Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

When Gods Were Men

Home
Latter-day Saint
History and Religion
Can Mormons Engage in Secular Study?

Can Mormons Engage in Secular Study?

Last updated on: January 9, 2015 at 10:39 am by David Bokovoy

Can Mormons Engage in Secular Study? 2015-01-09T10:39:05-06:00 David Bokovoy

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Mormonism is a cerebral religion. Much like Jews, Mormons worship through education. True, we have sacred temple ritual, and yes, we engage in prayer, sacrament, and hymns, but primarily, our Sunday worship consists in developing the mind. We devote most of our “hour-plus” sacrament meeting to lay persons sharing information they have studied. We then move to Sunday School where we spend a second hour of our Sabbath worship devoted to scripture study, and before we’re done, we move on to a third hour of education in our separate men and women’s group meetings.

The LDS Church devotes quite a bit of its resources to schools of higher education and a professional Seminary and Institute program. Church leaders encourage members to engage in both individual and family study of scripture on a daily basis. I think it’s safe to assert, therefore, that education is a central part of the Latter-day Saint religious experience.

This is not to suggest that our worship does not seriously engage in other pursuits. We also place considerable emphasis upon service. But education is clearly a fundamental part of LDS worship and it has been since the beginning.

This point can and certainly has been illustrated through a variety of examples. I’d like to add another for consideration. In a revelation given to Joseph Smith in June, 1831 concerning William W. Phelps, we witness a direct link between things of the spirit and the development of the mind. Concerning Phelps, the text states:

“And on whomsoever you shall lay your hands, if they are contrite before me, you shall have power to give the Holy Spirit” (v. 3)

This statement regarding the “Holy Spirit” is then immediately followed (and therefore directly contextually linked) with another sacred commission:

“And again, you shall be ordained to assist my servant Oliver Cowdery to do the work of printing, and of selecting and writing books for schools in this church, that little children also may receive instruction before me as is pleasing unto me” (v. 4).

Hence, in the immediate context of providing spiritual gifts, this religious text includes a reference to providing books for educational pursuits. This same pattern appears over and over again throughout the Doctrine and Covenants. The two forces, spirit and mind, appear as a unified power. Even revelation itself, the act of divine disclosure, appears explicitly defined in LDS scripture as a process in which divinity speaks not only to the heart but also to the mind (see D&C 8:2).

Since Mormonism is therefore a cerebral religion that worships through education, I maintain that Latter-day Saints should not be afraid to engage in secular academic analysis. Secular studies can be defined as those which bracket traditional truth claims concerning divinity in an open pursuit of intellectual inquiry. Speaking personally, understanding “secular” study is especially important in terms of my own academic studies, which approach sacred texts from a historical critical perspective.

Historical criticism is the label that we often use for mainline secular biblical scholarship. The historical-critical method 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, including Mormonism. Historical criticism is an academic pursuit. It is not in and of itself anti-religious, nor is it in anyway antithetical to a spiritual reading of biblical material. However, biblical scholars who adopt this interpretive method often come to different conclusions regarding the meaning of a text than the ones produced through contemporary religious readings.

Historical Criticism seeks to uncover the way in which an original author and an ancient audience would have understood that writer’s message. Often contemporary readers of ancient texts assume that authors saw the world in a way that parallels the modern religious experience. But if readers approach a text this way, they fail to allow the original author to share his own experience with the divine. In other words, reading modern conceptions into ancient texts limits the original author’s ability to tell us what he knows. And what he knows is often vastly different than our own knowledge.

There are many academic or “secular” approaches scholars use to interpret the Bible, including Form Criticism, Structuralism, Reader-Response Criticism, Deconstruction, and Social-Scientific Criticism (just to name a few). Each of these academic methods has its place. In my own studies, I am primarily interested in what is known as Higher Criticism. The term Higher Criticism refers to a scholarly attempt to explain inconsistencies in the Bible by identifying its original sources. As an interpretive tool, Higher Criticism constitutes a central part of the historical-critical method.

Returning to the issue of Mormonism, in light of the fact that Mormonism embraces the development of the mind as a religious pursuit, I’m not convinced that there is such a thing as “secular” study, not for Latter-day Saints. If bracketing traditional religious beliefs leads to truth, then in a religion that worships through education and the development of the mind, such a pursuit constitutes a spiritual journey.

Since Mormonism is a cerebral religion, in our religious quest for truth, I believe we should not be afraid to expose students to the insights scholars have gained through academic inquiry, even when those insights counter some of our traditional beliefs. Students do not need to be coddled or protected in an age of information accessibility. Instead, they should be encouraged to follow the example of Joseph Smith who used academic inquiry to enhance his understanding of divinity. As contemporary Latter-day Saints, we would no doubt benefit from adopting the approach to “secular” studies (such as Higher Criticism) that Elder John A. Widtsoe held:

“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.” John A. Widtsoe, In Search of Truth: Comments on the Gospel and Modern Thought (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1930), 81-82.

Not only should we not be afraid to expose LDS students in our universities to academic studies concerning both our scripture and our history, we should not be afraid to subject our religious texts to serious intellectual investigation. Within the Latter-day Saint tradition, Elder B.H. Roberts recognized the importance of this perspective. Concerning the Book of Mormon and Higher Criticism, Elder Roberts wrote:

“The Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given.” B. H. Roberts, “The Translation of the Book of Mormon,” Improvement Era 9 (April 1906): 435-36

Admittedly, this type of analysis creates some problems for some of our traditional paradigms. Some of our assumptions regarding the development of scriptural texts cannot be sustained when investigated from this angle. Questioning these matters with a critical mind, however, is no sin.

When critical study counters traditional assumptions, LDS scripture invites believers to look towards divinity and employ both the heart and the mind to process that information. In so doing, Mormons are not engaged in secular study. In fact, I’m not convinced that such as thing can truly exist in the context of Mormon faith. Mormonism, said Brigham Young, “embraces everything that comes within the range of the understanding of man; if it does not circumscribe every thing that is in heaven and on earth, it is not what it purports to be” (JD 2:138).

Previous Post

January 7, 2015

As it Should Be?: Historicity and Scripture

Next Post

January 9, 2015 Hugh Nibley on Education

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Bible Book of Mormon Documentary Hypothesis Eden Eve Feminism Genesis goddesses Gods Historical Criticism Judaism Mormon Studies New Testament Prophecy Prophets Religion Religious Studies Social Justice Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2015 July 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 July 2014 April 2014 March 2014 January 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did the disciples do when Jesus asked them to stay awake in the garden?

Select your answer to see how you score.

They left They sang They prayed They fell asleep