The earliest known published reference to the Book of Mormon, ca. 1829.

Matt Roper from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship (formerly FARMS) has managed to track down, compile, and scan 556 publications discussing the Book of Mormon from between 1829 and 1844. The collection, called “19th-Century Publications about the Book of Mormon (1829–1844)” (also known as the “Kirkham project” after Francis W. Kirkham), is available for digging through online at the Harold B. Lee Library Digital Collections.

The collection includes facsimile copies as well as .pdf transcriptions of each publication. It seems to be an exciting resource for researching the reception and analysis of the Book of Mormon in early American print culture. The collection is described as follows:

“Since its publication in 1830, the Book of Mormon has been cast in a variety of roles by both Latter-day Saint and non–Latter-day Saint readers. Published literature relating to the book that appeared during the Prophet Joseph Smith’s lifetime is one of the best historical windows for understanding how this ancient American scripture was interpreted, used, and understood by early readers. This collection represents an effort to gather together that body of literature and make it available to those interested in the origins of the Book of Mormon.”

The cropped image above is an excerpt from The Wayne Sentinel, Palmyra, New York, 26 June 1829. It is the earliest known publication mentioning the Book of Mormon. Here’s part of the provided transcript:

Just about in this particular region, for some time past, much speculation has existed, concerning a pretended discovery, through superhuman means, of an ancient record, of a religious and a divine nature and origin, written in ancient characters, impossible to be interpreted by any to whom the special gift has not been imparted by inspiration. It is generally known and spoken of as the “Golden Bible.” Most people entertain an idea that the whole matter is the result of a gross imposition and a grosser superstition. It is pretended that it will be published as soon as the translation is completed. Meanwhile we have been furnished with the following, which is represented to us as intended for the title page of the work–we give it as a
curiosity:—
“The Book of Mormon, an account, written by the hand of Mormon upon plates, taken
from the plates of Nephi—

See the collection here: http://lib.byu.edu/dlib/bompublications/. Having these sources in one place is great. I hope it grows, too.

In his paper titled “LDS Historical Rhetoric & Praxis Regarding Marriage Between Whites and Blacks,” Connell O’Donovan asserts that Brigham Young’s fear of black sexuality was the reason he prohibited black-white marriage and instigated the priesthood-temple ban, and that Young’s resistance to black-white marriage must be seen within the context of his own marital experimentation which at that time was receiving scrutiny via the press and the Massachusetts State Supreme Court. He then lists several topics of discussion, such as, examples of inter-racial marriages in LDS history, the fruition of anti-miscegenation laws under BY, statements about black-white marriage from the Deseret News, and eventually how LDS leaders abandoned their restrictions against black-white marriage. Or, as O’Donovan puts it, “unnecessary restrictions on the boundaries of love and marriage.”

His paper also demonstrates that LDS feelings at one time were deeply hostile to black-white marriage and that many Latter-day Saints believed black-white marriages would never be permitted, etc.

With that in mind, he doesn’t explicitly state the purpose of his paper. If it is to parade prejudicial attitudes once held by many Mormons, and Mormon leaders, then why talk about gay marriage? Though he doesn’t come out and say it explicitly, his paper is principally, though indirectly, about gay marriage.

His declamations about LDS attitudes toward black-white marriage ultimately serve his beliefs about Mormonism and gay marriage. In the past (and not-so-distant past) many Mormons believed black-white marriages were really bad and held rather racist attitudes towards blacks. But eventually the LDS Church abandoned their antiquated beliefs. He then draws on those former attitudes to create parallels with current attitudes about homosexuals and homosexual marriage. By building on those parallels O’Donovan takes those feelings of shame and embarrassment about the past and attaches them to present-day negative attitudes about homosexuality, gays, and gay marriage. From there he creates a sense that the past changed for the better and hopefully the present situation will too.

As far as BY’s involvement in a rather embarrassing divorce—BY had married a plural wife, Augusta Cobb, who had not yet divorced her first husband—I don’t see the relevance. Why must BY’s resistance to black-white marriage be “seen within the context of his own marital experimentation”? One would think O’Donovan would build a solid case that very strong assertion. But instead, he chickens out by posing and then answering the question, “Did Young then turn and take out his frustrations on a group of ‘inferiors’?…it would certainly seem so.” Though he doesn’t build a much of case for his assertion as to why BY’s opposition to black-white marriage “must also be seen within the context of his own marital experimentation” (italics mine), as a parallel device it works. BY took out his fear on those who were an easy target and today the LDS Church takes out its fear on homosexuals who are also an easy target.

O’Donovan’s paper fails as serious historical inquiry. As an exhibition of dirty laundry he succeeds, but ends up with a rather confused paper. As polemics creating a connection between abandoned, embarrassing attitudes about race and soon to be abandoned (he hopes) attitudes about homosexuals and gay marriage, he succeeds.

In other words, his paper is a nice piece of propaganda.

Drawing on the past

O’Donovan’s paper is a variation on the theme, “The patterns of the past are the patterns of the future.”

BY’s fear about black male sexuality prompted a ban on black-white marriage (an attitude the church eventually abandoned); the Church’s ban on homosexual marriage comes from its attitudes about homosexual sex (an perhaps that too will be abandoned). The church abandoned plural marriage and will eventually abandon opposition to gay marriage. The church dropped its priesthood ban and eventually will drop its own ban on gay marriage. In the past Mormons had racist attitudes against blacks, but that changed; Mormons will eventually abandon their attitudes against homosexuality. At one time laws prohibited black-white marriage; and one day laws prohibiting gay-marriage will also be history. The push for gay marriage is a continuation of the civil rights movement which overturned many discriminatory laws and attitudes. It will continue and eventually overturn laws and attitudes against gay marriage. Since Mormons find some aspects of their past embarrassing; one day they will feel embarrassment about present-day opposition to gay marriage…But why wait. Start change now!

That is how the usual polemic goes. I’ll write more in another post, but this will do for now.

“Readers have no way of knowing which critical claims have already been discredited, and the anti-Mormon sponsors are certainly not going to tell them right there on the site,” he said.

The democratization of ideas sometimes confuses the reader as to what is true and what is not, as all ideas are presented horizontally and as fact, thus positioning the blogger’s flippant opinion alongside the scholar’s well-researched dissertation.

Last week on a message board someone took note of Dr. Gregory Smith’s article that reports statistics from the 1850 Census and from pre-exodus Nauvoo that shows that age differences between spouses were substantial back then. There was some thoughtful discussion taking issue with GLS’s plea to avoid presentism and some brought up aspects of Joseph’s plural marriages that would have been unacceptable even for that time (like bigamy, which I have actually blogged on recently.)

Then the discussion went backwards, when one poster, despite the statistics to the contrary claimed “”the age of marriage in 19th Century America was probably later than it is now and teenage girls that did marry usually did so to boys more their own age and not men 20+ plus years older.” Even though this forum does not allow any defense of the Church I thought that posting some objective numbers would be helpful.

As far as average age, 1980 was close to 1840, but there has been a lot of movement since.
1840 SMAM 22.4
1980 SMAM 22.9
2008 SMAM 26.6
SMAM = Singulate Mean Age At (first) Marriage [1]

10% of 2008 brides were teens compared to 43% in 1840. [2]

1850 grooms aged 34-38: wife averaged 10.1 years younger, 19% were teens
Joseph Smith: wives averaged 6.7 years younger, 30% were teens.

USA Long Term Age Dependent Cumulative Marriage Rates

The poster making the claims I addressed, helpfully linked to some items thought to call the statistics I presented in question. Otherwise, the ad hominem reaction I received brought Hafen’s remarks into focus for me.  In a sense, it doesn’t matter how well I research and publish statistics in forthcoming scholarly venues on 19^th century nuptiality. Anti-Mormon sponsors will hardly ever acknowledge that a criticism has been addressed or seriously engage empirical that does not support their paradigm. Wanting to not reciprocate, below I will address one of the statistical claims made in my interlocuter’s supporting links.

Claim: “ In Utah (1850s to 1890s), the average age of a 2nd wife was 17 (husband average age early 30s) and the average age of a third wife was 19 (husband average age mid to late 30s). The average age in the USA for a first marriage in the late 19th century was about 22.”

I want to be the first to acknowledge when an ex-mormon researcher gets something right. The numbers given for USA average is in the right ballpark for female first marriages. The given typical ages for husbands depending on marriage scenario are also probably defensible, even if they lack context. For example they could have addressed how serial monogamists or older single men in their 30s married back then. To return to my earlier point, using 1850 “marrinyr” data from IPUMS, men aged 34-38 married women 10+/-6 years younger than themselves. Using all men lessens the gap to 5+/-6. I am reporting mean and standard deviation to the nearest integer. Men in their 40s were 13+/-10 years older than their wives (11% teens).

Let’s move on to testing the claims about wives’ mean ages being 5 years below the national average during the plural marriage era. The table below analyzes the 1880 census. It shows that Utah’s overall average and its Coale-McNeil minimum age was very close to that of the West.

1880 10% Census Sample [3]

Many scholarly papers [4] have made use of the massive Utah Population Database. Regarding marital ages depending on wife order, it has been found that the mean of the ages of the first and second wife of a polygamous man is roughly the same as that as the average age of all monogamous wives. Put more simply, in a mixed polygynous/monogamous the society the ages of each sub-group track each other. Over time, first wives can be up to a year younger than monogamous wives and second wives up to a year or so older than monogamous wives. Contrary to the claim above, third wives were typically older than 23. In short, the 1880 census numbers above support the average ages being around 20.5 and not 17. On the other hand, Kathryn Daynes [5] estimates that during the Mormon Reformation in Manti average marital ages got much lower (~16.5 years). However the situation soon corrected itself and returned to above 20.

Bean and Mineau [6] divided Utah men into 3 birth cohorts. The last one (1840-1859) is of the most interest since it was the most active group around 1880.

[1] SMAM calculated using Hajnal’s method on raw data extracted from IPUMS. 1840 SMAM estimated using procedure outlined in previous blog entry and comments.

[2] % take into account age structure. More information about my methodology can be found in the link immediately above. Some adjustments have been made. 1) I assume a more conservative Coale-McNeil minimum age for 1800-1840 of 13.8. 2) I have added constraints in my numerical optimization routine to not overestimate the marriage rate at 14.5 years (to prevent minimum age from being underestimated). This sometimes results in an increase of about 0.3 years. 3) After 1940 I use a general log-gamma distribution on the first pass to get a tighter fit than the Coale-McNeil distribution. The result is that teen percentage in 2008 is actually closer to 8.5% rather than 10% as reported above.

[3] Census Division Map at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf

Min Age = Coale-McNeil minimum age of eligibility. Equal to AI Mean – 1.73 X standard deviation

AD Mean = Age Dependent average (takes population pyramid into account, closer match to marriage year cohort, county records )

% are cumulative percentages of brides in marriage cohort married by the end of the designated age. For instance 21.5% were married as teens in New England.

I should note that the chart shows a worst case comparison for Utah by not allowing the optimization routine to underestimate Min Age. If Utah had been processed like the other regions its Min Age increases to 14.0.

[4] Some papers I have found to be useful are:

G. P. Mineau, L. L. Bean, M. Skolnick, “Mormon Demographic History II: The Family Life Cycle and Natural Fertility,” Population Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Nov., 1979), pp. 429-446

Lee L. Bean, Geraldine Mineau, Douglas Anderton, “ Residence and Religious Effects on Declining Family Size: An Historical Analysis of the Utah Population,”  Review of Religious Research, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Dec., 1983), pp. 91-101

[5] Kathryn M. Daynes, More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840–1910 (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 107.

[6]  L. L. Bean and G. P. Mineau , “The Polygyny-Fertility Hypothesis: a Re-evaluation,”   Population Studies, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 67-81 see the table on p. 72. The other birth cohorts had higher age differences as plural marriage was phased in.

I surely accept the idea that the general statement about Open Theism is one that we would all want to accept and is consistent with Mormon Thought. Clark Pinnock describes open theism as a situation where there”… is genuine interaction between God and his creations, where God enters into reciprocal give-and-take relations with this creations, and where God responds to what his creations do.” It is an attempt to “…bring out the personal nature of God and [the participants] want, in their own distinctive ways, to lift up the conviction that God is “open” and that he exists in a significant relationship with the creature.”

Although we may have trouble with the concept envisioned by the use of the word “creature” we nevertheless as LDS would agree with this basic desire and approach. In the dialogue between Pinnock and David Paulsen they attempted to find common points of “contact” and to learn from each other. I find the approach refreshing.

If anyone would like to read along the article can be found in “BYU Studies. Vol 48,No 2, 2009, pgs 50-110” The longer version of the exchange is found in in Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies.

If we went no further than the basic idea that we have a relationship with God we would all be open theists. But, as so often is the case, the devil is in the details. Paulsen suggested that “Perhaps the best way to see how our respective approaches to scripture, reason, and experience actually operate is to consider several doctrinal points case by case.” To which Pinnock responded, “To that end, then, I wish to put on the table several specific items that will foster conversation between open and LDS theists.” Note that the attempt is to find points of comparative agreement so as to foster communication. The goal was not to find points of contention. Note also that Pinnock clearly notes that “open theists” and “LDS theists” are two different groups – with, as will be noted, real differences. Paulsen also implied this with the comment about “…our respective approaches…”

So let us consider some of the points made by these two esteemed scholars.

1. Divine Embodiment

Pinnock says this is not something that Open theists has been comfortable with. He admits to the possibility of God’s having, or at least assuming in the case of Jesus, embodied ways. But the nature of God to open theists is of a spiritual nature, not a God with a body.

Paulsen obviously believes that God has a body and quotes D&C 130:22-23

2. Plurality of Gods and Spiritual Warfare

Pinnock does not really seem to understand the question from an LDS point of view. He admits to a plurality of gods (lower case) but does not resolve the question of fallen gods or some other nature. He expresses no opinion on spiritual warfare.

Paulsen speaks of eternal beings with free will and therefore there is sometimes opposition to divine will, and therefore “warfare.”

3. Theosis and Deification

Pinnock accepts the idea of theosis with the idea that we can share the glory of God. He views this result as not changing the concept of man as creatures (i.e., not of the same nature as God). He rejects the idea of deification and man becoming gods (and surely not Gods), even though he is aware of early Christians speaking of our destiny in these terms.

Paulsen says that there is no “…ontological barrier preventing mankind from becoming all that God is and enjoying the same kind of life that God lives…” He is puzzled by LDS scholars that make claims to the contrary. (Is he speaking of Ostler and others who agree with him?) Whereas open theology recognizes a significant gap between God and his creatures, LDS thought recognizes no such gap.

4. The Omniscience of God

This is an area of agreement between the two. Both recognize that there are in both communities, people who argue both sides of the question. Both those that believe in foreknowledge and those that do not. Both give respect to both views – which is refreshing.

5. God, Gender, and the Divine Feminine

Pinnock says that Open Theists deny that God has a gender. And of course do not accept the idea of a Divine Feminine. He asks if the LDS view on this could have come from some pagan Semitic ideas.

Paulsen, naturally, presents the idea of God being Male and the absolute real existence of a “Mrs. God.”

6. The Social Trinity

Pinnock says that both Open Theists and LDS hold to a social trinity. But, he then describes something a bit different from what I understand. In fact he says, “For Latter-day Saints, the Trinity is a little differently understood. It consists of three individual personal and separate beings… They are distinct persons.” This seems to suggest that Open Theists believe in something close to a traditional understanding of Trinity, yet they say no. As with most non-LDS descriptions of God, especially as they stay close to the creeds, it is difficult to understand exactly what they do mean. He reaffirms that he is speaking of monotheism, whereas Paulsen is not.

Paulsen also says that Open Theists reject the traditional view of the Godhead being of one metaphysical substance, looking more to a oneness of purpose and understanding. But then is corrected in further comments by Pinnock. He then speaks of our belief in three beings in substance, but one in purpose, etc. A big difference here.

7. God and the Creation

Pinnock points out that Open Theists believe in “creatio ex nihilo” although he prefers the term “creatio ex amore”

Paulsen points out that LDS do not believe in such a concept.

8. The Omnipotence of God

Pinnock believes that any limitations on God’s power are voluntary self limiting.

Paulsen believes that God is inherently limited. LDS believe that this limitation is a “…metaphysical reality, while openness thinkers claim that God voluntarily limits himself.”

9. Theodicy: The Problem of Evil

Pinnock does not have a good answer for the origin of evil. He speaks of it existing because God voluntarily limits His power over evil to maintain mankind’s freedom. He acknowledges that Open Theology does not have a good answer for this question.

Paulsen points out that creation ex nihilo makes God the source of evil and that we look at the question quite differently. He points out that the eternal nature of all God’s children makes evil eternally co-existent with creation and with God.

In the longer book version I recall that there were more points of dialogue, but these serve to make the point I want to make. If you claim to be an Open Theist then you accept the perception of other knowledgeable people, at least those that have an inkling of what Open Theists believe, that you will be saddled with the perception that you believe the above points as they do. And I surely hope that you do not. For you cannot agree with their positions on these questions and truly agree with the LDS positions at the same time.

If one wants to be thought of as an “open theist” and be a mormon at the same time it would be important, at least in my mind, to point out that you agree only in part and that, at best, you are a “modified or partial Open Theist.”

Hence my concerns.

Comments are welcome and encouraged. I believe that I represented both points of view accurately, but this is such a short presentation it cannot be a complete view of each position.

The discussion [on Open Theism] always ends up focused on whether God knows and must know everything in fine detail that ever has or will ever happen. Some insist that this has to be the case.

But the fact is that Latter-day Saints are strictly Open Theists, if any group of believer fit that label. Why? The reason is that creedal Christians, and this includes everyone who is locked into what is often called classical theism, ends up picturing God with attributes that Latter-day Saints from day one flatly reject. One is an Open Theist or can be described as such, if one is uncomfortable with or rejects classical theism. What do I mean by classical theism?

In what I am calling classical theism, and I am following a long line of authors in using this label, the divine attributes are such that Latter-day Saints flatly reject all of them, if they are understood from the perspective of those who hold them or from what is called the worldview they ground. In no particular order, I will identify these attributes. One must sense that these are not separable, meaning that one cannot coherently accept some of them and reject others. Put another way, they fit together into what those who hold them insist is a single coherent worldview.

In classical theism, the divine attributes consist of the following:

1. God is Unconditioned–that is, it is the Unconditional, meaning that it is not dependent on anything else. This is sometimes called aseity, which is a word meaning, I believe, “from self.”

2. God is Being. Think of the Greek word on from which we get ontology and remember how that word is used to qualify it in sectarian conversations. But one must understand that it is not just any old being. It is not even a being that exists somewhere–that is, is not corporeal. Instead, it is Being-Itself or the isness in everything that is. This explains why it is sometimes called the Supreme Being.

3. God is Eternal. This does not mean, in classical theism, that God just goes on and on, but that it is timeless. There is no time for it, meaning no past or future; it does not experience temporal sequence. If there as a past and future, then it would not be unconditional and would not has aseity and so forth.

4. God is Pure Actuality, meaning for it there is no potentiality. God is everything that it can possibly be.

5. God is Simple, meaning that it has no parts or is not a compound of anything.

6. God is Self-sufficient, meaning that it does not need anything, including us.

7. God is Incorporeal or Immaterial, meaning It is not embodied, however one thinks of bodies or material things.

8. God is Impassive, meaning that it is wholly apathetic about everything.

9. God is Wholly Other, meaning it is not like anything we can possibly experience.

10. God is Omnipotent, meaning that God has all power.

11. God is Omniscient, meaning God knows everything.

12. God is Creator and we are mere creature, meaning it created everything out of nothing and at that moment determined everything that can ever possibly happen.

13. God is really Real, while everything that it created is only real depending on the degree to which it participates in the ground of what is the only ultimate Reality.

14. God is Changeless.

In the various often competing and conflicting theologies that rest on classical theism, there are, of course, a host of disagreements about fine points. But it is clear that no petition addressed to God can really be heard, and none can possibly be answered, since that would entail a future and change and so forth. The future for human beings, understood as mere creatures, is wholly determined by the Sovereign God at the moment of creation. This explains why classical theists insist that God must not be involved with a plan, since planning and working to achieve what is planned runs directly in the face of about half of the what classical theists attribute to God

One final note: the passion with which classical theists have pushed their picture of the divine attributes can be seen in those instances in which theologians have insisted that nothing can be affirmed about God. One can only say what God is not. This is called the via negativa (or negative way). After insisting on this notion, theologians then write fat books about Divine things.

Conclusion: what is called Open Theism is a challenge to several of the divine attributes as set out above. This is good news for Latter-day Saints, since we need allies in our own conflict with classical theism. This does not mean that every Open Theist has a single way of seeing things or that we agree with any of the various versions of Open Theism. But the fact is that we simply must agree with much of what Open Theists believe, since what Joseph Smith taught flies in the face of classical theism. … For the record, I believe that God knows everything that such a being can know, but I must admit that I have no idea what that means, since I am not all that sure about much of what I think I know or exactly how I know it.

Reviewed by Trevor Holyoak

This is the second book to be released in the Joseph Smith Papers
project, and the first volume of the Revelations and Translations
series. It is a “facsimile edition” of Revelation Book 1 (also known as
“Book of Commandments and Revelations”) and Revelation Book 2 (“Book of
Revelation” or “Kirtland Revelation Book”). It is quite large, measuring
approximately 9.25 by 12.25 inches and weighing nearly 8 pounds. This
means it won’t quite match the previously released Journals volume on
your shelf (which it effectively dwarfs), but apparently there will be a
few other volumes of the same size to go along with it, so the finished
set of 30+ volumes should end up looking quite nice together, in spite
of the two sizes. And there is a very good reason for the larger size –
the body of the book consists of photographs of each page of the two
books, with the photos on the left side, and a transcription running
parallel on the right.

Both manuscript books were used for keeping revelations, which were
written into them by scribes such as Oliver Cowdery, Orson Hyde, W. W.
Phelps, Sidney Rigdon, John Whitmer, and Frederick Williams, as well as
Joseph Smith. The books were also used in publishing many of the
revelations in the church’s first newspaper (“The Evening and the
Morning Star”), the Book of Commandments, and the Doctrine and
Covenants. Most of the revelations contained in the books are the
earliest extant versions. There are also some of which no other copy is
known to be in existence. Nine of them have never been published as
scripture.

This volume contains general reference material similar to what was in
the previously published Journals volume, such as a timeline of Joseph
Smith’s life, maps, and series and volume introductions. It also has a
scribal directory and tables showing where each item has been published
in “The Evening and Morning Star,” the Book of Commandments, and
Latter-day Saint and Community of Christ editions of the Doctrine and
Covenants, where applicable. What it does not contain is historical or
contextual information for each revelation. Instead, it contains
detailed information about what is on each page, with color-coded
transcriptions to identify each scribe who wrote anything on the page or
made changes. There will be a Documents series that will concentrate on
the earliest and best versions and will put each revelation into
context, whereas the present series helps us to see all the changes that
were made in each revelation, as they were composed and then prepared
for publication.

One of the revelations contains valuable information to help us
understand the process of reception and recording of revelation: “I am
God & have spoken it[.] these commandments are of me & were given unto
my Servants in their weakness after the manner of their Language that
they might come to understanding.” Although the revelations were from
God, there were limitations inherent in expressing them in the language
used by the people receiving them, and appropriate changes were made to
many of them prior to publication, which are easily studied in this
volume. [1]

Each manuscript page was photographed in high enough resolution to
produce a file of about 229 megabytes in size and the process is
described in detail. The photographs in the book have been reduced
significantly for print, but the original files are still available for
research. Techniques such as multispectral imaging were used to reveal
things that were invisible to the human eye, such as a notation that had
been written in graphite and then erased. Between the transcription and
the annotations, everything on the manuscript page is thoroughly
described, down to pinholes in the paper.

I found it very enjoyable to be able to see and read the revelations I
am already familiar with from the scriptures, in the handwriting of
people like Joseph Smith and Olivery Cowdery. I also found the material
which had not been canonized to be very interesting. One such item is
apparently a song:

Sang by the gift of Tongues and 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 writen 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
Hozana Hozana the sound of the trump around the throne
of God and echoed & echoed again and rang and
reechoed until eternity was filled with his
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 father
was made and he saw that he was in
eternity before a grain of dust in the
ballance was weighed he saw that he em
-enated 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 Angel
that came down to John and the Angel that [is]
now flying having the everlasting gospel to com
mit [unto] men- which in my soul I have recivd
and from death and bondage from the Devil
I’m freed [and] am free in the gospel of Christ
and Im waiting and with patience Ill wait
on the Lord hozana loud sound the trump cause
eternity to wring hozana for ever Im 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 Bride groom prepare
ye prepare yea the cry has gone forth go wait on
the Lord the Angels in glory will soon be descending
go 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, gaze ye
saints gaze ye upon him, gaze upon Jesus
hozana loud sound the trump his church is
caught up hozana 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 writen the City of God, Loud sound
the trump, they receive a celestial crown hozana
hozana the heaven of heavens and the heavens
are filled with [the] praises of God Amen
Given February 27- 1833- [2]
This volume should be helpful for scholars as well as anyone interested
in church history or the production of modern scripture. Reading the
revelations in the handwriting of those involved is a different
experience from reading the typeset versions in our scriptures. I have
found it to be a spiritual experience, which will lead me to treasure
the book for more than just the educational interest it originally held
for me.

Footnotes:

[1] The volume introduction discusses the appropriateness of editing
revelations beginning on page xxvii, where the quoted portion appears
which later became D&C 1:24. It is then discussed further on pages 6 and
7. For another good explanation of how revelation can be received and
then revised to better communicate what was intended, see “To Acquire
Spiritual Guidance” by Elder Richard G. Scott, given in General
Conference, October 2009 (
http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1117-2,00.html ).

[2] Pages 509-511. The accompanying annotation says “No other version of
this item exists to provide additional detail about its creation, so its
authorship is unknown. This item was never canonized.” According to the
color coding, the original inscription was by Frederick G. Williams and
Joseph Smith made a few corrections.

William Hamblin’s own summary of methodology:

If one wishes to discuss divergent models for the origin of the Book of Mormon, the proper methodology to be followed is: 1—Assume that the book is an authentic ancient record and analyze it from this perspective; . . . 2—Assume that the book is a nineteenth-century document and analyze it from this perspective; 3—Compare and contrast the successes, failures, and relative explanatory power of the results of these studies; 4—Attempt to discover which model is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the text

From Hamblin’s critique of Nibley:  (I am trying to put things in my own words, though)

1. Parallels should come from the right time. It doesn’t do to assume uniformity of thought and culture for a given area.
2. Parallels should come from the right place. A hemispheric region for an ancient setting is overly broad, just as a modern setting that Joseph Smith studying foreign and European literature is also overly broad.
3. Anti-parallels should not be ignored.
4. A multi-dimensional approach should be used: for example use tools from both from comparative literature and historical reconstruction.

From Brant Gardner’s review of Wirth [I am not quite as skeptical as Brant G. is about the worth of Spanish parallels]:

1. Be very cautious in the uses of secondary sources. (discern reliability of cited scholars, recognize the influence of mediating cultural layers that add distortion. Example, Spanish christianizing Mesoamerican legends.)
2. Similarity in elements is not necessarily evidence of  an indication of a historical connection. Further argumentation is required: show that paralleling elements have unique “features that would be difficult to replicate by independent invention.”
3. Do deal with anti-parallels, but be wary of using a “silly putty” classification scheme for parallels and anti-parallels. For example, having a scheme where parallels represent the original deposit of faith while anti-parallels are a result of apostasy or mistransmitted oral traditions. (Popper: “theories that explain so much and that seem to be immune to falsification ought to arouse our suspicion.”)
4. See Hamblin’s #1 above (#2 is less of a problem for Wirth (narrower area), but there are still problems with some ideas crossing over between antagonistic cultures in the same area).
5. Recognize that rhetorical skill can artificially strengthen or weaken a parallel.

From Poulsen’s review of Norman:

1. Control for “the Light is better over here” phenomenon. Recognize that more information is available for some settings than others, which increases the odds of getting false positives.

That isn’t to say that I don’t have some reservation about some of O’Donovan’s treatment.  In my indirect review of the Walker Lewis article,  I disagreed with his take that if Brigham had had his way, Danites would have offed a mixed race couple. O’Donovan presents his case about blood atonement a little better this time around, but I will argue in PART II that it is still lacking. I have also been concerned when O’Donovan imputes various emotions to persons.

I noticed that, but not in writing, that O’Donovan made a lengthy aside about William Smith’s infidelities in the Lewis bio that seemed to serve no purpose other than to embarrass a general authority. I didn’t see much point in covering Brigham Young’s marriage with Augusta Cobb, which has no direct bearing on interracial marriages. That isn’t to say that  no insight can be gained by comparing one form of historically forbidden marriages to another. However, I think O’Donovan handling of the Cobb-Young marriage clouds any insight that could potentially be gained. I don’t think I am helping matters much by focusing a good chunk of this review on it.

The Cobb-Young Marriage

O’Donovan asserts that “church leaders forbade any LDS man from marrying a woman who was not single, widowed, or divorced.” That may have been the general rule but there are notable exceptions to it, some even legal.

• Some 50 years earlier the Jackson-Robards marriage had created quite a stir.  Robards had separated from her husband in Kentucky December 1790 and, believing herself to be divorced, eloped with Andrew Jackson to Mississippi the next August. Although technically illegal, telling Andrew Jackson that he or his wife was an adulterer would likely land one in a duel (AJ had at least 13) or even killed (1 duel casualty).
• A legal, church sanctioned remarriage occurred between Newell Knight and undivorced Lydia Bailey (believed not to be a widow) in Ohio [4]. A woman abandoned by her husband for over three years could remarry without a formal divorce according to an 1824 Ohio bigamy statute. It had been recently bumped up to five years, but the clerks and parties involved were unaware of that.
• The 1831 Illinois bigamy law had clause that allowed remarriage without a divorce like Ohio after a five year absence of the spouse.
• “Serial bigamy was a form of marital refashioning …. A divorce became necessary only when there was a significant amount of property to be divided. Because of its criminal connotations, a divorce sometimes offered a useful mechanism for allowing the ‘innocent’ victim of the guilty spouse to reclaim honor and an identity within an established community. … The characteristic forms of marital escape, however, were abandonment and desertion—unsullied by any public state action. A husband or, less often, a wife would leave and go elsewhere, probably to remarry” [5]
• The Pratt-McClean marriage created quite a scandal within and without Mormonism. The ex-husband resorted in extra-legal violence rather than rely on marriage laws.

O’Donovan’s contention that Brigham Young’s Nov. 1843 marriage with Augusta Cobb was considered adulterous by Mormon standards falls flat. I will grant that a two month separation from her ex-husband is well short of Illinois’ five year separation period for allowing remarriage without a divorce. It is also short of meeting residency requirements and two years of marital separation[6] for filing for divorce in Illinois, had Augusta Cobb desired to do so on that basis. Divorce laws in the frontier Midwest were the most liberal in the country [7] and even were designed to attract migrating married women separating from their husbands. The frontier had imbalanced male-female ratios and employed competitive strategies to increase the marriage pool.

Only Mormons who were unaware or unreceptive of Joseph Smith’s 1843 plural marriage revelation (esp. D&C 132:61-63) would think that Brigham Young had entered into an adulterous relationship after leaving her legal husband.  Polyandrous marriages could be authorized under certain conditions provided that wife wasn’t “with” or “vowed to” (“under this law”) both husbands at once. Brigham Young’s marriage “for eternity” would seem to fit right in with Joseph Smith’s polyandrous marriage (especially the subset of wives who had non-Mormon husbands).  Gregory L. Smith [8] and Brian C. Hales [9] have recent treatments on the subject which should be cited and engaged with from now on. Augusta Cobbs’ obituary [10] indicates a high degree of Mormon respect for a woman that gave up everything (including wealth and family) for the Gospel’s sake.

O’Donovan calls the judges handling Mr. Cobbs’ divorce hearings in Massachusetts as the activist judges of their day. However, they do not appear to be doing anything ground-breaking beyond their own state with Cobb v. Cobb, despite the publicity it received.  It appears to be an open and shut case as adultery was accepted grounds for divorce there. I am not familiar with the particulars of testimony in the case as O’Donovan is, but there is reason to be skeptical that Brigham consummated the plural marriage before the divorce.  A non-Mormon descendant takes the position that was the case even after the divorce [11]. Outside of Massachusetts’s jurisdiction, Brigham Young and Augusta Cobb were minimally affected by the eventual ruling. Thus Brigham had no reason to take out his marital frustration on so-called “inferiors” as O’Donovan imagines.

[1] Connell O’Donovan, “‘I would confine them to their own species’: LDS Historical Rhetoric & Praxis Regarding Marriage Between Whites and Blacks”, Sunstone Symposium West (2009).

[2] There was somewhat of a parallel debate on whether the offspring of plural unions were inferior to that of monogamous couplings. Dean Jessee in “Brigham Young’s Family: the Wilderness Years,” BYU Studies 19:4 (Summer 1979)  gives an  anecdote of one of Young’s wives being told her child was smarter because of plurality, much to that wife’s annoyance.

[3] Connell O’Donovan, “The Mormon Priesthood Ban & Elder Q. Walker Lewis: ‘An example for his more whiter brethren to follow,’” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal (2006).

[4] M. Scott Bradshaw, “Joseph Smith’s Performance of Marriages in Ohio,” Brigham Young University Studies 39:4 (2000): 7–22. PDF link.

[5] US Historical Encyclopedia, “Divorce and Marital Separation”

[6] Neal R. Feigenson, “Extraterritorial Recognition of Divorce Decrees in the Nineteenth Century” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 1990), pp. 119-167

[7] Timothy Crumrin, “Women and the Law in Early 19th-century Indiana,” (Publication Forthcoming).

[8] Gregory L. Smith, “Joseph Smith and Polyandry” (Publication Forthcoming).

[9] Brian C. Hales,  “The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?” Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.

[10] Obituary,  Deseret Evening News (Feb. 4, 1886)

[11] Mary Caple, “She Who Shall be Nameless,” American Heritage Magazine, 16/2 (Feb. 1965)

There is, however, one issue in his last two books, where D’Sousa’s analysis fails–utterly. One claim made by atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Hatrris, etc., is that Heaven is a wish fulfillment concept, and thus, so is religion. That is, earth life is so bad, we dream up a place that is wonderful beyond imagination to console us.

D’Sousa’s answer is that he can certainly understand why somebody whose life isn’t that nice might imagine a place waiting for us that is. He has problems, however, understanding hell as a wish-fulfillment. Hell, of course is WORSE than any place that exists temporally, and worse than what humans can imagine–even a Nazi concentration camp is paradise compared to hell.

While hell-as-wish-fulfillment is certainly incongruous with those for whom hell’s existence serves as incentive toward holiness, like, say, Mother Teresa, for most of us, hell’s existence serves as a wish fulfillment as a tool of cosmic justice, which doesn’t exist here on earth. That is, in our worst moments, we might wish hell upon our enemies–those we don’t like. Thus, liberal Democrats wish hell upon former President Bush–and his supporters, “birthers” wish hell upon that “African Muslim Socialist,” President Obama (He isn’t–at least the former two; I’ll explain in a later post.)–and his supporters, and anti-Mormons like Bill Keller (http://www.votingforsatan.com/) wish it for the Latter-day Saints–and those like the late Governor Lilburn Boggs [D-MO] actually attempt to send us there.

Thus, for most of us, hell is indeed a wish-fulfillment concept, and for the rest of us, it is evidence that we are nuts.

Personally, I think a better response–though less dramatic than D’Sousa’s–is Daniel Peterson’s rule of comparative religions: If a person who is undoubtedly sane and intelligent in other subjects adheres to a religion that an observer thinks crazy or stupid, the problem is more likely with the observer’s view than with the religionist’s beliefs [http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/040315respecting.html].

What do you all think?

In 2006, Deseret Book published Jesus Christ and the World of the New Testament to widespread approval.[2] Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament (or WOT), a sequel of sorts, has appeared recently, a few fortuitous months before the Gospel Doctrine calendar changes over to the Old Testament as the course of study. WOT is clearly meant to parallel World of the New Testament, from the title to the layout and organization. However, the Old Testament is not the New, and the three authors of WOT faced a much tougher assignment.

Roughly speaking, the New Testament involves less than 100 years of history, two cultures (Greco-Roman and Israelite/Judaic), and a few languages (Greek, and to a lesser extent, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin). By contrast, the Old Testament covers more than 1000 years of history (not counting the deutero-canonical Apocrypha written in the 400 years between the two testaments), multiple cultural influences and languages (Egyptian, Assyrian/Babylonian, Hittite, “Canaanite”, Persian, and Greek) and nearly 3.5 times the amount of text as the New Testament.[3] A similar treatment of the Old Testament from a scholarly Evangelical perspective easily stretched to five volumes, nearly 7.5 times as many pages, and four times the cost of the WOT.[4] The authors of WOT, well aware of the multiple constraints upon them,[5] have nevertheless given the LDS market one of the best Old Testament volumes in years, which I hope finds its way into the hands of every Gospel Doctrine teacher in January.

WOT begins with a 14-page introduction to the world of the Old Testament, with notes on culture, the scripts,[6] relevant languages and Bible translations (besides the KJV, the authors sometimes cite the NRSV, NIV, and NJPS translations, or translate ancient texts themselves), a glossary of relevant terms (such as stela, Masoretic text, and ostracon), and a chronology. They pointedly remind us that Old Testament religion and culture would be quite foreign to us today and that the Israelites were not simply proto-Mormons in the ancient Near East. For example, an introductory section on the names of God in the Old Testament points out something unknown to many LDS, that the usage of Elohim[7] to indicate the Father and Jehovah the Son or Jesus is one based on “Restoration insight, [and] not the Hebrew Bible as it has come down to us.”[8]

From there, WOT begins with Genesis and goes to the end of the Hebrew Bible, but following the historical instead of canonical order. That is, the books in our Old Testament are not arranged in order of events they depict, or chronological order. If one reads the Old Testament straight through, one jumps around in history. Many of the Old Testament books, separated from each other in the current arrangement, actually depict the same time period, and this is how our authors arrange WOT.  The final scriptural chapters treat Ezra and Nehemiah, with sidebars on Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

Large color pictures, illustrations (some commissioned for this volume), maps, sidebars, charts and clay tablets or papyri of ancient texts liberally sprinkle nearly every page. This has several effects. First, such variety easily holds the interest of the average reader, who might not otherwise read a purely textual book about the Old Testament, typically (but wrongly) held to be a dry subject. Second, such visual aids make the text come alive and help readers understand that the Old Testament is more than words on paper or a theological sourcebook. Third, the often striking foreignness of these visuals help readers understand that the Old Testament existed within a cultural and historical context that is not our own, and that to fully understand it, we need to read it within that context. Brigham Young expressed this principle in a way. “Do you read the scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them?”[9]

For example, the creation accounts of Genesis were written within a particular cultural context, including other Israelite and non-Israelite creation stories; stripped of that context and read as if they were modern texts, they are easily misunderstood. As our authors state,

“the power and significance of these stories [of creation in Genesis] can be best appreciated when they are compared with the ancient creation stories that were known in cultures surrounding ancient Israel. In the last 150 years, archaeologists working in the Near East have uncovered hundreds of thousands of records from the ancient world.  Scholars have identified in these records many examples of creation stories from Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan that give us insight and understanding of the ancient worldviews about creation.”[10]

Holzapfel, Pike, and Seely are far from alone in making these kinds of basic interpretive statements about the Old Testament. Peter Enns, an Evangelical Old Testament scholar trained at Harvard, similarly writes that “both Genesis and Enuma Elish [a Babylonian creation story] ‘breathe the same air.’ Whether the author of Genesis was familiar with the text known to us as Enuma Elish, he was certainly working within a similar conceptual world…. The Genesis account must be understood in its ancient context, and stories like Enuma Elish help us glimpse what that context looked like.”[11]

I once had a conversation with a distant relative who was extremely surprised to learn that the texts of the Hebrew Bible were not the only surviving records from the ancient Near East. Indeed, to counteract just this kind of misconception, our authors introduce the reader to non-Israelite texts such as the Enuma Elish mentioned above, the Sumerian King List, Enki and Ninhursag, the Gilgamesh epic, the Amarna texts, and Ugaritic texts for their contextualizing and explanatory power. Non-biblical Israelite texts that shed light on the Old Testament are included as well, such as the Lachish letters, Gezer calendar and Mesad Hashavyahu inscription. When the authors do not translate these records themselves, the scholarly standard translations are quoted, both Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts (or ANET) and the more recent 3-volume Context of Scripture (or COS).[12]

In between chapters on particular sections of scripture are chapters focused on particular themes instead of passages, on such topics the Abrahamic covenant, the social and physical world of the ancient Near East, and the five books of Moses, with half a page on the Documentary Hypothesis. Another chapter entitled “What Kind of History?” explains that ancient conceptions of the genre of “history” were not like our own today, and introduces the Deuteronomistic History. Scholars have noted that Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings sound very much like Deuteronomy in both vocabulary and motifs, and theorized that whoever was responsible for the final form of Joshua-Kings was steeped in or involved with Deuteronomy.

The volume concludes with several thematic chapters. The first treats the story of the text of the Old Testament, how it was preserved, translated, and the process of canonization, etc. The second, “Rediscovering the World of the Old Testament” briefly summarizes the history of the last 200 years of scholarship. The “rediscovery” of the ancient Near East began with Napoleon invading Egypt in 1798, leading to the discovery and eventual decipherment of the Rosetta Stone and Egyptian language, only the first in a flood of discoveries. The final chapter discusses the influence of Old Testament doctrine, concepts, and phrases upon Joseph Smith and the restoration of the Gospel. A page listing sources and an index conclude WOT.

One issue constantly just below the surface throughout this book is the interaction of different sources of knowledge, namely, modern-day revelation and scripture, and our understanding of the Old Testament achieved through scholarly means. This topic alone could easily fill a lengthy book of its own, and LDS scholars will continue to discuss (and disagree over) this complex topic in its various applications. For some readers, this may be the elephant in the room. Some may wonder why the Joseph Smith Translation or prophetic commentary is not cited more often,[13] whereas others may have the same question about source theory, a dominant and widely accepted theory found in undergraduate textbooks and introductions to the Old Testament.[14] Regardless of one’s views of such theories, it is gratifying to see an introduction, however brief, in a mainstream “popular” LDS book. Prior treatments have not received broad circulation.[15] This topic is but one example of our authors introducing mainstream scholarly theories[16] into the broader LDS consciousness, but in a non-dogmatic way and within a context of faith.

Our authors have struck a fine balance between critical scholarship, revealed LDS doctrine, and the strong strain of LDS tradition. Often, they approach a topic by presenting multiple viewpoints, with sensitivity to all three sources, alternately informing, challenging, and supporting the lay LDS audience. This is perhaps less dogmatic than many readers have come to expect, but proves to be a strength.  In following this approach, Holzapfel, Pike, and Seely exemplify the instructions given to BYU Religion professors.

“Where answers have not been clearly revealed, forthright acknowledgment of that fact should attend, and teachers should not present their own interpretations of such matters as the positions of the Church. Students should see exemplified in their instructors an open, appropriately tentative, tolerant approach to “gray” areas of the gospel. At the same time they should see in their instructors certitude and unwavering commitment to those things that have been clearly revealed and do represent the position of the Church. Teachers should be models of the fact that one can be well trained in a discipline, intellectually vigorous, honest, critical, and articulate, and at the same time be knowledgeable and fully committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ, His Church and Kingdom, and His appointed servants.”[17]

[2] See the reviews by Julie Smith at http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/10/book-review-jesus-christ-and-the-world-of-the-new-testament/ and Kevin Barney at http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=2&id=667&cat_id=149. Many others have commented to me in person.

[3] The KJV NT contains 180,565 words, in comparison to 610,303 in the KJV OT. Numbers generated using Bibleworks 8.

[4] John H. Walton, ed., Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009). This series contains 2,928 pages (vs WOT’s 397) and retails for $250 (street price from Amazon 157.47, in comparison with WOT’s retail of $45.95 and street price of $41.36 from Deseret Book.)

[5] Deseret Book and the LDS market were unlikely to support a footnoted, lengthy and expensive popular treatment of the Old Testament, particularly one that included mainstream but critical scholarly conclusions.

[6] Language is independent of script. Bereshīt bara’ ’elohīm would be an example of Hebrew language, but Roman (English) script.

[7] Or as sometimes spelled by Joseph Smith or his contemporaries to more accurately capture the final long i, eloheem.

[8] Holzapfel, Pike, and Seely, Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament, 17-18. This LDS convention, while it has roots in LDS scripture and liturgy, should probably not be read back either into the Hebrew Bible or Joseph Smith’s day, which may account for the otherwise confusing usage of Jehovah in D&C 109. Note also that Joseph Smith typically used Elohim as a plural.

[9] Brigham Young and John A Widtsoe, Discourses of Brigham Young (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1925), 197-98.

[10] Holzapfel, Pike, and Seely, Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament, 22-23.

[11] Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation- Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). For those interested in further reading on this topic, I highly recommend Enns, as many of the common Evangelical assumptions and problems he addresses among Evangelicals apply equally to Mormons.

[12] James Bennett Pritchard, ed., Ancient near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1969). William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds., The Context of Scripture, 3 vols. (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1997).

[13] According to the index, the JST receives only the briefest of mention on two pages (p. 6 and 378), though reference to the Book of Moses appears repeatedly.

[14] John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 47-65. Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament- a Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures (New York: Oxford, 2006), 21-30.

[15] S. Kent Brown, “Approaches to the Pentateuch,” in Studies in Scripture Vol. 3: Genesis to 2 Samuel, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Robert L. Millet (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985), 13-23. Kevin L. Barney, “Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 1 (2000): 57-99.

[16] The nature of historical research inevitably requires that even broadly accepted conclusions about the past based on multiple kinds of evidence will remain “theories.” LDS religious education does a disservice to LDS in not preparing them to deal with these theories. Where and how to do so appropriately remains a question.

[17] http://reled.byu.edu/policies.php