I like how Andrew S and Brigham Young actually reach a parallelism on deconstruction (so that they do not reach the same place but they both realize that the current paradigms in the Church are social constructs).
Without taking too much time on deconstruction as it is in philosophy, the essence of deconstruction is that intrinsic and stable meaning to concepts is impossible because we instead derive meaning through context — “concept is constituted, comprehended and identified in terms of what it is not and self-sufficient meaning is never arrived at” because context precludes “self-sufficient” meaning.
LDS versions of the same concept conclude that there is a reality, but no description can properly define it because all descriptions are in our language and limited by what we have for language.
For example, from the Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young remarked:
When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities…. Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings
When the Lord reveals anything to men, he reveals it in a language that corresponds with their own. If you were to converse with an angel, and you used strictly grammatical language he would do the same. But if you used two negatives in a sentence the heavenly messenger would use language to correspond with your understanding
In discussing that point, I agreed to revisit the topic for a post at Wheat and Tares.
Brigham Young and Joseph Smith both taught that we see the world through a lens of our own experience, language and knowledge and that it creates filters not only for what we see and know, but for what God is able to communicate to us and what and how revelation works in our lives. (See additionally comments from George A. Smith on the dependence of the very grammar of scripture or revelation on the language of its recipient).
It is important to realize that in that framework, our viewpoint is not superior to the framework of Abraham or Moses or Peter or Moroni — it is just different. Each framework has its own selection of weaknesses and follies. The best way to understand it (rather than the morass of philosophy and outside of just reading Joseph Smith and Brigham Young on the topic) is the linguistic relativity hypothesis.
Large differences in language lead to large differences in experience and thought. They hold that each language embodies a worldview, with quite different languages embodying quite different views, so that speakers of different languages think about the world in quite different ways. This view is sometimes called the Whorf-hypothesis or the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, after the linguists who made it famous. But the label linguistic relativity, which is more common today, has the advantage that makes it easier to separate the hypothesis from the details of …
This is easily seen in the three ball experiment. In dealing with people whose language does not have a word for the color orange, if they have three balls (orange, red and yellow), are allowed to handle them for a while, then told to remember the orange one, when they are asked to choose the ball that was identified, they tend to pick the red or the yellow one. If their language has a word for orange, they pick the orange one. They literally remember the ball as the color they have a word for, rather than the color it is.
In religion, it is not only if five people without inspiration read a scripture that they will have five different interpretations. If if five people with inspiration read the same scripture they also will have five different inspirations. This applies even if the five “different” people are the same person, just at different stages of their life experience, different vocabularies and different connotations with the vocabularies. Notably Brigham Young was very clear that if Joseph Smith had translated the Book of Mormon at 30 it would have been a much different book than it was than what we have now.
“And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.”
This raises a number of questions and should serve as a warning that anyone who writes down a spiritual communication is not writing down what the Spirit communicated but their construct of it in the language they have at the time. Anyone reading it or hearing it has to escape both the frame of the sender and their own frame to come closer to the truth. I touched on this on the older essay on God being a Quantum God — the idea that the views of God that we have are like the blind men and the elephant — except if you are someone who can see you would see that there is no “elephant,” just the differing views of the blind men.
The difference between Brigham Young’s deconstruction and many modern deconstructionists (who could use a lot more real science in their backgrounds) is that Brigham Young believed in not only a physical reality, but that there was a pure spiritual reality that we could someday grasp and that should inform the way we faced life. He believed in an ultimate meaning that we all approached, and that had many valuable approaches (thus his famous sermon about how other religions had truths that we lacked and how we need to go out and bring back those truths for ourselves). He realized that his vision of that spiritual reality had holes in it that were inevitable. (Cf., Joseph Smith’s discussions of a perfect language and similar matters on language.)
But from the same post is Joseph Smith’s insistence that everyone also seek the spiritual:
…Joseph Smith may not be counted among those whose knowledge-claims were esoteric. The world has seen many who claimed isolated individual access to special realms reserved for the few. But Joseph Smith was not in this sense a Gnostic. Though his life and privileges set him apart–and there was something unfathomable in his suffering as well as his understanding–and though he was to his people in a generic sense “Prophet, Seer and Revelator,” yet no note is more frequent in his private and public statements than that each can come to know for himself. Second-had assent, even to him as prophet, was, he said, a form of ignorance.
Thus, just because there are many socially created paradigms does not mean that our paradigm is the one true paradigm untainted by human error; instead it means that our paradigm and our filter necessarily has error and mistakes. It means that we believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things and that we, at present, go through mists of darkness in the Church, with only Christ’s core principles that he gave us to hold to.
In addition, we believe that the parable of the Iron Rod reflects that those who have entered into the way and who have the truth will experience “mists of darkness” and find themselves unable to know which way to go from logic and intuition alone.
So where does this leave us in our own quest for truth? What is “really” true?
I begin with the Book of Mormon’s two key doctrinal points:
- Jesus is the Christ. The true love of Christ is the heart of what it means to have a testimony that Jesus is the Christ.
- Cleave unto Charity (be kind).
At greater length (from Moroni 7:13-14):
13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
and also, verses 43-48:
43 And again, behold I say unto you that he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart.
44 If so, his faith and hope is vain, for none is acceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart; and if a man be meek and lowly in heart, and confesses by the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; wherefore he must needs have charity.
45 And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
46 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail—
47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.
48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.
Everything else flows from this, and for everything else there is always more time.
Wheat & Tares 
Wow!!! Excellent article Stephen!
Brigham Young was extremely intelligent and practical. Perhaps his fluid idea about the nature of truth allowed him to venture into daring territory, where imagination and revelation are very close. Then you have things like the Adam-God theory, and also an ability to preach hellfire and damnation a bit carelessly if it serves your purpose.
Great article.
Great article, good thoughts. Something very important to remember when we discuss with others, and how the ideas are being filtered into speech, and the other person’s filters back to ideas.
But I’m curious, after you present your views about how we really know what is real or truth, then you have “Jesus is the Christ”.
Charity…I see that as a universal truth.
My point…we have so many differences in culture and language that affect our paradigms…how do we know the Christian paradigm is “truth”? What if that is just our language for how to express the idea of God is goodness all around us? It is how Joseph Smith from his point of view could express The Father and The Son in a way we could understand, but that may only be limited to our language and there is deeper truth to a god not limited to the anthropomorphic being we can talk about?
Regarding “finding meaning” and the original quote above the farmhouse…it reminded me of a Joseph Campbell quote:
“People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonance within our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive. That’s what it’s all finally about.”- Joseph Campbell
It’s more about experience, and then putting stories and meaning to what we’re experiencing…which stories become dependent on our language and culture because we are trying to frame in in the language we know.
The orange ball is the orange ball. Our experience in life is what it is.
It only becomes orange when we know the word orange. It only becomes charity when we know what charity is.
Thank you for presenting so beautifully these profound insights into a complex subject.
Howard and Rosalie, thank you.
Nate, it is interesting to read Brigham Young bemoan that his listeners demand the oratorical style of hyperbole from him — he was both very good at it and disliked it as a style, but could not move audiences with out it.
Heber13 — I see the entire purpose of the Book of Mormon to testify that Jesus is the Christ. I unfortunately came to Campbell after having read the entire Ishtar cycle.
Anyway, my conclusion is that the most important message of Joseph Smith and of Brigham Young and the Book of Mormon is that Jesus is the Christ.
As a result, as a Mormon or LDS, in looking for where the message of the Church takes you in finding truth, it goes first to Jesus is the Christ and second that you need to encompass Christ in your life by learning and expressing Charity or the pure love of Christ.
If you are going to apriori root causes and truths before that, then you are going outside of Mormonism. Which takes you to a different sphere than the bloggernacle (insert joke here about how you need to go to blog xxyyzz instead of Wheat & Tares).
Howard and Rosalie — I confess that I dropped off blogging output before because of the lack of feedback, but comments like yours made me glad I started writing again for this blog.
I really loved this post as well. I’ve been thinking lately about the lens with which I view things. Scriptures, prophets, church, etc. Right now it’s doing pretty well with keeping progressing on the path (I feel close to my Savior and find my perspective helpful in christians service and empathy). But I fully acknowledge my limits and that I see through a glass darkly. I hope to continue to gain clarity and understanding and wisdom, and that may change my perspective as I progress. I’m glad you started blogging again. Thanks.
I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.
Doesn’t this argue against the rigid literalistic view of the BoM? Doesn’t it also imply that there is value to the BoM beyond a literal interpretation? Isn’t this inline with those who reject BoM historicity but accept it’s divine source?
Stephen,
I generally have great respect for your viewpoint whether I agree with it or not. In the past sometimes I’ve had difficulty understanding what you wrote. This piece in spite of it’s considerable depth and complexity seems quite clear. Thank you for the clarity and the substance of this post.
Howard,
One thing that came out in another discussion over this article was how much the sort of things Stephen wrote about can apply whether one believes in the plates or does not, whether one believes in historicity or not.
I mean, what we know about the Joseph’s translation processes doesn’t fit what we would conventionally describe as translation. For the BoM, it’s from the idea that Joseph didn’t even have to look at the plates. For the BoA, it’s from the fact that the papyri don’t have a conventional translation from Egyptian.
So, one can believe in historicity (e.g., plates existed, people existed) but still point out that the translation process depended on who Joseph was at the time (and could change as Joseph changed.)
Andrew,
Well I can agree to a point but it seems you’ve taken a very narrow view of what BoM historicity means by limiting it to historicity = tangible plates + actual characters. That narrow construction conveniently sidesteps the bigger problems with BoM historicity like anachronisms, genetics and geography.
Stephen,
You’re starting with the mormon lens, and then viewing everything from there as truth within mormonism. Then you introduce the ideas that we should be careful of the lens we view things from, because as BY and JS taught we see the world through our own lens.
“It is important to realize that in that framework, our viewpoint is not superior to the framework of Abraham or Moses or Peter or Moroni — it is just different. Each framework has its own selection of weaknesses and follies.”
So from that, mormonism is not superior to buddhism, judaism, islam, shintoism, or all other Chritianity. It’s just different.
Isn’t mormonism just the framework for wheat and tares discussion? But if we take the premise of your article (which was well written), doesn’t it call into question the reality or truth of Jesus as the Christ, if you’re using the Book of Mormon as the source of truth? The Book of Mormon was just one prophet’s view through his lens on truth.
The questions still remain, “So where does this leave us in our own quest for truth? What is “really” true?”
re 11,
Howard,
I don’t think I’m taking a narrow view here…what I am doing is pointing out (as was pointed out to me in other discussions) that at some level, a lot of orthodox members are going to engage with the starting place being: there were plates. There were actual people.
But that’s where JS and BY are starting from. So all of their comments (which are for a constructed view) mesh (and must be able to mesh) with a worldview that starts from that starting place.
In the other discussion, I wrote that that would still probably lead to a lot of problems and faith crises…but I can also see how from a practical standpoint, that will be the only place you can reasonably start from a faithful perspective these days.
re 12
Heber13,
The big difference between the deconstruction Stephen has been writing about and deconstruction from a secular perspective though is that even if the BoM is just one prophet’s view through his lens on truth, we still have to recognize that there is some sort of truth there.
As for other religions, of course, you can find many quotes especially from Brigham Young would recognize just the same that all religions have truth. Our job is to gather all the truth together. Or
I agree, Andrew. There is “some sort of truth” to it. That is how I see it.
Andrew your view of historicity appears to ignore the BoM narrative itself, that isn’t a narrow view of historicity? That’s certainly a redefinition of it’s common usage within the bloggernacle. I can also see how from a practical standpoint, that will be the only place you can reasonably start from a faithful perspective these days. If you’re offering an apologetic rationalization for a faithful walk-back from the literal historicity belief I’m all in but let’s be honest and call it what it is rather than conflate your meaning of BoM historicity with that of the brethren”s.
Stephen,
I’ve never commented on this blog before, mostly I just lurk, but I had to break my silence to tell you that this is one of my all time favorite posts of all the bloggernacle. Keep it up.
I have to take back my previous comment. I just read your post about God being a quantum God and that is now my favorite. Thank you for articulating beliefs that I’ve never been able to put into words, it almost gives them a different meaning.
re 15,
Howard,
The BoM narrative itself is socially constructed — by numerous parties. You, me, the Brethren, JS as translator OR as writer (if you think that way), the numerous figures in the BoM (if you think that way). You want to go to a particular view of what the text itself says as if that is available.
Andrew,
You’re preaching to the choir while pretending not to notice that the brethren and their literalist followers disagree yet your defining this view as a faithful path when they wouldn’t agree. Actually I think you’re selling it as a faithful path which is fine with me but you’ve been dodging the issue with me.
19,
Well, the point is if anyone says, “this isn’t faithful,” you can just point to JS, BY, etc., and point that this is faithful.
But what I did say in an earlier comment is that you’re probably going to get further in a conversation with “the brethren and their literalist followers” if you are willing to say, “OK, the plates existed, but now what?” rather than if you say, “The plates didn’t exist”
I’ve really enjoyed the additional comments.
And I am grateful to Andrew for his editing and feedback.
Okay I see where you are with Andrew, thanks for explaining.
Stephen, just wanted to add my feelings that I’m enjoying your thoughtful posts. Missed them.
Does this also explain why a Prophet who is a racist is not likely to receive revelation to end racism, and that the older Apostles who have troubles with accepting homosexuals are likewise limited?
We will also have to wait for leaders who respect women as equals, before the priesthood can be held by all worthy members.
What God wants has to wait until we have prophets who are willing to accept it too.
Geoff — and have members who can accept things as well.
A story for a different view of the same concepts. http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-blue-and-how-do-we-see-color-2015-2
Much better than the “which color is tha dress” photo circulating around.