The Interpreter:
A Journal of Mormon Scripture, recently published an article by Duance Boyce. His
article called “Reclaiming Jacob” is a rebuttal to Adam Miller’s arguments
about Jacob. In essence, Miller reassessed the verses to show how Jacob debated
doctrine about Christ instead of being Christlike, and talked about love and
not showing it. There is some suggestion that Jacob was hard to find, and did
not minister to the fallen Sherem. The
latter is shown to care about the law and be similar to Laman and Lemuel in
trying to protect received Jewish tradition against what might have seemed like corrupting visions from Jacob. There is a great deal more
to his original argument and the rebuttal. I’m writing a rebuttal to Boyce, but
overall I highly recommend you read it.
I’m commenting because some of the Facebook chatter has been
incredibly disconcerting. The first comment suggested that Miller was moving
beyond reassessing to “manufacturing fault out of thin air.” The next comment
was almost word for word what I expected people to say in response to my work.
The person said that “Miller not only suggests we've all misread Jacob 7, but
that is was mis-written in the first place. This is not even a remotely
faithful perspective and it makes me wonder if Miller might see shades of
himself in the Sherem of Jacob 7.”
Declaring a line of inquiry unfaithful and calling him Sherem is
incredibly dogmatic and insulting. The tone
then became one of derision and mockery, with the final critic also judging Miller’s spiritual state for making his arguments.[1] (He doesn't want to "ascribe any bad intentions," he just compares Miller to Jacob's learned targets who forgot God[2 Nephi 9:28].) Since I have a whole book that essentially uses the same methodology as Miller,
I felt personally attacked by this thread and disturbed by the casual and jocular way they questioned somebody's faith and approach. Instead of spending my birthday
receiving insults, I decided to let it rest, but then realized I should comment now if I'm to be of any value in the discussion. Luckily, I have a whole manuscript that uses and shows the value of this methodology. In the introduction I
make the case as to why this methodology is appropriate and why a nuanced
reassessment of both heroes and villains in the text CAN help us understand the
scriptures, place them in history, and bring new insight that can help us apply
the scriptures and lead better lives. Here are the most relevant passages:
Evil Gangs and Starving Widows: Reassessing the Book of
Mormon:
Reading the text with modern and western eyes, and reading
based upon the assumptions we’ve grown up with, will influence the way we
understand the scriptures a great deal.
If the Book of Mormon is a
historical account of real people, then their decisions should reveal the same
bias, weaknesses, blind spots, and disputes as other historical events, and
upon closer examination, we do see that.
President of the American Historical Association James
Grossman pointed out that “learning history means engaging with aspects of the past
that are troubling, as well as those that are heroic… critics are unhappy,
perhaps, that a once comforting story has become, in the hands of scholars,
more
The Book of Mormon is
an inspiring book of scripture that has converted millions. Yet with a critical revisionist eye we might
see behaviors of the Nephites that are more complex, unsettling, provocative,
and ultimately compelling. It helps us
reassess and revaluate past ideas and event in the light of new interpretations
or data.
This kind of history can, and should, be used to illuminate
Mormon history and the Book of Mormon as
well. Dallin H Oaks said:
We’re emerging from a period of history writing within the
Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything unfavorable, and
we’re coming into a ‘warts and all’ kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is behind the
times, but I believe that there is a purpose in all things- there may have been
a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind
of
In addition to modern precedent, the ancient historians
within the Book of Mormon criticized
their people fairly often. Lehi’s preaching angered the people of Jerusalem to
such an extent that they sought to kill him (1 Nephi 1:20). Nephi faced the
same treatment from his brothers (1 Nephi 7:16). Alma recorded how the pride of church members
became a ”great stumbling block” to those that weren’t in the church (Alma
4:19). The Nephites became so wicked
that Samuel the Lamanite preached to them (Helaman 13-15), and the Book of Mormon recorded how the people
set Nephi’s execution date (3 Nephi 1.)
My book simply attempts to tease out additional and often unstated
details within the text to reveal an even greater understanding of it.
Another useful way to view revisionist study is by considering
the three levels of history introduced by Davis Bitton and others.[4] The first level is “A” level history. This is a fairly simplistic but useful
category of history. All the major characters wear white hats as virtuous and
noble members of the church (or founders of the Republic). Occasionally members
might make mistakes but leaders seldom, if ever do.[5] Nothing is suppressed but the history has an appealing simplicity with no controversies to complicate matters. I sometimes
call this Disneyland level history because of its pleasant nature and ability
to be communicated in simple terms. “B”
level history is the exact opposite of the first level. All of the good guys turn into bad guys,
their motives are invariably sinister, and everything is meant to seem chaotic
but ultimately the major players and events are just as simplistic as “A” level
history. This is the history most often
produced by vociferous opponents of the church. The problem with level “B” is
that there are many facts and ideas in this level which are true, but might
trouble a member who has never heard them before or hears them out of
context. This is the level in which
members are lost if they don’t move to level “C.” This last level is when members
understand their leaders are most often sincere and good people working in
sometimes tragic and mistaken fashion through a fallen world. With a proper incorporation of their faults
it doesn’t diminish leaders but brings an additional appreciation of them. The “C” level brings an appreciation of the
first section of the Doctrine and Covenants where the Lord says that he gives
commandments to his servants “in their weakness” and that “inasmuch as [my
servants] err it might be made known” (D&C1:24-25). It brings additional
understanding to the statement that the Lord is collectively pleased with His
church but not with the individuals in it (D&C 1:30). This level brings an appreciation of Joseph
Smith and Brigham Young struggling through mortal life and leadership and helps
us understand that history is complicated.
It also helps us appreciate the decisions they made, and like any
history, gives us additional tools to assess and respond to problems that we
currently face. Above all, it enriches the scriptures for us by providing a
vastly deeper and meaningful context for the events beyond having super heroes
on one side and comic book arch-villains on the other.
This level brings an appreciation to the many complaints of
Mormon (Title Page, Ether 12:25-26) and Nephi (1 Nephi 19:6) that complained of
their weaknesses. Even though the verses mentioned above are well known in the
church, few people have examined the “C” level history of the Book of Mormon. Members of the church feel the text is
faith promoting and spiritually transformative in their lives. I share that
appreciation of the text. Critics of the
church rarely feel the need to analyze the history presented within the text
itself, outside of stale criticisms of supposedly disqualifying anachronisms. Many Mormon scholars themselves are
increasingly moving away from viewing the text as historical, but wish to study
the text’s 19th century milieu or use it to advance social justice
or peace studies.[6] Those can be valuable, but a historical study that rethinks and reassesses our understanding of the historical events described in the Book of Mormon will help bring an additional understanding and
appreciation for the complexity of the events and people described in the
text. And it is the aim of this book to
provide a richer and more nuanced understanding of those leaders within Book of Mormon. Just as the mature faith
of members are beginning to develop for the flawed, loved, complex, sometimes
grossly mistaken, but still inspired 19th century leaders.
As a result of moving to “C” level history I’ve had to challenge
my assumptions about the text. The best example of this methodology comes from
the FARMS volume, Rediscovering the Book
of Mormon. Literature scholar Grant Hardy discussed Mormon’s role as editor
and how that affected Mormon’s conduct as a historian.[7] Mormon as a historian wrote that the Lamanites attacked the city of Ammonihah
in Alma 16. It reported that the Lamanites destroyed the city, kidnapped its
inhabitants, and after many battles and kidnapping some people from the city of
Noah the Nephites defeated them. The
readers never know what happened to the innocent bystanders kidnapped from the
city of Noah. As Hardy argued, using the
“C” level history that accounts for the bias of writers, that Nephite history
didn’t support the narrative that good people are saved and bad people suffer.
As a result the information about the kidnapped residents of Noah wasn’t
included in the story. When Mormon discussed
the region again most of the history was left out except for the spiritual
cause of that region’s destruction (Alma 49:9.)
Readers can see Mormon’s spiritual purpose (which form a
bias) in Hardy’s example; and ancient writers had more biases as well. They wrote ethno centric accounts that often
reported the prejudices of other people. In secular histories, Herodotus
recorded that the Persians seemed weak and effeminate for example. Writer’s
like Enos also displayed a tendency to denigrate others when he described the
Lamanites as “wild, ferocious and blood thirsty” people full of “filthiness”
(Enos 1:20.) Other writers showed different bias. Julius Caesar wrote military
histories like the Gallic Wars for
popular consumption and adulation. As a result he often praised individual
Centurions for their bravery in battle, but side stepped his own poor strategic
choices that necessitated battle in the first place. Historians like Thuycides wrote to explore
the role of justice, power, and virtue in political and military actions. Chinese dynastic chroniclers wrote the
history of the previous dynasty and particularly how the bad last emperor
forfeited the right to rule. Many
Medieval European historians focused on ecclesiastical history and the role of
God in directing man’s destiny and the rise of the church. While many Latter
Day Saints would identify with that, the Venerable Bede and others often wrote
from a Roman centered viewpoint and were hardly fair towards the indigenous
tribes they encountered. (Though ironically, the paucity of written sources
from these cultures means that the historians owe the bulk of their information
about minority cultures to the ethno centric accounts of their imperialistic
visitors.)
In any case, the role of the historian as dispassionate,
rational, objective observer of history is a rather late phenomenon that
doesn’t reflect how Mormon wrote his record.
If we read the account as though Mormon were objective, or a member of
the modern church, we miss crucial details in the text. The bias that an author has reflects in his
writing like finger prints. When we see
these fingerprints, we might reasonably ask what bias is reflected, and how
recognizing that bias would modify our understanding of the text.
[My] book is the product of that searching. It provides counter arguments that offer
alternative explanations and even provide some defenses for typical villains
like Amalickiah and Giddianhi, and I question the motives of many Nephite
leaders such as Gideon, Moroni, and Lachoneus.
This is a radical reinterpretation of the text which might make it
sometimes seem like I’m shooting Bambi’s mother. But these arguments are designed to bring us
to that “C” level of history, where the good guys do not ride in on white
horses, the bad guys on black horses, and instead every person acts with the
complexity, ambiguity, and self interest that we would expect from history, and
which might get glossed over in pursuit of the text’s spiritual purpose, or
Sunday school lessons and personal readings that fly by too quickly. These leaders, like the 19th century church
leaders, tried to arrive at the best solutions, but often failed, acted out of
self-interest, or created unintended side effects. Their failures can in many
cases help them become better people, even as they help us gain an appreciation
for fully fleshed out and imperfect people.
**********
[Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider making a donation using one of the pay pal buttons at the bottom of the page.]
[1] Here
are the comments in full:
Matthew Roper: What evidence is there in the text for
Jacob's unrighteous behavior? And if Welch is correct, Sherem's accusations
would have been a capital offense if proven. A healthy skepticism of sources
noting possible bias is one thing. Manufacturing fault out of thin air is
another.
Michael Davidson: This is an effective rebuttal. In
very simple terms, Miller not only suggests we've all misread Jacob 7, but that
is was mis-written in the first place. This is not even a remotely faithful
perspective and it makes me wonder if Miller might see shades of himself in the
Sherem of Jacob 7.
Gregory L Smith: Well, when you can create what should
have been written out of thin air and starshine, of COURSE everyone else has
"misread" it.
Tracy Hall Jr.: Would this be a good place to
publicize my Kickstarter campaign to rehabilitate Korihor? :)
Andrew Sargent: I've yet to read Miller and not come
away feeling that much "looking beyond the mark, and stumbling because of
it" has taken place with him.
I won't ascribe to him bad intentions, only a reminder
it seems that ironically another warning from Jacob is applicable, namely that
we need to be careful as we become learned, to not think we are wise, and
therefore can insert our thoughts and ideas and set aside what God has already
given us.
[2]
James R. Grossman, “The History Wars,” New
York Times, September 1st, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/opinion/the-new-history-wars.html
(Accessed September 2nd, 2014.)
[3]
Dallin H. Oaks, “Elder Oaks Interview Transcript from the PBS Documentary”,
(July 20th, 2007) http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary
(Accessed August 31st, 2014.)
[4]
Davis Bitton, “I don’t have a testimony of the history of the church” 2004 FAIR
Conference Sandy Utah. Daniel Peterson, “Reflecting on Gospel
Scholarship with Abu Al Walid and Abu Hamid, Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Sripture 3 (2013) v-xxxii.
[5]
Peterson, Reflecting on Gospel Scholarship, xxvii-xxviii.
[6]
Grant Hardy, “The Book of Mormon and Social Justice,” Meridian Magazine (March 21st, 2011) http://www.ldsmag.com/1/article/7677
(Accessed August 31st, 2014.) Joshua Madsen, A Non Violent Reading of the Book of Mormon (Greg Kofford Books,
forthcoming.)
[7] Grant
Hardy, “Mormon As Editor” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon John Sorenson,
Melving Thorne eds. (Salt Lake City: FARMS, 1991)15-28.
No comments:
Post a Comment