[This is part two of a discussion of Hardy's analysis of Nephi and Boyce's charges against that analysis. In part one (see last post) I was trying to speak positively and to praise where I could. That, sadly, is not my point today. I am having a discussion with some other seminary teachers about why I don't recommend Hardy to seminary students.]
The authors of the Book of Mormon (and Mormon in particular) mention repeatedly the difficulty and frustration of being able to include so little of what happened among the Nephites. Nephi has much the same difficulty: an 8 year trek through the Arabian peninsula to the land of Bountiful is shortened to essentially one chapter and one event that was particularly harsh for his family. The next 30-40 years of 2nd Nephi are summarized in a few verses so that he can spend the rest of that book entirely on recording and expounding on the teachings of his father, his brother, and his favorite prophet. If his record is to include only the most sacred writings, then there has to be a great sifting and winnowing to keep only the most important records.
In his book, Understanding the Book of Mormon, Grant Hardy encourages us to ponder the details of what was left out and to construct a narrative that explains what was left out and why. As he put it:
As I wrote 6 years ago (and included again in the last post) He asks over and over what we can learn about the narrators from what they chose to include in their records, what glaring omissions there are, and how they incorporated their selections. ... This ... opens wide the doors to unfounded speculation and this is where I find most of my difficulties. Like many religious authors, he starts out well by saying phrases like "it is possible that..." or "one story that is consistent with the evidence is..."; then he inevitably ends up with phrases like certainly, surely, and it is obvious that... when there is nothing certain, sure, or obvious about it.
So how does Hardy understand Nephi? There are three main claims I recall:
1. Nephi deliberately misrepresents Laman and Lemuel, painting them worse than they are.
2. Nephi and Lehi had a bad relationship because Lehi didn't understand about Nephi killing Laban.
3. Nephi is in part a tragic character because he sought to understand the vision of the fruit of the tree of life, but not taste the fruit.
I take issue with all three, though not with everything he says while expounding on them. At the time, they bothered me but I decided to not pursue the ideas further, just keep my eyes open for future thoughts on the matter. When I read Boyce's article, demonstrating what Hardy ignores from the Book of Mormon record on these topics, I was overjoyed to get a better understanding of why this bothered me so, though I also do not agree with everything he says either.
1. Nephi has not only a purpose for writing (to show us that "the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance"1st Nephi 1:20) but an agenda. Hardy tells us that Nephi is deliberately manipulative, "playing with the chronology," distorting words, actions, and timing to make his brothers appear worse than they were and himself better. He provides motivations for L&L that are along the lines of people making honest mistakes but trying to do the right thing by following the Law of Moses anyway. He calls their multiple attempted murders of their brother "half-hearted" because they didn't succeed when God intervened to free and protect Nephi, and therefore Nephi's characterization of them as murderers in their hearts unfair, unsubstantiated, and ironic.
Boyce attacks this argument vigorously. Hardy completely ignores God's own words about Laman and Lemuel, which have nothing to do with honest mistakes. If it were an honest mistake, "surely" the visitation of angel would have helped dispel them! If it were an honest mistake, God Himself would not chasten them exceedingly (1st Nephi 16:39). God does not cast people out of His presence and curse them for honest misunderstandings - that's called transgression and our Savior paid the price for those so we can return to His presence despite our lack of knowledge. But when angels, prophets, and the voice of the Lord call someone to repent and they refuse to change, then it cease to be an honest mistake and becomes "rising up in rebellion" which is how God describes them. I particularly applaud Boyce's subsection "Three Final Matters" which I would have recommended he make the bulwark of his defense rather than framing it around the tree of life.
Something I agree with Hardy on: Hardy points out that Nephi and Lehi use different kinds of language when speaking to and about Laman and Lemuel. Both of them have seen in vision that L&L reject the love of God and the gospel. Lehi, as a loving father, consistently calls them to repentance but in a more pleading and less judgmental-sounding manner than Nephi. I can see that and I think there is a reasonable point in there, though Boyce's counterarguments in Three Final Matters help us see that this point could still be taken too far. One point of evidence Hardy uses in this discussion is that Nephi refers to the tree of life as a type of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden, with a chasm/river or an angel with a flaming sword separating the wicked from the tree. Boyce attacks this characterization, claiming that when Nephi calls it a tree of life, he didn't mean that tree of life and that "rejected" ought to be read as "separated." I don't find much support for Boyce's rebuttal. I also take issue with Boyce for giving Skouson's rewriting of "rejected" as "separated" the final word. I would have much preferred if Boyce had gone to, say, Samuel the Lamanite and shown that the reason the wicked are rejected by God is because they first reject Him, and explain that "surely" Nephi understood and meant this. Boyce's discussion of Nephi passing along what the angel said about the vision is also a much stronger argument than the tree of life discussion is.
2. For seminary this week, I was studying and preparing 2nd Nephi 1-5, where Lehi gives his last blessings to his posterity. For a long time, I had wondered why there was not a specific chapter for Lehi's last words to Nephi. Hardy's answer is that Lehi and Nephi were estranged over Laban. My answer had been that Nephi had some humility and didn't feel it necessary to rewrite a chapter based solely on "Boy, what a great job you did. Thank you, son, you are just so wonderful and you will be blessed."
In my reading this week, however, I was struck with how often Nephi does appear in the blessings to the other children:
Lehi talks about Nephi while blessing Laman and Lemuel. He explicitly gives the birthright blessing to Nephi unless they repent and defends and exonerates everything Nephi has said and done to his wicked older brothers as being moved upon the Spirit (1:24-29). "Rebel no more against Nephi, whose views have been glorious and who has kept the commandments since we left Jerusalem" is not the language of someone with lingering concerns about how the plates of brass were obtained. "He has sought your welfare" and "his sharpness ... was the power of the word of God, and that which ye call anger was the truth" is not a father who thinks Nephi has been too hard on his wayward sons.
Indeed, the highest blessing he gives any of the members of the party is that they will dwell with Nephi in safety and peace! Zoram is a faithful friend of Nephi and because of that faithfulness - to Nephi! - he and his children will be blessed "with the seed of my son" (1:30-32). Jacob, who is in his own right so righteous that he has seen his Savior, will dwell safely with Nephi (2:3). Joseph is told to listen to Nephi (3:25). Sam is so blessed that his children be counted as if they were Nephi's and he will inherit like Nephi (4:11).
This is quite the blessing - Nephi's birthright blessing is the measuring stick against which everyone else's blessings are to be measured. Lehi's counsel to everyone is to trust Nephi. This is not an estranged and silent father, bitter and condemning over his self-serving son's violent actions. Hardy's guess over what Nephi left out hasn't a leg to stand on - it's purest speculation and these terms from the text clearly stand as evidence against it.
3. Boyce cogently points out that A) Nephi did partake of the fruit during Lehi's dream; and B) Hardy ignores the structural difference between Nephi's and Lehi's vision. Lehi's was a first-person account of being in a wilderness and walking up to a tree. Nephi was taken to a mountain and shown a panoramic movie of the history of the world, tied to the symbolism of the tree of life, accompanied by angelic annotations.
I recall Wilford Woodruff's preacher friend, Robert Mason, who had a vision of being in a wasted orchard; when one tree grew up, he held and beheld the fruit but could not taste it. The Spirit told his friend that he would behold the restoration of God's church on the earth, but would not be able to join it, but that Wilford would. This vision was not a condemnation of Robert Mason by any stretch.
Neither was Nephi's vision. He beheld the Savior and His life and ministry. He was shown the entire history of God's dealings with the world from his own time to the end of the world. This is not the kind of vision God offers someone who has a merely academic interest in analyzing the fruit while missing the point.
And that, curiously enough, is my own time to invoke the word irony, as Hardy and Boyce have done. My main complaint about Understanding the Book of Mormon is that it is not about understanding the point of that glorious book. Six years ago I wrote: "There is very little talk about the Atonement or Christianity itself, ... how the Book of Mormon expounds on and complements the Bible's message of salvation, what the mission of Jesus Christ is or any of the fundamental points the prophets set out to make. ... Of course, given how didactic the Book of Mormon is (one of his favorite words), [Hardy] may feel it unnecessary: you can't read the Book of Mormon seriously without coming away with its testimony of Jesus Christ. Hardy wants to present something New. This is an intellectual exercise. I like such exercises. The thing is, if this were all anyone read, they would not come away Understanding the Book of Mormon."
The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Its authors were imperfect, but not deliberately manipulative of God's words in order to puff themselves up. What Hardy's book ultimately gets right is that we can better see and understand what God would teach us as we take the reality of the work seriously - treat Nephi, Mormon, Moroni and others as living, breathing, imperfect people through whom God has been able to do great work. There are glorious insights to be gained through the Spirit by doing so and it can help correct our own misunderstandings. In the last post, I mentioned several places where I am deeply thankful for what Hardy wrote. For another example, I rather approve of Spackman's take of 1st Nephi 1 and taught something like that myself in seminary last month.
So why do I not recommend Hardy's book for seminary students? Hardy's speculations based on what isn't in the text about Nephi are not part of these glorious insights. The fact that his book leads off with the worst part of the book is worrisome. Some of these students have read the Book of Mormon in its entirety before, but many haven'; even those who have read it once do not feel like they understand it as well as they would like. They are still working on getting the main messages from the Book of Mormon - its testimony of Jesus Christ, the power of His Atonement to change lives and redeem and deliver us, prophecies about the Restoration of the gospel, if we will keep the commandments we will be prospered and if we do not we will be cursed. That is where the focus ought to be with people who are still new and untried. Focus on the absolute truths first, delicately seasoned with the good insights we have gained from thinking deeply about the scriptures. Milk before meat, particularly when not all the meat is good.
The authors of the Book of Mormon (and Mormon in particular) mention repeatedly the difficulty and frustration of being able to include so little of what happened among the Nephites. Nephi has much the same difficulty: an 8 year trek through the Arabian peninsula to the land of Bountiful is shortened to essentially one chapter and one event that was particularly harsh for his family. The next 30-40 years of 2nd Nephi are summarized in a few verses so that he can spend the rest of that book entirely on recording and expounding on the teachings of his father, his brother, and his favorite prophet. If his record is to include only the most sacred writings, then there has to be a great sifting and winnowing to keep only the most important records.
In his book, Understanding the Book of Mormon, Grant Hardy encourages us to ponder the details of what was left out and to construct a narrative that explains what was left out and why. As he put it:
[Literary interpretation] is not a matter of discovering truths about a world so much as assigning thematic significance to component parts of a work. It is a search for coherence and sense. It involves making connections by subsuming more and more elements in a work under a network of thematic elements.Speaking of what is left out, I must apologize that I cannot pull direct quotations from him because I left my copy of the book in Nigeria when we returned to the States (taking only my family and tents and leaving my precious things?). This is not ideal but I'm not willing to buy Hardy's book again for the purpose of getting this blog post right.
As I wrote 6 years ago (and included again in the last post) He asks over and over what we can learn about the narrators from what they chose to include in their records, what glaring omissions there are, and how they incorporated their selections. ... This ... opens wide the doors to unfounded speculation and this is where I find most of my difficulties. Like many religious authors, he starts out well by saying phrases like "it is possible that..." or "one story that is consistent with the evidence is..."; then he inevitably ends up with phrases like certainly, surely, and it is obvious that... when there is nothing certain, sure, or obvious about it.
So how does Hardy understand Nephi? There are three main claims I recall:
1. Nephi deliberately misrepresents Laman and Lemuel, painting them worse than they are.
2. Nephi and Lehi had a bad relationship because Lehi didn't understand about Nephi killing Laban.
3. Nephi is in part a tragic character because he sought to understand the vision of the fruit of the tree of life, but not taste the fruit.
I take issue with all three, though not with everything he says while expounding on them. At the time, they bothered me but I decided to not pursue the ideas further, just keep my eyes open for future thoughts on the matter. When I read Boyce's article, demonstrating what Hardy ignores from the Book of Mormon record on these topics, I was overjoyed to get a better understanding of why this bothered me so, though I also do not agree with everything he says either.
1. Nephi has not only a purpose for writing (to show us that "the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance"1st Nephi 1:20) but an agenda. Hardy tells us that Nephi is deliberately manipulative, "playing with the chronology," distorting words, actions, and timing to make his brothers appear worse than they were and himself better. He provides motivations for L&L that are along the lines of people making honest mistakes but trying to do the right thing by following the Law of Moses anyway. He calls their multiple attempted murders of their brother "half-hearted" because they didn't succeed when God intervened to free and protect Nephi, and therefore Nephi's characterization of them as murderers in their hearts unfair, unsubstantiated, and ironic.
Boyce attacks this argument vigorously. Hardy completely ignores God's own words about Laman and Lemuel, which have nothing to do with honest mistakes. If it were an honest mistake, "surely" the visitation of angel would have helped dispel them! If it were an honest mistake, God Himself would not chasten them exceedingly (1st Nephi 16:39). God does not cast people out of His presence and curse them for honest misunderstandings - that's called transgression and our Savior paid the price for those so we can return to His presence despite our lack of knowledge. But when angels, prophets, and the voice of the Lord call someone to repent and they refuse to change, then it cease to be an honest mistake and becomes "rising up in rebellion" which is how God describes them. I particularly applaud Boyce's subsection "Three Final Matters" which I would have recommended he make the bulwark of his defense rather than framing it around the tree of life.
Something I agree with Hardy on: Hardy points out that Nephi and Lehi use different kinds of language when speaking to and about Laman and Lemuel. Both of them have seen in vision that L&L reject the love of God and the gospel. Lehi, as a loving father, consistently calls them to repentance but in a more pleading and less judgmental-sounding manner than Nephi. I can see that and I think there is a reasonable point in there, though Boyce's counterarguments in Three Final Matters help us see that this point could still be taken too far. One point of evidence Hardy uses in this discussion is that Nephi refers to the tree of life as a type of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden, with a chasm/river or an angel with a flaming sword separating the wicked from the tree. Boyce attacks this characterization, claiming that when Nephi calls it a tree of life, he didn't mean that tree of life and that "rejected" ought to be read as "separated." I don't find much support for Boyce's rebuttal. I also take issue with Boyce for giving Skouson's rewriting of "rejected" as "separated" the final word. I would have much preferred if Boyce had gone to, say, Samuel the Lamanite and shown that the reason the wicked are rejected by God is because they first reject Him, and explain that "surely" Nephi understood and meant this. Boyce's discussion of Nephi passing along what the angel said about the vision is also a much stronger argument than the tree of life discussion is.
2. For seminary this week, I was studying and preparing 2nd Nephi 1-5, where Lehi gives his last blessings to his posterity. For a long time, I had wondered why there was not a specific chapter for Lehi's last words to Nephi. Hardy's answer is that Lehi and Nephi were estranged over Laban. My answer had been that Nephi had some humility and didn't feel it necessary to rewrite a chapter based solely on "Boy, what a great job you did. Thank you, son, you are just so wonderful and you will be blessed."
In my reading this week, however, I was struck with how often Nephi does appear in the blessings to the other children:
Lehi talks about Nephi while blessing Laman and Lemuel. He explicitly gives the birthright blessing to Nephi unless they repent and defends and exonerates everything Nephi has said and done to his wicked older brothers as being moved upon the Spirit (1:24-29). "Rebel no more against Nephi, whose views have been glorious and who has kept the commandments since we left Jerusalem" is not the language of someone with lingering concerns about how the plates of brass were obtained. "He has sought your welfare" and "his sharpness ... was the power of the word of God, and that which ye call anger was the truth" is not a father who thinks Nephi has been too hard on his wayward sons.
Indeed, the highest blessing he gives any of the members of the party is that they will dwell with Nephi in safety and peace! Zoram is a faithful friend of Nephi and because of that faithfulness - to Nephi! - he and his children will be blessed "with the seed of my son" (1:30-32). Jacob, who is in his own right so righteous that he has seen his Savior, will dwell safely with Nephi (2:3). Joseph is told to listen to Nephi (3:25). Sam is so blessed that his children be counted as if they were Nephi's and he will inherit like Nephi (4:11).
This is quite the blessing - Nephi's birthright blessing is the measuring stick against which everyone else's blessings are to be measured. Lehi's counsel to everyone is to trust Nephi. This is not an estranged and silent father, bitter and condemning over his self-serving son's violent actions. Hardy's guess over what Nephi left out hasn't a leg to stand on - it's purest speculation and these terms from the text clearly stand as evidence against it.
3. Boyce cogently points out that A) Nephi did partake of the fruit during Lehi's dream; and B) Hardy ignores the structural difference between Nephi's and Lehi's vision. Lehi's was a first-person account of being in a wilderness and walking up to a tree. Nephi was taken to a mountain and shown a panoramic movie of the history of the world, tied to the symbolism of the tree of life, accompanied by angelic annotations.
I recall Wilford Woodruff's preacher friend, Robert Mason, who had a vision of being in a wasted orchard; when one tree grew up, he held and beheld the fruit but could not taste it. The Spirit told his friend that he would behold the restoration of God's church on the earth, but would not be able to join it, but that Wilford would. This vision was not a condemnation of Robert Mason by any stretch.
Neither was Nephi's vision. He beheld the Savior and His life and ministry. He was shown the entire history of God's dealings with the world from his own time to the end of the world. This is not the kind of vision God offers someone who has a merely academic interest in analyzing the fruit while missing the point.
And that, curiously enough, is my own time to invoke the word irony, as Hardy and Boyce have done. My main complaint about Understanding the Book of Mormon is that it is not about understanding the point of that glorious book. Six years ago I wrote: "There is very little talk about the Atonement or Christianity itself, ... how the Book of Mormon expounds on and complements the Bible's message of salvation, what the mission of Jesus Christ is or any of the fundamental points the prophets set out to make. ... Of course, given how didactic the Book of Mormon is (one of his favorite words), [Hardy] may feel it unnecessary: you can't read the Book of Mormon seriously without coming away with its testimony of Jesus Christ. Hardy wants to present something New. This is an intellectual exercise. I like such exercises. The thing is, if this were all anyone read, they would not come away Understanding the Book of Mormon."
The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Its authors were imperfect, but not deliberately manipulative of God's words in order to puff themselves up. What Hardy's book ultimately gets right is that we can better see and understand what God would teach us as we take the reality of the work seriously - treat Nephi, Mormon, Moroni and others as living, breathing, imperfect people through whom God has been able to do great work. There are glorious insights to be gained through the Spirit by doing so and it can help correct our own misunderstandings. In the last post, I mentioned several places where I am deeply thankful for what Hardy wrote. For another example, I rather approve of Spackman's take of 1st Nephi 1 and taught something like that myself in seminary last month.
So why do I not recommend Hardy's book for seminary students? Hardy's speculations based on what isn't in the text about Nephi are not part of these glorious insights. The fact that his book leads off with the worst part of the book is worrisome. Some of these students have read the Book of Mormon in its entirety before, but many haven'; even those who have read it once do not feel like they understand it as well as they would like. They are still working on getting the main messages from the Book of Mormon - its testimony of Jesus Christ, the power of His Atonement to change lives and redeem and deliver us, prophecies about the Restoration of the gospel, if we will keep the commandments we will be prospered and if we do not we will be cursed. That is where the focus ought to be with people who are still new and untried. Focus on the absolute truths first, delicately seasoned with the good insights we have gained from thinking deeply about the scriptures. Milk before meat, particularly when not all the meat is good.
No comments:
Post a Comment