[Page 131]Review of Joseph M. Spencer, 1 Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2020). 146 pages. $9.99 (paperback).
Abstract: Joseph Spencer’s intimate familiarity with the Book of Mormon text, based upon years of close textual study and informed by a well- developed theological sensibility, is in full evidence in this lead-off volume in Neal A. Maxwell Institute’s new series of books on the various books of the Book of Mormon. Leaving to prophets and apostles the responsibility for “declaring official doctrine,” this new series approaches the book with the tools of the “scholarly practice” of theology. In Spencer’s case at least, his practice is understood to be (1) informed by an emphasis on grace that is skeptical of claims of personal righteousness and (2) very much engaged with contemporary moral and social issues grounded in a fundamental concern for “equality.” Accordingly, Spencer’s reading is much more interested in “what God is doing in history with what we call the Abrahamic covenant” than with the more popular (non-scholarly) concerns of “everyday faithful living;” it is also more interested in Nephi’s “realistic” and “mature” regret over his youthful over-boldness than in his confident statements of righteous faith. In the end, Spencer’s extremely careful but theologically tendentious reading alerts us very skillfully to certain features of Nephi’s imperfect humanity but reveals a consistent preoccupation with any possible faults in the prophet that might be extracted from an ingenious reading of the text. Finally, concerning women in the Book of Mormon, Spencer again expertly raises provocative questions about barely heard female voices but is too eager to frame these questions from the standpoint of the “modern sensibility” of “sexual egalitarianism.”
[Page 132]Joseph Spencer’s academic qualifications for batting lead-off in the Neal A. Maxwell Institute’s important new series of books on the various books of the Book of Mormon are notable. Professor Spencer, who has taught in BYU’s ancient scripture department since 2015, is author of two previous books closely examining the Book of Mormon text1 as well as scores of articles, chapters, and reviews on these and related topics. He is co-editor of the Book of Mormon Series (in which the present title appears) as well as editor of the Maxwell Institute’s Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. (Let us note as well that Joseph Spencer holds a PhD in philosophy and has also published extensively in that demanding field of scholarship.) As he demonstrates in the present work, Spencer has devoted years of close and faithful study to the Book of Mormon and has much to offer the reader who is willing to join him in a fresh and searching engagement with an ancient and inspired text.
Interpretive Grace
Professor Spencer emphasizes that his approach to 1 Nephi is theological. “My first purpose in the following pages is … to show how much we miss in 1 Nephi — how much we miss that’s of a theological nature” (3). In this he echoes the series introduction: “This series focuses particularly on theology — the scholarly practice of exploring a scriptural text’s implications and its lens on God’s work in the world” (viii). It seems that the meaning of this “scholarly practice” is best understood (again from the series introduction) “as opposed to [that is, as distinct from] authoritative doctrine,” that is, “as, literally, reasoned ‘God talk’” (viii). This series, we read, intends to engage “each scriptural book’s theology on its own terms” (viii) without imposing any “single approach to theology or scriptural interpretation” (ix). Thus, the Maxwell Institute’s editorial approach enacts a rather abrupt division of labor between “prophets and apostles [in] their unique role of declaring official doctrines” (viii) and the theologian’s scholarly practice of reasoned engagement with the scriptural text. From this point of view, it seems, it would be surprising if prophets reasoned or if a theologian’s reasonings reckoned with prophetic authority.2 The series introduction concludes quite decorously [Page 133]with a dedication to Elder Maxwell’s “apostolic conviction that there is always more to learn from the Book of Mormon and much to be gained from our faithful search for Christ in its pages” (ix), as distinct, to be sure, from the official declaration of definitive doctrines.
If a “theological” approach is not to be confused with one that takes its bearings by “authoritative doctrine,” then what kind of “God-talk” will serve as Spencer’s interpretive touchstone? “And this might be the truest sign of prophecy,” Spencer writes, “that it comes through those God exalts despite their human nature” (5, emphasis added). This insight or sensibility sets the tone of Spencer’s theology and thus of his interpretation of 1 Nephi. To remember that prophets are, like us, “earthen vessels” (6; quoting 2 Corinthians 4:7), is to look at scripture as “an astonishing textual embodiment of grace” (5, emphasis added). With this in mind, the author will minimize any evidence of Nephi’s own virtue or righteousness and highlight or, rather, seek out evidence — even the most subtle and indirect — of the prophet’s all-too-human nature. And this interpretive choice, we will see, aligns nicely with Spencer’s interest in the “questions [that] are most pressing right now, two decades into the twenty-first century” (4). (Direct attention to these contemporary questions occupies the second half of this book.) As we keep in mind both our dependence on grace and the contemporary issues that swirl around us, Spencer promises (in a characteristically self-effacing resort to the first person plural) to “show how much we miss in 1 Nephi — how much we miss that’s of a theological nature” (3).
Textual Structure and Covenantal History
Along with this theological emphasis on grace/earthen vessels, Spencer’s interpretive method relies heavily on his very searching investigations of the overarching structure of Nephi’s writings (with due attention, of course, to the original chaptering). The theological purpose of the book can only come to light after we “ask how 1 Nephi is organized” (12). There is reason to believe that this organization is very careful and deliberate, [Page 134]since the account we are reading was written decades after the events recounted. Spencer proposes that the main theme or underlying concern of 1 Nephi is the “intertribal conflict between Nephites and Lamanites” (12). Attention to this concern leads Spencer to “connect Nephi’s vision to Isaiah and Isaiah to Nephi’s vision” (21), and this attention culminates in the major thesis of his interpretation: “For the most part, then, Isaiah’s prophecies aren’t for Nephi about everyday faithful living. They’re about the long-term destiny of Israel” (22). Spencer is willing to indulge more naïve readers who look at 1 Nephi as “a collection of illustrative stories, vignettes modeling faith amid adversity” (22), as “just another means to the end of feeling the Spirit and receiving direction for our lives” (23), but he is clear that “Nephi asks us to read his work primarily in a different way” (22). In particular, while “we’re certainly free to read 1 Nephi 8 as an allegory for our individual struggles to prove faithful” (30), Spencer strikingly suggests, mainly on the basis of “the sudden shift in the dream-scape, specifically when Laman and Lemuel refuse the tree,” (29) that “the numberless concourses are the children of Laman and Lemuel — perhaps especially in the last days” (29), and thus that “the dream is primarily about Lehi’s two oldest sons” (29). “Nephi’s vision is about getting the children of Laman and Lemuel into God’s presence” (32).
Spencer is thus much more interested in “what God is doing in history with what we call the Abrahamic covenant” (35) than with the more commonplace concerns of “everyday faithful living” (22). Concretely, this means seeing the Book of Mormon as “the iron rod that leads latter-day Lamanites — and Gentiles with them — along the gospel path” (36). From this perspective, the apostasy is less a matter of “early Christians jettison[ing] specific ordinances” than it is of forgetting “the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the House of Israel” (35; 1 Nephi 13:23), as these have to do with the destiny of “latter-day Lamanites” (36). This is the meaning of Nephi’s “likening” to Isaiah: “The two stories, Nephi’s and Isaiah’s, are one, although occurring among different branches of Israel” (41).
“We should share Nephi’s obsession with the history of the Abrahamic covenant. Perhaps we should even share his obsession with Isaiah” (43). Why Spencer’s focus on this “obsession?” And just what follows from it? Although he recognizes — as any passably attentive reader of Nephi must — that “Christ is the hero of the covenantal story Nephi has to tell” (61), that “to know Christ is to know the covenant, for Nephi” (62), Spencer seems determined to emphasize what we might call the historical and communalist features of Christ and the covenant. [Page 135]This historical-covenantal “obsession” inevitably tends to the neglect of the plain meaning of the gospel for every faithful individual as this is explained by Nephi himself in his wonderful concluding statement of the “doctrine of Christ” in 2 Nephi 31. Is it not in Jesus Christ and his doctrine of faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end, that the Lord universalizes his covenant for all people? Why then would a student of Nephi’s prophecies wish to set the “historical” and “covenantal” meaning of Nephi’s teaching against the doctrine of Christ as it applies to each of us individually?3
[Page 136]Against “Individualism”
The answer to this question seems to emerge later in Spencer’s book,4 in the context of a discussion of Nephi’s killing of Laban:
Nephi learned through his encounter with the Spirit that God’s purposes are bigger than our own. The communal and the covenantal are to be privileged above our individual – and often selfish – concerns. We’re proud of our modern individualism, but Nephi’s story suggests there’s something important beyond our cloistered concerns. We’re not to be hermits, demonstrating our individual righteousness to God and others in our withdrawal from the world. We’re meant to live together in love, jointly keeping the commandments and making wherever we live a land of promise. (80, emphasis added)
This remarkable confessional statement provides the key, I think, to understanding Spencer’s obsessions. He has already told us that a certain understanding of “grace” provides his theological touchstone, that is, that human beings are exalted, not so much through excellent personal qualities or the ongoing work of perfecting individual human nature, but “despite their human nature” (5). From this point of view, any preoccupation with “individual righteousness” can be classified with the “selfish” concerns of “modern individualism.” Such spiritualized selfishness, from Spencer’s point of view, constitutes a “withdrawal from the world,” where “the world” is interpreted, not, say, as the allurement of a Great and Spacious Building, but as the commitment “to live together in love, jointly keeping the commandments and making wherever we live a land of promise” (80, emphasis added). Spencer’s historical-covenantal [Page 137]focus is thus rigorously associated with his theology of grace. And this theology of grace, despite the concession to “commandments” (qualified by jointly), implies a de-emphasis, at least, on personal righteousness, which would entail “our withdrawal from the world,” and a distinct collective-historical turn towards “making wherever we live a land of promise” by “living together in love.”
Spencer’s highlighting of Nephi’s preoccupation with the historical and collective Abrahamic covenant as it applies particularly to the descendants of the Lamanites is an important contribution to our understanding of Nephi’s prophetic voice. Perhaps the central question the author puts to the reader is whether the collective-historical interpretation of grace — as opposed to the faithful individual’s quest for salvation, enduring to the end while “relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save” (2 Nephi 31:19), according to the doctrine of Christ — best serves the cause of Israel’s redemption.
As noted above, the other main fruit of Spencer’s theology of grace- based interpretation is his emphasis on Nephi’s quite flawed humanity, especially in his relations with his less righteous — or, shall we say, less-than-cooperative — brothers, Laman and Lemuel. Now, anyone who has read 2 Nephi 4 has heard Nephi himself confessing and grieving over his own imperfect humanity, and the context of this confession certainly suggests that Nephi’s vexations have to do with his relations with his now thoroughly alienated brethren. Certainly Spencer is right, as Noel Reynolds showed long ago,5 that Nephi’s authorial perspective has much to do with the “intertribal conflict between Nephites and Lamanites” (12). The subtitle of 1 Nephi refers, after all, to the prophet’s “reign and ministry.” But Spencer wants to suggest further that a close reading of Nephi’s text reveals his intention to apologize for his mistreatment of Laman and Lemuel:
We’re apt to feel that Nephi is unfair to his understandably baffled brothers and that maybe they were right to see Nephi as self-righteous and judgmental. If so, shouldn’t we worry that Nephi lacks common feeling, that he was spiritually gifted but socially clueless? And could someone like that really be a reliable guide to living a rich spiritual life in community with others? (67) … Among these more human figures, Nephi looks almost pathologically faithful. (83)
[Page 138]This criticism of Nephi6 perfectly fits the mold of Spencer’s interpretive scheme: Nephi went wrong in that he prioritized “judgmental” personal righteousness over the grace-enabled understanding that makes possible a communal spiritual life, “a rich spiritual life in community with others” (67). Spencer grants that Nephi is “neither dismissive nor mean” to his brothers, but he does blame Nephi for being “paternalistic” (95). From this point of view, the narrative of 1 Nephi appears “as an aspect of national propaganda,” a propaganda that the rest of the story in the Book of Mormon suggests “worked too well” (85).
To be sure, Spencer’s purpose is ultimately to vindicate Nephi insofar as the prophet eventually realized the error of his ways, and it is from the perspective of this mature recognition and communal spirituality that the books of Nephi were written. The point of bringing to light and emphasizing Nephi’s “foibles” is “to make clear that we follow the prophets precisely because of what God does through them, not because of what or who they are on their own” (96, emphasis in original). For Spencer, Nephi’s resolute statement of his readiness to obey the Lord’s commandments in what is surely one of the most quoted passages in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 3:7, “I will go and do … ”) is an example of the prophet’s youthful self-righteousness, later corrected or adjusted by his more “realistic” and “mature” statement that the Lord nourishes and strengthens those who keep the commandments and provides “means whereby they can accomplish the thing which he has commanded them” (1 Nephi 17:3).
I must say I am underwhelmed by the supposed contrast between these statements. More generally, I would say that Nephi’s humanity is evident enough throughout his account (nowhere more than in 2 Nephi 4, to be sure), and needs no deepening through the attribution of immature and anti-social self-righteousness. There is no reason to contend, in response to Spencer’s preoccupation with “humanizing” Nephi, that the prophet never made a misstep he regretted. But Spencer is perhaps a little overconfident of his capacity to judge the youthful Nephi. Is it a fault to be humorless and overly serious when coming out of a conversation with the Father and the Son into a squabble with faithless brothers who refuse to believe their own father and his claims to visions? And how much slack should Nephi have given Laman and Lemuel, who were known to have schemed and even attempted on multiple occasions to murder Nephi or his father, ultimately being restrained only by divine interventions? The fact that Nephi dwells so little on these facts in his writing seems indeed to point to his decades [Page 139]of distance from the events being reported — but not quite to the kind of change of heart Spencer perceives. Nephi has certainly put the events of 1 Nephi into a much larger perspective by the time of his writing, but perhaps not a perspective that questions his earlier righteousness in quite the way or to the degree that Spencer aims to show.
The Theological Questions of Modern Morality
We will touch more lightly on the rest of the second half of Spencer’s 1 Nephi, “Part II, The Theological Questions of 1 Nephi.” Interestingly, these theological questions arise not from the great questions of the theological tradition (the Godhead, salvation, atonement, etc.), which, to be sure, have been addressed to some degree in Part I as they emerge from the text, but from the characteristic preoccupations of contemporary social progressives, or let us say of younger Latter-day Saints influenced by a contemporary, progressive moral-political framework. Thus, the question of personal morality — pushed aside or demoted in Spencer’s account of Nephi and his brethren, as it relates to the “doctrine of Christ,” in favor of the collective-covenantal perspective — now returns in force, but from a contemporary moral perspective not drawn from but superimposed upon scripture. From this perspective, Spencer imagines his reader asking, or invites his reader to ask, whether, since “prophets aren’t infallible … could [Nephi] get something so seriously wrong that he leads us astray?” (67).
The first such “theological question” Spencer engages, in Chapter 4, is the classic one of Laban’s death. His discussion of this hard case is careful and rewarding. Much to his credit, the author invites his readers to adopt a critical attitude concerning “strictly rational ethical demands” in “an increasingly secularized world” (70). He here seems to identify rational rather narrowly, I would say, with a liberal-secular view of “public reason,” in which reason is defined a priori as excluding any religious or otherwise soulful considerations. In any case, Spencer shows himself ready to allow the Lord to “smash the rational and ethical idols we’re tempted to place before the God of faith and obedience” (71).
But Spencer dismisses rather abruptly one sort of the argument that might be considered “rational” — namely, one that would justify Nephi’s action as “excusable homicide under the public law of the time” (69), quite confident that the argument from legality to morality is of little worth, that “ethical questions generally eclipse legal questions for good reason” (70). I can see Spencer’s point, but is there not good reason to regard positive laws as practical instantiations and indispensable [Page 140]determinations of ethical norms? Surely the legal deserves to be taken into account as an essential domain of the ethical.
In keeping with his overall approach, Spencer seems somewhat over-eager to interpret Nephi’s killing of Laban as another example of his maturation from self-righteous youth to mature, covenant-focused prophet. That is, he is eager to distinguish motives that might well be considered as two aspects of one righteous motive: Nephi’s interest in being a righteous person — a desire “tainted with a competitive spirit” (78) — as opposed to his obedience to divine commands understood as instrumental to “God’s covenantal promises to whole peoples” (78). When he cannot quite prove this distinction from the text, Spencer resorts to leading questions: “Was [Nephi] interested in keeping commandments, or did he treat the commandments primarily as something to force himself into his role as ruler and teacher? … Is he depressed, aware that he has perhaps overreached? Or is he as confident as ever? We don’t know” (76). No, in fact, we do not. And we have no reason to assume such overreach unless we insist a priori on dividing personal righteousness from covenantal promises.
Spencer’s reading finally supports a faithful approach to the text in that he is ready to accept Nephi’s action as commanded — or rather constrained — by the Spirit. (Spencer is convinced this distinction is important.) Indeed, he pushes back against those who adopt a “self- congratulating intellectual superiority” and are thus scandalized by the story of Laban’s slaying. It’s “hard to be critical without being hypocritical” (80), he wisely notices. But, characteristically, he reaches out to Nephi’s critics and, braving his own warnings about hypocrisy, judges that “there are motes in Nephi’s eyes, to be sure — maybe even beams” (80). Nephi is redeemed, from this point of view, by the fact that Nephi’s own story, when read closely enough, shows that “he seems to hope we’ll see those motes, or even those beams” (80).
Joseph Spencer’s extremely careful reading certainly alerts us very skillfully to certain features of Nephi’s imperfect humanity. But it seems to me that the author’s own theological priorities — a certain understanding of grace motivates his determination to drive a wedge between personal righteousness and salvation and the collective- covenantal — consistently lead him to overstate Nephi’s faults.
Women and Feminism
There is much that is valuable and, I think, quite original in Spencer’s chapter 6 (“The Women”) on women and sexuality. He rightly draws our [Page 141]attention to Jacob 3:6, which seems to tie the Lord’s eventual mercy toward the Lamanites to what Spencer calls their “relative gender parity” (103). Once again, the author seems more confident than the textual evidence supports that the story of Nephites and Lamanites over ten centuries can be significantly structured around Lamanite superiority in terms of sexual morality and the treatment of women. It must be granted to Spencer’s thesis that there is a striking and disturbing resonance between Jacob’s condemnation of Nephite sexual practices very early in the story and Moroni’s shocking revelations at the very end (Moroni 9:9-10). It must be noted, still, that the Lamanites are hardly models of morality,7 and Moroni’s late judgment against the Nephites takes the form of an equivalence with the Lamanites: “this great abomination of the Lamanites … doth not exceed that of our people” (Moroni 9:9). Spencer is certainly right, in any case, to draw our attention to the sexual violence at the heart of Moroni’s accusation of his own people.
Spencer also provides a very richly suggestive comparison between the “conflict between the sexes” (113) in the persons of Sariah and Lehi, on one hand, and the second-generation conflict between Nephi and Laman, in which the question of women’s suffering is wholly subordinated to “rivalry between Israelite men … in their own fights for dominance and inheritance” (113). But are we sure we want to reduce Nephi’s struggle with his brethren to a fight for dominance or inheritance? More generally, the very expressions by which Spencer frames the Nephite/Lamanite comparison on sex and gender points once again to a certain excess or arbitrary tendency in Spencer’s rhetorical framing of scriptural teachings and theological problems. What the prophet Jacob frames as monogamous chastity (as opposed to polygamy, concubinage, and whoredoms), Spencer expresses in keeping with the contemporary preoccupation with “gender parity” (103). Thus a very natural and surely legitimate concern for the mostly silent struggles of womankind is fitted to a distinctly contemporary ideological frame. Nephi’s readers are urged to look for “a promise of sexual egalitarianism” and examples of “women willing to resist oppression” (113–14). This “oppression” seems to include any circumstances in which a woman’s commitment to her “social role” (106, 115) might seem to trump her individual self- expression. It must be said that Spencer decidedly wavers here in his own critique of “modern individualism.” In fact he plainly judges all earlier societies as “oppressive cultures” from the standpoint of our [Page 142]apparently unimpeachable modern sensibilities. This is the standpoint from which “the Nephites’ ‘imperfections’” (114) — including, to be sure, Nephi’s own — are scrutinized. If some belief or habit or social role tends to “make us cringe today” (114), this seems to provide a sufficient basis for moral judgment. At least, for Spencer, Nephi deserves credit for his “struggle against those attitudes” (114) that we have at last overcome in the name of the “modern sensibility” of “sexual egalitarianism.”
To be sure, Professor Spencer acknowledges that even we (that is, we modern egalitarians) are all still struggling, since “we’re as enmeshed in oppressive cultures as the prophets of the past” (115). But in this very acknowledgement, the author seems to convict living prophets as much as the rest of us; the implication is that the prophets were and are as enmeshed as we are, and that only modern moralists can begin to escape the oppression inherited from less enlightened times in that moment of awakening in which our individual consciousness is liberated from our “social roles,” and thus from complicity in the oppression that modern prophets don’t yet clearly see. The prophets are included in the convicted “we,” and the author situates himself among those awakening from “oppression.”
Invoking once again the convicting first person plural, Spencer confesses that “we’re almost certainly blind to our own prejudices” (115).
I suppose we can agree on that.
My dear young brothers and sisters, these surely are the latter days, and the Lord is hastening His work to gather Israel. That gathering is the most important thing taking place on earth today. Nothing else compares in magnitude, nothing else compares in importance, nothing else compares in majesty. And if you choose to, if you want to, you can be a big part of it. You can be a big part of something big, something grand, something majestic!
When we speak of the gathering, we are simply saying this fundamental truth: every one of our Heavenly Father’s children, on both sides of the veil, deserves to hear the message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. They decide for themselves if they want to know more. …
My question tonight to every one of you between the ages of 12 and 18 is this: Would you like to be a big part of the greatest challenge, the greatest cause, and the greatest work on earth today? …
Every child of our Heavenly Father deserves the opportunity to choose to follow Jesus Christ, to accept and receive His gospel with all of its blessings — yes, all the blessings that God promised to the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who, as you know, is also known as Israel.
My dear extraordinary youth, you were sent to earth at this precise time, the most crucial time in the history of the world, to help gather Israel. There is nothing happening on this earth right now that is more important than that. There is nothing of greater consequence. Absolutely nothing.
This gathering should mean everything to you. This is the mission for which you were sent to earth. (Russell M. Nelson, “Hope of Israel,” Worldwide Youth Devotional, June 3, 2018, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2018/08-se/hope-of-israel.)
To inquire further into the reasoning behind Spencer’s obsession with covenantal-collective history as opposed to the gospel as addressed to individuals would lead us to examine Spencer’s impressive earlier writings on the Book of Mormon, and especially his On Typology (see, in the volume under review, endnotes 1.2, 2.1, and 4.1). The substantive question of Israel’s covenant is bound up for Spencer with the textual-structural question of the divisions of Nephi’s text. Surprisingly (at least to me), Spencer (following a 1986 article by Frederick W. Axelgard; see endnote 1.2) advocates not Nephi’s own division between 1 Nephi and 2 Nephi, but a division between 2 Nephi 5 and 6. This division serves an argument that emphasizes Isaiah’s prophecies and Nephi’s “likening” of them over Nephi’s concluding doctrinal chapters, and especially the remarkable “doctrine of Christ” set forth in 2 Nephi 31 in which Nephi is uniquely instructed by the Father and the Son. In Spencer’s structural scheme, this powerful and luminous chapter can only figure as a kind of epilogue to the main treatment of Israel- and Lamanite-directed prophecy.
Ralph C. Hancock (PhD Harvard) is Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young University, where he teaches the tradition of political philosophy as well as contemporary political theory. He has taught three times as Visiting Professor at the University of Rennes, France, and was a Visiting Scholar at Liberty Fund in Indianapolis. He is the author of Calvin and the Foundations of Modern Politics (Saint Augustine’s Press, 2011; Cornell University Press, 1989) as well as The Responsibility of Reason: Theory and Practice in a Liberal-Democratic Age (Rowman & Littlefield, 2011). He is also the editor of America, the West, and Liberal Education (Rowman & Littlefield, 1999) and, with Gary Lambert, of The Legacy of the French Revolution (Rowman & Littlefield, 1996) and translator of numerous books and articles from the French, including Pierre Manent’s Natural Law and Human Rights (Notre Dame University Press, 2020). He has published many academic articles as well as articles in the press and online on the intersection of faith, reason and politics. Professor Hancock is a Consulting Editor of Perspectives on Political Science and a member of the editorial board of Square Two, an online journal of “Faithful Scholarship by Members of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints on Contemporary Issues.” He is also co-founder of Fathom the Good, which provides a history and humanities curriculum for home schools and independent schools grounded in the Western tradition of political philosophy.
Facebook
X
Youtube
Tiktok
Instagram
26 Comment(s)
DanB, 12-10-2020 at 11:02 pm
Ad hominem, begone!
I doubt any of us know Joseph Spencer’s heart. (There is a difference between critique [Hancock – good!] and criticism [some comments here – bad!].
The introduction in the series referred to here (published in each volume) states that the author is not declaring official doctrine, but only stating fervent impressions AND personal opinions/theological musings.
If others have different impressions and/or opinions, then pay the requisite price and publish them (as Spencer, Hancock, and the other series authors have done: get baccalaureate, masters and doctoral degrees; contribute often to peer-reviewed professional books and journals; teach, test and grade bright and challenging students – Seminary, Institute, and BYU. Or put in the same significant effort at secular graduate and/or divinity schools.
After 11-years post-BYU, and then 48 years practicing a medical specialty, I know a little of Spencer’s significant effort and preparation. Yet I cannot know the intent of his heart, or judge the eternal value of this (impressive – IMO) contribution to the Kingdom.
Replies
Lanny Landrith, 12-11-2020 at 4:15 pm
There is a tendency among some professors to become impressed with their intellect and thus want to impress people with their expertise. I observed this tendency while I was getting my B.A. and M.A. in English and philosophy at BYU. I also observed this tendency when I had attended George Washington University and George Mason University (to become a certified teacher in English and in Mathematics). I observed this tendency when I attended American University’s classes in graduate film. I also observed this tendency about several historians when I have studied 6 major founding fathers (Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton).
On the other side of the coin, I also have observed professors who were genuinely interested in students’ learning rather than in showing that they (the professors) were experts. The really good professors – although confident – did not seem interested in appearing as experts. One such Jewish professor asked me if I would read his draft of a new novel he was writing about 2 Jewish boys escaping from the Nazis.
You don’t have to have a degree to act as an expert. I have known Latter-day Saints who wanted to appear as “experts” in the Gospel. One such Latter-day Saint actually referred to himself as “an expert” while professing that our godhead was the Trinity as in Catholicism. This same “expert” would read the Book of Mormon while at singles dances; thus he ignored women who went home upset and depressed because NO ONE had asked them to dance. There are times to read the Book of Mormon, and there are other times not to read the Book of Mormon but to OBEY the Book of Mormon. This so-called expert didn’t know the difference.
If you are going to write about Nephi, 1 Nephi and 2 Nephi make it very clear that Nephi was one of the good guys, and that Laman and Lemuel were 2 of the bad guys. There’s absolutely NO doubt about this. When a Latter-day Saint “scholar” wants to criticize a prophet, the “scholar” should study Eli in the Old Testament who let his sons do wicked things; the prophet Samuel also had at least one son who did wicked things, but like Lehi and unlike Eli, Samuel diligently strived to stop his son’s wicked ways.
Spending a lot of time preparing an article – as Spencer obviously did – should result in an accurate assessment of any person, especially a prophet. When that assessment is very inaccurate, that inaccuracy is a huge red flag, indicating a failure to listen to the Spirit. Such a failure at least suggests that the “scholar” has pride – too much pride – in his scholarship rather than a desire to enlighten.
Dennis Horne, 12-11-2020 at 7:57 pm
Oh my!
The issue isn’t what may or may not be in Spencer’s heart. The point is the unorthodoxy of his theology that is contrary to what prophets have taught.
Secondly, thankfully we are not required to be professors with doctorates to understand or teach or write about doctrine in this church. On the contrary, such degrees can do more harm than good. We do not seek divinity degrees.
Does God require us all to be Egyptologists or astronomers in order to read, understand, and love the Book of Abraham?
Does God require us all to be Hebrew scholars to read and understand the Old Testament, or Greek and Aramaic experts to read and understand and rejoice in the New Testament?
Must we all be horticulturists to understand Jacob 5?
The final and best and highest quality explanations of scripture (theology) do not come from BYU professors of whatever, they come from the prophets and apostles, regardless of degrees or teaching experience.
These NAMI books reach only a very small audience (thank goodness), whereas the vast majority of scripture teaching in this church is done by hundreds of thousands of regular members in their wards. And thank goodness the vast majority of them don’t look for weakness in Nephi or call him self-righteous, etc.
Being a good guy or having a good sincere heart doesn’t excuse unorthodox or false teachings/writings.
Throwing a disclaimer in your preface, stating that your book series is not official doctrine does not excuse formulation of new wrong doctrine.
It seems to me that the sharp people (Lanny, Tamara, Sam) who have been commenting on here negatively about what they see from this review are exactly right; let us not meddle with the sound interpretations of scripture from our prophets–else why have them when we have NAMI instead?
Replies
Sam Garner, 12-11-2020 at 10:12 pm
Great comments Lanny & Dennis! Undermining the plain meaning of scripture is not an appropriate manifestation of gospel commentary in my opinion. There’s plenty of room and then some within faithful boundaries to expound upon and express varying opinions about the contents of the scriptures. Venturing outside those boundaries usually leads to a spiritually lethal mixture of worldly philosophies and gospel truth.
Replies
Brant A. Gardner, 12-11-2020 at 10:20 pm
I am concerned that there is the idea that there is a “plain meaning” of scripture that is so readily available. William Dever noted:
We must therefore beware of “modernizing” the Bible. Believers who read only modern English translations of the Biblical text, often unaware of the long transmission process, speak of the “plain meaning” of Scripture. If there were any such thing, we would have none of the violent controversies that have always surrounded the interpretation of the Bible–beginning already in antiquity and continuuing through every popular and scholarly school, both Jewish and Christian, to this very moment.
William G. Dever. Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, 190, 8.
Replies
Dennis Horne, 12-11-2020 at 10:47 pm
Brandt,
We are talking about the Book of Mormon here, specifically First Nephi, not the Bible. Book of Mormon interpretation is not beholden to Biblical scholarship; its the other way around. One of the Book of Mormon’s main purposes is to straighten out bad Biblical interpretation.
And I don’t have the quote in front of me, but when Brother Joseph was asked how to interpret scripture, he replied something to the effect of- just how it is written, the plain reading. That doesn’t always work but it does most of the time. One thing the gift of discernment helps readers do is figure out what is literal and what is figurative. Of course, once the prophet of the Lord provide an inspired interpretation of a passage of scripture, that is the final word.
(On a side note I often see progressives try to paint Brother Joseph Fielding Smith as a “scriptural literalist,” which is a gross error. He knew when to decipher figurative scriptural passages as well as when to see other passages literal meanings.)
Replies
Brant A. Gardner, 12-11-2020 at 11:21 pm
Of course we are talking about the Book of Mormon. There is only one translation away from the original, but there is a lot of disagreement about what that single translation has done to the original. Certainly, we have the essentials, but translations always lose something. Also, we have Nephi himself telling us that the plain reading isn’t necessarily the one to be concerned with. We are supposed to liken scriptures to ourselves, and that necessarily means different tings to different peoples, cultures, and times.
Unfortunately, most often the idea of “plain reading” is code for one’s own reading which is simply assumed to be obvious. I find that there are multiple readings of the text that deal with instructions on how to live correctly, but those meanings don’t always line up with what I see as the context for the original writers. I don’t think either of those ways of reading the text is wrong. Both are valuable–to different peoples and at different times.
Lanny Landrith, 12-11-2020 at 10:28 pm
Thank you. GOOD COMMENT!
Replies
Lanny Landrith, 12-12-2020 at 6:38 pm
My thank you and praise in this reply were met for Sam.
Lanny Landrith, 12-11-2020 at 10:19 pm
EXCELLENT COMMENT!!
Replies
Lanny Landrith, 12-12-2020 at 6:41 pm
This reply “EXCELLENT COMMENT” was intended for Dennis.
Tamara, 12-06-2020 at 1:17 am
Thank you; this was very good. I’ve been concerned about and disappointed with the perspective of certain current LDS commentators on scripture/doctrine/theology, who seem to take the term ‘apologetics’ literally, and think they need to apologise for things in the Church, or scriptures, or doctrine, squaring them with contemporary ‘enlightened’ views.
I’m inspired by Nephi – he’s always been a hero of mine. Every time I read through his record, I’m impressed by his faithfulness, obedience, intelligence, thoughtfulness, charity, forgiveness, foresight, leadership, and faith. He didn’t choose to be a prophet or become his family and people’s leader – God chose him; and not only because he was so excellently qualified for it, but because his older brothers didn’t step up. They constantly whined about their rights, without doing anything to deserve them. Nephi didn’t set out to become their instructor; he just wanted to believe and understand what his father had shared, so he prayed deeply and sincerely for that. And he got his own vision. Joseph Smith didn’t set out to be a prophet or leader, either – he wanted to understand God’s will and know the truth, so he prayed, deeply and sincerely – and got his own vision.
Nephi didn’t set himself against Laman and Lemuel – they set themselves against him, at every point. He wasn’t being competitive or proud or annoying. He was being a prophet; someone who is constrained to say what the Spirit speaks in him – ‘like a fire shut up in [his] bones’ (Jeremiah).
So thank you, for defending him against such calumny – not because I want to see Nephi as untarnished and perfectly heroic because that makes me feel nicer and not give up my fairytales. Nephi is someone we can aspire to be like, who gives us hope and encouragement, who helps me feel not alone in my desires to live the Gospel, despite those who speak against it or tell me I’m being self-righteous when I stand up for the truth. He has helped me to believe, and to seek; I have also wanted to know and believe what I’ve heard, and have done what he did – without visions as the result! I feel both a kinship with Nephi for these reasons, and an awe and love for his goodness, sincerity, fortitude in the face of extreme difficulty, and ability to see the good in that extremity. I’m glad to have such a hero.
This is how I see the Nephi/ Laman-Lemuel conflict:
https://peaceabletreasures.wordpress.com/2020/01/26/laman-lemuel-regular-guys-with-problems-or-wicked-obtuse-bullies/
Replies
Lanny Landrith, 12-06-2020 at 1:59 pm
Good comment, Tamara!
Replies
Tamara, 12-06-2020 at 3:42 pm
Thanks, Lanny. I felt a little fired up! Also frustrated with the same things the author shares here. I found a similar sort of perspective in Deirdre Green(?)’s commentary on Jacob (or was it Enos?) – from the podcast episode done with her about it. Seeing racism in the attitudes of the Nephites towards the Lamanites, etc.
It’s as though we have to tear down our heroes and historical figures and bring them down to our ‘reality’. The tall poppy syndrome gone wild.
Replies
Sam Garner, 12-06-2020 at 5:47 pm
I agree! It’s become quite the fad to exaggerate the weakness’ of prophets past while attributing to them certain negative intentions not to be found in the scriptural record, but instead are additions by the scholar seeking the praise of the world by indulging in a form of virtue signaling.
Replies
Lanny Landrith, 12-06-2020 at 10:17 pm
Sam, good comment!
Tamara, 12-09-2020 at 4:00 am
Yes. Definitely a form of virtue signalling, and also maybe something that helps those people feel better themselves – if these genuinely good people were really just ordinary like them – or worse than them – then it’s okay. Like all the people ever pulling down others. It’s important not to idolise leaders, because everyone is fallible, but there’s a healthy recognition of that, and then taking it too far.
I wrote something else about just that, too! (Really not just trying to self-promote here – I think it’s an important point to be made, and discussed). About Moroni’s insights about charity, when he wondered what to do about the weakness he perceived in his writing, and God told him not to worry – that people needed to have charity, and it was a test for them, how they responded to those weaknesses.
https://wp.me/p31Ifb-Ai
Lanny Landrith, 12-06-2020 at 10:11 pm
Tamara, I agree with you. Oh, how I agree with you. Nephi is also one of my heroes. One of my pet peeves is so-called experts in their pride wanting to be different and unique rather than truthful. And in their pride the so-called experts find fault where there is none. I have seen these so-called experts criticize scriptural heroes, modern day church leaders, and founding fathers (another group of persons I love to read about: George Washington, Jefferson, John Adams, etc). Your comments about Nephi, Laman, and Lemuel are right on.
Dennis Horne, 11-30-2020 at 11:50 am
I agree with Sam and Lanny.
I just finished another reading of 1 Nephi myself, and I remember Nephi stating over and over that the Spirit constrained him to speak to his older brothers the way he did. That is not self-righteousness, but following the promptings and urgings of the Spirit. Lehi himself reinforced that fact to his oldest sons.
Then I read various general conference addresses explaining Lehi’s dream/Nephi’s vision, and every apostle teaches that the setting these prophets see represents the world, with none of them teaching it represents Laman and Lemuel’s posterity (except as they are a part of the world). I therefore disbelieve Spencer.
I can’t find any church leaders teaching the doctrines that Hancock quotes or describes Spencer teaching.
I guess one could say that a person can be skillful in teaching unorthodox and incorrect doctrine, but that is an odd way to say it. To me, skillful BofM teachings are foremost truthful teachings.
Further, I personally don’t want my scriptural exegesis melded with modern feminist or equality theories. Neither Jehovah nor Lehi or Nephi taught them or mixed them with their scriptures, so why should Spencer do that today?
Tithing funds underwrite NAMI publications. I wonder if they do in reality have a right to depart from the settled doctrines of the Church even under guise of “Mormon Studies.”
Replies
Lanny Landrith, 11-30-2020 at 1:48 pm
Good comment, Dennis!
Sam Garner, 11-30-2020 at 2:48 pm
I agree completely, especially with your point about NAMI using Tithing funds to pump out unorthodox and, in some cases, potentially faith-subversive research. Calling it “Mormon Studies” doesn’t make it okay in my opinion.
whizzbang, 11-30-2020 at 6:03 pm
Mr. Horne, again, Have you read Spencer’s book? if not your opinion is worthless about it. Don’t pay tithing if you don’t like where it’s going. Do you believe in modern revelation Mr. Horne? heaven forbid someone has a new idea. I was talking to someone was a past executive director of the Temple Dept. last month and I asked him abut prophecies about temple locations. He said that in the entire time he was the director only twice did prophecy come up but both times they were dismissed. Once involved a temple that Pres. Kimball said something and another one was in Utah but he said we believe in modern revelation and don’t do things simply because Wilford Woodruff or Erastus Snow said something well over one hundred years ago. You say, “Further, I personally don’t want my scriptural exegesis melded with modern feminist or equality theories. Neither Jehovah nor Lehi or Nephi taught them or mixed them with their scriptures, so why should Spencer do that today?” First of all again you are reading your own nonsense into what Hancock said that Spencer wrote, it really helps to have read the book. He never said anything about “Modern Feminist theory”. That’s all you. Consider the following
At the 2012 FAIR Conference Neylan McBaine said,
“there was a woman involved in almost every one of the Savior Jesus Christ’s mortal milestones. From his very first miracle facilitated by his mother, to revealing Himself as the “living water,” to being the subject of numerous parables, to being anointed by a woman hours before his death, to being the first witness of the resurrection… women were not just bystanders but engaged contributors to his ministry. They were symbols of the extent to which the Savior was willing to challenge the conventions of his culture and usher in a new social ideal. Compared to the way women were treated in the Savior’s own time and place, His treatment of them was radical. By involving not just his mother and female friends in his ministry, but by embracing the fallen woman, the daughter of a Gentile, the sick woman, the Samaritan woman, Jesus, through his example, challenged us as His followers to engage all women, trust them, lead with them, and lean on their spiritual power. Let us meet that challenge.”
President Russell M. Nelson said in 2015 My dear sisters, we need you! We “need your strength, your conversion, your conviction, your ability to lead, your wisdom, and your voices.”
If it bothers you that a scholar and the President of the Church want more women’s voices and perspective and Dr. Spencer is pointing them out in the scriptures then deal with it. Start following the prophet and put aside your misogyny.
Sam Garner, 11-30-2020 at 10:43 am
I disagree with Spencer on his interpretation of Nephi’s behavior and intent, for even a simple reading of the BOM will inform the reader that the record is not condemning or criticizing Nephi for preaching boldly unto his murderous brethren but is only sharing Nephi’s struggle with his own humanity (in 2 Nephi 4) lest the reader think Nephi more than human. It seems to me that Spencer is reading his unorthodox theology into the text; but, as the author of the book under review, that’s entirely his right to do ?
Brett DeLange, 11-29-2020 at 9:44 pm
Thank you for this review. When I read Spencer’s work, I found it thought-provoking and I came away with new things to ponder. At the same time, however, I was uncomfortable with his efforts to judge/label/categorize Nephi in the certain ways he did, not because we revere Nephi as a prophet (I do), but because the record is far too sparse and incomplete to draw conclusions of any worth of any person, let alone someone who lived so long ago, in a different culture, place, time, and setting. Diagnosing people from afar is not a matter of theology; it is speculative musings, at best. I wish Spencer had not gone there.
Lanny Landrith, 11-27-2020 at 4:12 pm
Spencer has overthought Nephi 1. Sometimes our extensive knowledge of a topic can make us proud and thus lead us to appear as “experts” on the topic by developing theories about the topic – theories that are frankly often stupid. For example, Spencer is the 2nd one I’ve heard to imply that 2 Nephi 4 shows Nephi’s serious flaws. The first one was also a BYU professor at BYU Education Week. Even though I got my B.A. and M.A. at BYU, and love BYU, I totally disagree with Spencer and the other BYU professor. Is there a person on the planet who would not be upset with anyone – but especially with a family member – who had tried to murder him and who did abuse his parents? In Nephi 2: 4 Nephi is concerned about being OVERLY – OVERLY – angry about Laman and Lemuel trying to murder him and their abusing his (and their) parents. I believe that the Lord and the prophets would be delighted if the worst sin of members of our church or of mankind was being too angry with anyone – but especially with a family member – who had tried to murder him and who did abuse his parents. 2 Nephi 4 is evidence of what Brigham Young taught: the more righteous we become, our less sinful acts become more significant, become our focus. In 2 Nephi 4, Nephi is disappointed in himself because he has not yet achieved a perfect Christlike nature. If being OVERLY – OVERLY – angry about Laman and Lemuel trying to murder him and their abusing his (and their) parents, was Nephi’s worst sin, he was well on way to becoming Christlike, especially since in 2 Nephi 4, he expressed a wonderful faith in Christ and His atonement to enable him to overcome this minor flaw. Spencer just intellectualizes and theorizes too much about simple truths.
Also Jacob in praising the Lamanites to the adulterous Nephites, is NOT praising the Lamanites as a righteous people. What Jacob is saying is similar to what we might say to a friend or to our children if they were doing something wrong that was not being done by an unrighteous neighbor: e.g. IF YOU THINK MR. JONES IS BAD, AT LEAST MR. JONES IS NOT COMMITTING ADULTERY AS YOU ARE. SO YOU WITH THE GOSPEL ARE WORSE THAN MR. JONES. Jacob’s statement about the Nephites gives only faint praise to the Lamanites, and condemns the Nephites’ adulterous behavior.
Another example is what I have observed about how bishops treat wives of adulterous husbands. Sometimes such wives have trouble forgiving their adulterous husbands. Must they forgive? Absolutely YES, such wives must forgive. But bishops I have known have been uncommonly patient with the wives’ bitterness because it takes time to overcome the betrayal.
Glen Danielsen, 11-27-2020 at 1:25 pm
Ralph is fresh air fare, faithful flame. I always trust his thrust. He puts light on secularist gist, patterns in their patter. I would love to say more, but with Brant I can’t.