"Mormonism's critics said modern scholarship would dismantle the claims of the Church. That has not happened. Mormon studies is embraced in academia, and the claims look better with age."
They assumed the claims would collapse under a microscope.
The opposite happened.
Mormon studies went mainstream. The world’s top academic publishers print it. Major universities teach it. Scholars outside the faith take it seriously.
That was not supposed to happen.
Take the Book of Mormon. Critics called it an obvious fraud, the work of a conman. Now serious scholars, including non-Latter-day Saints, analyze it as a complex and sophisticated work. Literary structure. Naming patterns. Ritual forms. The conman theory is dead.
Take the theology. God with a body. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as separate beings. Critics called these ideas wildly unchristian. The Harvard Theological Review published the research showing many early Christians believed exactly these things, centuries before later councils ruled them out.
Take the temple. Critics called it invented and bizarre. Then a Methodist biblical scholar built her career mapping ancient temple worship, and the parallels were hard to miss. Covenant-making. Ritual clothing. Symbolic progression. These patterns are ancient, not modern.
Take the Book of Abraham. Long treated as the weakest link. Then ancient Abraham texts surfaced decades after Joseph Smith died, telling details of the same story. Details found nowhere in Genesis. A Yale scholar reviewed it and said it recaptures archaic Jewish religion with enormous validity. Whatever Joseph was doing, guessing doesn’t explain it.
A frontier faith with a founder who had an elementary education and spent his life in near poverty was supposed to wither under modern scrutiny. Instead it earned a seat at the academic table.
No comments:
Post a Comment