Review of Appropriation and Adaptation... - A Note on Joel Baden

Townsend's thesis is concerned with the J source in the Book of Mormon. The identification of Yahwist material in the Pentateuch, like most assertions of the documentary hypothesis has broad interpretation among a variety of domestic and international scholars.1 Varying theories are posited regarding the attribution of scriptural texts to the J source,2 the dating of the J source,3 and even the questionable existence of the J source.4 Thus, there is a degree of subjectivity within the scholarly world regarding the interpretation of scripture, and what scriptures belong to J or whether a Yahwist source ever existed. More orthodox advocates of the documentary hypothesis accept the J source, including Joel Baden. Baden is a brilliant scholar who graduated from Harvard with a Ph.D. in Hebrew Studies in 2007, whose publications with prestigious venues are beginning to stack up. Baden currently teaches at Yale Divinity School. In 2012, Yale published Baden's The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, which is one of the primary sources Townsend uses in his identification of J material within the Pentateuch. Additionally, the identification of the rest of the Yahwist source in the Pentateuch comes from Baden's Promise to the Patriarchs, and his published dissertation, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch.5 Townsend relies upon Joel Baden's identification of the J source for his framework in engaging the Book of Mormon. 

I don't have any arguments regarding Baden's identification of the J source in the Pentateuch. This post, however, is simply for the purpose of informing the (potentially uninformed) reader that there are scholars who take issue with Baden's arguments, including his authorial source allocations.6 The benefit of engaging the various arguments regarding the Yahwist material could provide informative interpretations that would challenge the relevancy of the inclusion or exclusion of J material in a study of the Book of Mormon. For example, many European scholars reject J and E altogether, and refer to the D and P sources, as well as non-D and non-P. Townsend acknowledges this diversity (74-79), but for purposes of his thesis he relies upon Baden's source identification under the premise that Baden has "made a sustained and coherent argument for the viability of a refined view of the J source" (79). However, if there was no Yahwist source, per se, as a number of Biblical scholars believe, then Townsend's contrast of J with the BoM loses some relevancy. Of course if there was a Yahwist source and the scriptural material attributed to J by Baden is correct, than this is a non-issue. My point though, isn't to assert that Baden is right or wrong, or that Townsend's reliance upon Baden was misguided or imprudent, rather, my purpose is to emphasize the broader scholarly discussion on the topic that Townsend himself highlights, but is beyond the scope of his thesis. Since various interpretations within the scholarly community will result in divergent conclusions, it is important to understand that scholarly consensus is niche at best. 

To illustrate, a small corner of scholarly disagreement regarding the publication of Baden's dissertation, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, is quite interesting. David Carr (a seasoned Biblical scholar) wrote a fairly harsh review of Baden's revised dissertation for Review of Biblical Literature.7 Other scholars took note of the critique and discussed Carr's review, some agreeing with Carr's sentiments and others voicing opposition. Notable scholarly heavyweights join in on the conversation, including Jeffrey Stackert, Nathan MacDonald, Bernard Levinson, Ron Hendel, and a handful of other accomplished scholars. David Carr chimes in to respond to some of these arguments. Before highlighting some of this conversation, a succinct summary of Carr's review was written by Daniel McClellan and is provided as follows:

Carr takes issue with Baden's conclusion, primarily because he sees Joel['s] argumentation as prioritizing his "system" over "detailed textual observation." Joel must, according to David, adopt "idiosyncratic" source-critical analyses of certain texts in order for his model to hold. Additionally, he heavily criticizes Joel for not interacting with the majority of the German pentateuchal scholarship produced in the last 30 years. In fact, he calls it, "a sad example in North American research of ignorance of and lack of specific engagement with recent European scholarship (particularly untranslated German pentateuchal scholarship)."8

Baden's work was criticized for his source allocation and lack of engagement with (German) Pentateuchal scholarship. Jim Getz' wrote that Carr "doesn't have much positive to say," but acknowledges that, "Carr's criticisms are valid to some extent. At this level you really have to at least give a nod to the larger scholarly world." John Hobbins chimes in and agrees that, "you can't do world class pentateuchal source analysis without interacting with at least a subset of the above on a sustained basis." Hobbins is referring to Konrad Schmid, Jan Gertz, Erhard Blum, Reinhard Achenbach, Christoph Levin, Jean Louis Ska, as well as David Carr. Additionally, he adds that this list (as suggested by Carr) is incomplete without also engaging the work of Menahem Haran, Baruch Schwartz (ironically, Baden's dissertation advisor), Alexander Rofe, and Tzemah Yoreh on a sustained basis. Nathan MacDonald writes, "I wish I could say that Carr was being unfair. In mitigation it could be said that Baden was poorly advised." He continues:

I recall that one German scholar (I forget whom) said to me that it took them a year to come to terms with the debate (and the bar is obviously higher if you don’t have German as a Muttersprache). They also said that they would never allow a doctoral student to take on Pentateuchal criticism, only someone doing a Habilitation (the second German doctorate). I think this highlights the problem. There has been an enormous and highly sophisticated debate in the continent over the last 25 years. Little has been brokered into English.

It should also be observed that there are no more than a handful of scholars in american world who know the literature sufficiently well to supervise a dissertation on Pentateuchal criticism, even if it were advisable. 

Bernard Levinson agreed in principle, but softens the blow by discussing Baden's scope and success within that scope. Simeon Chavel criticizes those who were too harsh against Baden, and Ron Hendel criticized Carr, asserting that he should be ashamed of the tone and content of his review, and that it was unprofessional for a senior scholar to attack a junior scholar as Carr did. Carr responded by saying that his criticisms were not done lightly, and that it was within his purview to critique literature that is within his discipline.9 There is much more to the conversation which is very interesting and insightful, and well worth the read.

While I haven't highlighted much of the supportive comments of Baden (primarily by Jeffrey Stackert), there are plenty of comments in Baden's defense. My purpose in highlighting some of the critical remarks was to demonstrate the level of disagreements that take place within the scholarly community regarding topics such as source criticism. That having been said, it should be noted that since 2010, Baden has been published alongside Carr and other top-notch scholars, such as in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research,10 and The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America.11 Baden teaches at Yale, and has been published by Yale, Mohr Siebeck, and other prestigious venues. He clearly has earned a place among reputable Biblical scholars, and as I mentioned before, I take no exception at this point with his attribution of scriptural texts to J.

Townsend's work identifies the J source within the Book of Mormon and spends concerted effort in focusing upon the creation story beginning in Genesis 2. So far as I'm aware, there aren't any disputes regarding this attribution by scholars who accept Yahwist authorship. All of this having been said, I'll finally note that this is not a direct critique of Townsend's thesis. Rather, it is simply to inform the (potential) readership of the larger discussion that is going on in Pentateuchal criticism, lest there be any misunderstanding regarding scholarly consensus on topics such as this. It would be erroneous to infer that Baden's identification of the Yahwist source is accepted without contest, or somehow representative of the majority of Biblical Scholarship.


______________________
1 Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O'Brien write, "The Documentary Hypothesis is a catchall name covering the many proposals that emerged to cope with the belief that the positing of two or more sources could perhaps explain puzzling features of the Pentateuch," in Campbell and O'Brien, Rethinking the Pentateuch: Prolegomena to the Theology of Ancient Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 1; some scholars would disagree with this assessment, for example, Thomas Römer referred to the "collapse of the Documentary hypothesis (at least in the German-speaking world)..." referring to the demise of the DH in certain circles within Biblical scholarship, in Römer, "How to Write a Literary History of the Hebrew Bible? A Response to David Carr and Konrad Schmid," Indian Theological Studies 50/1 (2013):9
2 Two very user-friendly sources are: Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O'Brien, Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993); and Richard Elliot Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2003)
3 John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997); idem, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992); idem, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994); idem, The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2015); see a review of Seters works by Thomas B. Dozeman, "The Institutional Setting of the Late Formation of the Pentateuch in the Work of John Van Seters," Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers, Seminar Paper Series Number 30 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 253-264
4 A Farewell to the Yahwist?, Eds. Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006); available online here.
5 Joel Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012); idem, The Promise to the Patriarchs (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013); idem, J,E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 68 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 
6 For the third and final instance in this post of turning to Mark A. O'Brien, see his review of Baden's The Composition of the Pentateuch in Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 12 (2012); available online here.
7 David M. Carr, "Review of Baden Joel S., J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch," Review of Biblical Literature 12 (2010); available online here.
8 Daniel McClellan, "David Carr Reviews Joel Baden's Dissertation," Daniel O. McClellan Wordpress, December 19, 2010; available online here.
9 Jim Getz, "Review of Baden's J,E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch," December 19, 2010, Ketuvim: the writings of James R. Getz Jr. (Blog), accessed  May 10, 2017; available online here.  I highly recommend reading the comments to the post in their entirety, as they are quite informative and engaging.
10 The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz,  Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2011
11 The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, eds. Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid,  Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016) 

Review of Appropriation and Adaptation... (Townsend) - 1

In terms of basic outline, Townsend's thesis is comprised of four main blocks. The first 30+ pages discusses methodology, the next ~40 pages addresses past publications that are relevant to Book of Mormon/Biblical literary studies, the next ~30 pages employs his methodological approach to the Yahwist (J) source in the Book of Mormon, and the remaining 60+ pages investigates a portion of the J source in more depth in the Book of Mormon and other relevant non-Biblical literature. The thesis' Abstract discusses this general outline and (somewhat surprisingly) introduces elements of scope into the thesis beyond the title. Based on the title, I'd expect to see a study of the Book of Mormon's (BM) quotations and allusions of the J source (via the Brass Plates), and a demonstration of  the influence of the theological perspectives of the J source in the BM (or an explanation of why they are absent):

The Abstract asserts that the intent of the thesis is to "identify the full range of influence of the J source of the Pentateuch on the text of the BM," however, the study actually limits its identification of influence to quotations, allusions, and echoes of J source text within the BM. While the author does delve into BM exegesis upon these texts, the thesis doesn't address anthropomorphism, southern kingdom leanings, or other type of Yahwist perspectives that might (or might not) be detected in the BM. This leaves the reader to speculate (to some degree) as to the scope of influence that the author perceives J as having played in influencing the BM. First, does Townsend believe that the traditional characteristics of J are still an appropriate measure of the Yahwist paradigm? If not, what differences should be considered? Second, does he believe that these characteristics are present or absent in the BM? Third, how does he reconcile the presence of other documentary influences (E, D, and P) with J's influence in the BM? Fourth, perhaps he is wholly unconcerned with the Yahwist theological paradigm and its potential influence upon the Lehite and Mulekite cultures? Fifth, is he strictly concerned with the utilization of J source texts in the BM? While the reader must speculate as to the first four questions, the fifth question seems implicitly answered in the affirmative within the thesis, thus relegating the other four questions.

A brief discussion of these other questions seems warranted, however, since the premise clearly asserted that the "full range of the J source" would be identified. This is especially relevant since, "phrases, ideas, motifs, and characters" associated with J were intended to be addressed. While this assertion finds some fruition in the last section of his thesis (dealing with Gen 2-4 in the BM), it certainly isn't the potential "full range" of Yawhist influence. It can also be argued that this last section represents Nephite exegesis, or perhaps a midrash, upon inherited J material,1 rather than an influence of Yahwist theology and perspective upon Nephite culture; this difference may be subtle, but it is important, especially as it relates to the assertions posited for the thesis. One of the benefits of John Sorenson's study of the Elohistic (E) influence upon the BM is that he shows a number of characteristics present (or absent) in the BM that align with E perspectives.2 It is beyond the scope of this review to delve into Sorenson's work, but it is surprising that Townsend highlights authors who he believes, "are the most important thinkers and commentators on the question of the KJV in the BM," which he limits to those "who have either been the first to note important aspects of the question or those who have done much to further the popularity of the issue or push research forward," (37) but neglects to include Sorenson in this consideration. An approach similar in nature to Sorenson's study of the Elohist influence in the BM would have added important value to this thesis.

The fact that Sorenson is excluded in Townsend's list of important contributors who have pushed BM/Biblical research forward is telling. The Abstract informs the reader that the author isn't particularly concerned with the broader topic of the J source's influence in the BM generally, so much as he is interested in seeing the J source in the BM as it is presented in the KJV. This scope qualification alerts the reader that another motive underlies the objective of this thesis, and potentially ties into why the first four of the five questions posed above aren't addressed. "The BM employs a thoroughly 19th century American-Christian worldview in both its use of the J source and its interpretation of that important text." This is an important topic that we'll return to in subsequent posts, but in combination with the utilization of J source texts in KJV verbiage, we discover (and learn throughout the thesis) that there is a more prominent objective in this thesis than just looking at the J source in the BM, and that is regarding the compositional influence that the KJV plays in the formation of the BM text. Presumably, that is why Sorenson is left out of his list of influential contributors. Sorenson's paper would seem to have the most relevance to the topic of this thesis than any other LDS contribution, but is conspicuously left out because Sorenson's efforts were to identify the influence of the E source in the BM, rather than KJV language in the BM. In this regard, I would suggest that the title of Townsend's thesis is partially misleading.

If my assessment of this thesis was speculative up until now, it is verified by the Abstract when the claim is made that future BM studies will need to "grapple with the heavy influence that the KJV had on the composition of the BM." His real purpose here is to identify KJV language used in the BM, as illustrated by the J source (and other portions of the Bible - which we'll revisit later). I agree that the KJV verbiage did influence the composition of the BM, although I believe there are more variables at play than the author entertains, but that is a topic for another post. He notes that past studies have limited their efforts in comparing the full range of KJV texts with the BM and that this study attempts to serve as a stepping-stone in moving this discussion forward. Undoubtedly, Townsend will be successful in this regard. His efforts here are unparalleled and deserve to be noticed and engaged so as to move this field of BM studies forward. His efforts, as we'll explore, provide a tremendous opportunity to engage the BM text in numerous ways where the surface has merely been scratched in times past.

Note: It should be observed that my criticisms here are not with the actual text of Townsend's thesis (except for his exclusion of John Sorenson as an important contributor), rather, it is with the title of the thesis as well as the asserted scope of the thesis, which promises more than it delivers. The "full range" of Yahwistic influence is not undertaken in this thesis as is claimed in the Abstract. 

Quibble: the pagination of the Table of Contents do not always align with the text.

_____________________
1 Colby Townsend will argue later in his paper regarding the influence of NT verbiage in the BM in addition to the Yahwist influence; however, this additional argument will be discussed in a subsequent post.
2 John L. Sorenson, "The Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 10/4 (Autumn 1977):34-36

Review of Appropriation and Adaptation of J Material in the Book of Mormon (Colby J. Townsend)

Colby Townsend's thesis has recently been placed online by the University of Utah. I've been anxious to read this thesis for some time now. I first became aware of this project a little over two years ago, and I've been patiently anticipating this opportunity since this thesis explores a topic that I'm highly interested in. Historically speaking, little attention has been given to the interaction between the Book of Mormon and the Documentary Hypothesis ("DH") and this thesis remedies that situation to some degree by moving that interaction forward. While the DH has been discussed in past LDS publications, the attention to Book of Mormon literary studies in this context has been relatively negligible.1 An undertaking to engage the Book of Mormon within this framework, such as this thesis sets out to accomplish, is long overdue and is more than welcome.

Before delving into the review, however, it should be noted that a good review of any work would highlight the positive and enlightening contributions made by the author, acknowledge new ground broken, and applaud creative or critical assessments of information presented in the book. A good review would also identify areas of weakness and shortcomings, as well as scope limitations. A good review is neither too lengthy, nor too concise. However, I do not intend to employ brevity in this review. I want to engage this thesis rather than summarize it. I want to explore and apply and challenge assertions in the thesis rather than simply acknowledge them. For these reasons, the review of this thesis will not be limited to a single post, and this particular post will serve as an introduction to the review, with the review itself being taken up in subsequent posts.

Note: This review isn't the only thing going on in my life. Please be patient with me as I write up my exploration and review of this thesis.

______________________

1 Other important works could be cited but the three most important studies (in my opinion) that look specifically at the text within the Book of Mormon (and by implication the text of the Brass Plates) from the lens of higher criticism include John Sorenson, "The Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 10/4 (Autumn 1977):31-39, Kevin L. Barney, "Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis," Dialogue 33/1 (Spring 2000):57-99, and David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis - Deuteronomy (Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2014); also see David Bokovoy, "The Word and the Seed: The Theological Use of Biblical Creation in Alma 32," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 23 (2014):1-21; other studies on the topic have primarily focused upon reception of the DH by Latter-day Saints rather than engaging the Book of Mormon and other restorational texts within this framework.

Review of The Book of Mormon: A Guide to Christian Living (Bennion)

Lowell Bennion's book is well titled. He addresses Christian principles thematically, generally emphasizing Book of Mormon scriptures that highlight these principles. His book is comprised of three divisions: 1) Wisdom in Everyday Living, 2) Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel, and 3) Some Universal Concepts. Some of the chapters seemed like Sacrament meeting talks - they had a few stories, a few scriptures, and were centered upon a specific gospel principle. The book is insightful and inspiring at times, thus, it achieves its objective to some degree; of course the degree to which one is inspired or enlightened will depend upon the reader, but some of the more memorable quotations (in my opinion) are captured below. What it is not is an exegetical treatise. Context, author and editorial perspective, historicity, literary function, and other approaches to Book of Mormon studies are absent in this book - it wasn't written for these purposes, rather, it serves as a good representation of Bennion's reflections on Christian principles highlighted by Book of Mormon scriptures.  

Review of Life In Ancient America (Leland Monson)

Leland H. Monson's book, Life in Ancient America: A Study of the Book of Mormon, was a Sunday School manual printed in 1958. This book contains 131 pages and comprises 48 lessons that are made up of disparate blocks of chapters, beginning with 1 Nephi and proceeding through each book of scripture until ending with Moroni. For some undisclosed reason the Book of Ether is excluded from these lessons. Each lesson begins with a summary outline of the prominent events or teachings in the selected chapters and then proceeds to provide some commentary as well as posing a handful of "Questions and Problems." The outlines provide more information than typical chapter headers, but are selective in what is disclosed. Monson's commentary generally consists of a handful of paragraphs that tends to restate, to some extent, what was already summarized in the lesson outline, but also contains an occasional quotation from B.H. Roberts, or other notable profiles, such as John Henry Evans, Henry Drummond or Shelley. The questions/problems portion of each lesson are rather generalized and are primarily concerned with modern applicability.

Review of An Other Testament (Joseph Spencer)

Joseph Spencer's An Other Testament is one of the more interesting and thought provoking books available on The Book of Mormon. It is the kind of book that generates greater appreciation for the sophistication and complexity of the literary and theological structure of the Book of Mormon. It is the kind of book that makes you wish that you could have identified the brilliant insights in your reading of the Book of Mormon that Joe Spencer identified in his reading of the Book of Mormon. It is the kind of book that I wish I was capable of writing. At the end of the day, we can be glad that we have great minds, like Joseph Spencer, to teach the profound ways in which we can appreciate The Book of Mormon, and in this case, appreciation for how The Book of Mormon intends to be read based upon its own terms. This last statement should be qualified, however, if we are to consider that The Book of Mormon is comprised of multiple authors, the appreciation is for how Nephi and Abinadi intend for their teachings and interpretations of Isaiah to be understood.

Royal Skousen's Critical Text Project

In Biblical studies, 'lower criticism' refers to scholarly efforts in reconstructing the original texts of the Bible. Since none of Paul's canonical letters, or the gospels, or any other Biblical documents are known to exist, scholars must study the available copies of subsequent manuscripts and compare the similarities and variances between these documents to hypothesize their reconstructions. The identification of the variances that exist between manuscripts, and from early quotations of now non-existent manuscripts by early Christians, have resulted in the development of lower criticism. Steven McKenzie and John Kaltner write that in determining "the precise wording of the original text," scholars must study "the available manuscripts and other sources, and then evaluat[e] the evidence they contain in an effort to discover what is the oldest, and presumably most authentic, reading....The goal of lower criticism is identification of the text itself, and it does not try to get at the text's meaning or interpretation."1

In a sense, Royal Skousen's critical text project of the Book of Mormon aims to do the same thing, however, his reconstruction focuses upon restoring the original translated text, rather than the language engraved upon the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. The value of his efforts can be better appreciated when considering the mortal influences affecting the early documents and texts of the Book of Mormon. Oliver Cowdery primarily wrote the majority of the Book of Mormon while Joseph translated, and he was also involved in making a duplicate copy known as the "Printer's Manuscript" or "PM" in contrast to the "Original Manuscript" or "OM" for E.B. Grandin. Portions of the PM, as well as the OM, went to Grandin's shop for publication. John Gilbert (the typesetter) introduced punctuation into the manuscripts that he received which also made their appearance into the first edition of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith subsequently made changes that went into the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon. Between scribal errors and printing errors, etc., a number of unintentional textual variances and divergences were imposed upon the text. Skousen's work seeks to bring us the original text of the Book of Mormon.  

See this three-part lecture from Skousen on this massive undertaking:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/watch-skousens-3-part-lecture-series-on-the-book-of-mormon-critical-text-project/

____________________________

1 Steven L. McKenzie and John Kaltner, The Old Testament, Its Background, Growth, and Content (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2007) 47

BH Roberts - Book of Mormon Studies

"...the fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true.1

_________________________
1 B. H. Roberts, "Translation of the Book of Mormon," Improvement Era 9/6 (April 1906):435-436

Hugh Nibley

...I have a testimony of the gospel which I wish to bear. Again, as Brigham Young says, because I say it's true doesn't make it true, does it? But I know it is, and I would recommend you to pursue a way of finding out. And there are ways in which you can come to a knowledge of the truth. When is a thing proven? When you personally think it's so, and that's all you can do. And that's true, of course, in science or anything else. When enough experience, and enough impressions, enough thought and so forth, build up in your own mind so that a thing is proven to you, that's the proof....You can't force another person to believe....No two of us, you see, have the same experience, have the same background, have the same evidence, or anything else. All we can do is reach the point where, ahah! that is it, you see. Then you have your testimony, and all you can do is bear your testimony and point to the evidence. That's all you can do. But you can't impose your testimony on another. And you can't make the other person see the evidence as you do. Things that just thrill me through and through in the Book of Mormon leave another person completely cold. And, the other way around, too. So we can't use evidence, and we can't say, I know this is true, therefore, you'd better know it is true. But I know it is true, and I pray our Heavenly Father that we may all come to a knowledge of the truth, each in his own way, as Brigham Young would have us do it.1

 ______________________
1 Hugh Nibley, "Brigham Young as a Theologian," discourse delivered June 9, 1967