The Church have just published (although I wrote this from a draft that I had access to before it was published) the new CES Book of Mormon Institute manual and my previous post asked some questions about what people hoped for in content.  This post is aimed at trying to develop a brief comparison of the most recent two.  I have tried to search topics, compared content and appendices and focussed on searching authors.  There are some interesting changes and some interesting constants.

Firstly the book is only 50 pages longer, which makes me wonder why bother to do a new one at all. 

Secondly there is still no discussion of the translation process, Joseph’s relationship with Moroni and the plates and the witnesses get a small outline in the appendix which is more an exercise in stating that they ‘never’ denied their testimonies.

Thirdly, McConkie has been used even more extensively and Mormon Doctrine has been used 19 times.  This is less than the previous manual but when contrasted with the new Gospel Principles manual, from which ‘Mormon Doctrine’ has been completely eradicated, this is quite interesting.  Why this schizophrenic move is not clear?  Perhaps we are seeing the impact of different writing committees.  In addition, Joseph Fielding Smith is also quoted more extensively.

Another noticeable, but perhaps unsurprising change, is the preference for living Apostles and Prophets, or at least very recent.  Yet, what is surprising, is the differences between those who are quoted frequently and those who are not.  For example, Fielding Smith and McConkie are quoted over 70 times in the new manual.  The other people who match that are President Benson, Joseph Smith (he is most quoted with 180 citations), Jeffrey R. Holland and Neal A. Maxwell.  Not far behind them is Elder Oaks, Packer and President Hinckley.  Why these brethren?  Hinckely and Benson have both been prophets and there is an emphasis upon thir teachings.  Elder Holland has written a popular book.  But Maxwell, Oaks and Packer?

The appendices have changed slightly.  They have dropped the map of the possible Book of Mormon geography while including a new map of Lehi’s journey.  This seems like an interesting reflection of how comfortable the Church feels with speculating about Book of Mormon lands with the current DNA ‘crisis’, while they clearly feel more comfortable about some of the work done by scholars on Lehi’s journey.  There is also a greater emphasis on the Scattering and Gathering of Israel.

Some of the things that have been reduced, or removed, or that are absent (which some might expect to be present); include the Journal of Discourses being cited only 3 times in the new manual compared to 13 in the old.  Further Brigham Young received no increase in citations.  FARMS (or the Maxwell Institute) are mentioned once and FAIR not at all.  Robert Millet is mentioned 5 times (usually in connection Joseph Fielding McConkie).  Even the Church sponsored Book of Mormon Symposiums only had 5 citations.  Monson has only 11 citations, which seems low for the current Prophet. Interestingly, Uchtdorf has only 1, whereas Bednar has 15 even though they were called at the same time.  In addition, Nibley is quoted less often in the new manual. 

It seems therefore that we are still living in a McConkie and Fielding Smith inspired Orthodoxy.  There are some other voices who are becoming important particularly Maxwell and Holland.  From a personal point of  view I would like to have seen something from Eugene England, Katheleen Flake, Catherine Thomas and Lowell Bennion (and others) who have all written insightful essays (and books) on the Book of Mormon.  Who else would you have liked to have seen cited?

Any other thoughts?

The Manual is now available online.

That said — in part 3 of this series, I’m going to make my argument that within this interview, we can see yet further signs that both Robert Millet, and the LDS Church, are becoming more and more open/liberal/progressive/tolerant in their willingness to allow for a “Sunstone” or even a “New Order Mormon“-like perspective when it comes to an LDS belief/testimony.

Here are the signs and tea leaves I’ve identified in my own personal Mormonism Rorscharch test….

On Modern-Day Confusion Amongst LDS Church Leadership Regarding Mormon Doctrine, and the Freedom LDS Members Should Feel to Accept or Reject the Teachings of Past LDS Prophets (as Appropriate)

Mr. Millet: In recent years, there’s been an effort to, to try to solidify and codify, if you will, what actually constitutes Latter-day Saint doctrine. And that’s caused us to ask hard questions like this: Is everything that was ever uttered by a church leader on a general level from the days of Joseph Smith, is that considered the doctrine of the church? And the answer has come back no. I’ll give you an illustration. At the time, The Da Vinci Code was very hot and a little controversy raged over it.

Ms. Tippett: Yes.

Mr. Millet: At the time it was raging, the church issued a very brief but insightful statement that I was appreciative for. It’s just something that just…

Ms. Tippett: The Church of the Latter-day Saints?

Mr. Millet: That’s right. The Latter-day Saint leaders issued this statement. It just said essentially, ‘The scriptures are silent as to whether Jesus was married. It is true that early church leaders may have offered their opinion on this matter, but those opinions did not then, nor do they now, constitute the doctrine of the church.’ Now, that’s a statement that’s very important, because what it establishes is while Latter Day Saints revere and honor and respect and uphold their church leaders, we do not believe in a form of prophetic infallibility.

And so we — as we, as we move into the 21st century now, and as we begin having a greater focus upon Christ and Christianity and Christian principles, I think there is a tendency to look back and say, ‘All right, what are the central saving doctrines? And what are some other things we, A, don’t know much about, B, just don’t seem to be in harmony with what, with what — and where we are now? And I think that’s taking place more and more.

On the Belief that the Book of Abraham is Translated Scripture:

Ms. Tippett: And, you know, I know that [Joseph Smith], he reported revelations, and the stories sometimes changed when he told them at different times. And then the thing may be more, on a practical level, there’s the book of Abraham, which he…

Mr. Millet: Right.

Ms. Tippett: …had said that he translated…

Mr. Millet: Translated.

Ms. Tippett: …from some Egyptian papyri that were found inside a mummy. And then later, you know, several generations later, when scholars could, could really translate hieroglyphs, they said that these were funeral documents and not a lost book of Abraham. So I want to ask, you know, as a very faithful member of the church and a scholar of the church, you know, how do you, how do you make sense of this kind of contradiction?

Mr. Millet: I guess this is the side of me that — this is the stubborn side of me that is prone to say, ‘Yeah, I have questions about the historicity in terms of how it came.’ He didn’t tell us how exactly this happened, how he got the information. I mean, you know, scholars even within the church have taken different views. One, one view is that he literally translated it from Egyptian. Another view, perhaps, is that the Egyptian papyri that he had proved as a kind of spiritual catalyst to receiving an independent revelation about the ancient figure of Abraham. I don’t know what the answer is on that. And I, and I’m as eager to learn about that as, as the critics of the church are just curious investigators of the church are.

On Faith or Testimonies Being a Decision — Sometimes Regardless of the Evidence/Facts

Mr. Millet: I heard a church leader not long ago say this, which is very simple, but it has a profound implication for me. He said, “Faith is just so much more than a feeling. Faith is a decision.” And I think that’s right for me. I made a decision a long time ago about Joseph Smith, fully aware now, maybe more so now as a professor for the last 25 years than I ever was as a young person, full aware that he was a human being, that he made mistakes.

But I made a decision back then that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that the work he set in motion was divinely inspired and that what I was about was good and that it would bless my life and bless other lives. And, and I’m just, I’m just sort of taking the stance of I, I just will not allow my faith to be held hostage by what the things I do know to be held hostage by what science has or has not discovered at a given moment in time. Does that make sense?

On the Book of Mormon as an Historical Document

Mr. Millet: “That’s the faith part of me saying, ‘Well, of course I look forward to archeological evidences of the Book of Mormon.”

On the “The Mormon Lifestyle” or “Mormon Culture” Being Major Components to One’s LDS Faith/Testimony (e.g. being a cultural Mormon)

Mr. Millet: “But I will, for the time being, put on the shelf the things I don’t know because there are just too many things that I’m, I’m convinced of, and that the way of life that the church promotes highlights to me.’ In other words, would I, would I want to go another way? I wouldn’t.”

On the LDS Church Needing Time to Get Its Doctrine Together — and to Become More Mainstream (also on Religion as a Business, and on the LDS Church Being the “One True Church”)

Mr. Millet: “We’re in the religion-making business, as you intimated earlier, only for a short time, I mean, compared to the Christian church, which has been at this for a couple of millennia. We’re about halfway to Nicaea. And so, and so in that sense — I remember a very tender moment. I was speaking with — I’ve been invited to the Salt Lake Theological Seminary, basically an Evangelical seminary, to discuss a book I had done on Jesus. And they had read it, and they wanted me to come and just respond to questions. And it was, it was a very enjoyable couple of hours.

The very last question that was asked by one of my friends there was this one. He said, ‘Bob, what can we do for you?’ And I, I wasn’t ready for that question. I said, ‘What do you mean?’ He said, ‘What can we, as Evangelicals, do for our Mormon friends?’ And I, I guess my mind could have gone a hundred different ways, but what I came back with was this. I said, ‘Boy, I appreciate you asking that. I don’t think I’ve ever been asked that.’ But, but I said, ‘Try this. Cut us a little slack, will you? Give us a little time. We’re in the religion-making business, and this takes time. It takes centuries. And, and trying to explain the faith and articulate the faith, that doesn’t come over night. We’ve really only been about that for 20 or 30 years.’ “

My Conclusion

I can very easily anticipate apologists commenting here that I am misinterpreting Dr. Millet — and taking his words out of context. In all honesty — I don’t believe that I am. If I were to think back 30 or 40 years — I could not imagine someone like Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, or Ezra Taft Benson even granting such an interview…let alone answering questions in this way. To me, these types of “New Order Mormon” or “Sunstone” responses from our chief theologian provides me, as a “New Order” / “Sunstone” – Mormon with a tremendous amount of encouragement that with each passing year — folks like us will be more and more tolerated within church culture.

Of course it may be a long, long time before we will ever hear our church leaders validate any of these points directly to us, as members, in General Conference (that’s usually not the way they work). Can you imagine the day (in modern times) when you will hear something like this over the pulpit at General Conference….

• “There have been many, many doctrinally incorrect statements by past General Authorities and even by Prophets, Seers and Revelators — but you are free to choose the ones you wish to believe as true.”
• “The Books of Abraham and Mormon may or may not be historical documents — we just don’t know. But their teachings are true regardless.”
• “Whether or not our church is the “One True Church” — the lifestyle is good, and worth pursuing.”
• Etc., etc., etc.

…but this is probably an unrealistic expectation. Churches that do this, I believe, ultimately become weak.

Still — in the mean time — I want to publicly express my gratitude for folks like Dr. Millet — who give the rest of us cover, and perhaps a little less guilt, for the perspectives and attitudes we have recently gained on Mormonism (through an in-depth study of its history).

Thanks again, Dr. Millet, and to you, too, Krista Tippet. You are our hero.

Let me begin with my disclaimer — as some of you may have realized, I am struggling (as a member of the LDS church) with the way that church leaders (as of late) appear to be publicly distancing themselves from many of the tenets of the “gospel” that I grew up with. This is complicated by the fact that while I am happy to see many of these changes — I also am simultaneously fearful that as we “assimilate” into mainstream U.S. culture by playing up our commonalities with others — and distancing ourselves from the differences — we will ultimately weaken the church I love, by weakening the core beliefs/theology that once made us strong.

Anyway, to illustrate….during the interview, Dr. Millet was asked why Mormons target Christians as well as non-Christians with their missionary work. His response was as follows:

“Now, people will frequently ask us, ‘But why do you go to Christians who already have a church, who already have a belief?’ And, ‘Why don’t you just go to the heathen, you know?’ And there’s a practical answer for that. And that is — I’ve had pastors ask me this, and I’ve said to them, ‘How large is your congregation?’ ‘Well, about 700.’ ‘When you look out at that congregation, can you literally tell at one glance who of all those people have truly been converted? Who of all those people have had a personal conversion experience? Who of all those people have been born again? Who of all those people have, in your language, accepted Jesus as their savior? Do you know in each case?’ And he said, ‘Well, no, of course not.’ I said, ‘Neither do we.’ And so we approach everyone. “

Based on Mormon scripture, doctrine, and theology — isn’t the most honest and up front answer to this question the following: “We don’t consider any other church to have the legitimate authority of God — and so our missionary work must go to all people”. If I may quote from the Pearl of Great Price:

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all ^awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those ^bprofessors were all ^ccorrupt; that: “they ^ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ^ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the ^fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the ^gpower thereof.”

Again — I can understand what he is doing here. He is trying to build on common beliefs — and he doesn’t want to offend.

But I ask you — is it completely honest? Or is it misleading? Is Dr. Millet telling the whole truth here — or only a partial truth? More importantly — as more and more devout LDS folks pick up on answers like this — are they not going to start wondering what’s going on…and where the church that they grew up in (and that the pioneers sacrificed for) has gone? All watered down and stuff?

Finally, for those of you who were missionaries — how focused were you on “helping people to accept Jesus as their personal savior”, vs. helping them to join the one and only true church? And if people told you that they had already accepted Jesus as their Savior, did you politely accept their response, and move on to someone else — or did you keep trying?

Towards the beginning of the interview, the following conversation ensues about the nature of God:

Krista: And Elhohim (God the Father) you understand to be a corporeal being, who was once a man? Like us?

Robert: Yeah….uh…..yeah…let me address….

Krista: Correct me when I need correcting.

Robert: No. What I want to do is I want to address what we know and what we don’t know.

Krista: OK

Robert: I think many people, in an effort to try to bring some kind of image in their minds to deity…no one wants to fell they’re praying to a force

Krista: Imagine a person.

Robert: Yeah. A gas. They imagine a person, of course. And so the notion that we teach that God is corporeal or physical….it doesn’t strike an interested, curious seeker, uh, as overly odd, because they often comment, “I think I’ve sort of anticipated that.

Krista: But I mean my sense is that this understanding of God is a product of something like a spiritual evolution of God who was once a man and moved into this very different kind of being.

Robert: Godhood.

Krista: Yeah.

Robert: Well Joseph Smith taught that in 1844, and uh, other presidents of the church like Lorenzo Snow, uh, taught about it. But you know it’s talked about so little…um…so infrequently…I hear much, much more of that teaching from those who are outside the LDS faith than I do from people within. And I guess the answer is for this….do I believe that? Yes. Because I think it’s part of the faith, but it’s rather theologically tangential, in the sense that we believe he’s a man. What went on before he was God we just have no idea. In other words, that lies in the realm of the mysterious for us, just as the final explanation for trinity would with traditional Christians. And I don’t have difficulty with that at all. What I think that creates with Latter-Day Saints is a feeling of closeness.

Two things struck me as interesting about Dr. Millet’s responses:

• Dr. Millet calls the “God Was Once a Man, Man Can Become a God” doctrine “Theologically tangential.” This is interesting to me, because most of the devout Mormons I know consider this doctrine to be absolutely central to their belief in the LDS Plan of Salvation — that God was once like them, and that they, too, can become like God someday. Based on what I hear each Sunday — this is something Mormons are counting on in the hereafter — and almost drives their devotion to the church.I guess I still am amazed that even one of our chief theologians doesn’t stand up boldly and say, “Absolutely! That teaching is central to our Plan of Happiness doctrine!!!”Let me be clear, though — I don’t think he’s being dishonest here — I just think that he’s showing some discomfort, and maybe even some confusion about the teaching that feels dissonant to me having been raised in the church.
• Dr. Millet emphasized how “infrequently” this doctrine is taught, yet just last Sunday (surely right around the time of the interview) it was THE topic in Relief Society and Priesthood across the world for Mormons. From the manual as taught last week in LDS Churches around the globe:

“God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make Himself visible,—I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. …

I’m not really breaking new ground with this post, since we know that President Hinckley made similar comments back in 1998 — and we discussed it “ad nauseum” in Clay’s post.

Still — it seems to be another step towards distancing ourselves from this (what I once considered to be) fundamental Mormon doctrine.

Not that this is good, or bad mind you — just very interesting to me.