Jana Riess has recently published a book called Flunking Sainthood in which she decides to spend 1 month participating in various spiritual rituals. For example, she spent one month fasting from sun up to sun down as a pious Muslim would do during Ramadan (though she picked the month of February because it had the fewest days), she spent another month observing the Sabbath as an Orthodox Jew would, she spent another month in mindfulness prayer, and many other spiritual practices from a variety of religious traditions. I really enjoyed the book–she has a witty sense of humor, but she claims to have failed nearly every spiritual practice for a year.
John Dehlin recently interviewed her on Mormon Stories. In part 2, he discusses her book quite a bit, but in part 1, he discusses her background and perspectives on various issues. Jana grew up in an atheist family. As part of her “rebelious” youth, she went to church, eventually settling down with the Presbyterian faith. She felt called to the ministry and attended seminary to become a pastor. During her time in seminary, she converted to Mormonism. She has a Ph.D. in American Religious History from Columbia University.
There are some people who believe that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are frauds. John questioned Jana about this line of reasoning, and I thought Jana gave some interesting insights (1) into the idea of a Mormon Midrash, and (2) truth doesn’t have to be empirical. I wanted to quote from their interview, starting with about 30 minutes left in part 1.
John Dehlin, “The Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon were like top 5 issues for people that have caused them to leave, and a lot of us just have the assumption that the only people who haven’t left are those who don’t know about Book of Mormon and DNA and the Book of Abraham, and everybody else has left, you know. How in the world do you stay knowing about that stuff?”
Jana Riess, “Well, I don’t know that this is going to be a satisfactory answer to be honest with you because one of the things that I have found is that some of the people, most of whom are men, who get very exercised about being in the know about what really happened with the Book of Abraham, etc. are not persuaded by arguments that rest on spirituality. They only want arguments that meet them point for point, saying—again this is an either/or proposition as well—the whole way they approach the question. If the Book of Abraham is not a divine translation of this ancient document, if it is in fact an ordinary funerary document that Joseph Smith completely expanded, embellished, elaborated on or if you are looking at a more cynical view, just simply lied about, then what do we do with the rest of our faith?
Well, let’s step back first of all and think about how important is the Book of Abraham to the Mormon faith in general? I don’t think it’s terrifically important, but that’s just me. But we need to have a tradition of midrash. We need to have a tradition where we can look at a prophet in the way that Jews have looked at prophets of old and say, ‘this is a midrash’ on a revelation, or this is a midrash on an earlier work of scripture.”
John, “What does that word mean?”
Jana, “Midrash, well it’s basically any expanded teaching. I don’t know what the exact definition would be, but an expanded teaching is something where in midrashim, you are taking a core text and then thinking about it cosmically, you’re thinking about it theologically, and you could look at, for example, the entire Pearl of Great Price as a midrash. You have Moses as a midrash on Genesis, right? If you think about it in those terms, the literal nature of it is less important than what the book is trying to teach us about who we are as children of God. I think that is where we need to be looking, and I frankly don’t give a hoot about some of the arguments about historicity, DNA, the more troubling avenues is of course Joseph Smith, the more troubling aspect is not the scripture itself, but what Joseph Smith said about and whether he can then be relied upon as a prophet of God. Based on my work on the Hebrew Bible, I would say yeah. Have you looked at those guys lately?
I mean we have this completely ridiculous idea of what a prophet is supposed to be. No human being can measure up to that and there’s certainly no biblical example that does, and yet we conveniently forget about it. We come up with these stupid Gospel Doctrine lessons that encourage us to look at people in the Old Testament as if they were perfect and they we look at our own leaders to be perfect as well, and when they aren’t, well we leave.
If you’re interested in more of the interview, I transcribed a bit more at my website. What are your thoughts on a Mormon Midrash?
Wheat & Tares 
The first thing I’ll say is: thank you for transcribing all of this. I rarely get time to listen to podcasts, but I can read a lot quicker than I can hear, so I think every podcast should have transcripts…but of course, that’s tough work.
As for the actual points of what Jana was saying, for the most part, I just don’t get it. For example, Jana says:
But the book can only teach us about “who we are as the children of God” if God literally exists and if God literally has specific identities for us as his/her/their children. If the scriptures are not “literally true,” then where are you going to get to ANY of the rest of that stuff? Or if Mormon scriptures aren’t literally true (but perhaps some other religious tradition is), then how are you going to get to the truth from Mormonism when you should be looking elsewhere?
Andrew:
Sounds like the point that she’s making is that any one groups religious texts, rituals, doctrines, etc. all have the purpose of pointing to something — that something like the Book of Abraham is not the thing itself.
But it’s a pointer to something else [the religious experience] that is what’s important [more important than DNA or translation processes, etc.].
Religion, myth, stories, ritual, etc. — are about the experience.
They all begin as an attempt to tell stories about someone’s connection [or experience] with God. In this form, they are fluid — like poetry or metaphor. Apostasy and false priesthoods come in as the story gets reduced to a creed, the relative gets hardened into the absolute, the poetry is taken as though it was prose.
The reality that’s behind the image, myth, or story gets lost — and the only thing that remains is the the empty shell of what’s left after meaning or purpose departs from something.
The religion itself [the actual stories, the stage show-like enactments of ritual, etc.] — are functionary. When it has nothing to do with actually having the experience — it becomes an empty-image, a form without life.
Religion is the religare – the connecting bonds of ligaments and tendons that knit us together into one Body.
When the ligaments remain fluid [the relative and poetic form], then we relate to God as a continuous experience, as a state of “Supreme Being”. That don’t prescribe ethical or moral codes – but acts out of expediency and charity.
When the ligaments atrophy [harden into the absolute, creedal form] — instead of knitting us together — religion binds us down – God becomes the “This-Thin”g that must be related to in the one, true “That-Way” — and we must now believe/do accordingly to get Him to respond to us.
Reading the scriptures, participating in the rituals, etc. – they are just the retelling or reenactment of someone else’s story. It is all in vain unless it is pursuant to you having the same experience — seeing eye-to-eye with the seers [people who’ve seen who have laid down the stories before you.
Their stories will not save you. Reenacting events from their stories as rituals will not generate real Life or Joy in you. Such things are meant to motivate you to get on the same pathway, to receive a similar connection with God, and to see eye-to-eye with them.
I don’t know. When I think of my ancestors who had their children freeze to death in their arms on the banks of the Mississippi in 1847, because they were told it was all “True”, now to be told it was only “poetry”__seems hollow.
The problem comes when you think as though “poetry” can’t be “true”.
It’s not a matter of true-versus-false or factual-versus-inaccurate – in the way that we currently use those words.
While it may be admittedly “poetic” – we cannot say that such stories are not “true”, “real”, or “literal”.
What’s missed [when “myth” gets labeled as “not real”] is that the stories were never meant to convey “history” with all the scientific rigor we’ve developed centuries after the stories were first told. They were meant to convey a story about how this or that person experienced God – in a language that was metaphorical, poetic, or image-based – to bring that experience back for the community at large.
It’s just another way for humans to speak about truth and about facts — a metaphorical or poetic way of expressing true and factual things about life.
Those who formulated religious myths were not attempting to lay down historically-sound, verifiable, and literally-true presentations of what actually took place in a physical sense. The stories were how people conveyed true facts about human nature and the natural world.
So, instead, think of it as the poetic story-language by which those who’d had actual experiences with the governing powers of nature and of the universe [God] brought that transcendent experience back to the community — how a community explained to its new members how the world in its present form came to be, how a human being ought to relate to the world, and what is expected of members of the community.
Thanks, Justin (no. 2).
And I appreciate this from the original posting: “[T]he literal nature of it is less important than what the book is trying to teach us about who we are as children of God.”
I have my own ideas about what might be figurative and what might be literal, and others will have their ideas. And these ideas will change over time.
Absolutely, we have expanded teachings (midrashim) in Mormonism. In our General Conferences, we get a lot of helps and advice and even some hedges and some expanded teachings, none of which is doctrine (we get a little doctrine, too). Sometimes, I think that our central doctrines are faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost and almost everything else after this is midrashim.
Justin,
I guess my issue here is that different people have different experiences. Not everyone will interpret a poem or other literary work the same way. Heck, some people just don’t even respond to some artistic works.
So what if this is something individual and trying to share a different person’s experience hinders us from our own experiences?
Great — a lot of what makes nature so beautiful and awe-inspiring is its diversity. A “hardened” religious tradition can’t tolerate subjectivity and diversity. But personally — I love it.
What a person has experienced and knows is what a person has experienced and knows. People have to be free to pattern their own lives according to [create with] the information they’ve received.
A false priest would assume authority over a person by virtue of their experience or [as is more often the case], by virtue of the tradition of stories they have inherited. Hardened, insecure communities are the most intolerant. They are so insecure about the validity of their “game-rules” that they insist that everyone must play.
But now we aren’t playing — now we are requiring people to do something that is only acceptable if it were done voluntarily.
But I don’t think that,
because even though I may not have received a certain experience — I should still be willing to consider the data available from those who are claiming that they have.
I think the “hindering”-dynamic you refer to is when someone testifying to a religious-experience assumes that their revelation must be authoritative to someone who has not received it.
Whereas a true messenger comes back to his or her community with the desire that everyone else experiences the same thing they did [see eye-to-eye with them].
They no longer perceive separateness among others the way that a mind still ensnared in sin does. So once free from sin, the seer now fears and trembles for others. She suffers for the sins of others. He desires for all others to have the same privilege to be born of God, free from sin.
But unless something is experienced [is known] – then the people will not see eye-to-eye, but will see instead through a glass, darkly. They will only know about the experience in part [as told in the story or ritual], but not fully [1 Cor. 13:12].
Andrew, I think Jana believes that God literally exists and we are literally children of God. If a literal God wants to give revelation via a non-literal medium, what’s wrong with that?
I’ll hold off from answering the particular question until I finish the podcast (I listened to part one on the way to the Mormon Stories Conference in Houston and now listening to part two–but I think it’s excellent all around).
I also purchased “Flunking Sainthood” on my Kindle this weekend. Haven’t laughed out loud at a book in a long time like I’ve been doing with Jana Riess’. Good stuff.
I think Jana’s point was an explanation of how one can reconcile the issues with the Book of Abraham and other scriptures that do not have a direct historical record.
Heck, even when it does, some people are not willing to accept it.
Not everyone is going to be comfortable with this explanation or any explanation.
I think it is a good explanation. One that some, who are skeptical, could accept.
Maybe not you.
Justin,
Great comment.
I can be willing to consider the data from others’ experiences, but at many points, experience can be telling people two mutually exclusive or contradictory things.
MH,
I guess the issue is she can’t even get off the ground with her belief that God literally exists when all she has are subjective experiences that say things about her, not anything outside of her.
I still don’t buy it. Most people don’t buy Mormonism because Mormons don’t tell them “It’s just poetry”. When a Mormon says “I know JS talked to God and saw his body__they mean that as a truth..not poetry. When Mormons talk of the BoM..they don’t think “It’s just a story by JS”…they believe it really happened.
Sure — that’s because a poetic language can be quite fluid. It’s possible to find multiple myths in a given culture that give different versions of the same mystery.
(…the differing birth and resurrection narratives of Jesus given in the four gospels come to mind right now.)
It’s only once that “hardening”-dynamic comes in — that a group says that it must be this One-True Way.
The story about a true experience [a means to an end] — becomes the One-True formula, [the whole thing becomes the end itself] — turning poetry into prose.
And I think that’s what turns people off.
Bob — you are still saying that the story about a true experience spoken in a poetic manner cannot be true.
When I’m saying that it’s a different way to speak about true things. I’d say Joseph Smith literally expected the community to have the same real experience he did.
I believe many times ‘ficture’ can tell more truth than ‘non-fiction.
But what I see hereis Mormonism being turned from JS’s ‘prose’ into today’s ‘poetry’.
“I’d say Joseph Smith literally expected the community to have the same real experience he did. I don’t think JS ever thought his community was going to see God.(Or his Gold Plates).
Sorry for the typing errors.
Bob:
I’d say that seeing the Lord and ministering angels face-to-face is the foremost purpose of what was formulated as “the endowment”.
It’s why temple-goers are taught the order of prayer and prepared in all things to receive further instructions at the veil. It was all given with the assumption that a real experience would follow the image [or enactment] of an experience.
So to say Joseph held no expectation for the Gentile church of God to experience the same things he did — you’d have to address the word of God in D&C that says things like:
and
Essentially — I’d say that was the endowment Joseph was trying to give the church of God — not special underwear and a stage-show of secret hand gestures — but the same experience that was had by all the ancient prophets.
Bringing us eye-to-eye with them, connecting them to us by a common experience, etc.
Justin:
#14:”I’d say Joseph Smith literally expected the community to have the same real experience he did”.
#17: “I don’t think JS ever thought his community was going to see God”.
Whick is it?
When you say ‘real” do you mean Objective or Subjective? How many Mormons have seen God in the Temple?(Objectively).
Bob:
No — don’t worry, you didn’t catch me in a contradiction — lol. That indented portion of #17 is a blockquote of what you wrote in #15.
I’d say that I believe what I wrote in #14 — as well as the rest of #17, which I wrote.
I’d say that given what I can gleam from personal conversations and from reading online comments — that it’s common for LDS to take very little instruction from the current temple ordinance.
It is my opinion that this is because we have reached the point where the meaning of the images have been lost long enough ago — that even the priesthood among us have no idea what to make of the thing and what it’s all about.
Andrew,
I was just listening to the Brant Gardner interview on Mormon Stories, and I think this applies to our conversation.
#20: MH,
I know I have moved on as to how I see/speak of ” Spiritual things”. I am open to ‘what does it mean?’, instead of ‘did it really happen?’. But,I am just not sure the Church is ready to let it go at that.
I also feel “I don’t know” is a starting place, not an end point.
I was just chatting with man last night who went from Christianity to Mormonism and now back to Christianity, considering himself an ex-Mormon, and he was emphatic that if I saw the evidence against Mormonism, that I would totally lose my faith in it.
In all honesty, it has been some time since I’ve looked over all the “debunking” literature, and obviously I wasn’t swayed, but I wondered if perhaps there has been anything new come out that is so convincing to people that John Dehlin’s statement makes sense?
So I ask all those who “know about Book of Mormon and DNA and the Book of Abraham” to please point me to any scholarly web sites that cover this information, and especially the latest information, so that I can review and consider it and perhaps be able to answer Dehlin’s question intelligently.
Thanks ahead of time to anyone that replies.
Forgive me if what I have to say seems out of place to your way of thinking, but I think it’s it important that it be said.
After nearly 5 years exploring the Bloggernacle, I’m concerned many of those who participate on a regular basis are scrambling up a ladder that is leaning against the wrong wall.
The Lord instructs His followers to do specific things in order to get the promised results. If we choose to do things differently than what He has told us, what do we expect? In other words, we flunk Sainthood (note: I haven’t seen Jana’s book yet).
We can’t expect to gain the promised manifestations of the Spirit when the majority of our time and effort is taken up with the things of this world(“debunking” literature).
If we want to have the promised blessings, we need to diligently follow the Lord’s plan. I hope that all who are climbing a ladder other than the one the Lord provides will pause long enough to hear the Lord when he says:
…ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.
Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts…
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 46:7 – 8)
I wouldn’t say these things if I didn’t know with certainty that they are true. I know by experience that the Lord’s promises are available to those who hunger and thirst after the things of God.
Well, no one pointed me in any direction, so I went searching on my own. It looks like nothing much has changed on the Book of Abraham scene, except for a few new things that actually lend credence to it.
As far as DNA and the Book of Mormon goes, it seems the fact that Asian DNA is the prominent root among Native Americans is what is making lots of hooplah these days, but that also supports the Book of Mormon, considering that Lehi passed through Asia on his way to the promised land.
None of this stuff seems earth shattering to me, or at least faith shattering. If anything, it seems faith supporting to me, and that is how I’ll answer John Dehlin’s question. But perhaps I’ve missed something? If so, again, I appeal to those who know the new stuff to point me in the right direction…
Regarding the OP question of, “What are your thoughts on a Mormon Midrash?”:
My dictionary defines midrash as
With that definition in mind, it seems to me that midrashoth are found everywhere, among all religions. All religions engage in expounding upon the scriptures, whether in verbal or written form. The Christians do this all the time, and publish many of them. The Muslims also have a body of midrashot. And we Mormons, in all the talks that are given on a daily and weekly basis, deliver midrashim continuously, some of which are written down and published in books and magazines, such as the General Conference editions. Heck, even I find myself expounding to all around me all day long.
But I wouldn’t go so far as to label any of the scriptural texts delivered through Joseph Smith as a midrash. There is a pronounced difference between expounding something under one’s own power, basing the exposition on traditional thinking, and expounding by the power of the Holy Ghost. When done by the power of the Holy Ghost, it becomes scripture, even the word of God, the will of God, the power of God unto salvation, etc.
The Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon both fall into the category of having been given by the power of the Holy Ghost. The Book of Moses, also. Even the JST, which many truly view as a midrash, appears to have been given by the power of the Holy Ghost, which takes it out of midrash status. Yes, there are expositions in all these texts, as there are expositions in the Bible, but as long as they were not given by mere tradition, but by the power of the Holy Ghost, they are lifted into word of God status. For that is the very definition of the word of God: anything that is given by the power of the Holy Ghost.
All these things appear to me to be bona fide revelations from God. So, do we have Mormon midrashim? Yes, we do, but they are not the canonized word of God. That’s something different.
I thought it was interesting that Jana identified polemics as more often a male problem (presumably than female). I actually think she may be on to something. Another downside to patriarchy! It’s hard to imagine the majority of women talking in such black and white take it or leave it terms. I fully agree with her view that spiritual answers satisfy the individual but seldom the asker. I think E. Jensen’s answer to welcome people to stay who are unsettled and may even remain unsettled for life is perhaps the best way to deal with it if the membership (esp the polemic-lovers) can be persuaded.
The midrash concept is intriguing, but it sounds a lot like pseudepigaphica. If so, doesn’t that elevate Mormonads as kind of sciptural? I guess they inspire some . . .
Anarchist: I was taken back by Dehlin’s condescending statement about only uninformed Mormons remaining as well. I think I’m totally apprised and up on the “evidence” (at least as much as I can be). I come as close to being a TBM who is as fully informed on these issues as I can be (given that I have a day job). I just disagree with him a lot.
I address similar issues related to midrashic expansion in a paper on the Book of Abraham as revelatory expansion that is both ancient and modern — you can find it on my website. I’m surprised by the correspondences between the Book of Abraham and the Apocalypse of Abraham on the one hand and associations Jews made between Abraham’s visions and the Book of the Dead (Breathings) on the other hand. Joseph tapped into something genuinely ancient. For me the Book of Abraham is essential to Mormon beliefs and identity.
I also think that there must be differences in temperament regarding these issues. I’ve never seen table cloths, doilies and flowers in priesthood — never! There is a reason why SMPT is 96% male — though I admit I don’t know what that reason is (except that I suspect it has something to do with a larger corpus callosum joining the two hemispheres of the brain in females which likely leads to more holistic and connected reasoning and experiencing).
You know, the argument of the disaffected is a lot like the anti-Mormon argument.
“I know something you don’t know and if you did, you’d leave that Church!”
but yet, different things affect people differently and thus a problem to one is not always a problem to another.
But, does it really make those who leave feel better if they thing we are all dumb for staying.
BTW, the simple definition for midrash is commentary. We have a lot of that in the Church. In fact, you could fill rooms with it. Yet, the gospel is, by and large a very simple thing. Why do we humans insist on making it complex.
Some things, like the Atonement, might escape our deep understanding in this life, but the concept itself, is very simple.
It is human nature, human foible’s and human interaction that make the history what it is.
Why is the literal version of scripture so hard to believe? The fact that we are here at all is a miracle in itself. So why should Baalam’s talking ass be so hard to swallow?
Wow. That’s not patronizing at all.
LDS Anarchist, I think those using the term midrash are using it somewhat loosely. But honestly there are big differences from the main midrashic works and the LDS parallels.
#27 Jeff,
“I know something you don’t know and if you did, you’d leave that Church!”
That goes both ways, though. People in the church say to those outside of it:
“I know something you don’t know and if you did, you’d join this Church!”
and to those in the church who are faltering in their faith, we say:
“I know something you don’t know and if you did, you’d stay in the Church!”
Is all of such talk patronizing, I wonder?
There is something very valuable in Jana’s way of looking at the BoA. Critics (including myself) look at the translation process and materials and say, “Obviously he was fooling himself. He was just making this up.” But it might be better to look at the content of what he created rather than the methods.
hawk, that is especially true since the Book of Abraham is a temple ritual text that we have from an interaction with a clear temple ritual text (the Book of Breathing is how one is restored to breath after death, after all).
Blake and LDS Anarchist ^^ (two thumbs up) 😉
Blake, I’ll have to check out your book on BoA. I did a post a while back asking if BoA was related to Muslim texts because (as I understand it), Muslims know the story of Abraham breaking his father’s idols. It’s pure speculation on my part–I’m wondering if anyone has done any carbon dating on the Hor scrolls to find out if they even date to a Muslim period or earlier.
Clark, I agree Jana is using the term midrash loosely (and I’m pretty sure she would agree.) She was saying it would be nice to have such a tradition in Mormon culture, and I agree that it would be nice. Like Hawk, I also like her “spiritual” rather than empirical argument. We do need to look at the content to find it’s value.
MH – The story of Terah breaking the idols is well known in both pseudepigraphic sources (e.g, Apocalypse of Abraham) and midrahs (the midrash Rabbah). It is certain that the Hor scroll dates to about the 1st century.
Thanks Blake. Obviously 1st century pre-dates Muslim texts by a few centuries. This makes me want to do a review of your book! I’ll have to see if I can get my hands on a copy. (Know anybody that offers a discount for a review?) 8)
MH – It isn’t a book, it is simply a paper at the very bottom of the page. You can find it by clicking my name.
http://blakeostler.com/docs/Abraham.pdf is the specific link, I think.
Whatever the source of the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham, they have the peculiar quality of knowing things that are also found in other ancient manuscripts and traditions about those prophets, but were unknown to Joseph and his contemporaries. The attempted sacrifice if Abraham, the details about Enoch, are authentic and ancient, but how did a farmer on the American frontier know them? For me, the verification for one outrageous claim of the nBook of Mormon after another leads me to trust Joseph on his other works.
Yes Raymond, I agree. I’m not sure how the skeptics explain such things.
At least one scholar believes Joseph Smith had a source that will eventually out.
My response to that was to state that the alternative explanation for it all is that the LDS Church is a huge practical joke by the Wandering Jew of folklore.