BofM Part 3: Neglected and Ignored

Continued from part 2. 

If there was someone in LDS history who did NOT neglect the Book of Mormon, it was Hugh Nibley.  Here are some of his thoughts:   

 “The first rule of historical criticism in dealing with the Book of Mormon or any other ancient text is, never oversimplify. For all its simple and straightforward narrative style, this history is packed as few others are with a staggering wealth of detail that completely escapes the casual reader. The whole Book of Mormon is a condensation, and a masterly one; it will take years simply to unravel the thousands of cunning inferences and implications that are wound around its most matter-of-fact statements. Only laziness and vanity lead the student to the early conviction that he has the final answers on what the Book of Mormon contains.”  — Hugh Nibley, 1952 (The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol. 5: Lehi in the Desert / The World of the Jaredites / There Were Jaredites [Deseret Book/FARMS, 1988] p. 237.)   

I love this: "Only laziness and vanity lead the student to the early conviction that he has the final answers on what the Book of Mormon contains." 

This blog series is one attempt to avoid any of that laziness and vanity.  

Hugh brings up vanity, which the scriptures also speak of when it comes to the neglect of the Book of Mormon by the audience to whom it was first given.

D&C 84:54-57

And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—  Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written.

It says the book of Mormon is a new covenant.  Which ordinance in the LDS church is this covenant referring to?  Where does one accept this covenant?  How does one accept it?  The verse also speaks of unbelief, darkened minds, vanity, treating things lightly.  Did these things really happen? Are any of them still happening?  It says the condemnation will remain until the terms are met. 

How does scripture get actively published yet also neglected?  

In our own church history, for at least a hundred years, the Church itself hardly recognized the Book of Mormon. Some even advocated for the Church to abandon it in the 50's.  I'm not kidding, keep reading.  

Hugh Nibley was invited to speak to at various meeting at the University of Utah in the 1950's and participated in debates about the Book of Mormon. After giving one presentation Hugh says they took him aside and told him "You're among friends now, you can say what you really feel about the Book of Mormon".  Hugh defended the Book of Mormon, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. "Oh, were they mad" Hugh said. "They were just boiling".  He recalls one member of the group launching into a harangue about the Book of Mormon saying: 

"We have to get rid of it. It's driving the best minds out of the Church! You can't see it, but with my training, I know it. Joseph Smith was a deceiver, but he was a sly deceiver."  

Hugh was chilled by such reactions. "They had a real active hatred of the Book of Mormon" he said.  These were for the most part members of the Church in good standing.  Among whom was O.C. Tanner and Sterling Mcmurrin who were upset or flabbergasted with Hugh's defense of the Book of Mormon.  (Peterson, Boyd Jay, Hugh Nibley:A Consecrated Life. Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books,2002, p.160.)

 

Hugh Nibley is one of the people most meriting mention when it comes to the LDS Church (or anyone else) beginning to care about and actually use of the Book of Mormon.  Hugh Nibley took it seriously even when the Church did not, and some intellectuals wanted to abandon it.   

Hugh also referred to the Book of Mormon once as “the Book Nobody Wants".  One of Nibley’s most well-known parables has application to the Book of Mormon.

A young man once long ago claimed he had found a large diamond in his field as he was ploughing. He put the stone on display to the public free of charge, and everyone took sides.

A psychologist showed, by citing some famous case studies, that the young man was suffering from a well-known form of delusion. An historian showed that other men have also claimed to have found diamonds in fields and been deceived. A geologist proved that there were no diamonds in the area but only quartz: the young man had been fooled by a quartz. When asked to inspect the stone itself, the geologist declined with a weary, tolerant smile and a kindly shake of the head. An English professor showed that the young man in describing his stone used the very same language that others had used in describing uncut diamonds: he was, therefore, simply speaking the common language of his time. A sociologist showed that only three out of 177 florists’ assistants in four major cities believed the stone was genuine. A clergyman wrote a book to show that it was not the young man but someone else who had found the stone.

Finally an indigent jeweler named Snite pointed out that since the stone was still available for examination the answer to the question of whether it was a diamond or not had absolutely nothing to do with who found it, or whether the finder was honest or sane, or who believed him, or whether he would know a diamond from a brick, or whether diamonds had ever been found in fields, or whether people had ever been fooled by quartz or glass, but was to be answered simply and solely by putting the stone to certain well-known tests for diamonds. Experts on diamonds were called in. Some of them declared it genuine. The others made nervous jokes about it and declared that they could not very well jeopardize their dignity and reputations by appearing to take the thing too seriously. To hide the bad impression thus made, someone came out with the theory that the stone was really a synthetic diamond, very skillfully made, but a fake just the same. The objection to this is that the production of a good synthetic diamond 120 years ago would have been an even more remarkable feat than the finding of a real one.

Book of Mormon classes at BYU weren’t even available until 1961. It’s hard to argue the Book of Mormon wasn’t neglected.   

In 1970 President Joseph Fielding Smith remarked:

“I could make a guess, and I do not think I would be too far out if I did say that one-half of the members of the Church have not read the Book of Mormon.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Seek Ye Earnestly, 1970, p. 96.) 

Noel B. Reynolds notable BYU professor and former Director of FARMS wrote in 1999: 

 “The Book of Mormon was largely overlooked throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. A handful of church leaders appealed for more serious attention to the book, however the church as a whole did not respond in any dramatic way to any of these urgent messages until after Pres. Benson's emphatic messages in 1986.” Within 18 months of the restoration through Joseph Smith, the Saints were condemned for unbelief. By January 1841 the Saints were warned they would be rejected with their dead if they failed to repent and keep God's commandments. They did not repent.” (The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon in the 20th Century” found at BYU Studies, Volume 38.)

On page 127 of Hugh Nibley's Biography is a description of what happened in the Christian church during the history of Christianity and the early church fathers. Nibley is speaking here about a point in history a couple of hundred years after Christ, into the period when the apostles are gone, and there's a limit on ongoing revelation.  Hugh says: 

When the Church lost revelation it had to turn to another source for guidance and so it threw itself into the arms of the established schools of learning. The schoolmen, as one of them expresses it, took over the office and function once belonging to the prophets and once in power guarded their authority with jealous care, quickly and violently suppressing any suggestion of a recurrent inspiration.

Later on that same page: 

While I was at Berkeley I was asked to speak to a student group on the subject, “Is the University of California anti-religious?” After considerable inquiry, I was forced to admit that the Berkeley institution is if anything less anti-religious than BYU, where religion is under more conscious and deliberate attack. But I do not for that reason hold my BYU colleagues culpable—they cannot help themselves. By its very nature the university is the rival of the Church; its historic mission has been to supply the guiding light which passed away with a loss of revelation, and it can make no concessions to its absolute authority without forfeiting that authority.

After that one sinks in, here's another quote worth noting: 

The celebrations of the learned men and not the utterances of the prophets comprise the gospel [according to the university]. This has been the credo of the Christian schoolmen since the days of Clement of Alexandria: the universities—Christian, Moslem, Jewish, or pagan—has its own religion, and the basic tenet of that religion is the denial of revelation.

If it's the nature of the University to rival the Church we ought to be on guard for this.  The Universities or "learned" can come to replace revelation.  When minds are darkened revelation is denied and replacements for revelation are then relied upon.  The shift from revelation to scholarship is something that can easily go unnoticed.  Hugh seems to be sounding the alarm bell that it has happened again, this time to us.  D&C 84 mentioned vanity, unbelief, darkened minds, and treating things lightly.  We've seen some possible application of that verse.  But have we also treated the Book of Mormon lightly as a church? The Lord called it a covenant in 1832.  So what exactly happened? 

Adoption and Sustaining

Looking at the Joseph Smith papers, we can read the minutes from all the early General Assemblies held by the church.  Canonization of new scripture is not very common, and there are records of when it has happened. One example is on page 307 of Volume 2 of the Revelations and Translations in the Joseph Smith Papers. Or here: Minutes, 17 August 1835, Page 106 (josephsmithpapers.org)

This was one those events in Church history when our scriptures were accepted by a common consent sustaining vote of the church body.  These minutes are available online and it's very easy for anyone to go see what got canonized, accepted and sustained.  Curiously absent from sustaining and canonization is the Book of Mormon.  The Lectures on Faith got accepted, The Doctrine & Covenants got accepted.  A First Presidency, a high council, D&C, including the Lectures on Faith. The Church does publish it, quote from it, and encourage the members to read it, but the Book of Mormon has never been formally accepted as a volume of scripture by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  This may be shocking to some, but it's true.  The widespread acceptance creates an assumption that history doesn't support.   

Formally accepting the book as scripture, and as a covenant (or lack thereof) may seem like an inconsequential formality.  However you view the lack of any sustaining vote, it's worth considering in light of the Lord's condemnation of the early stains for neglecting the book (D&C 84:54–57).  Condemnation which the Church leaders themselves have repeated and stated is still in effect upon the Church.

-1986- General Conference: Ezra Taft Benson:

We have made some wonderful strides in the past. We will be lengthening our stride in the future. To do so, we must first cleanse the inner vessel by awaking and arising, being morally clean, using the Book of Mormon in a manner so that God will lift the condemnation, and finally conquering pride by humbling ourselves. 

-Elder Oaks June 6 th 1993: “Along with other General Authorities, I have a clear recollection of the General Authority temple meeting on 5 March 1987. For a year, President Benson had been stressing the reading of the Book of Mormon. Repeatedly he had quoted these verses from the Doctrine and Covenants, including the Lord’s statement that the Saints’ conduct had “brought the whole church under condemnation” (D&C 84:55). In that temple meeting, President Benson reread those statements and declared, “This condemnation has not been lifted, nor will it be until

we repent.”

Elder Oaks 2010:

 

A good reminder from Hugh Nibley, page 735 in Hugh Nibley Observed: 

Because Nibley believed that new discoveries in ancient digs and ancient texts bore witness that truths and records of historical events restored in our day were also known in former times, he saw them as a “reminder to the Saints that they are still expected to do their homework and may claim no special revelation or convenient handout as long as they ignore the vast treasure-house of materials that God has placed within their reach.” (Hugh Nibley Observed, p. 735, citing H. W. Nibley, New Look, May 1970, p. 91.)

What about in the last 10 years?      

Of the flurry of changes the LDS church has made in the past 10 years have any of them addressed the condemnation?  Looking at some of the biggest and most publicized changes covered in the news and at General Conference: 

-Using the full name of the Church as opposed to a nickname (post on that here).  President Nelson in his Conference talk Oct 2018 said:

...if we allow nicknames to be used and adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, he is offended.

That was fairly big news when it happened.  But I think we all have to agree it's not what the Lord said would remove the condemnation. Of note here, that teaching also contradicts the scriptures which specifically tell us "And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments".   The verse, seemingly predicting the future, went to the trouble of specifically clarifying what offends God.  And it did not include nicknames. 

-President Nelson promised the saints untold blessings if they would stop using the term Mormon. If we look at President Nelson's conference talk where he teaches this, and to stop using the term Mormon, notice the footnote he references for the promise.  It's referencing Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail, who in that very same letter, says and I quote "Truth is Mormonism".   More on that here.   

-2 hour church rather than 3. This change does have a positive outcome of reducing the amount of time people are bored at Church. Which for pretty much anyone I've ever spoken with has been cause for celebration. However, this too is not addressing the scripturally stated issues we face for which the condemnation was imposed. 

-Home Teaching getting renamed to Ministering isn't even acknowledging the condemnation the Lord said we are under.  So far we're 0 for 3.

-Policy changes regarding baptism, baptismal witnesses, temple ordinance changes, policies about kids of same sex parents etc. etc. These too are distractions.  None of them address what the Lord said to do in order to remove the condemnation. These are organizational policy and managerial changes that have largely stepped over what the scriptures say.  On what grounds can we claim blessings for doing things the Lord has never said to do, while at the same time NOT doing things the scriptures explicitly said to do? 

-New Church Logo?  Revised and now digital handbook?  New more global church magazine?  Being good global citizens?  Getting vaccinated? None of these address the issue. 

-Renovating Temples? Building new temples?  Temples in Rome that are hardly open? 

-The Bicentennial Proclamation of 2020. This proclamation mentions the Book of Mormon, and repeats basic church teachings, but does not address the condemnation nor accomplish much in terms of getting out from under it.

-Discontinuing Priesthood and Women's session of General Conference.  Prior to October of 2014 the Women's meeting wasn't officially one of the "sessions" of General Conference.  They added it in 2014 as an official session.  This was reported to be great and welcomed news in the newspaper articles.  However now in 2021, it was apparently deemed so useless that it's been discontinued all together.  Then again in 2021 was another reversal, this time reinstating a Sat evening session for all audiences.   

All these changes can all lull us into a feeling of security that all is well, and that the quantity of changes must mean that God is hastening his work.  And yet the changes across the board do not address the condemnation.  So, what would address it?  

Repentance

Of note here is in 2017 an independent group of truth-seeking individuals brought about the Restoration Edition of the Scriptures. This project had as its goal to restore a set of scriptures to as true a version as possible to what Joseph Smith gave us. They utilized all extant documents, and all of Joseph's edits, verbal or written and attempted to restore the Book of Mormon as an act of repentance and sign to God that we seek the source. Some of what was identified and included has never been included in print until this Restoration Edition of the Scripture. To recap a little of that effort, it restored the Book of Mormon, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, it restored the Lectures on Faith to their proper place in scripture, and put the revelations of Joseph Smith back to a purer state before and without edits, changes, expansions by men which all occurred.  The Lord himself also spoke and added content. 

It was a small independent group of volunteers acting in faith. Not affiliated with any church. And yet, the small group sought to repent and remember. It's known as the Restoration Edition of the Scriptures. It's different from LDS version in some interesting ways. The new edition of the scriptures is the first time the full work Joseph accomplished, without additions and including hundreds of punctuation changes previously omitted, have been made available in print. 

Regarding the Book of Mormon specifically, since the Restoration began, the people from the first publication in 1830 until September of 2017 in Boise Idaho, no one accepted the Book of Mormon as a covenant. Various other things got accepted but not the Book of Mormon as a covenant, until September 2017.  So, it is possible to come out from under the condemnation and accept the book as a covenant. 

To get the benefit of the Book of Mormon and the covenant it was intended to be, we need to remember it and do what it says. Then develop faith, and use it to correct our thoughts, actions and beliefs. But the Book of Mormon has often devolved into a marketing tool to convert people to a specific religious institution. It seems the book's purpose has long been on a detour.

Continued in part 4. Distracting Detours