the Common Mormon Granddaddy's Story
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SUNSTONE WIT UENNN 1975-1978 ALI.!34 I?. ROBERTS 1978-1980 PeGGY WCHER 1976-1986 DANm RECTOR 1966-1991 ~~~~lvsnlm Ansir(otkPuMfs;her G-AKEMP Senlot EdUor *-w MARTHA DICKEY ESPLW CAROL QUIST &sc€iatc Milon E1cumtPmduc&‘v1 GREG CAMPBELL MAWJ.IkiALCOLM WWATWMAN O&r FulflImmt -am waaIp GMER CEDW GRISS BoYtkhqpar ExrraoPdoire TERESA WHITlNG 5uhnFhbmr hV. mEII$U. poetry: DENNIS CIARK,poetry reviews EREPNES, book mwvs; WILL QUIST, NW books Advbes Ectihlrjal Baanl PAT WGLFl, BRIAN BEAN,T. E. BEHREND JAY 5. BYBEE, CONNIE DISNEY MICHAEL WARD. LYNNE KANAVEL WHITESIDES OWON SCOTT CARD"COU~CAMPBELL ~~eiu;r3n. MIWELHIHICICS TONYHUTCHINUIN,DAVID KNOWLTOKTOULEFLER MARYDEW RAYNES. PETER SORENSEN THE COMMON MORMON butterfries in the &cycbpediia ~ofMormonism STBPNEN THOMPSON. DAVlD i! WRIGHT (I did dbmwer?brevt?~~ that in 1993 Pren- brtaaaictc MAmN DInMows letter (SUN mr wm,STEVE WMQN.JCHN WROSIER tice-Hall published John Feltwell's Encyclope- IRRK~~~~ESOIQ.MATT CHATI'ERLY CHRIS CHECK~S STONE, Mar. 1993) caught my eye. The dia ofButterfli4, nor in the Book of Mormon KFNr CHUB'RWlN, SAM Mlt. GEOFF JONES, STEVE KROPP CARLMcBRAYER, ROBERT MURRAY. I! 5. MUELLER thought of Malaysia being the actual location (unless it is a code word such as curelom). l@XEmE. lSQRV%LEV. WAN S. WAWENT of the Book of Mormon lands sounded in- Maybe there was something back in the Is- '&'dhlmcrr ANN BMSON.ylNE UIRBINE, BkWRA FiAUGSOM triguing. The implications of such a discov- lamic Center next to the butterfly park that us t&wqdm ery would raise again the question of what would explain? Didn't someone somewhere STAN MR15TEMEN. Cambridge. Ma. NANCYHAW4RD. N~wnrk,De. the common Mormon should believe. And call Joseph Smith ah,AmertcanMubammed? aweECWkMt-J,Potomac, Md ALIcEmD-> Arlington, Va. just what is a "Common Mormon"? On a trip (.bold H. Green and Lawrence l? Goldrup, NEAL&FEE€Gi CXf%NDLER.Shaker Hughts, Oh to Malaysia I looked for tangible evidence, "Joseph Smith, dn &writan Muhafilmed? rnAW'3 cornTHOMAS. chrcago. 11. MufS SPENCER KIWLAM Arbor, hlii from the mist enshrouded Genting High- An Essay on the Perils of Historical Analogy," KARL SANbBEthG, st, hut, h(n lands to the sweltering heat of Kuala Lumpur link LIONEL W.C&T Uqc Uts RON PRlDDIS, sak take CitytYUI Dialogue, Spring 1971.) Was there a be- Jom&MNETTam. BdcefsReM, Ca. (which means "muddy estuary"). The Moor- tween butterflies, Eastern religions, Islam, lRENE BATES, Paciac Palisades Ca. ish architecture of the city (which high- and the Book of Mormon? Only someone rn(nwrianal~pm&nIs MARPRIENWfTON, Aun&;WItID &COO, Belgium lighted the pervasive Islamic influence) was like Hugh Nibley w~uldreally know. Well, 1 HARTMUT WEISSMANN. France punctuated by occasional Hindu and Bud- as lWUL CWIPENTER,JAMES FIEU) guess the flood of light wasn't profound as WERNER ROCK, DIETHCH KEMPSKI, Germany dhist shrines. It seemed remote to anything I had suspected. For travelers wishing to see SnUNIcnl ~TA.npcpl UINMRBE%kwEeJa$jCFI016SBITQN,ULIed&n@am suggested by the Book of Mormon author(s). a Common Mumon first hand, the Malay- - In the heat of the day I sought respite sian Butterfly Wdd is off Japan Chen- THE SUNSTONE FOUNDATION Eiutd $mrrteees behind the National Islamic Center and Na- derasari in Kuala Lumpur. J. BONNERRlTClilE, &ak KENTFROGlFl, ace chair tional Mosque in the shade of a butterfly park BOB HUGHS RoBW WlBEE, GlBw UMBER W&NNMORGAN, LOUIS MOENCH that had hundreds of species of butterflies. Hong Kong DANIELH. RECTOR. ELBERT EUGENE PECK As I rounded a comer, the inspiration I had prepared myself for unfolded before my eyes. GRANDDADDY'S STORY The poster explaining key species answered BI.Mt-8 ~~,,chair;k~~~ll)L MOLEN, vice charr 1-mm llCWWg I(NQBE. DyINlEL H. RECTOR the question of just what a Common Mor- ImtINE MY debght in reading Ann wI&T HIS%.. NICHOUS SMITH MAESHX S. STnNABT, MARKI. WlUSAMS mon is-nothing more than a butterfly! Edwards CannonS ''Ad Now for a Little How deliate, how fleeting the thought! A Mamon Hud€Wh%Tam, Dee, 1993) Ma Ir KnnWQ@WJNO Wn Common Mormon doesn't rely on SUNSTONEto find myself listed among LW humtsas ANN STONE L COUiNWO~, ?$&go BQBXNa SHAWN LhRsEN. allroada or the Ensign for strength, but rather the "Sam Taylor, the gpanddaddy of Uaem all." DoNGUSmSON.~n sweet nectar of the orchid and hibiscus! My However, I was disturbed bemuse this as- Nn~Adli~8and AMN ACKROW]. MOUY BENNlON heart skipped a beat-maybe I was really on sessment was based on a single book; thus it K,QERM BOSWELL, EELIAEAYBRQW to something. Didn't one of the Eastern Mys- was a sad commentary ce9 the scmlty of TONY &ANN fXNNON. COLE CAPENER ECIEPF1ENC.QMK&?CWGWCONDIE tery Religions revere the butterfly? Could Mormon litmy humm, D.&maOPP, Roans FlUEw that be one of the plain and precious truths UNUECWR&WN. JWFREYR WtLWMAN My book was most furiously denounced GReG IQXlQRD RWElLUNES~BRIr$PC MeE(;AVIN lost over the millennia? (Ir maybe I've gos by Momam hrthiTepyears after its pubha- ~~KWHT-RN R~~~E~(,GEORGED SMIW JR things mixed up with the Kung Fu television tim in 1948. The story fast was published as RFQURCr~~LBRIEWlNOERWMBERG series. Hmmmm . with NOLA W WALLR6E. RBNNIS & CARLAN YOUWTERER . a serial in Collids, a magaztne a circula- Returning home, I found no reference to tion of five million. Then it was a book club PAGE 2 JUNE 1994 SUNSTONE selection and it received excellent reviews in 64, note 5 ("Historical Criticism and the they should complement each other. He dis- the national press. But the roof fell in in Zion: Book of Mormon: A Personal Encounter," couraged us from bending the results of our I was Making Light of Sacred Things. SUNSTONE, July 1993). References to Cham- work to confirm what we wanted to find, and I remained in the dog house until Richard pollion's Precis and to Charles Anthon's re- he also practiced what he preached. H. Cracroft of ~wphonedin 1978. After our views of this work derive from a publication What I find so interesting in the discus- discussion, he wrote "Samuel W. Taylor and of the Foundation for Ancient Research and sion surrounding the historicity of the Book Heaven Knows Why" (SUNSTONE,May-June Mormon Studies ("What Did Charles Anthon of Mormon is not that Wright questions its 1980), informing the Saints that the book Really Say!" EA.R.M.S.Update [May 19851). historicity, but the quiet consternation I was unique; it stood alone. There simply EDWNFIRMAGE sense when he continues to claim that it is wasn't another humorous Mormon novel at Salt Lake City scripture. This kind of thinking presents dif- that time. He suggested that since 1948 the ficult lessons for people who, like myself, Saints had matured to the point where they HARD QUESTIONS have sought historical "verificationn for the could laugh rather than bristle at Mormon Book of Mormon in the literature and mate- humor. I HAVE FOLLOWED the discussion rial cultures of ancient civilizations. But by I wrote a preface to the second edition, concerning historicity and scripture, particu- redefining scripture in nonhistorical terms, praising the Saints for their mature sense of larly between William Hamblin and David we are suddenly faced with a different set of humor-after being told that my book was Wright ("The Final Step" and "The Continu- issues: If the book is not "history," what are funny, they loved it. Kenneth Hunsaker, in a ing Journey," SUNSTONE, July 1993). Of par- we supposed to do with it? Asked more pre- survey of LDS literature, called it the "best ticular interest to me is the linkage Hamblin cisely, ''What exactly does the Book of Mor- Mormon novel." Today, Cracroft uses the insists on establishing between scholarly mon teach us!" By not viewing the Book of book in a Mormon literature course. All conclusions and a writer's spirituality. Ham- Mormon as history, we suddenly have to things come, it is said, to those who wait. blin seems unable to accept the idea that confront the book now, in our time. History SAMUELWTAYLOR someone can arrive at uncomfortable conclu- is much easier to ignore. Redwood City, CA sions about the historicity of the Book of I have long suspected that many DS Mormon and still accept it as scripture. scholars ramble off into the stacks trying to REFER TO THE SOURCE It was my pleasure to be Wright's student sew up the historicity question because it is while doing graduate work in Near Eastern easier than the job of real life interpretation IN MY ARTICLE on the origins of the Studies at BYU. During that time he made and the unblinking self-examination that Book of Mormon, I failed to note-the source every effort to teach us that intellectual activ- must go with it. for some bibliographic information on page ity was not contrary to spirituality and that For those who claim that intellectuals are JUNE 1994 SUNSTONE being too hard on our sacred writings, I church's teachings and be open, intellectually suggest they look at the interpretive tradi- and spiritually, to searching for and accepting tions of other faiths. Judaism, for example, more truth. I continue that search. This is the scrutinizes its scripture with an exacting same principle upon which literally millions criticism that most Mormons would never have joined the Church. IS AVAILABLE AT: SUNSTONE tolerate. But they take their scriptures seri- How can we possibly ask other people to ously enough to really listen to what they accept a young missionary's challenge to DESERET BOOK STORES Cache Valley Mall have to say I suggest we learn from them and question their deepest, most sacred convic- Community Shopping Center not be afraid of our own scriptures.