposed to our understandings so that we may more fully appreciate the work of God and His prophets.

Approaching Higher Criticism from a Faithful Perspective, Part 2

If you look up the entry for "Higher Criticism" in Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie, this is what you will find: "See Apostasy, Bible, Evolution, Revelation, Scripture." That is followed by an article about higher criticism that goes on for a page and a half and concludes, "In the final analysis [the conclusions of higher criticism] are doctrines of the devil, doctrines which destroy faith and prevent acceptance of the full gospel of salvation."

So what was it about higher criticism that made Elder McConkie call it a "doctrine of the devil"?

When McConkie included a cross reference to Apostasy he was not necessarily saying that anyone who engages with higher criticism is apostatizing from the church (though that also may have been the case), but rather the conclusions of higher criticism were the effects of the great apostasy. In his brief entry McConkie lumps the conclusions of higher criticism with all other false doctrines taught in other churches. The fact that a preacher or doctor of the church would even consider the implications of the documentary hypothesis is evidence that they do not have the spirit of revelation and are blinded by the effects of the great apostasy.

So what was it about the documentary hypothesis that prompted such a strong reaction from Elder McConkie? To bolster his claim that it is a "doctrine of the devil", McConkie points to the prophetic statements of Joseph Smith, which include the Book of Moses and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Thus he is responding to the issue of authorship and authority discussed in Part 1. By highlighting the prophetic statements of Joseph Smith, McConkie is reaffirming the identity and authority of the author of the Pentateuch. He is unwilling to budge on the question of authorship, and therefore the authority of totality of the Pentateuch, and by extension the rest of the Old Testament. So McConkie rejects the documentary hypothesis on the grounds that it calls into question the authority of scripture. It is a laudable cause. He has a healthy respect for God's Word, but I find that such an uncompromising position is at odds with how God normally interacts with His children.

So how does evolution fit into all of this? Elder McConkie cross referenced evolution in his entry on higher criticism, which when you think about it is rather odd, unless you understand how the conclusions of the documentary hypothesis can potentially impact our understanding of the creation. Without that it would seem that Elder McConkie is simply applying one of the dirtiest epithets that he knows. But there is more going on here, and this brings us to the issues of Timing and Historicity.

Timing and Historicity

These two are interrelated so I will address them together. In my introduction to the documentary hypothesis I mentioned briefly the issue of when the different sources were written. Some scholars favor later dates (meaning in the range of 800-200 BC), while theologians tend to favor early dates (closer to 1200 BC). The issue with later dates is that it opens the way to first question whether the stories are accurate, and second to question whether to people in the stories really lived at all. The thinking goes, the more removed the actual writing is from the people in the stories the greater likely hood that they never lived at all. Perhaps Abraham was invented for political reasons? To justify political control of Canaan perhaps.

The example of Abraham being invented is not hypothetical. There are many scholars who consider Abraham to be an invention of the Jews to justify political control of Canaan. This view is so widely held that even the Wikipedia article on Abraham reports, "it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age [including Abraham] ... is a late literary construct that does not relate to any period in actual history." I'll lay aside the rather cavalier attitude of the Wikipedia author to the issue a historical Abraham, and just use this as an example of how the timing and historicity are linked. A late writing of the Pentateuch can easily translate (in their minds) into the patriarchs being nothing more than literary constructs (a nice way of saying fairy tales).

There are multiple issues with this view that I will not unpack here, but I will point out that the non-existence of Abraham is not based on multiple historical sources failing to mention him, or mentioning him in an entirely different context, or on hard archaeological evidence, but on a "careful" reading of the Pentateuch. It is a bit like watching Kenneth Branagh's version of Henry V and concluding that, based on a careful analysis of the dialogue, Henry was a fictional person.

A general trend I have observed is that as soon as one scholar proposes a late date for a part of the Bible, another one comes along and uses that as evidence for the non-existence one or more people in the Bible. In other words, using higher criticism there is a popular trend to systematically undermine the historicity of the Bible.

This trend manifests itself in interesting and odd ways. For example, there was an intense debate about whether or not King David was a real person. That debate has largely died down due to archaeological evidence for his existence and reign. As a more extreme example, I was part of an online discussion once where one commenter attempted to argue using higher criticism that Jeremiah was not a real person. That position is thankfully rare but there is a significant number of scholars who argue that because portions of the Bible were composed at a late date the main characters before David are nothing more than "literary constructs" at worst or fictional retellings of oral tradition at best. According to this way of thinking there may have been someone named Moses, but the exodus never happened, or it was severely limited to a few hundred priests or tribal leaders, without any miraculous occurrences.

In every field of study there is a drive to push the envelope, to be the researcher who finds the first, the highest, the newest, the strongest, the oldest, or the largest because that is what gets published and cited. In the field of Biblical scholarship the current fad of higher criticism is to show a later and later date for different parts of the Bible. For example, one Biblical scholar, David P. Wright, argued in a recent book that the Covenant Code (Exodus 20:23-23:19) was not written at an early date, but much later during the Neo-Assyrian period (740-640 BC). It may have been well argued but as one reviewer pointed out, "If the discovery of a piece of Mesopotamian law code in ... 2010 at Hazor is followed up by more such discoveries, Wright may have to do some quick backtracking on his proposed date. In fact, Wright's volume full of data can be explained better by an early date than by a Neo-Assyrian date."

In other words, a single archaeological find can overturn just about any argument based on higher criticism. It does not matter how complex, well thought out, or elegant the argument is, if evidence indicates otherwise it doesn't matter. The archaeological evidence prompted Cyrus H. Gordon, a noted Biblical scholar to declare arguments based on higher criticism to be untenable. "Though Bible scholars live in an age of unprecedented discovery, they stand in the shadow of nineteenth-century higher criticism, . . . even though archaeology has rendered it untenable." (Cyrus H. Gordon, "Higher Critics and Forbidden Fruit," Christianity Today, 4 (1959): 131).

In a drive for ever decreasing notoriety it has become fashionable to argue for later and later dates for Biblical authorship, but that has divorced many of the arguments from the archaeological record, and has increasingly relied on even more tenuous arguments about what was and was not possible three thousand years ago in Israel.

In part a major motivation for this was to remove the wondrous and miraculous as a possibility from history. If Moses never existed then you don't have to deal with whether or not he parted the sea. If Adam was nothing more than a mythological figure then arguments about the creation disappear. By undermining the historicity of the Bible the more miraculous aspects of the Bible do not have to be dealt with. Thus Elder McConkie equated higher criticism with evolution, because scholars were using higher criticism to give naturalist explanations to the Bible. This is what prompted such a visceral reaction and got it labeled a "doctrine of the devil".

But not all Mormons are ardent Biblical literalists in the vein of Elder McConkie. While the issues of when certain parts of the Bible may have a minor impact on how an LDS audience interacts with the Bible, the big issue is the question of historicity. If the J and E sources were written down 400 years after Moses it is not an insurmountable problem for Mormons, but if Moses and Abraham never existed then there will be major theological implications. As Latter-day Saints we may be willing to accept new arguments about certain events such as the Exodus, but on the basic issues of historicity we will not budge.

The question of when the Bible, as we know it, was written is of particular interest to Mormons since a major part of our faith is the Book of Mormon. As related in 1 Nephi, Nephi and Lehi carry with them the brass plates which contain "the five books of Moses.... And also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah; And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah."

If major portions of the Pentateuch were written after the Jews went into exile then it would have been impossible for the brass plates to contain those things. This would be a major anachronism for the Book of Mormon. Thus a late date, as proposed by many scholars, would invalidate the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. But there would be no problem with an early or even a middle date. As Mormons we already have a built in theological mechanism to incorporate additions, commentary and redaction made at a later date from when the events actually occurred. The Book of Mormon is an excellent example of how someone can take many different sources and splice them together into a coherent narrative several hundred years after the fact and still have it be valid as scripture. With this in mind it is not that big of a leap to accept that portions of the Bible were written much later than we supposed, and were the work of editors and redactors. Latter-day Saints would generally have no problem with most timelines for the writing of the Bible, as long as basic historicity was preserved.

Some, such as Elder McConkie, and his fan club might object, but I would think that most Latter-day Saints would have no problem as long as historicity and authoritativeness of the Bible were clearly delineated by proper authorities.

In this post I have briefly mentioned some of the difficulties Latter-day Saints will have with higher criticism and how it relates to when different parts of the Bible were potentially written and how that impacts whether or not the people involved were historical figures. In Part 3 I will point out some of the ways the Documentary Hypothesis can help Latter-day Saints understand the Book of Mormon and and give us some perspective into how scripture is written. This can help us digest how more modern scriptures came to be. Using insights from both the Documentary Hypothesis and the Book of Mormon, we can begin to understand the complex world that produced the scriptures we know and use.

In the meantime I would recommend Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis by Kevin L. Barney. It gives a very good break down of the issues (with references) for an LDS audience.

Approaching Higher Criticism from a Faithful Perspective, Part 1

Introduction
In my previous post I introduced the Documentary Hypothesis (DH), which is the idea that the first five books of the Bible, collectively known as the Pentateuch, are actually a combination of four original source documents written at various times and places. While there has never been any direct evidence for these sources (i.e. the sources existing as separate documents) by carefully reading the text we notice certain peculiarities which are best explained by there being multiple original sources that were combined at a much later date. This method of critically analyzing the text for indications of the original sources is referred to as Higher Criticism. In its most general sense, higher criticism is a method of analyzing a text to understand who wrote it, why they wrote it, and when they wrote it. With higher criticism there is more interest in the world and society that produced the text, and what its original meaning was, than how the text is interpreted and applied today.

Since our scriptures were mostly produced in a much different society it is necessary to "translate" the concepts into terms that we can understand. In order to do this we need to understand the original context of what was written and the intent of the authors. But if a great distance in time, society and space separates us from the original context we will have a hard time understanding the scriptures. To get around this we must reconstruct the original context from any textual clues available to us. This is the basis of higher criticism.

From this perspective it would seem that higher criticism would be a natural fit with religious study, and in fact there was a point in history when higher criticism was closely aligned with religious scholarship, but over the past 200 years there has been an apparently intractable separation between the two. This has lead to intense criticism from one camp towards the other, with the sometimes bitter criticism likewise being returned. So what is the source of this disagreement?

The points of conflict generally fall under four categories:

• Biblical Inerrancy
• Authorship
• Timing
• Historicity

Underlying all of these issues is the implications for modern doctrine and religious practice. While a general survey of the conflict between religious scholarship and higher criticism would be enlightening I will only focus on how it manifests in an LDS context. Therefore I will not consider the ramifications for biblical inerrancy since that is a non-issue for Mormons.

Authorship

The question of who wrote what in the Bible is a subtly important question for an LDS audience. Mormons have a strong sense of authority when it comes to scriptures and religious writings. Who wrote what, and what authority they had to write it, are important questions for Latter-day Saints. Embedded in our understanding of scripture is a complex hierarchy of authority that determines what takes precedence over other writings, and to what degree.

For example, what is written in scripture takes precedent over the words (spoken or written) of any single apostle or prophet, with the exception that modern revelation supersedes any and all previously written words*. [*with some exceptions to the exception. I told you this was complex.] In all things the Bible and Book of Mormon are considered to be on equal footing, with the exception that if there is something from the Bible that does not mesh with our understanding, then, while not rejected outright, it is given a caveat that it may not have been "translated correctly". But if the same happens with the Book of Mormon then generally the text wins out and informs our understanding. The same holds true for the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

All this complexity comes from our idea that the statements of a higher authority supersede the words of a lower authority. When this is applied to scripture it becomes a complex question of who said what, and with what authority. So the question of Biblical authorship poses a difficult question to many members of the Church. If the author is known, and is someone who has proper authority, then what is written can easily be placed in the hierarchy of authority. If the author is unknown then it reverts to a default level of authority which will afford it some authoritativeness by association.

This is further complicated when someone in authority compiles or edits works which may or may not have been authoritative. The authority of the compiler, perceived or actual, passes to the edited material which means that even if the original work was not authoritative, it becomes so since someone who had authority included it in the final edit. For this reason Mormon is nearly always referred to as a Prophet Historian, not not just a historian. It has the effect of elevating the authority of everything he compiled, even if the original material was not authoritative or inspired. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible because it both elevates portions of the text as authoritative, while demoting others*. [*Nothing is ever that simple.]

When it comes to Biblical authorship some things may seem straight forward but with the Documentary Hypothesis, Mormons are presented with an interesting conundrum. Among members of the Church, the Pentateuch is established as relatively authoritative due to the supposed source, but if Moses is not the actual author, the the authority of the author(s) would be in question. But the question may be irrelevant if, and only if, the sources were combined authoritatively, and without knowing the identity of the redactor we cannot make that judgement.

For some Mormons, the question of Biblical authorship as proposed by the DH will not produce more than passing interest, but for some it will be a major issue since it potentially undermines scriptural authority. While almost all Mormons are comfortable assessing the authoritativeness of individual passages relative to others, we are hesitant to reexamine our ingrained assumptions of the authoritativeness of whole books. For something that important we look to established structures of authority in the Church, as we should, for guidance.

But in the case of Biblical scholarship and the DH, that reassessment of authoritativeness is coming from outside the recognized structures of authority and that may lead members to automatically reject the conclusions of authorship without considering the evidence. Because it is not a small thing to reconsider the authority of certain passages of scripture, especially considering the context where it is most important, we should be hesitant when working through these questions of Biblical authorship.

I should point out that the answers to the question of Biblical authorship are not firmly established. While there may be general consensus, that consensus can be overturned by new research, or an incredible archaeological find. For these reasons I think it is advantageous that Church leaders exercise caution before speaking authoritatively or even semi-authoritatively with regards to these matters. Because of our complex hierarchies of authority if a particular viewpoint is given a veneer of authority, it will be difficult to change if the consensus shifts.

Any shifts in our understanding of Biblical authorship are not fundamentally destructive to an LDS viewpoint because we already have the framework in place to accept any modifications given enough evidence and the guidance of our structures of authority. But it is a transition that is best handled gently so as to not generate confusion and undue spiritual consternation.

For members of the Church there are some non-negotiable points to the question who authored the Pentateuch, namely that even if portions of it were written after the death of Moses, and compiled much later, portions of it must have been written by Moses, and it should depict actual historical events, even if the story has been distorted through time, there must be a kernel of truth to it. This will become important when I address the question of historicity. So even if other authors wrote portions of the Pentateuch, there needs to be some basis in fact for what they wrote, and at least some part of it containing the original writings of Moses. Unpacking the writings of Moses from those of later authors may be a difficult task, and it may add modifications to how we structure the hierarchy of authority for the different parts of the Pentateuch, but we are theologically prepared for that. If we consider these questions then it will enrich our understanding of how God has worked with His people and how He allows those in authority to have stewardship over everything given to them, including the scriptures.

For part 2 of this post I will cover the question of timing, that is, when the different parts of the Pentateuch was written, and why that generates conflict for an LDS audience. I will also address the issue of historicity. These are the two main sticking points when it comes to the conflict between current Biblical scholarship and LDS belief.