Exploring Mormon Thought

Bobby recently drew to my attention a book he reviewed on Goodreads, entitled Exploring Mormon Thought by Mormon philosopher Blake Ostler. The history of Mormon publishing and commentary is both interesting and revealing and I think worth a closer look.

Mormon publishing began, of course, with the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith said that it, “was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion…” In publishing terms that has to be a hard act to follow and Smith originally had no intention of following it. Indeed, by ‘revelation’ he made clear that the Book of Mormon was it.

In the 1833 Book of Commandments (the earliest version of what became the Doctrine & Covenants) the Mormon god reveals,

“…and he has a gift to translate the book [of Mormon], and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.”

By 1835 Smith had already started ‘revising’ the Bible and translating the papyrus he had bought and that he claimed was the Book of Abraham. In the ‘revised’ 1835 version of the Book of Commandments, now published as the Doctrine and Covenants, the same verses read:

“And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I commanded that you should pretend to no other gift, until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.”

Joseph Smith had experienced the power of publishing and learned quickly to harness it to achieve his developing ambitions. From the Book of Mormon to the early Mormon periodical Times and Seasons he set a precedent followed for the next century and more by those who came after him.

After Smith’s death Brigham Young took on the mantle of prophet, leading the saints to the Salt Lake Valley. Here he arranged to have recorded the public sermons of early prophets and apostles, though mostly of himself, recorded by a team of stenographers. The Journal of Discourses runs to 26 volumes, from Dec.1851 to August 1877. There has been nothing like it since in the Mormon Church.

Although the Church has proved a prolific publisher it has rarely added to its canon of scripture, effectively working from a closed cannon. This is something Mormons criticise Christian churches for doing. They do, however, publish teachings in books, manuals, compilations of previous prophets’ teachings, magazines, and conference reports.

What is striking for me, and this is a very personal comment, drawing from my own experience, is how the ‘authorities’ behind these publications have changed in my lifetime. When I became a Mormon in the early 1970’s most of the publications on any good Mormon’s bookshelves would have been written by General Authorities of the church.

There were, of course, tame and popular volumes like Rulon Howell’s The Mormon Story, The Restored Church, by William Bennett, and vanity published works such as Genet Bingham Dee’s A Voice From The Dust. Nevertheless, it was very much to the prophets that Mormons looked for their collateral reading of Mormon doctrine.

Talmage’s Articles of Faith, and Jesus the Christ were essential reading. Gospel Doctrine by Joseph F Smith, Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith, a compilation of the Discourses of Brigham Young, and of The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith sat alongside the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Even the controversial Mormon Doctrine, 80% of which was a distillation of Joseph Fielding Smith’s Doctrines of Salvation, was written by a Mormon apostle.

The reasoning was sound enough. If you are led by prophets why would you seek guidance from amateur commentators? In ministry terms too, it made no sense to challenge Mormon doctrine on the basis of unofficial statements from what are easily dismissed private interpretations.

What Blake Ostler’s book reminds me of is the departure from the way Mormon leaders of previous generations were regarded as authoritative, their publications widely quoted, their written pronouncements the final word on an issue.

Today’s Mormon world is filled with unofficial commentary on and Mormon apologetic by Mormon academics and lay people. From Stephen Robinson’s Are Mormons Christian, and Richard E Grant’s Understanding Those Other Christians, through to weightier and more academic tomes like Ostler’s, and a small library of Book of Mormon commentaries by a whole raft of unofficial commentators. This is before we begin to look at what is online today, from the more combative, panegyric sites like FAIR and SHIELD, to the more carefully academic work of FARMS at the prestigious Maxwell Institute.

As I have said, this is more a personal note, and I am sure there will be those who easily find fault. But back in the day when answering the question, “What do Mormons believe about…” the go to people were Smith (a raft of Smiths in fact), Young, Talmage, Widstoe, LeGrand Richards, Kimball and, yes, McConkie.

These days their teachings seem to be carefully selected, appropriately edited, and finally brought to the world via a correlation Committee, charged with carefully crafting the perception of Mormonism, while others, freelance you might say, fill the shelves and internet bookmarks in Mormon homes.

Prophets seem to have become little more than window dressing and I would love to read how other people see this issue. Has anyone else noticed these changes? Is anyone surprised that it has not always been the way it is today? What are the most influential unofficial works you hear quoted?

Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and for many years worked with Reachout Trust speaking and writing about Mormonism. He now helps to head-up the Reachout Ministry, still researches Mormonism, delivers seminars, and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues The Mormon Chapbook

Getting Some “Fair” Attention Part 4, by Mike Thomas

The review of the final day of the outreach to Mormons at the British Mormon Pageant 2013, written by Jason Thickpenny, made mention of the controversy surrounding the long discredited Mormon “scripture,” The Book of Abraham. The subject had come up in discussion with Mormons and Jason commented, “They had no idea about the fact it had been proven to be falsely translated.”  There was little more on the subject, simply a link through to the CARMS website where further research might be carried out.

The typical Mormon response to criticism is nicely summed up in a short conversation Jason reproduced for us:

“Right at the end we spoke to a Lady who said that we are in error because we don’t accept that today we have a priesthood. I showed her Hebrews 1:1-2, to which she said ‘your not using the Kings James Bible’ – I showed the side of it, and then showed her the front – to which she then said ‘well…that bit must not have been translated right’……..’you young man need to read the book of Mormon’, I said ‘with all due respect why would I need to when God has already given me the answer in the bible?’ She left pretty sharp after that!!”

There is so much that might be said but I want you to note how easily a Mormon dismisses the Bible. It is an attitude you will come across time and again and, as we consider the Book of Abraham controversy, keep in mind that a typical Mormon will even dismiss the word of God in Scripture rather than consider their prophets might be wrong.

No, No, No

Ned Scarisbrick is a Mormon of long experience who began his podcast, The 4th Watch, in March 2013. It is an apologetics programme to help Mormons better understand their faith and, to this end, he has produced, “a compilation response  to several articles posted at the anti-Mormon web site, ‘Mormonism Investigated UK’…” (I will have more to say next week about “anti-Mormons” and other epithets so beloved of Mormons)

By the time you come to the end of his podcast, where he deals with the BofA, you are used to his avuncular style and the simple Mormon side-step of answering evidence with unsubstantiated assertions. “No, no, no” he insists as he refutes each challenge with barely more than unadorned denial. As he warms to the subject of the BofA he begins by making an ad hominem attack on the source cited, i.e. CARMS.

“CARMS? You trust CARMS? Matt Slick? No, no, no. It’s just not so.” declares Ned. Well, I carry no brief for Matt Slick but this is not about Matt Slick, it is about the Bof A. Does Ned have anything compelling to say that might disprove what Matt Slick and many others have to say about the Bof A? Well let’s see what Ned comes up with as he commits almost every Mormon  faux pas and in mere minutes.

Ad hominem attack: “CARMS? You trust CARMS? Matt Slick? No, no, no. It’s just not so.” declares Ned.

Assertion: “It has not been proven false.”

Appeal to Biased Source: Ned sends us to FAIR, the people for whom he is producing these podcasts.

Opinion: “He wants us to take his own view as fact,” Ned says of Jason’s post, before going on to share his own opinion (another assertion), “But it is not falsely translated.”

False Trail: He then asserts that what manuscripts we have today are nothing to do with the Bof A, as demonstrated in Dr Hugh Nibley’s book, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Again, hardly an unbiased source since Hugh Nibley was the Mormon church’s go-to man for any and every expert opinion. This is the same Hugh Nibley who is quoted in the December 1967 issue of The Daily Universe, pb.BYU, “The Papyri scripts given to the church do not prove the Book of Abraham is true…The church has been caught flat footed by this discovery.”

Rewriting History: “The church,” Ned insists, “has never claimed these have anything to do with the Book of Abraham.” Yet, in the Improvement Era of January 1968 we read,

“Perhaps no discovery in recent memory is expected to arouse as much widespread interest in the restored gospel as is the recent discovery of some Egyptian papyri, one of which is known to have been used by the Prophet Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Abraham.

Included in the collection of 11 manuscripts is one identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith obtained Facsimile 1, which prefaces the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Accompanying the manuscripts was a letter dated May 26, 1856, signed by both Emma Smith Bidamon, widow of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and their son, Joseph Smith, attesting that the papyri had been the property of the Prophet.”

It certainly sounds like it it has something to do with the writing of the BofA and the official church Improvement Era says as much.

Lingua Obscura: This is a classic Mormon defence in which the message is – We don’t really know. This stuff is very hard and, after all, translating stuff isn’t easy; culture, language, idiom, historical context, hard stuff like that. Who knows? Lets leave it to the experts to thrash it out, remembering no two experts will give the same translation, nobody agrees, its pretty hopeless really, so just let the Spirit work. Just believe.

So many problems with what Ned is saying here. First, wasn’t there some talk of living prophets? The mantle of Joseph and all that? So, why doesn’t the prophet cut through all this speculation and simply get the job done? Come out and explain what this is all about and put people’s minds at rest for goodness sake.

Secondly, if translation is so fraught with pitfalls and imponderable difficulties how come we have the Book of Mormon in so many languages? That is supposed to be an ancient document. The Bible certainly is an ancient document and we get by somehow in producing modern translations and in different languages that pretty much agree with each other. So where’s the fire?

Thirdly, if you ask any and every Egyptologist worth his salt they will all agree on one thing. The Book of Abraham is a fraud. Do you want evidence of this? Bill McKeever of Mormonism Research Ministry has written a helpful article. (I know Ned wants to say, “MRM? You trust MRM? Bill McKeever? No, no, no.” but maybe he should look at what Bill actually brings to the table before judging. After all, that’s what Mormons would ask for their message)

Bill’s article can be found here. What is interesting is the list of scholars and their unanimous opinion. Here are their comments:

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.”

Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford, England

“I have examined the illustrations given in the ‘Pearl of Great Price.’ In the first place, they are copies (very badly done) of well known Egyptian subjects of which I have dozens of examples. Secondly, they are all many centuries later than Abraham.”

Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie, London University

“Joseph Smith’s interpretation of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.”

James, H. Breasted, Ph.D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago

“The ‘Book of Abraham,’ it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication.”

Dr. Arthur C. Mace, Assist. Curator, Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, Dept. of Egyptian Art

“The plates contained in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ are rather comical and a very poor imitation of Egyptian originals.”

Dr. John Peters, Univ. of Pennsylvania

“…the explanatory notes to his facsimiles cannot be taken seriously by any scholar, as they seem to be undoubtedly the work of pure imagination.”

Rev. Prof. C.A.B. Mercer, Ph.D., Western Theological Seminary, Custodian Hibbard Collection, Egyptian Reproductions.

“The Egyptian papyrus which Smith declared to be the ‘Book of Abraham,’ and ‘translated’ or explained in his fantastical way, and of which are three specimens are published in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ are parts of the well known ‘Book of the Dead.’ Although the reproductions are very bad, one can easily recognize familiar scenes from this book.”

Dr. Edward Meyer, University of Berlin

“A careful study has convinced me that Smith probably believed seriously to have deciphered the ancient hieroglyphics, but that he utterly failed. What he calls the ‘Book of Abraham’ is a funeral Egyptian text, probably not older than the Greek ages.”

Dr. Friedrich Freiheer Von Bissing, Professor of Egyptology in the University of Munich

Of course, for any true believing Mormon no amount of unbiased,  expert opinion will be enough. Remember Jason’s conversation and how ready the Mormon lady was to reject the Bible. But the American theologian John Gresham Machen observed:

“Because argument is insufficient, it does not follow that it is unnecessary. What the Holy Spirit does in the new birth is not make a person a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary, to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the evidence.” (quoted in John Stott, The Contemporary Christian, p.59)