The title of this essay may seem a bit shocking; like an issue that shouldn’t require much thought.  Of course Mormons should not be leery of Mormon studies!   To the contrary, Mormons should embrace the fact that their religion is starting to receive greater academic attention. And it is!

In recent years, institutions of higher learning have offered a variety of courses devoted to Mormon studies.  Courses in Mormon studies have been taught at Harvard, UPenn, Virginia, Arizona, Arizona State, Southern Alabama, Georgetown, Utah State, Utah Valley University, the University of Utah, etc. Books focusing on Mormonism have been published by university presses at Oxford (probably the premier venue for Mormon studies, publishing close to a dozen in the last few years), Harvard, UNC, Nebraska, Tennessee, Yale, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Missouri.

In 2012, the University of Virginia announced plans to hire a chair in Mormon studies.  The Claremont Graduate University has for several years now had the Howard W. Hunter Chair in Mormon studies position, Utah State has the Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture (currently occupied by Dr. Philip Barlow), and presently Dr. Boyd Peterson serves as the program coordinator over Mormon studies at Utah Valley University.

Ready or not, Mormonism has begun to be taken seriously as an academic field of study.   However, as exciting as this news proves to some Latter-day Saints, there has of course been a bit of concern over the nature of Mormon studies on the part of some believers.  In light of the fact that Mormon studies is a subset of Religious studies and Religious studies constitutes a secular study of religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions, this apprehension is to be expected.

As of late, concerns over the nature and definition of Mormon studies have been expressed in a variety of online conversations, and this trepidation has appeared most recently in the form of two publications, one by BYU professor John Gee entitled “Whither Mormon Studies” published in the Interpreter Journal [1], and another by BYU professors Daniel Peterson and William Hamblin entitled “Reading Other People’s Scriptures Requires Sympathies Not Just Facts” in the Deseret News [2].

As a supporter of Mormon studies, I am sympathetic to these feelings, even though I strongly believe that they are unnecessary.  I don’t have time to alleviate all of the uneasiness reflected in these two recent publications (let alone the lengthy discussions that have taken place in the greater blogosphere), but I would like to share a few ideas that will hopefully alleviate some of the concerns that these two articles express over the prospect of having Mormonism and its scriptures studied from a secular perspective as part of the Humanities.

I’ll begin by considering an issue raised in the Hamblin and Peterson article regarding the way “scripture” should be taught in an academic venue.  The authors write:

“An approach often taken when reading scripture is to treat it as “literature,” an approach most frequently found in “Bible as Literature” classes. This approach has some value, but it fails to engage the truly important issue: that the Bible functions in the world as scripture, not merely as literature. Its scriptural quality is, historically speaking, why it is important. To study anyone’s scripture as “literature” necessarily misses the essence of why that book has changed the world. Scripture is important precisely because, to its believers, it is something much, much more than literature…

“To make matters more complicated, modern academics often treat “scripture” as a purely human production that some people happen to claim is scripture. While academics often profess objectivity in studying religion, in a very practical sense secular religious studies usually means explaining all religious claims, beliefs, visions, etc., as purely human in origin.”

It is true that secular religious studies offer another approach to interpreting scripture beyond the perspective typically reflected in the heart of the believer that their scripture is somehow divine or to quote the authors, not “purely human in origin.”  This secular approach is the perspective typically taken when teaching the Bible in an academic forum.

To put the history of this approach to biblical analysis into an LDS context, at approximately the same time that Joseph Smith was trying to make sense of what he saw as “errors” in the Bible, European scholars influenced by the previous observations of earlier philosophers such as Hobbes and Payne were beginning to work out what would eventually become known in the academic world as “higher criticism.”

The term higher criticism refers to an attempt to explain the types of inconsistencies that appear in the Bible’s narrative, legal, and theological sermons (issues that Joseph Smith himself was sensitive towards) by identifying original independent textual sources.  As an interpretive tool, higher criticism constitutes an important part of what scholars today refer to as the “historical-critical method.”

This historical-critical method refers to an approach to biblical interpretation that seeks to read the text “historically,” meaning in accordance with its original historic setting, and “critically,” meaning independent from any contemporary theological perspective or agenda, i.e. as “scripture.”[3]  As an expression, “historical criticism” is the label for what biblical scholar John Collins has called “mainline” biblical scholarship, at least for the past two centuries or so.[4]

There’s no question that the Bible has had a tremendous impact upon the spirituality of much of the Western World.  Moreover, this text can be studied in an academic setting in terms of its impact upon the lives of believers who view the Bible as a book more than simply “purely human in origin.”  However, if the Bible itself is taught in an academic setting, I strongly believe that the approach that students should be exposed to is the “historical critical” method, i.e. “mainline” biblical scholarship.

If the Bible were to be taught as “scripture” in the way that Peterson and Hamblin suggest, the question that would need to be addressed would be “whose scriptural model should the professor privilege?”  When teaching the Hebrew Bible, should the professor teach the text as “Christian” scripture, or as “Jewish” scripture?  If the professor opted for both, which Jewish and Christian scriptural approach should the professor privilege?  A Catholic reading?  An Orthodox Jewish reading?  A Protestant reading?  A Mormon reading?

Obviously adopting this approach in a limited amount of time would quickly turn a course on the “Bible” into a course on reception history.  Moreover, in spite of its great spiritual value, teaching the Bible as “scripture” runs counter to the academic method of higher criticism which leads to the view of the text “as an artifact that can and must be understood by using the scientific tools of anthropology, archeology, and linguistics just as one would employ for any other artifact.”[5]  A course in the humanities should not privilege a text as “scripture” in the way that the Bible is read in Sunday School or in Synagogue (despite the value of these religious forums).

This observation reflects the academic standards of the Society of Biblical Literature (the premier academic venue for biblical scholarship).  Concerning the Society’s expectation that professors and writers on biblical topics will employ “bias-free” language, the SBL Handbook of Style states:

“Bias-free writing respects all cultures, peoples, and religions… Uncritical use of biblical characterizations such as the Jews or the Pharisees can perpetuate religious and ethnic stereotypes.”[6]

Thus the Handbook declares that the term “Hebrew Bible” should be used rather than “Old Testament;” and the expression “Second Temple period” over “intertestamental period,” etc.  The SBL rightfully pushes for this standard so that one group’s “scriptural” reading of the Bible will not be privileged over another and that all may feel a sense of inclusivity when studying the Bible from an academic perspective.

This does not mean that when teaching “scripture” a professor should seek to deconstruct the religious approach or value that a student brings to the Bible (or any other sacred text), but in addition to reading the Bible as “something more than purely human,” the Bible can and has been studied since the 17^th century from an historical critical perspective and professors teaching the text itself (as opposed to reception history) have a responsibility to expose students to this “mainline” academic approach in which the Bible is treated as a “real” book.

One of the concerns that many believers (including Latter-day Saints) have when entering into a class on the Bible that teaches historical-criticism is that this approach will prove incompatible with their religious convictions.  It is true that studying a religious text independent from any specific theological lens can present some challenges to certain religious traditions regarding the text.  A believer on occasion may need to shift his or her paradigm of faith in order to account for new historical insights.  But it is possible to be both religious and critically minded.

In his introduction to reading the Hebrew Bible from a critical perspective, Dr. Marc Brettler concludes his book How to Read the Bible with a chapter explaining how he is able to exist in both the academic realm of critical scholarship and in the religious world of an observant Jew.  Brettler writes:

“In a nutshell, here is my view of the Bible as a Jew:  The Bible is a sourcebook that I—within my community—make into a textbook.  I do so by selecting, revaluing, and interpreting the texts that I call sacred.”[7]

In the rest of the chapter, Brettler goes on to explain the difference between a textbook versus a sourcebook.  A textbook adopts a singular point of view.  In contrast, a sourcebook presents multiple perspectives.  The Bible contains more than one opinion on almost any single item of importance, from the nature of God, to intergenerational punishment, to the relationship between men and women.

Brettler provides the following explanation of his religious connection to the text, “after carefully considering its texts, I use selection to adopt some texts as more meaningful to me than others.”[8]  Since sociality is an integral part of any religious experience, Brettler shares that after his selection, he then moves forward to find communities that share these choices.   In terms of Mormonism, which is a faith that establishes religious communities through geographical boundaries, this process can admittedly be a bit more difficult.  However, a religious community can also be created with like-minded friends, or an extended family.

Granted, Brettler approaches this issue from the perspective of an observing Jew.  I believe, however, that this same basic tactic can be adopted by Latter-day Saints who begin to study the Bible not as “scripture” but as a real book.  As LDS Apostle, Elder John A. Widtsoe recognized, studying the Bible (or any other scripture) from this angle does not conflict with LDS theology:

“In the field of modern thought the so-called higher criticism of the Bible has played an important part. The careful examination of the Bible in the light of our best knowledge of history, languages and literary form, has brought to light many facts not sensed by the ordinary reader of the Scriptures. Based upon the facts thus gathered, scholars have in the usual manner of science proceeded to make inferences, some of considerable, others of low probability of truth… To Latter-day Saints there can be no objection to the careful and critical study of the scriptures, ancient or modern, provided only that it be an honest study—a search for truth… Whether under a special call of God, or impelled by personal desire, there can be no objection to the critical study of the Bible.”[9]

The implications of historical criticism admittedly contest some traditional perspectives many Latter-day Saints have held regarding scripture.  Yet these insights into original authorial intent and the development of scriptural sources simply derive from scholars who have devoted years of careful analysis to uncover the true historical background of the text.

In their own quest for truth, I believe that Latter-day Saints should not feel afraid to lay aside incorrect assumptions regarding scripture (no matter how long these traditions have been held).  The prophet Joseph Smith made this point very clear in his famous letter written in Liberty Jail. “We should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things,” wrote the Mormon prophet (D&C 123:13).

The insights into the background of the Bible gained through historical criticism are independent from any specific theological agenda, including Mormonism.  However, as defined by Joseph Smith, Mormonism is a religious philosophy that seeks to uncover and embrace all truth, including truths uncovered by the minds of secular scholars through scientific analysis.

On this subject, Joseph Smith once declared, “one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth let it come from where it may.”[10]  This process of accepting truth from whatever source it stems was important to Joseph Smith.  On another occasion, the Prophet taught:

“The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we have the right to embrace all, and every item of the truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds and superstitious notions of men.”[11]

Using Joseph Smith’s approach to Mormonism as a guide, Latter-day Saints need not feel beholden to the “superstitious notion of men” that Moses himself wrote the Pentateuch,  or that Paul is the author of all of the Pauline epistles, nor should a Latter-day Saint feel obligated to maintain a type of creedal allegiance to traditional assumptions regarding scripture when an historical analysis directly counters those beliefs.  To do so runs opposite to the way Joseph Smith defined Mormonism.

While taking an academic course on Bible may challenge some traditional perspectives on scripture, it must be acknowledged that higher criticism in and of itself does not reveal that the Bible is somehow devoid of inspiration; that it is somehow not truly “scripture.”  The Bible is an ancient record of human beings striving to respond to the divine by which they had been touched.[12]

There is evolution and contradiction that occurs in this process, and one might argue that these factors are to be expected. For lack of a better word, writing scripture can be a bit messy.  Yet given our own history, of all people, we as Latter-day Saints should allow room for messiness in the production of sacred texts. Even the Book of Mormon, the scriptural work that Latter-day Saints define as the “most correct book,” allows for the possibilities of human error and contradiction in its Title Page.  All that historical criticism does is take this claim seriously.

Finally, to return to the notion that some believers as of late have expressed public concern on the nature of Mormon studies, I would like to focus on simply one assertion in John Gee’s recent essay cited at the beginning of this post.  Gee seems to fear the fact that non-Mormons, i.e. “outside” academics researching and writing about Mormonism cannot possibly hope to get Mormonism right for the mere fact that they are “outsiders.”

I would contend that rather than being afraid, Mormons, as well as believers in all religious sects, should welcome an academic assessment of their faith from a secular Religious studies perspective.  Like historical criticism, an academic outsider’s interpretation of Mormonism’s history, scriptures, and traditions simply provides one more lens that a believer can employ in an effort to understand his or her religious experience.

In this sense, a religious commitment might be compared to a marriage relationship.  Both are sacred relationships in which the participating parties carry deep emotional sentiments.  How unwise would a man or woman be to simply dismiss or ignore the outside perspective of a professional third party on what he or she witnesses happening within the relationship?

Admittedly, the professional outsider may or may not get everything right.  But who would not welcome an opportunity to see things happening in a marriage from an outsider’s perspective?!  What a wonderful opportunity to learn and to grow; even in cases when the believer may see his or her religious experience differently from the perspective of the academic non-believer.

At minimum, such an assessment would provide another tool to assist in a Latter-day Saint’s quest to uncover truth.  And as Joseph Smith recognized, if there is one thing a religiously minded person should never fear it is the quest for greater understanding.