The Book of Mormon as Signifier or Signified
Terryl Givens brings up an important issue in the third chapter of his book By the Hand of Mormon. He argues that in the early days of the church, the Book of Mormon was important in the lives of members of the church more as an evidence of things outside of the book itself than for the theology it contained.
To sum up Givens’ argument, he cites two main things that the Book of Mormon was evidence of in the minds of early Mormons. 1) That the gathering of Israel and the coming of the millennium were near, and 2) That Joseph Smith, translator of the Book of Mormon, was called of God to be a prophet.
From my experience in the contemporary church, I can see how this is still the case, at least in some very crucial areas of the Mormon experience.
We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of the Messiah.
Thus reads the end of the modern introduction to the Book of Mormon, printed in all current editions of the book. Note the emphasis on the coming millennium and Joseph Smith’s calling as prophet. We still use the Book of Mormon as evidence of things outside of the book itself.
Consider the place the Book of Mormon in missionary work. When I served my mission (within the last decade), our goal with our investigators was to encourage them to read certain portions of the Book of Mormon (usually the introductory material, 3 Nephi 11, and Moroni 10:3-5), and then to pray to know whether the book was true. If they had an experience by which they felt that the book was true, we would teach them that by extension Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the true church of God on the earth.
Often times we would find that those who had read those portions of the book and prayed had felt that the Book of Mormon did come from God, and we would continue to teach them about the church and invite them to read more from the Book of Mormon. 99% of the time they would eventually stop reading and lose interest entirely in what we had to share with them. I can’t help but wonder, now, as I think back on those two years I spent preaching, if I wouldn’t have done more good had I used the Book of Mormon differently
What I wonder is if I had taught the Book of Mormon as signified rather than signifier, if I wouldn’t have been able to influence more people to do what I really wanted them to do, that is, come to Jesus. The Book of Mormon has in it so much that convinces me of my need to completely rely on the merits of Christ.
Currently I teach Gospel Doctrine, and this year we are studying the Book of Mormon. My emphasis this year has been on discovering what the text of the Book of Mormon tells us about coming unto Christ. I’ve found that every week there is something in the assigned reading that convicts my heart and causes me to seek the grace of God. I hope those attending the class are feeling the same thing. I’ve made it an objective in my study and teaching of the Book of Mormon to focus entirely on how the text inspires me to ever more rely on the Savior.
It’s my opinion that Mormons still use the Book of Mormon too much as signifier and not enough as signified.
Oh, and this feels like a pretty good home teaching message, so let’s say this one’s for June.
holdinator
June 30, 2008 at 5:42 pm
you are such a slacker. Seriously, do you sit around eating bon bons? This is the equivalent of cookies through the mail slot. without the cookies.
Jessica
July 7, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Hey! I put a lot of thought into this one, and took a week and a half writing/editing it.
But you’re right. Cookies through the mail slot would have been better.
I can see you in there! I see your elbow!
holdinator
July 7, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Mormons definitely use the BoM as a signifier. In my opinion, the BoM actually contradicts a lot of later-revealed Mormon doctrine. It’s theological approach is barely different from orthodox trinitarian Christianity.
Kullervo
July 9, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Thanks for stopping by, Kullervo. I’ve always felt that the trinity is found much more explicitly in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible. And I appreciate some good irony once in a while.
holdinator
July 10, 2008 at 1:20 am
I have wondered how much of the trinitarian doctrine was inspired by text vs. custom. Most of the verses which I read in english regarding the nature of God are very ambivalent, as well as having an air of prose to them. I wonder if the prose originated with the scriptural authors or was inserted by the english translators after the Christian councils.
Keeping in line with signified vs. signifier – I also wonder, did the early Christian leaders who posited the trinitarian doctrines do so out of an appeal to the texts or the conflict of cultures. You had a great deal of Roman and Jewish influence affecting much of their religion, where the Jewish writings very explicit on the singularity of God and the Roman influence was plurality of Gods. So my question is, do we give the interpretation of these ambivalent scriptures based on the textual clarity in its own right, or on the “official” declarations following the councils.
Erick
July 10, 2008 at 4:03 pm