VIEWPOINTS FOR DIALOG

Number 1: A Paper by Dale R. Broadhurst

The Mormon and the Book

Some Personal Views

regarding

Latter Day Saintism

and

Book of Mormon Historicity

A THREE-PART ESSAY

- by -

Dale R. Broadhurst

(Hilo, Hawaii, December 14, 1998)

Part I

The Book of Mormon,
Its Scriptural Validity, and Its Historicity

by Dale R. Broadhurst

Abstract:

Any examination of the Latter Day Saint faith should begin with a consideration of the Book of Mormon. While the contents of that volume are no longer the only forces shaping and advancing the religion of the Saints, its publication marked the birth the Mormon movement and the book has provided the deciding factor in the conversion of millions to that movement. While nearly all early Mormons accepted the book as being literally true, today that simplistic view no longer provides the necessary answers to important questions regarding the origin and early development of Latter Day Saintism.

It is possible for sincere Saints to hold personal convictions that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not crucial to their faith. A realization that the essential nature of this work of scripture is found in its spiritual message compels the Book of Mormon believer to seek and find that message regardless of historicity issues. This is a prophetic endeavor best carried out in close cooperation with scriptural scholarship. The rewards experienced are well worth the task of changing old beliefs and imperfect doctrines that teach this conviction to be wrong. In the coming century and millennium the shedding of outworn notions regarding the origin and nature of Latter Day scripture will offer a remarkable liberation and empowerment to the Saints. The time has arrived to make a beginning in that work of liberation.

And a Note of Caution

The following statement relates a personal understanding and is intended neither as instruction to others nor as an argument for debate. It simply describes my perspective in studying an important book. This is a realization that came to me before I began any formal theological course work. Despite having some training in the field I am an amateur in scriptural studies and intend to remain so. I originally prepared most of this statement for delivery to a non-LDS Christian audience. Instead of re-writing those thoughts I have added to them, mostly through notation. Because of this compositional indolence and because of my Protestant educational background, I occasionally use terms that echo the vocabulary of the Christians more than that of the Saints.¹

Part I

As a life-long student of the biblical and restoration scriptures I have gained a personal conviction in regard to the Book of Mormon: It is valid scripture² but its historicity is no more crucial to the faith of the Saints than is that of the Book of Job, the Book of Jonah, or the Book of Deuteronomy. If someone could demonstrate that the Book of Job was composed as an extended parable or allegory -- that no such person as Job ever existed -- it should not affect our appreciation of the book's profound spiritual truths. Likewise, were someone to prove beyond a doubt that Jonah never spent three days in the belly of a great fish; that no fantastic plant ever sprang up to shade Jonah from the sun; and that no King of Nineveh ever commanded that all his subjects should repent before the God of Israel; the Saints' faith in Jesus and his application of the Jonah message need not suffer one iota. And, even if someone could convince us all that Moses never stood on the plains of Moab and uttered all the words in "his fifth book," that would be no reason whatsoever for us to renounce that book's timeless spiritual message: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord."³

I do not say that scriptural history can be explained away as being a collection of fiction and myths. In certain instances, myth may relate important realities very effectively, but our scriptural tradition reinterprets mythic understandings in the context of history rather than creating new myths. Also, I do not say that it doesn't matter whether events in scriptural stories ever occurred, so long as they were believed by our predecessors in the community of faith.⁴ What does matter is how these stories awaken our hearts and minds to the most important of spiritual truths. We can find good examples of such stories among the parables of Jesus. The message of the parable is there for us to experience, accept, and act upon. It remains there so we can study it anew and gain greater heights of comprehension and realization as our capacity to absorb the message expands. We would be foolish to focus our primary attention on proving or disproving the historicity of events within the parables. We may attempt to determine the historicity of events encompassing the reception of particular parables in the scriptural record. And that is best done through an independent study of the historical context in which they were first received and recorded. We can then compare and contrast the findings of our examination with whatever reliable historic information we can derive from the scriptural record. We should not be surprised to encounter problems in this endeavor. Not all scriptural texts are parables and not all are so easily approached as in my simplistic example. The reasoning inherent in the example is, however, applicable to our discerning the essential nature and purpose of scripture.

Many Latter Day Saints (including Mormons) view our scriptures as a perfect recipe or rule sent from heaven, which we must accept and follow to the letter.⁵ Some say that the Book of Mormon belongs to a class superior to biblical scripture; that its plain and precious parts were never removed by the "great and abominable church;" that our refusal to accept this marvelous work and wonder as the most correct book is to risk the peril of eternal damnation. Although it is understandable how such viewpoints first arose and why they linger among the Saints, it is my own, personal conviction that no such opinion should stand in the way of our discerning the book's essential message.⁶ We do not have be scholars to study and accept many elements of that message, but where possible we should still apply the tools of critical analysis to our study. ⁷

Those of us who would be serious students of this book share in a primary responsibility of assembling and publishing a correct and readable English text, along with relevant variants, and critical notation. We also have the responsibility of making available all possibly useful information concerning the book and its message, regardless of how this impacts our preconceived opinions and beliefs. These two responsibilities are already being carried out -- to a certain extent.⁸ Our responsibility to confirm or deny the book's historicity is a matter of tertiary importance. Unless we can present substantial archaeological and anthropological proof to the secular scientists and academics, we may never see a clear solution to the Book of Mormon historicity problem. The major restoration churches admit one element of this realization, since they refuse to correlate Book of Mormon geography with the geography of the Americas commonly taught in schools today. I believe they have made the correct decision. I am also convinced that the book's primary value lies in how its spiritual message influences the history of the restoration movement. Here I wish to make clear that I do not view history as simply an account of days gone and forgotten. It is the continual reality of people's lives being lived out within the context of their relationships with one another and with that which they acknowledge as greater than themselves. The importance of the book in history is undeniable. The value of the history within the book is debatable.⁹

I believe I understand some of the constraints under which faithful LDS scholars operate when they examine and report on the Book of Mormon from the perspective of its being a "true book" rather than a "book of truth." One such constraint is the subjective realization and resulting witness of millions that the book is "true." These witnesses might well ask, "How can a true book possibly contain stories which did not actually occur in the real world?" Another constraint is that no scriptural scholar belonging to a Latter Day Saint community is an island unto himself or herself. This fact is of special importance to Mormons. To be a Mormon is to be part of a community of faith and to conform to the laws and traditions of that community. These norms are of great importance to this group's sense of identity, purpose, and continuity. Most faithful LDS scholars would think twice about publishing a discovery or insight that seemingly contradicts their community's most cherished and unique beliefs concerning the Book of Mormon. Religious individualism does not always mix well with the spiritual worthiness required for temple recommends.¹⁰

Regardless of such constraints, there have always been persons of faith who refused to conform with certain established group norms. They refuse because they see particular applications of those norms as being misguided, misused, or just plain wrong. Such a radical understanding in the realm of religion is not that of the open-minded liberal who hopes to find validity in all sorts of viewpoints. Rather, it is the realization of the spiritual conservative, who can follow no other course than standing in witness to the most basic truths underlying the group's identity and purpose. The Saints generally accept this witness and the response it compels within their ranks as inspired, so long as the one bearing witness holds the proper spiritual authority. When they perceive this authority to be absent, they nearly always reject such non-conformity as being either inappropriate behavior or as something akin to false prophecy.

Because of such constraints, faithful Mormons may experience significant personal difficulties when attempting a rigorously objective and critical study of restoration scriptures.¹¹ Even when they carry out their work with the most positive of intentions and with scrupulous honesty, these would-be objective scholars risk being judged as exerting a negative influence upon their community and its religion.The faithful Mormon student who attempts such textual examination, without affirming the Book of Mormon's historicity (either explicitly or implicitly) stands vulnerable to accusations of refusing "to admit of revelation and predictive prophecy."¹²

Our objective examination of the book need not be a deluded or impious refusal to acknowledge revelation and prophecy. Both studying the Book of Mormon and refining our understanding of its role in evolving Latter Day Saint spirituality can themselves be revelatory and prophetic activities. This is no innovation; Latter Day Saints have always associated divine encounter with reading the book. The encounter is not limited to confirmation of the spirit and our witnessing is not limited to proclaiming the book's validity. The encounter is not necessarily emotional, imaginary, irrational, or mystical.¹³ And when we shift our balance from the stance of objective investigator to prophetic witness we do so in faithful response to this encounter with divine being. This faithful response is a gift of the spirit and it is only through the power of the gift that we regain our objectivity. With each cycle of encounter and detachment we find our hearts and minds can be opened to finer understanding, compassion, and humility. This is part of the spiral of our spiritual evolution, wherein we gain an increasing appreciation of scripture and prophecy.

Prophecy in the biblical tradition is not merely predicting the future. Prophecy is experiencing the divine will and communicating that experience in thought, word, and deed. The validity of prophetic experience and inspired communication is confirmed by the outcome of events in our lives. In this sense prophecy can be expressed as divine warning or promise. But prophecy also includes experiencing and communicating the divine mind here and now. According to our own measure of faith, actions, and spiritual gifts we each participate in divine encounter and inspiration, at least at the personal level. The burning in our bosoms is not resolved by reaching for the antacid. However, our prophetic activity beyond the personal level is a matter of ministry to others, and we must define such ministry in terms of communication, responsibility, and authority. In biblical and restoration prophecy the validity of a message directed to the community, the validity of the personal experience that brings forth the message, and validity of the source for that experience itself are all determined through the exercise of divinely bestowed discernment and authority. Prophetic authority and divine encounter are inseparable, because the initial bestowal of prophetic authority comes only through encounter with the divine and without such authority there can be no encounter. This fact may sound paradoxical but it is true. We Saints may repeat, summarize, or clarify a prophetic message, and we may assist prophetic ministry in many other ways, but without proper authority we do not communicate a new inspired message to others. We are left with the question:Who today has this authority? ¹⁴

I believe it is for this reason, more than any other, that faithful Mormon scholars are reluctant to examine their scriptures from perspectives other than those accepted as faith-promoting.¹⁵ They feel they do not have the authority to independently carry out the important investigation and change in sacred matters that could deeply affect others. Whenever their scriptures are received, accepted, revised, or interpreted in new ways, the action is properly initiated through divine inspiration and prophetic authority. There have been prophets who were great students of the scriptures and there have been prophets who consulted the scholars about the scriptures. As the Mormon prophets and scriptural scholars of the coming century magnify their callings by participating together in this Zionic task -- releasing the captive, proclaiming the spirit, and freeing us from the letter of the text -- millions will begin to gain a new and vital understanding stored up for these latter days. Until that time arrives, much that should be plain and precious in the Book of Mormon remains sealed to them, no matter how often they turn its pages.

Part II

Some Old-Fashioned Mormon Testimony

In preparing my statement regarding Book of Mormon historicity I have written about something that is very important to me. And because it is so important I have tried hard to keep as many of my feelings to myself as possible and to produce a statement that might be published in a respectable manner and gain the attention of honorable readers. If my words are the wrong words for your minds and purposes, I withdraw them from your consideration with no ill will. I desire neither the badge of courage nor the attention of the curious which acrimonious debate might bring. And, even if you find no use for them, I retain the sincere hope that you will not simply dismiss my words as repackaged impiety and irreverent cant.

"Apostate cant" was a term I once heard applied to my relatives' Reorganized Church views when I was growing up among the "Utah Mormons" of southeastern Idaho. Although I was never an LDS member myself and had not yet been baptized into the RLDS Church, that sharp remark left a spot of sadness on my memory. When I grew older I asked about the religion of my great Grandmother Elnora's Iowa cousins and wondered a little about those peculiar people. As a teenager I once or twice visited the quiet little Public Library in Malad, Idaho and thumbed through the dusty old Reorganized Church classics, lined up on the shelf like battle-worn soldiers awaiting an inspection of their neglected ranks. But I didn't care too much for the military jargon of those old veterans from the Josephite-Brighamite wars. I left them where I'd found them and gave no thought of joining their cause. Years later, after I'd experienced my own spiritual awakening, I began to understand the words of zeal emblazoned on their banners.

One of my special friends from those days spent along the sinuous Snake River was a certain Miss Chidester. I was fascinated by her cheerful, sincere application of her people's beliefs and with my discovery of our forefathers' names in a history book. Her ancestor, John Chidester, and my ancestor, Samuel Winegar, rode together with a young prophetic leader in the Zion's Camp march to redeem Jackson County, Missouri. I could almost picture them. In my mind they had to be square-jawed frontiersmen with thick whiskers beneath their chins and well-oiled muskets slung over their shoulders. They had to have a fire in their eyes and a hymn on their lips, like extras hanging around Port Rockwell in the 1940 production of "Brigham Young." My LDS friend was a bit irritated with my lackadaisical attitude and tried to show me that my inquisitive energy could be put to higher use than uncovering the stories of a half-forgotten heritage. One day this lady firmly suggested that I place an important question before Heavenly Father (as she put it) and come to a decision about joining her church.

I was skeptical about the merits of such an approach. As a boy I'd attended a Protestant church. It was one of those grand old monuments to the Reformation with pictures of Martin Luther guarding the entry-way and ministers in black standing sternly behind pulpits three times the height of a lad of ten. I had once sat there, mute as the angels of wrought iron and colored panes on either side, as the Reverend lectured the congregation in thick Germanic tones that "men do grievously sin when they put the Lord God to the test." Those ingrates who demanded a sign from heaven were sure to go to the "other place." Even as an adult, contemplating investigating the improbable artifacts of 1830, I was still that little boy from years gone by, sad to hear that revelation had died out the day the Bishops banged down the closing gavel at the Council of Nicaea, but very much afraid to ask "Why?" Some long forgotten Sunday School teacher had once told our little class of fidgeting youngsters the story of King Solomon's dream at Gibeon, however. And I wondered if I might be allowed to pray to God as a king once had prayed. Sinful creature that I was, I decided to follow Solomon's example and ask in my little boy prayers for some wisdom. Not too much wisdom, mind you -- not enough to get a kid in trouble with the ghost of Martin Luther -- just enough to help calm that unanswered "Why?"

Under my Mormon friend's gentle influence I found my lips forming those prayers once again. I'd rather not spell out the details. I'm still that uncertain youth looking up at the Reverend, afraid that I'll get in trouble if I talk about these things too much. My prayers didn't go unanswered; I'll say that much. I came away from that first experience of "knowing" with an assurance and conviction that none of the churches I'd asked about were perfect in God's eyes. Looking back across all the years I see now that I'd asked the wrong question but I still received the right answer. Despite God's plan for them, people weren't responding in the best of ways, and that included the ones in my friend's church as well as the ones in my relatives' church. A frustrated happiness accompanied me for several weeks thereafter. I was happy because a whole new life of possibility and promise was opening up before me. For the first time in a long, long time the tears were streaming down my face and my heart was being lifted up with joy. At the same time I was very frustrated, because it was made known to me on several occasions that I should not yet be baptized. I continued to study the Bible and the Book of Mormon and prayed.

One crisp spring morning, in Pocatello, Idaho, the answer finally came. That answer was as clear as the rain-washed air and as light as the sunbeams streaming through my window. It wasn't at all that weighty mantle of wisdom I'd been expecting. It the was a liberation provided by a gospel taught hundreds of years ago on the rocky slopes of Galilee. It was the call of a shepherd to his wandering sheep. God had prepared a place for me among the fellowship of the Reorganized Latter Day Saints. I knew where to go next. I'd attended the local branch a few times. The members kinda knew my name; they called me "Dave." A couple of them were my Winegar relatives, come out from Iowa to brave the wilds of Idaho. But neither they nor anyone else seemed to care much about my old-time Iowa family. Their stories were of Grandpa and Grandma slipping over the border to Malad in 1880 -- of escaping the imaginary Danites and over-tithing Bishops of Promised Valley.

None of those accepting folk had ever even invited me to investigate their church, let alone apply for baptism. They seemed content just to have another voice in the benches singing "Redeemer of Israel" with them. When I approached Elders Lawson and Allredge with a much condensed version of my story they were polite but a bit skeptical. It seemed that neither of them had ever heard of a non-member claiming to receive personal revelation, not even as a witness of the spirit to a question about the Book of Mormon. And they were a bit dismayed by my saying that I could not affirm them as "the one true church." I can't remember the exact details but I believe two or three days passed while they considered my application for baptism. When they told me they had accepted my request it was done with a handshake, a hug, and a big smile that said "welcome home, brother." It was one of the happiest moments of my life. The water was cold and my new white shirt shrank about two sizes, but I didn't care. Faith, repentance, baptism by immersion, remission of sins, the light of the Good Spirit: I could almost see restorationist preachers Walter Scott and Sidney Rigdon standing among my friends and family beside the font, counting off the steps on their fingers.

Following my baptism and confirmation I had not the slightest doubt that at last I was placing my life into God's hands and accepting the spiritual guidance, purpose, and fellowship I had so longed for. It was the best decision I've ever made and I've never regretted it for even an instant during all the years that have passed since that wonderful day. I can testify from the depths of my soul that Yahweh, God of Israel, is more real than reality itself; that Jesus the son of Mary is the true and everlasting Messiah for Jew and gentile alike; and that we are called in these latter days to restore His gospel and establish a beautiful Zion among the nations. I can further testify that revelation, prophecy, and the gifts of the spirit are present on the face of this planet today and that whose who deny these facts have no idea what they are missing.

My friend seemed both cheered and taken aback by my conversion. Before we could discuss it much my job took me to the wilds of Wyoming and our lives went their separate ways. I wanted to show my appreciation for her opening the door to this beautiful new life, but I could tell she was disappointed I had not joined her church. About five months after my baptism I finally thought of a way to show my thankfulness: by giving her a book I'd knew she wanted. I bought the only copy in Rock Springs and sent off a quick note to the author. I was hoping he might autograph the gift. When I received my answer it was a request that I come to see him in Utah. The author also gave me a bit of unexpected news: he'd just had dinner in Independence, Missouri with W. Wallace Smith and thought that fact might interest me. Now that particular Mr. Smith just happened to be one of my more recent heroes as well as my distant relative on his great Grandmother Mack's side of the family. I wondered if God was putting a little coincidence in my life, just to assure me I was on the right path. The next time I was able to travel through Salt Lake City I took the writer up on his offer and stopped by to talk with him in an old gray building downtown. I didn't spend much time there. The author had a lot to do that day and I excused myself after a few minutes, leaving the book with his secretary. It was waiting for me in my mailbox when I got back to Wyoming. On the inside of the fly leaf was that kindly old man's scrawl of a signature: Spencer W. Kimball.

A lot of water has passed under the bridge since those days and perhaps I've received enough of that once asked-for wisdom to exchange an idea or two with others. I occasionally fancy myself a teacher and have tried to do a bit of useful labor in that field. I've traveled the world in that work: from the highest wind-swept passes of the Himalayas to the indigo waters flowing over the depths of the Marianas Trench. Studied St. John of the Cross by flickering candle-light in a Tibetan monastery and pondered St. Thomas Aquinas beneath the rainbow windows of Pontificate Josephinum. Stood on the docks of Liverpool, watching the ships sail off to America and sang "The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning" in a white temple in Kirtland, Ohio. Steadied the ark -- hefted the plates -- sought the grail. Once looked down upon Mt. Sinai from 10,000 feet and gazed at the peak of Olympus all in a day. Picked out verses of ancient Hebrew from a thousand year old Torah in an orthodox synagogue and climbed the pyramids of Palenque searching for Nephites. Combed the shelves of the Library of Congress in the dead of winter and rested in the shade of the elms listening to the sermons of Wally B. Smith on a hot summer's afternoon. Walked the tangled byways and cherry blossom-strewn gardens of Osaka with missionary Dayle Bethel and sat in silent contemplation of the dawn coming up like thunder amid the timeless pagodas of golden Pagan. I've floated the glistening canals of Amsterdam and bathed in the murky mire of the Ganges. And no matter where I've traveled in all those wide-spread wanderings along pilgrim pathways I have again and again heard the still, small voice. The comfort and the calling. Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother whispering: "Don't forget Jesus, son; Remember Zion, Dale."

Although I resist the notion that I should be proud of myself, I am proud of my Winegar ancestors who accepted the Book of Mormon and the Latter Day Saint religion a few miles east of Kirtland, Ohio in 1833. They were baptized in the freezing waters of Mormon Run by Elders John F. Boynton and Evan M. Greene not long after hearing the restored gospel preached by a young fellow named Hyrum Smith. I've heard their story and know they sacrificed everything to follow Brother Joseph to Missouri, hoping to avoid stars falling from the skies and to see Enoch's heavenly city settle out of the clouds into Jackson County. I know they were terribly disappointed on leaving all they had worked so hard to build there. But the mobbers lingered around their cabin door and they fled to Illinois, hoping brighter days lay in store. They never returned. I want them to know that their prayers and sufferings were not in vain. The House of the Lord they longed to build in Jackson County has become a reality before the millennium and hundreds of their descendants remain faithful to God's plan of salvation today.

I am equally proud of my Winegar, Godfrey, and McIntier ancestors who left behind their homes, farms, and buried loved ones in Nauvoo to suffer through the hardships of Sugar Creek, Mount Pisgah, and Kanesville. When Winter Quarters closed down they built a new life in western Iowa but not all remained there. Some followed Brother Brigham to Utah and established their homes in the tops of the Rocky Mountains. Some returned from there, saddened by the practice of polygamy and yearning to hear revelation as they'd once heard it flow from the lips of a certain seer and revelator in Kirtland and Missouri. Even before Apostle Orson was urging the last Camp of Israel stragglers westward, they and others gathered around Bishop Miller and Father Cutler in hopes of finding the lost prophetic leadership. And when the Mormons had fled and Council Bluffs was given up to the gentiles, some moved in with Charles B. Thompson, surrendering their all to try and build a United Order of Enoch among the hills of Monona County. God protected them there in Iowa until the missionaries of the Reorganization came from resurrected Nauvoo. The awaited day arrived and some felt the hand of Young Joseph baptizing them anew amid the dubious onlookers of Pottawattamie. Fear not, ye scattered flocks of Israel; your hour of redemption is nigh.

I am proud of my great great Grandfather, Samuel Broadhurst, presiding elder of the Leigh, Lancashire branch, who in 1853 brought his little flock out of Babylon and set sail for the Land Bountiful aboard the Ellen Maria. His baby boy died in sight of the Promised Land. There was no ram caught up in the thicket to stop that sacrificial seizure. But a few weeks later my great great Grandmother, Betty Boardman, gave birth to man-child in St. Louis, Missouri and the blood of that infant flows in my veins today. Samuel and his Saints pressed onward to the Wasatch wilderness. They ferried across the wide Missouri and crossed the wild prairie behind two yoke of oxen in a covered wagon, perhaps with an ol' yeller dog following their wheel ruts.

But the angel of death passed over the Israelites and Samuel's brother had not yet marked his doorposts with repentance. He died among the native tribes, on an old, old path, and was laid in an unmarked grave on the borders of Deseret. Rest now, Brother Peter Broadhurst; although you died before your journey was through, with the just you shall dwell. Your sister Esther and her son will make it to the valley. One day your nephew, Samuel Matkin, will journey to the Land Northward and build a new city there with Elder Card. You'd be proud of the lad, Peter. And what of Brother Samuel? Samuel will set up his wagon shop in Great Salt Lake City, just across from Apostle Parley. He'll take care of your neglected baptism and he'll raise his family in canyon and in vale. Happy day, Brother Peter. All is well.

But all wasn't well. The pill of polygamy was just too bitter for Samuel and Betty to swallow. If this was the only way to Kolob, the Englishman and his mate decided to go no further. He surrendered the plural wives he'd been given, unloaded the granite stones from his wagon, and drove away from the unfinished temple. Cut off for "correcting Bishops, Presidents, and even Apostles," Samuel and his family lived the lonely life of the shunned. Neither Saints now, nor gentiles either, they were the lost sheep of the Lord. The family dwelt among the sinners fetched into town by the great Union railway. In 1885 Samuel lay dying and Joseph E. Taylor took pity on the old Nauvoo Legionnaire, defender against Johnston's Army, suspected Josephite. He asked President John Taylor to restore the Lancashire Saint's priesthood and blessings. Family tradition says that President Taylor replied, "Let him be ordained an Elder again. But let him keep silent this time." What happened to you, Elder Samuel Broadhurst? Are you with Brother Joseph -- mingling with gods and planning for us back here on earth? Are your spiritual wives with you once again? Great Great Grandfather, if you're looking down at me today, know that I'll never be a godling. I'm only a man but I've decided to stand for what you believed in. I won't keep silent. And though others may go astray, I won't forget Zion.

This is my family. Without them I would not exist. Without them I would not be a child of the covenant. I owe more to them than I can ever repay by anything I might do in this life and I love them with all my heart. I love what they believed in and I love what they sacrificed for. May their sacrifice bring forth the blessings of heaven to them. They had the courage to do what was right, no matter what others thought, no matter the cost. May I be worthy to walk even one step along the trails they've blazed.

Part III

The Saints, The Book, and The Future

The reader may well ask at this point why I have invested the time and energy to address the particular issue of Book of Mormon historicity. After all, I am a member of a faith community in which this scriptural book appears to have been consigned to the restoration museum shelves. The perceptive reader may also have anticipated that my answer will come in three parts.

My first reason is self-centered. Before seeing my own work in Book of Mormon textual studies published I should outline my personal background and theological perspective.

My second reason for turning my attention to Book of Mormon historicity is that it is an inter-faith matter of some importance that should be considered from an ecumenical viewpoint. The boundaries of my faith community, as well as those of many other Latter Day Saints, extend farther into religious humanity than a realm defined by membership in a particular congregation of a particular church. Although my position is a matter of personal faith it outwardly resembles views on this issue recently published by others. In our considering a matter of this importance we should open a few lines of inter-denominational communication within the restoration movement.

When I was a seminarian in 1980 I was assigned the internship of acting as an associate pastor in a Baptist congregation. The majority of the members were students and employees at Ohio State University's Columbus campus. As such they were generally well educated and fairly well informed about American religious denominations and sects. On more than one occasion I was invited to state my position on the questions of there being an open canon of scripture, the scriptural validity of the Book of Mormon, and how I defined my position of being a Book of Mormon believer who did not insist upon the book's historicity. My verbal answer, as best I can recall, went something like this:

I affirm that God is. This affirmation is somewhat different than my saying that God is a divine being, that God is the source of being, or that God is being itself. I also affirm that we human beings experience God intervening in history. The witnessing nature of my covenant theology necessarily depends upon this interaction of God and humanity within history. I further affirm God reveals what we perceive as aspects of divine being and that one important result of this revelatory interaction is that human beings compose inspired documents. Some portion of these inspired writings are found to be normative to our understanding of the covenant relationship between ourselves and God. This is an ongoing process which results in the creation of an open canon of scripture. The canon, as recognized by the Latter Day Saints, includes the Book of Mormon. As one of those Saints I hold the Book of Mormon to be valid scripture. However, I do not regard it as the authentic history of the native peoples of the western hemisphere. Whether it is an authentic history of some very limited portion of those peoples, I do not know. My working hypothesis in examining the book over the past several years is that it is not. My interaction with scripture is not limited to the use of historical or critical methodology but I look to the results so far obtained through application of this methodology to help me better understand the interrelationship of text and inspired message.

My choosing to view the Book of Mormon as nonhistorical inspired scripture raises many of the same questions and problems as does my choosing to view the Book of Deuternonomy as nonhistorical inspired scripture. If the latter is not a mosiac composition, what is it? Is it a redacted compilation of mosaic materials, a neo-mosaic pseudopigraph, or some combination of both? The bringing forth, acceptance, and eventual canonization of Deuteronomy can only be properly understood within the context of the religious restoration movement in the days of King Josiah. The same might be said of the Book of Mormon and the Latter Day Saints' restoration movement. No matter how much we learn through historical or critical methodology, our acceptance of a text as inspired scripture is ultimately a matter of faith. My faith leads me to accept the Book of Mormon as scripture.

Having inflicted this abstruse answer upon my Christian friends I was asked how a person holding my position regarding the Book of Mormon might be accepted within the two major Latter Day Saint churches. I said that within the liberal portion of the RLDS community I would generally be accepted as a member in good standing, but one whose views on scriptural matters should be borne with patience and love until he achieved a less fundamentalist appreciation of RLDS teachings. Within the conservative portion of the LDS community I might be accepted as a member in good standing who had lost the ability to reason correctly and therefore, like children, the mentally retarded, or the senile, I might be excused from priesthood responsibilities. In neither of the restoration churches would my position be reflective of views held by more than a small minority of the membership. Were I to rigorously apply my understanding of the Book of Mormon in response to the ecclesiastical requirements of either body of Saints I would most likely violate some commandment, rule, tradition, or priesthood counsel sooner or later. Therefore, to maintain a respectable position within either community, I would be forced to moderate my individualistic religious activity to a considerable extent.

My application of this reasoning in my work among the Baptists, in working and worshipping with Methodist seminarians, and in attending the local branch of my own church helped me get through my seminary years with a minimum of religious friction and a maximum of good fellowship. I have ever since felt that I was a member of a larger faith community than just that of the RLDS Church.

My third reason for investing the time and energy to address the issue of Book of Mormon historicity is that I feel it is relevant to our examination of personal and collective beliefs as we prepare to enter a new century and a new millennium. This is a natural time for us to look back at where we came from and to look forward to where we might be going. And I believe Latter Day Saintism in the next century is going to be something significantly different from what it has been in the past. There are some good reasons to expect a growth of ecumenicalism within the restoration movement over the next several decades and we should prepare ourselves for that possibility.

This brings me to what RLDS writers have sometimes called the "Mormon boundary." We may choose to view the Mormon boundary as the dividing line between two different churches, or as the dividing line between two different communities within a particular church. In either case, our individual and collective views concerning the Book of Mormon greatly affect how high we build the walls marking and protecting this boundary. The flow of time erodes barriers and all walls eventually crumble. As Latter Day Saints we should prepare ourselves for a future in which the Mormon boundary is marked by little more than a few sections of the wall, preserved as memorials to our manifold heritage. During the past few decades the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has gone through what some see as an enlightening transformation of its identity, theology, and purpose. Others see this transformation as an untrammeled slide into the apostasy of Protestantism. Regardless of how we judge and label that change, it is having a significant effect both upon the Mormon boundary and upon our views concerning the Book of Mormon.

During the coming century we can expect a similar transformation for the other church that holds the Book of Mormon as scripture: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The changes within its ranks will not be duplications of those still ongoing among the RLDS, but there will be certain parallels. Some of the touch-points of similarity will be these: 1. The impact of socio-economic changes within the membership. 2. The impact of evangelism among non-western cultures and non-Christian societies. 3. The impact of eroding sexism among the membership. 4. The impact of science and technology, especially as they are applied to the growth of knowledge and the communication of knowledge. These changes will likely bring with them some restatements of doctrine, including the doctrine of scripture.

The faithful LDS and RLDS should prepare themselves for a future where the Mormon boundary may be less significant because Mormonism itself will be something different. If the RLDS Church has not melted away through bankruptcy, schism and absorption by Protestantism, we can expect some of its membership to be attracted to a larger, more successful, less "Mormon" Mormon Church. If the LDS Church does not die out in some unexpected loss of faith, abandonment of missionary zeal, and disintegration of effective organization, we can expect much of its membership and their practices to superficially resemble those of the RLDS. This will be especially apparent among the Saints born and raised in Asia and Africa.

There is another factor impacting Latter Day Saintism which is less easy to describe in words but even more important than religious change itself. In ways not always immediately visible to us there is a force initiating and working through all change. I believe this force is the will of God. God's plan for us is not limited by human understanding and definition. We should be more than a little reticent in our telling God how we expect to be transformed in the future. At the same time, we can believe ourselves in saying God has a purpose in bringing the Latter Day Saints and their peculiar faith into this world and that the goals of that particular purpose have yet to be fully met.

As social human beings our traditions and shared history are very important to us. Each time a native language, a traditional skill, or an ancient story is forgotten we all lose something precious that can never be replaced. When we force our culture and beliefs upon a neighboring people we set afire humanity's richly woven tapestry of diversity, leaving only gray ashes of uniformity. This is bad policy when we evangelize among the peoples of the world and it is bad policy when we interact among the peoples of the restoration. I believe God will assist us in preserving and magnifying the values and message of our heritage if we make a substantial effort to do that ourselves. I believe those values and that message are so true to the human experience that they can be integrated into any society in the world today without destroying that society's culture and identity. Beliefs are changeable in their content but faith is changeable only in its measure. I sincerely hope that the Saints of the next century will not lose the Mormon faith and relegate it to museum-piece status in some restoration theme park. I also truly believe that if they throw away the Book of Mormon they will be throwing away a unique road-map to Zion.

I am not too worried about this happening. I trust that there is sufficient light and truth among the Saints that we might continue to evolve into something better and greater than what we are today. And I trust that God will watch over this evolution. I foresee a future where Latter Day Saint conservatives, fundamentalists, liberals, and skeptics will come much closer in their fellowship and all will have their legitimate roles and responsibilities among the People of God. I foresee a day in which our unique realizations about how God speaks to us through prophecy and scripture will have more of an impact upon future Christianity than the influence Christianity is now exerting upon us. In the 1830's we set out to awaken the world to the Good News brought by Jesus, to proclaim him as Messiah, and to build a Zion true to its namesake in the Davidic psalms. That mission is not enabled by our forcing an ignorant idolization of past misunderstandings and imperfections upon the world. Neither is it enabled by our forgetting the past, discarding our scriptures, and fighting within our camp over who has the right to carry the ensign of Peace.

NOTES

¹ I use the term "Christian" in a broad sense that overlaps but does not fully encompass the definition of "Latter Days Saint." I use this second term and the related words "Latter Day Saints' restoration movement" to include all persons and communities which trace their religious identity back to the Church of Christ founded in 1830. This excludes the Disciples of Christ and related sects, which are best identified by the term "Christian restoration movement." When I use the term "Latter-Day Saint" or "LDS," I refer more specifically to those acknowledging Brigham Young as the second President of this same Church of Christ. As a Reorganized Latter Day Saint (RLDS) writer I also generally speak of "Mormons" as the Saints of the 1830-1853 period, as well as those who have continued to identify themselves strongly with the doctrines, practices, and traditions of the second half of that period. While this group includes a few RLDS fundamentalists and other small restoration sects, it is essentially identical with the membership of the Salt Lake City based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

² By "valid" I do not just mean that the Book of Mormon is a holy book of proven value for the Latter Day Saints. It generally meets the canonical criteria applied to Judeo-Christian inspired documents. Had a Greek manuscript been available to the early Christian Church I believe it might easily have been accepted at a level of confidence somewhere between that accorded the Book of Revelation and that extended to Second Maccabees. I neither embrace nor totally reject the claims for its historicity. What I do acknowledge is that the book came to us through divine providence and we should use it as scripture. I am encouraged by Roger D. Launius' recent call for the RLDS to "meaningfully accent" the Book of Mormon in his "The RLDS Church and the Decade of Decision," Sunstone 19 (Sept. 1996) pp. 45-55. Perhaps this marks the turning of the tide against what sometimes appears to be an institutional practice not to use the book as scripture.

When I speak of "scripture" I am assuming the reader agrees that some portion of the sacred books accepted by the early Christian Church were products of divine inspiration. Beyond this somewhat inexact canon and the standard works of the two major Latter Day Saint churches (cf. n. 11 infra.), I include none of the writings held sacred in various religions, denominations, and sects. This exclusion is simply a factor of the limitations of my statement topic, not a refusal to accept that other valid scripture might exist.

³ The Shema, as found in Deuteronomy 6:4a cf. Mark 12:28-34. Here, in these two passages, is the essence of the covenant. A well-reasoned argument for not viewing the Book of Mormon as allegory or extended parable may be found in William J. Hamblin's critique of Brent Lee Metcalfe's views. (See "An Apologist for the Critics. . ." in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon,Vol. 6 No. 1, Spring 1994, pp. 434-523.)

⁴ I admit to using the words "community of faith" rather loosely throughout this statement. In some instances readers may wish to substitute the word "church," "churches," or "Church" in their own minds, rather than trying to find some esoteric meaning in my attempts to make use of an inclusive generalization.

⁵ For my definition of "Mormons" see note 1 above. The type of religious fundamentalism that produces the doctrines of extreme scriptural literalism and textual inerrancy is not limited to the ranks of the Latter Day Saints. It should be credited to the early Mormons that they did not teach the scriptural inerrancy of any editions of the Bible printed in their day. It might also be noted that contemporary Latter Day Saints do not generally view Joseph Smith, Jr.'s revision of the Old and New Testaments as inerrant reconstructions of those texts as they existed in the time of Jesus and the early Christian Church.

⁶ Rather than elucidating that message, I refer the reader back to the Book of Mormon itself. We who have the ability to read and reason are not excused from going to the book to see what it has to say.

⁷ It is unfortunate that the word "critic" has several different meanings; the use of this word in relation to scripture studies can easily be misapplied or misunderstood. As Saints we tend to think of "Book of Mormon critics" as those anti-Mormons who seek to attack and destroy the Latter Day Saint religion by attacking Mormonism's first book of scripture. I use the terms "textual criticism" and "source criticism" the way they are commonly applied in literary and biblical studies. In this sense, a critical reading of scripture is a conscious attempt to examine and report upon its text with special care and exactness. The objectivity required in such an examination and reporting can easily be misunderstood as being religious skepticism or disbelief. In fact, such caution and objectivity has often resulted in the reconstruction of a scriptural text or explanation of an obscure meaning that is more faithful to a missing original than those commonly printed in the sacred books. In producing a readable and reliable text the scriptural critic may become the religious devotee's best friend.

⁸ The publication of Book of Mormon Critical Text: A Tool for Scholarly Reference, 3 vols., Provo, FARMS, (1984, 1986, 1987) was a major advance in Book of Mormon studies. Richard P. Howard's Restoration Scriptures, A Study of their Textual Development, Independence, Herald House 1969, rev. 2nd ed. 1995, was also a major contribution (see Robert J. Matthews' review in BYU Studies Vol. 10. No. 2, p. 245-248). Numerous useful theses, dissertations, journal articles, and books have appeared in recent decades, and these have greatly increased our knowledge of the text as first made ready for the printer and later amended by Joseph Smith, Jr. Our understanding of intra-textual details, relationships, and patterns continues to grow as more scholars report on these subjects.

The disciplines of source criticism and higher criticism of the Book of Mormon are in their infancy. Some interesting hints as to how these disciplines may evolve may be found in the structure and content of recent reviews and critiques published in journals like FARMS Review of Books (prev. Review of Books on the Book of Mormon). In some instances these reviews reflect a new attitude of impassionate, insightful, and informative response to scriptural and historical studies emanating from writers of many different backgrounds and persuasions. I find this encouraging because some of the topics so addressed overlap my own specialized interest in parallels, similarities, and possible influences found in pre-1830 American texts. We have left this potential field of discovery to be tended mostly by the anti-Book of Mormon writers and it has seen little in the way of useful scholarship. Serious Book of Mormon scholars have yet to systematically examine the relationship of these parallels to the text. When useful source criticism has been applied it generally has come from writers defending certain points in Book of Mormon historicity or attempting explanations for its textual parallels with biblical passages. Good scholarship can be found within the liberal Mormon press and the restoration history journals and I am hopeful this can provide a positive contribution to Book of Mormon studies. Some of what is being published by Latter Day Saint liberals and "new historians" appears to be little more than borrowings from the anti-Book of Mormon literature, however. Objective scriptural scholars from outside the LDS/RLDS ranks have yet to make significant contributions to Book of Mormon studies. Because of these factors and for related reasons, the present course of Book of Mormon studies has yet to enter into the reaches of objective and productive scholarship typical of academic biblical studies.

⁹ Some readers may refuse the possibility of separating the history of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon from the history recorded within its pages. I admit that the book appears to predict many facts and events which did not come to pass until the time of Joseph Smith, Jr. A strong argument might also be made in opposition to my views by demonstrating that the Book of Mormon provides unique and relevant historic information supplementary to accepted world history. The point I wish to make is that the impact of the book upon our religion and collective experience is of primary importance. If that crucial influence were absent we would not even be discussing the matter.

¹⁰ It is only because I have friends and relatives in the LDS Church and because I know something about the sincerity of their faith that I presume to make the comments offered here. The observation is also personal, in that I must somehow periodically reconcile the acts of religious individualism in my own life with the state of mind and heart appropriate to one entering the sanctuary of what I affirm to be the House of the Lord in Jackson County, Missouri. While I may not need written RLDS Church permission for admission, I can assure the reader that I take my need for spiritual reconciliation in this instance to be just as important as does any devout Latter-Day Saint about to enter a Mormon temple.

¹¹ By "objective study" I mean study that is not strongly influenced by preconceived opinions and personal emotions. Perfect objectivity is probably only found in perfect ignorance or perfect disinterest. Objectivity in scriptural and historical studies is strengthened by a free exchange of information, evidence, and educated opinions. From this interchange emerges an imperfect consensus of fact, probability, and possibility. As investigators we generally betray our preconceived opinions and personal emotions in our choice of working hypotheses, selective use of consensus information, and formulation of personal theories. When we attempt to suspend our initial judgment of the validity of other students' study topics, study methodology, and reported information we strengthen our own objectivity.

By "restoration scriptures" I mean the LDS and RLDS "standard works." These being their respective editions of The Book of Mormon, their versions of The Doctrine And Covenants, Joseph Smith, Jr.'s revision of the Old and New Testaments (as printed by the RLDS), as well as those materials found in The Pearl of Great Price (as printed by the LDS). In this admittedly narrow definition I have not included the Constitution of the USA, the early restoration's "Articles of Faith," restoration hymn texts, revelations, visions, and instruction not printed in the standard works, or any of the allegedly inspired documents once claimed by J. J. Strang's group, Sidney Rigdon's group, or the other small restoration churches of the past and present.

¹² See Robert L. Millet's "Abstract" for "The Book of Mormon, Historicity, and Faith," in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, Fall 1993, p. 1. I am not saying that Dr. Millet has personally accused anyone of such refusal. A strict application of his views might lead to such accusations, however. Some readers may see my position on faith and Book of Mormon historicity as being taken in opposition of Millet's because I have addressed the same subject and phrased the core of my statement in language similar to his. I wish to reiterate that it reflects a personal understanding reached years ago and originally communicated as a testimony to the spiritual message of the Book of Mormon before a rather hostile academic audience. This testimony is very different, both in origin and purpose, from the arguments regarding historicity published by Anthony A. Hutchinson and others in Brent Lee Metcafe's New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Exploration in Critical Methodology, Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1993. No doubt many liberals on the fringes of the restoration movement would see little difference between the scriptural "idolatry" offered by either Dr. Millet or myself.

¹³ I will not delve here into the question of whether or not mysticism has any place in Latter Day Saint religion. The distinction sometimes made between "divine being" and "the Divine Being" may be more a product of theological semantics than one of existential reality. I doubt very much that human language can adequately describe the full meaning of "being," let alone "divine being." Likewise, I see related questions regarding the nature of revelation to be practically unanswerable. The closest I can come to offering my definition is this: Revelation is neither wholly propositional nor wholly non-propositional, but provides results that may be defined in terms relevant to both of these seemingly contradictory explanations. Revelation is an unfolding continuum that is dependent upon a divine encounter in which our humanity is embraced by that which is incalculably greater than ourselves. Our absorption by the divine is the far end of revelation. Our realization of that encounter is the near end of revelation. The medium of the continuum may be called "the Word of God." When we attempt to translate the message of the Word into words much of the communication is lost or imperfectly received (see Truman G. Madsen's "Guest Editor's Prologue" in BYU Studies Vol. 9 No. 3 p. 329 for similar thoughts). That which remains is the divine message reduced to human language and we may begin our quotation of that message with: "Thus saith the Lord." This does not mean our quotation of what was revealed to us is inerrant. The spiral of our spiritual evolution continues. Our capacity to communicate and understand the message evolves along that spiral.

¹⁴ The incautious reader might be tempted to recite some words in reference to certain higher priesthood offices or offices of ecclesiastical administration in a particular faith community and consider the question answered. The inquiry I am making should be considered on a more subtle level. I am not attempting to "redefine the faith" of the Saints. (See John W. Welch's review of Brent Lee Metcafe's New Approaches to the Book of Mormon. . . , in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6 No. 1 Spring 1994, esp. p. 182). But I am asking for some deeper consideration of what prophetic authority is, given the current doctrinal restraints of "the faith." And, beyond this, I am asking how our understandings would be applied in defining prophetic authority throughout the history of the Judeo-Christian tradition, from the level of the individual to the level of the chief prophets of more than one covenant people. Also, whether any resultant definitions would be terminal or provisional (subject to restatement as we gain a greater understanding of revelation and prophecy). I would suppose that only God could properly "redefine the faith" and that such redefinition would ultimately be only a restatement of what has already been revealed, albeit a new revelation to our evolving comprehension. We should not discount the possibility of such new revelation redefining our current beliefs concerning scripture. I would expect such revelation would come through traditional channels within a faith community. Even so, I doubt very much that God is limited in any way by our expectations. How, for example, might revelation pertaining to more than a single community of faith be received? Such questions are relevant to this more subtle consideration.

¹⁵ I do not mean to say that faith-promoting works cannot be valuable additions to "the building of the Kingdom" and I mean no disrespect towards LDS scholars (whether faithful or otherwise) in aiming my comments in their direction. I doubt that I fully comprehend their contemporary environment or the extent of their recent contributions to restoration scriptural studies. From what I have heard and read I occasionally see that I share considerable common ground both with them and with some of the RLDS fundamentalists. At least neither of these two groups of Saints views the Book of Mormon as being little more than an inspirational work of fiction concocted by Joseph Smith, Jr. It appears likely that any dramatic new realizations in Book of Mormon studies and restored gospel spirituality will be most evident among devout Mormons of the next century. Such spiritual realization would not depend so much upon the thoughts of open-minded Mormon liberals, intellectuals, and "new historians" as it would upon the actions of intelligent, open-hearted Latter-Day Saints and their prophetic leaders. With this thought in mind, my own concerns parallel some of those expressed by BYU Professor Louis Midgley, Ph.D. in his article "The Radical Reformation of the Reorganization of the Restoration: Recent Changes in the RLDS Understanding of the Book of Mormon," in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, Fall 1993, pp. 132-163. (See also Midgley's various comments in his review of Dan Vogel's The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 3, 1991 pp. 261-311). I fully endorse the free and open discussion Midgley calls for in the concluding statement of his "Radical Reformation" article. As for what "the building of the Kingdom" will mean to coming generations of Latter Day Saints, perhaps we all have a less than perfect vision of that future.

Dale R. Broadhurst ( dbroadhu@gte.net ) is a former Professor of Language Arts Education for Chung Hua Institute, Taiwan. His most recent position was that of Institutional Researcher and Academic Program Evaluator for Northern Marianas College, Saipan. He retired from 15 years' work in higher education and educational volunteer service in Asia and the Pacific in 1997. His ancestors and their family members associated with several different restoration churches. In 1981 Mr. Broadhurst received his Masters degree in Christian Education from the Methodist Theological School in Ohio. His thesis project was an examination of the textual correspondence between the Book of Mormon and the Oberlin Spalding Manuscript, and he has presented unpublished papers on this subject. He is the web-host for The Spalding Studies Home Page. He and his wife, Elizabeth, reside in Hilo, Hawaii where Mr. Broadhurst is a member of the local RLDS branch.

View Mr. Broadhurst's semi-friendly replies to some of the Tanners' Publications: #1 #2

Site Index