I believe that the expansion theory is more cogent now than it has ever been. Let me explain three reasons why the expansion theory is essential to assessing the Book of Mormon:

(1) Those who write about the Book of Mormon in its ancient American setting necessarily adopt the expansion theory implicitly. (e.g., John Sorenson et al.) To make sense of the animals, plants, metals, weapons, directions and so forth mentioned in the Book of Mormon, we must assume that the words in the English are approximations or “conceptual translations” to make sense of what we know actually existed. For example, John Sorenson states: “In order to make sense [of animals identified in the Book of Mormon], we must consider a wide range of historical, linguistic and natural scientific information in search of clues to interpret the scripture’s statements…. But isn’t it ovious that the ‘cow’ of the Book of Mormon was our familiar bovine, straight out without all this hegding? No, it is not at all obvious. First, we are trying to figure out what the Book of Mormon really means by the words we have in English translation … Second, there is a lack of reliable evidence — historical, archaeological, zoological, or linguistic — that Old World cows were present in the Americas in pre-columbian times.” (AnAncient American Setting, 89, 294) Sorenson gives a long list of possible candidates for the animals mentioned in the BofM that were found in ancient America on p. 299-300. All of them are merely conceptual approximations. He does the same for metals, weapons, plants, compass directions and so forth listed in the Book of Mormon. My point is that to make sense of what we know from archaeology, paleo-botany, paleontology and so forth, we must assume that the BofM was translated rather loosely and was based on Joseph Smith’s conceptual abilities and horizons.

(2) To make sense of the text, we must accept that Joseph Smith was free to choose the language in which to express the translation. It is rather clear to me that the language chosen mirrors the KJV and adopts its phraseology and mode of expression throughout. However, it would be a mistake to assume that the expansion theory is somehow invalidated if we cannot find textual aporia or breaks in continuity that show where the ancient text leaves off and the new modern text begins. To look for such aporia (as Terryl Givens does) is to misunderstand what the expansion theory claims. Rather, the point of the theory is that the very nature of revelation included the limitations and horizons of Joseph Smith ability to conceptualize, express and explain the text. The theory is based on the fact that all human experience is conceptual and involves interpretation from a point of view. The theory thus argues:

(1) All human experience involves interpretation from a particular point of view.
(2) The revelation that resulted in the Book of Mormon was at least in part a human experience.
(c) Therefore, the revelation that resulted in the Book of Mormon involved interpretation from a particular point of view at least in part.

One of the strengths of the expansion theory is that it sees all of Joseph Smith’s prophetic translations as being of the same kind. Joseph didn’t translate the BofM because he knew Hebrew and/or reformed Egyptian; he didn’t translate the Book of Abraham because he read Egyptian etc. Rather, these translations were the same as the Book of Moses and the parchment of John that he translated now contained in D&C 7. He could translate because he received revelation; and the revelation involved his input in explaining, expanding and making sense of what he received. JS felt free to change, amend, add to, delete from and generally edit the revelations that he received in the Doctrine & Covenants — and he treated the BofM text in the same way when he made changes to it in 1837. The Book of Mormon cannot be a “literal translation” or JS’s changes don’t make sense. However, if JS is giving the best expression and explanation that he knows how to give, and later has greater capacity to explain the text or “translation” in a better way, he felt free to do so.

(3) It has now been 18 years since the expansion theory was first published and to date not a single critic of the Book of Mormon has attempted to explain the presence of convicing evidence of antitiquity that I cited in my 1987 article: viz., ancient prophetic call forms, ancient Israelite covenant renewal rituals and forms and formal Hebrew legal procedures. In my view, the presence of these forms is fairly clear in the text of the BofM and they are very difficult to explain on the assumption that it was written by anyone in the 19th century. To date, the only theory that accounts for these ancient forms and the presence of modern expansions that are fairly evidence is the expansion theory.

I believe that the Book of Mormon is precisely what it claims to be: a book translated by the gift and power of God that tells us about the record of an ancient people. However, translation by the gift and power of God isn’t translation based upon an isomorphic rendering of an underlying text into English based on a knowledge of the ancient textual language; rather, it is a revelation from God which involves necessarily the limitations of vocabulary, conceptuality and horizons of God’s servant chosen to render it into English for us.

It is difficult to argue with the simple fact that results don’t lie. No one wants a bunch of hypocrites teaching the gospel. Yet if we bar all sinners from teaching the gospel then no one is available to teach the gospel. It seems to me that the decision to “raise the bar” has been counterproductive and destructive. I am not suggesting that we look the other way when there is serious sin. I am not suggeting that it is OK to send abusers, pedophiles or predators into the mission field. But the largest number of those affected by “raising the bar” don’t fit any of these sins — they are just run of the mill sinners like all of us.

Many who would go and have at least one convert are not being converted. The long term effect of the number of those who would be converted and remain active is staggering. The issue isn’t numbers but the effect and impact on the lives of those who are barred and those they may have touched. I suggest that we return to a view that leaves the decision to the spirit and the local bishop without strict guidelines from Salt Lake. Wouldn’t it be better to let repentance take however long it takes instead of some written guideline that applies to all? Wouldn’t it be better to let the local priesthood leaders who know the young man (or woman) assess the trustworthiness of that individual rather than relying on a set rule about how long it takes to wait per type of sin committed?

The notion of “doctrine” is that of a carefully formulated or set of beliefs that are adopted as definitive for a “religion”. For traditional Christians, “doctrine” means the set of propositions affirmed in the creeds or in carefully thought through statements about belief. The careful statements at Trent or Chalcedon were worked out by scholars skilled in elucidating “doctrine”. The LDS Church started out in this vein. Section 20 of the D&C was intended as the Articles of the Church which set forth its basic beliefs and practices. However, Section 20 was a statement at the beginning of an incredible deluge of revelation — and the revelations that have followed have not been nor can they be so easily formulated. We’re still drowning in this deluge and we’re not sure how to navigate these waters. We have no doctrine of “grace” though we know grace. We have no doctrine of the “Trinity” though we know God. We have no doctrine of “baptism” though we have baptismal practices and baptize.

With due respect to Bruce McConkie, I propose that we now have no Mormon “doctrine” whatsoever. There are a few very basic assertions that are not really theological in nature that define what is essential — and these questions are those of the temple recommend interview. What is essential is orthopraxis or what we do and are rather than the content of our beliefs. What that means is that it is pretty difficult to be right or wrong about LDS “doctrine”. I don’t know anyone who has been excommunicated for having wrong ideas — I know some who have been because what they taught essentially undermined and usurped priesthood hierarchical authority. The real issue is almost always political it seems to me.

It also seems to me that LDS are also therefore unfettered and free to explore the implications and inspirations of LDS revelations and how they illuminate issues of interest. We have powerful messages that may revolutionize many areas of academic pursuit. So, for example, because we have no doctrine of God’s providence (like Calvinisists and Thomists who have carefully articulated systems) we are free to explore various ways of approaching these issues and we are free to accept what works best for us. However, we are not free to define appropriate conduct or practice. I’ll address that in my next post.

However, I think it runs deeper than that. We had a young lady in our ward who was recently divorced speak in sacrament meeting. She spoke openly, honestly and genuinely about the struggles she had in her marriage with her husband’s drug addiction and failure to live the gospel. She determined that she would remain faithful and she left him to protect her children. It was a breath of fresh air to experience such honesty. But could she have discussed openly in the same way doubts (were she to have any) about the Book of Mormon’s historicity, Joseph Smith’s polygamy, or Brigham Young’s heretical beliefs about Adam? I don’t think so. Moreover, where is a safe place within the context of the Church to do so?

I am sometimes contacted by bishops and others to talk to members of their ward about doubts that they have about the Book of Mormon, or about the Book of Abraham, or about Joseph Smith etc. Often these doubts are gut-wrenching and very uncomfortable for the doubter. Yet because we have a lay clergy very few bishops and other church leaders are really prepared to address these issues. Those with whom I speak often express a deep sense of alienation because they cannot openly and honestly address the issues that really matter to them. They also express a sense of relief to be able to discuss such issues with anyone who is a believer and willing to enter into the discussion in a knowledgeable and sympathetic way.

Sometimes I fear that there is a facade of acceptance and belief in our meetings. It seems to me (and I am open to the possibility it is really me in my judgment) that we sugar coat these issues, gloss them over and pretend that they don’t exist for some. I am convinced that an open heart simply knows God and the spirit testifies clearly and powerfully of the truthfulness of the gospel. But none of us have open hearts all of the time. What can we do to make our meetings a safe place to be honest and openly discuss what we really think and believe? Or are they? Or should we?

Yet it dawns on me that if Sister Mendel isn’t eloquent about doctrine, then it probably isn’t at all important in the entire scheme of things. I’m quite certain she’ll enter the celestial kingdom before I will — and yet I am taken with propounding doctrine in a persuasive and inspiring way. I’m a quantum leap better at knowing the scriptures and doctrine than she is. Yet knowing (Latin sapere) the doctrine and truth isn’t important it seems; rather, what is important is knowing (Latin conoscere) God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent.

I should have listened to Joe McConkie. I had a religion class from him in which he spent an entire class period berating philosophy and its role in the apostasy. He was aware that I was (at that time) the only philosophy major on campus. At the end of the hour he said: “So brother Ostler, what do you think about that?” I answered: “Well brother McC, that is an interesting philosophy.” You see, everything is philosophy to me. There is no escaping it — at least if you were to live in my skin (aren’t you glad that you don’t?).

When I was young I was convinced that God’s Godness was because of his knowledge of everything. I believed that we could be saved no faster than we gain knowledge of an entire realm of truth. I believed that the glory of God is intelligence — and that includes at least being aware of what I believe and how it aligns with the way things really are.

Now I’m convinced none of that really matters and what matters is a matter of heart. Spending three years as the nursery leader in my ward does that to me I think. I’m quite sure they wanted to isolate me and get me out of any meeting where a discussion about “doctrine” might ensue because … well, because I scare people according the Bishop. Some of the good people in my ward felt intimidated. So they stuck me in the nursery and the intimidation factor went way down. The Bishop and Stake President walked into our nursery on day and said: “See that brother on the floor playing with toys with Grahm cracker stains on his suit? He can read eight languages.” They laughed. (True story). Being made the nursery leader was a good move for both of us. It dawned on me that being able to speak languages wasn’t what qualified me to be nursery leader — since many of the kids couldn’t speak yet.

So should I hang up my philosopher’s robes and concentrate on Grahm crackers and sharing time? If the glory of God is intelligence, shouldn’t I be intelligent enough to get it and forget philosophy and scholarship altogether?