July 20, 2013

  • Report of Research on Mormon Hermeneutics

    The Mormon System of Hermeneutics

    Co-written: Jeff Krohn and Thorsten Moritz, September 2012

     AIMS

     The Mormon faith is a complex system that is supported by several pillars. How the church perpetuates its teachings and what hermeneutical moves are involved in so doing has to be understood against the backdrop of those pillars. After reviewing them with respect to their hermeneutical implications, the foundational role of presupposition(s) in Mormon thinking will become apparent. The system in its entirety is a filter that fuels pre-understanding and enables the LDS church not only to interpret the Bible according to their perspective, but also to thrive as a revelation-receiving church. To help us assess the hermeneutical credibility of Mormon presuppositions, we explore by way of intellectual background pertinent aspects of Hans-Georg Gadamer’s focus on the crucial and positive role of presupposition(s) in interpretation. This should help us evaluate the extent to which Mormon readings of the Bible can hope to be accommodated within acceptable late-modern interpretive and epistemological paradigms. The suitability of Gadamer for this particular purpose is grounded in his unique contribution to epistemology and hermeneutics by rehabilitating the interpretive role of pre-understanding in principle. His point is not to allow presupposition(s) to run rampant, but to show how presuppositions provide the pool of possibilities without which the construction or re-constructing of meaning would not be possible.

     QUESTION

     Is it conceivable that a Gadamerian awareness of the role of presuppositions lends credibility to Mormon hermeneutics or that the latter can be evaluated intellectually based on Gadamer’s legacy?

     CONTEXT

    The Mormon System

    In the absence of significant scholarly interaction with Mormon hermeneutics, it is best to contextualize this study against Mormonism’s own systemic understanding.

    The following facets and pillars of Mormonism are most relevant for our research: First, the doctrine of the “Great Apostasy.” Soon after the apostles died, so the Mormon argument goes, there was a loss of authority, an introduction of errors into the Bible, and a loss of the fullness of the Gospel. Only a “Restoration” would allow authority to once again emerge on the earth. They confidently affirm “…that a rational interpretation of history demonstrates the fact of this great and general apostasy” (James Edward Talmage, The Great Apostasy Considered in the Light of Scriptural and Secular History (Independence, Missouri: Press of Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company, 1909), 18).

     Second, the “First Vision” – when the Father and Son appeared in bodily form to Joseph Smith as a 14 year-old boy in 1820 – establishes how God is known (by revelation) and not known (by disputation and rational enquiry) (Jim Siebach, “A Dialogue on Theology as Hermeneutics,” in Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2007), 464).

    A third essential pillar is the idea of modern, continuing revelation. The pinnacle of such revelation occurs with the “Living Prophet” who receives direct revelation from God, and is even considered in possession of “special spiritual endowment” (W.D. Davies and Truman G. Madsen, eds., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1278, www.lib.byu.edu/digital/ Macmillan/ accessed October 2011; see also Nathan Oman, “The Living Oracles: Legal Interpretation and Mormon Thought,” Dialogue 42, no. 2 (Sum 2009): 1-19. On continuing revelation see Kent P. Jackson, “Latter-day Saints: a Dynamic Scriptural Process,” in Holy Book in Comparative Perspective (Columbia: University of Columbia Press, 1993), 63-83; and especially The Pearl of Great Price, Articles of Faith 1:9: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God”). In principle communication from God can be enjoyed by all members of the LDS church. It is a lens for reading ancient revelation (Richard N. Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment, Making Sense of the New Testament: Timely Insights and Timeless Messages (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2010), Kindle location 8617). “Modern revelation and restored scripture offer indispensable interpretations of the Bible” (M. Catherine Thomas, “Scripture, Interpretation within Scripture,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1284). Revelation effectively replaces reason (“Revelation trumps reason.” James Faulconer, “A Dialogue on Theology as Hermeneutics,” in Mormonism in Dialogue, 473. Of course, a quick rejoinder would center on how such information was received. Who told them this? Was it revealed by revelation? It is insightful to see how reason is used to postulate that reason itself is trumped by revelation).

    Three important sub-themes under this general theme of modern revelation include the doctrine that local (male) believers possess the priesthood and its accompanying authority, that a centralized headquarters for the faith is required, and that the “past” may be dethroned at any time. At any time a new interpretation may arise that will authorize or de-authorize a particular doctrine. As one Mormon scholar says, “…what has been an authoritative teaching can become radically nonauthoritative” (Faulconer, 474). Given changing circumstances in the world, new revelation from God will not only be possible but will be necessary (See Jackson, 63). The first two sub-themes are supposedly demonstrated in the New Testament.

    A crucial aspect for our study is the Mormon focus on the pragmatics of faith. Reason and study may have their place in Mormon theologizing, but their main interest lies in the living out of their faith. Consequently a formal, systematic summary of their doctrine of hermeneutics simply does not exist. They admit that they have “done little toward giving an intellectual clarification of revelation” since they are “fundamentally practical.” In other words, they perform a hermeneutic of practices and events, more than a hermeneutic of texts (Faulconer, 476. Furthermore, “religion is primarily a matter of practice rather than propositional belief.” Faulconer, 475).

    Other hermeneutically important aspects of the Mormon system[1] include the notion of Joseph Smith as the mouthpiece of God, “bearing a testimony,” temple ordinances, the role of the Book of Mormon, the idea that the “Holy Ghost reveals,” (Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology. (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon, 1994), 35, 40; cf. Doctrine and Covenants 20:27), and the role of the “Spirit of prophecy” in understanding Scripture (2 Nephi 25:4).

    In its totality, the Mormon system provides an “Exclusivist Systematic Totality” filter through which interpretation occurs. The entire system must be in place, and indeed is firmly in place, for Mormon hermeneutics to function and thrive.

      Gadamer’s Perspective

    To interpret is to have pre-understandings and presuppositions. But what is the hermeneutical role of presuppositions? One of the most significant voices is that of Gadamer who argues against overly scientific construals of meaning that the reader plays an essential role, including his or her presuppositions (See Merold Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation?: Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 85). For Gadamer interpretation is an ongoing interplay between the presuppositions and the text. As interpreters we are immersed in particular traditions. Yet such traditions are not “coherently univocal” (Westphal, 70-71). They shape our interpretations and understandings and are clearly not meant to fuel abusive treatments of text. Gadamer differentiates between legitimate and enabling preunderstandings that help illuminate the text’s meaning. He does not present a simple model to impose on the text in order to extract its meaning. Such a model, he argues, cannot work, for it is fueled by a tradition laden with presuppositions. There needs to be the discovery of textual meaning beyond using a method. An interpreter – as understood by Gadamer – can be likened to a performer in the arts who is not simply mechanically reproducing the musical score, but who understands such a score by performing it. True understanding would not only entail reproduction but production as well (i.e., the performance of the interpreter). Reading with understanding requires a kind of reproduction, performance, and interpretation (Westphal, 62, 78, 98).

     Methodology

     This research project relies on a mix of the following:

    • A thorough textual understanding of Mormonism’s pertinent primary sources.
    • A philosophically coherent exploration of the hermeneutical presuppositions evident in those texts.
    • A study of the role of presuppositions in Gadamer’s two horizons model (as well as those of other relevant scholars, such as A. Thiselton and P. Ricoeur).
    • An interdisciplinary appraisal of whether a Gadamerian recovery of presuppositions lends credibility (or otherwise) to Mormon hermeneutics. (It should be noted that this study is not primarily interested in notions of hermeneutica sacra, except to the extent that such notions are found to be central to Mormon hermeneutics.)

     Outlook

    There are a number of ways that Mormon scholars would point out their affinity with modern philosophical hermeneutics. They acknowledge that the reader has a role in interpreting, and that it would be naïve to deny personal involvement in interpretation (See Jeffrey R. Holland, “Daddy, Donna, and Nephi,” Ensign, Sept 1976; Dallin H. Oaks, “Scripture Reading and Revelation,” Ensign, Jan. 1995; Hugh Nibley, The World and the Prophets, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, 12 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987), 3:202. See also 1 Nephi 11-15 where Nephi is commanded continually to “Look!”). Furthermore, they recognize that revelation does not occur in a vacuum (See Anthony A. Hutchinson,  “LDS approaches to the Holy Bible.” Dialogue 15, no. 1 (Spr 1982), 99-124, where he discusses four groups of LDS scholars, each exhibiting different tendencies in their hermeneutical proclivities). Mormon scholars would resonate with Gadamer’s idea that the author of a text can never render meaning sufficiently determinate and that meaning is codetermined by author and reader. A reader is not an uninvolved, curious observer, for he or she wants to know what a text or its implied author says to them. Since, for Gadamer, texts have an effect on us, make claims on us, address us and shape us, the question of compatibility between pragmatic Mormon theologizing and Gadamerian hermeneutics gains significant traction. Furthermore, Mormons would heartily agree that “The goal of biblical interpretation is holy living” (Westphal, 112). Also amenable to Mormon hermeneutics is  Gadamer’s emphasis on application as being a crucial part of interpretation, and that this application makes meaning concrete, giving specific meaning to abstract language. Having said that, the question arises whether Gadamer’s concept of application as an intrinsically interpretive dynamic (rather than a separate step that builds on prior interpretation), can be appropriated for an intellectually grounded appreciation and evaluation of Mormon hermeneutics.

    However, while sharing certain affinities with the perspective of Gadamer, the Mormon system is confronted and challenged by many aspects of his work. Mormonism’s emphasis on personal revelation can be accosted by Gadamer’s repeated insistence on the ubiquitous existence of presuppositions (See Westphal, 35, 71). If all interpretation is perspectival, how can Mormons posit that the receiving of revelation is pure communication from God, untainted by earthly influences?

    A few striking examples of the results of Mormon hermeneutics serve to illustrate their preference for “just see” hermeneutics.

    (1) Their system has produced a pesher-type insistence that Ezekiel’s two “sticks” are the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Ezekiel 37.16-19) (See Jan Shipps, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (University of Illinois Press, Chicago, 1987), 29).

    (2) Literary tensions in the Gospels are resolved by adding angels or demoniacs as needed (In the Joseph Smith translation, the two angels of Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 are added to Mark 16:3 and Matthew 28:2, and the one healed demoniac of Mark 5:2 is changed to the two healed demoniacs of  Matthew 8:28).

    (3) Modern scripture readings are offered as ways of expanding ancient revelation (For example, the Book of Mormon expands on Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi 12-14, and chapters 45 and 86 of the Doctrine and Covenants help explain the book of Revelation).

    (4) Problem passages are given modern explanation (The sixth president of the Mormon church, Joseph F. Smith, received a vision on 1 Peter 3:18-20 concerning the redemption of spirits of the dead (now Doctrine and Covenants 138); See also Doctrine and Covenants 76 explaining John 5:29 and its “degrees in glory”), often based on the “true meaning…of mysterious passages revealed.” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History 1:74).

    (5) Scripture appears to be (willfully?) mistranslated in places (Given Joseph Smith’s espousal of the Arminianism of his day, he changed Acts 13:48 to read, “and as many as believed were ordained unto eternal life.” See Heikki Räisänen, “Joseph Smith as a Creative Interpreter of the Bible,” Dialogue 43, no. 2 (Sum 2010), 73. See also Christopher C. Smith, “Joseph Smith in Hermeneutical Crisis,” Dialogue 43, no. 2 (Sum 2010), 86-108; Philip L. Barlow, “Joseph Smith’s Revision of the Bible: Fraudulent, Pathologic, or Prophetic?” Harvard Theological Review 83, no. 1 (Ja 1990): 45-64).

    (6) New Testament ideas are read as anticipations of Mormon systemic theology, with the result that entire doctrines can be based on such re-molded ideas. Mormons have a well-known doctrine of human deification. Thus, when speaking of “human potential and eschatology”, Mormons “take very seriously the New Testament promises that ‘when (Christ) shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is’ (1 John 3:2), and that ‘then shall I know even as also I am known (1 Cor. 13:12)’” (Benjamin I. Huff,  “Theology in the Light of Continuing Revelation.” In Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies, 478-487, (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2007), 484). Such language implies that they are the only ones taking such texts seriously.

    It could be argued that such procedures and conclusions take Mormon hermeneutics outside the realm of intellectual accountability. On the other hand, some of the examples mentioned are not too far removed from standard Christian exegetical and theological practice. In light of that, the research proposed here hopes to throw significant new light on Mormon hermeneutics in a manner that allows Mormon hermeneutics to be compared to the Christian academic mainstream. So far, very little published research has addressed these questions. In light of that, the field is so open that it will be important to demarcate the present project more precisely in due course.

     




    [1] In the case of “aberrant” teachings by some of the past living prophets (i.e., presidents of the church such as Joseph Smith or Brigham Young), Mormon theologians often fall back on the very words of Joseph Smith that “…a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such” (See the Mormon publication “History of the Church” 5:265). Well-known Mormon scholar Stephen Robinson further affirms that until something is proved and voted on by general conference, it will not be “binding nor the official doctrine of the Church” (See Stephen Robinson, Are Mormons Christians (Salt Lake City: Desert Book Company, 1991), Kindle location 285). Though they stress the authority of the living Prophet, they also emphasize the authority of a general conference, a bi-annual event held in Salt Lake City. This allows them to disavow teachings such as the “Adam as God” teaching by Brigham Young or literal sexual union between the Father and Mary in the conception of Jesus, promulgated by some Mormon leaders of the past. Some even claim that “we don’t need a text” for we have “pure, direct revelation.” Thus, no system is needed. One Mormon scholar sardonically states that instead of the Greek philosophy that infiltrated the church at the council of Nicea to help it form the doctrine of the Trinity, “the LDS church asserts pure revelation” Siebach, 465.

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *