The Role of Ritual in Understanding: Thoughts on Mormon Studies
In the 2007 issue of FARMS Review, M. Gerald Bradford (Ph.D., University of California, Santa Barbara), Associate Executive Director of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University, outlined the academic landscape of research done in Mormon Studies in the context of Religious Studies. Noting that Mormon Studies is “not just for Mormons anymore,” Bradford makes a wonderful contribution by outlining a map of where Mormon Studies has been and where it still needs to go. I was especially interested in the relatively unexplored areas of Mormonism. Bradford explains:
The experiential, ritual, ethical and legal, and material dimensions of Mormonism all have one thing in common: relatively little attention has been paid to them. These elements need to be integrated with other dimensions of the faith and compared with like characteristics in other religions before the tradition’s structural makeup is fully portrayed. What it means to be a Latter-day Saint is reflected in the experiential and ritual dimensions of the faith every bit as much as in what adherents believe or in the sacred writings they hold dear. In terms of religious experiences, despite the fact that the tradition is noted for having collected massive amounts of firsthand personal accounts in the form of correspondence, diaries, journals, and so on, there is a dearth of academic studies dealing with this dimension.
Likewise, the study of the ritual or ceremonial dimension of Mormonism, in everyday life and worship, is of vital importance in gaining a better appreciation of the tradition as a whole. This aspect also needs to be studied in comparison with patterned celebrations and formalities manifested in other traditions.
Such studies would be very important for those seeking an interdisciplinary approach in relations with Mormons. As I’ve reflected on the tension with traditional apologetic approaches and more dialogue-centered approaches between Evangelicals and Mormons, I’ve been struck with the text-centered nature of traditional apologetic methodologies. Traditional apologetic methods are heavily concerned with belief and derive belief from textual material. However, what often is lacking is any proportionality that such beliefs have within daily worship, ceremony and ritual aspects of the LDS faith.
An example of this phenomenon in the LDS field is in the recent questions concerning whether Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are “spiritual brothers.” It is very easy to locate some text on the subject, but in most of this discussion there is no evaluation and examination of the role such an idea plays currently in LDS devotional services compared to doctrines such as repentance and faith, or even the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.
I recall Francis Beckwith’s interview with Greg Koukl earlier this year. Koukl pressed Beckwith to justify his belief in purgatory and indulgences. To this Beckwith responded with, “All this stuff you’re bringing up has virtually nothing to do with why I became a Catholic, but I will answer it if you want me to…there is only four pages in the Catechism on indulgences.” I don’t think that mattered very much to Koukl, but I do think Beckwith was pointing out that this doctrine wasn’t the reason of his conversion and in his view it did not play an overwhelming role even within the Catechism. This is yet another example where proportionality and experiential dimensions matter to one’s private worship and should matter in our dialogue with others.
Paul Owen in a recent online exchange about whether Mormons believe that Jesus is fully God noted that:
I think what frustrates a lot of people regarding these issues is that too many critics of the Mormon Church get hung up on the language Mormons use to speak of the Trinity, and analyze that entirely in isolation from the actual devotional patterns of Mormon worship. Any open-minded observation of Mormon worship practices, as seen in their hymns, their scriptures (especially the Book of Mormon), and their speech patterns in prayer and praise, make it clear that they ascribe to Jesus Christ the very sort of reverence which the Bible calls for with respect to adoration of the one true God. What sympathetic critics like McDermott and Blomberg are trying to do is, through dialogue, to encourage LDS thinkers and intellectual trend setters to bring their theological language more into conformity to their actual devotional practices.
From these comments it is clear to me that Owen is attempting to look not simply at text but also ritual and also attempting to communicate the importance of examining devotional practices. The ritual and liturgical aspects of another faith tradition are clearly more difficult to understand, in my view, than textual material; if for no other reason that it requires more observation and experience than does textual analysis. Compound this with the fact that, as Bradford points out, little attention has been paid to Mormon ritual and liturgical studies, and we can see all the more need for inquiry and awareness of this area.
Aquinas, thanks for bringing this article and its topic of academic studies on Mormonism to our attention. I am digesting it now, and within the last week or so have had email exchanges with a handful of evangelicals about the need to consider a broader variety of research topics on Mormonism beyond the template of Mormonism as Protestant heresy. It will be interesting to compare our growing list with current academic work being undertaken.
I am particularly sensitive to the mention of ritual in Mormon studies as an important element as opposed to text-based studies. While there are unexplored areas of significance in text-based studies beyond the current focus of evangelical apologetics, ritual is an important area. I was reminded of this during my intercultural studies at Salt Lake Seminary where I researched and wrote a paper on temple visits and pageants as a form of pilgrimage within Mormonism from the perspective of anthropology of pilgrimage. Give the apparent function of sacred space and ritual for Latter-day Saints at such places it would seem that this represents an example of an important and neglected area of research, and as I argued in my paper, a less than ideal location for evangelical evangelism and apologetics. But the main point is that ritual and other areas of praxis are often neglected by evangelicals in favor of text-based approaches given the heresy vs. orthdoxy template commented on in previous posts on your blog.
Thanks again for bringing this item to our attention.
Great thoughts. It’s amazing that some folks are unable to grasp the fact (understood in religious studies for a long time now) that religious sentiments are expressed in prayers, songs, actions and rituals, just as much as they are in creeds and theological tracts. That quote from Bradford is right on the money.
Having been a serious student of Mormon studies for just over 20 years now (October 1987 being my first entrance into the field), I am a bit frustrated by “the experiential and ritual dimensions of the faith [LDS].” Allow me to explain…though the LDS Quad has no references to a ‘Mother Goddess in heaven’, the concept is clearly expressed in their current hymal (see hymn #292 in Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – 1985.)
Now, is this teaching ‘official’? Two other ‘authoritative’ LDS sources: The Family: A Proclamation to the World, and the 1909 Statement on Evolution seem to indicate that it is it is. I cannot help but wonder if I am the only one a bit troubled by this teaching…
Grace and peace,
David
David, I really appreciate the reply and perhaps this can serve as an opportunity to better clarify what I mean. Could you elaborate on your frustration a little more? I’m not sure I understand exactly why you are frustrated with an appeal to experiential and ritual dimensions to the LDS faith.
One of the problems I see with the question, “Is it official? Is it not official?” is a matter of function. Why do we ask these questions and what problem is this question intended to resolve? My observation of these questions is from a critical context of LDS doctrine. Usually a non-canonical source is raised by a critic and a Latter-day Saint will remind the critic “this isn’t official doctrine.” But we must examine the role of this particular communication between the adherent and the critic. This kind of communication occurs repeatedly, but its meaning is often lost. For the majority of traditional apologists, their goal is to distinguish Mormonism from true Christianity, and more often than not, citing non-canonical 19th century homiletics helps them in achieving this goal better than anything else. When LDS inform critics that a teaching is not ‘official’ doctrine, critics feel that LDS are simply taking away material for them to use, and that LDS are making the target of Mormonism smaller and harder to hit for them. LDS on the other hand often say this because they want their actual and cognitive beliefs to be represented in the critique. They want to see a correct and proportionally accurate reflection of themselves in the mirror (as anyone would want whether Evangelical, Roman Catholic or Mormon). This is the dynamic which is often overlooked. To say something is official or un-official I think is not as helpful as people think it is, at least from my observations. At the very least we need to re-examine why we ask this question and what it is supposed to achieve.
From my view, distinguishing official from non-official is a worthwhile exercise. Some people say that anything published by the Church is ‘official.’ Others say anything said by the Church hierarchy is ‘official’ and yet others point out that there is a ‘ritual’ of canonization, a process of presenting doctrine to members at General Conference that is being overlooked. The problem I see is that these discussions are dominated by apologetics concerns. Critics reject any suggestion of less official doctrine because that means they have less material to work with in order to distinguish Mormonism from true Christianity. What is sacrificed is an important dialogue concerning how doctrine is understood within Mormonism itself and in the daily lives of Latter-day Saints.
Hi aquinas,
Thanks for responding to my musings. You wrote:
Me: I suppose much of my consternation lies it certain trends I see emerging by which Scripture (“book religion”) seems to take a ‘back-seat’ to what William Dever terms “folk religion”. I suspect that scholars will find the same sort of chasm between LDS “book religion” and “folk religion”, that they see in ancient Israel.
Me: I am certainly not immune to the polemical nature of apologetics; but I sincerely believe that my attempt to distinguish “official” LDS doctrine from mere opinion lies in something much more fundatmental: the issue of apostasy. Allow me to explain: if much of the doctrine of the CoJCoLDS found in 19th and early 20th century which the ‘historic’ branches of Christianity find objectionable is merely opinion and not “official”, I see little need for the “restoration” of true doctrine.
Me: Excellent points. I would add that non-Mormon Christianity has some of the same difficulties, what we term the “essentials” and “non-essentials” (and for non-Catholic Christians the process of canonization too). But with that said, I think it is important to keep in mind certain claims of the CoJCoLDS in respect to the rest of Christianity; most importantly perhaps the loss of important truths (i.e. doctrine) that needed to be restored.
Grace and peace,
David
David, thanks for your replies. The thing is that we shouldn’t study modern Mormonism in the same way we study ancient religions. For one thing, we have access to actual Mormon worship services and believers as well, not simply their texts. If I understand his aims, Dever attempts to “reconstruct” the folk religion of ancient Israel, but there is less need to reconstruct that which you can directly observe. We can’t talk to an ancient Israelite and ask him how he understood the texts or how he reconciled what we see as problems, we either go to the extant texts or try to reconstruct. Second, there needs to be more examination between the text and the believer. I feel there are too many unexplored assumptions inherent in our understanding of how a believer internalizes the sacred text. The religion is not the text. This is not to downplay the role of text or the critical value that we place on it, but merely to point out that human religious experience cannot be limited to text alone, even for people of the book. I sense this is a much larger topic that we should explore.
I have just launched a new blog on the very subject that this post is about – Mormon ritual studies. I too believe that a “study of the ritual or ceremonial dimension of Mormonism, in everyday life and worship, is of vital importance in gaining a better appreciation of the tradition as a whole.” I also believe “This aspect also needs to be studied in comparison with patterned celebrations and formalities manifested in other traditions.” My blog is an attempt to do exactly what you, and Bradford, have pointed out needs to be done. I agree that “little attention has been paid to Mormon ritual and liturgical studies, and we can see all the more need for inquiry and awareness of this area.” I hope to appropriately address the multi-faceted nature of temple ceremony and ritual as it is in the LDS Church, comparing it to other traditions, cultures, practices, and patterns throughout the world, and throughout history, as was begun by the renowned LDS scholar Hugh Nibley. I would very much appreciate your commentary.
Aquinas, I recently wrote an article for Sacred Tribes Journal that you might find of interest that can be found at http://www.sacredtribesjournal.org. Create a login ID and then you can access the article as part of Vol. 3, no. 1, titled “Latter-day Saints, Ritual, Pilgrimage and Cutlural Symbolics: Neglected Resources for Understanding and Engagement.”