Apologetics vs. Mormon Studies

Mormon studies versus apologetics. It seems the “bloggernacle” is currently filled with posts addressing this new development in the so-called “Book of Mormon Wars.” It’s silly and it’s unfortunate. But still, for some reason, here we stand.

Even though I recently expressed my belief that the paradigm (whether apologetics or academic) shouldn’t matter, that Latter-day Saints should simply follow Joseph Smith’s lead and pursue truth, “LET IT COME FROM WHERE IT MAY,” it is important to note that within LDS culture, there really is a distinction between these two intellectual camps. Historian Richard Bushman has provided the most helpful articulation of this divergence:

“The apologists. . . feel that they are living in a hostile world. The church has real enemies, they firmly believe, and war has to be waged. Not all of the apologists write pugnaciously, but they all write defensively. If not exactly at war with an enemy, they are certainly engaged in debate…

“Although seeing themselves as collaborators in the cause of Mormon history, apologists and new Mormon historians occasionally snipe at one another. The apologists wonder why the historians do not spring to the defense of the faith when Joseph Smith comes under attack. The apologists want to war with the critics; the historians ask them out to lunch.

“At Mormon History Association meetings you can hear a critic vehemently attack Joseph Smith in one session while in the next room a presenter lauds Smith’s character and achievements. The apologists insist that the historians fail to understand what is at stake. The historians for their part question the apologists’ polemical writing and special pleading. They think the apologists repel readers with their bellicose style and unwillingness to yield points. Though assembled on the same campus at Brigham Young University and acknowledging each other as brothers and sisters in the gospel, they live in different worlds.” Richard Bushman, “What’s New in Mormon History: A Response to Jan Shipps,” in The Journal of American History (Sept. 2007), 518-19.

It’s no secret that as of late, considerable effort has been made by those who feel more inclined towards an apologetic world view to characterize advancements in Mormon studies as a “secularization” process; again, see my previous post. I believe, however, that this is a serious mistake. If the opposite of secularization is “spiritualization,” then I’m not convinced that this characterization is appropriate. It’s certainly not an effective way to address the problem of LDS youth leaving the Church due to critical studies (something that both groups feel deeply considered about). Instead, as I suggested in my previous post, I believe that the solution to this crisis is that we must learn to spiritualize the academic journey. Civil, academic discussions with those who do not accept traditional Mormon claims is not only the way for Mormonism to successfully flourish in the secular, information age, it is a kinder, gentler approach to defending the faith.

As Latter-day Saints, we can turn directly to the prophet Joseph Smith as an example of this process. Joseph Smith was constantly seeking to uncover truth. We find an illustration from Church history of the manner in which the prophet demonstrated his belief that a person could gain significant insights through “secular” scholarship and that these ideas could then be used to accentuate spiritual truths.

Over the course of a three-day period (December 27, 28, 1832, and January 3, 1833) Joseph Smith received a revelation concerning a school for Church leaders that should be organized to teach from the “best books words of wisdom. . . by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). Known as the “School of the Prophets,” this select group of early Church leaders began meeting under the direction of Joseph Smith shortly after the revelation was given (January 23, 1833). Courses were taught on both secular and theological topics until April of 1833 when spring weather allowed for an increase in missionary work. Courses then later resumed in Kirtland, Ohio from late fall to early spring in 1834-1835 and 1835-1836.

As part of this project, William E. McLellin and Orson Hyde were sent to the Hudson, Ohio in January of 1836 to find an instructor who could teach Biblical Hebrew. Two days later, McLellin returned from the Hudson Seminary with news that he had hired an instructor named Joshua Seixas who would teach a seven-week course for $320. Seixas was a respected biblical scholar who taught Hebrew at New York and Charlestown, Massachusetts. He even wrote a textbook in 1833 used by Joseph Smith entitled Manual Hebrew Grammar for the Use of Beginners.

Joseph Smith was clearly excited at the prospect of studying with such an accomplished biblical scholar. Concerning Seixas, Joseph wrote: “He is highly celebrated as a Hebrew scholar, and proposes to give us a sufficient knowledge during the above term to start us reading and translating the language.” According to Joseph Smith’s History, the class began their studies on February 15 “translating the Hebrew language, under the instruction of Professor Seixas, and he stated that [they] were the most forward of any class he ever instructed for the same length of time.”

The evidence suggests that Joseph applied himself to his Hebrew studies. His journal entries diligently report the time spent studying with Sexias in class. Regarding his student Joseph Smith, Seixas eventually wrote the following certificate:

“Mr Joseph Smith Jun has attended a full course of Hebrew lessons under my tuition; & has been indefatigable in acquiring the principles of the sacred language of the Old Testament Scriptures in their original tongue. He has so far accomplished a knowledge of it, that he is able to translate to my entire satisfaction; & by prosecuting the study he will be able to become a proficient in Hebrew. I take this opportunity of thanking him for his industry, & his marked kindness towards me.”

Joseph’s own words regarding the experience paint a picture of a man profoundly influenced by studying Biblical Hebrew. On February 17th, 1836, the Prophet, wrote in his journal,

“My soul delights in reading the word of the Lord in the original, and I am determined to pursue the study of the languages, until I shall be come master of them, if I am permitted to live long enough. At any rate, so long as I do live, I am determined to make this my object; and with the blessing of God, I shall succeed to my satisfaction.”

For Joseph, a detailed study of the Bible was a moving experience, even if it did not always accord with his religious beliefs at the time. This fascinating episode in Church history illustrates that Joseph recognized the importance of understanding the language and context of the Bible. The fact that he went to scholars to gain knowledge concerning the scriptures shows that the prophet believed that revelation was not the only way to read scripture. He could turn to secular studies and spiritualize the journey.

I strongly believe that the prophet’s approach to inquiry is the way for Mormonism to flourish in a secular age of information accessibility. We can learn from academic studies that counter our traditional religious assumptions. The apologists are right. There is clearly a battle going on for the hearts of LDS youth. But instead of going to war with critical studies, we can win this fight by spiritualizing academic inquiry as a quest for truth.