I realize
that reviewing a book review, which this (sort of) is, is a little unusual.
However, it is the best I can do since I refuse to read the actual book that
was reviewed. I see such a read as a complete waste of time. More and more, as
so-called “Mormon Studies” (the academic study of “Mormonism”) increases
at the university level, we see books and articles being produced that purport to
apply the training of the academy to the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is an
exercise in futility at best and spiritual danger at worst. The things of God (His
words) can only be understood by the Spirit of God. We now have another superb instance
of proof that this is the case.
The latter
half of Alma 12 and first part of Alma 13 are the Book of Mormon passages that
receive intense academic scrutiny in this book, A Preparatory Redemption,
issued by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute (still?!) attached to BYU. My comments
on the book are necessarily restricted to the quotations and summaries from it and
reactions to it found in the review, which the book’s authors and editors are
not responsible for. Yet it appears to me that some conclusions can be reached.
The discourse being covered is Alma’s teachings to the people of Ammonihah. The
text includes quoted material from Alma, but is also part of a larger
abridgment by Mormon.
The book
reviewer, Charles Harrell, explains that the book’s introduction cautions that
the essays in it should bee seen “as theological and speculative, rather than
as definitive.” They are “clearly exploratory and experimental.” Right away we
see that this book will have very limited appeal and use; after all, what good
is experimental theology to Latter-day Saints who only desire revealed truth?.
Only those who enjoy the specious speculations of others will want to read this
material. Most people are seeking gospel truths, not academic speculation. We
get “a diversity of perspectives” from scholars instead of attempts to glean gospel
truths. The reviewer thinks much of it evokes “new and insightful ways of
thinking about the text.” But is that what we really want, especially when they
are readily acknowledged to be entirely speculative?
The
reviewer informs us that he believes that some items in the book that seem
dominant are the result of group-think; having the authors meet together and
discuss the assigned text together may have allowed one or two voices to
persuade the others. He points out that some contributors evince a lack of
knowledge of how early 1800’s English may have affected the translation and how
that affects our understanding. This is a small and relatively unimportant (and
speculative) argument. The introductory material concludes with a quotation
from the book, that it is “a collaborative document designed to orient the
reader to the overarching questions, themes, and conclusions that emerged from
the seminar’s discussions.” Here we have a strong up-front statement that the
value of the book is only as valuable as the seminar’s discussions”—or the
speculations of the academics evaluating the assigned text. This conveys an
underwhelming sales-pitch to me.
We now
confront the major weakness of the book being reviewed: The application of
academic philosophies to understand the word of God. This shows up starkly in
all the material reviewed. The book’s essays are “often insightful and even
provocative, challenging traditional readings.” “Insightful” is great if such
is really the case. “Provocative” is rarely beneficial, and “challenging
traditional” interpretations is usually bad, since traditional interpretations
are usually those that have been formally taught to the Church by its inspired leaders.
Boiled down, this means these academics are smarter (more “insightful” and
“provocative”) than the prophets, pitting themselves and their great learning
against the inspiration of the Lord’s anointed who have ensured that correct
teachings are found in our study curriculum. “O the vainness, and the
frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they
are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside,
supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and
it profiteth them not” (2 Nephi 9:28).
One example
of this is the notion that Alma 13 isn’t really referring to foreordination to
the priesthood in the premortal existence—directly contradicting the teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith. We are told it is “anticipatory”, “in terms of
God’s foreknowledge, rather than in terms of human premortal existence.” This
is stone-cold false doctrine, coming to us by virtue of the Neal A. Maxwell
Institute and tithing resources (I shudder to think how he feels now about how
his name is being used by them.)
We are next
told that the “holy order” of God wording in Alma 13 is not the Mechizedek
Priesthood or high priesthood, but some exclusively Book of Mormon
“quasi-monastical” order. High Priesthood is High Priesthood is High Priesthood,
as taught in the Doctrine and Covenants. This is the kind of doctrine you get often
get from acedemia. I am glad the reviewer pointed out that this was an erroneous
reading of the text.
Matt
Bowman’s contribution to the book is summarized and critiqued, properly, since
it contains rampant speculation: “Bowman’s take on holy order is considerably
broader than what most Latter-day Saint commentators would allow and what can
be confidently gleaned from the text.” Bowman’s assertion that the Holy Order
doesn’t mean high priesthood but more of a club organization is worse than
speculation.
Commenting
on another essay in the book, the reviewer notes: “Gore’s explication of Alma’s
doctrine of a preparatory or probationary state of mortality, in which one
prepares for the endless state that follows, is faithful to the text, and he
refrains from extending Alma’s probationary state into the spirit world as many
Latter-day Saint commentators have been prone to do. In the Book of Mormon,
there is no concept of repentance in the spirit world.” This is a debatable
assertion about the doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon, but is not debatable
in gospel doctrine. Doctrine and Covenants 138 clearly teaches that repentance is
possible for some in the spirit world, though exactly who gets to take
advantage of such a prolonged probation is less clear. Since no one leaves this
life in a perfected condition with no sin, there must be provision made. No
verse or passage or scriptural book spells out all of the doctrine, so the
point made by the reviewer might be valid but is inconsequential to the
doctrine itself. The fact remains that “For for this cause was the gospel
preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men
in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” This truth is the whole
reason for President Joseph F. Smith asking God for clarification on how the
gospel was taught by the Savior to those in the spirit world.
Next, an
essay mingles the philosophies of men with a little scripture. Our reviewer
states: “Joseph Spencer leads the reader into two narrow and deep crevices: one
tracing what he calls Alma’s anthropotheology (a theology of human nature) and
another examining Alma’s cosmotheology (a theology of time and eternity).
Spencer introduces his topic by drawing on the metaphor of Christ’s death and
attendant rock fragmentation (see 3 Ne. 8:18) to extrapolate the concept that ‘Christ’s
virtual death’ (before the foundation of the world) fractured eternity into
time. This cosmotheology, he suggests, set up a particular anthropotheology,
which sees humans as being caught in this time fragmentation. This, he
contends, is the real essence of the human condition.” Do we think Alma would
recognize this philosophizing from his own sermon? Would Mormon recognize it? I
certainly don’t recognize it.
“His verbal
dexterity and ability to mine profound meanings from a single word or phrase is
most impressive. Spencer is eminently analytical in his approach to scripture,
raising second- and third-order questions that most readers would never think
to ask of the text. But he is also a tenacious semantic sleuth who pushes the
text to its limits and is able to wring out meaning beyond the prima facie
meaning. Alma 12–13, with its inherent ambiguity and elasticity, provides the
perfect grist for grinding out Spencer’s theology.” I am relieved the reviewer
had the sense to call it “Spencer’s theology” instead of Alma’s or the Lord’s.
The reviewer might be impressed by these erudite academic exercises but I am
not. Such speculation is a classic case of “looking beyond the mark” and
getting it wrong. Jacob 4:14--They “sought for things that they could not
understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by
looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his
plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot
understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done
it, that they may stumble.” Certainly the reviewers review of what the essay
author has written fits this description well, they “stumble.”
More
stumbling: “Processing the philosophically oriented theological writings of
Joseph Spencer is mentally taxing. I had to read his essay in a quiet place,
free from distraction, in order to digest it. His rarefied, cosmotheological
reading of Alma’s sermon can easily dizzy the intellect.”
Philosophically-oriented theological writings sound to me like the philosophies
of men mingled with theology and taking away the plainness; seeking for things
they cannot understand. Again, I wonder if Alma would have recognized his own
teachings in Spencer’s philosophizing. “This abstract, philosophical reframing
of Alma’s sermon is both novel and mind bending.” And shall we say, false.
More: “Spencer also muses at length over a subtle irony in the human condition,
noting that when we know God’s will, we are powerless to act on it; and when we
do have power to act, we can’t really know if we are doing God’s will.” True
doctrine tells us that God reveals His will to His children precisely so they can
act on it, if they will, and that God is pleased when we do it, and often tells
us so. The true doctrine leads to one making their calling and election sure.
“Spencer’s
essay is an excellent example of how to approach a text with analytical rigor
and attention to detail. He methodically takes readers through a highly
disciplined thought process, enabling them to see the text as he does. The real
payoff from Spencer’s essay is the way he seeks to uncover the theological
subtext of Alma’s sermon to a level that I would have never considered
otherwise.” How many things are wrong with this conclusion? Certainly we ought to
study or search the scriptures seriously and rigorously and with attention to
detail, applying all the mental ability we have to learn the doctrine. But we
certainly do not need to see the text at Joseph Spencer does, or as the
philosophers do, or search for some fictional theological subtext only Spencer
can show us. Instead we should ask God in the name of His Son to give us the
Holy Spirit to teach us as we study and ponder the teachings of Alma (or any
scripture). Beyond that, we do not turn to the philosophers for enlightenment,
but to the prophets and apostles.
Next the
reviewer engages Adam Miller’s essay: “Like Spencer, Miller takes a
philosophical approach to Alma’s sermon, and I found his essay to be the most
mind expanding of the bunch.” Summarized, he says: “Miller starts by turning
Alma’s sermon on its head. On a normal reading, Alma seems to be advocating
that this life is specifically granted to humans as a time to repent in
preparation for the day of judgment (Alma 12:24). (David Gore is careful to
emphasize this point in his essay.) Miller, however, inveighs against living
our lives preparing for death and judgment, contending that doing so brings
only alienation and premature spiritual death. Always preparing for the
Judgment, humankind never really lives, so “even before we die our first death,
we experience a second death.” This is false doctrine contrary to all the
prophets and does indeed turn Alma’s teaching on its head. So this BYU
philosopher, not liking Alma’s doctrine because it doesn’t match his, changes
it into his own. Now God is made in Miller’s image instead of Miller being made
in God’s image. “Miller’s freewheeling commentary is not bound by convention,
nor evidently by the text.” The desire to seem smart and put forth something
new and gain prestige in the academy has betrayed many professors of whatever
before, and will again. “in these things they do err, for they do wrest the
scriptures and do not understand them” (D&C 10:63).
The
reviewer seems captivated by Miller’s intellectual wresting of Alma’s plain teachings,
but is at least cognizant enough to note: “Miller’s perspective of Alma’s
sermon is problematic on multiple counts, . . .” An enormous understatement to
be sure.
The next
essay, which I will not notice much, is entitled: “Called and Ordained: A
Priesthood of All Believers in Alma 13”. A priesthood of all believers, is of
course, what the Protestant/Evangelical world operates on; one does not need to
be ordained by one having authority and keys (what Elder McConkie called a “legal
administrator”), one may instead simply believe in the Bible in common with all
other believers and that is all “priesthood” really comes to. And that doctrine
is just what many so-called liberal/progressives would like for the Latter-day
Saints as well.
Thank
goodness for prophets that hold keys and direct this Church instead of BYU
professors. “Bridget Jeffries, whose specialty is American religious history,
asks how Alma 13 might be understood when read with an evangelical assumption
of the priesthood of all believers, rather than the Latter-day Saint assumption
of a male-only, ceremonially ordained priesthood. She succeeds in showing that
such a reading is not only defensible but in some ways results in a better
reading of the text.” Where this reviewer sees success I see successful failure
and misunderstanding—again, we cannot take wrested (feminist imposed upon) Alma
out of the larger body of canonized standard works and modern revelation to
prophets today.
The
reviewer’s conclusions regarding the volume he reviewed sounds…sort of…a little
bit…somewhat…ok—on the surface, but is really a recipe for the beginnings of another
Great Apostasy: “This volume, despite a few shortcomings, is an important
contribution to Book of Mormon scholarship. These essays are intended to be
viewed as exploratory and, in some instances, even speculative, which is
precisely what makes them so intriguing and thought provoking. One could argue
that serious theological inquiry often requires this type of free exploration
of ideas, especially if real theological breakthrough is to occur. The value of
the volume isn’t that it provides a definitive exposition or approved
Latter-day Saint interpretation of scripture, but rather this volume shows the
reader how to approach a Book of Mormon text with analytical rigor and open
theological inquiry.”
On the
contrary, this volume is evidently a fine contribution to dissident Book of
Mormon scholarship. Latter-day Saints do not seek “free exploration” of ideas
because we are NOT looking for theological breakthroughs. Instead, we are
searching and seeking for eternal truth and that only comes by revelation, not
by philosophizing away the scriptures. True theological breakthroughs, such as the
Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, all came by
revelation to a prophet, not by speculation and exploration in the academy or
classroom.
May I
simply state that if these essays became church doctrine, or began to overcome
the Church, it would be a sign that the wild olive branches were overtaking the
tame ones; that philosophy was again replacing revelation; that another Great
Apostasy was overtaking the Restored Church of Jesus Christ. In that case,
which is not and will not be so case, I would go inactive and wait for death
eagerly, as I assume many who lived in the days when the original Twelve were
dying off (in the meridian of time) did, when God took His priesthood and
revelation from the earth. I would not be a member of a Church that believed
the speculations promoted by these essayists.
Reading
this review of the NAMI publication has reaffirmed to me the critical necessity
of the Church being led by a prophet of God and not by scholars and academics
and philosophers, no matter how rigorously they can think. I do not want to
join the Evangelical community making up apostate Christianity. I want true
revealed doctrine taught by true Apostles as found in the standard works of the
Church and as revealed to them today.
My earnest
question: why is BYU/NAMI promoting and publishing this stuff?!
No comments:
Post a Comment