The first is the tension between free agency and authoritarianism.  The second area of paradox is the relationship between holding truth with absolute certainty and the quest for gaining new knowledge.  The third paradox in LDS culture can be expressed as transcendence versus earthiness.  Givens points out that Joseph Smith collapsed the realms of heaven and earth into one, minimizing the utter transcendence of God.

The fourth area of paradox or tension that Givens identifies is exceptionalism versus universalism.  There is an impulse in Mormonism to emphasize how different and unique Latter-day Saints are.

“Reading themselves into the biblical promises of a chosen lineage” (55), Mormons have developed a sense of identity as a distinct and chosen people, which is reinforced by unique practices and commitments associated with the temple, “where sacred secrecy and the additional selectivity of participants pushes yet further the sense of a people apart.” (55)  The claim to be the only the only true and living church on earth also fosters LDS exclusivism.

Because of this exceptionalism, Latter-day Saints may seem to non-Mormons to be arrogant and insular.  Givens notes:

“Such peculiarity is reinforcing as a boundary marker but…it can be a hindrance to bridge building, to missionary work, and perhaps more poignantly, to Mormons who must engage the world as participants in a human community that increasingly transcends Utah’s boundaries.”  (58-59)

On the other hand, the LDS sense of uniqueness is counterbalanced by universalist  factors.  For example, LDS theology posits that all humans are related to one another as divine offspring.  The emphasis on genealogy reinforces the connection between human families over multiple generations.  Givens believes:

“This conflict between exclusivity, on the one hand, and, on the other, a moral imperative (not to say primal longing) for universal community and acceptance in a larger fellowship is manifest at many levels of Mormon culture.”  (58)

Perceptively, Givens understands the tension this creates in Latter-day Saints’ relationship with the rest of the religious world.  He identifies this irony:

“After predicating their very existence on the corruption of all other Christian faiths (‘I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong’), and asserting their unique claim to be its ‘only true’ embodiment, Latter-day Saints are chagrined when they are excluded from the very community of believers they have just excoriated.”  (58)

Another dimension to the exceptionalist versus universalist tension arises out of Mormonism’s global expansion.  Because of its history and some aspects of its doctrine, the LDS Church has “an intensely American complexion.”  (60).  Yet development of new mission fields and growth in international membership have pushed Mormonism to take on a more culturally universal complexion.  With the hierarchy of leadership firmly implanted in the American West, Mormonism hardly seems to have become very intercultural at this point.  Givens correctly identifies the challenge the movement faces in the future:

“Prepared or not to make the transformation from an American into a truly multinational church, in other words, Mormonism is de facto becoming one.  The complication  that inheres in this polarity, however, is the difficulty of sorting out exactly which aspects of Mormonism are essential constituents of the faith and which are expendable features deriving from American culture.”  (60-61)

The first is the tension between free agency and authoritarianism.  The second area of paradox is the relationship between holding truth with absolute certainty and the quest for gaining new knowledge.  He says, “Mormons publicly express absolute certitude about the great issues of faith and existence, but may privately harbor doubts for which Mormon culture has few avenues of sanctioned expression.”  (32)

The third paradox in LDS culture can be expressed as transcendence versus earthiness.  Givens points out that Joseph Smith collapsed the realms of heaven and earth into one, minimizing the utter transcendence of God.  This is the effect of elevating humans to the same species or kind of being as God.

Givens perceives how the LDS concept of God in relation to humanity turns the traditional view of God upside down.  He says:

“In conventional Christian cosmology, God is the origin and source of mankind, but certainly not his future image.  In Mormonism, the formula is reversed.  God is not the maker of man’s soul, he is an eternally coexisting superior being.  And man sees in him something very like his own inherent potential.” (41)

He later recognizes how this view of God in relation to human beings effects the perception of God’s transcendence:

“The principal danger here is that the sacred as a category threatens to disappear altogether (and with it, perhaps, worshipful reverence).  That is because in this model, transcendence is virtually annihilated as a possibility.”  (42)

As a case in point, he notes by comparison, practical, earthy matters are elevated.  For instance, out of 112 revelations announced by Smith, 88 dealt partly or entirely with economic matters.  (47)

I have always felt that Mormonism lacks a proper or full-bodied approach to worship.  I have observed often over the years that its hard to truly worship a being who is only an improved version of oneself.  LDS Sunday meetings include hymns and prayers, but lack a sense of worshipful adoration.  Maybe it says something that Sunday gatherings are called “Sacrament meeting” (emphasis on meeting) rather than a “worship service.”

Reflecting further on this, Givens asks (but does not answer, in my opinion), a telling question about Mormon cosmology and the arts:

“But at the same time, the problem this confusion of categories creates in the Mormon culture can be challenging for the worshiper…. If God is shorn of ineffability and transcendence, or is construed in human terms, how does one find  the reverential awe that moved one to true worshipfulness?  If Jesus is our ‘big brother,’ how can he be our Lord and God?  Reverence before the Almighty must be freshly conceptualized in such a reconfigured heaven and earth.  But the dilemmas for the artist are especially vexing: in a universe devoid of transcendence and sacred distance (at least as conventionally constructed), how can wonder flourish?”  (48)

My observation, for what its worth, is that Mormon culture is indeed devoid of much wonder, except that supplied from outside by contemporary science fiction and fantasy.  Latter-day Saints love C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia, but few Mormons have ventured into the realm of “wonder”-ful fiction.  Latter-day Saints excel in practical ventures like business and politics.  I’m not sure how successful they have been at freshly conceptualizing the transcendence of God.

This is an area where traditional, biblical Christian theology can offer something of great value to Latter-day Saints.  We can bear witness to a spiritual experience of wonder and rapt adoration toward God.  The human heart longs for transcendence.  We were created to worship God.  I believe Latter-day Saints can feel this as a spiritual thirst.  I’m aware of several who have responded very warmly after experiencing a truly God-centered worship service, where God was exalted.  Traditional Christian worship connects with that primal human need, pointing to one more element that historic, biblical Christianity has to offer to Latter-day Saints.

The first is the tension between free agency and authoritarianism. Givens identifies moral agency – the right of each individual to choose and act for oneself – as one of the indispensable foundations of Joseph Smith’s teachings.  The paradox, then, is that “the church Joseph founded is one of the most centralized, hierarchical, authoritarian churches in America.” (8)

The second area of paradox is the relationship between holding truth with absolute certainty and the quest for gaining new knowledge.   Givens notes (27), “There seems in Mormonism an emphasis on certainty, rather than faith, that is theologically, rhetorically, and culturally pervasive….”  He relates this certainty to the unique LDS conversion experience.

“To be converted is to experience a moment of recognition, or receive through the Spirit a confirmation, of certain truths that one can henceforth confidently affirm as part of a publicly transmissible ‘testimony.’  When Mormons speak of their conversion, they almost universally have in mind  the moment when they came to know through the Spirit that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, and that the church he founded is ‘the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth’ (D & C 1:30)”

Latter-day Saints hold to their convictions with absolute certainty because of the emphasis on this kind of confirming experience.

But while the truths of Mormonism are held with confident certainty, Givens suggests that the goals of Mormonism can never be claimed as a completed venture.

“But these tendencies [to certainty] operate in tandem with a powerful countercurrent: salvation is for Mormons an endless project, not an event, and is therefore never complete, never fully attained, never a realized state or object of secure possession.  It is, in a word, agonistic – that is, predicated on a process of ceaseless struggle.”  (28)

In other words, while Latter-day Saints believe they can know and avow certain truths with absolute confidence, they do not believe they can know their own ultimate status or standing with God.

Givens understands some of the personal issues this paradox engenders.  He notes that “this distinctive Mormon rhetoric of ‘knowing’ creates both an impression of arrogance and smugness to outsiders, and immense cultural pressure to adherents to know for themselves rather than to merely believe.”  (27)

He adds, “A related tension not always fully visible to outsiders is one in which Mormons publicly express absolute certitude about the great issues of faith and existence, but may privately harbor doubts for which Mormon culture has few avenues of sanctioned expression.”  (32)

Givens’ analysis suggests two areas where witness to Latter-day Saints might be fruitful.  First, churches can create an environment where doubt can be expressed.  We believe we have reasons to be confident about what we believe.  But our faith can still be tested and challenged in a way that leads to deeper understanding.  We can model a community where questions and doubts can be expressed and worked through without disapproval or penalty.

Second, the good news of traditional, biblical Christianity is that we can know where we stand with God, not based on our own endless struggle for advancement, but based on God’s bestowal of his gifts of grace.  Our message offers freedom from the impossibility of knowing where you stand, and from the hard burden of not measuring up.  If the good news of grace is coupled (as in the Bible) with an appropriate emphasis on the lifestyle that results from receiving God’s grace – versus the antinomian emphasis of much current evangelicalism (which Mormons are quick to notice and critique) – the church has a great deal to offer to Latter-day Saints who struggle with the ceaseless project of exaltation.

I’ve been reading his most recent book, People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture. (Oxford University Press, 2007).  By “Mormon culture” Givens does not mean culture in the broader sense of all the knowledge, values, attitudes and behavior that are characteristic of a particular social group.  The book is about LDS artistic culture.  It explores both the historical development and the current practice within Mormonism of literature, visual arts, music, architecture, theater and film, and the intellectual life.

To set the stage for his evaluation of “Mormon culture”, Givens first identifies four areas of paradox within Mormonism that affect the practice and development of the cultural arts.

The first is the tension between free agency and authoritarianism.  Givens identifies moral agency – the right of each individual to choose and act for oneself – as one of the indispensable foundations of Joseph Smith’s teachings.  The paradox, then, is that “the church Joseph founded is one of the most centralized, hierarchical, authoritarian churches in America.” (8)

Smith established ecclesiastical egalitarianism through the priesthood (at least for males).  But “a church full of prophets was a holy bedlam” (10) which led to “a revelation that established for all time the principle of the supreme spiritual authority of the church.” (11)

Givens concludes that:

“A segment of Mormon society will always be disposed to see unquestioning obedience to priesthood counsel as weakness and abdication of moral autonomy, while others will see independent-mindedness as a euphemism for the fetishizing of difference and pride.  And the tensions will doubtless be fiercest among those whose life work calls them to worship God through creative expression and intellectual pursuits.”  (19)

In my experience, one area where the principle of moral agency breaks down in Mormonism is when members want to test the truth claims of the LDS church or even to disaffiliate from the church.  At this point they are often treated with a level of attention that comes across as harassment or bullying, motivated by the sincere desire of loved ones or church authorities to dissuade them from leaving.  Friends and authorities are not willing to allow the person to make his or her own choices about truth, or to freely adopt the consequences of those choices.  Retention of people under the umbrella of LDS authority often then becomes more important than the exercise of moral agency.

“At their most evident, cultural signifiers center on the following:

• Ritual actions that have a public dimension
• What persons put in – and what they do not put into – their bodies (dietary restrictions)
• What person do with (and to) their bodies
• How persons clothe and groom themselves
• Familial structures” (16)

When it comes to public ritual actions, Latter-day Saints identify themselves in such ways as the celebration of Pioneer Day, church attendance, their fairly unique posture of prayer, with head bowed and arms folded across the chest, and with the ritual phrase by which prayer is universally closed: “In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.”  This category might include the practice of hanging photos of LDS temples or of the current LDS prophet in one’s home.

With respect to dietary restrictions, the most prominent boundary marker is the Word of Wisdom – the LDS teaching that prohibits use of tobacco and alcohol, among other things.  Shipps observes:

“Not only was the Word of Wisdom a means by which Saints identified themselves to outsiders; it was also a very effective means of communication where one stood inside the Mormon community” (9).

Signifiers related to dress and grooming can include the tradition of wearing a white shirt and tie for sacrament meeting, or the practice of displaying a CTR ring.  Facial hair or long hair “can cause concern on the part of the local church leaders about the strength of a Mormon man’s testimony” (23).  While “the intent of wearing a temple garment is not to send a signal of membership to anyone” (22), the garment does function in that manner, since “all sorts of giveaways reveal whether someone is (or is not) wearing a garment” (10).  Other signifiers in this category might include wearing BYU gear or LDS-themed T-shirts.

The large size of LDS families is another marker.

“Family size works as a signifier inside the LDS community because Saints always seem to be looking to see how many children per family there are.  Morever – and this is a dead giveaway of cultural signifiers – large families are a staple of intra-cultural Mormon humor” (18).

In the end, Shipps argues that some of the traditional signifiers will probably lose significance in coming years.  For example, as Americans become more health conscious, fewer people smoke – making Latter-day Saints less distinctive in this regard.  The size of LDS families is decreasing.  She concludes:

“Besides the Book of Mormon as an additional scripture, the other true Latter-day Saint distinctive…is the temple and the rituals that are performed therein.  Consequently I am persuaded that Sainthood increasingly will be signified by things connected with the Latter-day Saint temples” (26).

“Once the most compelling agents of division were whether people in the LDS cultural universe were birthright Saints as opposed to converts and, within the choice world of birthright Saints, whether individuals could establish connections to the pioneer generation.  The eradication of those dividing lines will be long in coming, and they may never disappear completely.”

“Yet the emergence of the crucial salience of the temple within Mormonism means that, as time goes on, the possession of a temple recommend will very likely become the primary means of separating the sheep from the goats inside the Mormon fold.”  (27)

The Book of Mormon’s influence on shaping a unique LDS culture is demonstrated by the number of consumer products it has inspired. You can buy a polo shirt embroidered with the angel Moroni on the breast, or a tee shirt printed with a Book of Mormon quote. You can give your daughter a tiny Book of Mormon charm for her bracelet, while you son might enjoy a Nephi action figure. Your family can play games like “Book of Mormon Quest” or “Settlers of Zarahemla.” The Book of Mormon has inspired a genre of youth fiction, several feature films, and a whole series of animated adventure videos. Latter-day Saints use these products both to declare and to fortify their allegiance to the Book of Mormon and everything it represents.

According to Brigham Young University professor Louis Midgely, the Book of Mormon reinforces the “generative or founding events” that form the identity of the group and “melds them into a community” (in The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World, 2000, p. 103).

The Book of Mormon’s characters model core normative experiences. Its heroes and villains, such as Korihor the antichrist, provide stereotypes by which Latter-day Saints learn to evaluate and relate to the people and institutions of the world. These characters also provide an example of foundational principles for each new generation. Thus The Encyclopedia of Mormonism says (p. 141):

“For LDS children, the Book of Mormon is a source of stories and heroes to equal those of the Bible…. They tell and sing with enthusiasm about the army of faithful young men led by Helaman (Alma 5:41-50); of the prophet Abinadi’s courage before wicked King Noah (Mosiah 11-17); of Nephi and his unwavering faithfulness (1 Nephi 3-18); of Abish, a Lamanite woman who for many years appears to be the lone believer in Christ in King Lamoni’s court until the missionary Ammon taught the gospel to the king and queen (Alma 19); and of Jesus’ appearances to the Nephites (3 Nephi 11-28). There are many favorites.”

The ordinances of contemporary LDS worship are defined significantly by the Book of Mormon. For example, the model of baptism is introduced in Mosiah 18. The mode of baptism by immersion, along with the particular baptism prayer, is taught in 3 Nephi 11:23-27. The prayers offered every Sunday in LDS wards over the Sacrament (the LDS version of Communion) are taken from Moroni chapters 4-5.

The Book of Mormon also shapes foundational values and attitudes. In my experience, Latter-day Saints will avoid discussing uncomfortable topics because of their aversion to “contention.” How contention is defined and evaluated is firmly rooted in Book of Mormon passages like Alma 4:9 and 3 Nephi 11:29. My father was the ward clerk for many years, and one of his duties was to count the sacrament meeting attendance. Richard Bushman points out that the high value Latter-day Saints place on keeping records is derived from the culture of record-keeping described in the Book of Mormon.

Latter-day Saints are passionate about missionary work. At any given time, tens of thousands of LDS missionaries are deployed around the world. The Book of Mormon has shaped and confirmed this value through its heroic stories of missionaries like Alma the Younger, Ammon, and the second Nephi. As the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says (p. 204), “Frequent efforts were made by Nephite missionaries…to convert people from these groups to the gospel of Jesus Christ and to organize them into righteous churches and communities.” That’s basically what the Latter-day Saints are still doing today. Ezra Taft Benson understood the power of the Book of Mormon as a culture-shaping force (Ensign, Oct 2005, 60-62):

“I challenge our Church writers, teachers, and leaders to tell us more Book of Mormon conversion stories that will strengthen our faith and prepare great missionaries.”

Other examples of culture-forming values and examples from the Book of Mormon can be adduced to support my observation that the Book of Mormon’s significance extends far beyond its truth claims. Latter-day Saints treasure the Book of Mormon. It contains cherished stories, models, and ideals. It’s not just that they believe it, or believe it to be true. It represents ingrained patterns of thought and response which shape the fabric of their lives.

The reviewer seems to completely miss the point of the book. He seems to expect that the only reasonable way for an evangelical audience to treat the Book of Mormon is to parrot without critical evaluation all the standard LDS apologetics in favor of it. I guess if you disagree with the LDS party line, you are engaged in “indoctrination.” To the reviewer, I’m guilty of apostasy, and of trying to “lure Latter-day Saints from their faith.” I find especially distasteful the implication that anyone who disagrees with the LDS story is attacking the faith of Latter-day Saints.

He castigates me for an “elementary and superficial” book that offers no new scholarship. But the point of the book is merely to summarize and present an overview to a non-scholarly evangelical audience. He says I failed to even mention the literature that answers the critics. He must not have read my footnotes, where I point out to the reader where he or she can read the perspective of LDS authors on various subjects.

Anyway, read the review yourself, and tell me what you think. In what ways is the anonymous reviewer correct, and in what ways does he miss the mark?

Previously I described the Book of Mormon’s evidential function: how the Book of Mormon catalyzes a self-validating spiritual experience that convinces Latter-day Saints of the divine authority of Joseph Smith and his mission. The invitation to seek a spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon’s truth is directed externally as well, to potential converts investigating Mormonism.

In keeping with this evidential function, the Book of Mormon is the LDS Church’s most important missionary tool. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism reports (p. 142) that “all LDS missionaries encourage those they contact to read and pray about the book as a means of receiving their own testimony from God about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.”

In a speech reprinted in 2005(Ensign, Oct 2005, 60-62), former LDS President Ezra Taft Benson said:

“I challenge those who are in business and other professions to see that there are copies on the Book of Mormon in their reception rooms…. I challenge all of us to prayerfully consider steps that we can personally take to bring this new witness for Christ more fully into our own lives and into a world that so desperately needs it.”

But the Book of Mormon goes beyond inviting its readers to accept its truthfulness. It also models a particular way of responding to a religious message. In so doing, it affirms the evidentiary function. But beyond that, the Book of Mormon exerts a formative influence that has shaped the contours of Mormon culture.

One example of this culture-forming power is seen in a paper given by Don Bradley at the Sunstone Symposium in 2007, called “Making Witnesses: The Book of Mormon’s Secular Strength”. Bradley argues that the Book of Mormon employs a variety of means to create the reader’s expectation of a certain type of religious experience. By doing so, it creates a culture of witness or testimony. That is, the Book of Mormon teaches and models the pattern of how to obtain a witness from God, and thus of how to act as a witness oneself. This repeated pattern affects the way in which the reader experiences and receives the book.

For example, the Book of Mormon’s narrative passages provide a paradigm for those who desire to obtain a witness. Typically, genuine conversion to Christ is accompanied by the reception of spiritual knowledge and certainty, which then leads to a desire to bear one’s testimony to others. The reader is thus encouraged to receive the Book of Mormon in just the same way that they read of its characters receiving Christ.

Moroni 7:30-32 offers a doctrine of witness. It sets forth the idea that the role of angels (presumably including the angel Moroni) is to declare God’s word to certain chosen vessels to bear testimony of him. But it is only by the testimony of the few that the rest of humanity can exercise faith. A few receive the witness of angels so that all may receive their witness, and through it, the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Two witness statements have been published in every edition of the Book of Mormon since 1830. The Testimony of Three Witnesses andThe Testimony of Eight Witnesses both report how groups of people saw the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was purportedly translated. We might conclude that the testimony of the Eight has greater evidentiary value, because the Eight claimed to have actually touched and hefted the plates. They report a physical event. But the testimony of the Three has been much more prominent in LDS use. I believe this is because their witness functions as a model for the contemporary reader of the Book of Mormon. Like the Three, but unlike the Eight, the experience of gaining a witness of the Book of Mormon today is not a physical or audible event, but occurs within the heart and mind.

These various Book of Mormon features work together to model how the reader is to receive the text, and how he or she is to become a witness in return. This takes shape in LDS culture, for instance, in the monthly testimony meeting, as well as in proselytizing methods, where bearing one’s testimony of the Book of Mormon is probably the central component.

The example of testimony formation illustrates the culture-shaping power of the Book of Mormon. The book acculturates its readers to new norms, and initiates them into a community of witnesses spanning from the text to the local congregation. I plan to explore the Book of Mormon’s culture-forming influence in my next post.