So as part of this larger series (1, 2, 3, 4) I started a while back on this blog about what I see as scholarly principles, I was thinking of eventually getting to the question of the Book of Mormon’s historicity.
Often when dealing with religious history, there is a (debated) school of thought that scholars should bracket out supernatural truth claims. But as often noted, the Book of Mormon isn’t wholly transcendent: Smith claimed it came from a a physical object that a handful of people claimed to have seen and touched, and Smith said it was the source of a translation claiming to be about ancient history in the Americas.
Both such claims (plates and historical record) are intrusions from the purely transcendent in the physical world, and both of these intrusions do allow for historical examination.
I had an experience on my mission of feeling like one of our biblical proof texts got called into question, praying about it, and then feeling like I came to a larger understanding of that particular concept. I can’t remember the exact details, but I did find my take away orienting. What was wrong, I felt, was my more limited understanding of a certain point. The concept still worked with a greater more complex understanding, and I needed to be open to that larger view.
I tried to apply that procedure in my decades of historical study: be open to what the data suggests and then make adjustments to my believing framework based on what I’d learned. I tried to avoid holding doggedly to preconceived notions and insist the data fit those.
Over time, made quite a few adjustments to my beliefs, and though some confusion at times, always felt like I would come around to the believer’s position.
History grad students learn about Leopold von Ranke, the 19th century German considered the father of the modern discipline of history, famous for stating the objective of discovering “what actually happened.” History grad students will learn that statement is much criticized, as grad students also learn the incompleteness, problems with records, and problem of the humans making the judgements.
But others note that despite all those limitations, historians really do want to try to understand the past like Ranke said, and that good methodology helps historians make the best historical judgments. Mark Ashurst McGee’s “Moroni: Angel or Treasure Guardian?” gives a nice overview: earlier and closest the subject is best. But based on that criteria, the 1832 First Vision account would be given primacy over the 1838 account for being earlier.
Differences in First Visions accounts long noted and debated, but in the differences between those accounts, church members tend to pick the later 1838 over the 1832 account. 1832 famously mentions “the Lord” not “two personages” one of which is the other’s “beloved son,” but there are other differences as well. My adviser liked to point out that in the 1832 accounts JS come to the conclusion that “mankind had apostatized” on his own, but in the 1838 account God tells JS that. Again “earliest is best” would give primacy to the 1832 account in such conflict between sources.
As I mentioned over at Times and Season, I put together what we call our “safe-space group” to discuss all kinds of topics, and not surprisingly history stuff was one of the genre of topics the group wanted to go over.
As all of my fellow JI bloggers know, that can be a bit of a difficult topic to try to do a crash course in because though our concepts of what happened in the past are very important to the larger culture and our church, we all know the study of history can be a tricky thing that often isn’t understood very well. And if such a discussion can get tricky in our larger societies’ culture war, it is even more so in debates within Mormonism when we often feel that larger religious truths are on the line.
So I thought a lot about best approaches when I was brainstorming how to introduce the topic and all the points that trained historians often want to convey. Things like “the past is a foreign country,” we have to rely on historical documents and good-faith interpretations vary, but that doesn’t mean we just make up whatever narrative we want, good historical interpretations will be supported by historical evidence (etc etc).
Since the historical topics we were going to cover were in the context of our religious beliefs, I thought I would be useful to start with the concept of the Greek ways of knowing: mythos and logos (And yes I’m using the division for my own purposes, feel free to correct!) Mythos is the accepted cultural truth about the Gods (common in all pre-modern societies) while Logos is truth that comes truth discussion (Logos=word), debates, logic, and inquiry; what the philosophers were trying to get at.
Such ways of knowing often clash: the example of Socrates being executed for challenging the contemporary religious system is a good example. Even more so would be the containing angst biblical scholarship can cause. Yet, the example of many such scholars maintaining a religious faith after making adjustments is also an example of something of a reconciliation between mythos and logos. (I know this is an extremely complicated topic with a very long history, just trying to offer some summaries).
I’ve been working my “intellectual biography of Joseph Smith” for a long time now (hope to finish before too long), or an attempt to traced where Smith got his ideas. By “intellectual biography” I mean the focus on his ideas. Framing the project in this way is Inherently controversial from within the faith as his revelatory claims believed by followers are that the ideas came from God or from lost scriptures also with God as the ultimate source.
I’ve been at this a while, but one part of my claim is that JS, it looks to me, would have had access to all the ideas he taught, to Mormonism, including the Book of Mormon, from particular sources. Yes, Mormonism was/is quite different than the prevailing Protestantism, so he wasn’t drawing on orthodox Protestantism for the distinctly Mormon stuff, but those idea were still out there.
No doubt such claims can prompt a lot of debate and can be taken as an attack on the faith. I’ve been at this a while, am still a practicing Mormon, and I recently finished serving as bishop of my ward having been released this last May.
My thanks to series editors J Stuart and Cristina for their edits and comments on this post.
I haven’t read Under the Banner of Heaven; this post is about responses to the book that I have heard. After reading the book, my sister shared with the family her take on the book’s claim of the dangers of believing in personal revelation (Jana Riess makes the same observation about Krakauer’s claim in her review), and it was at that point that I began formulating what I’d observed from studying the history of Christianity: there’s been a long history of people being very worried about other people claiming revelations. No doubt such claims got Jesus in trouble as they did Socrates. After studying this topic in considerable depth, I’d say the worry of the potential threat of visionaries vastly outstrips the actual damage of such people, and thus it looks to me like Under the Banner of Heaven is a popular manifestation of an ancient claim.
Reading Endo’s Silence, recently made into a movie by Martin Scorsese, I was stuck by a mention of a Mormon theological concept. The story takes place in early seventeenth-century Japan, so it doesn’t mention Mormons specifically, but does mention a Mormon idea when discussing the theology of the Japanese Christians.
Silence focusses on Jesuit priests Rodrigues and Garrpe sailing to Japan after having heard that their mentor and hero, father Ferreira, had apostatized under torture. Silence is based on the history the harsh measures the Japanese government took toward crushing Japanese Christianity after the Shimabara Rebellion of 1638, driving Christianity there underground. Endo based the characters of Rodrigues and Ferreira on the actual Jesuit priests, Chiara and Ferreira, who did apostatize during the persecution. Endo himself came out of the Japanese Catholic community who saw the Japanese “Hidden Christians” as heroes and the apostate priests and not truly committed. Endo thus novelizes these Jesuits’ stories.
The Mormon theology comes in the buildup to the climax of the story after the Japanese capture Rodrigues and bring him to Ferreira so that Ferreira can convince Rodrigues to apostatize. Ferreira first begins by explaining the tortures he’s undergone before moving to his central arguments: “The one thing I know is that our religion does not take root in this country” (157). Rodrigues protests that the plant has been torn up and that Christianity flourished in Japan before the crackdown.
Those of us at the Juvenile Instructor, like so many other in the Mormon academic community, are very sad to hear of the passing of D. Michael Quinn, and want to take a moment to honor his legacy as one of the most important historians of Mormonism. Our own Ben Park put together an excellent summation of Quinn life on this Twitter chain, but we’d also like to take a moment here to celebrate Quinn’s tremendous contribution to Mormon history.
For me, what stands out most about Quinn’s scholarship are controversy and indefatigable research. Controversy in Mormon history had been with the movement since the beginning with scholarship on Mormonism often dividing between believers and non-believers. Quinn was somewhat pioneering in tackling controversial topics as both a believer and an “insider” in his work at the church archives and at BYU. Scholars like Marvin Hill had been edgy, but Quinn fully embraced the most controversial topics and even held a kind of press conference to refute Boyd K. Packer’s 1981 “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect.”
For the second part of this review, (see first part here) I want to talk about the ways that Davis and Brown attempt a kind of middle ground between the larger secular scholarly field and those who believe in Joseph Smith operating under divine guidance while he translated. Both make attempts at explaining what Smith did in terms of translation, and this brings up the old religious-studies question, “Does explaining supernatural experiences mean explaining them away?”
Indeed, Davis’s theses certainly makes an attempt to explain the process of the Book of Mormon translation in terms of Smith’s abilities to draw on mnemonic speaking devices in order to dictate the Book of Mormon. Davis goes so far as to propose that Smith could have had a short, written outline of the book that he could have occasionally referred to throughout the process.
Steve Fleming on Study and Faith, 5:: “The burden of proof is on the claim of there BEING Nephites. From a scholarly point of view, the burden of proof is on the…”
Eric on Study and Faith, 5:: “But that's not what I was saying about the nature of evidence of an unknown civilization. I am talking about linguistics, not ruins. …”
Steve Fleming on Study and Faith, 5:: “Large civilizations leave behind evidence of their existence. For instance, I just read that scholars estimate the kingdom of Judah to have been around 110,000…”
Eric on Study and Faith, 5:: “I have always understood the key to issues with Nephite archeology to be language. Besides the fact that there is vastly more to Mesoamerican…”
Steven Borup on In Memoriam: James B.: “Bro Allen was the lead coordinator in 1980 for the BYU Washington, DC Seminar and added valuable insights into American history as we also toured…”
David G. on In Memoriam: James B.: “Jim was a legend who impacted so many through his scholarship and kind mentoring. He'll be missed.”
Recent Comments
Steve Fleming on Study and Faith, 5:: “The burden of proof is on the claim of there BEING Nephites. From a scholarly point of view, the burden of proof is on the…”
Eric on Study and Faith, 5:: “But that's not what I was saying about the nature of evidence of an unknown civilization. I am talking about linguistics, not ruins. …”
Steve Fleming on Study and Faith, 5:: “Large civilizations leave behind evidence of their existence. For instance, I just read that scholars estimate the kingdom of Judah to have been around 110,000…”
Eric on Study and Faith, 5:: “I have always understood the key to issues with Nephite archeology to be language. Besides the fact that there is vastly more to Mesoamerican…”
Steven Borup on In Memoriam: James B.: “Bro Allen was the lead coordinator in 1980 for the BYU Washington, DC Seminar and added valuable insights into American history as we also toured…”
David G. on In Memoriam: James B.: “Jim was a legend who impacted so many through his scholarship and kind mentoring. He'll be missed.”