Mild-Mannered Musings

A Letter to My Congressman

2011-11-08T00:36:00.004-06:00

Dear Congressman Lungren,

Decriminalization of mild recreational drugs is one of the most straightforward economic, foreign policy, and moral solutions available to the US today. This is a no-brainer that would have the following beneficial effects:

1) Reduce drug use. Countries that have legalized drugs and adopted a "tax, regulate, and educate" approach to controlling them have seen either no change or a decline in rates of drug use. The US saw a similar effect in the aftermath of Prohibition.

2) Stabilize Mexico. US drug policies have contributed to incredible instability in neighboring countries, which is spilling over onto US soil in the form of both violence and immigration. The best way to stop illegal immigration is to address the root causes, not to build an ineffectual fence. This is a practical as well as moral imperative.

3) Cut spending and raise revenue. Taxes on drugs would be an additional source of state and federal revenue, and legalization would allow us to reduce enforcement costs and resolve the overcrowding problem in our prisons. Drug criminalization is the quintessential example of wasteful government spending: a scandal far greater than Solyndra, costing taxpayers some $14 billion per year.

Given the clear benefits, I find it incredible that this is not at the top of every politician's policy agenda, Republican or Democrat.

For more information on the benefits of decriminalization, please review the following links: http://norml.org/marijuana/personal/item/marijuana-decriminalization-its-impact-on-use-2
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/

Thank you,

-Chris Smith

2012 Bushman Summer Seminar Announcement

2011-11-06T13:36:00.000-06:00

It's time again to start applying to the Bushman Summer Seminar! I did this last year, and it was a total blast. This year's seminar will be picking up the investigation of "the gold plates as a cultural artifact" where we left off last year. If you're a graduate student or junior professor with an interest in Mormon Studies, I HIGHLY recommend applying. It's remarkably well-compensated; there's a $3000 stipend, plus research experience, invaluable memories, and friends for life!

Click here for the details.

New Short Story Published at Bewildering Stories

2011-09-03T01:18:00.003-05:00

This is a little late, but better late than never. Recently my short story "Icarus" was published in Issue 443 of the science fiction e-zine Bewildering Stories. "Icarus" is a story about a boy who has his consciousness downloaded into the body of a hawk, and in so doing runs afoul of his family and the law. On the surface, the story is a humorous exploration of a fun sci-fi premise. But at bottom, it's really a story about what it means to be alive. Happy reading!

EDIT #1: Bewildering Stories just published its "editors' choices" for the quarter. "Icarus" was one of the 14 selected (out of 41 total). "Icarus" was also picked as the eighth "most controversial" work published this quarter (out of 93 total).

EDIT #2: "Icarus" was also selected for a Mariner Award in Bewildering Stories' year-end review.

Comparative Starbucks: A Case Study

2011-08-11T01:41:00.004-05:00

For the past few weeks, I've been living in Provo, Utah. Obviously there's been a bit of culture shock, since Provo is so Mormon.

But actually, one of the weirdest things about living here has been the culture of the local Starbucks coffee shop.

Back home in Sacramento, the Starbucks employees are all very clean-cut, and the clientele are mostly senior citizens and cheery, fashionable young adults. 80% of the conversations I overhear at my local Starbucks there are evangelical Christians talking about religion. (I think there's probably a church that runs some kind of accountability ministry out of there.)

Here in Provo, because of the religious taboo against coffee, Starbucks becomes a kind of hub for rebellious youths. The employees are all sort of surly emo kids. People loiter outside the store drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. I almost never hear any religious conversation there. Today I was sitting and reading, and the people on one side of me were joking about murdering people and robbing banks, and the people on the other side of me were talking about stealing cars and doing acid. I felt like I should call the police or something.

Symposium on the Cultural History of the Gold Plates

2011-08-09T19:53:00.004-05:00

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship

and the Mormon Scholars Foundation

Invite you to the Annual Summer Symposium on Mormon Culture

THE CULTURAL HISTORY OF THE GOLD PLATES

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Room B037 Joseph F. Smith Building

9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The program will feature the following papers:

Morning Session:

Stephen Taysom, “Worlds of Discourse, Plates of Gold: Joseph Smith’s Plates as Cultural Catalysts”

Ben Bascom, “Guard the Gold: Didactic Fiction and the Mainstreaming of Moroni”

Jared Halverson, “Fictionalizing Faith: Popular Polemics and the Golden Plates”

Julie Frederick, “Artistic Depictions of the Gold Plates and the Material Cultural Inheritance"

Tyler Gardner, “Possessing the Plates: The Presence and Absence of the Gold Plates”

Rachael Givens, “‘Wagonloads’: The Disappearance of the Book of Mormon's Sealed Portion”

Afternoon Session:

Sarah Reed, “Fantasy, Fraud and Freud: The Uncanny Gold Plates in 19th Century Newspaper Accounts”

Elizabeth Mott, “The Forbidden Gaze: The Veiling of the Gold Plates and Joseph Smith’s Redefintion of Sacred Space”

Michael Reed, “The Notion of Ancient Metal Records in Joseph Smith’s Day”

Caroline Sorensen, “The Metallurgical Plausibility of the Gold Plates”

Christopher Smith, “Rediscovering Joseph Smith’s ‘Discovery Narrative’ in Southern Utah”

Rachel Gostenhofer, “In Consequence of Their Wickedness: The Decline and Fall of Mormon Seership, 1838-1900”

Paul Cheesman and the Lambayeque Gold Plate

2011-07-25T12:22:00.007-05:00

I've been going through the Paul R. Cheesman papers at BYU, including his research files on an inscribed golden plate supposedly discovered in Lambayeque, Peru. The files provide a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a mid-twentieth century Book of Mormon apologist.

Cheesman gathered information on the Lambayeque gold plate for at least twelve years, first as Director of Research for an organization called Theo-Science Amalgamated in Los Angeles, and later as Director of the Institute of Book of Mormon Projects at BYU. During this time, he corresponded with dozens of scholars and paid for metallurgical analyses from several different laboratories.

The scholars' replies to Cheesman's letters were not encouraging. Chemist Adon A. Gordon felt the metallurgical makeup of the plate was a little too close to commercial 22 carat gold. Dr. Junius Bird of the Museum of Natural History pronounced that it "definitely was not old as far as the workmanship was concerned," and was probably created by a well-known circle of forgers associated with one "Sr Bonamiche." He said that the patina had been brushed on, the lines were too straight, and the characters were only half authentic. Robert Sonin, who was present when Bird examined the plate, concurred with his analysis. John H. Rowe of UC Berkeley came independently to a similar conclusion, and Clifford Evans opined that the symbols were not pre-Columbian. One of the funniest replies was from an Egyptologist, who simply seemed bewildered to be asked about a plate that clearly had nothing to do with Egypt.

Cheesman was not to be dissuaded by such cynicism. He carefully compared the symbols on the plate to ancient Cypriot and the Anthon Transcript, and noted the similarities. He also seized upon the optimistic comments of diffusionist scholar Cyrus Gordon and local enthusiast Richard P. Anderson, who noted that characters on the plate bear similarities to a Jewish symbol, the Mason’s square, and Viking cryptograms. Cheesman's summary report describes these similarities at length and opines that the language of the plate may be Cypriot, while omitting the findings of Bird, et al without comment. Cheesman included a photograph of the plate in his book on Ancient Writing on Metal Plates.

Two days ago I walked through an exhibit on metal plates in the Joseph Smith building at BYU, where a replica of the Lambayeque plate still features prominently as an evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

How Gay Marriage Became Thinkable for a Generation of Young Americans

2011-06-25T18:53:00.006-05:00

With the legalization of gay marriage in New York yesterday, I think it's worth reflecting on how we arrived at this point. How did something so unimaginable for the Silent Generation become thinkable for the Boomers and their children?

The answer, in my opinion, is that acceptance of gay marriage is the logical conclusion of a series of changes in the American moral universe. We might refer to this as a change of moral paradigms. This paradigm shift has involved three types of cultural changes: a new view of sex and marriage, a new view of law and morality, and a new view of customs and symbols.

How Americans View Sex and Marriage

There have been two major relevant changes in how Americans view sex and marriage.

The first change came in how Americans view the purposes of sex and marriage. Sex in early America was thought to be strictly for procreation, not for pleasure or romance. As a result, all non-procreative sex, such as anal sex, oral sex, or sex using contraceptives, was considered immoral. Similarly, marriage was considered a political, financial, and reproductive arrangement rather than a primarily romantic one. Of course, there was plenty of erotic romance that went on behind closed doors, but such behavior did not have public moral sanction. This all began to change in the nineteenth century, when the Protestant preacher Henry Ward Beecher helped popularize a romantic view of marriage. Attitudes toward sex didn't change on a large scale until the sexual revolution of the 1960s, when the Supreme Court struck down a ban on contraceptives, and even conservative Christians came to approve of sex-for-pleasure between married heterosexuals. Today, American Christians and non-Christians alike think of marriage as primarily a romantic relationship within which all forms of consensual sex-- including oral and anal-- are permissible. This raises the question: why shouldn't gays get married, if they love each other? And if straight couples can have anal sex, why can't gays do the same?

The second change in Americans' view of sex and marriage is that they came to be seen as expressions of self-determination. In the nineteenth century, marriage for women was a bit like sexual slavery. A woman was literally the property of her husband. She had no possessions of her own, no right to refuse him sex whenever he wanted it, and no control over whether or when to have children. Nor was the single life a viable alternative, since women had not yet really entered the work force. Other minorities experienced a lack of freedom with respect to marriage, as well. Black slaves who married were often separated from their spouses, and even after Emancipation most states enforced anti-miscegenation laws until the 1950s. American attitudes toward sex and marriage changed during the civil rights era, when self-determination in these areas came to be seen as one of the inalienable rights granted in the Constitution. Most famously, Loving v. Virginia in 1967 declared that marriage is a "right". With the widespread acceptance of this view, it has become increasingly difficult to deny self-determination to gay couples who want to be married.

How Americans View Law and Morality

Another fundamental shift in the American moral universe has occurred in our thinking about the relationship between law and morality.

In early America, it was taken for granted that one of the purposes of the law was to maintain a moral society. Moral and religious education were commonplace in the public schools, and the illegality of blasphemy and profanity was taken for granted. The fundamental political divide was between those who felt moral issues should be arbitrated by the federal government and those who felt they should be arbitrated by the state governments. This was a mere jurisdictional dispute, in which the common assumption of both sides was that government is the guardian of moral order.

Today, the political discourse has shifted. The view of government as the guardian of moral order has been increasingly challenged by a view of government as the guardian of individual rights. This can be seen in the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision erecting a “wall of separation between church and state,” as well as in the series of court decisions throughout the twentieth century establishing a “right to privacy” in matters of sexual behavior. For many Americans, it has become axiomatic that you can legislate rights, but “you can’t legislate morality.” Murder can be forbidden because it deprives another person of his right to live, but the private use of contraceptives hurts no one and is therefore off limits to the law. Today, the fundamental political divide is increasingly between proponents of individual moral sovereignty and proponents of collective moral sovereignty rather than the old jurisdictional dispute between the federal government and the states. This means that for an increasing number of young Americans, the gender of someone’s spouse just isn’t any of the government’s business.

How Americans View Customs and Symbols

In some ways, the most radical shift has been in how educated Americans view values, customs, and symbols. Cross-cultural research and the shrinking of the world due to globalization have made us more aware of the extent to which our views and the ways we express them are products of a particular historical moment.

We have learned that Judeo-Christian doctrines and morals, for example, are far from the self-evident truths we once thought. Americans are increasingly conscious of the fact that Christianity dominated Europe at the point of an imperial sword and America at the point of a republican gun, littering both continents with the bodies of pagans and heretics along the way. More impactful even than this historical consciousness is our growing awareness of the billions of good people in the world with religious and moral worldviews different from our own. It is difficult to maintain a moral absolutism on sexual issues in an America where even the majority of evangelical Protestants believe that many religions can lead to eternal life.

Similarly, the ways we conceptualize and categorize things in our environment turn out to be surprisingly relative. Linguists know that words are just social conventions with improvised definitions; no word has just one, true, unchangeable definition. The terms “conservative” and “liberal” have meant so many different things over the course of American history that it would take an entire book to describe them all. In the same way, our concepts of "gender" and "marriage" reflect a particular cultural perspective on the world rather than the way the world really is. The relativity of language means that the “traditional” definitions of these words pose no obstacle to novel uses of them. In this light, the fight over the word “marriage” feels more like a trademark dispute than a conflict over moral values.

A Paradigm Shift

What most intrigues me about the developments I’ve described above is that even conservatives mostly take them for granted. There are vestiges of older ways of thinking in conservative rhetoric on gay marriage, but rarely do they explicitly argue that sex for pleasure is a sin, that marriage isn’t primarily a romantic union, that spouse-selection isn’t a “right”, that words have only one true meaning, or even that they should be able to impose their religious values on others through the law. The paradigm shift in the American moral universe is already too complete, too entrenched in our national culture for conservatives to even try to turn back the clock. Instead, they’re trying to stave off the logical conclusion of the new paradigm through constitutional amendments and emotional appeals.

As historian Timothy Weber has explained, such is only to be expected after a paradigm shift. A new paradigm means that conservative leaders can no longer trust people to draw the right conclusions. “When people start ‘responding to a different world,’ leaders must be certain that followers keep looking in the right places and finding what they are supposed to find.” The old paradigm can be saved only by hedging it in via laws, propaganda, and punitive measures. Frankly, though, it’s a losing battle. The thinkability of gay marriage is here to stay.

The Top Ten Feminist Pop Songs

2011-06-23T12:06:00.003-05:00

Pop songs aren't exactly known for their egalitarian view of gender. There are, however, a few diamonds in the rough. In the list below, I've tried to pick the top ten, in terms of both musical quality and liberating message. I know Beyonce's Run the World (Girls) generated a lot of feminist backlash because girls don't run the world, but I've included it because I see it as a triumphant declaration of what could be, rather than what is. Stronger by Britney Spears is more about a girl freeing herself from a codependent relationship than from gender inequality in general, but I liked the sentiment anyway. The rest are pretty straightforward. Add your favorites in the comments!

I didn't include Shania Twain's Man, I Feel Like a Woman or Superchick's One Girl Revolution because they don't really qualify as pop songs, but you should look them up anyway. They're great.

The Ethics of Doing Scholarship with a Religious Lens

2011-06-16T20:19:00.006-05:00

The latest issue of Earth magazine ran an article about how creation scientists from fundamentalist Christian universities are going to scientific conferences and giving presentations that seem perfectly mainstream, but sneak in some creationist conclusions. They then return home to their universities and brag that their conclusions were accepted by audiences full of mainstream geologists.

This reminds me of a question Richard Bushman once asked in a class at CGU. He wondered aloud whether it's legitimate for a scholar to present a religiously-inspired argument in the sciences or humanities without disclosing that the idea comes from a religious perspective. For example, LDS scholars with religious motives have made some interesting and relatively unobjectionable contributions on topics such as ancient Jewish warfare and the history of the idea of "pre-existence". Do such studies need to be prefaced by a confession of the author's Mormon theological commitments? The problem with disclosing a religious motive is that it immediately renders one's work suspect. The audience may reject a perfectly valid argument just because they reject the religious views of the presenter.

Personally, I don't think scholars need to disclose their beliefs every time their religious views affect their choices of subject matter. But on the other hand, I obviously don't support what the creationists are doing. So the question is, where do we draw the line?

Probably disclosure is always the best route. However, I think non-disclosure can be acceptable provided the following three conditions are met:

1) Most subject matter experts who reject your religious perspective would agree with your arguments even if they knew of your religious motives.
2) You don't use tricky or misleading language that will cause people to draw false conclusions about your religious perspective.
3) You don't use people's endorsements of your conclusions to lend credence to your faith.

I should note that this ethical problem isn't exclusive to religious people. Ideological atheists presenting papers on religion need to ask the same questions, and consider disclosure just as seriously. Remember: disclosure isn't an admission that you're wrong. It's just an admission that we're human beings, and our lenses color the way we see the world.

New Paper in the JWHA Journal

2011-06-15T17:12:00.001-05:00

In the latest issue of the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, you'll find an article by me titled "'That Which Is Lost': Assessing the State of Preservation of the Joseph Smith Papyri." I thought I'd summarize my conclusions here for those who don't want to wade through all the analysis. So, here goes.

Contemporary accounts of Joseph Smith's papyrus collection reveal that it consisted of the following:

Two papyrus scrolls:

“the teachings of Father Abraham”—The scroll of Hor
“a sacred record kept by Joseph in Pharoah’s court in Egypt” —The scroll of Tshemmin and a fragment from a scroll of Neferirnub

Two or three other small pieces of papyrus:

“astronomical calculations”—The hypocephalus of Sheshonk
“epitaphs” —One or two fragments from a scroll of Amenhotep

After Smith's death, half of the collection ended up in a Chicago museum, which was destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. The other half ended up in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, from which it was later purchased by the LDS Church.

The papyri destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire:

The interior portion of the scroll of Hor, containing two columns of hieratic text from the Document of Breathing Made by Isis, followed by the Facsimile 3 vignette—a total of about 60 cm (~2 feet) of papyrus
One or two fragments of a Book of the Dead made for Amenhotep
The hypocephalus of Sheshonk from which Facsimile 2 was copied
Possibly a small quantity of papyrus from the Tshemmin scroll

The papyri purchased by the LDS Church:

Several fragments from the outer portion of the scroll of Hor, including the introductory vignette known as Facsimile 1 and the hieroglyphic characters that appear in the margins of the Kirtland Book of Abraham manuscripts
Several fragments of the scroll of Tshemmin, including basically all the vignettes described by Oliver Cowdery and other eyewitnesses in connection with the Book of Joseph
The fragment from the scroll of Neferirnub

The paper thus draws two important conclusions. First, every indication is that the materials currently owned by the Church were among those identified and translated by Joseph Smith as records of Abraham and Joseph. And second, no more than about half the papyrus is missing, and we have a pretty good idea what was contained in the missing portions.

Failed Prophecies and Selective Memories

2011-05-24T21:46:00.002-05:00

I found the first six and a half minutes of the following video very interesting, especially in light of Harold Camping's recent failed rapture prediction.

In the video (starting about 1:30), Chris describes how two separate people-- one of them his mother-- received revelations indicating that his brother was going to be raised from the dead. Not surprisingly, it didn't happen. Years later, Chris asked his mom if she remembered when Jesus told her that his brother would be raised from the dead. She did not. Chris says, "That was a little bit earth shattering. Here's Jesus talking to my mom, and she didn't remember. And I thought, 'Why would you forget that? Unless... we always do that. Maybe we're always forgetting those moments that contradict, just so that we can maintain our faith.' And then I started finding memories, coming back to me."

Humans really do have a remarkable capacity for self-deception. We're selective not only in what we remember, but also in what we perceive and how we make sense of things. It makes one wonder: in twenty years, what will Harold Camping's followers remember about May 21, 2011?

How a Temple Sect Became a Temple Religion

2011-05-24T01:39:00.007-05:00

Part 2 of a 2-part review of Devery S. Anderson, The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2011).

Whatever its limitations, Anderson’s book tells an important story—namely, the story of how a temple sect became a temple religion.

One aspect of this transformation was the process sociologists refer to as the “routinization of charisma.” The worship practices of new religions are typically “charismatic”—that is, energetic, improvised, and non-institutional. Over time, however, leaders begin to suppress or institutionalize these charismatic practices in order to preserve the stability and respectability of the institution. The first chapter of Anderson’s book—containing documents from the Nauvoo period—reveals Mormon temple worship in its initial, charismatic phase. There are some formulaic ordinances, of course, but there are also intimate, improvised meetings in which people speak in miraculous tongues, prophesy, see visions, bless their children, sing hymns, shout “Hosanna,” and feast on wine, cakes, and pies. This is temple worship directed less by prescribed policy than by the immediate inspiration of the Spirit—more like a Pentecostal revival than a formal liturgy. In subsequent chapters of the volume, however, we see a gradual codification and formalization of temple worship. The temple ceremonies become increasingly scripted, standardized, and sanitized. As members and temple workers raise questions about points of practice, the General Authorities respond by formulating authoritative policies and handbooks of instructions. By the modern period, the temple experience is essentially identical every day, everywhere in the world.

Another aspect of the transformation from sect to religion was the de-emphasis of the idea of “gathering” to Utah. In the early Utah period, Brigham Young taught that there could be no sealings outside of Utah, because that would diminish the importance of the gathering. The urge to “gather” was linked to the Church’s sense that the apocalypse was imminent; Utah had been divinely designated as a place of “refuge” from the coming calamities. As the Church developed into a worldwide bureaucracy, however, the early apocalyptic urgency was supplanted by a program of long-term institutional expansion. No longer was the Church a small remnant, needing to be gathered out of the world. Instead, it was a sprawling movement with vast resources and global ambitions. Accordingly, the Church began to bring temples to the people rather than the other way around. At one point Church leaders even contemplated building a special ship to serve as a “sailing temple,” which could travel from port to port in countries where no permanent temple had yet been established. Temple-building accelerated in the 1980s, and then again after 1996, when Church leaders decided to reduce the size of new temples so they could be financed in larger numbers.

Anderson's book, then, documents the maturation of LDS worship practices during the difficult transition from a small, charismatic sect to a global, fully institutionalized religion. This is a story that will interest the sociologist as well as the historian, because it's really the story of every religion, not just Mormonism.

An Inoffensive History of Temple Worship

2011-05-23T21:57:00.007-05:00

Part 1 of a 2-part review of Devery S. Anderson, The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2011).

Devery S. Anderson’s new documentary history of temple worship represents an important step forward for Mormon Studies, but it also has certain limitations.

Perhaps the book’s most important contribution is that it has broken the ice on this topic. Anderson takes a very “safe” approach that will be inoffensive and unobjectionable to Mormon readers: he tells the story almost entirely through the lens of official Church documents and the writings of General Authorities. He is also careful in his introduction to draw attention primarily to the banal rather than the scandalous aspects of the collection. In so doing, he circumvents the standard Mormon taboos against talking about the temple, and hopefully paves the way for future researchers to be somewhat more daring in their approaches to the topic.

One practical consequence of the focus on official documents, however, is that the book is really a history of temple policies rather than temple worship. Topics covered include the construction of temples, the rules and regulations governing the ceremonies, and the garments and formulae used. The volume is not a history of how the ceremonies were received or interpreted, or what they meant to the people who experienced them. This suggests that there is much work yet to be done on LDS temple worship from the perspective of popular or reception history. Anderson’s book could serve as an important baseline for such a study.

A more serious problem with the focus on official, publicly-available sources is that there are some important details and developments that these sources simply do not discuss. For example, only one document in the collection mentions the “sectarian preacher” character in the dramatic portion of the old endowment. Mention of the penalties is similarly sparse. More is said about the teaching of the Adam-God doctrine in the lecture at the veil, but not much. The sparseness of the sources is especially problematic for the most recent period; not a word is said about the changes to the endowment in 1990. Distasteful though the genre of anti-Mormon “temple exposé” literature may be, Anderson’s volume will not render it obsolete. Historians will still have to consult the exposés for many details about the ceremonies.

Click here to read "How A Temple Sect Became a Temple Religion (Review of 'LDS Temple Worship', Part 2)."

20% of Americans Believe the Second Coming Will Occur in Their Lifetimes

2011-05-19T16:48:00.004-05:00

Voice of America reported yesterday that "20 percent of Americans believe that Jesus' Second Coming will happen in their lifetimes," which inspired me to draw the following comic (click to enlarge):

Does Civility Mean Silence?

2011-05-10T22:21:00.002-05:00

I recently attended a lecture by Dr. Richard Bushman on Joseph Smith's golden plates. One point Bushman made that really struck home for me was that the golden plates are the hinge on which the infamous prophet-fraud dichotomy turns. It seems undeniable from the historical record that Joseph Smith had some kind of physical artifact under a cloth that he claimed was a stack of golden plates. This is very difficult for the non-believer in Mormonism to explain except as some kind of "fraudulent" prop or fabrication. The physicality of the golden plates prevents the skeptic from classing Joseph Smith with other sincere-but-mistaken visionaries such as Ellen G. White or Mother Ann Lee. Some more nefarious explanation is required.

During the question and answer session after Richard's talk, I raised my hand and asked what, then, is the way forward for believing and unbelieving scholars who want to study the life and mind of Joseph Smith without making enemies of each other. Are we forever condemned to speak at cross-pruposes and to give each other offense whenever this subject is broached? Richard's response was that the way forward is to treat each other with civility. If we are civil and respectful of each other, then no one will be offended.

This call for civility is a place to start, but does not fully satisfy me. The problem is that I'm not entirely sure what civility means in this case. Does it mean that we disagree without shouting at each other? Does it mean that we express our differences without thinking less of each other? Or is something else required?

A wise man once said, "Some things that are true are not very useful." We might extend this dictum: "Some things that are true are not very civil." We all keep silent about certain things in order to keep the peace with the ones we love. We filter our thoughts constantly: "She looks like she's gained weight." "Man, his wife is looking hot today!" "Their house looks like it hasn't been cleaned in months!" It would be a disaster if everything that crossed our minds came out of our mouths. Sometimes, civility means silence.

And this brings me to the question that has been weighing on my mind of late. Is it really possible for a scholar who disbelieves the claims of Joseph Smith to express his views in a "civil" manner? I certainly think it is possible to argue for the "fraud" thesis in a way that will be inoffensive to some Mormons, but the problem is that scholars don't really get to choose their audiences. Any book or article a scholar produces is bound to be read by at least a few who experience any contradiction of the foundational truths of Mormonism as an attack upon themselves, their families, and their faith. So does civility, in this case, mean silence? I used to think not, but in my old age I'm increasingly beginning to think so. Maybe I'm going soft. I'm interested to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies, 1/1

2011-05-10T04:50:00.010-05:00

If you follow the Mormon blogosphere at all, you may already be aware of the Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies (free PDF here, print version for $5.92 here). This is a new student-run journal put out by the Mormon Studies Student Association here at Claremont Graduate University. It was gorgeously designed by David Golding, who even registered a proprietary font for it. He and his co-editor Loyd Ericson did a fantastic job putting together the first issue.

The issue opens with an editor's introduction by Loyd Ericson, in which he asks, "Where Is the 'Mormon' in Mormon Studies?" Loyd's essay is a celebration of the potential breadth and diversity of Mormon Studies, and provides a useful barometer of the editorial spirit of the CJMS. The editors have a genuine desire to be as inclusive and methodologically permissive as they can be without compromising Claremont's high academic standard.

The next article in the issue is an essay by yours truly, titled "The Inspired Fictionalization of the 1835 United Firm Revelations". This is probably the most intrinsically interesting piece of writing I've published to date. It's about how Joseph Smith altered some revelations about modern persons and events in order to make them appear to be ancient revelations to the patriarch Enoch. I argue that although this was done mainly for practical reasons, the changes also had a powerful mystical meaning for Smith and his followers. I wrote the essay shortly after purchasing Volume 1 of The Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translations, and I daresay mine is one of the first published articles to make systematic use of that important volume.

The third piece in the issue is a paper by Jordan Watkins titled, "The Great God, the Divine Mind, and the Ideal Absolute: Orson Pratt's Intelligent-Matter Theory and the Gods of Emerson and James". Watkins contributes to a growing literature that situates early Mormon thought against the backdrop of early American Romanticism. This paper might be described as a case study in comparative panentheisms, with Orson Pratt and Ralph Waldo Emerson marking out two ends of a spectrum of theological possibilities. Emerson was an idealist who considered a unified divine Mind to be the source of all the pluralities of the material universe, whereas Pratt was an empiricist who considered the unified divine Mind to be an emergent property of an infinite number of self-existent intelligent atoms. Watkins then uses the empirical pragmatist William James, who leaned toward something similar to Pratt's view, to show the intellectual power and respectability of Pratt's position. Despite their different ontologies, Watkins finds that Pratt's and Emerson's Gods functioned in similar ways and possessed similar attributes.

The fourth and final essay in the volume is Joseph Spencer's "Prolegomena to Any Future Study of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon." Spencer argues that understanding the use of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is central to understanding the message of the Book of Mormon itself. He finds that exegesis of Isaiah features prominently at each of the Book's major "narrative hinges," and argues that in each case Isaiah is used to present a particular interpretation of the baptismal covenant. These are important observations, though after page 62 his presentation was guided by some assumptions about the order of the Book of Mormon's composition that unbelieving scholars such as myself will be unable to accept (see here). Spencer addresses this problem by claiming (taking a cue from Grant Hardy) to be discussing the Book's self-presentation rather than the author's intent, but I can't help but feel that from an unbeliever's perspective this sort of analysis is about as useful as fan fiction or in-universe commentary. I think the Hardy approach suffers from the chief pitfall of the New Criticism: it treats the text as autonomous, as if it can be studied without reference to an author or group of readers. Those looking to build bridges between believing and unbelieving scholars would do better to adopt a phenomenological or reader-response approach of the sort advocated by Terryl Givens.

In any case, I daresay that the first issue of the CJMS was a resounding success. I strongly encourage all you students out there to submit pieces for the next issue. Let's help David and Loyd make the second issue even better than the first!

Christians Still Believe in Purity and Pollution

2011-04-13T16:24:00.002-05:00

In ancient Middle Eastern cultures-- including Judaism-- there were a variety of actions that were thought to make a person ritually "impure". For example, working with leather, touching a dead body, and menstruating were all considered "unclean" behaviors. The person who engaged in such behaviors acquired an intrinsic taint that would be passed on to his children and anyone he touched. This intrinsic taint could only be removed by the bloody sacrifice of an animal. But because the person was so unclean, he could not come into the presence of God to offer his sacrifice. God could not bear the presence of such a filthy person. It was a catch-22. Fortunately for the filthy lower castes such as leather workers, there was a higher caste of priests who carefully kept themselves pure enough that God could bear their presence. These priests acted as mediators between God and the lower castes, offering sacrifices on their behalf while carefully avoiding physical contact with them.

Christians like to think they have moved beyond this old Middle Eastern way of thinking. Christianity no longer has castes, and the taint of ritual pollution is no longer thought to be transferable from person to person through physical contact. Christians have also done away with the arbitrary lists of things that are supposed to make one ritually impure.

In reality, though, Christian theology still operates according to an Middle Eastern logic. It's true that the list of sins has shrunk, and sin has been redefined in a more rational, less arbitrary way. But sin is still thought to intrinsically taint one's soul, which makes one too impure and unholy to enter the presence of God. Christians also still believe that one needs a pure high priest to perform a blood sacrifice on one's behalf in order to remove the taint-- specifically, the self-sacrifice of the utterly pure high priest Jesus Christ. This is really just a different version of the same old system of ritual purity and pollution that has been the bane of menstruating women for millennia.

Divorce and the Privatization of Marriage

2011-04-13T01:28:00.001-05:00

Slate's David Boaz offers a simple solution to the gay marriage debate: privatize marriage. The state, Boaz explains, should treat marriage "like any other contract: The state may be called upon to enforce it, but the parties define the terms. When children or large sums of money are involved, an enforceable contract spelling out the parties' respective rights and obligations is probably advisable. But the existence and details of such an agreement should be up to the parties." The brilliant thing about this solution is that it has the potential to do much more than satisfactorily resolve the gay marriage debate. It could also help address a major social ill: divorce.

Empirical research over the last several decades has demonstrated that divorce has very negative consequences for children. Children of divorce are more likely to develop behavioral and psychological problems, perform poorly in school, and experience long-term financial instability than children whose parents remain married. Part of this difference can be explained by the prior characteristics of parents who choose to get divorced in the first place, but researchers agree that a non-trivial portion of the difference is caused by divorce itself. Despite this disturbing data, all 50 states have "no fault divorce" laws (i.e. divorce-on-demand), and defenders of "traditional marriage" have done little or nothing to challenge these laws. The general feeling among legislators seems to be that since states set the terms for marriage, those terms must be flexible and permissive enough to accommodate a wide spectrum of Americans.

The privatization of marriage would allow individual couples to circumvent the "no fault divorce" laws, and to set their own terms for contract termination. Undoubtedly a large segment of the population would continue to make it easy to dissolve the marriage contract, but religious organizations such as the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches could be expected to demand stronger terms for the marriages they sponsor. Even some non-religious Americans might opt to protect themselves against nonchalant contract dissolution. In short, the privatization of marriage would not only allow liberals their Constitutional freedom for social innovation, but would also allow conservatives to implement stronger, socially-beneficial safeguards in their own, more traditional marriages.

Sunstone!

2011-02-22T22:47:00.000-06:00

Next month, make sure to keep one eye on your mailbox at all times. When the March issue of Sunstone arrives, turn to page 52 and let me know what you think.

It's also time to start planning your submissions for this summer's Salt Lake City Sunstone Symposium. All the cool kids are going to be there, so don't miss out!

My Mom's First Book Is Now Available for Purchase

2011-02-09T03:23:00.001-06:00

My mother, who recently finished a PhD program in Hebrew Bible, has just published a revised and updated version of her dissertation through Wipf and Stock Publishers. The book-- titled Dust or Dew: Immortality in the Ancient Near East and in Psalm 49-- may be purchased online for $24.80. The book received several glowing endorsements, including a surprise endorsement from renowned biblical scholar Walter Brueggemann. This has been a labor of love for her, and I am very proud of her achievement. I'm certain there will be many more to come. (She already has two or three other book projects under way!)

I haven't gotten a look at the hard copy yet, but the last draft I read-- and I read several!-- argued that Psalm 49 offered one of ancient Israel's first hints of an emerging theology of blissful immortality, which eventually culminated in the full-blown resurrection theology of Second Temple Judaism. In addition to careful analysis of the Hebrew text of Psalm 49, the book includes a very sophisticated discussion of the psalm's multiple contexts. It is situated first and foremost as a ritual text composed by the Korahite clan-- apparently a group located in the northern kingdom, but with southern kingdom loyalties. The psalm is a redemption drama, and may have been intended for use in an annual Korahite pilgrimage to Zion. Dust or Dew also situates the psalm against the backdrops of other Korahite, Hebrew, and Ancient Near Eastern literature, finding particularly important contexts in Genesis 1-3 and Ugaritic texts relating to the goddess Asherah. Besides these overarching arguments, the book also provides detailed micro-level analysis of a whole range of questions, often providing important correctives to the assumptions of major thinkers in the field.

Congratulations, Mom!

The US Bill of Rights Intentionally Does NOT Guarantee Freedom of Conscience

2011-02-08T03:36:00.002-06:00

The Bill of Rights went through a number of revisions before the text was finalized and ratified in December of 1791. The image below shows finalized text of the First and Second Amendments alongside an earlier version-- the text proposed by the House on August 24, 1789.

The purpose of this post is to highlight two closely related changes, which were very deliberate on the part of the Framers. First, the earlier text included a guarantee that "the rights of Conscience shall not be infringed." This has been struck out in the current version. Second, the earlier text guaranteed that "no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." This, too has been struck out in the final text. The Bill of Rights has intentionally been purged of any guarantee of freedom of conscience.

It isn't that the Framers didn't value freedom of conscience. They did. They worried, however, about making freedom of conscience a "right". This potentially opened the door to all kinds of abuses. Anyone who wanted to avoid a civic duty or to engage in disruptive behavior could potentially claim the protection of the Constitution under the conscience clause. Furthermore, the Framers wanted to leave the state's options open in case of a severe military threat to the nation. They assumed that allowances would generally be made for conscientious objectors, but felt that indulgence of such persons should not be allowed to imperil the survival of the republic. Congressional delegate Egbert Benson stated this view in no uncertain terms: "No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of government."

What this discussion highlights, I think, is that we should not naively assume that America is a paradise of unbounded religious freedom. Freedom of religion in America has its limits, and these limits may even be necessary for civil order. In a nation of conflicting consciences, conscience must occasionally be weighed against more pressing concerns-- or so thought the Framers of the US Bill of Rights.

What do you think? Is freedom of conscience a natural right? Should that freedom be limited by the federal government? Where do we draw the line between legitimate limitation and unlawful infringement? Join the discussion in the comments below!

Are Catholic Crucifixes "Gruesome" and "Creepy"?

2010-12-30T22:17:00.002-06:00

A few months ago I corresponded with some Mormons who complained that Catholic-style crucifixes are "gruesome" and "creepy." (For those who don't know, a crucifix is a depiction of Christ hanging on the cross.) I suspect that this complaint stems from a lack of understanding of what it means to be a Catholic. Catholics experience the crucifix as powerful and liberating, not gruesome and creepy.

To appreciate the Catholic crucifix, one has to understand Catholic theology. Catholics believe that Christ's death-- the breaking of his body and the spilling of his blood-- was the moment of our salvation. The Mass is their primary religious ritual, and in their view the bread and wine are literally changed into Christ's actual, physical body and blood. Christ physically enters the believer in a moment of sublime mystical union. Thus although the crucifix is violent, it represents the central moment in salvation history, and the central moment in Catholic religious experience. It is not a moment we can afford to shrink away from.

In addition to its salvific significance, the crucifixion is also the supreme revelation of God's gracious love for us. To quote the Apostle Paul, "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Catholics view the crucifixion as the greatest sacrifice in history: the moment that an omnipotent creator subjected himself to tremendous suffering and humiliation on behalf of creatures infinitely unworthy and inferior to himself. Visual depictions of the event help us to appreciate the great cost he willingly bore, and the great love it reveals. From this point of view, one might even say the grislier the crucifix the better! It's no accident that Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ was so graphic in its portrayal of the crucifixion. He was essentially trying to portray the ultimate sacrifice-- ultimate pain, ultimate suffering, and ultimate cost, willingly borne for our sake because of God's ultimate love.

It is also important to recognize that Catholicism was founded long before the advent of mass literacy, and continues to flourish today among the poor and illiterate peoples of the world. Whereas Mormons and Protestants can read about the crucifixion in their Bibles, Catholics have typically had to communicate through visual media such as paintings and statues. Furthermore, images in the Catholic Church are much more than just teaching tools. Catholics believe that Christ is graciously and miraculously present in such images. To look upon a statue of Christ is to look upon Christ himself. The crucifix thus makes Christ's sacrifice literally present for every believer. We may all stand with his mother at the foot of the cross and grieve.

"Don't You Think We Can Do Better Than Apologetics, Though?"

2010-12-19T12:53:00.001-06:00

My Mormon Studies colleagues are sometimes puzzled when they hear me say nice things about LDS apologists and apologetic scholarship. Almost inevitably, I get asked something like, "Don't you think we can do better than apologetics, though?" My short answer is that I think there's a place for both apologetics and for LDS scholarship that "brackets" the truth-claims debates.

In the modern world, true believers need a way to reconcile their faith with rationality. This obviously needs to be done with integrity. I have little respect for apologists who simply make things up, or who conceal evidence that does not accord with their position. But to the extent that faith and rationality can be honestly reconciled, I think apologists provide a valuable service to religious communities. In fact, it's a service that will keep the "bracketers" in business for the foreseeable future.

What I most respect about apologists is that they practice scholarship in a way that is true to their deepest religious commitments. Whereas the rest of us attempt to stand aloof from communities we study, apologists willingly participate in and contribute to those communities. In a way, it's sort of refreshing.

Paper on Genocide

2010-12-18T01:45:00.002-06:00

It's been a long and difficult semester, and I haven't had much time for blogging. I'm on break for the next month or so though, so hopefully I'll get some writing done. In the meantime, here's my final paper from my Extremism course. It's titled, "Explaining Genocide: How Ordinary People Become Mass-Murderers." It's mostly a rehash of what other people have said on the subject, though I make a few original contributions and modifications as I go. The prediction that there will be fewer genocides in the next century is all me. I'm crossing my fingers that history will bear me out on that.

I also understand that the Winter issue of Dialogue has just mailed, with a paper by Andrew Cook and myself ("The Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr") as the lead article. A full-color version of this paper is also available from the Dialogue website.

The New American Music

2010-11-22T01:17:00.005-06:00

Having gotten tired of hearing the same 30 pop songs over and over on all my usual radio preset stations, I've lately been tuning into "Latino 96.3 FM". Usually when I listen to this station, though, I've been keeping the windows rolled up-- or at least turning down the volume enough that no one will hear. Mainly I've been worried that some Latino person will hear what I'm listening to and think, "Who does this gringo think he is, trespassing on our cultural turf?" It feels somehow presumptuous to be listening to music in español.

The other day, though, I stopped at a stop light next to a couple of gringas in a big white van. They were not only listening to the same station, but energetically dancing to the beat. And that's when I had an epiphany. What I realized was that Latino music is the new American music. Once upon a time, it was jazz: that distinctive fusion of African and American styles that symbolized a new era for racial relations. Now we have the Latino stations-- "poco en inglés, poco en español"-- symbolizing a new new era. I'm not ashamed to be a white person embracing the possibility of a bilingual pop culture. I'm proud-- proud of how far we've come, and proud to be a member of a society where this is possible.

Of course, there will continue to be people who resist this new new era for a long time to come. I'm not sure what they're afraid of. That they might be confronted with new ways of living that are unfamiliar and uncomfortable for them? That they might have to quit being so damn lazy and actually learn a few words of Spanish? Contrary to popular belief, there's nothing intrinsically good about the English language or the current shape of American popular culture. So, things are changing. Build a bridge and get over it! The sooner we learn to embrace such changes, the sooner we'll understand what it really means to be Americans!

New Paper on the Causes of Civil War

2010-10-19T22:20:00.001-05:00

This semester I'm taking a course on Extremism. For my mid-term paper, I looked at statistical studies of the causes of civil wars. Not to worry, though. There's not much "math stuff" in this paper. The paper is designed as a short, readable, practical introduction to the findings of the statistical literature. Basically I just explain which variables have been found to be significant, and draw out a few of the possible policy implications of these findings. I also look briefly at US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and conclude that it was probably misguided, since those states are now much more fragile and war-prone than before we got mixed up in them.

Anyway, I've uploaded the paper over at Scribd. If you get a chance, take a look.

Red Cliff: A Chinese Mythic Tour-de-Force

2010-10-13T01:21:00.001-05:00

John Woo's Red Cliff represents something of a coming-of-age for Chinese cinema. Both brutal and beautiful, this is a military epic that can contend for pride of place with the best American-made films in the genre. It is thematically similar to Kingdom of Heaven, in that it involves a small, embattled army using unconventional tactics to outwit a much larger attacking force. Here, however, the strategies draw on the insights of Taoism and Sun Tzu as well as the scientific invention that dominated Kingdom of Heaven. There are definitely Western influences at work here-- witness, for example, the feminist princess Sun Shangxiang who refuses an arranged marriage and fights alongside the men in battle-- but the film also reflects the beauty of China and of Chinese culture. Stunningly panoramic landscapes are complemented by beautiful Chinese poetry, profound philosophy, haunting traditional music, and artful dance and martial arts choreography.

Western viewers who disliked the unrealism of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon will be happy to know that there is no flying or magic here, though certainly some of the combat scenes have more in common with a Jackie Chan flick than with the gritty realism of some Western war movies. This serves to give the film a more mythic than historical flavor; indeed, the viceroy Zhao Yu and the strategist Zhuge Liang are more like mythic prototypes of a Confucian and a Taoist master than realistic characters. Fortunately they are portrayed tastefully enough that they don't come across as caricatures. All in all, a fine film that marks China's maturation as a fully modern power tempered by moral and religious sensibilities and possessed of exquisite aesthetic tastes. Well worth seeing in its original five-hour version rather than the much-reduced theatrical cut, which leaves out most of the character development and fixates on the battle sequences.

A New Blog Project

2010-10-09T23:03:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while I run across a snippet or quotation about religion that I think is worth sharing, to see if I can generate some discussion. Because I didn't want to clutter this blog with a whole bunch of little quotes, I decided to create a separate blog for them, which I've titled Smidgens on Religion. I hope you enjoy what is posted there, and find it informative as well as thought-provoking. I also hope you'll feel free to discuss and share your thoughts. Happy reading!

Summer Rain

2010-10-01T02:17:00.000-05:00

I just took a stroll in the rain. It's always cold when it rains back in Sacramento, so I jump at any chance to enjoy a summer drizzle. I love the erratic thrum of drops hitting the pavement, the way you can see waves of water in the air when there's a shift in the wind. I wandered along the sidewalk, breathing deeply, trying to catch the faint hints of wet pine on the breeze. Rich cinnamon incense wafted from an open window as I passed. I stretched out my hand to catch the raindrops on my fingertips, but they only teased me faintly. That's the thing about raindrops: they refuse to be caught.

As I meandered along, a steady stream of bubbles raced by me in the gutter. You know you're taking you're time when the gutter-bubbles are outpacing you. And you know you're at peace when you notice that sort of thing.

Supernatural Phenomena in the Study of History

2010-09-25T22:57:00.002-05:00

We in the modern West have a tendency to divide phenomena into "natural" and "supernatural" categories, and to treat the two classes of phenomena quite differently. The study of history, for example, is often assumed to be the study of "natural" phenomena only, and to have nothing to say about "supernatural" ones.

The problem with such an approach is that the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is a socially-constructed rather than a self-evident one. The roots of the distinction lay in the matter-spirit dualism that was so popular among Protestant theologians and philosophers after the Middle Ages. Under this framework, all "material" phenomena could be classed as "natural", whereas all "spiritual" phenomena could be considered "supernatural". This distinction was somewhat complicated even in Protestant theology by the fact that natural and supernatural sometimes overlapped. For example, God was believed to be providentially, supernaturally guiding the course of history. But for most Protestant intellectuals, the distinction seemed obvious and ontologically real.

But not everyone-- not even every Protestant-- believes in matter-spirit dualism. For example, magicians and alchemists throughout history have often viewed magic as a "natural" phenomenon, and the study of magic as a natural "science". And even in religious worldviews that do accept a dualism of matter and spirit, the two realms are often thought to be deeply interactive and interwoven. Some religions believe, for example, that there are spirits within every rock and tree, or deities within statues of rock and wood. Others believe that spiritual power can literally be transferred from person to person by the laying on of hands, or through the consumption of bread and wine. Many Christians feel that demons can become affixed to physical locations, or that miraculous healings and angelic interventions occur on a regular basis. In these traditions, seemingly "supernatural" events are thought take place observably in the "natural" world. What's more, they occur in the ordinary course of events; they follow regular patterns and may not even be considered unusual.

This is part of the reason that I have argued elsewhere against a historical approach that suspends or brackets all "supernatural" claims. The very classification of a phenomenon as "supernatural" implies a prejudgment by the historian, and an imposition of his Western-Enlightenment categories onto the subjects of his study. There is a kind of inherent arrogance in this approach, as if the phenomena that are most important to religious believers are not worthy of serious study by historians.

One way to get around this problem is to do what Robert Orsi has done, with his "abundant history" approach. Orsi calls for historians to "think with the assumption of the realness of [our subjects' spirits and deities], as real entities in history and experience not simply or sufficiently identifiable with social structures, origins, or functions, and certainly not as 'symbols,' but as having a presence that becomes autonomous within particular life-worlds." In other words, Orsi basically calls for historians to suspend their disbelief and write from a position of functional acceptance of their subjects' religious claims.

Another way around the problem is to evaluate "supernatural" phenomena as one would any other historical phenomena or events. For example, a purported "divine healing" event could be examined and evaluated to determine, insofar as the evidence allows, whether it actually occurred and what possible causes (divine or otherwise) might explain it. The danger of this approach is that a negative conclusion runs the risk of offending or alienating religious readers. The upside is that there is rarely enough evidence to come to a definite negative conclusion, and in treating the healing as even potentially historical we are regarding our subjects with a seriousness that secular academics often do not accord them.

Perhaps these two approaches can even be held in tension. We could do both: try to get inside our subjects' skin to see and experience phenomena as they saw and experienced them, while also offering commentary on the nature and historicity of the phenomena insofar as the evidence allows. This is what Richard Bushman did in his biography of Joseph Smith: balancing sensitivity with critical sensibility. I hope to make his approach a model for future work of my own.

What Motivates Suicide Bombers?

2010-09-16T21:04:00.000-05:00

Although we have a tendency to assume that Islamic suicide bombers are merely "crazy people", there is a growing body of literature exploring suicide bombing as a rationally-motivated phenomenon. This week I read an article by Arie Kruglanski arguing that suicide bombing can be explained as a "quest for personal significance". Although I agree that suicide bombers are "rational" actors and that personal significance is one important motivation, I don't think that Kruglanski's proposal quite captures the entire picture. So, here is my attempt to explain the logic of suicide bombing.

We all have a set of preferences, which can be "ranked" according to their "salience". If I prefer ice cream to pecan pie, for example, then ice cream can be said to have a higher salience for me than pecan pie. Given the choice between the two, I will choose ice cream. (It may be, however, that my slim figure has a higher salience for me than either treat, in which case I will choose to forego both!) Although we can complicate these assumptions in various ways, they should suffice for the moment.

For most people, physical survival has very high salience. However, there may be things that have higher salience. A mother, for example, may be willing to give her life to save her children. The impulse for maternal protection is stronger-- has higher salience-- than the impulse for survival. Similarly, then, a person will become a suicide bomber when the following conditions are met:

1. The expected outcome of self-sacrifice has high salience,†
2. The salience of physical survival is lower than the salience of the above expected outcome, and
3. One is presented with the necessary means and opportunity to carry out the act.

It's no accident that most people who carry out such acts do so in the name of radical ideologies and organizations. Such ideologies and organizations help meet each of the above conditions.

For example, in Hamas-run schools in Palestine, "martyrs" are accorded great prestige, and children are taught that martyrdom will be rewarded in heaven and will alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people. Jews, meanwhile are dehumanized as "dogs," "pigs," and "enemies." These teachings exalt the benefits of martyrdom while downplaying its ethical and political downsides. This helps to satisfy the first condition.

The second condition may be satisfied either by convincing people that physical death is merely a gateway to a higher and better existence, or by devaluing the continuation of physical life. Radical Islamist groups do both. They teach that martyrs go to heaven where they enjoy great pleasures such as the 70 celestial virgins, and they also socially sanction failure and cowardice so that failed bombers will experience great shame and loss of self-worth. Such measures greatly reduce the salience of physical survival.

The role that radical groups play in meeting the third condition, of course, should be obvious. Organized groups tend to have access to funding and expertise that individuals do not. Most individuals would never be presented with the opportunity for martyrdom without the support of a radical group.

So while the quest for personal significance may be one factor motivating terrorists to engage in suicide-bombing, it is neither the only such motive nor the only condition that must be met. Suicide bombers may be moved, for example, by compassion for Palestinians, or by fear of shame, or by desire for a peaceful and pleasurable existence in heaven. A better predictor for martyr-behavior than loss of personal significance would seem to be the presence of a radicalized group or ideology that socializes people, manipulates their preferences, and provides them means and opportunity.

† The perceived probability of the outcome is a factor as well, but is here assumed to be 100%. A formal model would express conditions 1 and 2 this way:

Salience of Survival * Perceived Probability of Death (100%) > Salience of Expected Outcome * Perceived Probability of This Outcome

Reason, Feeling, and Decisionmaking

2010-09-11T22:00:00.001-05:00

AdamF over at Mormon Matters posted an argument the other day defending the legitimacy of allowing "feelings" to play a major role in decisionmaking. He argues,

Without emotions, we are literally not capable of making decisions. No amount of logical thinking, reasoning, or studying can lead to actual decisions without the influence of emotion: “Cut off from our feelings, the most banal decisions become impossible. A brain that can’t feel can’t make up its mind.”

I don't disagree with Adam's assessment, but I think he may be missing some important distinctions about the kinds of decisions in which feelings play a legitimate role, and the kinds of roles that feelings legitimately play.

One legitimate role that emotion can play in rational decisionmaking is in determining our individual preferences. For example, if I find cookie dough more pleasurable than chocolate chip, then the only rational thing for me to do when faced with a choice between them is to pick cookie dough. Without this sort of emotional valuation of alternatives, we would have no preferences and selection among alternative courses of action would be impossible.

However, choosing a course of action is a little different than the case of deciding what is true. Assuming that we all emotionally prefer truth to fiction, we will want to employ the most powerful and reliable truth-evaluation techniques available. Hard experience suggests that what we call “logic” and “the scientific method” are more reliable than emotional preference when it comes to assessing the truth or falsity of a proposition. For example, no matter how much I want to believe that there will be no consequences if I do nothing but sit around watching TV and eating popcorn every day, it just isn’t true.

Of course, the assumption that we all emotionally prefer truth to fiction probably isn’t true, either. There are some things many of us would just rather not know. In that case, it is perfectly rational to decide based on emotional preference and to avoid evidence or rational analysis that might potentially disconfirm the alternative one has chosen.

Republicanism in the Book of Mormon

2010-09-05T17:00:00.001-05:00

Those who object to finding “republicanism” in the Book of Mormon generally seem to assume that early American republicanism was a monolithic phenomenon—characterized by the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian ideals that dominate the popular modern mythology of America’s founding. This Jeffersonian-Jacksonian tradition was strongly in favor of states’ rights, decentralized government, yeoman farmers, and separation of church and state. The Book of Mormon, it is commonly argued, has its judges act more like kings and theocrats than American (i.e. Jeffersonian) presidents.

While it is true that Jacksonian ideals were in the ascendancy in the late 1820’s and early 30’s, there was another line of American political thought that retained real strength in some parts of the country—especially in New York, where it united with the anti-Masonic furor sparked by the Morgan affair. (Most early converts seem to have been anti-Masons or to have had anti-Masonic sympathies, including most notably Martin Harris and W. W. Phelps.) These old-school conservatives and “Adams-men”, left-over from the recently disintegrated Federalist Party, united into the short-lived “National Republican Party” from 1825-1833. Their platform was strong central government, mingling of church and state, and fear of mob rule. Although they tended to be urban and wealthier than the Jacksonians, they used the same populist rhetoric and—as already mentioned—were strong in Vermont, New York, and Pennsylvania where they could unite with populist anti-Masons who saw Jackson as the front man for a Masonic conspiracy to subvert and infiltrate the government for diabolical purposes.[1]

The National Republican/Anti-Masonic platform is closer to what we find in the Book of Mormon than Jacksonianism. It explains the populist and republican rhetoric as well as Jacksonianism would have, but it also accounts for the urban, theocratic, despotic, and anti-Masonic overtones. Thus when Richard Bushman objects that the chief judge “was more king than president”, we may hear echoes of Federalism.[2] And if in the Book of Mormon “church and state are liberally intermixed”, this is hardly out of keeping with the National Republican platform.[3]

Granted, Book of Mormon politics are not merely republican or even primarily republican. The republican elements are lodged in a biblical narrative framework. Like Israel in the Bible, the Nephite leaders are called kings and judges rather than presidents and legislators. The interpretation of the reign of the judges as a government founded on republican principles was commonplace in the 19th century.[4] On the other hand, it was also widely recognized that the reign of the judges also had aristocratic and theocratic features. As one commentator put it, “The Hebrew government, putting out of view its theocratical feature, was of a mixed form, in some respects approaching to a democracy, in others assuming more of an aristocratical character.”[5] Those features of Book of Mormon government that Bushman finds to be non-republican—hereditary succession, the absence of checks and balances, legislation by judges, leadership by inspiration, etc.—are all features of the biblical reign of judges that appear to have been imported into the Book of Mormon narrative.

This however does not negate the fact that the Book of Mormon infuses the biblical system with American, republican overtones, as other 19th century interpreters of the Bible also were wont to do. This has the double effect of both supporting American democracy by giving it a biblical precedent and challenging it by highlighting its unbiblical secularity. It is hardly surprising that the man who wrote the Book of Mormon went on to become both a prophet and a presidential candidate.

So... is there American republicanism in the Book of Mormon? Yes—specifically the Federalist variety espoused by the National Republican Party. But the Book of Mormon is not a republican book, but a biblical book with a republican accent.

NOTES:

[1] Cf. Dan Vogel, "Mormonism's 'Anti-Masonick Bible'," John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 9 (1989): 17-30.

[2] Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1984), 132.

[3] Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 103.

[4] It was also common to refer to the Law of Moses as a “constitution”. See "Sacred Politics," The Republican 2, no. 4 (1825): 134.

[5] Richard Watson, "Government of the Hebrews," in A Biblical and Theological Dictionary: Explanatory of the History, Manners, and Customs of the Jews, and Neighboring Nations (New York: B. Waugh and T. Mason, 1832), 421-22.

After-Conference Discussion of William Schryver's FAIR Presentation

2010-08-07T22:14:00.002-05:00

I had the pleasure the other day of attending the FAIR Conference and hearing William Schryver's now-famous presentation on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. (If you haven't seen the video of the presentation yet, it's available online here.)

After the session I had the privilege of dialoguing a bit with some very bright folks I know from the message boards. Kerry Shirts videotaped these exchanges, and has posted the videos on YouTube. The first video is an interview with just me, whereas the second and third are a discussion with several folks, including Wade England, Loyd Ericson, and David Bokovoy.

Let the Papyrus-Length-Calculation Wars Begin!

2010-08-05T01:22:00.000-05:00

I just got word from Kristine Haglund, editor of Dialogue Journal, that a preliminary version of a paper I recently co-authored with Andrew Cook is now available on the journal's website! Hopefully this posting came in time for some people to take a look at the paper before Sunstone and FAIR. We were hoping to generate a little buzz at the conferences.

This is a somewhat technical paper, but hopefully interesting anyway. Essentially, we have developed a rigorous mathematical methodology to calculate the original length of the scroll of Hor. Some LDS scholars have speculated that the source from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham may have been on a missing, interior portion of this scroll. We find that this cannot be the case, since the physical dimensions of the scroll allow only about 60 cm of papyrus to be missing. This is just enough papyrus to accommodate the missing portion of the Hor Document of Breathing. It is not enough to accommodate a Book of Abraham. This suggests that the evidence that the extant fragments of the Document of Breathing were the source of the Book of Abraham should be taken at face value. Hopefully our findings will help clear the ground of the "missing papyrus" apologetic, and facilitate a study of Joseph's translation process in light of the papyrus source the evidence suggests he actually utilized.

Incidentally, our calculations are partly a response to the less exacting methodology of John Gee, who calculated that some 41 feet are missing from the end of the scroll. I understand there are also at least two other papers currently in preparation by LDS scholars that attempt to compute papyrus length using methodologies similar to our own. If and when these papers are published, it should be very interesting to see how their findings compare with ours. I predict a lively debate, at least in a very small corner of cyberspace and/or the academic literature.

Looking Forward to Sunstone and FAIR

2010-08-05T01:03:00.006-05:00

I got up this morning, loaded my things into the car, and started driving toward Salt Lake City, where starting tomorrow morning I will be attending (and presenting at) the Sunstone Symposium. I'll also be making a detour to catch part of the FAIR Conference and to attend the Mormon Expression Live Broadcast. It should be a fun few days.

For most of the drive, I listened to a variety of podcasts and NPR recordings. One that I particularly enjoyed was the latest episode of Mormon Expression, which is comprised of personal essays written and read aloud by the various panelists. The essays by Glenn and Zilpha were particularly excellent. Glenn's was more like a very clever slam poem than a personal essay, and reminded me a lot of another slam poem I heard recently and greatly enjoyed. Zilpha's was in the form of a very funny personal narrative. She has a wonderfully expressive voice, and you can just hear her smile behind every clever phrase. You can't help but smile too. Thanks to the folks at Mormon Expression and NPR for sustaining me through the horribly prosaic state of Nevada.

It happened to be about dusk by the time I was passing through the Utah salt flats, and at this point I began to understand why the first Mormon settlers might have stopped here to make this their sacred space. The salt flats are stark in their vastness and emptiness. They have a semi-reflective surface that catches some of the color of the sky above. As the sun silhouetted the mountains at my back, the partially cloudy sky ignited with hues of pink and orange stretching to every horizon. As the richness of these colors deepened, a dark thunderhead loomed ahead. Streaks of lightning pulsed relentlessly, over and over, striking down at the same distant patch of ground. I found myself wondering what sinner must be living there, to attract such punishment. As night fell and the sky darkened, I drew closer to the spot-- uncomfortably close, in fact. I'm sure it was farther than it looked, but one particular strike as I passed by will be forever burned into my retina. I was in awe of the display to which I was treated here, in this vast wasteland. It is as though God emptied this desert so as to avoid distracting from the heavens-- as though he gave it its glassy surface to reflect their fiery glory.

I am here now, in my hotel room, trying to channel the last vestiges of euphoria into poetic energy. The window is open, and a cool Salt Lake breeze is blowing through. The moment has passed, but I won't forget it... at least not until the presenters tomorrow morning give me a ton of other exciting things to think about. ;)

Hope to see you there!

The Dialogue I Love

2010-07-17T04:57:00.002-05:00

I haven't read Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought very much in the last few years, since it got sort of artsy-fartsy for a while and didn't have a heckuva lot I was interested in. With the ascension of Kristine Haglund to editorship, however, things are improving. This was especially evident in the latest issue (Summer 2010).

Admittedly, part of my reason for this post is to plug my own article in the issue, titled "Joseph Smith in Hermeneutical Crisis". In the article I explore Joseph Smith's ministry as a response to the multiplicity of biblical interpretations that arose in early America's democratic environment. The traditional Protestant doctrine of "perspicuity" said that the Bible was supposed to be clear and self-interpreting. The widespread popularity of Scottish Common Sense philosophy only reinforced this expectation. Many people, including Joseph Smith's contemporary Alexander Campbell, believed that if the process of biblical interpretation could be freed from creeds and other constraints, it would lead to widespread agreement and the unification of Christianity. Thus it was extremely unsettling for people to realize that in America's democratic environment, disagreement was at an all-time high. Joseph Smith addressed this crisis by revising and reinterpreting the Bible so as to make it the clear and unobjectionable text that American Protestants expected it to be.

There's other great stuff in this issue, though, besides my own paper. In particular, Heikki Räisänen's piece on the Joseph Smith translation made an excellent complement to mine. Whereas I focused on how Smith's revision of the Bible was a response to his historical context, Räisänen looks at the precise ways in which the text was revised. She does a very good job illustrating that Joseph's changes stood in the tradition of conservative evangelical interpretation of the Bible, particularly with respect to resolving contradictions in the text.

By the way, one thing that neither Heikki nor I researched in detail was how well-known to Joseph Smith's contemporaries were many of the contradictions he corrected in the Bible. Were these discussed in atheist literature? Bible commentaries? Were they well-known enough to have been discussed in Smith's debate club as a young man? Or were they little-known enough that we can assume Smith discovered them on his own? This would be a great follow-up project for someone to tackle.

The issue contains other great papers as well, including Ben Park's piece "Early Mormon Theologies of Embodiment" and Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's piece exploring the role of LDS women in second-wave feminism. Ben does a very good job exploring the development of Mormon embodiment theology. One highlight for me was when he placed it in the context of early nineteenth-century anti-Trinitarianism, which often emphasized God's embodiment as a counterpoint to philosophical theology. Another highlight was Ben's explanation for why Joseph Smith taught that resurrected bodies contain no blood: namely, that blood was viewed as a "corrupting" influence. It had never occurred to me before that the Old Testament's revulsion against blood played a role in this particular theological innovation. (Joseph Smith's hermeneutical lens was peculiarly Old Testament-colored, in a very New Testament-heavy age.) Ulrich's piece, meanwhile, demonstrates that some LDS women were at the cutting edge of the feminist movement of the 1970's and 80's, keeping pace with the leading lights of feminist theology in such institutions as Harvard Divinity School.

If you find the time to read past the articles section, you will also find a fascinating interview with Mary and Patricia Rorty, widow and daughter of the late philosopher Richard Rorty. I had no idea that Rorty had married a Mormon, so I read with some interest her reminiscences of his mixed feelings about the Church, and the way they peacefully coexisted in their mixed marriage. Say what you will about Mormons, but Mary is clearly a very intelligent, perceptive, and progressive woman, just like her late husband.

Rumi's Beautiful Poem on Evolution

2010-07-12T00:57:00.001-05:00

The following poem is from the Islamic mystic Rumi. I am lifting it from a work titled The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, by Muhammad Iqbal. Iqbal prefaces the poem by saying, "It is strange how the same idea affects different cultures differently. The formulation of the theory of evolution in the world of Islam brought into being Rumi's tremendous enthusiasm for the biological future of man. No cultured Muslim can read such passages as the following without a thrill of joy." Here's the poem:

Low in the earth
I lived in realms of ore and stone;
And then I smiled in many flowers;
Them roving with the wild and wandering hours,
O'er earth and air and ocean's zone,
In a new birth,
I dived and flew,
And crept and ran,
And all the secret of my essence drew
Within a form that brought them all to view-
And lo, a Man!
And then my goal.
Beyond the clouds, beyond the sky,
In realms where none may change or die-
In angel form; and then away
Beyond the bounds of night and day,
And Life and Death, unseen or seen,
Where all that is hath ever been,
As One and Whole.

(Rumi: Thadani's Translation.)

A thrill of joy, indeed. I wish the Christian world could catch some of Rumi's enthusiasm!

Buddhist and Mormon Anthropologies

2010-07-10T05:17:00.001-05:00

There are some interesting parallels between the Buddhist and Mormon conceptions of humanity's place in the cosmos. In particular, both Buddhism and Mormonism teach an infinite regress of worlds and an infinite regress of "the self". (Infinite regress here means that these things have existed for all eternity, and do not have a "beginning".) Both traditions also teach that all "selves"-- demonic, human, and divine-- are of fundamentally the same species. Yet from these anthropological starting points, the two traditions diverge in some highly interesting ways. A comparison of their differences may point adherents of each tradition toward some questions they never thought to ask, and some possible implications they never thought to consider.

Let's begin with the concept of infinite regress. Buddhism posits a cycle in which the world is continually re-created and re-destroyed. The creator here is not a god, but an impersonal force or natural law called karma. "The self", meanwhile, is stuck in a cycle of continual reincarnation, and has passed through an infinite number of past lives. Thus history for a Buddhist goes like a never-ending sine wave, with alternating high points and low points. Mormonism's regress of worlds is rather different. It sees history as being like an infinitely branching tree on an ever-upward trajectory, with an infinite number of worlds being constantly created and glorified. As for the regress of selves, Mormonism, like Buddhism, sees "the self" as going through several lives or stages of existence. The difference here is that the stages are not cyclical. Once a stage is complete, it will never be repeated.

Both traditions also see demons, humans, and gods as being fundamentally the same species. For both Mormons and Buddhists, the difference between the categories of being is a difference of merit and advancement rather than ontology. In both traditions it is fully possible to pass from one category to another, and in fact a host of divine beings who have reached a high level of development are standing by to help raise the lesser creatures to their level. (In Mormonism these are the Godhead and the angels; in Buddhism they are the Bodhisattvas.) Both Mormonism and Buddhism posit that this development is achieved through adherence to a self-existent and transcendent moral law to which even the gods themselves are subject. Mormonism refers to this as the moral law, whereas Buddhism calls it "karma". The main difference here is that Buddhism sees movement going in both directions, both up and down the chain of being. Even the gods often squander their time in heaven, and thus are reincarnated as lower beings. Mormonism, by contrast, sees movement going almost exclusively in an upward direction. Only those who utterly and deliberately reject the divine plan of salvation can regress to a lower stage of existence.

The two movements' conceptions of the self are also somewhat parallel. Both movements have tended to see human souls not as unified, autonomous entities, but as aggregates constituted from some sort of substrate or matter. In fact, philosophers in both movements have proposed the idea of spiritual atomism-- that souls are actually composed of particles of matter! Yet each movement has drawn from this a very different implication. For Mormons, it is dignifying: humans are composed of eternal rather than contingent elements, and thus are free and self-existent beings. But for Buddhists, what it suggests is that the self is "empty" or non-real. The self is merely an aggregate of other things, and dependent on them for its existence. It is not a unified entity, so the appearance of autonomy is an illusion. In fact, Buddhist philosophers have argued that because everything that exists is dependent on something else for its existence, reality must have no independent grounding, and thus nothing is really real. For the good Buddhist, enlightenment is to recognize the self and the universe for what they really are: nothing at all.

So while Mormonism and Buddhism have very similar anthropologies, they draw very different theological implications from them. We might summarize the difference by saying that Mormonism is optimistic, whereas Buddhism is pessimistic. In Buddhism, the cycle of reincarnation is seen as an endless and pointless existence filled with continual striving and suffering. The goal of a good Buddhist is to escape the cycle altogether by deconstructing and ultimately dissolving the self. In Mormonism, the endless striving and movement between stages is actually seen as a good thing. Far from escape, the eternal goal of a good Mormon is in fact perpetuation of the system, by creating new worlds and populating them with human souls!

The similar ontological foundations of the two movements means that there's a great basis for interfaith dialogue here. Both movements might be able to learn from each other. For example, a Buddhist might ask a Mormon, "What's to stop a god from falling or sinning?" The Book of Mormon's own "proseperity cycle" seems more consistent with Buddhist expectations than with Mormon ones. When beings reach a high level of achievement, they tend to become proud, complacent, and self-satisfied. Why doesn't Mormonism make allowance for regression as well as progression? Alternatively, our Buddhist interlocutor might ask, "What is the point of the plan of salvation? Human life is full of misery and suffering. Am I really a son of perdition if I refuse to strive for its perpetuation?" To this a Mormon might pose an equally provocative counter-question. "Instead of 'striving' to escape the cycle of existence, why not just go with the flow? Why not just try to reduce the total amount of suffering in the world, so the endless continuation of human life won't be so bad?"

The Troop Surge, Revisited

2010-07-05T01:16:00.000-05:00

Joshua Holland of AlterNet has posted an article titled, "The Mythology Surrounding Petraeus' Surge in Iraq Will Keep Us Trapped in Afghanistan". The article makes some valid points, but its analysis of the troop surge is somewhat lacking. Holland argues,

The surge didn’t work. The additional troops were deployed by May 2007. What followed was a bloodbath --June and July were the most violent summer months of any year of the occupation. August was one of the bloodiest months, period. Then, that month, the powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mehdi Army to stand down. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths fell by about 50 percent the next month and decreased again in October and November. The militia was estimated to be 100,000 strong and was arguably the most powerful ground force in Iraq after the U.S. military.

Holland is certainly right to contextualize the troop surge by juxtaposing it with al-Sadr's leadership of the Mahdi Army. But his assessment of the course of events is not entirely accurate.

First, let's look at a timeline of events. The troop surge began in February 2007, with about 3500 troops arriving each month until the surge was completed in May. From February to November, coalition forces undertook a massive military effort to impose government control over Baghdad, which was largely controlled by sectarian militias. Al-Sadr went into hiding during February and March, but re-emerged in April to urge his troops-- and Shi'a everywhere-- to fight the foreign invaders. At the end of August, a clash between Sadrists and the US-allied Badr Organization led al-Sadr to call for a cease fire. In March-May 2008, coalition forces laid siege to Sadr city, resulting in al-Sadr's de facto surrender of the city to Iraqi government forces.

Now let's look at some casualty figures. Here are the coalition casualties for 2007, according to iCasualties:

Jan: 86, Feb: 85, Mar: 82, Apr: 117, May: 131, June: 108, July: 89, August: 88, Spetember: 70, November: 40

Clearly April and May were the bloodiest months for coalition forces. These months coincided with al-Sadr's return and the height of the 2007 battle for Baghdad. A steady decrease in coalition casualties followed.

The civilian casualty figures are even more telling. Here are the figures put out by Iraq Body Count (IBC):

Clearly, the number of civilian casualties in June was much lower than any of the preceding twelve months. Violence rose again in July, but then dropped off again in August. To characterize these months as a "bloodbath" is to fail to put them into the context of the 12 months that preceded them. The previous summer was much bloodier. Certainly the most dramatic drop in violence came as a result of al-Sadr's cease fire at the end of August, but the situation had already somewhat improved, and in fact al-Sadr's decision was arguably a result of the coalition's efforts.

Notice also what happened after May 2008, when Sadr City surrendered. Civilian casualties dropped off significantly, and continued to gradually stabilize thereafter. At the very least I think we have to acknowledge this success, which almost certainly would not have been possible without the additional troops provided by the surge.

Let's hope that the peace the surge helped achieve can survive the country's present political stalemate and the withdrawal of the last of our combat troops next month.

Is the Book of Abraham Papyrus "Missing"?

2010-07-02T15:56:00.003-05:00

In 1835, Joseph Smith purchased an ancient Egyptian funerary scroll containing a Document of Breathing Made by Isis, which anciently belonged to a priest named Hor. Because the fragments from the outer end of the scroll were falling apart, the prophet and his scribes preserved them by pasting them to stiff backing paper. The interior portion of the scroll was better preserved, and remained intact as a scroll. The mounted outer fragments have survived, but the intact interior portion was burned in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871.

Handwritten manuscripts from the Kirtland period of LDS Church history seem to indicate that the Book of Abraham was "translated" from one of the extant mounted fragments of this scroll. But when this fragment is translated Egyptologically, it turns out to have nothing to do with Abraham. As a result, missing papyrus theorist John Gee has argued that a Book of Abraham may have followed the Document of Breathing on the lost interior portion of the scroll. He explains, "Both Mormon and non-Mormon eyewitnesses from the nineteenth century agree that it was a 'roll of papyrus from which [Joseph Smith] translated the Book of Abraham,' meaning the 'long roll of manuscript,' and not one of the mounted fragments that eventually ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art" (John Gee, “Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri,” FARMS Review 20, no. 1 (2008): 119).

Dr. Gee's claim is not accurate. Consider the following eyewitness accounts, which indicate that both the mounted fragments and the intact portion of the scroll were identified as an Abrahamic record, and in fact the "deciphered" portion of the record was among the fragments:

"[Joseph Smith] then walked to a secretary, on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several frames, covered with glass, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus, on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had been imprinted. . . . There, said he, pointing to a particular character, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham."
(“A Glance at the Mormons,” The Friend; a Religious and Literary Journal 13, no. 43 [July 25, 1840]: 342–43.)

"Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. They were preserved under glass and handled with great respect. 'That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful,' said the prophet."
(Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past: From the Leaves of Old Journals, (Boston, Mass.: Roberts Brothers, 1883), 386.)

"From this he drew forth a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics. These had been unrolled from four mummies, which the prophet had purchased at a cost of twenty-four hundred dollars. By some inexplicable mode, as the storekeeper informed me, Mr. Smith had discovered that these sheets contained the writings of Abraham, written with his own hand while in Egypt."
(Henry Caswall, The City of the Mormons, or Three Days at Nauvoo, in 1842, 2nd rev. and enl. ed. [London: J.G.F. & J. Rivington, 1843], 22.)

"[Lucy Mack Smith] produced a black looking roll (which she told us was papyrus) found on the breast of the King, part of which the prophet had unrolled and read; and she had pasted the deciphered sheets on the leaves of a book which she showed us."
(M. to Friends’ Weekly Intelligencer, September 1846, in Friends’ Weekly Intelligencer 3, no. 27 [October 3, 1846]: 211-12.)

Our current English text of the Book of Abraham was translated from pJS XI, the "instructions" column of the Document of Breathing. This needn't threaten faith or membership in the Church, but it may require a change of paradigms in the way Mormons think about translation and prophethood. Such changes can be frightening and traumatic at first, but ultimately I think people will find they are also beneficial. Some may even find their faith deepened by the experience. One example of such a paradigm change in action is Karl C. Sandberg, "Knowing Brother Joseph Again: The Book of Abraham, and Joseph Smith as Translator," Dialogue 22 (Winter 1989): 17-38. Another I recommend is Jason Monson's Mormon pluralism.

The Environmental Kuznets Curve

2010-07-01T21:11:00.002-05:00

The summary below is adapted from Susmita Dasgupta, Benoit Laplante, Hua Wang, and David Wheeler, “Confronting the Environmental Kuznets Curve,” Journal of Economic Perspective 16, no. 1 (2002).

The Kuznets Curve is an inverted-U relationship between pollution and development. According to the model, pollution increases until a nation achieves ~$5,000-8,000 per capita income, and declines thereafter. What the curve illustrates is that the stakes in pollution-control efforts are high. China and India both already have very high pollution levels, but neither country is anywhere near its maximum level yet, according to the Kuznets model. Things are going to get worse before they get better.

Pollution decreases at higher incomes because high income societies have more discretionary capabilities for pollution reduction. The primary factor in the downslope of the curve, however, is government regulation, which can make a difference even in low-income nations. The problem is that low-income nations often have neither the motivation nor the capability to enforce such regulation. As the chart below illustrates, regulation usually increases with income levels. The international community can help by subsidizing information and regulation in these countries. Sanctions, by contrast, don't work and can only be counterproductive. We have to be realistic in our expectations of these low-income countries.

Another factor that reduces pollution is economic liberalization. This is because illiberal governments’ subsidies typically go to polluters, and because private enterprise is more efficient than state-run enterprise, and thus produces less pollution per unit of production. Openness to trade also improves access to cleaner technologies. But although liberalization helps, it is insufficient unless regulations are strengthened.

Sometimes regulation can be informal, at the market or local level. Investors and consumers allocate capital to lower polluters. Evidence shows that firms do respond to these pressures—especially the big multinationals. (In fact, multinational corporations are much better at and more committed to pollution reduction than smaller companies.) Often, though, market and local actors aren’t aware of pollution risks. Increased information can help enhance informal regulation.

Pollution taxes have been very successful in developing countries. Better information can improve regulation in these countries, as well. It turns out that the hidden costs of pollution are very high, especially for big cities. When poor governments become aware of these hidden costs (such as health care costs or foregone tax income due to premature deaths of workers), they often crack down.

The Kuznets curve model does seem to hold for existing toxins, but pessimists have raised one valid criticism: new technologies do give rise to new toxins, most of which are currently unregulated and unmonitored even in developed countries. We are going to have to be vigilant about detecting and controlling new pollutants.

Two Interesting Parallels to the Gadianton Robbers of the Book of Mormon

2010-06-30T01:56:00.000-05:00

There are a few interesting echoes of the Gadianton robbers in Ethan Smith’s 1825 book View of the Hebrews. In relating the events leading up to the collapse of Jewish civilization in 70 A.D., Smith reports that the people divided into warring factions that slayed and murdered each other with such fury that the bodies of the dead were heaped up in great piles (cp. Alma 16:11, 28:11, and Ether 14:21-22). And then, he reports,

To add to the horrid calamities of the times occasioned by bloody factions, Judea was infested by bands of robbers and murderers, plundering their towns and cutting in pieces such as made any resistance, whether men, women, or children.[1]

That Smith sees these as typical developments in the decline of a society under divine judgment is evident from his quotation of the Latin proverb, “Whom God will destroy, he gives up to madness.”[2]

Later in the same book, when citing prophecies about the last days, Smith makes numerous references to “Gog and his bands”: these he interprets as the assembled powers of antichrist that will assault Israel in the battle of Armageddon.[3] The use of the word “bands” implies that he sees the bands of Gog as recapitulating the destructive work of the robber bands of 70 AD. Smith is fond of typological interpretation, and explicitly says that the destruction of Jerusalem was a type of the battle of the last day.[4] Thus the bands of Gog represent both the forces arrayed against the old Jerusalem and the forces that will be arrayed against the New one.

If the author of the Book of Mormon read View of the Hebrews, these passages might have suggested to him the likelihood that a band of robbers, murderers, and plunderers would be active in America in the last days: a precursor to the judgment of Gentile society. There is, however, no reference in View of the Hebrews to these bands engaging in secret covenants. If View of the Hebrews was the inspiration for the Gadiantons, then their sinister ritual practices were an innovation original with the Book of Mormon’s author.

Ethan Smith’s robbers were found by him in Josephus’s Wars of the Jews. Is it possible that Wars of the Jews influenced the Book of Mormon directly, without any mediation from Ethan Smith? Josephus’s robbers are definitely suggestive. They joined together into a “band of wickedness” (4:3:3), and “joined in the conspiracy by parties” (4:7:2). These robbers “omitted no kind of barbarity; for they did not measure their courage by their rapines and plunderings only, but proceeded as far as murdering men.” In their murder they “began with the most eminent persons in the city; for the first man they meddled with was Antipas, one of the royal lineage” (4:3:4; cp. Helaman 1-2). The robbers eventually became such a problem that they engaged in mass slaughter, leaving cities, villages, and holy places utterly desolate. Even more suggestively, Josephus’s robbers did enter into an agreement to kill the innocent (5:1:5), and the leaders of the factions did cut the throat of anyone suspected of wanting to desert to the Romans (5:10:2). Certainly the chaos caused by the robbers according to Josephus is more commensurate with the Book of Mormon than anything suggested in the Bible.

However, although Joseph Smith owned a copy of Wars of the Jews at a later date, it was an edition published in 1830, and so could not have been used in the production of the Book of Mormon. An 1806 edition of Wars was available at the Manchester subscription library, and may have been available in the public library in Palmyra as well.[5] That Joseph read it prior to 1829 is therefore not impossible, but it seems unlikely. Probably the explanation for the Book of Mormon's Gadiantons lay elsewhere, in some combination of anti-Masonry and biblical narrative.

NOTES:
[1] Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews; or the Tribes of Israel in America (Poultney, Vt.: Smith & Shute, 1825), 29-30.
[2] Ibid., 31.
[3] Ibid., 45, 54-55, 65, 243.
[4] Ibid., 15, 45, 259.
[5] Robert Paul, "Joseph Smith and the Manchester (New York) Library," BYU Studies 22, no. 3 (1982): 14.

Word Frequencies and Mosiah Priority

2010-06-25T23:47:00.001-05:00

To generate the graph below, basically what I did was chopped the Book of Mormon up into sequential ten-chapter "chunks" (excluding chapters borrowed from the KJV Bible) according to Mosiah and 1 Nephi Priority, then measured (using Delta word frequency scores) the relative similarity of each "chunk" to the front and back ends of the Book of Mormon. Relative similarity to the front half was defined as "positive", and relative similarity to the back half was defined as negative. Given sequential authorship of the Book of Mormon by a single individual, we'd expect to see a negative linear trend over the course of the Book. As you can see in the attached graphs, this is precisely what we observe according to a Mosiah Priority sequence. In the 1 Nephi Priority sequence, though, we actually see a reversal of the trend in the middle of the book, with the latter portion becoming gradually more similar to the early chapters. This makes a strong argument for Mosiah priority.

How the Declaration of Independence Became an American Scripture

2010-06-22T13:18:00.004-05:00

The Declaration of Independence was not initially a revered document. In fact, for the first 15 years or so, it was virtually ignored. It was the act of declaring independence that people celebrated, not the document itself. It was a sheer historical accident that we ended up celebrating independence on July 4, when the written Declaration was formally adopted, rather than July 2, which is when Congress actually voted to declare independence. The Declaration only came to be revered a generation later, when people were looking back on the Revolution as an age of heroes.

It’s interesting that the vast majority of the Declaration’s text is a list of grievances and a justification of the states’ reasons for breaking away from Britain. Today we mostly ignore these, except for historical purposes. There are only a few lines that state general philosophical principles that people today treat as authoritative—most notably, the line that says it is “self-evident” that all men were created equal, with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sometimes we also quote the line that declares the right to revolt against a tyrannical government. And that’s about it. Besides the parts that we mostly ignore, there are also some parts we’d probably completely reject, such as the part that paints the “merciless Indian savages” as indiscriminate destroyers of human life. Or, perhaps, the part that treats the 13 colonies as united, but “independent states” rather than as territories under the jurisdiction of a federal government.

Ironically, the parts that we do quote, we probably aren’t interpreting in their original sense. The first draft of the Declaration made no reference to God or a Creator, so we might say that Jefferson initially did not really intend it to be a religious document. The line that says all men have been created equal was not intended by Jefferson to apply to blacks or women. Neither was the concept of a right to revolution. Jefferson himself was a slaveholder, and although he wasn’t against emancipation per se, he was a gradualist on the question and believed that the calls for immediate emancipation were a ploy to expand federal power. It is also significant that the idea of the equality of mankind was not a dominant theme in the Declaration, nor was it a theme to which its first audience paid much attention.

So how did the Declaration come to be the embodiment of the American idea of equality? Well, it’s really because of the inadequacy of the Bill of Rights—and, I’d suggest, the Bible—on the subject. There was nothing quotable in the Bill of Rights about the equality of all humanity, and nothing that could be used to end slavery. And while there were definitely passages in the Bible that could be quoted to make an anti-slavery case, the slaveholders quoted the Bible just as much, and actually seemed to be winning that debate. The anti-slavery interpretation required an appeal to the spirit behind the text, whereas the pro-slavery folks could appeal to the letter of the text—the literal, surface meaning. It was easier to find pro-slavery than anti-slavery prooftexts.

In the Declaration, though, you arguably had the charter of the American Republic, and it very clearly said that all men were equal. Even though it wasn’t a legally binding document, the anti-slavery crowd could make a strong argument that it was hypocritical for Americans to revolt against Britain on the principle of human equality, and then turn around and enslave a sixth of the country’s population. And in this case it was the letter of the text that said it, and there were no contrary prooftexts that the pro-slavery crowd could appeal to. They were reduced to arguing that the Declaration was wrong, and that this was a “self-evident lie,” not a self-evident truth. This is exactly the kind of argument that had gotten the abolitionists in trouble. Some abolitionists were liberal Christians, and had argued that when the Bible spoke approvingly of slavery it was simply wrong. You can imagine that most people thought pretty poorly of abolitionists for that reason. So when the pro-slavery crowd started saying the same about the Declaration, this was a major victory for the anti-slavery side, because now it was the pro-slavery people who were trampling on a sacred document and the sacred heritage of the nation. By the time Lincoln was running for President, he was using the Declaration and its teaching of human equality as a major plank in his campaign platform. For Lincoln, the Declaration was the nation’s all-encompassing moral charter. The Union victory in the Civil War helped to universalize this view.

The Gnosticism of the 1832-33 Revelations

2010-06-16T14:43:00.000-05:00

Joseph Smith’s “exaltation revelations” of 1832 and 1833 resonate strongly with certain ancient ideas that can be loosely described as “gnostic” (although of course this is a term for which there is no consensus definition).

If I may be permitted to engage in some very crude generalization, gnostics described the being of God as a pervasive and immutable realm of divine light which they called the pleroma, or fulness. Human souls were “divine sparks” emanated from the pleroma that had become trapped in the darkness of the material world. Christ (the Logos or Memra) was also emanated (“begotten”) from the pleroma, to serve as a mediator between God and the world. (In the gnostic view, God cannot interact directly with the world, because God is too transcendent.) Christ’s purpose was to serve as a redeemer, to guide human souls back to mystical union with the pleroma. In addition to light, gnostics described the divine being as pure Reason. Salvation was often framed in terms of mystical “knowing”, or gnosis—which is of course where we get the term gnostic. Many New Testament scholars have argued that the Johannine literature and the epistle to the Colossians exhibit gnosticizing or proto-gnosticizing tendencies.

Ideas like these come through very strongly in several of Joseph Smith’s revelations of 1832 and 1833. Perhaps most remarkable of all is the February 1833 revelation that says that Enoch “saw the time when Adam his fath[er] was made and he saw that he was in eternity before a grain of dust in the balance was weighed[;] he saw that he emenated and came down from God[.]”[1] The use of the word “emanated” here is remarkable because, while it is not at all biblical, it is a very crucial part of the Western gnostic and mystical traditions. Also significant is that Adam paradoxically had a beginning (was “made”), but also was present “in eternity” before anything else was created. This is strikingly parallel to the biblical conception of the pre-existence of Christ, who was paradoxically both begotten and “with God in the beginning” (John 1:1). It is also parallel to the gnosticizing idea of emanation, in which emanated entities in one sense have a beginning, but in another sense have existed in God eternally. A first-century gnostic would see the same idea reflected in D&C 76, where Jesus is said to have been “in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning” (language borrowed from John 1:18), even though the same passage says he was begotten.[2] Similarly, humans are “the work of [Jesus’] hands” in D&C 76, but were “in the beginning with God” in D&C 93.[3] On a related note, the stated identity of Christ with light and human “intelligence” (placed in its sphere to act independently) strongly resembles the Neoplatonic/gnostic notion that human souls are free and independent sparks of the light of God’s own being.[4]

The soteriology of these revelations also bears some resemblance to gnostic notions. Generally gnostics framed salvation in terms of an ascent to the pleroma, or fulness, of God. The identification with the pleroma begins in this life, through the acquisition of mystical knowledge, or gnosis. The idea of an ascent is perhaps relatively muted in Smith’s revelations, but it is implied in the hierarchy of heavens.[5] Certainly the concept that believers can become indwelled by the fulness is present,[6] as is the connection between knowledge and exaltation.[7] In one respect these revelations do differ quite significantly from most early gnostic groups: they are insistent upon a physical resurrection and the importance of embodiment.[8] In that respect they accord with proto-gnostic works like the Gospel of John and the Odes of Solomon, but not with the more extreme Sethian or Docetic traditions.

In another respect, however, the exaltation revelations actually seem to go beyond John’s gospel. Whereas John says the world was made “through” Jesus (John 1:3), the “record of John” in D&C 93 says that the world was made “by him and through him and of him.”[9] This implies a panentheistic universe, in which Christ is not only the instrument of the universe’s creation but also the agent who initiates it and the substance from which it is constructed. It is difficult to say how carefully Smith thought about these words before he wrote them, but in any case, the implication is there.

Some of these ideas were present in Joseph Smith’s context. Neoplatonism influenced the entire Western tradition, and its views were reflected in Quakerism, Transcendentalism, Romanticism, and Universalism. Emerson, for example, taught the doctrine of emanations and held that there is “one light which beams out of a thousand stars,” and “one soul which animates all men.”[10] The Universalist preacher John Murray, too, taught the emanation of the soul from God.[11] Quaker founder George Fox, meanwhile, spoke at length about “the Light of Christ” that shines through all things. Fox argued that this Light would not only restore us to the original state of Adam, but also raise us to “the measure and stature of the fulness of Christ.” Although Fox was a mystic, he was affirming of the physical elements and believed in a physical, embodied resurrection.[12] Asael Smith had been a fan of Murray, and Martin Harris’s wife and relatives were Quakers, so these influences were at least indirectly available to Joseph Smith.[13] More immediately and more importantly, Smith had access to the Gospel and epistles of John. He was revising the Gospel during the period when the “exaltation revelations” were produced (cf. D&C 76:15).

NOTES:
[1] H. Michael Marquardt, The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text & Commentary (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999), 232.
[2] Ibid., 186.
[3] Ibid., 188, 238.
[4] See also the comment that “man is the tabernacle of God,” just as the elements are. Ibid., 214, 238.
[5] Marquardt, Joseph Smith Revelations, 189.
[6] Ibid., 238.
[7] Ibid., 213, 238.
[8] Ibid., 223.
[9] Ibid., 237.
[10] Ralph Waldo Emerson, Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson, vol. 5 (Boston: Houghton, Osgood and Company, 1880), 91, 163.
[11] John Murray, Judith Sargent Murray, and Linus S. Everett, The Life of Rev. John Murray (Boston: Marsh, Capen, and Lyon, 1832), 208.
[12] George Fox, George Fox; An Autobiography (Philadelphia: Ferris and Leach, 1904), 101, 195.
[13] Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 17; Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), 31, 34.

Choice Seer, Spokesman, and Scribe

2010-06-14T15:13:00.000-05:00

(This post was originally guest-posted at Mormon Matters a few days ago.)

The Book of Mormon records in 2 Nephi 3 a very interesting prophecy attributed to the biblical patriarch Joseph of Egypt, according to which a “choice seer” would be raised up from the fruit of Joseph’s loins in the latter days. “And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father,” the patriarch announces. Clearly Joseph Smith is in view.

An addendum to this prophecy adds an interesting additional promise. “I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.” The traditional Mormon view is that the “spokesman” of the prophecy is Sidney Rigdon (see for example George Q. Cannon’s remarks in JD 25:126). This view is based on D&C 100:9–11, which proclaims that “it is expedient in me that you, my servant Sidney, should be a spokesman unto this people… I will give unto thee power to be mighty in expounding all scriptures, that thou mayest be a spokesman unto him.” I would like to suggest, however, that a better candidate for the spokesman of the “choice seer” prophecy is Oliver Cowdery.

Note that whereas the D&C emphasizes Sidney’s preaching role, the prophecy itself emphasizes writing. In fact, the roles of Smith and his spokesman are precisely the reverse of Moses and Aaron. The prophecy says of Moses, “I will give power unto him in a rod; and I will give judgment unto him in writing. Yet I will not loose his tongue, that he shall speak much, for I will not make him mighty in speaking. But I will write unto him my law, by the finger of mine own hand; and I will make a spokesman for him.” Whereas Moses needed a spokesman for speaking but not for writing, Joseph Smith evidently needed a spokesman for writing but not for speaking. The reference to a rod is also suggestive. Unlike Moses, Joseph Smith did not have “power in a rod.” But if the roles of seer and spokesman are reversed, then we might surmise that his spokesman did. And in fact, that is precisely what the D&C says of Oliver Cowdery.

Oliver Cowdery served as Joseph Smith’s principal scribe for the Book of Mormon and some early sections of the D&C. Of all Smith’s associates, Cowdery was the most prominent in the early period. D&C 28 specifically likens him to Aaron, and tasks him not only to write but also to “speak”, “preach”, and “declare faithfully the commandments and revelations” (D&C 28:3–8). Cowdery apparently sometimes made use of a divining rod, which the 1835 D&C describes as a “rod of Aaron”. He even received revelations of his own (EMD 2:409; 1835 Pat. Blessing Book), and did much of the early preaching and baptizing. But here’s the unambiguous kicker. In Cowdery’s patriarchal blessing—given in 1835 by Joseph Smith, Jr. himself—there is a reference to “the prophecy of Joseph, in ancient days,” which pronounced blessings upon “the Seer of the last days and the Scribe that should sit with him.” Clearly the choice seer’s “Scribe” is here supposed to be Cowdery.

So what are we to do with the D&C’s application of the spokesman label to Sidney Rigdon? Like Oliver, Sidney served as a spokesman for the prophet in both written and oral capacities. Sidney had started as the prophet’s scribe. In fact, when Joseph met Sidney in 1831, Sidney was specifically instructed to preach only “inasmuch as ye do not write [for the prophet]” (35:20–23). But by 1833 he had taken on a much larger role in the movement, and his role as “spokesman” was primarily a preaching and teaching role. Clearly Sidney did serve as a spokesman for Joseph Smith. But was he the spokesman of prophecy?

One possible reading of these sources is that by 1835 Joseph Smith had bifurcated the “spokesman” role of Joseph of Egypt’s prophecy into oral and written components, such that Rigdon was the “spokesman”, and an additional role of “Scribe” was created to accommodate the displaced Oliver Cowdery. But there is another possible reading as well. Perhaps the spokesman was never intended to be a single, unchangeable individual, but rather referred to a role or office that might be filled by multiple individuals simultaneously or in succession. A capital “S” is used in the prophet’s journal when calling Warren Parrish his “Scribe”, as well, suggesting perhaps that he saw Parrish as filling the same eschatological role that just a few months prior had been assigned to Oliver Cowdery. Smith in fact enlisted many talented scribes over the course of his life, selecting for the role some of the Church’s most talented and educated men. He never felt constrained to limit himself to a single individual. He had a whole cadre of spokesmen, some of whom moved in and out of the role as their fortunes and the Church’s changed.

I’m interested to hear how the commenters here at MM read this evidence. How are we to reconcile D&C 100 with Cowdery’s patriarchal blessing? Was the spokesman a person, or an office? If it was a person, then who? Cowdery? Rigdon? Or someone else entirely?

Correcting an Error in My Dialogue Article

2010-06-08T03:42:00.001-05:00

The latest issue of Dialogue has just mailed, with my paper "Joseph Smith in Hermeneutical Crisis" included. Unfortunately, after signing off on the proofs for this paper I discovered a problem with footnote #60. In the published version it reads in part,

[The Book of Mormon] also tends to exaggerate the use of certain forms--for example, the emphatic construction “I did go up unto,” as opposed to “I went up unto.” My own computer study reveals that most biblical books use the word “did” very little--only Habakkuk uses it more than three times per thousand words. The Book of Mormon, by contrast, exhibits extraordinarily high rates of occurrence per thousand words in four books: 4 Nephi (23.64), Ether (12.26), Mormon (11.87), and Helaman (11.86). Only 2 Nephi (1.29), Jacob (2.08), and Moroni (2.61) use “did” fewer than five times per thousand words.

In order to generate these word frequencies I used a computer program I wrote years ago for that purpose. Upon revisiting the code for this program, however, I discovered that years ago I was a pretty crummy programmer! I fixed my code and got slightly different numbers. Fortunately the basic conclusion remains the same. The corrected footnote should read,

[The Book of Mormon] also tends to exaggerate the use of certain forms--for example, the emphatic construction “I did go up unto,” as opposed to “I went up unto.” My own computer study reveals that most biblical books use the word “did” very little--only 1 and 2 Kings use it more than three times per thousand words. The Book of Mormon, by contrast, exhibits extraordinarily high rates of occurrence per thousand words in four books: 4 Nephi (25.99), Ether (13.93), Mormon (12.63), and Helaman (13.01). Only 2 Nephi (1.55), Jacob (1.75), and Moroni (2.62) use “did” fewer than five times per thousand words. (Book of Mormon chapters copied verbatim or nearly-verbatim from the KJV are excluded from these ratios.)

An Opportunity to Treat with China on Human Rights

2010-06-03T18:27:00.004-05:00

Every year, China issues a report on human rights in the United States. Most view the report as something of a joke. It was originally created as China's response to the US's "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices," in which China is frequently and harshly criticized. This is just China's way of turning the tables.

In their desire to strike back at the US for its arrogance, however, the Chinese have given us an opportunity. China is not likely to ever make unilateral concessions on human rights or democracy. As a rule, unilateral concessions of any kind are bad diplomatic practice. That means that any improvement of human rights in China will have to be part of a bilateral agreement. So, what if we chose to take the Chinese human rights report seriously? What if Obama called for a large-scale human rights conference for the US and China to work on a plan to improve human rights in both countries? Even if the Chinese originally meant their report as a joke, they would be forced to act as though it were serious in order to save face.

Besides, the Chinese human rights report makes some good points. If they can help us reduce violent crime, corruption, drug abuse, prison overcrowding, disease, government wiretapping, poverty, and other such problems in our country, that would be good for everybody.

Statistical Authorship Attribution and the Urantia Book

2010-05-30T21:05:00.004-05:00

Over at Scribd, I've uploaded a paper I wrote this semester called "The Urantia Book as a Test Case for Statistical Authorship Attribution of Genre-Distinctive Texts." In case you're not familiar with the Urantia Book, it is an American scripture produced in the early twentieth century that claims to have been written by celestial beings-- various kinds of angels and divine messengers, who live on other planets. It's a very unique and interesting text.

My study applies the Delta method of authorship attribution to the text, in order to see whether the method could shed any useful light on the authorship question. It finds that there are too many complicating variables for the method to be really useful in attributing a distinctive pseudepigraphon. For the most part, it produces nonsensical results. However, I do pioneer a new approach that might prove useful if properly controlled.

One reason these results are important is because of their implications for the Jockers, et. al. wordprint study of the Book of Mormon. Jockers applied the Delta method to the Book of Mormon and found that the Book had multiple authors, including Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding. If the method is ineffective for attributing distinctive pseudepigrapha, then the Jockers, et. al. results cannot be considered reliable.

Do Apologetics Have a Place in Religious Studies?

2010-05-27T20:33:00.002-05:00

"Apologetics" (from the Greek apologia, meaning "defense") are that brand of scholarship that sets out to prove or defend a particular religious perspective, tradition, or community. Although apologetic works are occasionally published by mainstream Religious Studies presses and journals, they are much more likely to be published in venues explicitly devoted to that purpose. This raises an interesting question. Do apologetics constitute a legitimate subdiscipline of Religious Studies? Or a separate discipline entirely?

To adequately answer this question, I think we need to make an important distinction between confessionalist and rationalist apologetics.

Confessionalist (also known as "presuppositional") apologetics are those that begin with a certain set of non-negotiable religious propositions and then seek to reconcile those propositions with the evidence. Here the goal is not so much to make a strong evidentiary case for one's religious beliefs as to show that those beliefs have not been absolutely falsified. Confessionalist apologists select not the most probable reading of the evidence, but the most probable one that harmonizes with those religious propositions that they consider non-negotiable. This sort of apologetic scholarship is designed only to remove obstacles to the operation of supernatural faith in converting or retaining the believer.

Rationalist apologetics are quite different. A rationalist believes things because they seem probable, given the available evidence. S/he makes no distinction between religious and scientific propositions, preferring to subject both kinds to the same epistemological standard. Rationalist apologists set out to make a strong rational and empirical case for religion, in order to show logically or scientifically that religious propositions are more likely to be true than untrue. When a rationalist becomes persuaded that the weight of logic or evidence are against a particular religious proposition, s/he will tend to either abandon that proposition or retreat to a confessionalist stance.

Rationalist apologetics, I think, clearly do constitute at least a subdiscipline of Religious Studies. They deal with Religious Studies subject matter, and do so according to Religious Studies standards. (Whether they do so well, of course, varies from case to case.) Confessionalist apologetics, however, do not follow the standards of Religious Studies in their treatment of their subjects, and therefore fall outside that discipline.

This is not to say that confessionalist apologetics are illegitimate. Just that they are illegitimate as Religious Studies scholarship. Probably confessionalist apologetics should be seen as a form of religious practice. They actively contribute to religious traditions, helping keep them alive and relevant to the modern world. When we classify them this way rather than judging them by the standards of secular scholarship, they take on a different kind of legitimacy: the legitimacy of liturgy. They also become an object rather than a subject of Religious Studies.

New Paper Posted at BCC

2010-05-25T10:23:00.001-05:00

I submitted my paper from the CMSSA conference to BCC Papers, and they accepted and posted it. Here is the citation and link:

“Is ‘Suspensive’ Historiography the Only Legitimate Kind?” BCC Papers 5, no. 2 (2010), available from http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/05/25/bcc-papers-5-2-smith-suspensive-historiography/.

Joseph Smith's Interpretation of Book of the Dead 125

2010-05-19T05:29:00.003-05:00

When anti-Mormon author Henry Caswall visited Nauvoo in the early 1840's, he was shown the Joseph Smith papyri by a Mormon guide, and the vignettes on the papyri were interpreted for him. The following description is particularly entertaining:

Turning to another of the drawers, and pointing to a hieroglyphic representation, one of the Mormons said, "Mr. Smith informs us that this picture is an emblem of redemption. Do you see those four little figures? Well, those are the four quarters of the earth. And do you see that big dog looking at the four figures? That is the old Devil desiring to devour the four quarters of the earth. Look at this person keeping back the big dog. That is Christ keeping the devil from devouring the four quarters of the earth. Look down this way. This figure near the side is Jacob, and those are his two wives. Now do you see those steps?" "What," I replied, "do you mean those stripes across the dress of one of Jacob's wives?" "Yes," he said, "that is Jacob's ladder." "That," I remarked, "is indeed curious." (Henry Caswall, City of the Mormons, 23.)

The vignette to which Caswall was referring is from chapter 125 of the Neferirnub Book of the Dead. Here is a reproduction from pages 40-B and 40-C of the February 1968 Improvement Era. (Click to enlarge.)

The vignette is a judgment scene, in which the deceased lady Neferirnub is introduced by the Two Maats into the presence of the judge, Osiris. The "big dog" is the monster Ammit. Here is what Wikipedia says about Ammit:

In ancient Egyptian religion, Ammit (also spelt Ammut and Ahemait, meaning Devourer or Bone Eater) was a female demon with a body that was part lion, hippopotamus and crocodile. A funerary deity, her titles included “Devourer of the Dead,” “Eater of Hearts,” and “Great of Death.”

Ammit lived near the scales of justice in Duat, the Egyptian underworld. In the Hall of Two Truths, Anubis weighed the heart of a person against Ma'at, the goddess of truth, who was sometimes depicted symbolically as an ostrich feather. If the heart was judged to be not pure, Ammit would devour it, and the person undergoing judgement was not allowed to continue their voyage towards Osiris and immortality. Once Ammut swallowed the heart, the soul was believed to become restless forever; this was called "to die a second time". Ammit was also sometimes said to stand by a lake of fire. In some traditions, the unworthy hearts were cast into the fiery lake to be destroyed. Some scholars believe Ammit and the lake represent the same concept of destruction.

The figure standing behind Ammit is the deity Thoth, who is recording the proceedings.

As for Jacob's Ladder, here is a close-up of that portion of the vignette:

Caswall appears to have been correct that this is merely the front of Neferirnub's dress. Perhaps the interpretation of it as "Jacob's Ladder" stemmed from the awkward way that the dress is drawn, in combination with the little human-shaped hieroglyph off to the side that appears to be climbing the "ladder". I can't help but think that the close association of Jacob's ladder with polygamy in Joseph Smith's understanding of this vignette reflects his sense of the importance of polygamy as a means of deification and celestial ascent.

A "Wave" Model of Terrorism

2010-05-11T16:19:00.005-05:00

UCLA political scientist David C. Rappoport proposed a wave model of terrorism that has been tested, extended, and revised by William Thompson (in Devezas, ed., Kondratieff Waves, Warfare and World Security, 2006). It's a pretty interesting model, so I thought I'd share.

Thompson argues that terrorism and global warfare have evolved together, for several reasons. First, both terror and global warfare are linked to economic "long waves" that bring new technologies and greater alienation due to industrialization. This has led to a gradual increase in the scale and intensity of both global warfare and terrorism as both have evolved. Second, global war is fought by professional armies using conventional tactics. These are precisely the conventions that terrorism seeks to disrupt, so that terrorism is always to some degree a response to conventional warfare. Third, to some extent global war has blurred the line between combatants and non-combatants. (The non-combatant death toll in World War 2 was higher than the death toll for combatants.) And fourth and most importantly, global wars are fought to change the international system and to determine who the new system leader will be. Thus, global wars change the targets and goals of terrorism and the norms under which they operate.

Rappoport believed that terrorism began in 1870's Europe, but Thompson pushes its origins back to 1790's France. In any case, Rappoport and Thompson agree that there have been basically four waves of terrorism-- each lasting roughly a generation, or about 40 years-- since 1870. The first wave was an "anarchist" wave consisting mostly of political assassinations. This wave was brought to an end by WWI. The second wave sought decolonization through guerilla warfare, and was ended by WWII. The third wave was a "Marxist revolution" wave that ended with the collapse of the USSR. And the fourth and final wave has been a religious fundamentalist (and especially Islamist) wave that employs suicide bombers and attacks on symbolic targets. This wave is currently in progress.

Thompson tests these propositions empirically and finds that yes, the motives of terrorism have shifted from nationalism to ideology to religion over the course of the twentieth century, and yes, we can empirically measure the compressions of terror "waves" in terms of the number of active terrorist groups operating at any given time.

This model is interesting because it illustrates that terrorism isn't anything new. It has been around for a long time, and owes as much to systemic factors as to specific circumstances or ideologies. There will probably always be terrorists, no matter who is running the international system and no matter how hard they try to defeat the terrorists or to redress their grievances. We can expect the makeup of terrorism to change over time, though, especially as China and India become the dominant global powers (either through warfare or peaceful transition). I, for one, won't be sorry to see that responsibility shifted from American shoulders. Let the Asians deal with it. Good riddance!

Did Baer Back Down?

2010-04-30T22:56:00.002-05:00

Recently I provided a letter from Hugh Nibley in which he asserted that during a lecture at BYU non-Mormon Egyptologist Klaus Baer was asked some hard questions about the Book of Abraham, and by the end of the session "was definitely in retreat." A letter from H. Michael Marquardt to my friend Noel Hausler tells a rather different story. The contrast between these two letters is a fascinating study in differing perceptions. Unlike Nibley, Marquardt's notes emphasize Baer's firmness that Joseph Smith made "no lucky guesses", and that Baer did not believe Joseph was a prophet.

I think the problem here was that Baer was a very strong believer in the "suspensive" school of historiography, which argued that religious claims are inherently non-empirical and there is absolutely nothing that secular historians can say about religious truth claims. So when Baer emphasized at the end that this was outside his expertise as an Egyptologist, it's understandable that that would sound to Nibley's ears like a retreat. But actually, if you read some of Baer's other papers and letters on the subject, you'll find that these remarks were pretty typical fare for him. He was very reticent to directly, publicly speak his mind about religious truth claims.

[p. 1]
[Address omitted for privacy reasons]
November 2, 1974
Mr. Noel Hausler
[Address omitted for privacy reasons]

Dear Mr. Noel Hausler,

Wesley P. Walters sent me a copy of a letter written by Dr. Hugh Nibley at BYU dated September 15, 1974 and was addressed to you.

I attended the last lecture by Klaus Baer at BYU on August 23, 1974 and was at the Question and Answer Session which lasted for an hour afterward. At the Question and Answer Session I asked Klaus Baer three questions in succession, infact I started the discussion in relation to the Book of Abraham. The comments by Klaus Baer on the Book of Abraham was about 20-25 minutes. He answered the first two questions that I asked him by going into some of the background material on the Joseph Smith Papyrus and papers which Joseph Smith worked with and so my short account is a summary of his conclusion. The third answer was a definite yes.

The following questions are what I asked Klaus Baer and the answer is a brief summary of what his conclusions were, this material is taken from my typed notes made on the same day. The first two questions I had typed out when I asked Klaus Baer those questions.

Question 1: “In your opinion did Joseph Smith or whoever understand Egyptian? Or inotherwords – Is there enough evidence to convince you that Joseph Smith (or whoever did the translation of the Egyptian Papyrus behind the Book of Abraham) could read and understand Egyptian?”

Answer: Klaus Baer explained that Facsimile No. 1 and the Sensen text were together and that the backing paper had drawings on them. Hugh Nibley had sent him a copy of his article dealing with the different hadwritings of Joseph Smith’s scribes. Klaus Baer stated that whoever did the work of the Book of Abraham didn’t understand Egyptian.

Question 2: “There are some persons who have expressed the opinion that we don’t know where the papyrus is from which the Book of Abraham text comes from and they say that the papyrus is still lost. What do you feel? – Is there any evidence that this is true?”

Answer: Klaus Baer knew that I was referring to Hugh Nibley and he stated that he disagreed with Hugh Nibley and that we do have the actual papyrus that was the source of the Book of Abraham.

Question 3: “Do you still stand behind your Dialogue article?”

Answer: “Yes”.

[p. 2]
In the letter by Dr. Hugh Nibley to you on page 1 he writes: “Baer was hard put to it during the discussion periods and at the end was definitely in retreat, though as an honored quest we could not press him too hard. The main point was that heshowed his hand while we, to spare unpleasant controversy, virtuously withheld our own. I would like to comment on this. There were a number of questions asked Klaus Baer after the three questions which I had asked him. There was no doubt about the answers to my questions but it seems that some of the persons who were there at the Question and Answer Session felt that Klaus Baer was backing down. I do not feel that he was in retreat but giving his own personal observations about Joseph Smith and the following is from the typewritten notes that I made.

“A question was asked Klaus Baer on whether Joseph Smith had made any lucky guesses on his interpretation of Facsimile No. 2 of the Book of Abraham. Klaus Baer said that the copy of Facsimile No. 2 which appeared among the papers of the EAG showed that there were gaps at the time Joseph Smith was working on them. The gaps were filled in from other papyri. The method to restore a damaged document is to use a parallel text and Klaus Baer stated that he did not approve of how Fac. No. 2 was restored. Klaus Baer said that there were no lucky guesses.

“A question was asked how could there be no lucky guesses when in fact Egyptologists agree with Joseph Smith on a number of interpretations that Joseph Smith made in relation with Fac. No. 2. Klaus Baer stated that there were no lucky guesses and that you could prove anything you wanted. He then made it clear that this was beyond his competence in his field as an Egyptologist. Klaus Baer stated his personal belief that he didn’t believe Joseph Smith to be a Prophet. He mentioned that this was out of his field. He said that he had no intention to becoming a member of the LDS Church. During this answer Klaus Baer sat in a chair. There was some pressure for Klaus Baer to say that there could have been some lucky guesses made by Joseph Smith on Fac. No. 2 but Klaus Baer made it very plain that he would not go beyond his field as an Egyptologist on the question of Joseph Smith.”

Hugh Nibley mentioned in his letter to you that Klaus Baer had written letters to you. I would appreciate copies of the letters which Klaus Baer has written to you. Thank you very much.

Yours truly,
[signature: H. Michael Marquardt]
H. Michael Marquardt

Sunstone SLC 2010

2010-04-29T22:59:00.000-05:00

There are still a couple days to get your proposals in for the 2010 Salt Lake City Sunstone Symposium. Here's what I'll be presenting:

Title: Instrumental Mysticism: The Inspired Fictionalization of the United Firm Revelations

Abstract: It is well known that the 1835 D&C substituted ancient-sounding "code names" for the names of nineteenth century persons and institutions associated with the "United Firm". The recent publication of the original handwritten manuscripts for these revelations reveals that the code names were only the tip of the iceberg. Significant additions and deletions were made in order to make these revelations appear to be ancient documents from the time of Enoch. This new evidence of a more thoroughgoing fictionalization not only raises the theological question of “inspired fiction”, but also provides a striking example of the way in which Joseph Smith blended mystical and practical concerns. He sought to maintain secrecy by mystically identifying the Firm and the Kirtland brethren with the ancient Adamic order.

Nibley's Response to Klaus Baer

2010-04-29T19:12:00.003-05:00

Previously I posted some letters from Klaus Baer to Wesley Walters commenting on Hugh Nibley's "Egyptian Endowment" apologetic. A few days ago my friend Noel Hausler sent me a letter he received from Nibley that responded to the Baer letters.

[p. 1]
September 25, 1974

[Address deleted for privacy reasons]

Dear Brother Hausler:

Facsimiles No. 2 and 3 are inseparable from No. 1 and quite as instructive. They require a lot of work. During the past few years a surprising number of highly rated Egyptologists have been taking them into consideration.

Professor Bauer was here for a week in August. He gave four lectures with long question periods after, and I had some long conversations with him. We had not talked together for some years, and I was much impressed by the changes in his point of view. We have LDS students studying with half-a-dozen top Egyptologists here and abroad--all out for doctor's degrees-- and so are no more "voices in the wilderness." Bauer was hard put to it during the discussion periods and at the end was definitely in retreat, though as an honored guest we could not press him too hard.

The main point was that he showed his hands while we, to spare unpleasant controversy, virtuously withheld our own. What makes our position stronger every day, however, is not the improvement in our own ranks so much as the increasing number of eminent Egyptologists who are changing their own views and moving steadily in the direction of the "initiation school" and those other things that Bauer deplores.

In his letters to you Bauer condemns as obfuscatory things which he admits he has no intention of reading. He had not read Bleeker's Initiation nor Bergman's book, yet he was ready with comments on both. Thausing has come out with two important books since Bauer's letter to you making her position clear beyond question. What has her teaching in Vienna to do with it? The Brandon quote is one from a whole article in which he emphatically does "make the leap." [handwritten: See below = P.S.!]

While he was here last, Bauer repeatedly stated that evidence can have nothing whatever to do with faith: his faith as a dedicated Lutheran is not to be touched by any evidence. By the same token no amount of evidence will ever, ever change his opinion of Joseph Smith. For those who do consider evidence, however, each item must be considered on its own merits.

[p. 2]

Bauer loves to condemn other Egyptoloists on the strength of a single statement with which he disagrees. He does the same thing with books and articles: if there is a mistake or two, nothing can be right. But what he will not see is that if only a half or third or even a tenth of the points we have made about Joseph Smith are sound, the door is still wide open. Bauer insists angrily that a word from Breasted or Petrie in 1912 is enough to shut the door forever on all further discussion. The much-advertized competence of Egyptologists is pretty well limited to a knowledge (admittedly dubious) of the language. Beyond that they have no monopoly on common sense.

Trusting you will continue to use your own wits and judgment, I ups and remains,

Yours truly,
[signed: H. Nibley]
Hugh W. Nibley
HWN:li

P.S. Since Dr. Baer ~~[unreadable]~~ flings down the challenge: "How about this quote" from Brandon, it is only fair to note that Brandon adds immediately thereafter: "...mystery proves to have been an important component of the religious consciousness of the ancient Egyptians. And when mystery somewhere occurs, then the initiation into that hidden truth or spiritual realiaty cannot be totally absent." (Initiation, p.50). Then after announcing that "apparently...no authoritative myth, and certainly no secret doctrine" he spoils it all by adding: "Yet come cultic ceremonies werex celebrated, which were so holy and which so strongly had the character of a mystery that no one was allowed to describe or depict them." (p.53).

Thus instead of refuting Thausing's position, Bleeker's juggling is a good indication of the present trend of reluctant transition in the face of gathering evidence. But I can assure you, whatever new ~~[unreadable]~~ developments take place, the Chicago School will be the last in the world to recognize them.

[signed: H.N.]

The Brethren End the Standing Together Roadshow

2010-04-27T23:34:00.000-05:00

Word on the street is that at a recent meeting with some members of the Quorum of the Twelve, BYU professor Robert Millet was told by Elder Bednar that he must cease his participation in the interfaith roadshows that he and Greg Johnson of Standing Together have been conducting on a regular basis for the last several years. Apparently some of the Brethren were concerned that Dr. Millet might be seen as an official spokesperson for the Church.

From what I understand, the end of the roadshows puts Johnson in an especially tough spot, since this has been his primary ministry for some time now. Granted, the end of the roadshows doesn't mean the end of interfaith dialogue in general, and I'm sure that both Millet and Johnson will find other venues to carry on their work. But it's still sad to see such an important and visible symbol of interfaith cooperation come to an end.

The Adventists Are Doing the Same Thing?

2010-04-25T23:44:00.000-05:00

At the CMSSA Conference Saturday, one of the audience members asked, "Why haven't we been able to situate Mormon Studies as a discipline yet? You'd think that we'd have figured it out by now!" Panelist Spencer Fluhman replied that he recently went to an Adventist Studies conference in which the conferencegoers were wrestling with the same problem of situating Adventist Studies as a discipline. "They're doing the same thing we are," he said.

I happened to be sitting next to Kristine Haglund, who quietly quipped, "Just not on Saturday!"

Did Jan Shipps Accidentally Inspire the Salamander Letter Forgery?

2010-04-25T21:14:00.002-05:00

This weekend I had the pleasure of dining with Jan Shipps (and a number of other wonderful people) after the end of the CMSSA Conference. Over our over-priced cuisine, which Armand Mauss generously paid for, Jan told a fascinating story.

Apparently, she once gave a guest lecture on "the Prophet Puzzle" at Utah State University. After class, a bright-eyed young student approached her and asked, "how would you solve the Prophet Puzzle?" Off the top of her head, Jan replied, "Well, I guess you would need to find a letter from one of Joseph's faithful followers that talks about his money-digging."

A few weeks later, Mark Hofmann's infamous Salamander Letter was "discovered". Jan was later informed by the professor who had invited her to lecture at USU that the bright-eyed student who had asked her that question that day was Mark Hofmann.

Coincidence?

Did Charles Anthon Verify a Translation by Joseph Smith?

2010-04-17T16:05:00.001-05:00

The canonical 1838 account of Martin Harris's visit to Charles Anthon says,

I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. ... He then said to me, ...that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, "I cannot read a sealed book."

When this account is compared with earlier tellings, important discrepancies emerge. No other early account reports Anthon having said anything about a "sealed book." Nor do other accounts report Harris having taken a translation along with the characters. To the contrary, they seem to strongly imply that no translation had yet been attempted. Take for example Joseph Smith's own 1832 account:

the Lord had shown him [Martin Harris] that he must go to New York City with some of the characters so we proceeded to coppy some of them and he took his Journy to the Eastern Cittys and to the Learned read this I pray thee and the learned said I cannot but if he would bring the blates [plates] they would read it but the Lord forbid it and he returned to me and gave them to me to translate and I said I said [ I ] cannot for I am not learned but the Lord had prepared spetticke spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters and thus the Prop[h]icy of Isiaah was fulfilled which is written in the 29 chapter concerning the book[.] (EMD 1:30)

Here Joseph commences his translation only after Martin's return. The account of Joseph Knight, Sr. follows basically the same pattern. According to Knight, when Joseph Smith got the plates he was "anxious to git them Translated." Apparently to this end, Joseph drew off some characters and gave them to Harris, who then took them to Mitchill and Anthon. There were, however, some characters Anthon was unable to understand, so he wrote a letter to Joseph Smith asking to see the original. Harris then confessed that the originals could not be delivered because Joseph had been commanded not to show them to anyone, and at this news Anthon tore up the letter. As in the 1832 History, Harris returned home without a translation, and Joseph, "B[e]ing an unlearned man[,] did not know what to Do. then the Lord gave him Power to Translate himself" (EMD 3:15, 17).

Lucy's Preliminary Manuscript substantially agrees with this accounting of events:

[Joseph] was instructed to take off a fac simile of the alphabet Egyptian characters Alphabetically and send them to all the learned men that he could find and ask them for a translation [...] as yet no means had come into his hands of accomplishing the same it. (EMD 1:343-44)

And finally, of course, there is Anthon's own 1834 statement that when Harris came to him "no translation had been furnished at the time" (EMD 4:377-81).

The early Mormon testimonies could perhaps be explained as attempts to fit the story to Isaiah 29:12. This was a decisive factor in their framing the story the way they did. The implication that Joseph did not know at this time that the spectacles could be used for translation, for example, is probably just a bit of creative misremembering. Still, when Anthon's testimony is added to the mix, I'd say the evidence is very good that Martin did not bring a translation with him to New York. Presumably, if Anthon had verified Smith's translation then much would have been made of it in the earlier accounts.

So, I have to agree with Dan Vogel's approach to these discrepancies. He argues that the 1838 account is an apologetic revision, designed to "provide support for Smith's ability to translate." Since the revision eliminates the points of similarity to Isaiah 29:11, the comment about a "sealed book" is placed on Anthon’s lips in order to re-establish the biblical link (cf. also Making of a Prophet, 115-16).

This was just one of those stories that got a little better with the telling.

The Book of Mormon as an American Origin Myth

2010-04-16T16:23:00.000-05:00

The Book of Mormon was written at a time when Americans were deeply interested in the country’s origins and history. America was finally old enough to start thinking of itself as a nation with a history. The last of the Founders had just passed away. People were just beginning to write books about the Revolution, and the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Relics of the Founding were being treated with an almost religious reverence. There was a widespread feeling that the birth of America had been a sacred event.

At the same time, America was young enough to feel insecure about its lack of history. It had no national literature, for example, to compare with Britain’s collection of classics. The British thought of Americans as uncouth and uncultured, lacking the centuries of refinement that the mother country could draw upon.

In the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith does two things.

First, he sacralizes the Founding. In 1 Nephi 13, the prophet Nephi prophesies the formation of “a great and abominable Church,” which persecutes the saints of God and takes them into captivity. Presumably this refers to Catholics and Protestants. Nephi then describes the discovery of America by Columbus, who he represents as divinely inspired. The Protestants then go forth out of captivity and travel to America, where God uses them to smite the unfaithful Lamanite tribes, and makes them prosper in the land. Thus the Founding is mythologized in a very typically American way: persecuted Protestants are said to have been guided here by divine Providence to prosper and worship freely in the land of promise.

The second thing the Book of Mormon does is extends America’s history backward by thousands of years. In the Book of Mormon, America is given its own literature and its own prophets. The experience of the ancient inhabitants, in fact, mirrors the experience of the Gentile Americans. Persecuted by Jerusalem’s religious establishment, they were forced to flee, and to travel over “many waters” to the American promised land. Thus it is possible for Americans to think of their land as one with a long history, and of their nation as one with a distinct divine mission and character: to serve as a land of promise and as a utopia for pure religion.

A Few More Sunstone West Highlights

2010-03-31T22:18:00.000-05:00

I promised to provide a few more highlights from Sunstone West, so here goes. Friday evening's plenary session was the panel on the Mormon women's oral history project. All the panelists were good, but I particularly enjoyed Lauren Kennard's discussion on "Defining the Relationship", which was full of humorous gems. One woman, at fifteen, accepted a marriage proposal from a missionary whose name she didn't even know. Another woman was unimpressed with some guy she dated until she met his parents, and then she fell in love... with him, of course. ;-) Another panelist described how when a Stake President in Hawaii decided that the Relief Society bank account would be incorporated into the stake's general fund, the women complied... but not before spending all their excess funds on a large, fancy dinner for all the women!

I got 2 hours of sleep Friday night because I was revising my paper for oral presentation. Suffice to say, Saturday was a long day.

Saturday morning I chaired Jacob Rennaker's session, in which he discussed the Qumran community's use of scriptural texts as a starting point for receiving new scripture and new revelation, and compared this to Joseph Smith's revision of the King James Version of the Bible. It was a fascinating presentation and discussion. Perhaps we should start a Qumran-style revelation-Bible-study group here on campus.

Saturday afternoon I had lunch with Don Bradley. Don is frighteningly brilliant. When he publishes all the things he's working on, there won't be any discoveries left to make. Then I'll be out of a job and I'll have to find another discipline.

Don was part of another standout session that afternoon, the book panel for Persistence of Polygamy: A Mormon Anthology. Among other things, Don argued that Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger was sexual, but also was a formal marriage. The full book, when published, will be a collection of essays from top-flight historians, covering everything from Joseph's Kirtland-era polygamy to polygamous Community of Christ converts in present-day India.

My own sessions went well. I presented on American Indian delegations to Nauvoo in a dual session with Bryan Cottle. Most of the delegations were composed of traditionalist Indians who had been allied with Britain against the US until the War of 1812, after which Britain gave up its New World ambitions and left the Indians hanging out to dry. The Indian delegates to Nauvoo were apparently looking to Joseph Smith and the Mormons to fill the political vacuum left after the British pullout, and to serve as their white patrons and military allies against the US. Joseph declined the offers of military alliance for public relations reasons, but his words and actions during the period suggest that his refusal may have been intended as a temporary deferral rather than a long-term commitment.

Saturday evening I participated in the panel on CGU's Mormon Studies program. It is enough to say that great work is being done at CGU. One thing we didn't talk about in the panel is the school's present financial trouble, which recently resulted in at least one controversial layoff and some other cutbacks. The school isn't at risk of closure or anything, but like other institutions, it has suffered greatly due to the economic downturn.

If You Missed Sunstone West, You Missed Out!

2010-03-28T19:53:00.004-05:00

Last night ended another Sunstone West Symposium. It come off wonderfully, despite a few initial hurdles. Apparently, when Mary Ellen Robertson arrived on Friday afternoon to prepare for the Symposium, the maintenance people on campus hadn't set anything up yet. They explained that two nice young men in suits with nametags that said "Elder" had come by and notified them that the event was cancelled! Fortunately Mary Ellen had come early enough to get things set up in time. Thanks to Mary Ellen for all her hard work in making the Symposium a success, despite the apparent sabotage!

Friday evening, prior to the first session, I had the pleasure of dining with Bryan Cottle, Don Bradley, Newell Bringhurst, Tom Kimball, and Mike and Ken Reed. Tom told me over dinner that Grant Palmer had been very hurt by the comments recently made about him at MADB, and really appreciated my standing up for him there. I was extremely happy to hear that something good had come from my involvement in that fiasco, since it was pretty costly for me in terms of emotional investment and personal relationships (not to mention time spent online instead of on homework). Tom provided me with a complementary copy of Grant's book, for which I'm very grateful.

After dinner, Tom told the following joke:

Q: What are crows?
A: Seagulls that refused to eat crickets in the pre-existence.

It sufficeth me to say, I have a new favorite Mormon joke.

I'll share my thoughts on some of the individual sessions in a later post.

Why the LOST Island Is Actually a Giant Turtle

2010-03-25T04:51:00.002-05:00

One of the writers of LOST once joked that the island may ultimately turn out to be a giant turtle. But what if it wasn't a joke?

We now know that the evil spirit that inhabits John Locke had a "crazy mother" once upon a time. We also know that the island moves. And it has been implied that Jacob and his evil counterpart may not be native to the planet. Given the LOST writers' interest in mythology, I think much of this story may actually be based on the traditional Iroquois creation myth, which goes like this:

Long before there were human beings, there were Sky People. They dwelled in the celestial world. In those days there was no sun. All light came from the large white blossoms on the celestial tree that grew in front of the Lodge of the Sky Chief. This Sky Chief had married a young wife. In time, this wife, Sky Woman, began to show signs that she would soon bear a child.

There was a troublesome being, called Firedragon, in the Sky World. Firedragon was always spreading rumors. Now he whispered to Sky Chief that the child who was about to be born would not be his. In a fit of anger and jealousy, Sky Chief uprooted the great celestial tree in front of his lodge. He pushed his wife through the hole where the tree had once stood.

Sky Woman fell rapidly down toward the vast dark waters below. The birds, feeling sorry for her, flew underneath and gently supported her, breaking her fall and carrying her slowly downwards. At the same time, the water animals hurried to make a place for her. Turtle said that he would support a world on his back. The sea animals plunged down into the water looking for some earth. Muskrat succeeded and came up with a large mouthful of earth, which he placed on Turtle's back. The light from the blossoms of the fallen celestial tree shone through the hole where it had stood and became the sun. When Sky Woman landed, everything was in readiness for her, with grass and trees beginning to grow.

Sky Woman gave birth to a daughter. When this daughter grew to womanhood, she began to be with child. No one knows whether her husband was Turtle or West Wind, but she gave birth to two remarkable twin boys–one good and one evil. The Good Twin was born in the usual way. But the Evil Twin was in a hurry and pushed through his mother's side to be born. In doing so, he killed his mother.

Sky Woman buried her daughter, and plants miraculously began to grow from various parts of the daughter's body–a tobacco plant, a cornstalk, a bean bush, and a squash vine. This was the origin of all the plants that would be most important to the human beings who would come later.

The Good Twin and the Evil Twin quickly grew to manhood. As soon as they were grown, they proved true to their names. The Good Twin began creating all sorts of good things: plants, animals, medicinal herbs, rivers, and streams. The Evil Twin began to spoil his brother's work., putting rapids and boulders in the rivers, creating poisonous plants, thorns and briars, diseases, and monsters. The Good and Evil Twins fought against each other to see who would predominate in creation, but the Evil could never overcome the Good. Finally the Good Twin created human beings to enjoy all the good things he had made for them. And that is how it all began.

So, a woman from the sky comes down and takes up residence on the back of a giant turtle-turned-island, and has twin boys, one good and one evil, by the latter of whom she is killed. One of the twins is continually creating, the other perverting and destroying, and they struggle for dominance over the world.

Okay, so the island probably won't turn out to be on the back of a giant turtle. But the fact that one of the writers even suggested such a possibility may indicate that they may have been keeping this myth in mind.

A Footnote to the Debate Over Nibley's Footnotes

2010-03-24T23:27:00.007-05:00

A while back, Ron Huggins wrote a fairly devastating critique of Hugh Nibley's use and abuse of his sources. More recently, Huggins's critique was critiqued by Shirley Ricks in the FARMS Review. My critique of the critique of the critique follows.

In her entire lengthy article, Ricks does not respond to any of the specific examples Huggins offered. She spends a considerable amount of time discussing issues with which Huggins was unconcerned-- specifically, incomplete or inaccurate citations. Huggins was more interested in cases where Nibley misused or misrepresented his sources. These issues are almost entirely glossed over in the FARMS response.

The FARMS response is also largely an argument from authority, mostly just citing the assessments of Mormon scholars who think Nibley was right more often than he was wrong. It also makes a pretty lame dig at Huggins when it assumes that the reason he compared Nibley's translations with the published translations of professional scholars was that he lacked confidence to do his own translations. (One suspects he would have been criticized for hubris had he used his own translations as the standard for comparison.)

Unlike Ricks, I tend to agree with Huggins's assessment of Nibley's footnotes. In Nibley's essay, "Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers," I found many of his statements about the KEP manuscripts to be false and misleading. Brent Metcalfe's reaction to the essay was similar. In a letter to Wesley P. Walters, Nibley's Egyptology teacher Klaus Baer characterized Nibley's apologetics in terms strongly reminiscent of Huggins's view: "Much of it seems to be obfuscatory in the extreme, tending to pick on asides, quotes out of context, and opinions emitted by the large penumbra of semi-scholarly types (and crackpots) that hang around the fringes of Egyptology -- and are, of course, much attracted by such things as the Book of the Dead." Baer identified five specific examples of misrepresentation from just a few pages of one of Nibley's works.

I think it's important to acknowledge that Nibley did a lot of good, was extremely knowledgeable, and had many talents and virtues. His work is very useful for suggesting future directions of study. But in my opinion, his work must also be used very critically and with careful attention to his sources. It cannot generally be taken for granted that he accurately represented what they say.

Top Ten Reasons to Major in History

2010-03-24T03:50:00.003-05:00

10. History graduates get jobs in many different industries. (Coffee, groceries, infantry...)
9. Unlike the living, the dead don't get mad at you for gossiping about them.
8. Think of how fascinated your friends will be when you point out all the historical errors in Gladiator!
7. If we know the mistakes of the past, we can make more original ones in the future.
6. Why watch the HBO special when you can piece together the same story from dusty archival materials?
5. Even though no one will ever read your book, just having been published is totally worth the years of work.
4. People will have more incentive to emulate their heroes when they discover they had affairs and did drugs.
3. Sure, the money's better in fiction writing. But it's not as much of a challenge.
2. If you really make it big, you might get to be in a documentary some day.

And the number 1 reason to major in history is,

1. Learning about the careers of historical people will help you decide what to study when you go back to school!

Joseph Smith's Prophecies of the Overthrow of the United States

2010-03-24T00:33:00.004-05:00

One of the tragedies of historical study is that there are many items in private collections that we historians simply do not have access to. The Spink Shreve Galleries recently sold off a large collection of important Mormon documents, and fortunately put some images and excerpts online. This offers a rare glimpse of some documents that we otherwise might not know existed. Among the items sold is a July 6, 1849 letter from Ursula B. Hascall to her sister Ophelia. The letter says in part,

I call upon you to repent of your sins and flee to this ... I call upon you thus that you may rise up and say Ursulia you knew all this ... Ophelia did I not spew the profhecy spoken by Joseph Smith by the authority of Jesus Christ concerning the overthrow of the United States - the destruction of the states as a nation is just as sure as the sun will ever rise and set - it is near at hand, it is all ready to burst upon it.

This letter provides interesting additional confirmation for a prophecy that Joseph Smith uttered on at least three known occasions in 1843 and 1844: once while dining with Stephen Douglas in Carthage, Illinois, once before the US Congress, and once during a meeting of the Council of Fifty. On the first occasion, when dining with Douglas, Smith reportedly said,

I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished, thereby perpetrating a foul and corroding blot upon the fair fame of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the high-minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame. (DHC 5:393-94)

On the second occasion, before Congress, Smith "prophesied, by virtue of the holy Priesthood vested in me, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that, if Congress will not hear our petition and grant us protection, they shall be broken up as a government, and god shall damn them. And there shall nothing be left of them - not even a grease spot" (Millennial Star v.22, p. 455).

On the third occasion, in the Council of Fifty, Smith reportedly "prophecied the entire overthrow of this nation in a few years" (George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995], 129).

Mormonism is often viewed as an unreservedly patriotic and quintessentially American movement. While this is partly true, there is also a strong Mormon tradition of prophetic critique of the United States. In good Puritan style, the early Mormons viewed the United States as a chosen but apostate people, and themselves as the "saving remnant". Klaus Hansen has described this as a "higher patriotism". Their allegiance was to the United States as it is meant to be, rather than to the United States as it actually is. The prophetic critique of America remained popular among Mormons until after the revocation of polygamy in 1890, after which the Church undertook to revise its image in a more patriotic direction.

Red Jacket's Reply to a Christian Missionary

2010-03-19T20:21:00.002-05:00

When the Reverend Mr. Cram came to Buffalo Creek, New York in 1805 to convert the Seneca Indians there to Christianity, the Seneca Chief Red Jacket answered him in the following very eloquent reply (read the full version here):

Brother, our seats were once large and yours were small. You have now become a great people, and we have scarcely a place left to spread our blankets. You have got our country, but are not satisfied; you want to force your religion upon us.

Brother, continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeably to His mind; and, if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right and we are lost. How do we know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a Book. If it was intended for us, as well as you, why has not the Great Spirit given to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers the knowledge of that Book, with the means of understanding it rightly. We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white people?

Brother, you say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agreed, as you can all read the Book?

Brother, we do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down from father to son. We also have a religion which was given to our forefathers and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship in that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive, to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

Brother, the Great Spirit has made us all, but He has made a great difference between His white and His red children. He has given us different complexions and different customs. To you He has given the arts. To these He has not opened our eyes. We know these things to be true. Since He has made so great a difference between us in other things, why may we not conclude that He has given us a different religion according to our understanding? The Great Spirit does right. He knows what is best for His children; we are satisfied.

Brother, we do not wish to destroy your religion or take it from you. We only want to enjoy our own.

Brother, you say you have not come to get our land or our money, but to enlighten our minds. I will now tell you that I have been at your meetings and saw you collect money from the meeting. I can not tell what this money was intended for, but suppose that it was for your minister; and, if we should conform to your way of thinking, perhaps you may want some from us.

Brother, we are told that you have been preaching to the white people in this place. These people are our neighbors. We are acquainted with them. We will wait a little while and see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, makes them honest, and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will then consider again of what you have said.

It appears that Mr. Cram got pwn3d.

As a sidenote, my own pluralistic philosophy of religions is very similar to Red Jacket's in several respects.

Did Joseph Smith Teach a Limited, Tehuantepec Book of Mormon Geography?

2010-03-18T18:26:00.012-05:00

Some Mormon scholars have pointed to an 1842 Times and Seasons article as evidence that Joseph Smith believed in a limited geography. There are two problems with this. First of all, the article was very probably written by John Taylor rather than Joseph Smith. And secondly, it is debatable to what extent the article actually promotes a limited geography. It quotes a lengthy excerpt from a book called Incidents of Travel in Central America, which is claimed as evidence for the Book of Mormon. At the end of the excerpt the author says that the Nephites "lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America, with all the cities that can be found." This statement seems to indicate that the "narrow neck of land" described in the Book of Mormon is neither the isthmus of Panama nor of Tehuantepec, but embraces all of Central America. At the very least, this requires a much larger Book of Mormon geography than apologists have tried to read into the Book.

Jeff Lindsay recently put a somewhat different spin on this issue. Lindsay argued that because the 1842 editorial approvingly quoted a Toltec legend according to which the Toltecs were Israelite migrants from the time of Moses, this shows that Smith was open to the idea of “other migrations” to the New World besides those described in the Book of Mormon. But again, I think this is a misreading. The editorial actually takes the Toltec tradition as evidence of the Lehite migration, not of some “other” migration. The article says that the Toltec tradition comes “near the real fact”– i.e., the fact related in the Book of Mormon, that Lehi and his family were Hebrews who departed from the Red Sea and traveled to the Americas.

A second editorial in the Times and Seasons has been cited in support of a Tehuantepec geography, as well. The editorial says,

Since our 'Extract' was published from Mr. Stephens' 'Incidents of Travel,' &c., we have found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Central America, or Guatimala [Guatemala], is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.-The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the book of Alma:-'And now it was only the distance of a day and half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful, and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi, and the land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water: there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.' [See Book of Mormon 3d edition, page 280-81.]

William J. Hamblin has written of this excerpt, "Since the internal geography of the Book of Mormon places Zarahemla south of the narrow neck of land, the editorial implies that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, rather than Panama, was the Book of Mormon narrow neck of land." (JBMS 2/1, pp. 161-197). Actually, the editorial exhibits no awareness that the Book of Mormon "places Zarahemla south of the narrow neck of land." The mention of the isthmus of Darien (known today as Panama) actually implies that it, rather than Tehuantepec, was being identified with the narrow neck of land. Unlike Hamblin, the Times and Seasons editorialist did not have John Sorenson's geographic guidelines to work from. Sorenson's guidelines should not be used as a lens through which to interpret nineteenth century leaders' statements about Book of Mormon geography.

These editorials may indeed reflect a view that Nephite civilization was more or less limited to Central America and its environs. However, there is no belief here in a specifically Tehuantepec geography, nor is there openness to "other migrations" to the Americas. Presumably, North and South America were still conceived as the lands northward and southward, and the natives of both continents were still assumed to be Lamanites. And however the editorials are to be interpreted, we also cannot assume that they reflect Joseph Smith's own views until some evidence of Smith's authorship can be adduced.

Every Child an Atheist?

2010-03-17T21:00:00.001-05:00

On a long drive the other day, I entertained myself by listening to episode 39 of Mormon Expression, titled "Atheism and the Church". I was struck by a comment made by one of the interviewees to the effect that "all children are born atheists, and do not believe in God until they are taught to do so."

While this is probably true, I couldn't help but wonder as to its relevance. As an argument for atheism, it strikes me as ill-considered. Children have to be taught a lot of things, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would be better without those things. In cases where children grow up with little or no "input" from other humans, they end up basically living like animals, in some cases developing mental and emotional deficiencies. A certain amount of instruction and learning is required for any person to function effectively and to develop a sense of intrinsic human self-worth. So the fact that religious knowledge is acquired rather than inherent does not make it any less valid than, say, scientific knowledge, which is also acquired.

If we really want to appeal to the "state of nature" as having some kind of normativity, perhaps we should look to the state of nature of societies rather than of individuals. Unlike individuals, primitive societies seem to default to a sort of magical, shamanic worldview. This is true even for societies separated by vast oceans, with very different languages and ways of life. Are atheists prepared to endorse and embrace such worldviews?

The truth is that it is inherently problematic to appeal to an ideal "state of nature" to support any idea or belief system. The "state of nature" has been used throughout human history to justify racism, patriarchy, homophobia, and-- yes-- religion. In almost every case, those things we thought were "natural" turned out to be neither universal nor eternal-- all of them had a beginning, and all of them have exceptions. And why should "nature" have any normativity for us, anyway? Humans have invented all kinds of "unnatural" things that turned out to be good, true, and useful, whereas many "natural" things (like spiders, disease, and natural disasters) are not very nice at all.

Ironically, this atheist appeal to nature is actually based on a very religious kind of logic, in which we try to get back to a kind of primitive golden age that is assumed to be somehow better than the present. These primitivist mythologies can sometimes serve useful purposes, but they can also be very misleading. As an argument for atheism, I don't think they do us much good.

I'm an INTP

2010-03-15T19:37:00.005-05:00

Just took the Myers-Briggs personality test, and was impressed with how well the results fit me. I came up as an INTP: Introverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiving. (I came up as INTP in a Typealyzer analysis of my blog, as well.) According to Joe Butt (ha, how's that for a last name?),

INTPs are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture so deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often actually are oblivious to the world around them. ... INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to almost anything until their principles are violated, about which they may become outspoken and inflexible. They prefer to return, however, to a reserved albeit benign ambiance, not wishing to make spectacles of themselves.

A major concern for INTPs is the haunting sense of impending failure. They spend considerable time second-guessing themselves... An INTP arguing a point may very well be trying to convince himself as much as his opposition.
...
Mathematics is a system where many INTPs love to play, similarly languages, computer systems--potentially any complex system. INTPs thrive on systems. Understanding, exploring, mastering, and manipulating systems can overtake the INTP's conscious thought.
...
When present, the INTP's concern for others is intense, albeit naive. In a crisis, this feeling judgement is often silenced by the emergence of Thinking, who rushes in to avert chaos and destruction. In the absence of a clear principle, however, INTPs have been known to defer judgement and to allow decisions about interpersonal matters to be left hanging lest someone be offended or somehow injured.

David Keirsey calls INTPs "architects", and adds the following:

Architects are rare - maybe one percent of the population - and show the greatest precision in thought and speech of all the types. They tend to see distinctions and inconsistencies instantaneously, and can detect contradictions no matter when or where they were made. It is difficult for an Architect to listen to nonsense, even in a casual conversation, without pointing out the speaker's error. And in any serious discussion or debate Architects are devastating, their skill in framing arguments giving them an enormous advantage. Architects regard all discussions as a search for understanding, and believe their function is to eliminate inconsistencies, which can make communication with them an uncomfortable experience for many.
...
Architects often seem difficult to know...Once caught up in a thought process, Architects close off and persevere until they comprehend the issue in all its complexity. Architects prize intelligence, and with their grand desire to grasp the structure of the universe, they can seem arrogant and may show impatience with others who have less ability, or who are less driven.

An arrogant, oblivious, intuitive analyzer who loves debate but hates interpersonal conflict. That's pretty much me to a "T". :)

5% of Muslim Americans Support Al Qaeda

2010-03-04T06:31:00.000-06:00

The Pew Forum recently published a study titled, "Little Support for Terrorism Among Muslims". Among other things, the study revealed that "Very few Muslim Americans hold a positive opinion of al Qaeda -- only 5% give the terrorist organization a favorable rating, while 68% express an unfavorable view, including 58% who describe their view as very unfavorable. About one-quarter (27%) decline to offer an opinion." Okay, so kudos to those who rated it "very unfavorable". Obviously they are the majority. But, really? 5% gave it a favorable rating, and 27% aren't willing to offer an opinion, and these results are supposed to be comforting? I find it disturbing that there are even that many. That's one in twenty who support Al Qaeda!

According to the website, the most likely to endorse terrorism are the young, African Americans, and the highly devout.

I was also a little surprised to note that while three-quarters of US Muslims say violence against civilian targets is never justified, Pakistan actually beats us in that category by about 10%. Less disturbing but still unacceptable is this one: "fewer than half of Muslim Americans -- just four-in-10 -- accept the fact that groups of Arabs carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. Roughly a third (32%) express no opinion as to who was behind the attacks, while 28% flatly disbelieve that Arabs conducted the attacks."

What does one do with information like this? Obviously I think that panic, anger, and bigotry are inappropriate responses. Those reactions will only aggravate the situation. But how do we improve these numbers? Or should we just ignore them, and go about our normal business?

Senturion and the Iraq Troop Surge

2010-02-28T22:13:00.001-06:00

Today I ran across an article about Senturion, which is a predictive political analysis software suite developed by the National Defense University. Apparently Senturion was used to make highly specific and highly accurate predictions about the Iraq War and the Iraq elections prior to those events. I was astounded at the kinds of things Senturion got right, accurately forecasting the loyalties of the various factions and even the behavior of individuals such as al Sadr and Ahmed Chalabi.

The Senturion results have special significance for the debate over the effects of the 2007 troop surge. When Senturion was applied to the Iraqi elections in January 2005, it predicted that "increased coalition military strength in Iraq would have improved the attitudes of Iraqi stake holders toward the election by making them feel more secure." The simulations indicated that a 50% increase in troop strength was optimal, though a 25% increase would have been sufficient to capture the support of "neutral Iraqis". It also determined that due to Iraqi perceptions, the use of United Nations peacekeepers in place of US or coalition forces could achieve the same results with a smaller troop increase. These analyses were "performed and briefed to senior government decisionmakers well in advance of events."

So far as I know, no one but me has linked Senturion's predictions to the troop surge of 2007. (It's now on Wikipedia, but only because I put it there.) Given the accuracy of Senturion's predictions in other respects, however, its findings vis-a-vis the prospects of a troop increase would seem to have implications for the debate over whether the surge was responsible for the rise in Iraqi popular support that followed. Senturion's predictions were mathematical and non-partisan, and unrelated to the debate that emerged after the Iraq Study Group's report in 2006 about the possibility of a troop surge.

Outside Looking In

2010-02-24T03:22:00.000-06:00

This week I made a guest appearance on the Mormon Expression podcast, in an episode titled "Outside Looking In." I was joined in the podcast by evangelical bloggeress Bridget Jack Meyers of ClobberBlog, as well as host John Larsen and regular panelist George. Among other things, we discussed the evangelical countercult movement, our experiences with Mormon culture, and the things we find compelling and/or problematic about the Mormon Church. Thanks to John for having us on!

The Insomuch/Inasmuch Shift and Mosiah Priority

2010-02-23T05:28:00.001-06:00

I've discussed before Brent Metcalfe's finding that during the dictation of the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith gradually shifted his preference from the word "therefore" to the roughly synonymous term "wherefore". When the word ratios are graphed, the shift clearly supports Mosiah priority (that is, the theory that Smith dictated Mosiah through the end of the Book before dictating 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon).

In order to extend Brent's study, I looked at the Book of Mormon's use of the roughly synonymous terms "inasmuch" and "insomuch", as graphed below. The results here are nowhere near as striking as the therefore/wherefore case, but it does appear to me that the Mosiah priority curve is somewhat smoother. (Note that the results for Jarom and Omni are exaggerated because of the short length of those books. Books in which neither "insomuch" nor "inasmuch" occur are excluded from the graphs.)

Under Mosiah priority, the results seem to show a slow shift in preference from "insomuch" to "inasmuch". Under 1 Nephi priority, the opposite is true. Unfortunately, the D&C revelations for the Book of Mormon translation period provide no material for comparison. (The instance of "inasmuch" in D&C 3:16 is a later addition.) However, Joseph's later revelations exhibit an overwhelming preference for "inasmuch". This would seem to support the Mosiah priority findings.

PageRanking the Mormon Studies Journals

2010-02-18T01:27:00.001-06:00

In an effort to get a very general idea of what impact the various Mormon Studies journals are having in the field, I used Google's PageRank system on each of their home pages. As a baseline comparison, note that the very successful Christian journal Church History has a score of 5/10. My blog has a score of 3/10. Now, note that this is a wholly unscientific scoring system. We could get a better idea of the journals' impacts by using something like the "impact factor" used in the hard sciences. PageRanks will tend to be higher if a journal is viewable online, or if its web page has lots of other content (like blogs and news and the like). It will tend to be lower if people commonly bypass the homepage, i.e. by linking directly to particular articles from off-site.

Anyway, the winner rather surprised me. The International Journal of Mormon Studies took the cake with a score of 6/10.

The runners up were Dialogue, Sunstone, Segullah, and the Journal of Mormon History with 4/10. Next came the JWHA Journal with 2/10.

The Maxwell Institute journals did surprisingly poorly. The FARMS Review scored 1/10, whereas JBMORS, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, and the FARMS Occasional Papers all scored 0/10. Since the individual home pages of these journals are unremarkable (albeit about on par with the JMH and JWHA Journal's pages), I also gauged the Maxwell Institute main page. It scored 4/10. It would seem that FARMS's fame is somewhat out of proportion to its e-readership. (I expected these numbers to be quite a bit higher, especially given that you can read these journals online.)

ADDENDUM:
A few I missed: The Mormon Review (3/10), Element: A Journal of Mormon Philosophy and Theology (3/10), Irreantum (3/10).

What Is Compelling About Mormonism?

2010-02-15T03:38:00.001-06:00

My friend John Williams asked at Mormon Discussions, "What do you find compelling about Mormonism?" It's a great question, and I thought I'd take a crack at it here. For clarity's sake, I've broken this down into three different senses of the word "compelling".

Mormonism is appealing to me for these reasons:

1) harmonization of biblical exclusivism with a more satisfying universalism
2) continuing revelation and the idea of an open canon
3) strong family and community support structures
4) experiential basis

Mormonism is interesting to me for these reasons:

1) the mystery (what made Joseph Smith tick?)
2) the weirdness (what can I say, I love sci-fi)
3) the psychology (the ways members cope with very real difficulties)
4) the potential (i.e., to become a major global faith)

Mormonism is convincing to me for these reasons:

1) a fair degree of biblical, early church, and ancient Jewish support for its "fringe" theological views
2) some reasonably persuasive arguments for Book of Mormon Hebraisms and the like

Good Things Come in Small Packages: Orson Scott Card's "A War of Gifts"

2010-02-12T02:14:00.003-06:00

(Review of Orson Scott Card, A War of Gifts: An Ender Story [New York: Tor, 2007]. 126 pp., $12.95; ISBN: 0765312824.)

Great stories sometimes crop up where you least expect them. I certainly did not expect to find one when I picked up Orson Scott Card’s A War of Gifts. At first glance, it seemed to be everything I hate in a novel. A thirteen dollar price tag for 126 pages of loosely-packed text. A layout designed to appeal to a young-adult audience. A storyline targeted only at diehard fans of a well-established series. A Christmas story, ostensibly meant for seasonal marketing. A title and cover blurb suggestive of specious right-wing histrionics about the Left’s “war on Christmas”. Normally I would consign such a book to the dust bin without thinking twice. But this was by Orson Scott Card, after all, so I decided to give it a chance. I was pleasantly surprised.

True, A War of Gifts takes barely an afternoon to read. But in that short space Card manages to create in Zeck Morgan a very sophisticated character, and to imbue his fairly complex storyline with several layers of allegorical meaning.

Zeck Morgan is a genius child who has grown up in a Puritan Christian cult of which his father is the prophet and leader. The cult, called the Church of the Pure Christ, is based in Eden, North Carolina. The name of the town is significant because in Zeck’s eyes it is a paradise. Although Zeck has scars and open wounds on his back from his father’s use of corporal punishment to “purify” his son, Zeck truly believes that his father is the holiest man in the world. When soldiers come to take young Zeck away to Battle School, he refuses to go on the grounds that he is a pacifist. When they take him anyway, he spends all his time there defying them in the hope that his teachers will give up and send him home.

Eventually, aided by Ender, Zeck comes to understand that his father taught pacifism only to talk himself out of compulsively beating his son, and that Zeck wants to go back home not out of love for his father but out of fear that his father will turn his violence on his mother. Eden was in fact never truly a paradise, but rather a place of ignorance. His mother had actually wanted him to go to Battle School, because she knew that he could only awaken and thrive if finally he was freed from his father’s influence. Latter-day Saints will hear echoes here of their Church’s teaching that the Fall from Eden was not really a Fall at all, but rather a fortunate and necessary awakening (2 Nephi 2:22-25; Moses 5:11).

There are other echoes of LDS teaching in the story, found in a surprising place: on the lips of Card’s arrogant, legalistic cultists. They teach, for example, that women deserve respect because they suffer to bring souls into the world (38), that ministers should be unpaid and should work to earn their living (20), that discipline is important for children’s souls (24), and even that Genesis was simply the best Moses could do in explaining Darwinian evolution to a pre-scientific culture (40-41). Yet Card is not, by placing these doctrines on hypocrites’ lips, polemicizing against the content of the teaching. Rather, he approves the doctrines but rejects the way they are flaunted in order to prove the superior holiness of the community. Card clarifies the sin of the community when he has Zeck proudly clarify that the cultists are not “fundamentalists”, but “Puritans” (41).

So why does Card place LDS doctrine on the cultists’ lips? Perhaps because he is polemicizing against self-righteousness and hypocrisy in the Mormon community, and wants Mormons to see themselves reflected in this fictional sect. Certainly when we are told that Zeck’s unhappy mother “always smiled when she knew people were looking … to show that the pure Christian life made one happy” (13), the scene is one that echoes a common liberal Mormon criticism of conservative Mormon culture.

Does the book intend to comment on the “war on Christmas” so lamented every December by conservative talking heads? Perhaps. But if it does, then it does not do so in a straightforward way. Certainly Zeck becomes angry when the leaders of Battle School forbid him to practice his Christian faith but do not forbid observation of traditions about Santa Claus (67)—basically the same complaint raised by the Religious Right. But the narrative seems ambivalent about whether the complaint is really a valid one.

For Battle School’s Santa-observers, the complaint is an illegitimate one because Santa Claus is not a religious symbol but an international and cultural one (72). The acts of love and generosity Santa inspires are especially distinct from Zeck’s Puritan brand of religion in that the former bring people together whereas the latter drives them apart (78-81). Card clearly sees fundamentalism as a divisive, false kind of religion that is often simply a cover for our own vices (114-17). When Zeck manages to rile some Muslim students and to get them to pray in open defiance of the rules, other boys chastise him for promoting potentially destructive religious sectarianism (93).

On the other hand, there are hints in the story that Card does see religious and cultural traditions as being on the same footing in at least some respects. As long as religion is peaceful and committed to values like love and generosity—which he indicates even Islam is capable of embracing (90)—religion, like culture, is part of what makes human life worth living. It makes us who we are, and gives us a reason to go on living (74). It is a good thing, and it should not be suppressed.

In the end, War of Gifts offers no clear verdict on the much-bewailed attempt of some Leftists to take Christ out of Christmas. If there is a “war on Christmas” that the novel clearly condemns, it is actually the attempt of some Rightists to make a Satan out of Santa. That crusade Card satirizes without mercy (17-19).

Cramming all this complexity into so few pages is no small feat. Whether it is worth thirteen dollars for three hours of enjoyable reading of course remains an open question, but if nothing else, A War of Gifts demonstrates Card’s dedication to his craft. For any other author the plan of this book would have been a recipe for drudgery. In Card’s hands it was a labor of love.

Who Authored the Mormon Couplet?

2010-02-05T21:37:00.002-06:00

The Mormon doctrine of deity is frequently expressed in the famous couplet, "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become." Typically this couplet is attributed to Lorenzo Snow. Recently Clair Barrus argued on his blog that Brigham Young is the true author. His argument was overstated, and he has since edited the post to soften his conclusion. Nevertheless, Barrus highlights a fascinating discrepancy in the sources: Brigham Young and Lorenzo Snow each claimed that this was a special revelation to himself.

Here is how Snow told the story to his sister Eliza:

The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." I felt this to be a sacred communication, which I related to no one except my sister Eliza, until I reached England, when in a confidential private conversation with President Brigham Young, in Manchester, I related to him this extraordinary manifestation. (Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, Salt Lake City: Deseret News Co., 1884, pp. 9–10.)

This account dates Snow's revelation to 1840, just prior to his mission to England. Snow's son LeRoi later claimed that Snow told Joseph Smith of the experience upon returning to Nauvoo in 1843, and Smith confirmed that it was a true revelation (LeRoi C. Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, p. 656). Possibly Snow's revelation influenced Smith's famous King Follett Discourse, which claimed, "God himself was once as we are now . . . you have got to learn to become gods yourselves . . . the same as all gods have done before you."

Contrary to Snow's telling of the story, however, we have the following account of an 1849 meeting where Young claimed that he was the one to whom the couplet was revealed in England:

Brother Lorenzo Snow made some remarks on the character of Jesus Christ, and asked for light. I replied:

While on a mission to England, the following came forcibly to my mind -- As God was, so are we now; as he now is, so we shall be.

Although Young told the story in response to a question from Snow, Snow apparently didn't jump up and shout, "You big fat liar! That was my revelation!" So we have a puzzling dilemma. Who do we believe? And why the discrepancy?

One possibility is that Lorenzo Snow's biography misreports one or more aspects of these events. It is framed and phrased as an autobiography, but Eliza Snow is named on the title page as the author. Additional research is required to determine whether the work reflects the mind of Lorenzo, or merely of his sister-- and whether the claim that Lorenzo authored the couplet is repeated in other primary sources.

Another possibility is that one or the other of these men was misremembering the course of events. Perhaps, for example, Snow had the revelation, but Young formulated the couplet. (The fact that both men claimed revelation, though, complicates this explanation. One wouldn't think that they'd misremember something like that.)

Alternatively, Young may have claimed the experience for himself in order to keep Snow's experience confidential, or in order to make the doctrine authoritative. (We might imagine Young telling this story to Snow with a wink and a nudge.) Or perhaps Young had had the same insight Snow had had, which is what sparked the conversation in Manchester in the first place.

What is clear is that further research is required. I glanced through Snow's letters and journals on the Special Collections DVD, but didn't turn up anything couplet-related. A search of Young's vast corpus of letters and journals might be more fruitful, but would also be an enormously time-consuming project. But still, a mystery this important shouldn't remain unsolved. The researcher who cracks this case will get at least a journal article out of it, so all you grad students need to get crackin'!

Moises Sandoval's On the Move

2010-02-05T14:21:00.004-06:00

Moises Sandoval's On the Move is an attempt to write a very basic history of the Hispanic church in the United States. Sandoval writes from the perspective of the poor and oppressed, and also works hard to encompass the full diversity of the Hispanic church (ix-xi). (It is debatable how well he succeeds in this endeavor, since Central and South Americans receive scant treatment compared to Mexicans.) Not surprisingly, the book ends up being more than just a history: it is also a call for reform. Sandoval shows that Hispanics have been and continue to be neglected by the US Roman Catholic Church, despite the fact that demographically speaking, they are the Church's future (163-68).

By far the most interesting aspect of Sandoval's history was the history of racism against Hispanics in the United States. I had no idea of the extent and brutality of that history, which is comparable in some respects to the history of racism against African Americans. The number of Mexicans lynched in the Southwest in the late nineteenth century, for example, was greater than the number of blacks lynched in the old South (38-39). And the lynchings were only the most visible and ostentatious forms of violence. Huge numbers of Mexicans were massacred along the border, including by the misremembered Texas Rangers (65-66). Although the the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 made Hispanics the legal equals of whites, the treaty was largely ignored. Whites treated Hispanics with contempt, killed them quite freely, and exploited them economically (37-40). It is very sad that this aspect of our nation’s racist history has been so widely forgotten.

Unfortunately, systemic Anglo racism affected the church as well as the state. Hispanics were deposed and systematically excluded from the Catholic priesthood, and the Hispanic church was viewed by the hierarchy as superstitious and impure. Ministry to Hispanics was strictly secondary to ministry to Anglos. And when Anglos did take notice of Hispanics, it was often because their piety was seen as an embarrassment to Catholicism. When the civil rights movimiento emerged in the 1960's, its main focus was the right of Hispanic workers to unionize (121-27). But there was also a strong current in the movimiento that sought to change the Church. Not only were there still almost no Hispanic clergy in the Church, but the Church had also recently integrated many of its parishes and demanded that Hispanics abandon their language and culture. Vatican II and the emergence of liberation theology helped pave the way for Hispanics to challenge the Church on these issues.

Many of the issues the movimiento faced vis-a-vis the Catholic Church were generated by the Church's efforts to be perceived as "American" in a heavily white Protestant culture. Catholic leaders hoped that the Church could be an agent in pushing the Hispanic population to assimilate. Ironically, these efforts actually hurt the Church in the long run, because the more that Hispanics assimilated, the less likely they were to join the priesthood. Thus the Church's historic push toward assimilation contributed substantially to the present shortage of priests (77-82).

Although things have improved to some degree today, the effects of the events of this period are still felt in the Hispanic church in the form of a severe shortage of Hispanic priests and limited fund allocation to Hispanic parishes (164, 166). The Church has become more supportive of Hispanic piety, but continues to have an Anglo bias (95, 164-66). Considering the extremely low fertility rates of the white population and the Catholic Church's recent decline in its historic white New England centers, it appears that Hispanics are the US Church's future. Presumably things will improve as the Church figures out which side of its bread is buttered.

George Whitefield, Lance Bass of the 18th c.

2010-02-02T02:51:00.005-06:00

Since the 18th century didn't have pop stars, they went gaga (no pun intended) over preachers instead. I love Nathan Cole's account of the excitement Whitefield generated when he came to town:

...there came a messenger and said Mr. Whitefield ... is to preach at Middletown this morning at ten of the Clock. I was in my field at Work. I dropt my tool that I had in my hand and went home to my wife telling her to make ready to go and hear Mr. Whitefield preach at Middletown, then run to my pasture for my horse. I with my wife soon mounted the horse and went forward as fast as I thought the horse could bear, ... we improved every moment to get along as if we were fleeing for our lives; all the while fearing we should be too late to hear the Sermon, for we had twelve miles to ride double in little more than an hour ...

And when we came within about half a mile or a mile of the Road that comes down from Hartford Weathersfield and Stepney to Middletown, on high land before me I saw a Cloud of fogg rising; ... I heard a noise something like a low rumbling thunder and presently found it was the noise of Horses feet coming down the Road and this Cloud was a Cloud of dust made by the Horses feet; ... it seemed like a steady Stream of horses and their riders, scarcely a horse more than his length behind another, all of a Lather and foam with sweat, their breath rolling out of their nostrils every Jump, every horse seemed to go with all his might to carry his rider to hear news from heaven for the saving of Souls. ...

We went down in the Stream but heard no man speak a word all the way for 3 miles but every one pressing forward in great haste and when we got to Middletown old meeting house there was a great Multitude it was said to be 3 or 4,000 of people Assembled together; we dismounted and shook off our Dust; and the ministers were then Coming to the meeting house. I turned and looked towards the Great River and saw the ferry boats Running swift backward and forward bringing over loads of people and the Oars Rowed nimble and quick, every thing, men horses and boats seemed to be Struggling for life. The land and banks over the river looked black with people and horses all along the twelve miles I saw no man at work in his field, but all seemed to be gone.

On another occasion there was a stampede at one of Whitefield's meetings when the sound of a breaking board triggered fears that the balcony was collapsing under the weight of so many people. Several were trampled, and some jumped from the balcony. Five were killed.

The most remarkable thing about all of this, probably, is that Whitefield didn't exactly look like a superstar. The following image and caption are from David Holmes's The Faiths of the Founding Fathers:

You can say that again!

Naturalism ≠ Positivism

2010-01-27T19:12:00.007-06:00

In the combox of an old thread, I have been chatting a bit with Blair Hodges and Alan Goff about the relationship between naturalism and positivism. Goff treats the two as basically identical, but I think the distinction between them is substantive and important.

Naturalism is the rejection of extrasensory perception and spiritual phenomena. Positivism is the principle that a theory must be empirically proven before we can accept it as true. It is fully possible to be a naturalist, but not a positivist, or to be a positivist, but not a naturalist.

Imagine that we have two naturalists. Naturalist # 1 says, "I don't believe in visionary experiences because they are not empirically verifiable, and thus don't meet my standard of evidence." Naturalist # 2 says, "I don't believe in visionary experiences because so many of them have been falsified that I cannot consider them a reliable way of knowing." Naturalist # 1 has given a positivistic explanation of his naturalism. Naturalist # 2 has not.

Other positivistic claims include the claims that historians must try to be value-free, and that historians can "let the facts do the talking" without offering any interpretation of them. But again, while there may be some naturalists who make these claims, there are also many who don't.

So, in many cases naturalism and positivism may have overlapping constituencies. But in other cases they do not. There is nothing about the former that necessarily entails the latter.

Portrait of Paine

2010-01-26T00:36:00.002-06:00

I enjoyed the caption on this portrait of Thomas Paine from an 1898 edition of The Age of Reason, and thought I'd share. (Click the image for a larger version.)

Paine was a hero of the Revolution, but fell out of favor with many of his American admirers when he published The Age of Reason, which among other things includes a rather blistering attack on Christian scriptures. In a passage that would make Richard Dawkins proud, Paine wrote, "When we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel." Phew! Don't hold back, Tommy, tell us how you really feel!

My Parents' Dissertations Are on ProQuest

2010-01-24T21:43:00.004-06:00

I'm very proud of my parents, both of whom just finished their PhD programs and received their degrees. In an act of sheer blog-nepotism, here is a plug for their dissertations, which are now available on ProQuest.

My mom, Janet Katherine Smith, titled her dissertation, "Dust or Dew: Immortality in the Ancient Near East and in Psalm 49." (Incidentally, I helped edit it.) Here's the abstract:

In the Hebrew Bible, particularly in the Book of Psalms, the Book of Job, and the Prophets, there are many references to sheol , the ancient Israelite version of the nether world of the Ancient Near East. Rather than offering a timeless, theological, systematic understanding of the afterlife, references appear to be contradictory. There are few explicit references to a blissful heaven where the righteous spend eternity with loved ones and God. Those passages that hint at immortality are balanced by others suggesting that a grim and dusty existence in sheol is the final fate for man and beast alike. A few tantalizing insinuations, one of which is found in Psalm 49, suggest that there is a redemptive deliverance for the righteous from sheol by Yahweh, who will receive (take up) the believer to wherever Yahweh eternally exists. However, Psalm 49 should not be read out of the various contexts of the culture and literature of the times. The Korahite collection of psalms appears have been written or edited together to function as a worship drama, reminding the righteous follower of God's faithfulness in delivering them from former crises and in granting them a blessed city and Temple. Psalm 49 and the Korahite Psalter may have been used yearly for the pilgrimage to Zion, perhaps during the harvest when one year ended and another began and the ground awaited the rain to aid in the next year's planting. This study also follows the hints of the renewal of life in Psalms 49, 16, and 73. These psalms paved the way for a full-blown theology of resurrection and judgment day, which came full circle in the Talmudic and Apocryphal literature of the Second Temple era. Another important context for Psalm 49 is Genesis 1-3 and the culture of goddess and serpent worship. Linguistic similarities between Gen. 1-3 and Ps. 49 suggest that the message is similar... right living leads to eternal life and wrong choices pave the road to death.

My dad, Theodore C. Smith, titled his work, "Development of a competency-based curriculum for online instruction in a Christian university: The model and an example." The abstract for this one reads,

This mixed-methods study provides a foundation for a validated, competency based curriculum for an online undergraduate pastor-training degree for Sacramento Valley University (a new institution). Designing a competency-based curriculum for a specific major requires an understanding of how knowledge, skills, abilities, values, and other characteristics (KSAOs) are integrated by practitioners to successfully perform specific tasks or functions. Survey data were gathered from 169 Protestant practitioners in northern California and analyzed. These data and the analysis were provided to a panel of subject matter experts who provided qualitative input. The survey results and panel input next were used to produce an online curriculum that will encourage excellence in ministry and equip graduates with the KSAOs needed for entry-level positions as clergy. The model curriculum includes components to facilitate self-assessment (reflective learner portfolios) by students, validation of outcomes, and critical reflection by faculty leading to foster improvements in the learning program.

Congrats to both my parents for beating me to the educational finish line! Now to turn the red ink on their balance statements into black ink...

Inaugural Bible Verses, and What They Tell Us About Our Presidents

2010-01-24T04:31:00.004-06:00

When new presidents are inaugurated, they traditionally lay their hand on the Bible for their swearing-in. Occasionally, as in the cases of Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy, the Bibles are left closed. Usually, however, they are opened-- either to a random page, or to a verse of the president's choosing. (A few presidents were so pious-- or so in need of divine assistance-- that they used two Bibles! One for each hand.)

In the cases where the presidents themselves chose the verses to which the Bible would be opened, the verses they picked say a lot about who they were, and how they saw themselves. The Wall Street Journal has a partial listing on their website. A more complete list is available as an appendix in Jon Meacham's excellent book, American Gospel.

The picks by Wilson, FDR, Nixon, and Reagan were very appropriate to their times.

Woodrow Wilson's second inauguration came in 1917, shortly after the US entered World War I. His chosen passage-- Psalm 46-- expressed both the horror of the war and the hope that it could be brought to a peaceful resolution. "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble," the Psalm says. "Therefore we will not fear... Come, behold the works of the Lord, what desolations he hath made in the earth. He maketh wars to cease unto the ends of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in fire." The choice of this verse perhaps expressed the popular hope that this would be the "war to end all wars." Wilson was already planning the creation of his League of Nations after war's end, which he hoped would establish a lasting world peace.

Franklin D. Roosevelt used the same passage for all four of his nominations: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal... faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity" (1 Corinthians 13:13). That the president of the New Deal chose a passage about charity seems very appropriate.

Richard Nixon, who entered the White House with the promise to honorably resolve the Vietnam War, also chose an appropriate verse for the times. "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" (Isaiah 2:4).

Ronald Reagan's pick reflects perhaps the conservative Christian agenda with which he allied himself. 2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

A couple of the more disturbing choices came from Grant and Eisenhower.

Ulysses S. Grant seems to have thought he was the Messiah. He picked Isaiah 11:1-3, which famously begins, "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him," and so on.

Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1957 inaugural verse seems to reflect a belief in American exceptionalism. "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord," it says, "and the people he hath chosen for his own inheritance" (Psalm 33:12).

Some of the more pious picks came from Coolidge, Clinton, and Bush Jr.

Calvin Coolidge went with the highly theological Johannine Prologue, which reads in part, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Bill Clinton, in 1993, picked a surprisingly spiritual passage, Galatians 6:8: "For he that soweth to his flesh shall reap corruption, but he that soweth to the Spirit shall reap life everlasting." I'm sure I don't have to point out the irony.

George W. Bush, in 2005, chose a verse that accords well with his reputation as a praying president. "But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint" (Isaiah 40:31).

I think my favorite pick of all, though, came from McKinley.

William McKinley, in 1897, prayed the prayer of Solomon in 2 Chronicles 1:10. "Give me now wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people: for who can judge this thy people, that is so great?"

Sheum May Not Be Akkadian after All

2010-01-21T03:50:00.009-06:00

A while back I blogged about sheum, which in the Book of Mormon is said to be a kind of grain cultivated by the Zeniffites. The similarity of this word to the Akkadian word for barley, s(h)e'um, has been claimed as evidence for the Book of Mormon. It has generally been assumed that the Sumerian root for barley, she, was transferred into Akkadian as a loan word.

Recently, however, some scholars have questioned whether this is really an Akkadian word. Most notably, Alasdair Livingstone, "The Akkadian Word for Barley: A Note from the Schoolroom" (Journal of Semitic Studies, 42:1, Sp 1997), expanded on earlier work by A. Cavigneaux that called the Akkadian word's existence into question.

For his research, Livingstone drew on ancient Babylonian lexical texts designed to help schoolchildren learn the science of cuneiform. (The Babylonians spoke and wrote in Akkadian most of the time, but used Sumerian in their religious texts, so schoolchildren were educated in both languages.) What Livingstone has shown is that whenever the Babylonian word for barley was written phonetically, it was spelled without the initial "sh" consonant. Spellings included e-a-am, a-am, u-um, e-ia, e-u, e-im, e-a-am, e-i, u-um and um. It was only when writing in Sumerian that the she symbol was used for barley. And when Livingstone examined the ancient lexical texts, he found that the schoolchildren were taught that the name of the Sumerian she symbol was u-um. That is, they were using the Sumerian she symbol, but substituting their own Babylonian pronunciation.

Here is Livingstone's conclusion:

If this [u'um] was the common word in Babylonian then it is more than likely that it also existed in Old Akkadian and could then have existed along with se, 'barley', as a loanword in Sumerian. ... In summary, the evidence allows but does not require the existence of a word se'um, 'barley'. It does, however, manifestly require the existence of a word u'um.

So it appears that the existence of an Akkadian word she'um for barley is something of an open question, despite appearing in some recent Akkadian lexica and dictionaries. Add this to the list of reasons why this particular apologetic fails to convince.

(Thanks to Ben Clarke for bringing the Livingstone article to my attention.)

What if "Shelving Doubts" is akin to "Burying Talents"?

2010-01-11T17:23:00.007-06:00

"There lives more faith in honest doubt,
believe me than in half the creeds."
- Alfred Tennyson

It is a fairly common conservative Christian notion that this life is a sort of "test" we must pass in order to be admitted to salvation on the Other Side. There are various accounts of what we must do in order to "pass" the test, but usually the list includes something about faith/belief in the face of trials. When doubts arise, we are encouraged to be "faithful" and to treat the doubts as "trials" to be overcome.

But what does it really mean to be "faithful" in the face of doubt? Most conservative Christians would say it means, "do your best to find answers to your questions, then shelve any remaining issues and stay true to conservative Christian faith." This is what several commenters are recommending to David Waltz, over on Articuli Fidei. I'd suggest, however, that this is not the best or even most biblical answer. In the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), we find another.

In the parable of the talents, a master gives golden talents (an ancient unit of money) to three servants. The first two servants invest the money and earn a return on their investment. The third servant, however, is afraid, and hides his talent in the ground. The master praises the faithfulness of the first two servants, but berates the third for his laziness and wickedness.

I would suggest that the ability to think rational thoughts is one of the greatest gifts of humankind. It is what separates us from the animals. It is what made possible the technological progress of the twentieth century. It is what seems to be meant in the Bible, when we are said to have been created in the image of God. When Jesus is said in the Gospel of John to be the Logos (usually translated as Word), the Greek word could just as easily be translated as Reason.

So if reason, our most unique gift and talent, leads us to doubt and question tenets of the faith, who is the "faithful" one? The one who "buries" his questions and/or puts them on the shelf? Or the one who becomes fully invested in the questions and allows his reason and conscience to be his guide? Who is the one who will pass the test? The one who follows the crowd and never has the courage to question his own convictions? Or the one who overcomes the fear of the unknown and follows the evidence wherever it leads?

I would suggest that "shelving" our doubts is intellectually lazy, just like the servant in the parable. Its consequences are all too often wicked, as well. I'm sure I don't have to list the terrible things that have been done in the name of reactionary, fundamentalist religion. A little reason can be a potent antidote against such abuses, if only we will have the courage to faithfully invest it.

Mild-Mannered Musings Turns 2 Years Old!

2009-12-26T18:07:00.002-06:00

Earlier this month, my blog passed its two-year anniversary. In honor of this event, I thought I'd share the year's stats and highlights. Traffic this year was up 50% from last year, with 15,518 visits from 11,587 absolute unique visitors. Special thanks are due to Times and Seasons, Mormon Times, and Latter-day Main Street, the blogs that referred the most traffic to my site. By far the top search strings that brought people here were "sheum" and "positive thinking songs".

The ten most viewed pages of the year:

1. The Top Ten Positive Thinking Songs of All Time
2. Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16
3. Mormons Give More, Says Christianity Today
4. My Favorite Joseph Smith Revelation
5. Interview with Pastor Dean Jackson, "Peacemaker in Provo"
6. Sheum in the Book of Mormon
7. Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire!
8. The Rediscovery of Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar: A Short History
9. The Silence of Women Is Golden?: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
10. Man Cannot Live by Bread Alone: Night by Elie Wiesel

Many of my own favorites, of course, didn't make the list. Here are a few good ones you may have missed:

1. Joseph Smith's Seeker Uncle
2. Some Old Art of Mine
3. You Have to Have Religion Before You Can Have Relationship
4. Can a Mormon Be a Compatibilist?
5. Ben Franklin's Plurality of Gods
6. The Night I Spoke in Tongues
7. The Biblical Case Against Biblical Inerrancy
8. Alabama Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Defining Christian Religion
9. Mosiah Priority and the Therefore/Wherefore Shift
10. Universalism Among the Early Church Fathers

I've also done some fun things off-site this year, including my paper "In Defense of a Christian Pluralism" in the JRRT, and my interview on the Book of Abraham with the Mormon Expression Podcast.

So, as I embark on another year of sporadic blogging, I'd just like to say, thank you everyone for reading. It has been a pleasure to share my thoughts with you all here, and to enjoy your thoughts on all of your blogs, as well. Ihope that everyone had a very merry Christmas, and that your New Year will be even better still!

Avatar: A Visual Treat

2009-12-20T04:04:00.003-06:00

I went and saw Avatar today. It is a great deal better than the trailer made it look. Whereas the trailer appears somewhat cartoony, every moment of the actual movie is visually stunning. It is like an eye candy buffet. Add to this a decent plot, OK acting, and amazingly fast-paced action scenes, and we have a movie every male will love. I was also pleased that it bridged my two favorite genres: sci-fi and fantasy. Think Narnia meets The Matrix, and you'll have a pretty good idea the stuff this movie is made of. It was by far one of the most satisfying moviegoing experiences I've had in recent history. And there wasn't much adult content, either, except for the violence. I guess the blue aliens are half-naked most of the time, but it's not erotic or anything, and since they're aliens you don't really think about it.

My biggest objection to the film was that its plot was so obviously derivative. It was pretty clearly based on the European conquest of the Americas, except with a happy ending this time. There were enough other interesting story elements thrown in to keep the heavy Native American overtones from overwhelming the story. But they're definitely there, and they distract a bit from the experience. I kept assuming it was an allegory, and expecting an unhappy ending.

In addition to the historical references, there were also a number of obvious similarities to Timothy Zahn's sci-fi novel Manta's Gift. Zahn's book was about a paraplegic who gets his nervous system hooked into an alien body so that he can go as a spy/operative into an indigenous culture whose resources humanity hopes to exploit at the aliens' expense. At the end of the book he of course ends up fighting on the side of the aliens against the humans. Probably not enough here to get Cameron sued for plagiarism, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the concept was borrowed from Zahn.

Anyway, derivative or not, it was a really good action flick. Nerds like me will love it. Non-nerds maybe not so much... but who cares about them, anyway?

Baer on Apologetics and the Nature of Egyptian Religion

2009-12-18T02:52:00.004-06:00

Here is the last of the three Klaus Baer letters Noel Hausler sent to me. This one is particularly important, I think, because it makes a crucial methodological point about the nature of Egyptian religion. Because the Egyptians were pantheistic and engaged in "free association" of symbols and deities, Baer argues, LDS apologists like Nibley can justify almost any interpretation of the Joseph Smith Papyri that serves their purposes. Such interpretations will not be common or mainstream, but they will be defensible on some level. I'd add, for my own part, that even apart from the peculiarities of Egyptian religion, images and symbols are inherently multivalent and almost always capable of multiple interpretations and adaptations. This is the strength of Kevin Barney's "Semitic adaptation" theory: it takes advantage of this inherent pictorial ambiguity. (But see here for a particularly problematic case where this favorite apologetic escape hatch does not apply.)

----------

10 April 1972

Dear Reverend Walters,

Many thanks for your letter of April 3, which just got here. Under separate cover, I am returning to you the photocopies of Nibley's articles in the IMPROVEMENT ERA; I have the whole set, and you mught be able to use the copies. I must confess that I haven't actually managed to read the thing from one end to the other. As you say, it is virtually impossible to refute what Nibley writes as fast as he produces it -- and quite difficult, since what the LDS would demand is proof that something isn't the way Nibley says it is, when often all the conscientious scholar can say is that the evidence doesn't support a conclusion of any kind.

To put it briefly and in general form, the problem facing us with the study of Egyptian religion is one (probably) common to all polytheistic religions. The Egyptians were essentially pantheistic, believing in one divine substance that could manifest itself in a great many different ways. While for the common believer (and for the purposes of the cult) each image was a separate entity (and thus there were many Amons, who could even disagree with one another), at the same time that each god could be seen as many gods (from one point of view), many gods could be seen as one (from another aspect). There may well be a train of thought leading to the trinitarian theology of the Alexandrians here. One even finds identifications of gods across the sex line (which isn't supposed to happen according to theoreticians of religion). One result, of course, is that symbols can have a most confusing application. Just for the lotus, for instance, we have (Moren, Schubert, DER GOTT AUF DER BLUME: the primeval lotus that arose from the primeval waters at creation (hence creator), the lotus at the nose of Re (the creator) (hence creation), god of perfume, hence Nefertem, Harsaphes, Harsomeeus, Re, Horus, King, etc. etc. Thus there is nothing that says (by the king of free association indulged in by the Egyptians in this sphere) that they could not have associated a lotus with a lion that guards the frontiers and hence meant Abraham -- unfortunately there is also no shred of evidence that they actually did so, and that is the important thing. In a world where anything can be anythin, the outsider who wants to prove something must do more than simply say that such and such is possible withing [sic] the framework of Egyptian thought. He must prove that it actually happened, something much harder. Similarly Heyerdahl's mistake: Even without the Ra trip, I would have been delighted to agree that the Egyptians _could_ have crossed the Atlantic with their (substantial) wooden ships. The question is: did they? If there were evidence (and there isn't), then even the failure of Hyerdahl's trip wouldn't prove anything. As it is, his success is equally meaningless.

In regard to the quotes from my letters; don't mention it to Tanner. There's no point in warming up ancient history, and I am, after all, in contact with them (may have mentioned it when I visited them in Salt Lake some years ago).

Sincerely,
Klaus Baer

More from Klaus Baer on Hugh Nibley

2009-12-14T01:48:00.005-06:00

Thanks again to Noel Hausler for providing these very interesting letters. Notice that Baer here clarifies his comments from the last letter I posted. Someone commented that it sounded like Baer was a little perturbed with Walters in that letter, but actually it was the Tanners he was annoyed with.

20 March 1972

Dear Reverend Walters,

Many thanks for your letter of March 14 and the copy of Nibley's article, which I found here upon returning from Toronto. Just one brief remark: Nibley cites and awful lot of scholarly literature, but it seems noteworthy that certain recent publications that just possibly might have a closer bearing on the subject under discussion are ignored. Also no acknowledgement on p. 173; to my knowledge it wasn't Nibley who discovered the original location of the mismounted fragments. But then, as I have said before, most of what is being written is religious apologetics, which usually has different standards than one would expect in scholarly work.

In regard to quotations from letters: most of the citations from unnamed Egyptologists on p. 135 of THE CASE AGAINST MORMONISM, vol. I [by Jerald and Sandra Tanner] come from letters I wrote -- cf. e.g. the top of p. 2 of my letter to you written September 2, 1967. Even though the Egyptologist is anonymous (and few people that know me personally are likely to see the book), I think you will admit that the page in question was something of a shock to me. Things would have been worded very differently if I had at that time anticipated publication. But this is past history.

In any event, I have said what I had to say in regard to the papyri, and am just as happy I don't have to follow the twists and turns that the LDS argument seems to be taking. I must admit that I wonder how some of the more learned early Mormons would have reacted on being told that their religion was closer to gnosticism than Christianity. But then, if Nibley can find religious comfort in the endless reams of boring rubbish that the Coptic Gnostic texts tend to consist of (I am not interested in Gnosticism, obviously), more power to him.

Sincerely,
Klaus Baer

Klaus Baer's Critique of Hugh Nibley

2009-11-21T00:36:00.008-06:00

I got images of the following letter of Klaus Baer from a friend named Noel Hausler, who got them from Wesley P. Walters. Walters had written Baer to solicit his opinion of Hugh Nibley's argument that the Book of Breathings is an "Egyptian endowment" text. In the letter, Baer critiques a number of Nibley's arguments and classes him with "a large penumbra of semi-scholarly types (and crackpots) that hang around the fringes of Egyptology."

I should say, as a disclaimer, that Baer requested that Walters check with him before publishing or quoting from the letter. Since all the persons involved in this exchange are deceased, I hope I can be forgiven for disrespecting his wishes in this regard.

There have been only a few published critiques of Nibley's "Egyptian endowment" apologetic, so I think Baer's specific criticisms of that apologetic are important. The letter also illustrates that although Baer was Nibley's mentor and quite irenic toward the Church, this should not be construed as support for or acquiescence to Nibley's views.

Note: Brackets have been used in the transcription in place of angle brackets, because angle brackets confuse Blogger.

-----------------

28 February 1972

Rev. Wesley P. Walters
Marissa United Presbyterian Church
Marissa, Illinois 62257

Dear Reverend Walters:

A quick answer to your letter of February 24, which just arrived. I must admit that I haven't been keeping up with the flood of LDS publication on the topic of the so-called "Book of Breathings" that has appeared since my article in DIALOGUE. Much of it seems to be ofuscatory in the extreme, tending to pick on asides, quotes out of context, and opinions emitted by the large penumbra of semi-scholarly types (and crackpots) that hang around the fringes of Egyptology -- and are, of course, much attracted by such things as the Book of the Dead.

Among the latter, I would include those that want to see in the Book of the Dead a manual of initiation. That the Book of the Dead has ritual significance in connection with funeral services -- and that a great deal more can be pulled out of it than has been in regard to ancient Egyptian cosmological and theological views -- has, of course, nothing to do with the point under consideration.

Just to go over the references in the two pages of Nibley's articles that you sent me:

{a} Thausing in Melanges Mapero and elsewhere: Prof. Thausing is the professor of Egyptology at Vienna, but her views on Egyptian religion are not exactly in the mainstream of Egyptian thought. If you are interested, may I suggest, e.g., checking the passage in Mel. Masp. I, 40 and seeing whether the texts there cited sound to someone who comes to the question without preconceptions as though they had anything to do with the initiation of a hierophant. They don't to me.
{b} Bleeker, Initiation is not handy at the moment.
{c} Bleeker, Egyptian Festivals, p. 45 discusses the Osiris Mystery plays (i.e, in the medieval Christian sense). How about this quote from the page: "there never was a secret doctrine in Ancient Egypt; there were no closed societies of priests and initiates who possessed esoteric knowledge. In popular writings this view is sometimes advanced with much display of pseudo-scholarship ..."
{d} The Brandon quote on this page (p. 168): ["]It is not a self-evident leap from the fact that the dead had to go through tests to be admitted to the life in the Netherworld to the existence of initiation in the here and now.["] Brandon doesn't make the leap, though Nibley implies [that he does].
{e} My copy of Bergman, Ich bin Isis, hasn't arrived yet, but the book in general deals with the Greek Isis cult.
{f} ZAS 57, p. 11: The passage in question (I am quoting from the more recent edition of the Egyptian text, de Buck, Coffin Texts II, pp. 226 ff): "TO KNOW THE SPIRITS OF HELIOPOLIS. TO KNOW WHAT THOTH KNOWS AND KEEPS TO HIMSELF FOREVER. TO KNOW EVERY TEMPLE. TO BE EFFECTIVE ON EARTH AND IN THE NECROPOLIS. TO ENTER AMONG THE LORDS OF HELIOPOLIS. TO GO FORTH TO HEAVEN AND TO PENETRATE THE NETHERWORLD BY A LIVING OR DEAD SPIRIT." This is the title; most copies only have the first phrase. The text continues: "I know the spirits of Heliopolis. I have becom great among the great ones; I have come into being among those who have come into being, who see clearly in regard to his one eye (i.e. the injured eye of Horus). Open (the way) for me that I may restore the damaged eyes, for I am one of them. I KNOW THE ENNEAD OF HELIOPOLIS, INTO WHICH EVEN THE GREAT OF SEERS (the high priest of Heliopolis) HAS NOT BEEN INITIATED ..." The point here is that the deceased claims to have secret knowledge that only the gods have and in shared not even by the high priest -- which points to anything but initiations of living persons into secret knowledge on earth.
{g} The references in Munro etc. in n. 150 deal with the need for intensive study of the ordinary rituals -- say nothing about mystic initiations.

This should, I believe make my point clear. The article in question is an exercise in LDS apologetics, which has to be judged, like all apologetics, in the light of faith.

To come back to the question in your second paragraph: I see no need for major changes in my treatment of the st n snsn text. How you want to mention it in your own paper is another question. Perhaps I am not the best person to ask whether "my article still presents generally accepted conclusions" or not, though obviously I think it does.

At the moment, I wouldn't even want to propose minor changes. I've been working on other things in recent years and don't have the material at my fingertips at the moment.

One minor matter: I would appreciate your checking with me before quoting me in your article. Far too many of my letters (including some to you) have appeared in print without any sort of advance warning. Not all were written under the assumption that they would be published; and I think that you will understand that you will find it difficult to get cooperation if people feel that they have to send you publishable manuscripts instead of letters.

Hope that this is of some help.

Sincerely yours,
Klaus Baer
Professor of Egyptology

James Cone's Martin & Malcolm & America

2009-11-17T04:55:00.002-06:00

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X have often been portrayed as polar opposites: King as the wise, pacifist civil rights leader and Malcolm as the angry, violent, black supremacist revolutionary. James Cone's book Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare challenges that portrayal, arguing that although there were significant differences between the two men, they should not be placed in opposition to each other (316). Cone sees their visions as complementary, argues that they served as correctives for one another, and suggests that Malcolm’s radical rhetoric was probably a major factor in causing white Americans to be accepting of King, who they saw as the less dangerous alternative (246, 64). Before Malcolm rose to national prominence, King had been dismissed by many whites as too radical, especially because he was mixing religion and politics (136-142). But as Malcolm got more media coverage, whites began to see King as a sober moderate. Malcolm himself recognized this near the end of his life, and willingly played the role of the fiery revolutionary in order to help King’s agenda even though he was moving away from such rhetoric in his heart (267). And that’s the final reason that Cone wants to see these two men as complementary: because their ideologies moved toward each other as they got older, and when they died they seem to have had more in common than separated them (253-59).

Early in their careers, however, they were indeed quite different. These differences sprang to a large degree from their different backgrounds. King was the son of a southern black Baptist minister. His father was a prominent, prosperous, self-made man: a businessman and an activist who was optimistic about blacks’ self-worth and ability to better their circumstances, and who passed that optimism onto his son. Although King Sr. was a proud man who stood up for himself against white prejudice, he also taught his son to love whites rather than hating them (20-23). When King Jr. pursued his studies in the North, he met many whites who were perfectly accepting of him, which reinforced his father’s message. He came to see racism as primarily legal and structural rather than personal (26-32). King’s happy youth thus gave him good reason for dreamy optimism. He came to believe that racism was caused by simple ignorance and fear, and that the antidote was communication (36). All he had to do was prick the conscience of whites and remind them of Christian and American principles, and the problem would be solved (67).

Malcolm was the son of a black Baptist minister too, but that is where the similarity to King ends. Malcolm grew up in the North, where there were no Jim Crow laws but racism and racial disparity were still endemic. His father was a follower of the black nationalist leader Marcus Garvey, famous for the slogan “Back to Africa”. Malcolm was raised to be proud to be black. Unlike King, Malcolm’s youth was troubled, to say the least. His family was driven out of Omaha and their home burned down. His family was rent by domestic violence. His father seems to have been murdered. His family became so poor that they had to eat dandelion leaves, and Malcolm turned to theft to survive. His mother went insane, and white welfare agents divided the children and fostered them out to different homes (41-45). Because he lived in a white family and an integrated society, he was surrounded constantly by racism and racial epithets. He absorbed it all and began to despise himself (48). Eventually he found his way to the ghetto, where he became a hustler, dope-pusher, a pimp, and a thief. Only when he went to prison did he convert to the Nation of Islam, a “black” religion that gave him self-respect and taught him to see whites as devils. Only through the ideology of the Nation was he able to pull himself out of his misery and depravity and to make something of himself. He became a total devotee, and took the ideology entirely to heart. It described his experience. Whites had always acted like devils to him, and the results had been devastating (47-53). In a life so torn by violence, non-violence and love of enemies sounded absurd. But the doctrine that blacks had as much right to stand up and fight for their freedom as whites did was empowering (54-57). Malcolm was not an American—America was the enemy, and he wanted no part of it—but he appealed to Patrick Henry and George Washington as examples of men who fought and killed for freedom, and he felt that blacks would remain enslaved until they were willing to do the same (158-59, 261).

King’s optimism about white America led him to articulate a dream of interracial unity in which all would participate equally as humans and as Americans regardless of skin color (64-67, 72, 83-85). And in the pursuit of that dream he used nonviolent direct action: protests and boycotts designed to challenge the overtly racist legislation of the South (76-79). King’s dream and methods worked well in his context, but Malcolm’s context was very different. In the urban North there was no overtly racist legislation. Racism was structural and economic, deeply embedded in the fabric of society. Whites acted non-racist and said non-racist things, but blacks still formed a miserable underclass that was de facto segregated into ghettos and slums whose conditions were simply unlivable (221-24). Here non-violent direct action was not really practical, and the “dream” that whites’ consciences could be pricked was unrealistic (233). Blacks were effectively ignored by the white population, which happily thought of racism as a purely southern problem. If northern blacks wanted dignity and a better life, Malcolm believed they would have to stop depending on whites, and take matters into their own hands. Integration could only create dependence; blacks needed to separate so they could create their own dignity and identity without interference from the white devils (108-10).

Malcolm’s harsh language about whites raises the difficult question of whether he was a black supremacist who hated all whites. Malcolm himself of course vigorously denied this. He insisted that he was not anti-white but anti-evil, and that history showed that whites had acted in consistently evil ways. Nearly all of his rhetoric was framed in these historical terms. It was not individual white people who were devils, but the collective historical record of the white man. Collectively, the white man was responsible for the plight of blacks. On a personal level, he insisted, whites are not important enough to hate (100-104). For all his protesting, however, there does seem to have been something of a hateful undercurrent in Malcolm’s early thinking about whites. Although his vicious racial slurs may have indeed been designed to let whites know “how we feel,” as he claimed, it’s very likely that he really meant the things he said (96-97). The things he said, unfortunately, included a laughing statement that a train crash that killed 130 whites was “good news”, and a call for a new Mau Mau revolution in the United States (261-62, 302). His early hatred of whites, however, is a somewhat different question from that of “black supremacy”. Malcolm was a black separatist, not a black supremacist. He wanted independence from whites, not black dominance over them (108-10). Besides which, to a large degree his reversal of the color hierarchy was a theological statement. It was a statement that God is on the side of the poor and oppressed. And insofar as this is what Malcolm meant, his view was quite defensible (160).

The "Katumin" Notebooks

2009-11-13T22:31:00.007-06:00

In a small 1835 notebook with Joseph Smith's signature on the cover, we find the following:

A parallel notebook has the name of F. G. Williams on the cover. It has a two page spread which is combined into a composite image below. The left hand page bears the title "A Translation of the next page," with the words "in part" scribbled next to it in graphite. (The graphite isn't visible in these crappy microfilm images I'm posting.) The right-hand page contains various Egyptian characters. Notice that the character sets above and below the canopic jar on the far right are very similar to the character sets aligned with the English translation in the Joseph Smith notebook, above.

This is one of the only places in Joseph Smith's entire corpus where we have ancient symbols and an English translation juxtaposed in explicit translation relationship to each other. The characters, of course, don't actually say what Smith claimed they said.

Joseph Smith seems to have understood the "Katumin" passage in the notebooks to have been an "epitaph" of the mummies he purchased from Michael Chandler. It was to this passage that William I. Appleby referred in his Autobiography:

A Genealogy of the Mummies, and Epitaphs on their deaths &c &c, are also distinctly. represented on the Papyrus. Which is called the “Book of Abraham”
The Male mummy was one of the Ancient Pharaoh's of Egypt, and a Priest, as he is embalmed with his tongue extended, representing a speaker: The females were his wife and two daughters, as a part of the writing has been translated, and informs us, who they were, also whose writings it is, and when those mummies were embalmed, which is nearly four thousand years ago.

The name "On-i-tos" given to the Pharaoh in the notebooks is the same that Lucy Smith assigned to the male mummy during the visit of Charlotte Haven in 1843:

On one side were standing half a dozen mummies, to whom she introduced us, King Onitus and his royal household, -- one she did not know.

Lucy was not entirely consistent in naming the mummies, and gave other names on other occasions. The Mormons were quite consistent in identifying them as a Pharaoh and his family, however, and in this case at least Lucy does seem to confirm the identification made in the Katumin notebooks.

The "specimen of some of the 'pure language'"

2009-10-31T15:30:00.004-05:00

On May 26, 1835, W. W. Phelps wrote a letter to his wife Sally Phelps and appended to the letter "a specimen of some of the 'pure language'". Will Schryver has been kind enough to post an image of the specimen over at MADB. (Click on the image to see a larger version.)

You may notice that the specimen is laid out more or less the same way as the Egyptian Alphabet documents that were produced a few months later, in July, 1835. You may also notice that some of the content of the specimen is adapted from a March, 1832 revelation titled "A Sample of pure Language," recently published as part of the Joseph Smith Papers.

For more on the relationship of these various documents, see my paper in the latest issue of the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal.

My Favorite Joseph Smith Revelation

2009-10-30T16:05:00.005-05:00

Below I've copied the text of my favorite Joseph Smith revelation, from H. Michael Marquardt's book The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary (pages 231-232). (It's also in the new Joseph Smith Papers volume.)

Why is this my favorite revelation? Well, partly because Joseph "Sang [it] by the gift of Tongues & Translated". This brings back warm memories of my experiences as a Pentecostal. Singing in tongues can be a pretty powerful experience, especially if you're improvising harmony with a dozen or so other people. It's controlled chaos-- which, I think, is why it feels like such a spiritual and miraculous event. In order to harmonize with those around you, you have to listen to them carefully and synchronize yourself with their voices and rhythms. And yet at the same time, you're letting your conscious awareness of your surroundings fade into the background. This semi-conscious harmonizing feels like a channeling of divine energy and a spiritual, mystical union with your fellow singers. And you're making beautiful music at the same time. In the Joseph Smith revelation below, by the way, there is a lovely lyrical quality even to the English interpretation.

Another reason I get excited about this revelation is its statement that Adam "emenated [sic] and came down from God." I've always been a sympathizer with Neoplatonism, mostly because I find the arguments for monism compelling, and Neoplatonism is one of the most ancient and best-developed monistic systems. So to find Joseph Smith using the distinctively Neoplatonic language of emanation is highly interesting to me.

In any case, here's the text:

Sang by the gift of Tongues & Translated

age after age has rolled away, according to the sad fate of man, countless millions for ever gone at length the period of time has come that oft was seen by a prophetic eye and writ[t]en too by all holy men Inspired of the Lord

a time which was seen by Enoch of Old at a time when he stood upon the mount which was called the Mountain of God as he gazed upon nature and the corruption of man and mourned their sad fate and wept and cried with a loud voice and heaved forth his sighs Omnipotence Omnipotence O may I see thee - and with his finger he touched his eyes and he saw heaven he gazed on eternity and sang an Angelic song and mingled his voice with the heavenly throng Hosan[n]a Hosan[n]a the sound of the trump around the throne of God echoed and echoed again and rang and reechoed until eternity was filled with hi[s] voice

he saw yea he saw and he glorified God the salvation of his people his City caught up through the gospel of Christ

he saw the beginning the ending of man he saw the time when Adam his fath[er] was made and he saw that he was in eternity before a grain of dust in the ballance was weighed

he saw that he emenated and came down from God he saw what had passed and then was and is present and to come

therefore he saw the Last days the Ang[e]l that came down to John and the Angel that is now flying having the everlasting gospel to commit unto men - which in my soul I have received and from death and bondage from the Devil I[']m freed and am free in the gospel of Christ and I[']m waiting and with patience I[']ll wait on the Lord Hosan[n]a loud sound the trump come eternity to ring hosan[n]a forever I[']m waiting the coming of Christ a mansion on high a celestial abode a seat on the right hand of God

Angels are coming the Holy Ghost is falling upon the saints and will continue to fall the saviour is coming yea the Bridegroom prepar[e] ye prepare yea the cry has gone forth go wait on the Lord the Angels in glory will soon be descending to join you in singing the praises of God the trump Loud shall sound the dark vail soon shall rend heaven shall shake the earth shall tremble and all nature shall feel the power of God, gase ye saints gase ye upon him, gase upon Jesus hosan[n]a loud sound the trump his church is caught up

hosan[n]a praise him ye saints they stand at his feet behold they are weeping they strike hands with Enoch of Old they inherit a city as it is writ[t]en the City of God. Loud sound the trump, they receive a celestial crown hozan[n]a the heaven of heavens, and the heavens are filled with the praises of God Amen

Given Frebruary 27 - 1833

How the heck did this not make it into the Doctrine and Covenants?

CMSSA Spring 2010 Student Conference

2009-10-27T14:28:00.004-05:00

The Claremont Mormon Studies Student Association is putting on its biannual student conference again this Spring. So... get those proposals in, and start saving your pennies for gas money to get here in April!

CMSSA Biennial Student Conference: Call for Papers

-----

The Claremont Mormon Studies Student Association invites papers on any aspect of Mormonism. We particularly encourage submissions regarding this year's conference theme:

"What Is Mormon Studies? Transdisciplinary Inquiries into an Emerging Field"

April 23-24, 2010
Claremont Graduate University

Keynote speaker: Jan Shipps, Professor Emerita, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis

Given the new academic chairs that have been established in Mormon Studies, and the conferences, courses, and programs of similar designation around the world, we are entitled to ask "What is Mormon Studies," and who studies such a field? Thanks to such interest in Mormonism, the academy now faces, among others, two significant lines of inquiry.

First, Mormonism's complexities suggest how this religious movement likely resists categorization. Is Mormon Studies a viable new field? Is it even a viable conceptual option for academic examination?

Second, from an academic standpoint, those who study Mormonism will in large part determine what Mormon Studies becomes and how it proceeds. What are the various competing visions for what should be studied and advanced under this rubric? What various aspects of Mormonism will/should be considered appropriate or germane to investigation? What aspects will/should be eliminated from academic inquiry?

As this comprehensive exploration potentially ranges through all disciplines and is therefore a trans- or interdisciplinary endeavor, we invite papers from all possible fields of academic inquiry in exploring these important questions.

Preference is given to student papers. Abstracts of 1000 words or less should be submitted no later than December 31, 2009. Authors will be notified of acceptance by January 31, 2010. Please send submissions or questions to:

conference at claremontmormonstudies dot org

My JWHA Article

2009-10-06T22:48:00.005-05:00

The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal arrived today, with my article "The Dependence of Abr. 1:1-3 on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" inside. It's very exciting to see my name in print! I can't say I'm happy with all the editorial decisions that were made. Their overall effect on the syntax and flow may have been more bad than good, and in at least one place a sentence was reworded so that its meaning was distorted. I guess I should have asked to see proofs before it went to press. But such are the hazards of publication, I suppose, and I'll take what I can get. I'm very pleased that my piece was accepted.

A quick summary of the major points:

1) Joseph Smith was the primary author of the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, although his scribes came along for the ride as participant-observers.

2) The Alphabet and Grammar was not reverse-engineered from the Book of Abraham, as some have claimed. Rather, Abraham 1:1-3 was created by cobbling together a number of Alphabet and Grammar entries. This was done prior to September 1835.

3) A few other verses in the Book of Abraham also borrow from the Grammar, but apparently the use of the Grammar as a translation key quickly petered out because it was too laborious.

Among the highlights of the paper, we find:

1) The name for Egypt given by the Grammar is a nineteenth-century Egyptianization (Ah=meh=strah) of Josephus's Hellenization (Mestre) of the Hebrew name (Mizraim) for Egypt (anciently called Kemet).

2) Joseph Smith's parents strongly implied that the idea of using an Egyptian alphabet as a translation key was initially designed for use with the Book of Mormon.

3) Smith was already experimenting with creating an Adamic alphabet prior to the arrival of the papyri in Kirtland. The Egyptian Alphabet follows roughly the same plan as a May, 1835 "specimen of some of the 'Pure Language'", and in fact incorporates material from that earlier document.

Joseph Smith's Seeker Uncle

2009-09-26T02:54:00.003-05:00

One of the lesser-known aspects of Joseph Smith's family history is that his uncle, Jason Mack, anticipated many of the themes that would become important to the Mormon movement. According to Lucy Mack Smith (cf. also the "preliminary manuscript" of Lucy's book in EMD v. 1), Jason was "a studious and manly boy" who became a "Seeker" by the age of sixteen. Among other things, he held that "there was no church in existence which held to the pure principles of the gospel." At age 20 he became a minister.

Jason apparently had a particular conviction that the gifts and signs and wonders of the New Testament were still available, and preached "incessantly to convert others to the same faith." In an 1835 letter to Solomon Mack, Jason reported that twelve years prior the Lord had "bestowed upon me the gift of healing by the prayer of faith." He apparently knew some basic field medicine as well, perhaps learned in the Revolutionary War. But his "chief reliance" was on "him who organized us at the first, and can restore at pleasure that which is disorganized." (The use of the term "organized" rather than "created" raises the interesting question of whether Jason rejected creatio ex nihilo.)

Jason's gift of healing brought a torrent of sick people to his door, but also provoked bitter persecution. But "it pleased God to take the weak to confound the wisdom of the wise." It pleased Jason, too. He particularly relished those times when, after an "infidel" doctor had pronounced a patient doomed, the patient was restored to health under Jason's care. That there may have been an apocalyptic streak undergirding his hostility to skepticism is implied by his report that his mind had been entirely "taken up with the deplorable situation of the earth, the darkness in which it lies." He felt such urgency to reach the darkened society that he held meetings and preached the gospel "day and night, from place to place."

One of the more interesting aspects of Jason's career is that he set up a sort of socialist, utopian commune. Jason's concern for the poor was such that he tended to give away most of his money and goods. His philanthropy seems to have inspired him to gather thirty impoverished families onto a tract of land he owned in New Brunswick, where he directed their labor and worked alongside them, and then set out by himself on a schooner to take their goods all the way to Liverpool for sale. This was an astonishing and dangerous journey for one man to take alone, and in fact he almost died en route. (Jason's philanthropy also inspired him to adopt an orphan boy named William Smith, who stayed with Joseph Sr. and Lucy for six months sometime around 1805. Perhaps this was the namesake of Joseph and Lucy's son William.)

The similarities between Jason Mack and Joseph Smith, Jr. are quite remarkable. Both were known for being studious and manly. Both developed an interest in religion at around the same age, and became convinced that there was no true church on earth. Both believed in signs and wonders and spiritual gifts. Both seem to have been hostile toward doctors and skeptics as well as toward institutional religion. Both were moved by an apocalyptic concern for a "darkened" society. Both were concerned for the poor and founded communitarian societies. And if Jason Mack did in fact reject creatio ex nihilo as one of his statements seems to imply, then he had that in common with Joseph as well.

Joseph and Jason seem not to have ever met. Jason visited the Smiths twice in Vermont just prior to Joseph's birth, and then seems to have been largely (though perhaps not entirely) out of touch with them until 1835. Yet even if Joseph never met his uncle, it seems likely that he heard stories from his mother. Jason's religious outlook may well have shaped Lucy's and, through her, Joseph Jr.'s. Or perhaps Lucy and her brother were simply beneficiaries of the same family culture. Whatever the case, it seems that radical, apocalyptic, communitarian religious ministry was in Joseph Jr.'s blood.