Last week I recommended the Givens two-volume treatment of Mormon thought for your Christmas list. I picked up another on my recent visit to Benchmark Books in Salt Lake: The Expanded Canon: Perspectives on Mormonism & Sacred Texts (Greg Kofford Books, 2018). The book includes fourteen essays by noted scholars in the Mormon Studies field and an introduction by the editors, Brian D. Birch, Boyd J. Peterson, and Blair G. Van Dyke, all affiliated with UVU. [Each also authored an article in the volume.] I assume many or all of the articles came out of the UVU Conference of the same name in 2013.
The meatiest of the articles is Chapter 7, “History and the Claims of Revelation: Joseph Smith and the Materialization of the Golden Plates,” by Ann Taves, Professor of Religious Studies at UCSB. Right up front, she sets up and rejects the simple dichotomy that has ruled apologetic and some scholarly discussion of the golden plates: “If they existed, then Smith was who he claimed to be. If they did not and Smith knew it, then he must have consciously deceived his followers …. Alternatively, if Smith believed there were plates when in fact there were not, then he was deluded” (p. 95). Taves lays out the historical sources that emphasize the spiritual nature of the reported observations of the plates and highlights the curiously spotty record of the plates as a material artefact (angel delivers plates; no one can look at them directly, with natural eyes; strangely ambivalent accounts of those who claim to have seen the plates; angel reclaims plates and they are gone for good). It is a complex but productive discussion of the plates.
Chapter 3, James E. Faulconer’s “On the Literal Interpretation of Scripture,” I found particularly frustrating. First sentence: “My thesis is that all scripture … should be read literally, perhaps only literally” (p. 47). I can see many Latter-day Saints stopping right there, secure in the standard LDS approach to scriptural interpretation: maximal superficial literalism. By the end of the article, it becomes clear Faulconer is advocating deep, contextual reading of scriptural books and passages, which will often turn out to be anything but a literal reading, as that term in conventionally used. I wish he had titled the article something like: “Literal interpretation: that term does not mean what you think it means.”
Some other notable mentions from the first half of the book (hey, I’ve only had it for five days): Chapter 6, Richard Bushman on “Reading From the Golden Plates.” A nice, somewhat more traditional discussion of the golden plates that is a nice if rather brief complement to the Taves paper. Here’s a nice aside he throws in after noting how the Book of Mormon has displaced the Bible in recent LDS devotional reading: “If we [Mormons] are ever going to restore the Bible to its former position, we will have to supplement the King James Version with the New Revised Standard or some other modern translation” (p. 85).
Also, Chapter 5, Grant Hardy on “The Book of Mormon as Post-Canonical Scripture.” Hardy has published several book on the Book of Mormon as well as on non-Western religion, so his discussion comparing it to other new scriptural texts like the Quran and the Adi Granath (of the Baha’i) is very informed. Hardy notes, for example, that both the Quran and the Book of Mormon are very self-referential, containing a discussion of the entire text itself at several points within that very text. His conclusion: “Why does the Book of Mormon talk this way? Because it is post-canonical canon” (p. 82). Here is one of his observations that should make you think a little harder about your own view of things: “What we see in the Book of Mormon depends, to some extent, on what we compare it to and on the questions that we bring to the text” (p. 83).
If you need other Christmas book ideas, go read J. Stapley’s post at BCC that will give you a dozen suggested titles. ‘Tis the season to buy good books, and read them.
I’m glad to see this Bushman quote ” “If we [Mormons] are ever going to restore the Bible to its former position, we will have to supplement the King James Version with the New Revised Standard or some other modern translation” (p. 85).”
The first time I brought an NIRV Bible to church, along with the LDS standard works, was about 20 years ago to help with some of the Isaiah passages we were reading in Sunday School. You would have thought was wearing horns that day.
Today I just use the smart phone and go to BibleGateway.com. where they have about 59 English translations to choose from.
I confess I find Taves approach problematic since she has him instantiating the spiritual plates but that still leaves Joseph as fraud since he doesn’t present the process in that fashion.
The Faulconer paper looks the most interesting to me. I’m not sure what he means in the paper, but I always learn a ton from Jim’s work. I also think that “literal” is a massively problematic term when we talk about literalism. There’s a lot to unpack in the term.
To the post canonical canon, I guess I’ll have to read what he means. I’d argue that Nephi is writing well before the conception of anything like a Canon. Arguably with the “found” scripture in the temple (what most scholars consider Deuteronomy and perhaps written during Josiah’s reign) we have a recent major change of canon. Even Isaiah at best was under development at the time perhaps with commentary to Isaiah and near Isaiah like texts being included in the Isaiah scrolls. So I’d put it as Nephi writing from a place where the very notion of canon was probably non-existent. Further I’d argue that the command to write on the plates for major leaders imposed a conception of “canon” that was not just open but had a demand to continue to be open. Finally with Mormon and the editing of the text we have something completely at odds with any notion of canon.
Dave C: I’ve used the Joseph Smith Translation (Inspired Version) in Sunday School since I joined in 1999. Never had a problem; I’m often called on to point out differences/corrections that aren’t in the KJV footnotes.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Dave C., when i taught adult Sunday School last year, I used the New Oxford Annotated Bible, reading off my Kindle. With an e-version, no one even knows, they just understand what you’re reading. That really helps for the Old Testament.
Clark you would enjoy the Faulconer paper. As for Taves, obviously her viewpoint doesn’t mesh with the standard LDS account. But the sources don’t really mesh with the standard account either (that is, you have to leave out a lot to get the sources to mesh with the standard account). Consider a modern parallel to Joseph’s attempt to get select contemporaries to “see” the plates: a bishop’s or teacher’s attempt to get an LDS student to “feel” the Spirit. They say no, I don’t feel it, and the bishop or teacher says “how do you feel?” Well, I feel this or that, says the student. “That’s the Spirit!” says the bishop or teacher. Even if you don’t agree with that approach, it’s not fraud. “Feeling the Spirit” is a subjective experience, to be described in many ways, none of which are an objective experience in the way that feeling cold or feeling angry are. (My analogy, not Taves.) Along similar lines, there is a strong subjective element in “seeing the plates” in the sources and in Taves’ analysis.
If you’ve got some bucks to spend, add The Foundational Texts of Mormonism to your list. Go read Clark’s review of the book here:
https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2018/11/review-foundational-texts-of-mormonism/
Dave B, I like Taves basic approach of playing close attention to the cognitive science of “spiritual” phenomena such as glossalia. However if Joseph was conscious about creating plates to represent the spiritual plates and said that’s not what he did then that’s fraud. Further Taves’ has no evidence for even that happening beyond a pretty ambiguous quote from Joseph’s uncle that I think she pushes way, way too far. There’s just no evidence for Joseph instantiating the plates. Yes you can make arguments that the witnesses and so forth saw them with spiritual eyes (even if several said it was natural). If that was all she had to explain there’d be no problem. However there were tangible plates of some kind that she has to deal with. She just doesn’t avoid the central problem of Joseph making plates that he knew weren’t the spiritual ones and then stating something else happened. It’s not the middle ground that some portray. It’s much more an attempt to read into the translation process how Catholics view the bread and water of communion while downplaying Joseph’s own arguments that didn’t happen.
My guess is that while this is a popular middle ground right now that within a decade we’ll be back to the more traditional fraud model for non-believers.
For a more detailed review of the book, including summaries of several of the essays not discussed here, check out this review at T&S:
https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2018/11/the-expanded-canon-a-review/