Schooling the Prophet<\/em><\/a> by Gerald Smith, which was published by MI\u00a0in August of this year. Smith\u2019s goal is to trace the impact that the Book of Mormon had on the thoughts and beliefs of Joseph Smith. As he writes in the introduction, \u201cIt is my thesis that the Book of Mormon had a profound formative influence on Joseph Smith\u2019s doctrinal and institutional development.\u201d In doing so, Gerald Smith takes as an assumption that Joseph Smith translated\u2014as opposed to authored\u2014the text.<\/p>\nSmith acknowledges alternative explanations for the origins of Joseph Smith\u2019s theology, both faithful ones (\u201cMany believers attribute the developments of the restoration directly to revelation from God to the prophet\u201d) and skeptical ones (\u201cSmith\u2019s critics have tried to trace parallels in Mormonism to his contemporary environs and upbringing.\u201d) Smith, however, explicitly sets such alternative considerations aside, writing that \u201cHere I am interested in what kinds of ways the Book of Mormon might have contributed to the schooling of the man who translated it.\u201d<\/p>\n
I have invited Gerald Smith to be a guest poster here at Times and Seasons to talk more about his book, so I won\u2019t go into where that analysis takes him. For this post, the important point is that Schooling the Prophet<\/em> is a book-length analysis of the Book of Mormon text as (1) an ancient text that (2) was translated by Joseph Smith. It is hard to imagine a more serious examination of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.<\/p>\nJournal of Book of Mormon Studies<\/h3>\n
Next, I read through the original articles (not the book reviews or notes) within 24th<\/sup> volume of the Maxwell Institutes Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. I was curious to see how each article treated the question of Book of Mormon historicity.<\/p>\nAs I read, I sorted each article into one of three categories:<\/p>\n
\n- Supportive of Book of Mormon historicity
\nThese articles either take as an assumption the historicity of the Book of Mormon or support the text\u2019s historicity as a conclusion.<\/li>\n - Neutral \/ silent on Book of Mormon historicity
\nThese articles work equally well whether the Book of Mormon is a historical text or not.<\/li>\n - Critical of Book of Mormon historicity
\nThese articles either take as an assumption the ahistoricity of the Book of Mormon or detract from the text\u2019s historicity as a conclusion.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nI am using “historicity” in an informal sense, where “Book of Mormon historicity” refers to the idea that the Book of Mormon is an authentically ancient text. Clearly there is going to be a degree of subjectivity in my categories. It is also important to state clearly that a decision about how an article<\/em> relates to the question of historicity is not the same thing as a decision about what the authors<\/em> think about the question of historicity. One additional caveat: I\u2019m reading these articles with a specific question in mind, and that question is not the question that the articles were written to address. So my comments should not be taken as evaluative in any sense general. I apologize to the authors for wresting their articles out of context a bit. I hope the exercise will justify my decision to do so.<\/p>\nEvaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon: A Proposed Methodology (Nicholas J. Frederick)<\/em><\/h4>\nFrederick\u2019s paper is studiously neutral on the question of Book of Mormon historicity. As he states, \u201cIt is not the purpose of this paper to evaluate what the textual connections between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon may mean or offer speculation as to why they are present.\u201d Given his objective\u2014to propose a framework for talking about passages in the Book of Mormon which closely match passages from the Bible, including the New Testament\u2014such neutrality is reasonable. Such a proposal will be most effective when it can be used by both skeptics and believers.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s also worth noting that the simple act of addressing this sensitive topic in a neutral fashion is, itself, an improvement. As Frederick points out, \u201cThe task of identifying New Testament parallels within the Book of Mormon has largely been taken up by those hostile to the Book of Mormon, such as Jerald and Sandra Tanner.\u201d In other words, the standard treatment has been to view textual coincidence between the Book of Mormon and the New Testament as evidence of plagiarism. Neutrality is a step up from that, with respect to historicity.<\/p>\n
And so Frederick\u2019s proposed\u00a0term \u201cbiblical interaction\u201d is a carefully neutral one that \u201cshifts the attention away from the troublesome issue of authorship and places the burden of interpretation on the reader while still acknowledging that the biblical authors did have a yet-undefined role in the composition of the text.\u201d<\/p>\n
Conclusion: This article is neutral on the question of Book of Mormon historicity.<\/p>\n
Samuel\u2019s Reliance on Biblical Language (Shon Hopkin and John Hilton III)<\/em><\/h4>\nHopkin and Hilton write that their paper \u201cgrows out of a larger project focused on the word patterns of individual speakers in the Book of Mormon.\u201d Clearly, speaking of “individual speakers” is suggestive of an approach that accepts the Book of Mormon’s historicity. They also flatly state that \u201cin this study we take the Book of Mormon as it presents itself,\u201d that is to say: as an ancient document. Hopkin and Hilton’s acceptance in this paper is more than superficial. Their in-depth discussion of Samuel the Lamanite\u2019s background, for example, shows a thorough commitment to the historical nature of the Book of Mormon:<\/p>\n
He lived almost six hundred years after the time when the brass plates containing Old Testament writings were first obtained, was almost certainly not connected to the lineage that would have been trained to read and use the plates, and was not part of the Nephite community that had retained the primary biblical and Nephite religious records over the centuries.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Of course it is possible in casual conversation to treat fictional characters as if they were real. We can say, “Harry Potter thought X” or “Luke Skywalker believed Y” (where X and Y are relevant to the plot and themes of their respective stories) and no one supposes that we believe Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker are literally historical figures. However, the more involved the work of discussing a figure’s background becomes and the farther one strays from the text, the more likely it is that such discussion does, in fact, display an acceptance of a figure’s extra-textual reality.<\/p>\n
This is not to say the paper is na\u00efvely accepting of the Book of Mormon’s historical claims without awareness of criticisms, however. In a footnote, they refer to treatments of the text as a 19th<\/sup> century text (e.g. by Harold Bloom) as well as to sophisticated data analysis that validates the multiple-author view (and therefore substantiates the claim that the Book of Mormon is a historical document.)<\/p>\nConclusion: This article offers direct support\u00a0on the question of Book of Mormon historicity.<\/p>\n
Temporality and Fulfillment in 3 Nephi 1 53 (Kimberly M. Berkey)<\/em><\/h4>\nThis article does not deal as directly with the question of historicity as the previous two, but Berkey at several points treats the figures within the Book of Mormon as historical. The strongest example of this is this paragraph discussing Mormon\u2019s role as editor of the Book of Mormon text:<\/p>\n
Had Mormon included 3 Nephi 1 at the end of the book of Helaman, modern readers (much like the Nephites) would likely have misunderstood these fulfilled signs to indicate a mere conclusion to Samuel\u2019s story. By positioning this text as he does, Mormon instead editorially alerts us to the proper paradigm for understanding fulfillment, showing that fulfillment is a beginning and inviting us to the task of actively working out those implications.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The contrast of modern readers vs. ancient Nephites and the active descriptions of Mormon\u2019s intentions when editing the Book of Mormon are all suggestive of an actual historical origin for the text, even though the question is not as directly relevant to this article as prior articles.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: This article offers tangential\u00a0support on the question of Book of Mormon historicity.<\/p>\n
War Banners: A Mesoamerican Context for the Title of Liberty (Kerry Hull)<\/em><\/h4>\nHull\u2019s article is another one that is very strongly supportive of the Book of Mormon as a genuinely ancient document. \u201cIn this study,\u201d writes Hull, \u201cI place the title of liberty within a Mesoamerican context to show numerous correspondences to what we know of battle standards in Mesoamerica.\u201d<\/p>\n
Not only does Hull take the Book of Mormon\u2019s historical claims seriously enough to begin such a comparison with a Mesoamerican context, but his findings are also supportive of Book of Mormon historicity. As he writes:<\/p>\n
Many aspects of the title of liberty ceremony are illuminated when placed in a Mesoamerican context. The use of such banners in ritual and warfare settings\u2014often in fact the same thing in ancient Mesoamerica\u2014is remarkably consistent with nearly all the details in the title of liberty story.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Like both the article by Hopkin and Hilton and the article by Berkey, Hull also treats the figures of the Book of Mormon as historical in passages like this:<\/p>\n
What is discounted in locating the rite solely within Old World practices is that the Nephites had been in the New World for over five hundred years, a considerable space of time for cultural change and adaptation. It is not unreasonable to assume that local customs and traditions regarding the ceremonial use of banners would have taken root by that point.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Conclusion: This article offers direct support on the question of Book of Mormon historicity.<\/p>\n
The Supremacy of the Word: Alma\u2019s Mission to the Zoramites and the Conversion of the Lamanites (Michael F. Perry)<\/em><\/h4>\nFrom our perspective, this article is much like Berkey\u2019s: it neither directly addresses nor hinges upon the question of historicity. And yet, also as with Berkey\u2019s article, the historical nature of the Book of Mormon is taken as a given in passages that treat the figures as historical. For example:<\/p>\n
Commentators have long taken for granted that Aminadab\u2019s citation to the teachings of Alma, Amulek, and Zeezrom refers to their mission to the Zoramites. This article agrees with that conclusion, but it is worth considering the textual support for this inference at the outset, since Mormon does not clarify the point explicitly.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The article also refers to \u201cMormon\u2019s unique editorial decision.\u201d As discussed before, it is quite natural to refer in passing to fictional characters as if they were real when discussing texts in which they appear. But, also as before, the more time one invests in speculating about such characters’ actions outside of what is depicted directly in the text, the more it makes sense\u00a0to see such discussion as supporting\u00a0a view of the persons being discussed as historical figures.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: This article offers tangential support on the question of Book of Mormon historicity.<\/p>\n
Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon: A Textual Exegesis (Ethan Sproat)<\/em><\/h4>\nSproat\u2019s article hinges upon taking the Book of Mormon seriously as an ancient document with Old World influences and even on assumptions of a common linguistic parallels between the\u00a0Book of Mormon and Old and New Testament texts:<\/p>\n
In his nigh-exhaustive Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon<\/em>, Skousen claims that the Book of Mormon uses the indefinite article a with the singular skin to refer to animal skins. Skousen specifically points to the use of the indefinite article a in Enos 1:20 (\u201ca short skin\u201d), Alma 43:20 (\u201ca skin\u201d), and 3 Nephi 4:7 (\u201ca lamb-skin\u201d). Intriguingly, this same syntactical pattern also holds true in the KJV, in which the only passages using the indefinite article a with skin are unambiguous references to clothing (see Leviticus 13:48, 51; Mark 1:6). However, Skousen fails to note that other than those three Book of Mormon passages he cites, the only other instance of the indefinite article a preceding skin in the Book of Mormon appears in 2 Nephi 5:21 in which \u201cthe Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon [the Lamanites].\u201d Skousen\u2019s comparison of Enos 1:20; Alma 43:20; and 3 Nephi 4:7 would appear to suggest that when the text of the Book of Mormon describes \u201ca skin of blackness\u201d in 2 Nephi 5:21, it is referring to something made of animal skin.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nIt’s hard not to be sidetracked from our present investigation by Sproat\u2019s fascinating thesis\u2014and I can\u2019t urge folks strongly enough to read his article\u2014but for our purposes what matters is the assumption that linguistic analysis of Old and New Testaments texts can be co-mingled with textual analysis of the Book of Mormon.<\/p>\n
What is even more supportive of Book of Mormon historicity in Sproat\u2019s article, however, is that his entire thesis rests upon seeing in the Book of Mormon text a historical reality that was present for the original historical context but which no one (including Joseph Smith) has noticed until now<\/em>. Thus:<\/p>\nIn light of these textual observations, I find myself asking a beguilingly simple question: what might be discovered if we follow the contextual lead of Alma 3:5\u20136\u2014and the syntactical hint in 2 Nephi 5:21\u2014and assume that the other four references to various-colored or cursed skins in the Book of Mormon narrative also refer to certain types of clothing made of animal skin and not to flesh pigmentation at all? It turns out we can discover quite a bit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The idea that there is a reality to be discovered within the Book of Mormon text of which Joseph Smith was ignorant and which pertains to a historical, Mesoamerican reality, and which can be detected only by linguistic analysis that treats the Book of Mormon text and Biblical texts as arising from similar linguistic traditions all point very strongly to support of the Book of Mormon text as a historical document.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: This article offers direct support on the question of Book of Mormon historicity.<\/p>\n
Summary<\/h3>\n
Gerald Smith\u2019s Schooling the Prophet<\/em> and three of the six articles from the 24th<\/sup> volume of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies are strongly supportive of a view of the Book of Mormon as a historical document. Of the remaining three articles, two offer tangential\u00a0support and one is neutral. None are critical. Have\u00a0Book of Mormon studies that treat the Book of Mormon as an ancient document been expunged from the Maxwell Institute? Hardly.<\/p>\nTwo additional thoughts. First, I am not one of those who treats \u201capologist\u201d as a pejorative. Christianity has always made bold, historical claims. The physical resurrection of the Savior is the boldest. Mormonism has followed in this vein with its claim of a restoration, including the translation of an ancient text as a sign of Joseph Smith\u2019s prophetic calling. The faithful study and defense of these claims is a worthy ambition. However, an apologist\u2014by definition\u2014is a limited calling since it can only defend what is already known. It is possible to both take the Book of Mormon seriously as an ancient text and <\/em>call into question what we think we know about it. Such a view is not apologetic\u2014and may even be at odds with what some apologists believe\u2014but it can still be fully faithful. Sproat\u2019s article is one such example, since it suggests a radical revisitation of what we think we know about race within the Book of Mormon, but does so not by imposing some alien, secular, skeptical viewpoint on the text but by a completely faithful exploration of the Book of Mormon and Bible as ancient and inspired scripture. In other words: faithful scholarship need not necessarily lead us in comfortable or familiar places.<\/p>\nSecond, I believe that the scripture I quoted at the outset (D&C 90:11) applies not only to literal languages (such as Spanish vs. English vs. Chinese) but also to ways of talking and thinking. Different disciplines come with their own terminology, their own shared assumptions, and their own preferences and values. Perhaps even more than that, different kinds of people (different in temperament, aptitude, inclination, interests, etc.) may gravitate towards different disciplines and professions. Incorporating these different perspectives can be difficult and risky, but a truly multilingual approach to Book of Mormon studies\u2014and to Mormon studies in general\u2014is worth the cost. The promise that we can all hear the fullness of the gospel in our own language encompasses more than just translating the Book of Mormon into many spoken languages. It also includes a multi-faceted faith that is capable and willing of presenting itself to diverse audiences with their own \u201ctongues.\u201d<\/p>\n
I have no wish to register any opinion on the over-arching controversies that have embroiled the Maxwell Institute over the last few years. But I am happy to see that Book of Mormon studies continues to be alive and well, and\u2014to the extent that a broader approach can help broaden the appeal of Mormonism\u2014I am supportive of that initiative as well.<\/p>\n
—–<\/p>\n
UPDATE: I changed my categorization of the articles from strongly\/weakly supportive to offering direct \/ tangential support following Julie Smith’s suggestion in the first comment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cFor it shall come to pass in that day, that every man shall hear the fullness of the gospel in his own tongue, and in his own language.\u201d D&C 90:11 Introduction This post begins with a simple question: does the Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS) publish scholarship that treats the Book of Mormon as an ancient text? Or, in the words of Bill Hamblin, has the new leadership at MI \u201cundermin[ed] ancient Book of Mormon studies\u201d in favor of \u201cmodern Mormon Studies in its broadest sense\u201d to the point where the Maxwell Institute today is \u201cSunstone South\u201d? It\u2019s a sensitive question, so let me get some caveats out of the way. I\u2019m not an expert in ancient studies of any kind (Book of Mormon, Mesoamerican, Biblical, or other). Additionally, I\u2019m not trying to wade into the larger controversy surrounding the change in leadership, a controversy that involves people I know and respect on both sides. I\u2019m not passing judgment on MI as an institution nor responding to all the criticism raised by Bill Hamblin (and others), some of which are valid. I want to start by just answering one question: has the study of the Book of Mormon as an ancient […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1156,"featured_media":34535,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news-politics"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/753-Current-MI-Logo.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34524","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1156"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34524"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34524\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34536,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34524\/revisions\/34536"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/34535"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"753](\"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/753-Current-MI-Logo.png\"){kind=logo}
<\/a><\/p>\n