This is my first blog post in about three months. That’s the longest dry spell since I first put up my personal website and started blogging in September 2015. I have huge motivation and ambitions related to making a positive impact in the LDS faith crisis world, but that motivation wanes, and combined with period of busy work schedule and trips, I’ve been out of the game for a while. But I’ve had some recent experiences that have re-upped my motivation and I’m ready to get back on track.
I’ve got several blog posts in rough draft form, and I’m still working on a series of podcast episodes, but for this post, I’ll just summarize a little bit of what’s been on my mind the last few months.
Terryl Givens
Terryl Givens has been on fire with his new appointment at the BYU Maxwell Institute. My favorite part of his recent lectures is insight into 1 Nephi 13:32. The original 1830 version reads:
32 Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that state of awfulwoundedness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.
In the 1837 version, Joseph Smith changed the bolded phrase to “awful state of blindness”. I like the original. Givens’ take on this is that this verse is key to understanding the purpose of the restoration. The abominable church (McConkie claimed it was the Catholic church and that’s probably how the earliest readers of the Book of Mormon interpreted it, but it’s more accurate to interpret this as generically some of the early Christian thought leaders) messed up important doctrines, which caused people in the latter days to be in a state of woundedness. This messing up was mostly related to misunderstanding the nature of God and Jesus Christ and the atonement, resulting in an inability to access the healing nature of the love of God and the atonement of Jesus Christ. The purpose of the restoration was to fix that misunderstanding. Love it.
Mormon Stories billboards
Like the good Mopologist I am, I get tweaked pretty easily by “Anti-Mormons”. An example is when I see the Mormon Stories billboards, especially the one in my neck of the woods, driving up the old Springville highway into Provo. My understanding is that these billboards were funded by Mike Brown, who wrote up some articles on the issues like Book of Abraham, polygamy, BOM historicity, etc, for the Mormon Stories website and and the billboards are driving traffic to those articles. “Know your religion,” said one of them. I was complaining about this to someone with views similar to mine, ie nuanced believing active LDS. Their response was something like “Why, I think it’s great, more people need to know these issues. What they do what that information is up to them, but everyone should know it.” Hmm, that made me think.
I listened to the recent Mike Brown podcast interview with John Dehlin, and I was mostly neutral to the interview. Brown’s take is pretty typical. Raised LDS, strong testimony, became aware of church history issues, found no acceptable answers, left the church, and now he wants others to know the issues. He wasn’t that antagonistic about the church. He just wants people to know the issues. I can’t fault that. I was happy that John asked him about the Neo-Apologist take “what about people that conclude the same things intellectually but think it’s still good place to be, provide spiritual nourishment, good place to raise kids, take it metaphorically, it’s all good.” Mike answered he didn’t feel that position was very compelling, and that if it’s not literally true, the value to stay is just not there. Fair. It’s my job and the job of people like me to make that case more compelling and more clear and obvious to people in this situation.
Book of Mormon translation theories
I’ve been thinking deeply about Book of Mormon translation theories after hearing Brian Hales presentation at FairMormon. His argument is essentially that the book must be completely exterior from Joseph, ie full dictation model no expansion or use of his own words, phrases, ideas, due to the nature of the dictation. Joseph dictated several pages a day during a 90 day time frame with eye witnesses reporting he had no notes and dictated off the seer stone. Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack’s research backs this up, showing strong evidence the Book of Mormon was dictated.
I’m working up a formal presentation for a model for Book of Mormon translation that incorporates the eye witness testimony and could be viewed as an acceptable position for a faithful LDS but which also proposes the BOM as non-historical scripture which comes primarily through the mind and language of Joseph Smith. Most of what I do is very informal, so I hope I have the time and capability to do it right. But here’s the gist of my logic.
- Joseph didn’t have the natural ability to create the BOM. The complexity and spiritual power it has is above Joseph’s ability to do it himself.
- there are no actual, ancient Nephite prophets or an ancient underlying text Joseph translated
- Joseph received a revelation, similar to the one he received for Oliver, that there was a serious effort he needed to apply to make the translation, ie “study it out in your mind”.
- Joseph took that responsibility seriously, studying out in his mind what should be on the gold plates, this process took place starting from when he first was visited (or saw a vision in his seer stone) by the angel Moroni. Joseph told his parents he had just received “the severest chastisement that [he] had ever had in his life … [from] the angel of the Lord.” The angel told him he had been “negligent [and] that the time ha[d] now come when the record should be brought forth.” But he also told them not to worry. He now knew what to do. Joseph might have interpreted this chastisement as him not doing enough on his part to obtain the plates and formulate the text on the plates in his mind.
- The process of this “study it out” also was part of the daily process during the 90 days he translated with Oliver.
- I think there was something very special to Joseph about the seer stone in hat process that allowed to “get in the zone”, and touch that place that seemed beyond his normal self, where a theist would call it supernatural intervention/inspiration but an atheist might call it just an extremely high functioning human creative process. This aspect of the translation experience was by far the most important to Joseph and those observing him, and so that was the focus of the eye witness accounts.
So, Joseph studied out the BOM story in his mind for years with all kinds of potential source material, discarding what didn’t feel right keeping what felt right. Holy Ghost guiding him the whole time. Then when he’s with Oliver, he’s actively working it on a daily basis, probably together. Then it’s go time, time to translate, the seer stone goes in the hat, and the magic happens. Joseph is on fire when he’s in the seer stone and what he says seems way above him, even compared to the study session he just had. The BOM is translated onto the seer stone in English by the power of God and dictated from Joseph to Oliver. Joseph, Oliver, and Emma saw the humanistic side of this but also all believed in the supernatural side, and emphasized the supernatural side of it when talking to others. Not lying (I guess that’s up to each to decide if they think that’s dishonest–probably some pious fraud going on at some level) but not completely disclosing the entire process.
Wheat & Tares 
Thanks for your take. I asked FAIR members a question if they considered you to be an apologist or your views about the non-historical nature of the BOM to be compatible with a coherent defense narrative of the LDS church a few months ago. Three of them responded to me with a resounding no. One of them said that he was acquainted with you and your writings and considered you to be a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” The ex-Mormons who comment here seem to think that you’re one of them, essentially.
I like your posts. But then again, I lean more towards the ex-Mormon side.
John W. I view this sort of like a Trumpist telling an anti-Trumpist they’re anti-American. It’s too bad they feel that way.
“This messing up [of doctrine] was mostly related to misunderstanding the nature of God and Jesus Christ and the atonement, resulting in an inability to access the healing nature of the love of God and the atonement of Jesus Christ.”
Does that mean Givens thinks no one between the “early Christian thought leaders” and the restoration was able to access the healing of the love of God? I doubt it. What about JS’ first vision experience of forgiveness (1832 version) prior to any developed doctrine of the nature of God and atonement. Does Givens get around to pinpointing when there was a restoration of the “correct” understanding of the nature of God, Christ, and the atonement? There sure have been a lot of different understandings of the nature of God reflected in the BoM, the Emma Smith hymnal, the Lectures on Faith, BY’s discourses, other early Mormon writings, and current Church teachings. Since Talmage Church teachings on the nature of God don’t seem to have changed much, if at all. And for some us, do not seem to have much relevance to whether we feel the love of God or are spiritually or psychologically healed.
While I appreciate the Givens’ emphasis on Christ as healer of our woundedness, the language of Christ as savior from sin and its effects is not going away. It seems the Givenses don’t like the emphasis on “savior” because they reject the total depravity theory of some protestants. But one can reject “total depravity” without rejecting “sin” and “savior” at the same time. At least to the extent “woundedness” results in sin, being saved from sin requires being healed of woundedness. I remain appreciative of the emphasis, but unconvinced that messed up doctrine on the nature of God and atonement causes woundedness. Or that such messed up doctrine prevents access to the love of God.
JR I agree largely with some of what you’re saying. A few more comments on what Givens is doing. 1. I am oversimplifying his point for brevity, though I think I’m at least on the right track.
But also Givens is greatly simplifying (and probably wrong) in terms of his suggestions that early Christian thought leaders are clearly aligned with Joseph Smith and the restoration view from start to current of God and Christ and atonement. 2. Even though I like what Givens is doing and I prefer his narrative to what some might call the dominant/traditional narrative for the necessity of the restoration, I don’t necessarily think it’s an accurate depiction of reality. I view it as a post hoc explanation that I like a lot. ie I don’t think God would say yes Terryl, you’re spot on when it comes to your logic of why the restoration was necessary. 3. I sort of disagree with you if I hear you correctly that messed up view of nature of God and atonement could cause woundedness. For example, if I don’t think God loves me unconditionally or if I think I’m unable to measure up to his standards, then that would cause me to be wounded.
1. I think Givens is using “early Christian thought” as cover to critique a lot of what is problematic about our theories of the atonement (which we adopted from protestant churches in the early 20th century) and try to gently introduce grace and move us on a different trajectory with a God who is more loving and less harsh. I think it’s a valiant effort, I also think it’s unfortunate that we cannot critique problematic doctrine and acknowledge we want it to change.
2. Mike Brown. This interview drove me crazy. I thought he did a very poor job of articulating his points and kept throwing out verbal bullet points, not citing any specifics and saying “it’s all in the essays.” I feel like Mike Brown is just as black and white as before even though he’s switched positions. He also came off as extremely arrogant and condescending to people who remain in the Church.
3. BOM Translation. I really hope you can present a faithful non-literal theory that could gain some acceptance as a place for people with a nuanced faith. Like the atonement, I feel like this becomes a bit of a sacred cow and may require some “talking around.” To be blunt, my theory is that Joseph had an encounter with the divine where he felt called to begin the prophetic work and translate the BOM. Who would listen to him? He was a showman, he was a magician, he used those skills to create a “big reveal” to generate buzz. That was the story of the gold plates, complete with a treasure guardian, a hill, prop plates, tall tales of people trying to get them and a staged torn-up hearth and cooper shop. Once that had all died down he needed to focus and actually translate. He used the magical practice of scrying (looking at his stone in a hat) to focus his mind and through a combination of his personal aptitude for story telling and divine inspiration dictated the BOM. The central questions that shaped the narrative were the role of the native people in the house of Israel, how to heal the conflicts in his family and the great religious questions of the day (grace vs. works, the atonement, etc.). People were all abuzz about the history of the native people and he used that as the background of the narrative.
I don’t think this theory could ever be articulated this bluntly because of the slight of hand involved with the gold plates and how central they are to so many testimonies. But, I really hope you can carve out some space for people like me.
Very nicely written CIT. I particularly appreciate your perspective of a more nuanced view of the B of M. It’s helpful and somewhat intriquing to me in that I came to the conclusion a couple of years ago that “the Church”, it’s history, some of it’s apologetics and it’s continuously white-washed narrative was such a “hot mess”….that I set it all aside and have simply focused on “finding the devine” directly; without a church…or an established culture…telling me how to go about it. Anyway…my sincere compliments.
On Givens: Three cheers for the neo-apologists. They came on the scene a generation too late, but it’s nice they’re here.
On the Mormon Stories billboards: The LDS Church puts advertising all over the place — on Facebook, on websites, even on taxicabs in New York I’m told, and sends tens of thousands of young missionaries out knocking on doors to spread the message. So no one ought to get upset if some guy buys three or four billboards to tell the rest of the story (the stuff the Church has spent a century avoiding in LDS materials directed to the membership). I saw the one on I-15 North headed into Idaho Falls last week. I also regularly see the Come Visit Temple Square billboard on I-80 West just outside Evanston.
On BoM translation: It’s going to remain an open question for a long time. But to those who express sincere puzzlement over how a mere human like Joseph could have dictated the text of the BoM (without punctuation or paragraphing — it was just a rough draft) I suggest you visit your local library, pause with a view of the dozens of shelves filled with books, and state loudly: “All these books were written by mere humans.” There is really nothing mysterious about writing a book.
CIT, “3. I sort of disagree with you if I hear you correctly that messed up view of nature of God and atonement could cause woundedness.” Who is “you” in this quoted sentence. It isn’t I Is it Givens?
As I said, I am “unconvinced that messed up doctrine on the nature of God and atonement causes woundedness. Or that such messed up doctrine prevents access to the love of God.” Your summary statement of Givens’ position was: “This messing up [of doctrine] was mostly related to misunderstanding the nature of God and Jesus Christ and the atonement, resulting in an inability to access the healing nature of the love of God and the atonement of Jesus Christ.”
So what are we to make of the stories of the early church members (5 women, in the linked article, below) who testified of the physicality of the plates? Did they (the plates, not the women) exist or not?
https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/5-women-who-are-witnesses-of-the-physical-golden-plates
CIT: “For example, if I don’t think God loves me unconditionally or if I think I’m unable to measure up to his standards, then that would cause me to be wounded.”
So, if that part of RMN’s 2003 article that denies unconditional love were believed, it (and not pre-restoration doctrine on God) would be wounding. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2003/02/divine-love?lang=eng
Of course, in another reading, that article was simply incoherent. But it caused a great stir at the time, and was revived again in 2016. https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2016/10/conditional-love-is-back/index.html
Doesn’t matter what apologist say, CIT is the blog I used during my faith crisis. It dialed me in to what was really important, sort out what I could live with and what was a deal breaker. In the end, I stayed put and found a way to work through what I disagreed with.
I’ve since been able to rebuild my faith and while I don’t believe the same narrative that I learned as a child, I understand and don’t bare ill will against the church.
That’s far more important than what the apologists have to say.
I’ll second Andy. Without people like Rob, I’d be lost.
Regarding the BOM, does the text itself fix the nature of God questions? What I mean to say is that I was taught that God originally taught Adam the basics of the gospel and the nature of God.
That knowledge was lost at some point and Christ came down to restore this knowledge. Presumably Paul would have had an understanding of the Plan of Salvation, the plurality of Gods, the presence of a female Deity, the importance of marriage in Gods plan, the concept of exaltation and eternal increase. I cannot find these concepts in the New Testament without a heavy dose of proof texting. I get that the evil Catholics took all these plain and simple concepts out of the Bible, but how does that explain there absence in the Book of Mormon? Christ did not teach those things in the Book of Mormon. They are not there. The things he taught the Nephites in the America’s are very similar to the teachings found in the current New Testament after the pure and simple stuff had been supposedly taken out. Like almost word for word similar. It’s almost as though he literally used the one to produce the other.
I like Rob’s take of how the translation went down. The anti’s like to say it is 100% Joseph and many apologists want to say it is 100% dictation from some source. To me, it has to be somewhere in the middle. I would probably go with 70% Joseph and 30% inspired. Joseph put in years of study and was very familiar with the Bible. He felt very strongly that he was called of God to be an Abraham and Moses type figure. He was definitely more complex than a stupid farm boy who simply read words off of a rock.
CIT: “Joseph didn’t have the natural ability to create the BOM. The complexity and spiritual power it has is above Joseph’s ability to do it himself.”
The author of the Book of Mormon didn’t imbue the book with spiritual power, the reader does that.
What the Book of Mormon explains to me better than anything else is the atonement; purpose of life; freedom (acting and not being acted upon).
Someone points out that all books are written by humans. Indeed; and yet, all books are not of equal worth. Some books are inspired, possibly many. Example:
J.R.R. Tolkien – The Fellowship of The Ring
“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
I consider C.S. Lewis to also be inspired. I obtain some pretty good understanding of the atonement from his writings.
Some of scripture appears not to be inspired (“Song of Solomon”) but is simply there. It is likely that a fair bit of the Book of Mormon isn’t there to reveal glorious heavenly doctrines; is just *there*. Some guy had a duty to write something so he did.
Thank goodness for Mormon Stories’ billboards. If they had gone up earlier, perhaps my wife could have avoided 10 years of serious angst thinking she was the only one who felt the way she does. I understand the antipathy of some members towards John Dehlin but the church is severely limited in helping members who no longer believe. Dehlin fills that need.
I hate to go dictionary on you Rob, but I think it is important.
“apologetics” – the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity.
If we substitute “Mormonism” for “Christianity”, Rob, I think it is clear you are not trying to PROVE Mormonism. You’re turning everything into a metaphor and make it more palatable to people. Fine. But that’s not in the realm of apologetics. You need to pick a new term. I would say these (from Dictionary.com) are better descriptors of what you are trying to do.
adherent, advocate, ally, champion, comforter, fan, follower.
(I don’t consider myself an apologist either. I’d personally be happier to call myself an advocate, adherent, fan, or follower.) I don’t think you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but I don’t think you in any way, shape, or form are an apologist either. I think you and I are both unorthodox believers, and while there is some overlap in what we are trying to do, you and I have vastly different approaches to Mormonism. But I don’t think either one of us are classical apologists either., because we aren’t trying to prove traditional claims of Mormonism.
It makes me sad when people choose to leave the LDS Church, and I would like to prevent that as much as possible, but I also understand leaving might be the best thing for some people, and I respect that decision.
Mark N., I think reasonable people can look at the data and come to different conclusions. I totally respect that for some looking at the witness accounts of the plates is faith-promoting and leads you to the conclusion that they were literal and physical. For me, I look at Joseph’s training as a magician since his early teens. This would have involved learning lots of slight of hand. I believe that we have lots of stories about this with things like him finding the toothpick with his seer stone (it was planted beforehand) and him seeing a treasure chest with a feather and digging down and finding the feather (planted at the time or beforehand). To me it makes sense that he made prop plates made of wood and tin that were convincing covered but could not pass visual inspection. I think the sealed portion of the plates was a solid part of the prop with tin sheets on top. The witnesses who felt and lifted the plates generally described them as 40-60 pounds, which would not work with real gold, but would work with the prop I described (if it was some kind of gold compound, the plates would not have monetary value, which is central to the story). Lucy describes him running home with the plates fending off attackers. Running with 60 lb plates would be very difficult, especially with a bum leg. I also think the fact that the prop plates were not around during the translation also points to this scenario. I also think he believed they were mystical and spiritual and saw them in vision and that the people who actually saw them uncovered saw them through second sight or in vision. I think Joseph believed in the message of the Book of Mormon and I believe the book was inspired. I think he felt justified in using this magical slight of hand to generate buzz and have it serve as a catalyst to belief in the message of the book.
felixfabulous, if Joseph Smith did that, I find that to be a completely dishonest thing to do. If that’s how it really went down, then the BofM is a fraud, and just like they told us when I was in seminary, once the keystone is yanked out of the arch, the whole thing falls down. This is why I told my bishop 2 years ago that I don’t feel comfortable showing up to Church anymore. Any church, not just this one. People want the universe to make sense, to feel that there’s a purpose to it all. I’m now comfortable with the idea that that’s not necessary at all. Can’t buy the fiction any longer.