The name of our new association, Mormon Scholars in the Humanities, foregrounds several of the apparent contradictions that most of us have perceived at one time or another while trying to reconcile belief and academic inquiry: religion vs. humanism, faith vs. reason, Mormon vs. scholar. The question of whether these oppositions are inherent or imagined was a main theme of MSH’s inaugural conference. Presenters from virtually all of the humanistic disciplines offered various answers to such questions while also giving glimpses of what faithful scholarship can look like.

Richard L. Bushman’s plenary address embodied the overall tenor of the symposium. Acknowledging the tension between faith and reason brought on by the Enlightenment, Bushman asked the central question, “Is education an activity of the soul?” He turned to Joseph Smith for an answer, pointing out that for the Prophet, “Knowledge was not simply instrumental–a means to an end–but salvific and even holy.” Bushman argued that religious sentiment was the historical source of liberal learning as we know it today in its three main divisions: literature, science, and history. The basic axioms of each of these—that value is to be found in texts, that truth can be discerned in nature, and that history is meaningful—all show signs of religious roots. But, “what has religion to teach us at this late hour of secularization?” asks Bushman. From the revelations given to Joseph Smith we learn that the aim of education is wisdom, a “word suggests the capacity to conduct a life justly and serenely–under the eye of God in the religious traditions but also in the eye of society.” We may all ask ourselves with Brother Bushman, “Are we seeking wisdom out of the best books?”

Terryl Givens set the tone for the rest of the conference with his opening address by focusing on the potential contradictions inherent in “faithful scholarship.” He began by pointing out two dangers: first, a tendency to accept uncritically the rules and logic of academic inquiry and, on the other hand, an inclination to judge all phenomena only in terms of their value for confirming a completed Restoration. As a corrective to such an inauthentically faithful scholarship, Givens offered the key insight that the “Restoration is neither full nor complete.” Therefore, “If the restoration is not yet complete, then other traditions have much to teach us. Not by way of confirming, corroborating, or verifying the truths we already have. But by way of actually adding to the body of revealed doctrine we call precious and true.” Givens went on to give several examples of how the doctrine of preexistence has been understood and used in other traditions, showing how such knowledge can add too the doctrine as revealed through Joseph Smith.

Also in the opening session, George Handley focused on the open-endedness of the restoration in his presentation. He explained that what the Restoration of the gospel and scholarship in the humanities have in common is an interest in lost knowledge, a search for truths that have been kept from us by distances in time or space. In both the religious and secular spheres, our own identities are shaped by the acquisition and interpretation of lost knowledge. Furthermore, Handley explained, we actually add to the meaning of new truth through the process of creative interpretation. Throughout this process we must learn to deal with uncertainty and apparent contradictions and look forward with hope to the day when all truth will finally be circumscribed. “Our willingness to withhold premature judgment about how ideas fit into the great expanse of God’s knowledge requires charity, Christ’s power to ‘bear all things,’ which among other benefits,” explained Handley, “strengthens us with patience to withstand the apparent contradictions of ideas, thus keeping us open to greater understanding.”

For John Tanner, the Two Great Commandments sanction learning in general and humanistic studies in particular. To love God with all of our mind requires the same concentration, diligence, and rigor that scholarly endeavors demand. On the other hand, we must seek to understand our neighbors if we are to love them. “For how can I love another ‘as myself’ whom I do not understand, or at least desire to understand, well?” explained Tanner. “Neighbor-love implies an obligation to engage in humanistic learning.” Tanner also noted that we may turn to modern revelation, especially D&C 88, to learn more particularly why, how, and what to study.

Presenters in the second session dealt mainly with questions of truth in history and biography, particularly as touching the Church and its historical figures.

Alan Goff focused on the use of metaphor in biographies of Joseph Smith. Each of the biographers that Goff considered used metaphor in order to understand and explain their subject but also to advance their own ideological positions.  Goff pointed out that metaphor is, in an important way, foundational and inescapable.  After being denigrated by the positivist tradition, metaphor over the last thirty years has again begun to emerge in history and biography as a valid epistemological tool, and these disciplines have made a return to what Goff considers to be their proper place in the humanities. Goff suggested that metaphor, since it is inherent in any epistemology, should be embraced, but scholars should always take care to choose tropes that are as expansive and complex as the topic being interpreted. Metaphors should expand our vision rather than constrict it.

Claudia Bushman considered theories of representation in the humanities and their significance for our disciplines as well as our religion. Bushman drew on her own experience in biography to note that biographers and autobiographers necessarily act as filters for their subject material when they decide what to include and what is or is not meaningful. Complete objectivity, according to this view, is unattainable. Bushman went on to ask what all of this has to do with the Church. “I think that to say that the church is true is an act of faith, rather than of surety.  I don’t say there is no truth, but the truth may well be beyond anything we can currently conceive.” Though Bushman is not ready to abandon the notion of truth, she, like so many of her fellow presenters, does “like a place where we can discuss and take seriously the representations of others.”

The third session of the day was an indication of how wide ranging the participants interests were. Dale Pratt’s presentation centered on the most basic question of the humanities: what makes us human? Pratt is interested in what will happen to human identity when as we incorporate increasingly more advanced technologies. Pratt argued for a "posthuman-ism" in light of the multiple challenges to an essentialized concept of humanity presented by the postmodern world. Virtual realities, hormone therapies, cloning, artificial intelligence, prostheses and implants, and other manipulations of the human threaten not only to amend the definition of human "nature" but also to create multiple varieties of posthumans. Pratt invoked Freud´s notion that technological advances are prostheses humans invent to approximate the image of God, but he optimistically recalled the LDS concept of "added upon" and the mutability of human "nature" through the Spirit to suggest that posthuman species may too find a place in the celestial realm as reflections of the image of God.

Bart Welling’s paper explored a foundational tension in nineteenth-century Mormon thought between an uncommon type of “practical millennialism,” in which a semi-vegetarian diet and concern for animals were linked to the prophetic promise of a future without violence, and a frontier farming and hunting culture in which native animal species, particularly predators, were viewed not as fellow souls but as dangerous adversaries—perhaps even allies of the Adversary himself.  While Welling confined himself to discussing textual and ethical questions that pertained to The Book of Mormon and other early Mormon scripture, he argued that these questions have a bearing on the current role of animals in Mormon culture, particularly vis-à-vis mainstream interpretations of the Word of Wisdom.       

During Friday’s final session several veteran professors reflected on their experience as teachers and researchers and gave instruction and advice for other Mormon scholars.

John Rosenberg lamented the compartmentalization of learning that has accompanied the rise of modernity and suggested that this trend should be reversed by foregrounding the humanities through an emphasis on wide and rigorous reading habits. Most importantly, though, Rosenberg pointed out that we humanists must be able to defend the value of the humanities to students not predisposed to find value in them. Such value, like the wisdom Terryl Givens emphasized, lies in their capacity to make us functioning citizens in a public whole. We must be able to show students the connections between the academy and the “real world” because there “is something unauthentic about professing the existential value of the humanities while at the same time relegating career counseling to placement officers because we don’t know anything but professional humanities and we cannot show how our books matter in the places alumni spend their lives.” 

Jenny Pulsipher, like so many of her fellow presenters, sought to work out the apparent contradictions that arise in a life of faithful scholarship. One of Pulsipher’s main concerns was to reconcile the tension between pursuing the life of the mind and fulfilling a Mormon woman’s primary role as nurturing mother. Pulsipher explained that she has learned to reject the notion that the two pursuits are irreconcilable, noting that “life will always be a balancing act between competing imperatives.” It is likewise untrue that one’s academic and spiritual lives can, or should, be kept separate. Rather, scholars, along with their students, should seek spiritual guidance in academic pursuits as well as intellectual illumination in spiritual endeavors, and we should all ultimately seek our own answers to contradictions since “in a church that believes firmly in personal revelation, there should be room for different answers, different solutions to the dilemma of balancing academic and domestic life.”

Bruce Jorgensen set forward several concepts and rules of thumb necessary for what he termed “ethically responsible reading.” As Mormon scholars in the humanities, we will constantly face subject material apparently at odds with our system of morality, and we must decide how to engage it, or whether to engage it at all. Jorgensen focused primarily on reading about sex in literature. According to Jorgensen, the scriptures suggest that “the question we must ask ourselves is: What does this thing invite or persuade me to do?” But, in judging a text we must also act ethically towards it by judging it as a whole, rather than judging details out of context. We must read carefully in order to understand how potentially “questionable” words or episodes fit in to an entire text before we can judge its overall moral worth. Furthermore, Jorgensen held that “none of us can or should judge for anyone else, not even at another person’s request, though of course we may and should share our judgments.”

In his presentation, Ted Lyon gave a series of practical suggestions on how to avoid the paradoxical predicament of losing one’s faith at a religious university, BYU in particular. He recalled that his father advised him to carefully consider his decision to teach at BYU, telling him, “When you receive your paycheck from the same institution in which you put your faith, you may experience things that make faith difficult." One of Lyon’s main suggestions was that professors and students should seek out what he called “creative corners:” people, programs, or situations that combat dogmatism with creativity and that blend spiritual and academic freedom. Lyon also suggested that faithful scholars need to accept that not all the contradictions they confront can be resolved. “And I think this is what is often lacking at BYU – we go for sure, easy answers to all questions. What I have tired to teach my students, and myself, is to live with uncertainty, partial answers, incomplete security.” 

Presenters during the Saturday morning session gave shared actual case studies humanities scholarship from a Mormon perspective.

Jonathan Penny shared a common concern with many other presenters at the conference, namely, “how to use and not sublimate doctrine and perspective to illuminate scholarly work without becoming insular or straining at a total objectivity that might sterilize the work.” Penny offered a case study using his doctrine and perspective to interpret examples of apocalypse in modern literature. Far from being provincial, his religiously informed interpretations elucidated certain apocalyptic structures and images from works that have traditionally been treated as purely secular by contemporary criticism. Penny’s presentation was yet another example of how doctrine and art, when neither is completely subordinated to the other, can inform each other and create and open space for new truths to emerge.

Daniel Graham and James Siebach looked at the life of the early Christian convert Justin Martyr, considering him the first Christian humanist. Trained as a philosopher, Justin used his education to compose apologetic works that defended his faith against false representations. By identifying Christian teachings and practices with those of philosophers, Justin helped move Christianity into the mainstream of Roman culture, thereby branding persecutors as enemies of the truth. Most important, Justin gave a voice to the voiceless in presenting an essentially philosophical defense of the new religion. By stressing Christians’ virtue in terms the pagan audience could understand, he was emphasizing their common humanity. Graham and Siebach pointed out that the problems faced by Justin are like problems faced by Latter-day Saints in recent times, and the challenges of connecting with an alien culture are similar.

In his presentation, Brent Orton examined the photography of the world-renowned photo essayist Sebastião Salgado. Orton focused primarily on the conflict of aesthetic and ethical issues in Salgado’s work, which is often categorized as “concerned photography,” or a photography that engages socially pressing matters. “Does the power of these images lie in their beauty, or in an invocation of human concern?” Orton asked. Unlike critics who, for better or worse, try to categorize Salgado’s work as either aesthetic or ethical, Orton claimed that Salgado’s power lies in his refusal to resolve such a duality. By presenting abject subject matter in a beautiful way, Salgado forces “us to confront the disparity between the abjectness of the other and the aloofness (superfluity) of our cultural aesthetic codes.” In conclusion, Orton drew a comparison between Salgado and the apostle James: just as James taught “faith without works is dead,” Salgado shows that “without ethics first, aestheticism will die and rot; its codes will disappear into the disjuncture of death.”

John Lyon set his sights on the nineteenth century German writer and revolutionary Georg Büchner. Büchner draws on religious imagery and rhetoric and espouses humanistic ideals, but it is clear that he does not side with religion, criticizing it instead as a tool for political manipulation. Lyon saw Büchner as only one manifestation of a greater problem in LDS reading practices, a problem resulting from a reading strategy that he labels: “Reading for the answers.”  This strategy searches for dogmatic pronouncements of truth that correspond to one’s own belief system.  To truly value Büchner, and countless other authors, he asserted that we must read not for the answers, but for the questions. Büchner’s value lies not so much in the answers he gives, as in the questions he raises, questions with which organized religion (LDS and otherwise) still struggles.  In wrestling with Büchner’s texts, we ourselves must wrestle with spiritual and ethical questions that we might otherwise overlook or dismiss; we must re-evaluate our own faith.

Valerie Hegstrom gave her own perspective on how writers from other religious persuasions, in her case Spanish and Portuguese Catholic nuns, while differing in theological particularities, can inform Mormon lived experience. Hegstrom described how she relates to these nuns, who consider learning and knowledge spiritual gifts rather than temptations often associated with pride in contemporary Mormon culture. The writings of the mystic nuns describe the intense relationship the soul and the Church ought to have with Christ, the bridegroom. The notion of a conjugal relationship with the Savior has informed Hegstrom’s religious life, as well as the way she relates to her own husband. She has found resonances with her own life in other writings, such as Sor María de San Alberto´s poem "Calenda," which describes the birth of Jesus Christ. “More than any other literary work I have read,” said Hegstrom, “the poem expresses the joy and power that exists in the ability and experience of giving birth.”

Saturday’s second session dealt with issues of how Mormon belief and academic discipline interrelate.

Gerald Bradford outlined Academia’s growing interest in Mormonism, echoing a recent headline: “Mormon Studies: Not Just for Mormons Anymore.” Mormon Studies, while  traditionally a predominately LDS field, has recently begun to emerge as a area of focus in religious studies programs throughout this country and the world. A wide variety of analyses—including thesis, dissertations, and books published by academic presses—are coming out at an ever increasing rate, supplementing the large body of work already published by LDS scholars. Bradford explained that LDS scholars cannot ignore this emerging trend. Rather we must familiarize ourselves with what is being said and learn to engage in fruitful dialogue with a diverse of religious studies scholars.

Adam Miller’s cogent philosophical presentation asked the following question: is there a Mormon foundation to humanistic inquiry? Miller argued that “to be human is to be more than human and, therefore, the question that ought to organize humanistic inquiry is: how is something new possible?” Calling on the notions of revelation and open-ended restoration, Miller argued further that “Mormonism, because it is oriented by what is more than or other than human (i.e. by what is new), is profoundly human.” Furthermore, for a novelty to make a difference it must in each case be new “for us, here and now.” Both Mormonism and humanism offer access to such novelty. The answer to Miller’s original question, then, is that there is both a Mormon foundation for humanistic inquiry and a humanistic foundation for Mormon inquiry in the sense that Mormonism and humanism converge in their commitment to the new.

During the last session of the day presenters shared personal experiences interacting with mentors and students and offered suggestions for their fellow teachers. 

Jacqueline Thursby’s presentation was a response to requests from non-LDS colleagues to define how Mormon world-view and culture inform the way she teaches Mormon students. Thursby drew on doctrinal sources as well as concepts from thinkers like Clifford Geertz, Pierre Bourdieu, and Graham Sumner to outline “a pedagogical approach of respect and a consistent scholarly direction towards genuine ethos, logic, enlightenment, and wisdom.” 

Larisa Schumann gave an account of the way certain female mentors guided the educational and occupational decisions she has made throughout her life. These women taught her to direct her voracious reading habits towards academic ends. Most importantly, perhaps, they taught Schumann that being a scholar and being a woman are not contradictory lifestyles. “Smart women, who also have husbands, children, and are active Latter-day Saints, they showed me an alternate path . . . the academic life was calling me and I was listening.”

Myrna Marler recounted several educational experiences from her life that illustrated her development from student to teacher. She reminisced about the individuals in her life who had influenced her intellectually and encouraged her to pursue the academic path. Marler also wondered why different students have such varied reactions to the same teacher, concluding that a student’s  opinion often depends  more on their personal histories than the actual merit of the teacher. Though Marler admitted that student accolades can provide added motivation, in the end a teacher should be driven by principles of clear thinking, creativity, and liberal education, regardless of student opinions.

The conference closed with a lunch and panel discussion on how to “survive” graduate school as a Mormon. A group of young BYU professors, including Kerry Soper, Matthew Wickman, Robert McFarland, Kristin Matthews, and Paul Kerry, first spoke informally about their individual experiences in graduate school and then answered questions from students in the audience. Some students expressed concern about interacting with non-religious academics, responding to questions or criticisms, and maintaining a testimony while engaging potentially challenging theories or subject matter. All of the panelists recounted overwhelmingly positive graduate school experiences, telling students in the audience that their professors and colleagues will judge them above all on the quality of the work they produce. The panelists also explained that the best ways to maintain a testimony during grad school are to stay close to the Church, to think well consistently, and to be as critical of what they are learning as they may be of their own faith.