Hales, ed., “A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History” (reviewed by Les Blake)

Review
======

Title: A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History
Editor: Laura Harris Hales
Publisher: Religious Studies Center, BYU Provo in cooperation with Deseret Book
Genre: LDS Doctrine and Church History
Year Published:2016
Number of Pages: 249
Binding: Hardback
ISBN: 978-1-9443-9401-1
Price: $24.99 (USD)

Reviewed by Les Blake for the Association for Mormon Letters

I begin this review with a personal note and a sincere disclaimer. To some degree I am the very type of Latter-day Saint for which this volume seeks readership. I had a faithful Mormon upbringing, instilled with worldviews lovingly built upon a particular understanding of ancient Biblical history, Book of Mormon history, and Latter-day Saint history – all ultimately part of the same history of God’s chosen people. Such frameworks functioned incredibly well for me all throughout my youth and through most of my adult life until, quite unexpectedly, I happened to read my way into new paradigms: primarily via historical criticism and “New Mormon History.” This eventually left many of my ideas about church, God, and God’s relationship to humanity in deep flux. My only way forward was the tricky, emotional, and spiritually painful path of revisiting, rethinking, reevaluating, and ultimately rebuilding new frameworks for understanding my faith.

I don’t have a doctoral degree. I am not a published scholar. No one is going to read this review and take seriously my opinions because of my credentials. I am, at best, an average Latter-day Saint with an average IQ. Perhaps, due to my keen interest in Mormon Studies, I’ve read a bit more scholarship in that vein than the average church member. Perhaps. I wouldn’t know for sure. In short I say: I’m no expert. The contributors to this volume are more qualified to speak on their topics than I am, without a doubt. I will not reference every essay in *A Reason for Faith*, but hope to pick out a sampling that represents my feelings for the book as a whole.

Joseph Smith and Money digging: Richard Bushman

It is curious that a book seeking to address controversial topics leads off with Joseph Smith’s money digging, a topic Richard Bushman himself says “very few” people he encounters are offended by. As it turns out, it is a valuable introduction to this collection.

Bushman recounts the consensus of faithful historians prior to his research in the 1970’s. His academic training and professional standards constrained him to take seriously the Hurlbut affidavits – sources that had theretofore been cast aside. New evidence coming to light about the 1826 trial also bolstered arguments favoring the reality of Joseph’s involvement in folk magic.
Bushman’s essay, despite its brevity, is just as much about the life and trajectory of the “New Mormon History” as much as it is about money digging. Bushman’s primary point, which certainly aids the overall purpose of the collection, is that “the wheels of history grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. What seems central at one moment in time will lose force as the years go by. Magic moved to the sidelines over the years. Will other issues be next?”

This sentiment is, more or less, the point that Hales wants to make for the overall list of issues up for discussion in her volume.

Remembering the First Vision: Stephen Harper

There is much to admire in Harper’s essay, which is clearly meant to be a primer for students unfamiliar with the multiple versions of Joseph’s First Vision, as well as how to account for the differences found therein. These differing versions, writes Harper, “reflect [Joseph Smith’s] growing awareness of its meaning as he transformed sensory impressions into subjective meanings. He consciously experienced the vision as it occurred, but he also reexperienced and interpreted it over time.” Harper outlines the major accounts, explores the science of making memories, consolidating memories, memory retrieval, and other memory dynamics.

I understand that a full analysis of the differences that manifest from one account to the next is probably untenable in a book project like *A Reason for Faith*, but I am a bit surprised by Harper’s choice not to include a comparison of the most glaring differences that new students tend find most alarming. Harper’s outlines list a few points of emphasis in several of the accounts, but a student, unfamiliar with the various accounts, will not walk away from this essay knowing, for instance, that the 1832 account only mentions one personage, or that Jesus, the Father, or “the Lord” are not referenced explicitly in the 1835 account. Such disclosures, I think, would have only served to strengthen the overall purpose of Harper’s essay.

While I greatly appreciate and agree with many of the passages speaking to the neuroscience of memory making and how memory retrieval changes based on contextual factors, I remain unconvinced by Harpers section entitled “Rejection of the 1832 account” which devotes a considerable amount of time to laying a foundation for why Joseph’s 1832 account, despite being the earliest and the only one written in his own hand, is unreliable. Why is it unreliable? Because, according to Harper, when Joseph first approached a Methodist minister to confide the vision (as recounted in the 1839 account) his experience was treated with contempt. This rebuff “likely created cognitive dissonance in the young man, resulting in an internal conflict Joseph sought to reduce by remembering differently…the minister’s rejection retarded, to a degree and for a time, Joseph’s willingness and perhaps even his ability to tell his story.”

I don’t have a problem with the fact that Joseph’s story changed. Moreover, I agree with Harper’s final analysis of the science and dynamics of memory, neither do I see anything deliberately disingenuous in the evolution of Joseph’s First Vision narrative. But I think that evolution can be accounted for without efforts to discredit the early narratives. It might be useful to read Harper’s approach alongside Richard Bushman, who elsewhere commented, “I am very much impressed by Joseph Smith’s 1832 History account of his early visions…The 1832 history…comes rushing forth from Joseph’s mind in a gush of words that seem artless and uncalculated, a flood of raw experience. I think this account has the marks of an authentic visionary experience. There is the distance from God, the perplexity and yearning for answers, the perplexity, and then the experience itself which brings intense joy, followed by fear and anxiety. Can he deal with the powerful force he has encountered? Is he worthy and able? It is a classic announcement of a prophet’s call, and I find it entirely believable.” [1]

Isaiah in the Book of Mormon

The presence of Second Isaiah in the Book of Mormon did not register for me as something to be considered until 5 years ago. It has since become, for me, the most fascinating lens through which to think about Book of Mormon historicity.

Kent Jackson outlines a handful of reasons why “some modern scholars” date authorship of Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah to time periods later than when they could have been engraved upon the plates of brass, and thus raising the question of how it could be a part of the Nephite record at all. Given the space constraints, I think Jackson does an adequate job of broadly enumerating the bullet points favoring why scholars hold to a late dating of the Second/Third Isaiah. I know there is a great deal of evidence that has filled books, but Jackson has limited space to convey the ideas.

That being said, I was underwhelmed with Jackson’s response to the bullet points he outlines. “Some modern scholars,” as he characterizes it, is in reality the decided majority of biblical scholars – a significant distinction to make, I think. The distillation of Jackson’s argument in favor of a single, early, unified authorship of Isaiah centers “on this basic question: Can a prophet see beyond his own time?” Jackson implies that readers and scholars “who understand the true nature of revelation and prophetic foresight” will have “no trouble” with the unity of Isaiah. He continues, “For me, the evidence that matters most is the reality of the Book of Mormon.” He continues, “…passages Lehi and his sons quoted in the Book of Mormon must be dated before their departure, and those revelations were identified then to be the writings of Isaiah, decades before ‘Second Isaiah’ was supposed to have been written. This is the most important piece of evidence for Isaiah’s authorship of later chapters.”

Acknowledging that I’m not the expert, this simply is not an adequate response to the issue at hand. It may account for the heart, but not for the head, and one needs both. I appreciate Jackson’s desire to defend the integrity of the Book of Mormon. I trust that it is Jackson’s closely held belief in and love for the reality and truthfulness of the Book of Mormon that drive his approach to reconciling the issue of Second Isaiah.

I sincerely feel that there are other, more robustly considered, arguments that should accommodate for both a late dating of Second Isaiah and the divinity of the Book of Mormon. I too hold the Book of Mormon to be a holy text of divine origin. The tension I feel given the presence of Second Isaiah in the Book of Mormon remains unresolved. To put it simply, it’s there. It’s integral to the text, the narrative, and the themes of the Book of Mormon.

I’ve leaned on Grant Hardy, one of the preeminent scholarly defenders of the Book of Mormon, as a paradigm of how to approach this issue. “There is a way not to handle [Second Isaiah in the Book of Mormon], which is: sometimes there is a temptation from Latter-day Saints who first encounter this to want to reject modern scholarship, to say ‘Well, those people who believe in Second Isaiah don’t believe in prophecy, and don’t have any faith’ and that is a sort of fundamentalist, insular kind of reading.” [2] Jackson characterizes the adherents of a late Second Isaiah dating to “some modern scholars” In contrast Grant Hardy notes, “The level of consensus on [Second Isaiah], especially in a field as contentious as biblical studies, is remarkable (and certainly includes scholars who believe in inspiration and prophecy).”[3] Hardy’s simple and open ended suggestion is, “A more promising avenue for the faithful, it seems, is to acknowledge that we probably know less about what constitutes an ‘inspired translation’ than we do about ancient Israel. Once one accepts the possibility of divine intervention, the theology can accommodate the (always tentative) results of scholarship.” [4]

I hope that the Jackson essay does not represent a consensus institutional view on this issue. I also trust that this essay will play its part in furthering the conversation and opening avenues of exploration for those who value the Book of Mormon as scripture, but aren’t convinced of the pre-exilic authorship of a unified book of Isaiah.

Race, the Priesthood, and Temples

One of the strongest essays in the collection is, in my opinion, “Race, the Priesthood, and Temples” by W. Paul Reeve, offering a number of insights that were novel to me. I especially appreciated sections devoted to the complexity of how race was perceived generally in the 19th century U.S. and the complications surrounding “tiered whiteness” and the racialization of Mormons. Reeve connects the dots from the 1847 version of Brigham Young who, documentation shows, “expressed an open position on race” to an 1852 Brigham Young whose position had changed. This change seems directly influenced by the unfortunate case of William McCary, which Reeve relates, along with Brigham’s having “tapped into long standing biblical interpretations to draw upon Noah’s curse of Canaan, but more directly to link a racial priesthood ban to God’s purported ‘mark/curse’ upon Cain for killing his brother Abel.”

The whole of Reeve’s essay is an excellent piece of historiography. He does not shy away from the difficult task of trying to make sense, theologically of how God would permit the Church’s history with race to unfold in the way it did.

In some instances he outright debunks. “Some have suggested that while the explanations for the bans are invalid, the bans themselves were inspired for purposes known only to God…In this explanation, Brigham Young’s and later leaders’ implementation of the restrictions over time were bound by surrounding cultural norms, a violation of which may have produced significant disdain and additional turmoil for the nineteenth-century Church. This interpretation is problematic because if God or his prophets were somehow bound by cultural norms, the introduction of polygamy into an American society that so thoroughly abhorred it would have never taken place.”

Later Reeve offers his own perception of why God may have let things play out the messy way that they did. Whether those perceptions will be agreeable to faithful readers or not is subjective, but his is a generous offering. Mulling over that primary question is essential for Latter-day Saints, especially since world societies still continue to groan under the weight of racial prejudice. Reeve’s essay welcomes us to move forward in our unwavering compassion towards a human race that, as the Book of Mormon testifies, are all “alike unto God.”

Latter-day Saint Women in the 21st Century

Of the seventeen essays in this collection only two articulate women’s voices: *The Practice of Polygamy* is co-written by Laura Harris Hales, the editor of the collection and Neylan McBaine, author of *Latter-day Saint Women in the 21st Century.* Perhaps this is an unintentionally ironic mirror to McBaine’s observation that “the Church doesn’t appear to be facilitating the institutional opportunities that in our secular culture have resulted in so many open doors for our grandmothers, our mothers, and now us.”

McBaine delivers a terrific piece about how gender roles in the church are changing, and how women, rather than merely being the led, might become veritable co-leaders at every level of the organization. McBaine seeks to clarify a vision of equality in which cooperative leadership shared by men and women isn’t necessarily the “same” but which is at the same time of “equal worth,” “equal value,” and “equal opportunity.” It is admittedly a difficult task. Although she notes Elder Ballard saying, “Our church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other,” McBaine stresses that “Creating a functional model in Church governance of what this actually looks like still remains a challenge for which we have little worldly precedence, but our leaders have made the mission clear.”

McBaine addresses the relatively recent statements from prominent LDS Church leaders supporting a co-gendered priesthood, and ways in which Latter-day Saints might begin to rediscover the potential of a more authoritative female governance. What I love about the essay, as well as other writings by McBaine, is that she isn’t shy about offering pragmatic boots-on-the-ground suggestions:

“Is there more we can do to acquaint the ward members with the Young Women as well as they are acquainted with the Young Men through the passing of the sacrament, handling of the testimony microphone and home teaching? Are there ways we can put our Relief Society, Young Women and Primary presidencies front and center, respected as the ecclesiastical and administrative authorities they have been set apart to be, when having ward or stake conference? Can we quote women or use female examples in every talk or lesson we give to demonstrate women’s wisdom and closeness to God? Through these small changes, we can demonstrate to our youth that we don’t just pay lip service to the equality of women in our doctrine; we actually align our practices to that doctrine by recognizing in our worship, learning, and government the unique but divine power that resides in each woman.”

When it comes to augmenting the role of women in the LDS church, we are not where we need to be, but McBaine sees “ample signs” that we are on a path towards improving that. This essay is further evidence that McBaine is, and will continue to be, a key voice in a movement towards more egalitarian church government.

Homosexuality and the Gospel

Ty Mansfield’s essay seeks to situate the discussion of homosexuality in a context that affords for both the complexity of human sexuality, and the doctrinal stance of the LDS church on the issue, which he ultimately sees as correct. From the perspective of the American Psychological Association, Mansfield’s approach would be categorized as essentially “telic congruence,” which prioritizes and encourages individuals to live according to their religious values. This would be contrasted with an organismic congruence approach, which, according to the APA, prioritizes “living with a sense of wholeness in one’s experiential self.” [5]

Using the Throckmorton/Yarhouse sexual identity therapy (SIT) framework, Mansfield works to broaden the conversation beyond sexuality being merely about sexual attraction. Individuals experience sexuality through “(1) attraction and desire, (2) persistent patterns of attraction or orientation, (3) behavior, and (4) identity.” I support Mansfield’s efforts to expand the minds of traditionalists who approach this topic solely through the narrow lens of their own experience, which can often be myopic.

In my own opinion, Mansfield makes some arguments in this essay that will serve to appropriately contextualize our conversations about sexuality. That being said, there were sections throughout his essay that were less effective, and even cringe-inducing. Despite stating “there has been a remarkable shift in the conversation about homosexuality in LDS culture, and I believe we’ll continue to see additional shifts,” he begins with the premise that the LDS Church is standing on firm, eternal, unchanging ground on the “core doctrine” of sexual expression. He is quick to take a quote from Hugh Nibley: “Science, philosophy, and common sense all have a right to their day in court. But the last word does not lie with them,” and employ it to endorse the current position of the Church.

Of course it is not surprising that a book aiming at “faithful” responses on this topic should buttress the Church’s current position. Even though this position may be comforting and agreeable to many Latter-day Saints, it represents a value judgment that is difficult in every way. I don’t judge Mansfield for approaching his own personal journey in his particular way. But if his essay represents the best resource available to gay members, I am nervous. As a father I would not in good conscience recommend his essay to my own children, were they to present homosexual orientation/behavior, and would be more personally inclined towards an approach of organismic congruence. There is absolutely too much at stake in the LGBTQ Mormon community for me to be content with the status quo of church policy. [6] It remains my hope that other faithful voices can take purchase, revealing frameworks that validate the experience of LGBTQ members within the gospel.

Conclusion

Hales has chosen a fascinating list of topics for her book, and I’m glad they are receiving attention through BYU and Deseret Book. Hales hopes that the book “addresses criticisms of the church and its doctrines from a faithful perspective.” She definitely has found scholars willing to give a faithful perspective, and there are a number of admirable essays here. But there are, in my estimation, a variety of low points, where criticisms are not adequately addressed or are simply invalid. What is more concerning to me is the possibility that the faithful perspectives presented in the book might be seen as the *only* faithful perspective that can be brought to bear on a given subject. I would like to have seen, instead, a book in this short essay format that presents varying perspectives of a given issue, by faithful scholars in dialogue with one another. If indeed she hopes her work to be “not meant as a defensive book but rather as an introduction” and “an exciting process of discovery for readers” I think seeing faithful scholars offering viewpoints that are at times in harmony and at times divergent a much preferable conversation starter.

Notes:

1. “AMA Series: Richard Bushman – Dec 16 3:00 – 4:00 PM EST” accessed July 13, 2016, https://pr.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/1sp4mi/ama_series_richard_bushman_dec_16_300_400_pm_est/ce30gzg

2. Grant and Heather Hardy, interview with KC Kern, Mormon Stories, podcast audio, April 5, 2011

http://www.mormonstories.org/250-251-grant-heather-hardy-book-of-mormon-scholarship/

3. Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) 69. 4. Ibid., 291. 5. “Appropriate therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” accessed July 13, 2016, http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

6. Stack, Peggy Fletcher. “Suicide fears, if not actual suicides, rise in wake of Mormon same-sex policy.” Salt Lake Tribune, January 29, 2016. Accessed July 13, 2016. http://www.sltrib.com/news/lds/3473487-155/suicide-fears-if-not-actual-suicides