*This essay is not a declaration of my own personal faith but rather an attempt to present a possible paradigm from which those who struggle with elements of historicity in the LDS tradition might benefit*
The recently amplified discussion over the Book of Abraham, spurred Dr. Brian Hauglid’s retirement from BYU’s Ancient Scripture department and associated publication “The Pearl of Great Price: Mormonism’s Most Controversial Scripture” (not to mention a somewhat controversial interview with Radio Free Mormon[1] ), has left me thinking on the culture of orthodoxy within the LDS church, the value of belief vs. “knowing,” and whether there is a place for those who interpret scripture in a way that is different than the traditionally held narrative of fundamentalist LDS teachings (i.e. that the Book of Mormon is a direct translation of an authentic historical record).
It is not new information (to most) that the 8th Article of Faith of the LDS church states, “we believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly.” This statement has been a particularly liberal point of LDS theology when viewed from the traditional Christian narrative, allowing members to have a flexible hermeneutic when approaching the Biblical text. However, with the introduction of The Book of Mormon stating that the Prophet Joseph Smith “told the brethren that it was the most correct of any book on the earth,”[2]it seems that such a flexible hermeneutic is not possible as one examines the Book of Mormon, a view often extended to the additional corpus of the LDS cannon. Thus, it holds that the orthodox LDS view of the Book of Mormon is that it is indeed authentic history, translated from an ancient record, as authorized church history details.
With that in mind, let us consider the unique nature of the LDS cannon, in that we have the Bible, the Book of Mormon, as well as The Pearl of Great Price. The Book of Abraham reflects the BOM’s origin story in that it is believed by orthodox believers and by its own description that it is in fact a “translation of some ancient records”[3] that Joseph had acquired, specifically, papyri that Joseph states was written “by his own hand” (Abraham’s hand), “on papyrus.”[4]
It is assumed by most that the papyri Joseph used to translate the Book of Abraham are the facsimiles presented along with the text[5]. Yet, a close look at scholarship now openly published by the LDS church admits that “None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.”[6]
With the above information in mind, it is somewhat ironic that many self-identified LDS faithful have found reason to throw stones (to use Biblical verbiage) at former BYU professor and scholar Brian Hauglid for openly admitting that his views on the Book of Abraham have changed since his 2010 publication of “A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions.” Though not widely discussed, if the church itself has openly stated that the facsimiles included in the Pearl of Great Price are in fact not related to the text of the Book of Abraham (to be fair, there are numerous theories surrounding this conundrum), why then do we feel the need to hold fast to the idea of the Book of Mormon being a direct translation when we as a church do not view the Bible that way, do not view the Book of Moses that way (though the narrative on the Book of Moses has always been one of a revelatory experience), nor do we claim that the facsimiles printed along with the Book of Abraham represent the text associated with the facsimiles? It is evident that within our tradition and from our history, we can find still find divine value from something that was assumed to be a direct translation but has later been shown to be otherwise.
Holding all this in mind, it seems that there may be a growing space and need for a more flexible hermeneutic within LDS approach to scripture that would require a redemptive view of our history and our narrative.
In conclusion, what does mysticism have to do with any of this?
According to Britannica, mysticism is defined to mean “the sense of some sort of contact with the divine or transcendent, often understood in the Christian tradition as involving union with God.”[7] With that in mind, it would seem that mysticism very much has a place within the LDS perspective (though many would staunchly disagree). For many, mysticism denotes a sense of the unexplainable, or the supernatural---something quite far, in fact, from the orthodox literalist narrative many LDS faithful find both necessary and comforting.
However, when one considers the many aspects of church history that are either contradictory or anomaly as viewed from the orthodox lens, it would appear that a mystical (and I would add, flexible) view of the LDS tradition is not only helpful, but in fact, is growing increasingly necessary.
In his recent work on Joseph Smith’s usage of Adam Clarke’s commentary on the Bible, BYU Professor of Classics Thomas Wayment suggests that “with respect to the production of the Bible revision and the Book of Abraham, Smith’s translation efforts involved not only the experience of a supernatural gift, but a natural engagement with ancient languages, including the realization that he was augmenting his own meager language skills by probing the work of established scholars.”[8]
For those who hold a literalist, perhaps even “naturalist” philosophical view of the church, this scholarly declaration of the supernatural presents both a problem and an opportunity for a paradigm shift for how the LDS faithful view their history.
Catholic Theologian Karl Rahner stated that “The Christian of the future will be a mystic or will not exist at all.”[9]
As one looks at the complexities of LDS history, the reality of non-dualistic experience, and the variations of how an individual experiences faith, it seems plausible to say that the Latter-day Saint of the future will be mystic or not exist at all.
[1] https://radiofreemormon.org/2020/07/radio-free-mormon-184-the-brian-hauglid-interview/ [2] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng [3] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?lang=eng [4] Ibid. [5] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-1?lang=eng [6] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true [7] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/Christian-mysticism [8] Chapter 11, McKay, Ashurst-McGee, and Hauglid. Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity. University of Utah Press, 2020. Pp 279-280. [9] Karl Rahner, “Christian Living Formerly and Today,” Theological Investigations VII, trans. David Bourke, Herder and Herder, 1971, 15.
Comments