Doctrinal Sources and Authority

By Ben Spackman After spending four years making a PBS documentary about Mormonism, Helen Whitney remarked , "it is hard to overestimate the amount of ignorance surrounding Mormons." Many people have heard of the Book of Mormon, but know little about its content. Often, upon learning of its existence as a sacred book within Mormonism, the first question asked is whether it displaces the Bible (as does the Qur'an in Islam) or coexists with it. Not only do the Bible and Book of Mormon coexist within the Mormon canon of scripture, but two other books are also included in the LDS canon, which remains theoretically open to the addition of yet other revelations that could be canonized. The Bible was central to Joseph Smith's theology and preaching, as well as the primary catalyst in pushing him to ask God particular questions, resulting in the addition and expansion of distinctive Mormon doctrines. As elucidated by Philip Barlow's Mormons and the Bible , the Bible has been a central part of LDS doctrine and teaching since Joseph Smith's day, at times even overshadowing the Book of Mormon. One surprising study by the Barna Group in 2001 reported that "Mormons are more likely to read the Bible during a week than are Protestants." (Protestants, we can safely assume, are much less likely than Mormons to read the Book of Mormon.) The Book of Mormon , translated by Joseph Smith from golden plates, tells the story of three groups of people who were guided by God to somewhere in the Americas. One popular misconception about the Book of Mormon is that these people were part of the ten so-called "Lost Tribes" of the Northern Kingdom, carried away and resettled by the Assyrians c. 722 B.C.E., but this is not the case. The primary group, eventually known as Nephites (pronounced knee-fights ), fled Jerusalem shortly before its destruction at Babylonian hands c. 587 B.C.E. Mormon (c. 400 C.E.), one of their prophets, compiled and edited the records kept by them, which contained their revelations and prophecies, as well as wars and eventual downfall, and this edited volume took on his name, becoming known as the Book of Mormon. Besides the Bible and Book of Mormon, the LDS canon also includes two other books: The Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. The Pearl of Great Price is a short eclectic collection of writings, including the Book of Moses , the Book of Abraham , an extract of Joseph Smith's prophetic expansion of Matthew 24 , an extract from church history about Joseph Smith's early religious experiences , and the Articles of Faith , a list of 13 semi-creedal statements that he provided to a Chicago newspaper editor when asked what Mormons believe. Each of these has its own complex and interesting history, beyond the scope of this article. The Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), in contrast to the other three books, has a very modern setting. It contains revelations to Joseph Smith given in the early days of the LDS Church and a few from later. These revelations vary in scope and purpose; some are doctrinal, others organizational, yet others very personal. One of the main points made to Mormons by the mere existence of the D&C, and expressed in the 9 th Article of Faith , is that the heavens were not closed with the death of the New Testament apostles, and even today, God may have greater knowledge or current instruction to convey to us. Protestants often approach Mormonism as if it were another sola scriptura religion that differs in only having an expanded canon of scriptura , but this misses something fundamental. Mormons do not just have more scripture, but a completely different authority structure surrounding that scripture, one of modern-day prophets and apostles who may receive further revelation as well as provide authoritative interpretation. Ironically, one of the clearest statements of this Mormon principle was put forth by Richard Mouw, an Evangelical scholar writing in a Mormon publication: It is important to underscore here the way in which the Mormon restoration of these ancient offices and practices resulted in a very significant departure from the classical Protestant understanding of religious authority. The subtlety of the issues at stake here is often missed by us Evangelicals, with the result that we typically get sidetracked in our efforts to understand our basic disagreements with Mormon thought. We often proceed as if the central authority issue to debate with Mormons has to do with the question of which authoritative texts ought to guide us in understanding the basic issues of life. We Evangelicals accept the Bible alone as our infallible guide while, we point out, the Latter-day Saints add another set of writings, those that comprise the Book of Mormon, along with the records of additional Church teachings to the canon- we classic Protestants are people of the Book while Mormons are people of the Books. This way of getting at the nature of our differences really does not take us very far into exploring some of our basic disagreements. What we also need to see is that in restoring some features of Old Testament Israel, Mormonism has also restored the kinds of authority patterns that guided the life of Israel. The Old Testament people of God were not a people of the Book as such -- mainly because for most of their history, there was no completed Book. Ancient Israel was guided by an open canon [of scripture] and the leadership of the prophets. And it is precisely this pattern of communal authority that Mormonism restored. Evangelicals may insist that Mormonism has too many books. But the proper Mormon response is that even these Books are not enough to give authoritative guidance to the present-day community of the faithful. The books themselves are products of a prophetic office, an office that has been reinstituted in these latter days. People fail to discern the full will of God if they do not live their lives in the anticipation that they will receive new revealed teachings under the authority of the living prophets. Thus in Mormonism, as for Judaism and Catholicism, scripture plays a central role, but there is a layer of authoritative interpreters between the time-dependent texts and today's worshippers. Unlike Judaism's rabbis and Catholicism's magisterium, that role in the LDS Church potentially extends beyond interpretation into receiving new revelation that may not be based in any text and even overturn prior understandings, policies, or practices. As one LDS educator puts it, "we are not based on the Bible [or any other book] -- we are based on what the Bible is based on: revelation to living prophets." Coupled with the fact that Mormonism does not take any prophet or book of scripture, ancient or modern, as infallible or inerrant, this easily leads to confusion. Some non-LDS have compared trying to pin down "Official Mormon Doctrine" (not itself an LDS term) to trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. While I think this complaint is somewhat exaggerated, likely out of frustration by those used to dealing with formal creedal churches with a different authority structure, it's nevertheless understandable. We are a young Church, and while lacking, at this point, formal categories like the Roman Catholic Church's nihil obstat or imprimatur, there are yet some doctrinal boundaries. LDS thinkers have approached this issue in several ways. In several blogposts and published articles, Nathan Oman (an LDS professor of law at the College of William & Mary) has compared the doctrinal boundaries in Mormonism to common-law court decisions and similar processes. Robert Millett (LDS professor of Religious Education at BYU) suggests in " What is Our Doctrine?" that LDS doctrine is that which is taught repeatedly and over time by mainstream and official sources. Blake Ostler (a well-published LDS lawyer with a strong theological/philosophical bent) proposes that LDS recognize a continuum of authoritative sources for doctrine. Stephen Robinson (an LDS professor of Religious Education at BYU) co-authored a groundbreaking book with Evangelical scholar Craig Blomberg , How Wide the Divide , in which he primarily argues that only that which is canonical is doctrinal. (Mormonism does have a formal process for canonizing revelation and adding it to the scriptures.) One website gathers together statements of present and past General Authorities on the topic. Other approaches and discussions exist as well, as LDS blogs have no shortage of discussions of either the general question of doctrinality or specific applications of it. The Newsroom at LDS.org, oriented toward news media and non-LDS seeking understanding, does not overstate the case when it suggests that , "The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context... and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them." Ben Spackman has studied Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the University of Chicago, focusing on philology and Semitic languages. He has taught various courses in a volunteer capacity for the LDS Church Education System since 2003 and now serves as the Patheos Mormon Portal Manager.