A Brief Note on Tradition and Paradigms, illustrated by Nephi, Lehi, and Moses

Elder John Widtsoe expressed a very useful axiom about inspired writers.

“When inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.”
–Evidences and Reconciliations, (1960): 127

That is, when an inspired writer/editor like Nephi, or Mormon, or Paul writes about the past, they are dependent upon tradition— what they have seen or heard, what they have been told, the records they have in front of them— unless and until distinct revelation provides a different source of knowledge.

So, for example, in 1 Nephi 5:10-11, Nephi refers to the “five Books of Moses” on the Brass Plates, i.e. Genesis-Deuteronomy. Now, in Widtsoe’s paradigm, all this means is that Nephi inherited a tradition that these books were attributed to Moses, and you can’t extract more than that. There’s no indication that those books are the same textually as our current versions of those books, nor is there any claim, revelatory or otherwise, that Moses actually authored them. Moses would have lived 600-ish years before Nephi, so he’s not an eyewitness to anything but a received tradition, i.e. “what they have seen and heard.”

This, I think, is the most parsimonious reading of scripture, one that avoids over-claiming (see this section of the new Answering Gospel Questions manual) and one that, say, President Oaks would agree with, at least in principle. He tells this story in connection with reading the Book of Mormon.

I remember the reported observation of an old lawyer. As they traveled through a pastoral setting with cows grazing on green meadows, an acquaintance said, “Look at those spotted cows.” The cautious lawyer observed carefully and conceded, “Yes, those cows are spotted, at least on this side.”

That story represents careful and parsimonious observation that avoids over-claiming.

Widtsoe’s paradigm acknowledged the human positionality of the writer; though inspired, a prophet’s sources of knowledge remain limited to the human realm— reason, tradition, observation, culture, experience— unless God intervenes with revelation. Widtsoe’s paradigm, however, is not the only one in Church history.

President Smith in 1910

President Joseph Fielding Smith had a very different paradigm, which I have written and spoken about a good bit. In essence, Smith considered scripture to be omnisciently divine dictation of inerrant facts of history, science, and doctrine. In contrast to Widtsoe and others, Smith denied the positionality of the inspired human writer, because in his view, those inspired humans were merely channeling divine omniscience; their humanity didn’t matter, didn’t play any role.

Read through THAT set of lenses, if 2Ne 2 implies no death before the Fall, that’s God declaring eternal facts, not Lehi interpreting Genesis. If Jesus quotes Jonah, it’s proof Jonah is historical. If the Book of Mormon refers to the Five Books of Moses, it is proof that Moses authored Genesis-Deuteronomy, because it represents God’s omniscience, not Nephi’s received tradition.  The mere fact of being in scripture means that it is divine knowledge— not human tradition— and so President Clark’s dictum below would not apply.

President J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

Now, as to what the earlier brethren have said–where they have declared themselves as speaking under inspiration and by the authority of the Lord, I bow to what they say. But where they express views based on their own understanding and interpretation, then none of us are foreclosed from exercising our own reasoning powers, inadequate though they may be; but the earlier views do not foreclose us from thinking. This is particularly true, where we come to interpreting their interpretations.

Back in 1931 when he was Elder Smith, he expressed the view in a private letter that questioning Mosaic authorship was apostasy meriting excommunication, because it rejected the Book of Mormon. Someone wrote to him with this question because their local Sunday School teacher questioned Mosaic authorship. Smith replied (with my italics)

It is certainly deplorable that a man can come in to one of the organizations of the Church and teach such soul-destroying doctrine as you indicate that a certain doctor did in your class on Sunday one week ago. [This man] is in sore need of repentance, or else he should leave the church. I think there is justification for handling him for his fellowship for apostasy, unless he will repent.

The Lord has given us information through the Book of Mormon… that Moses did write the books which bear his name, or, in other words which are spoken of as the Books of Moses. Read in the 1st Book of Nephi how Lehi sent his sons back to obtain the plates of Laban and what they contain, chapters 4 and 5. See verse 11 of the 5th chapter…..

Anyone who sets forth the doctrines of modern criticism in relation to these matters, in the face of what is revealed to Joseph Smith, is in danger for he has the spirit of apostasy.

In Smith’s paradigm, questioning Mosaic authorship of Genesis entailed rejection of the Book of Mormon’s inspiration, and thus became a “soul-destroying doctrine” indicating apostasy and meriting “handling for his fellowship” i.e. membership in the Church.

Paradigms matter; they are our internal “black box” that translates “what scriptures says” into “what scripture MEANS.” Change the paradigm, and you change the output of the “black box” to produce a different meaning. That’s why I think it’s so important to try to open the box up, give it a thorough inspection, and clean it out a bit.

Further reading:

• Matthew Bowman’s very good new book on President Smith (Amazon affiliate link). I read a draft of this late in my dissertation writing, since Bowman was my advisor. It’s part of the University of Illinois biographical series Introductions to Mormon Thought.
• More on Tradition (and Monopoly!) 
• Smith’s paradigm, see a post here, and a YouTube video here.
• A great BYU Studies article on President Smith.
• The FAIR talk wherein I discuss the idea of the interpretive “black box” extensively. (Text and video)
• and yes, sing it with me, “Tradition!”

As always, you can help me pay my tuition here via GoFundMe. *As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases made through links on this page.. You can get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box below) and can also follow Benjamin the Scribe on Facebook.